BookTalk.org

so to the original point i was making.

materialism is a world view and a set of beliefs.

Materialists might be atheists, but atheists are not necessarily materialists.

ant wrote: 4) Provide evidence that atheism is more advantageous to our species than theism.

Maybe atheism isn't more advantageous to our species. I'd suggest that we find a way to utilize the beneficial aspects of religion without requiring belief in supernatural entities.

"Atheism*/materialism/empiricism is a worldview, I agree. It's a worldview that places emphasis on evidence."

"worldview"...yeah, sure, atheism is a "worldview", therefore not a belief system...right..I share the frustration of trying to get atheists to think rationally but it just cannot be done. The fundamentalist mindset is too strong for atheists to overcome their lack of reasoning. Just because your belief system uses empirical science method to test theories out does NOT automatically render the conclusions of "scientific" testing as if this method were the only way to test the reliability and sustainability of any human idea. I mean, don't any of you atheists know that the "science" conclusions about many things they studied a 100 years ago are not valid today because of new information coming in in the intervening years? Yes, science does have a method of self-correction but the fact is, that at any given time, science "facts" are not absolute and must be taken on "faith". Yes, "FAITH". Because none of us has the time, money, equipment, skill, to test every scientific fact and rely on others to do this because of our FAITH in them. And this continuing blindness of atheism to understand that religious ideas too do not stand still but also go through their methods of establishing reliable sustainable theological concepts that given more knowledge to the spiritual messaging system established through spiritual revelation.

And the other thing that really irks me is posting pearls of new spiritual information that can't be found anywhere else that are immediately trampled on by spiritually blind atheists who don't even see what's under their noses, a whole new radically different Christian belief system that now unites all secular humanist goals with Christian ones in a new Christian Humanism. None of this is seen or responded to by atheist minds closed to the point of bigotry. I test out Jesus' wisdom re tossing pearls of wisdom and find it's true. You'd think I'd learn not to repeat my error but I always hope to reach at least some thinking minds, even on atheists forums. Which reminds me to ask: Chris, why is it you who signs the Booklist emails to me as if you owned the forum here?

I'd suggest that we find a way to utilize the beneficial aspects of religion without requiring belief in supernatural entities.

Science posits unobservables based on theoretical starting points with regularity.
Science for the most part occupies itself with observables and outlining laws that govern them.
Science can not determine what it is that governs laws or how laws are set in motion. That would be beyond the reach of science. That is "above" nature - super natural.
Can you provide evidence that there is nothing beyond the laws of nature?
We see one thing happening after another. But do we see what it is that happens before that damn thing happens?
If so, how?

We may or may not be asking nature the correct questions at this point of our understanding.
You are concluding the absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.
We are speaking of something serious here - our attempts to understand nature and a "reality" each of us experience in many different ways. Please don't be silly like Dexter or Johnson and start talking about unicorns and goblins. Serious sharing of worldviews never entertains such idiotic retorts.


Now, let me ask you, what evidence do you have that man's intellect is vigorous enough to decipher the complexity of nature?
I'd say if we are going to talk about our scientific successes we must bring into the conversation the ephemeral nature of our successes throughout history and how our progress is never a linear journey.
And there is no evidence as of yet, to my knowledge, that we are getting closer to absolute Truth because of the road we've chosen today.

I'm not saying you, Geo, but I know when I or someone else is being ridiculed. This trivialization of religiosity is offensive not because religion should be exempt from critical discussion, but because of the tone some people use to deliver opinions about what people give their lives too. Millions of religious people are just as intelligent, just as rational, just as successful, just as productive, caring, and loving as the atheist next door. There is no justified reason whatsoever to trivialize their faith in such condescending ways as comparing it to a belief in santa claus or tea pots or unicorns.

geo wrote:

ant wrote: 4) Provide evidence that atheism is more advantageous to our species than theism.

Maybe atheism isn't more advantageous to our species. I'd suggest that we find a way to utilize the beneficial aspects of religion without requiring belief in supernatural entities.

I don't think the supernatural entity aspect maters much either way. Some people need an invisible thing watching and for other people it's not necessary. Yes sometimes religious belief leads to calamity but it can also generate a great drive for those with faith to understand the mind of God through the study of his creation. Unfortunately in some cases this leads to some pretty silly arguments but by no means is this a norm. Science without the help of religion has lead to some pretty disastrous and silly things as well.

sonoman wrote:I mean, don't any of you atheists know that the "science" conclusions about many things they studied a 100 years ago are not valid today because of new information coming in in the intervening years?

People relying on those fickle scientists must be having a rough time dealing with the world. Imagine the state you'd be in if you based your beliefs on an ancient book that seems oddly preoccupied with conditions of the Middle East of the time, considering it's supposed to be the greatest distillation of wisdom from an omniscient being.

