09-09-06 9:09 • Prove God
Orpheus: If practice makes perfect
and nobody is perfect
then why practice...?
Perfect means the end of practice.
Nobody is perfect.
So practice has not yet ended.
Joshur: God's existence is something that is a lot easier for me to conceptualize as provable than as disprovable.
While there are some over-achiever atheists who attempt to tackle disproving god, that is not necessary for the basic atheist position, which basically is that until the theists pony up an actual deity there is no reason to even consider their absurd notions.
Because there is no god, there is no reason to consider god's existence.
If there was an actual god then considering god's existence would be as moot as considering your own existence.
So it boils down to: if you are bothering to try and prove god exists, you might as well toss it in, because the mere fact that you have to try and prove god's existence demonstrates that there is no god.
Joshur: God would only fit into this formula if He were a cruel, mocking sort of God who assured that people only believed in him for essentially no reason.
If all you have is an evil god then you might as well toss it in too. But I'll amend it if you like...
The mere fact that you have to try and prove god's existence demonstrates that there is no god or at least no god worth finding.
Joshur: Atheists and the faithful both seem to find it easier to consider God to be whatever they need God to be; it's just that atheists need him to be nothing.
Quite a presumption there.
Joshur: If they don't need him to be nothing, then why do they insist upon it?
They don't. What they insist is that he actually be something and he isn't.
Makes all the difference in the world.
The theists *claim* there is a god, but claims are cheap.
The atheists say: look, if you don't pony up a deity to match your claims, then it's just talking shit and I don't have to bother with you.
09-06-06 10:09 • Athiest “Lack”
Loki: It seems to me that atheists are lacking something - a sense? a faculty? what is it?
You *really* don't feel it? You *really* think science's explanations are equal to the experience? It's so sad that you can't sense the spiritual, the divine, the extra...
I can't help but feel that, like a blind person, there's something absent from the atheist's set of tools.
Being unable to notice what isn't there is hardly a lack. Just as being unable to participate in the hallucinations of a schizophrenic or other delusional person is not a lack.
But don't confuse the ability to see reality as it is with the inability to appreciate just how special this reality is. In fact I would say that one who appreciates reality as it is, appreciates it more thoroughly than one who must invent fantasy reasons like "divinity" to appreciate it.
In the end, naming something divine is just the end of honest inquiry into its actual nature and that is the real source of sorrow.
Krampus: I prefer to examine the existence of God in term of the Problem of Evil (POE) argument. If God exists, how can there be Evil?
You are presuming that evil is a thing unto itself which could be excluded in some manner.
But evil is not a thing. It is your assessment of certain actions and events which you really dislike for whatever reason. (The same applies to good.)
Thus you are the only person who can eradicate evil (and good) in the universe of your experience. Just stop preferring one thing over another.
Non-Sequitor: I know the divine exists! I look at the cloud formations or the complexity of an insect and think, "wow allah hu akbar" there had to be some incredible creative spark that made me feel that way.
Not really.
Non-Sequitor: Things happen for a reason.
Not usually. In fact 'for a reason' is one of the least likely explanations for why something happens. Even with humans, who could do things for a reason, the vast majority of stuff you do has no real reasoning behind it.
Non-Sequitor: Even the tragedy and ugliness that exists must have a purpose for me to gain some understanding from, or else why would it exist? It exists because it does. As for tragedy and ugliness, that is just your assessment of the situation. Tragedy for you is just supper for the lion.
Non-Sequitor: I think being an atheist requires a certain amount of bitterness at life that I haven't yet encountered. It's a philosophy of neglect.
Atheism requires neither bitterness nor neglect. It just requires honesty and some of the reason you were going on about.
Non-Sequitor: If the creator can design a full human from a sperm drop...
Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
Jeff: Atheists tend to equate all spiritual phenomenology as based on the belief in a separate, controlling intelligence. And they are understandably ready to dismiss the whole kit and kaboodle.
