Humanism???????
Nick White
about the existance of a Deity? I am no theologian or philosophy student so
i will be brief.
In a world where we talk a lot about relativism there has to be some thing
that is absolute. What each of us believes is certainly relative I believe
in this you believe in that etc But in the end it will be the truth that
will matter! because what is believed will be "realised" to who ever is
right in what they believe?
SO the question that you must ask is not whether there is a GOD but if his
representative was Jesus Christ. WHO IS JESUS CHRIST? He said he was God!
johnb...@my-deja.com
he was wrong. Whether he knew that or not is not of much interest
really
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
altheim
Nick White wrote:
>For a News Group that is about humanism you people certainly talk a lot
>about the existance of a Deity? I am no theologian or philosophy student so
>i will be brief.
> In a world where we talk a lot about relativism there has to be some thing
>that is absolute. What each of us believes is certainly relative I believe
>in this you believe in that etc But in the end it will be the truth that
>will matter! because what is believed will be "realised" to who ever is
>right in what they believe?
>SO the question that you must ask is not whether there is a GOD but if his
>representative was Jesus Christ. WHO IS JESUS CHRIST? He said he was God!
>
question we *must* ask, but OK let's play along:
Where in the Bible did Jesus claim to be God? Or even the
Son of God for that matter; when Pilate asked him about it
his reply was "That's what you say". Hardly boasting.
I think the presumption is that he was the son of god, per other
writings, but I believe many theologians these days merely
think of him as a prophet.
It's true there is a lot of talk in this group about the existence
of a deity but isn't too suprising: frankly I'm puzzled as to how
humanism can function without one and the lack of a god
does seem to be a specific requirement of humanism.
--
altheim
Brendan
altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:wRhQ4.7742$OO6.8...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> It's true there is a lot of talk in this group about the existence
> of a deity but isn't too suprising: frankly I'm puzzled as to how
> humanism can function without one and the lack of a god
> does seem to be a specific requirement of humanism.
I'm afraid I don't understand you here. Are you saying that you
are puzzled how humanism can function without a deity?
Brendan.
Danny Collman
>For a News Group that is about humanism you people certainly talk a lot
>about the existance of a Deity? I am no theologian or philosophy student so
>i will be brief.
> In a world where we talk a lot about relativism there has to be some thing
>that is absolute. What each of us believes is certainly relative I believe
>in this you believe in that etc But in the end it will be the truth that
>will matter! because what is believed will be "realised" to who ever is
>right in what they believe?
>SO the question that you must ask is not whether there is a GOD but if his
>representative was Jesus Christ. WHO IS JESUS CHRIST? He said he was God!
>
>
Nazareth say that he was God. The nearest you will come to such a
statement in the Gospels is in the Baptism scenes, at the Jordan, where
a voice is made to say that he was his beloved son.
Then comes the much bigger question: did the Man of Nazareth even live?
There is no independent contemporary evidence that he did. *THE* only
evidence of Jesus' existence is the Bible itself.
Now, off you go to uk.religion.christianity and argue that out with the
religious nuts there,
--
Danny Collman
Danny Collman
<alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>
>Nick White wrote:
>>For a News Group that is about humanism you people certainly talk a lot
>>about the existance of a Deity? I am no theologian or philosophy student so
>>i will be brief.
>> In a world where we talk a lot about relativism there has to be some thing
>>that is absolute. What each of us believes is certainly relative I believe
>>in this you believe in that etc But in the end it will be the truth that
>>will matter! because what is believed will be "realised" to who ever is
>>right in what they believe?
>>SO the question that you must ask is not whether there is a GOD but if his
>>representative was Jesus Christ. WHO IS JESUS CHRIST? He said he was God!
>>
>question we *must* ask, but OK let's play along:
>
>Where in the Bible did Jesus claim to be God? Or even the
>Son of God for that matter; when Pilate asked him about it
>his reply was "That's what you say". Hardly boasting.
>
>I think the presumption is that he was the son of god, per other
>writings, but I believe many theologians these days merely
>think of him as a prophet.
>
>of a deity but isn't too suprising: frankly I'm puzzled as to how
>humanism can function without one
Was this a typo - 'humanism' - for 'humanity'?
Either way, I am equally puzzled: why should Humanism *need* a deity?
Certainly many human beings need such a thing - otherwise it would not
have been invented - but I'm not at all sure that humanity as such needs
one.
> and the lack of a god
>does seem to be a specific requirement of humanism.
I would agree that I've never yet met a Humanist who does have a god, in
the religious sense,
>
--
Danny Collman
altheim
Brendan wrote:
>altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> It's true there is a lot of talk in this group about the existence
>> of a deity but isn't too suprising: frankly I'm puzzled as to how
>> does seem to be a specific requirement of humanism.
>
>
That's exactly what I am saying though I may have expressed
it badly. Let me put it another way:
According to the humanism creed, which has been published
in this group a couple of times just lately, humanism believes,
specifically, that there is no God. I fail to see how that can be
compatible with its further objective which in essense seems
to be to foster or nurture a love of mankind. "Love thy
Neighbour" in fact.
In short: If there is no God; if this is 'all there is', if consciousness
really is nothing more than bio/electrochemical neurological
exchanges (etc.) then we might as well make humanity our
premier god with individuals subservient to the higher ideal.
We might as well say that Hitler was right after all and
exterminate mentally sick and disabled people, criminals,
gays and others with genetic disorders as being detrimental
to humanity as a whole.
If this is the objective of humanism then fine - it is the only way
that I can see any compatibility of objectives in the creed. But
from what I have read so far in this group I suspect that there is
confusion about this and many seem to treat humanism like
Christianity without the God.
--
altheim
Peter Ashby
<alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Brendan wrote:
> >altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's true there is a lot of talk in this group about the existence
> >> of a deity but isn't too suprising: frankly I'm puzzled as to how
> >> humanism can function without one and the lack of a god
> >> does seem to be a specific requirement of humanism.
> >
> >I'm afraid I don't understand you here. Are you saying that you
> >are puzzled how humanism can function without a deity?