If you don't want to defend literalism, then would you say those who do are delusional?

sonoman wrote:Why would I care what you "believe" in or not about God if you're an atheist?

but i'm not really an atheist, i do however reject utterly the literalist orthodox dogma of an external god, yahweh, allah, historical jesus etc etc any dogma supported by a literalist interpretation of a set of scriptures is to me anathema and a recipe for personal disaster.

my views on matters religious are practically identical to those of one Joseph Campbell.

atheist is a tag, like christian that can be put on many different kinds of people who may or may not each bring a unique flavour to the tag.

for example i am quite atheistic towards historical jesus but very sympathetic to the concept of brahman.

Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world"[1], which "cannot be exactly defined"

sonoman wrote:That would be like asking a 350 lb. bricklayer his opinions on how to dance the Argentine tango.

i might find his answer quite entertaining and if you stopped pigeonholing everyone you might just learn something!

sonoman wrote:If you really truly for sure did love me you'd help me tar and feather the monitors and owner of this forum and run 'em out of town on a rail for being no good stink pots attempting to thwart the almighty big mouth of God.

no! i'd try and help you see that because people disagree with you doesn't mean you can write them off, but rather you can by diligent persistent communication make your ideas known.

sonoman wrote:My God is you and me and all of us put together, the whole works from the earliest hominid Og to the smartest Einstein, or even going back to the first slimy mudworm to crawl on land or before that the first molecules to combine together to self-replicate,

Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world"[1], which "cannot be exactly defined"

sonoman wrote:Some have been given the talent for revealing the embedded Knowledge of God.

that would be you?

sonoman wrote:A satiated mind doesn't need to know more, doesn't want to look for more

reminds me of you sonoman, a mind satiated on CTC and ego protection.

let go, the tighter you hold on the more the danger of shaking apart. loosen your grip before your hand shatters and you can no longer wield paxcalibur.

sonoman wrote:Now do you believe in my God?

you mean, do i agree with your attempt to put into words that which is beyond words?

well if you read above you will see that we are not worlds apart in some ideas, but ideas are only as useful as the experience they enable and as jimi would say

are you experienced?
have you ever been experienced....

and so whatever metaphor you might employ we must transcend through direct experience

otherwise we will be like people at a restaurant trying to eat the menu, yuck tastes like paper and ink

ant wrote:Can you provide evidence that there is nothing...?

Prove a negative?

You were replying to geo. Do you know what geo's beliefs are? Is he an agnostic atheist?

The agnostic position is great. We sit here in the middle and tell people "you don't know that", and "show me some evidence." But what is your stance ant? You sit there throwing out criticisms, but never offer up your head on the chopping block. Sure, science doesn't have all the answers. But it has more answers than religion does. Attacking the foundations of opposing belief systems does not make your own beliefs more truthful. It only makes you feel better.

What geo is saying is that we should take the baby out of the bathwater.

ant wrote:Now, let me ask you, what evidence do you have that man's intellect is vigorous enough to decipher the complexity of nature?

Someone would have to make that claim first. Instead, let's agree that we're all quite dumb and will never have answers to the most puzzling questions of the universe. We shouldn't invent answers as a bandage either. Let's progress to the best of our humble abilities, with the hope that we will stumble upon discoveries.

ant wrote:Millions of religious people are just as intelligent, just as rational, just as successful, just as productive, caring, and loving as the atheist next door. There is no justified reason whatsoever to trivialize their faith in such condescending ways as comparing it to a belief in santa claus or tea pots or unicorns.

My loving, caring, successful grandmother is just as intelligent as I am. It is sad that the support for her beliefs is equivalent to the support for belief in santa claus or unicorns or tea pots. But I love her all the same. The justification is that the parallel is true, ant. My Grandma Quixote has been chasing her beliefs her entire life, doing good the entire time. It's a beneficial fantasy, and I would have it no other way.

sonoman wrote:I mean, don't any of you atheists know....

Don't call me an atheist, theist!

Don't call me an atheist, theist!

"My Grandma Quixote has been chasing her beliefs her entire life, doing good the entire time. It's a beneficial fantasy, and I would have it no other way"

Oh goody! Lets talk about Interbane's dear old Granny and see where it leads us!
I'm certain Granny Interbane is a moral old lady!
Why, her moral claims are unlike factual claims in that their validity does not rely on the generation of testable hypothesis!
So, being the pure evidence logic driven grandson brilliant little Internane is, because Grandma's morals lack empirical confirmation, he secretly thinks Grandma Interbane is full of it!

Way to go, baby Interbane! You're a bright one!