Not particularly. Atheists specifically deny the theist's claim that they have a deity. Anything else is technically up for grabs.
Some atheists step it up a notch and say the whole notion of deities is false. Some deny all forms of superstition. Some are even radical material reductionists. But you don't have to hold any of those positions to be an atheist. The bare minimum to join the club is to deny the theists have made a valid claim.
Jeff: That's why we need spaces where trance, ritual, and feelings of connectedness and surrender are encouraged without a single delusional framework of a separate intelligence running the show.
I quite enjoy trance, connectedness, surrender, awe, splendor, various peak, special, non-ordinary and altered states of consciousness. But none of those have any particular need for positing divinity around here to be enjoyed. They are things that people do.
09-06-06 9:06 • Critical Thinking
Enrietta: Hi Swarm! I was reading that Critical Thinking consists of three steps:
1. Becoming aware that assumptions exist
Swarm, do you agree or disagree with this?
Do you think critical thinking has any place in organized religion?
Does critical thinking have any place in spirituality?
Is there such thing as critical over-thinking?
2. Making assumptions explicit
3. Assessing their accuracy -
Do these assumptions make sense?
Do these assumptions fit reality as we understand and live it?
Under what conditions do these assumptions seem to hold true? Under what conditions do they seem false?"
Examining baseline observations is important empirically.
Also it is important to consider what operators one is willing to accept and what are the manners in which they may be employed.
A good touchstone is to consider if you have a means of determining if your conclusions are valid and true, where valid means that accepted operators were employed in an accepted manner based on allowed assumptions, and true means that the premises and conclusion do not contradict what is actual.
Usually one or more of those locations (assumptions, observations, operators or methodology) is at fault in sloppy thinking. For example, often xtians substitute being contained in the bible for what is actual as a measure of truth. Thus, "god exists because he is mentioned in the bible" might be presented as true. A god, like any other being, would exist if and only if said being actually exists. Being mentioned in a bible is has no casual relationship with actual existence. The bible is just a book and one can write many things in a book without causing them to actually exist.
It is key to remember that conclusions must be both true and valid before you actually know anything from them. If you start with nonsense and examine it in a valid manner, you still have nonsense. If you start and/or end up with something true, but the manner you got there was invalid, then you have no way of showing there is an actual relationship between the two facts, in particular the relationship you are claiming.
Critical thinking has a key role if we are ever to evolve into intellegent beings who can sustain themselves on this planet. It has a key role in any spirituality which hopes to be something other than a fantasy.
Critical over-thinking would be finding oneself unable to arrive at any system of understanding. Hume is a good read for how one can arrive at this sort of state.
Enrietta: Can you summarize?
Basically Hume has issues with certainty and in particular certainty about causation, which he sees more as customs and habits than actual knowledge about anything.
It boils down to the realization that empirical understanding is messy and inherantly has a degree of error whereas rational understanding can have precision, but no necessary relationship with reality, i.e. physics vs mathamatics.
Enrietta: How do you avoid that kind of extreme position? I'm not sure that I do. And if I do, I don't know how.
Personally, I came to a point where I had to become skeptical of skepticism, doubtful of doubt, and so I settled on reasonable certainty.
Or to make it pithy, good enough is in fact good enough.
08-31-06 10:44 • How Life Began
Perry: But don't you agree that it must have been God who started it all? Evolution has yet to explain how life began.
Actually the basic physics and biochemical processes have been worked out and the evidence suggests that if you have liquid water, energy, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and a few trace elements, that it will begin automatically organizing into life. They have found amino acids in interstellar dust clouds and it's a good bet there is some form of life on Europa.
They have made peptides from simulated lightning and from simulated meteor impacts. Volcanic fumerols are still a good source of energy and nutrients. Getting the ball rolling seems actually a bit trivial. It looks like life will develop anywhere the basic ingredients abide.