> >
>
>
> That's exactly what I am saying though I may have expressed
> it badly. Let me put it another way:
>
> According to the humanism creed, which has been published
> in this group a couple of times just lately, humanism believes,
> specifically, that there is no God. I fail to see how that can be
> compatible with its further objective which in essense seems
> to be to foster or nurture a love of mankind. "Love thy
> Neighbour" in fact.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I have no trouble as an atheist (and
possible humanist) in loving my neighbour. I do it because it makes more
sense to live in a society where as a rule people are nice to others, than
to live where the opposite happens. I don't need the bible or any other
religious tract or fear of a deity for that to make sense to me.
> In short: If there is no God; if this is 'all there is', if consciousness
> really is nothing more than bio/electrochemical neurological
> exchanges (etc.) then we might as well make humanity our
> premier god with individuals subservient to the higher ideal.
Why do we have to make anything any sort of god at all? If you are
starting from the premise that mankind has to have a god then I can
understand why you find the concept of humanism confusing. Just for a
moment imagine that there is no god and no need for one and then view
humanism from that start point and it makes sense.
> We might as well say that Hitler was right after all and
> exterminate mentally sick and disabled people, criminals,
> gays and others with genetic disorders as being detrimental
> to humanity as a whole.
But that is not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Besides Hitler's definition of who was undesirable was rather arbitrary.
>
> If this is the objective of humanism then fine - it is the only way
> that I can see any compatibility of objectives in the creed. But
> from what I have read so far in this group I suspect that there is
> confusion about this and many seem to treat humanism like
> Christianity without the God.
Just because the humanist moral creed overlaps with some christian
commandments does not make it christianity without god. I disagree with
the sentiments of several christian commandments and agree with others.
The bases for this are not because some god apparently commanded it or
that I will go to some place called Hell (in Norway I understand), but
because some seem rational and sensible and some do not.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee
Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
Bertie
Christianity as their particular sect without the crap of other sects thrown
in.
All I am saying is that humanism isn't a religion - the title of this group
defines it as a philosophy...and rightly so.
Most Christians have their own reservations about wat they believe and don't
believe in the Bible, and many interpret the scriptures to suit their own
region and/or time. And I'd say that that's right - you can't expect 2000
year old stories to be relevant today, but the *themes* are - and we
interpret around the themes.
My view of humanism - a personal view - is that yes, it's a lot like
Christianity without the diety and whatnot, but the big difference is that
Christianity tells us that if we live our lives being socially active and
helpful with it, have a conscience and a belief that the things we do do not
cause harm to anyone else, deliberately or otherwise, then we'll get a
reward in Heaven when we die - unlike humanism where the actions we take are
not only the means, but also the end. In short - the reward is given to us
in life, not in death.
==
Bert.
altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:K4TQ4.11489$rR2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
Les Reid
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick White <s37...@student.uq.edu.au>
Newsgroups: uk.philosophy.humanism
Date: 04 May 2000 10:19
Subject: Humanism???????
>For a News Group that is about humanism you people certainly talk a lot
>about the existance of a Deity?
<snip>
In an ideal world people would be free to believe whatever they liked and
no-one would pass comment, no matter how crazy the beliefs. But that would
only work if people believed their crazy things and kept them private, so
that they did not impinge on other people.
The real world is nothing like that. Religion is not a private matter. It
is a social institution which has all sorts of privileges. Seats in the
House of Lords, for a start. A special share of broadcasting, both BBC and
ITV, for a second. Religion is a compulsory part of the National
Curriculum: all pupils study it, unless their parents opt out, which is
often easier said than done. All schools are required to begin the school
day with an act of worship. Etc., etc.
So naturally, when we Humanists see the privileges accorded to out-dated,
irrational, traditional beliefs, we do tend to comment on how out-dated and
irrational they are.
Now do you understand?
Les Reid
altheim
Peter Ashby wrote in message ...[snips - trying not to cut out too much context]
>> According to the humanism creed, which has been published
>> in this group a couple of times just lately, humanism believes,
>> specifically, that there is no God. I fail to see how that can be
>> compatible with its further objective which in essense seems
>> to be to foster or nurture a love of mankind. "Love thy
>> Neighbour" in fact.
>
>Thanks for clarifying your position. I have no trouble as an atheist (and
>possible humanist) in loving my neighbour. I do it because it makes more
>sense to live in a society where as a rule people are nice to others, than
>to live where the opposite happens. I don't need the bible or any other
>religious tract or fear of a deity for that to make sense to me.
>
That seems fair enough, expecially as you claim merely to be
a "possible" humanist. But, as you may have gathered, I am
trying to find out exactly what humanism is and *exactly* what
it stands for, and I am still not convinced that humanism (as a
religion (what else can it be?)) is necessary in order to be nice
to people. If that really is all humanism stands for then it seems
pointless. I'm the nicest guy I know but I don't feel the need to
belong to a club and wear the official hat (figuratively) to live
my life. However, I'm sure it would be quite a different matter
if I subscribed to a set of unique and possibly controversial
views.
>> In short: If there is no God; if this is 'all there is', if consciousness
>> really is nothing more than bio/electrochemical neurological
>> exchanges (etc.) then we might as well make humanity our
>> premier god with individuals subservient to the higher ideal.
>
>Why do we have to make anything any sort of god at all? If you are
>starting from the premise that mankind has to have a god then I can
>understand why you find the concept of humanism confusing. Just for a
>moment imagine that there is no god and no need for one and then view
>humanism from that start point and it makes sense.
>
I think I covered that above but just to expand a little: It seems
people (some people) do need a religion (if not a god) by
which to live, else why invent humanism? I anticipate that you
(or someone) will tell me that humanism is not a religion.
Ok, it isn't a religion in the conventional sense, but tell what
else it can be? It's not a business or a society nor even a
club - it is a belief set with a credo, and that exactly defines
Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. with the only difference
the latter have godheads.
If humanism is nothing more than you say it is then it surely
is a pointless pursuit?
--
altheim
David Buttery
<snip>
>I am
>trying to find out exactly what humanism is and *exactly* what
>it stands for
You're looking, in fact for a fundamentalist humanist. I'm not sure
that's possible (anyone?).
>, and I am still not convinced that humanism (as a
>religion (what else can it be?)) is necessary in order to be nice
>to people. If that really is all humanism stands for then it seems
>pointless.
Why? I reject your argument in any case, on the grounds that working to
make society better is not necessarily the same as "being nice". But
even if we go along with you, what is pointless about cheering people
up and helping them?
> I'm the nicest guy I know
Means nothing - we don't know who you know!
> but I don't feel the need to
>belong to a club and wear the official hat (figuratively) to live
>my life.
<snip>
Don't, then. No-one's making you - which is the point.
--
David.
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)
altheim
Danny Collman wrote in message ...
>altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>>Nick White wrote:
>>>For a News Group that is about humanism you people certainly talk a lot
>>>about the existance of a Deity?
[snips]
>>It's true there is a lot of talk in this group about the existence
>>of a deity but isn't too suprising: frankly I'm puzzled as to how
>>humanism can function without one
>
>Was this a typo - 'humanism' - for 'humanity'?
No it wasn't.
>Either way, I am equally puzzled: why should Humanism *need* a deity?
>Certainly many human beings need such a thing - otherwise it would not
>have been invented - but I'm not at all sure that humanity as such needs
>one.
Forget 'humanity', I am talking about 'humanism' as an ordered set of
beliefs. You might have read other posts of mine on this subject
>> and the lack of a god
>>does seem to be a specific requirement of humanism.
>
>I would agree that I've never yet met a Humanist who does have
>a god, in the religious sense,
>
I would remind you that you posted from the charter for this
group only a few days ago and number 1 in the list of objectives
stated specifically that there is no God.
You also wrote in reply to someone else:
> >Wrong. We believe that there is no God. Notice the subtle
> >inversion:
> >it is important. Our belief is positive, not negative.
> >
--
altheim
altheim
Bertie wrote in message ...
>[...]
>All I am saying is that humanism isn't a religion - the title of this group
>defines it as a philosophy...and rightly so.
>
You can legitimately talk about the philosophy of Humanism
just as you can speak about the philosophy of any religion.
The title of this group merely permits us to do that.
I disagree that humanism is not a religion. A religion is
nothing more than a structured belief set - with or without
a god - and that describes humanism exactly. I don't think
we need worry about it unduly.
--
altheim
Peter Ashby
<alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> I disagree that humanism is not a religion. A religion is
> nothing more than a structured belief set - with or without
> a god - and that describes humanism exactly. I don't think
> we need worry about it unduly.
I disagree with your definition of religion as not requiring a godhead.
You have also missed that religion usually requires an act of worship or
obeisance to the godhead or godheads. Humanism does not require this. Note
the use of the word require. Most christians would say that if you don't
worship you aren't christian, regular devotion to the deity would seem to
be a prerequisite for the religious.
Dave Blair
Newsbeitrag
news:p.r.ashby-080...@catpra.bioch.dundee.ac.uk...
> In article <h3wR4.13947$rR2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "altheim"
> <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > I disagree that humanism is not a religion. A religion is
> > nothing more than a structured belief set - with or without
> > a god - and that describes humanism exactly. I don't think
> > we need worry about it unduly.
>
> I disagree with your definition of religion as not requiring a
> godhead. You have also missed that religion usually requires
> an act of worship or obeisance to the godhead or godheads.
> Humanism does not require this. Note the use of the word
> require. Most christians would say that if you don't worship
> you aren't christian, regular devotion to the deity would seem
> to be a prerequisite for the religious.
I agree with Altheim that a religion does not necessarily require
the belief in a deity or deities, a religion worshipping some
abstract "superhuman" ideological principle I would class as a
religion, frx Marxism in certain cult manifestations. I disagree
with Altheim that a religion is no more than a structured belief
set--this would include political beliefs, which, for the most
part, are not analogue or equivalent to religion.
I wouldn't say that all religions are cults--there is an
important divide there--but that all cults are (surrogate)
religions; the divide is somewhat blurred, but I think it would
go something like this (working model!):
-With a cult, you are required to participate in activities
prescribed by the cult and to avoid social contact with people
outside the cult.
-With a religion, you are required to participate in activities
prescribed by that religion, but are free to hold social contact
with whoever you see fit.
-With a philosophy, you are not required to do or avoid doing
anything. There are no activities you have to take part in in
order to confirm your belief, much less your membership, there
being none.
In any of the above, there are associations and institutions, as
there are outside this framework; however, they are voluntary
common interest groups with specific material goals, so don't
quite fit into the schema.
Individuals within a religion may act as if they were in a cult,
and cults may form within a religion (frx Opus Dei). Humanists
may act as if they were in a religion or cult, and may indeed
form a surrogate religion or cult within humanism, but that does
not make frx. Catholicism a cult or humanism a cult or religion.
I'd say the difference between humanism and religion (or any
non-surrogate-religious philosophy and a surrogate-religious
philosophy) lies in the difference between the words
"prescriptive" and "descriptive". If you are frx. a Catholic, you
are a member of something, and, as a part of that membership, you
are required to take part in certain activities, in this case,
going to Mass every Sunday and taking the sacraments. You
actively "join" a religion in order to grow in that religion,
which is instrumental in guiding you in life.
As a humanist, there is no formal "joining" the humanist movement
as symbolized by baptism, bris or whatever equivalent; even the
East German "Jugendweihe" (afaik the nearest humanist equivalent
of any religious event, in this case confirmation/mitzvah) is
really nothing more than a celebration of the onset of adulthood,
and is neither a requirement for humanists, nor are religious
folks excluded from the celebration--are, in fact, actively
encouraged to take part. It's organized by a humanist
association, specifically, the "Interessenvereinigung für
humanistische Jugendarbeit und Jugendweihe e.V.", Berlin, so is
conveniently termed as a humanist celebration.
You are called a humanist because you fit that general
description, not because you officially joined humanism. That's
the basic difference between humanism and religion, imo.
Dave
--
Dave Blair
Halle/Saale, Germany
johnb...@my-deja.com
the [daft] notion that humanism is a sort of religion.
Let's not fall out over this - but let us have some sort of consensus
about the meaning of the word. 'Religion' means the belief in or
worship of or obedience to a supernatural power considered to be
divine or to have control of human destiny. {That's Collins Concise
Dictionary}. Let us stop talking about 'religion' with some other
meaning. Humanism is not a religion. Humanists live their lives
without religion. Now proceed.