Perry: Yeah, but even Francis Crick -- discoverer of DNA -- has speculated that life was seeded here from elsewhere because the time scale seems wrong (to him) for the complexities of even simple life (-energy, information, replication) to have randomly evolved in the time since the Earth cooled sufficiently to sustain life.
Obviously there is plenty of time for life to not only evolve, but also become extraordinarily complex since it already has. While it is a shame that Crick feels the need to dismiss the obvious in favor of the romantic, it is by no means persuasive.
As for how, the current most plausible way to kick it all off is a large meteor impact. These were fairly frequent at the time, 3.5 billion years ago, and they can sear the entire atmosphere while vaporizing significant amounts of ocean. I've seen high impact shock wave experiments where the updated best guess on the early atmosphere turns into complex brown goo, including peptides, just from the shock wave of such an impact. By all measures the early planet should have been covered in a rich organic soup just begging to organize.
The next step looks to have happened in the oceans at the volcanic fumerols where the goop would settle out and have a rich supply of trace elements, carbon and sulfur. Heavy lightning activity, very likely with all that particulate matter from heavy vulcanization, would help recycle nitrogen back into the ocean.
All in all, Miller's experiment was actually a bit tame, but it was a good first step because it showed just how easy it is to get things rolling.
There is no need for the intervention of fairy god deities or aliens.
Perry: You say it's "easy" to get the ball rolling...this is like saying it's easy to become rich so long as you have a million dollars to start with.
Which is why they have looked and found the basic ingredients are ubiquitous.
So it's actually like saying life is an inherent property of matter wherever there is liquid water, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, a few trace elements and energy.
08-30-06 2:11 • Drugs and Awakening
Stan: A study found that mystical experiences activate more than a dozen different areas of the brain at once. One of the regions, called the caudate nucleus, has been implicated in positive emotions such as happiness, romantic love and maternal love.
The researchers speculate that activation of this brain region during mystical experiences is related to the feelings of joy and unconditional love.
Now if we could only figure out how to feel that way more often...
Enrika: There are other ways.
All the "other ways" I'm familiar with involve practice if you want regularity with successful use or increased access.
Care to elaborate?
Enrika: Drugs, man... drugs. What about drugs?
Enrika: I'm not saying practice wouldn't be involved (or even that it would), but (some) hallucinogens can (sometimes) speed up/facilitate the process. Sometimes quite a bit.
I'm quite familiar with all of that and let me assure you that practice is most definitely needed. While psychedelics may help get you going and can give you good spot checks, they won't take you all the way and they can become crutches. So not only do you need practice with them, but it doesn't get you out of the regular practice either.
The rave crowd does a lot of hallucinogens and I can tell you from my experience that just dropping this or just dropping that definitely is not enough to make for spiritual growth. Like any tool, its the skill of the craftsman which determines the finished product and the only way I know to gain skill is to practice.
Any one can drop acid, but it takes practice to do acid.
Enrika: Okay, that I can probably agree with, at least most of the time.
On the other side, I've encountered many people who have achieved (or claim to have achieved) spiritual transcendence entirely through traditional means, meditation, yoga, etc., who are violently passionate that it is not possible to facilitate spiritual transcendence with chemical substances, and that if one achieves transcendence in this way, it's not "real".
Someone who is that worried about such things is sidetracked and needs to refocus on their meditation.
Waking up is waking up. How you woke up is beside the point.
08-30-06 1:11 • “God” vs. “Nature”
Jiminy: When Brian told you that God is in everything, you said, "I have no need to see any gods in everything, merely seeing everything is enough - sans the fantasy make over."
I see your point, but I think there is intelligence in experiencing everything as interconnected and miraculous.
Jiminy: I personally don't mind calling this god.
I wonder why you like that word and all the baggage it entails when it's not accurately describing your beliefs as you've presented them. I think you might be better served with the term "Nature". Or perhaps I have misunderstood.