John Bosley
altheim
Peter Ashby wrote in message ...
>
>> I disagree that humanism is not a religion. A religion is
>> nothing more than a structured belief set - with or without
>> a god - and that describes humanism exactly. I don't think
>> we need worry about it unduly.
>
>I disagree with your definition of religion as not requiring a godhead.
>You have also missed that religion usually requires an act of worship or
>obeisance to the godhead or godheads. Humanism does not require this. Note
>worship you aren't Christian, regular devotion to the deity would seem to
>be a prerequisite for the religious.
>
Technically I may have to give you this argument. I just
looked in my Collins to find that a religion is defined as
having, and worshipping, a deity. But, when you consider
the options, I still think religion comes closest.
So... what is Humanism then? It is an entity because it
has this identifying label and apparently it has a formal
'credo', sort of like a company's or an intellectual society's
mission statement, or a religion's 'bible', but without the
employees or members. I've assumed, as I have said
above, it is a belief set. Someone else (forgotten who)
suggested it is a philosophy, but neither of these seem
to me quite appropriate.
--
altheim
altheim
>>
>> > I disagree that humanism is not a religion. A religion is
>> > nothing more than a structured belief set - with or without
>> > a god - and that describes humanism exactly. I don't think
>> > we need worry about it unduly.
>>
>> I disagree with your definition of religion as not requiring a
>> godhead. You have also missed that religion usually requires
>> an act of worship or obeisance to the godhead or godheads.
>> Humanism does not require this. Note the use of the word
>> you aren't christian, regular devotion to the deity would seem
>> to be a prerequisite for the religious.
>
>the belief in a deity or deities, a religion worshipping some
>abstract "superhuman" ideological principle I would class as a
>religion, frx Marxism in certain cult manifestations. I disagree
>with Altheim that a religion is no more than a structured belief
>set--this would include political beliefs, which, for the most
>part, are not analogue or equivalent to religion.
>
True. I was being a little simplistic. Thanks for the further
clarification. It helped.
PS you a member of this Interessenverein in Berlin?
--
altheim
James A. Temple
god) by
> which to live, else why invent humanism? I anticipate that you
> Ok, it isn't a religion in the conventional sense, but tell what
> else it can be? It's not a business or a society nor even a
> club - it is a belief set with a credo, and that exactly defines
> Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. with the only difference
> the latter have godheads.
I wouldn't call humanism "a belief set", personally. In fact, it is
"belief" rather than "substantiation" that is the hallmark of religions. As
a humanist, I don't have a credo that governs my actions. Nor do I have
associations with organized groups wherein we outline or define humanism. I
reckon it's more akin to sayin' I'm a Democrat or member of the Labor Party.
As humorist Will Rogers once stated, "I'm a member of no organized Party;
I'm a Democrat." Findin' a group of like-minded humanists could be nearly
impossible. But, I do think that you'll find that all have a basic tenet of
tryin' to do their very best by other folks, just as they would care to have
done to them, without the promise of eternal reward or threat of eternal
damnation.
I can't state unequivically that there are or are not gods, devils, angels,
etc. I can't say that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east. In either
case, I can only say that, based on my personal experience and every bit of
non-prejudiced study with which I can inform myself, there are no gods,
etc. and that the sun will come up in the east.
> If humanism is nothing more than you say it is then it surely
> is a pointless pursuit?
Are you suggesting that the only reason to live a kind and generous life is
because of the promise or threat by some diety? That kind of life would be
truly pointless--acting out of personal gain or personal safety.
I am not attempting to sway your opinion; merely expressing my own.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
altheim
James A. Temple wrote in message ...
> ---snip------>It seems people (some people) do need a religion (if not a
>god) by
>> which to live, else why invent humanism? I anticipate that you
>> (or someone) will tell me that humanism is not a religion.
>> Ok, it isn't a religion in the conventional sense, but tell what
>> else it can be? It's not a business or a society nor even a
>> club - it is a belief set with a credo, and that exactly defines
>> Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. with the only difference
>> the latter have godheads.
>
>I wouldn't call humanism "a belief set", personally. In fact, it is
>"belief" rather than "substantiation" that is the hallmark of religions.
>As a humanist, I don't have a credo that governs my actions.
In that case Jim, how do you know you are a humanist?
Actually, Danny Collman published an extract from the
charter for this group that looked remarkably like a credo
to me. Or they might have been just guiding principles or
something but they sure served to define Humanism.
>As humorist Will Rogers once stated, "I'm a member of no organized Party;
>I'm a Democrat."
Well you know what they say about humour - 'there's many a true word...'.
>... Findin' a group of like-minded humanists could be nearly
>impossible. But, I do think that you'll find that all have a basic tenet of
>tryin' to do their very best by other folks, just as they would care to have
>done to them, without the promise of eternal reward or threat of eternal
>damnation.
>
Actually, to be fair, it all sounds very reasonable. But,
without the promise of eternal reward, how do you think
humanity can suppress wrath, jealousy, greed, covetousness
etc.? We all need a motive and we need motivation.
>> If humanism is nothing more than you say it is then it surely
>> is a pointless pursuit?
>
>Are you suggesting that the only reason to live a kind and generous life is
>because of the promise or threat by some diety? That kind of life would be
>truly pointless--acting out of personal gain or personal safety.
>
Selfish perhaps, but not pointless. The nearest I got to
receiving an adequate answer to my question was from
one guy who said that being nice to everyone kind of oiled
the wheels of society and generally made life easier (words
to that effect), and that was motive enough.
Unfortunately, the seven deadly sins, which I (almost) quoted
from above, are basic self preservation instincts in man which
may well be genetically coded in us and may well be impossible
to suppress, even if you got the entire world to subscribe to
Humanism.
>I am not attempting to sway your opinion; merely expressing my own.
>
Likewise friend. Though I should be happy to be swayed.
It would be nice to be able to say 'the glass is half full'
instead of 'half empty'. I guess I'm just an old cynic.
--
altheim
James A. Temple
> In that case Jim, how do you know you are a humanist?
I truly don't know. I seen various definitions offered, but none that
offered the simple formula that appeals to me: Live a decent life and treat
others the way I desire to be treated. Hardly a roadmap for all but it
serves me.
> Well you know what they say about humour - 'there's many a true word...'.
Ain't it the truth? I dote on the writings of Mark Twain for just that
reason.
> Actually, to be fair, it all sounds very reasonable. But,
> without the promise of eternal reward, how do you think
> humanity can suppress wrath, jealousy, greed, covetousness
> etc.? We all need a motive and we need motivation.
I don't think humanity will suppress those things, even though I suppose
that it can. The traits that you've mentioned are basic to the survival of
the individual animal. Had our ancient ancestors not been imbued with these
same traits, you and I would not be alive. The ancients with soft, kind,
trusting genetic predisposition surely made easy prey for the groups not so
predisposed. But, then, to live as communal creatures for the betterment of
the group and, thus, perpetuation, some of our ancestors rose above the
individual traits and lived by a standard required to insure the
continuation of the group. Had our more recent ancestors not been inbued
with the latter traits, I should not have had the extraordinary opportunity
to converse with and learn from a new cyberfriend concerning a subject I
hold dearly.
I think of the motivation you mention and find that, for me, it comes in
several forms: Sometimes it derives from the satisfaction that I get from
helping another; sometimes from the desire to live a life that wouldn't
bring shame to my fine sons; once in a while, I hear my mom's gentle chiding
to be a good son, to represent our family well. But never from the promise
or threat of a deity.
> Selfish perhaps, but not pointless. The nearest I got to
> receiving an adequate answer to my question was from
> one guy who said that being nice to everyone kind of oiled
> the wheels of society and generally made life easier (words
> to that effect), and that was motive enough.
Wish I could be so expressive as he. That certainly is a thoughtful answer.
> Unfortunately, the seven deadly sins, which I (almost) quoted
> from above, are basic self preservation instincts in man which
> may well be genetically coded in us and may well be impossible
> to suppress, even if you got the entire world to subscribe to
> Humanism.
I'm learning. I must read the entire post before responding. You've taken
my very thoughts and expressed them in a much better manner.
> >I am not attempting to sway your opinion; merely expressing my own.
> Likewise friend. Though I should be happy to be swayed.
> It would be nice to be able to say 'the glass is half full'
> instead of 'half empty'. I guess I'm just an old cynic.
Thank you for your very kind and informative response. It will be a
pleasure, indeed, to count an "old cynic" among my few and treasured
resources as we continue, figuratively, arm-in-arm, as old men seeking to
define our own thoughts as well as consider those of others.
johnb...@my-deja.com
sort of thing. Aggressors do not always win. Gentleness can be really
selfinterest in disguise. If hawks always won we would run out of
doves. If doves always lost we would run out of doves. If there were
no doves, hawks would start losing more, some hawks would become doves.
Me I'm a dolphin with a headache.
Danny Collman
<alt...@freeuk.com> writes
My apologies for failing to come back to you - I've been rather busy.
I continue to be puzzled.
You effectively began with the comment that you couldn't see how
humanism (sic) could function without a deity, then proceeded to point
out the fact that I had suggested that there is no God.
Are you concerned that we have spent a lot of space on this newsgroup
discussing the fact that we believe there is no God?
You suggest that this belief (there is no God) is a specific requirement
of Humanism. I would agree in the sense that Humanism is a Life-Stance
which contends that this life is all there is, including the inevitable
corollary that there is no God, but I'm not at all sure that I can make
that belief so strong as to make it a *requirement*. The problem is that
every definition of 'God' that I have heard is different (over 30 plus
years, probably around a thousand definitions - from detailed to off-
the-cuff.)
Since this Entity is invisible, every believer has his/her own idea of
what he/she/it is like. So it may well be that a Humanist has a belief
is God.
And I'd be very interested to discuss that belief with that person.
--
Danny Collman
john langford
Minister in the Devon Humanist Group) and those of the Sea of Faith, about
God, you get some interesting angles. Anthony Freeman, in his book 'God in
Us', poses some thought provoking ideas. If, as I think they are saying,
there is a God in everyone — we all have our own personal God — and that God
has no power other than to influence — that sounds very close to what I call
my conscience. Over to you, John.
Danny Collman wrote in message ...
<snip> The problem is that
Steve Marshall
I do not 'believe that there is no God'. I am not a person who believes that
there is a God. (See the difference ?)
Steve Marshall
"john langford" <jo...@tarrandean.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8fn0um$bg1$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
john langford
Steve Marshall wrote in message <8fn1s9$oeo$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>I do not have a God at all !
<snip>
>> Danny Collman wrote in message ...
Nick White
Danny Collman <ddco...@hwthwood.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BKMhwHAC...@hwthwood.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>Either way, I am equally puzzled: why should Humanism *need* a deity?
> >>Certainly many human beings need such a thing - otherwise it would not
> >>have been invented - but I'm not at all sure that humanity as such needs
> >>one.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
evidence that their definately isn't a God? Or more importantly why is there
definately not a God?
Need is surpassed by the truth! Remember it is out there....somewhere! So
what is the truth?
Our search has an end
Nick White
Danny Collman
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>
>Danny Collman <ddco...@hwthwood.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:BKMhwHAC...@hwthwood.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <g3wR4.13945$rR2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, altheim
>> <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>> >
>> >Danny Collman wrote in message ...
>> >>altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> writes
>> >
>> >>Either way, I am equally puzzled: why should Humanism *need* a deity?
>> >>Certainly many human beings need such a thing - otherwise it would not
>> >>have been invented - but I'm not at all sure that humanity as such needs
>> >>one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>So not believing that there is a God is the Humanists view.
Er, no. Let's turn that round - perhaps it's mere semantics, but
Humanists believe that there is no God. Not 'not believing', but
'believing there is not'. A fine distinction, but an important one.
> What is your
>evidence that their definately isn't a God? Or more importantly why is there
>definately not a God?
There seems to be some slight difficulty here: 'belief' is not empirical
knowledge, so I have no evidence that there 'definitely is no God'. I
didn't say 'there is no God'. I said 'I believe there is no God'. If
evidence is shown to me today, tomorrow, sometime, that there is a God,
and that evidence is satisfactory to me, then I may be forced to
reconsider.