Jiminy: All boundaries are also lines of connection. Everything is interconnected, all matter is based on the same stuff. This can be scientifically proven and is not a romantic fantasy.
You are stretching a bit there. There are interconnections and there are disconnections. There is also the matter of are the 'interconnections' meaningful in any way. Personally I stand with the zen guys who say: Not one. Not two. Both our concepts of 'interconnected' and 'seperate' are insufficient to describe the actuality of the situation.
Or as the story goes...a student came to the master all excited. "All is one master!" he said. So the master hit him. "All is one. How then can I hit you?"
But I think you are misreading me here. When I say "Only in so far as it actually is interconnected and miraculous" I don't mean that there is nothing "interconnected and miraculous." I mean that what actually is interconnected and miraculous is plenty in and of itself. Seeing that clearly is what is the actual astounding bit. Inventing pretend astounding merely detracts from the reality.
Jiminy: I explained why I use the term "God" -- to have a place at the table of religion. Also, note that many people mean "nature" anyway, or have virtually no clue what they mean by the term. That being said, I'm still not sure. I'm trying it out. I said "Nature" not "nature." Nature is essentially equivalent to saying Reality or the Universe, though each has a slightly different connotation.
Having a "place at the table of religion" seems a poor reason to dilute your meaning by including other people's baggage when it doesn't even reflect your position. It might even be construed by some as deceptive. But don't despair, the religious are so desperate for anyone to sit at their table you just have to show up to play.
I have found that what most people mean by "god" is "I don't know and don't want to know." Gods are personified and willful ignorance.
Run down any list of what is attributed to god and this quickly becomes apparent.
What happens when you die?
Where do we come from?
Why must I do good?
Etc.
Something to consider.
Shells: You guys are mean! Do you all know EVERYTHING about God and his powers? No!!
I'm not here to argue, but to express my feelings and beliefs like the rest of you. Don't put me down for what means a lot to ME.
Just so you know, if you post it here, it will be examined and not necessarily examined with a forgiving eye. If you are overly protective or sensitive about what you believe this is not a necessarily a supportive place to come to be nurtured. Its more of a "test your mettle in the fire" sort of place.
Shells: You don't see me shoving down your throat my spiritual beliefs on YOU now do you.
Actually you are, though you probably aren't aware of it or doing it purposefully.
For example:
Shells: I like to read how others feel about God and all that He has to offer. Hopefully, you'll respect my words, like I do yours, and think about them. Not judge.
This sentence is full of presumptions and impositions. You presume your god exists, is a him, is offering stuff, and that we are talking about him.
You ask respect for words but respect for words must be earned by their merit and not simply because you speak them.
One thing you can bet on though is that your words will be considered and the fruits of that consideration shared. If you tie up your personality in your words you will have a rough time because everything will seem personal. But if you can see that the words are not you, then you have a rare opportunity to confer with some pretty sharp people who don't agree with you already and yet are willing to consider your position in a more or less civil manner. A very broadening experience.
08-30-06 11:11 • Righteousness
Brian: Someone recently asked, How are we saved? I say, it's about having a sense of righteousness. If you do not have a sense of righteousness within to start, how can one do good deeds and have faith to begin with? It has been my repeated experience that a strong sense of righteousness leads to acts of unmitigated evil which the righteous rationalize into feeling good about.
One does good deeds by caring and understanding. No gods are needed.
Brian: Sin is The Seperation ... (devil Idea) or the evil of physical desires.
Separation is no sin nor are physical desires evil. It is no wonder you have trouble. What a horror you have talked yourself into.
Brian: We must reject the negative.
You cannot seperate the negative and positive. They are two aspects of one whole and they must be embraced as such. Enlightenment is not just enlightenment of what you like or what you want to be, it is the enlightenment of the whole person you are. Negative and positive, good and bad, weak and strong, right and wrong. Nothing gets left out.
Brian: But, if original sin creates death...
It doesn't.
Read more in the Archives.