My problem is that I know, and have known, many dozens of Christians and
Muslims whom I have discussed this matter with (sic), and every one of
them appears to have a different definition of God. Further, many of
them are inconsistent: a 'Power' created this universe, this earth, but
'someone' is out there to be worshipped. Further, this 'Power' (no
matter how defined) has 'always' been there.
I am more willing to accept the validity of a Grimm's fairy tale, than
have an 'always there' supernatural power thrust upon me, but get
questioned with astonished looks when I suggest acceptance of the 'Big
Bang' theory of creation.
>Need is surpassed by the truth! Remember it is out there....somewhere! So
>what is the truth?
What is 'it' out there?, and what 'truth' are we talking about?
>Our search has an end
What are you searching for?
>Nick White
>
>
--
Danny Collman
Steve Marshall
one.
I will acknowledge there being a God when there is good evidence - until
then I've got to get on with my life and not waste it bowing down to a
ficticious entity.
Steve Marshall
Nick White
Steve Marshall <st...@marshallmcgurk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8h13gc$htk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> There is no evidence that there is a God so I have no reason to beleive in
> one.
along your thinking that there is also no evidence to say that there is not
a God. In that case you just choose to believe that there is not rather that
know that there is not. (Yes)?
In truth we are not talking about something that obeys to the laws of
universe/nature in fact we are talking about the existence of a supernatural
deity who defies the laws of the universe/nature (right?). Has anyperson
ever done things that defied nature? Well most people believe that this can
only happen with help from a God (ie supernatural deity) or not at all.
Again I posted a while ago a simple question Who is Jesus? He was supposed
to have performed many miracles (ie supernatural event) eg walk on water,
heal sick, raise people from the dead, even himself. So he either did 2
things he deceived a lot of people was a clever magician, a liar, and a
lunatic who died for a cause that in essense was a load of garbage. Or he
was as he said sent from the Father to reveal the truth that the abundant
life and love in acceptance is found in him!!
> I will acknowledge there being a God when there is good evidence
Evidence is evidence it doesn't necessarily have to be good! and there is
some evidence!!!
- until
> then I've got to get on with my life and not waste it bowing down to a
> ficticious entity.
> Your life???? What is life??? get on with it? Lives aren't wasted if they
have a purpose, a cause, and an end that justifies living.
Is life better if you can acknowledge that there could be a God and live to
find the spiritual truth or if you live a life that avoids compromising your
intellectual solidarity to consider something that you can't fathom with
pure logic and in doing so jeopardising the possibility for a life that may
fullfill the one of this world??????
The ball is in your court if you could reconsider for one second that you
might not know all the facts I would say read the Gospel of John to find out
if Jesus is a fraud. Secondly to read a book called "Evidence that demands a
verdict" by Josh McDowell. It was written by an atheist who decided to prove
that Christianity was lies. He ended up writing this book.
I don't profess to know everything either but this is another perspective.
Nick
elaine...@cwcom.net
<ddco...@hwthwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>+cut+
>Er, no. Let's turn that round - perhaps it's mere semantics, but
>Humanists believe that there is no God. Not 'not believing', but
>'believing there is not'. A fine distinction, but an important one.
>
>There seems to be some slight difficulty here: 'belief' is not empirical
>knowledge, so I have no evidence that there 'definitely is no God'. I
>didn't say 'there is no God'. I said 'I believe there is no God'. If
>evidence is shown to me today, tomorrow, sometime, that there is a God,
>and that evidence is satisfactory to me, then I may be forced to
>reconsider.
>
My basic approach to such philosophical matters is to use the strict
analysis of (basically) a physicist with a strong flavour of logic.
The rule to remember is
"Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence"
(The advice given by Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson on many occasions,
namely "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no
matter how improbable, must be the truth" depends on a clarity of
thought as to what is "impossible"
To say "There is no god (or gods)" takes as much *faith* as to say
"Threre is a god (or gods)". As my philosophy is science-based, I
cannot make sweeping claims about anything, without reputable proof.
For example: Q. Is there life elsewhere in the Universe?
A. No direct evidence exists (yet), but to use this as *proof* that
ther is no other life in the Universe is an example of the lack of
clarity most often seen in faith-holders.
My own opinion is (along with many other more distinguished thinkers
is that, on the balance of probabilities, there ought to be life
elsewhere, but we have not yet had convincing evidence.
>I am more willing to accept the validity of a Grimm's fairy tale, than
>have an 'always there' supernatural power thrust upon me, but get
>questioned with astonished looks when I suggest acceptance of the 'Big
>Bang' theory of creation.
>>Need is surpassed by the truth! Remember it is out there....somewhere! So
>>what is the truth?
>
__
Jonathan S. Simons
jonatha...@cwcom.net
shown as from me, jonathan. I'm still trying to get to grips with the
Newsgroup Reader settings! Sorry for any confusion.
Danny Collman
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>
>Steve Marshall <st...@marshallmcgurk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8h13gc$htk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> There is no evidence that there is a God so I have no reason to beleive in
>> one.
>If there is no evidence today that there is a God would you also agree that
>along your thinking that there is also no evidence to say that there is not
>a God. In that case you just choose to believe that there is not rather that
>know that there is not. (Yes)?
>In truth we are not talking about something that obeys to the laws of
>universe/nature in fact we are talking about the existence of a supernatural
>deity who defies the laws of the universe/nature (right?). Has anyperson
>ever done things that defied nature? Well most people believe that this can
>only happen with help from a God (ie supernatural deity) or not at all.
Most psychologists would laugh at this idea - they know that there are
areas of the human brain which are untapped and which may well be used
for these so-called 'supernatural' activities. In other words, those
activities are not 'super' natural at - they are perfectly natural,
emanating from the human brain.
>Again I posted a while ago a simple question Who is Jesus? He was supposed
>to have performed many miracles (ie supernatural event) eg walk on water,
>heal sick, raise people from the dead, even himself. So he either did 2
>things he deceived a lot of people was a clever magician, a liar, and a
>lunatic who died for a cause that in essense was a load of garbage. Or he
>was as he said sent from the Father to reveal the truth that the abundant
>life and love in acceptance is found in him!!
No, there is a third possibility: that the writers of the Gospels took
ideas from their contemporary literature and created this character. The
Gospels were not started until 70CE at the very earliest, and some
evidence (I'm informed) suggests much later. Further, the Synoptic
Gospels appear to be basically copies of each other with individual
differences.
I'd love to hear an explanation of how the Gospels were able to describe
the various Trials: with the Sanhedrin, with Pilatus, et al. Who was
there to witness these things? The Governor of Jerusalem allowed friends
in to witness what he was saying and doing? I think not.
>
>> I will acknowledge there being a God when there is good evidence
>Evidence is evidence it doesn't necessarily have to be good! and there is
>some evidence!!!
No, the evidence has to be acceptable - not necessarily 'good'.
> - until
>> then I've got to get on with my life and not waste it bowing down to a
>> ficticious entity.
>> Your life???? What is life??? get on with it? Lives aren't wasted if they
>have a purpose, a cause, and an end that justifies living.
No life has an intrinsic purpose: we are born because we are born. But
many people create their own purpose, their own cause.
>Is life better if you can acknowledge that there could be a God and live to
>find the spiritual truth
I do acknowledge that there could be a God - I merely believe that there
isn't one: everything about life, living and the world and universe show
me that the idea of a Creator is simply superstitious nonsense. Those
who believe in such a thing are very welcome to him/her/it.
> or if you live a life that avoids compromising your
>intellectual solidarity to consider something that you can't fathom with
>pure logic and in doing so jeopardising the possibility for a life that may
>fullfill the one of this world??????
I don't understand this point. I don't live my life by pure logic - even
if I *am* a very logical person. I have reason and emotions as well.
>The ball is in your court if you could reconsider for one second that you
>might not know all the facts I would say read the Gospel of John to find out
>if Jesus is a fraud.
The Gospel of John does not give facts - merely the writer's thoughts on
a character who had been written about many years before. Very
theological though.
> Secondly to read a book called "Evidence that demands a
>verdict" by Josh McDowell. It was written by an atheist who decided to prove
>that Christianity was lies. He ended up writing this book.
A long time since I read it: it was written by a person who was patently
*not* an atheist, or who, if he had been, was actually looking for some
religious relief. Basically, he simply accepted everything in the Bible
at face value. He made no serious critical analysis, and certainly gave
no historical perspective. The evidence did demand a verdict: nonsense.
>I don't profess to know everything either but this is another perspective.
>Nick
>
>
--
Danny Collman, Birmingham
John Davies
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>
>Steve Marshall <st...@marshallmcgurk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8h13gc$htk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> There is no evidence that there is a God so I have no reason to beleive in
>> one.
>If there is no evidence today that there is a God would you also agree that
>along your thinking that there is also no evidence to say that there is not
>a God.
Irrelevant. In the absence of compelling evidence that something exists
(and despite what you say, there is no evidence whatsoever for the
existence of a god) the burden of proof lies with those who claim one
does exist.
>In that case you just choose to believe that there is not rather that
>know that there is not. (Yes)?
No. You disbelieve everything that cannot be shown to be true. That is
the basis of all rational thought.
>
>> I will acknowledge there being a God when there is good evidence
>Evidence is evidence it doesn't necessarily have to be good! and there is
>some evidence!!!
It's a good job that principle isn't observed in the criminal courts, or
a lot more innocent people would be in jail than are already. I repeat:
there is not the slightest shred of evidence that any supernatural
entity such as a god exists. People believe in god because they want to,
not because there is a rational argument for their belief. That's their
privilege, of course: but they cannot expect those of us who demand
rational evidence to give any credence to their claims.
>The ball is in your court if you could reconsider for one second that you
>might not know all the facts I would say read the Gospel of John to find out
>if Jesus is a fraud.
Well, if what you call "evidence" is some wholly unsubstantiated claim
found in a book written several decades after the events it purports to
describe, you will clearly believe anything anyone tells you. Presumably
you also believe in Santa Claus? Alien abductions? The tooth fairy? Jack
and the Beanstalk? They're all to be found in some book or other.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Danny Collman
>"Threre is a god (or gods)". As my philosophy is science-based, I
>cannot make sweeping claims about anything, without reputable proof.
Why is there a problem with the idea of 'faith'. I have faith in many
things for which I have seen no empirical evidence - the classic being
the existence of the Antipodes. Seeing pictures, whether still or
moving, is not empirical evidence, but I take its existence on faith.
My idea that there is no god, is actually no more than a belief: I do
not say 'there is no God'. I say 'I believe that there is no God'.
I don't even need 'proof'. I need reputable 'evidence - ie evidence
which *I* can accept. So far, throughout my life, I have seen none,
--
Danny Collman
Brendan
Nick White <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:8gr2bv$are$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> So not believing that there is a God is the Humanists view. What is your
> evidence that their definately isn't a God? Or more importantly why is
there
> definately not a God?
> Need is surpassed by the truth! Remember it is out there....somewhere! So
> what is the truth?
I do not believe that there is a god any more than I believe in the
Homeric Pantheon. Why should I believe the former any more than
the latter?
Brendan.
Karl Senior
Brendan <bren...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8hehr3$gh7$1...@supernews.com...
>
> Nick White <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:8gr2bv$are$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
> > So not believing that there is a God is the Humanists view. What is your
> > evidence that their definately isn't a God? Or more importantly why is
> there
> > definately not a God?
> > Need is surpassed by the truth! Remember it is out there....somewhere!
So
> > what is the truth?
Maybe it's 'there is no truth.'
>
>
> I do not believe that there is a god any more than I believe in the
> Homeric Pantheon. Why should I believe the former any more than
> the latter?
>
Perhaps because you don't know it's not true, you know that you don't
believe it to be true?
kind regards
Karl
:o)
James A. Temple
news:8gr2bv$are$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>So not believing that there is a God is the Humanists view.
Speaking only for myself, as a Humanist I would rather say that I "accept"
that there is no god based on a lifetime of never having discerned one iota
of evidence that a god does exist.
>What is your evidence that there definitely isn't a God?
Sorry. One can't prove a negative. You see, as Carl Sagan once said,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Once a theist makes the
extraordinary claim that a god exists, it is incumbent upon the theist to
provide extraordinary proof to substantiate that claim. Can you imagine the
difficulty you would have if I made the claim that there does exist a cow
with a purple hue and expect you to provide the proof that there wasn't?
You would, quite correctly, expect me to provide my evidence of a purple
cow. And, further, you would expect some collaboration from a third party
who had looked at the evidence.
So, kindly produce some evidence of a god and I'll be most happy to peruse
it. I've been searching for such evidence for nearly sixty years. I truly
hope that you have such extraordinary evidence at hand~photos of gods,
letters, documents, first person interviews. Please allow me to apologize
for what seems to be a flippant request since I already know that such
evidence does not exist. I merely want to point out that I can accept you
just as you are, Nick, "believing" in a god as a act of faith rather than
"accepting" a god as a result of proof.
At the same time, I should hope that you could respect the views of
Humanists who have accepted the fact that there is no evidence that a god
exists and yet take upon themselves the mantel of living decently,
respectfully, helpfully, kindly~exhibiting all those virtues that men and
women of good conscience hold dear with the aim of living together in
harmony.
>Or, more importantly, why is there definitely not a God?
Well, I suspect that the obvious reason is that a god does not exist so far
as evidence reveals--except in the heartfelt belief of dedicated followers.
And, if that heartfelt belief causes the adherents to address the issues of
improving the status of humanity WITHOUT THE UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF
SUCH BELIEF BY THOSE IMPROVED, I shall definitely incourage those dedicated
believers. Your belief is important to you. You are important to me; not
your belief.
James A. Temple
SUCH BELIEF BY THOSE IMPROVED, I shall definitely encourage those dedicated
Torkel Franzen
> Sorry. One can't prove a negative.
Lots of negatives can be proved.
Torkel Franzen
>What type of negatives? Are any of them vaguely analogous to proving the
>non-existence of a God?
That of course depends on what you count as a "vague analogy".
>I think what James was trying to say (and I hope he'll forgive me for
>putting words into his mouth) is that one cannot prove the non-existence
>of something.
Sure you can. If you're talking about proofs proper, such things are
proved in mathematics all the time. If you mean "conclusively
establish", non-existence can be conclusively established in any
number of cases.
I have no objection to the comeback "The non-existence of God cannot
be proved", but the claim that this is so because "you cannot prove
a negative" is completely bogus.
Matthew Rowbotham
Torkel Franzen wrote:
What type of negatives? Are any of them vaguely analogous to proving the
non-existence of a God?
I suspect you are talking about such things as bening able to prove that
a red ball is not green - one can use objective methods to measure
reflected light and conclude that it is most definitely "not green".
I think what James was trying to say (and I hope he'll forgive me for
putting words into his mouth) is that one cannot prove the non-existence
of something. There may be other categories of non-provable negatives,
but this is the biggy I believe.
Matt
Matthew Rowbotham
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> Matthew Rowbotham <matthew....@nospamjesus.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >What type of negatives? Are any of them vaguely analogous to proving the
> >non-existence of a God?
>
> That of course depends on what you count as a "vague analogy".
>
> >I think what James was trying to say (and I hope he'll forgive me for
> >putting words into his mouth) is that one cannot prove the non-existence
> >of something.
>
> Sure you can. If you're talking about proofs proper, such things are
> proved in mathematics all the time. If you mean "conclusively
> establish", non-existence can be conclusively established in any
> number of cases.
>
This is a distinction I haven't come across; please explain what you mean by
'conclusively establish'. I am not interested in scientific/mathematical
proofs, I am more interested in the real world, as it were. Where is the
dividing line between things that can be proven to not exist and those that
cannot be so proven? I'm just curious to know what you mean.
Matt
Torkel Franzen
> This is a distinction I haven't come across; please explain what you mean by
> 'conclusively establish'. I am not interested in scientific/mathematical
> proofs, I am more interested in the real world, as it were.
"Proofs" in the sense of logical deductions from accepted premises
are found only in mathematics. "Proof" in everyday language can refer
to lots of things, such as the results of measurement, a startling
kangaroo produced in court by Perry Mason, a revealing photograph, and so on.
>Where is the
>dividing line between things that can be proven to not exist and those that
>cannot be so proven? I'm just curious to know what you mean.
I don't know of any dividing line. As for what can be proved not to
exist, that of course depends on what you mean by proof. I would guess
that most people would agree that it can be "proved" that there are
(at a given moment) no elephants in Albert Hall.
Karl Senior
> Sorry. One can't prove a negative. You see, as Carl Sagan once said,
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Once a theist makes
the
> extraordinary claim that a god exists, it is incumbent upon the theist to
> provide extraordinary proof to substantiate that claim.
God is an extremely old word. The original thing that was named God may well
exist, but under a different guise. Everything is subjective and todays
meaning may not have been yesteryears.
I can prove neither the existence nor the non existence of god. All I can
say with this extremely limited single perspective is that I do not know.
> Can you imagine the
> difficulty you would have if I made the claim that there does exist a cow
> with a purple hue and expect you to provide the proof that there wasn't?
If a man had been taught thay what we call brown is purple, you would have
an extremely hard time proving to the man that there did not exist any
purple cows.
> You would, quite correctly, expect me to provide my evidence of a purple
> cow. And, further, you would expect some collaboration from a third party
> who had looked at the evidence.
>
> So, kindly produce some evidence of a god and I'll be most happy to peruse
> it. I've been searching for such evidence for nearly sixty years. I
truly
> hope that you have such extraordinary evidence at hand~photos of gods,
> letters, documents, first person interviews.
Your sardonic sarcasm is a great defence for a strongly held point of view.
kindest regards
Karl
:o)
altheim
Torkel Franzen wrote in message ...
>
Examples please.
--
altheim
James A. Temple
"Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
news:vcbd7lv...@beta13.sm.luth.se...
> "James A. Temple" <bev...@flash.net> writes:
>
> > Sorry. One can't prove a negative.
>
> Lots of negatives can be proved.
I'm relatively new to this group, Torkel Franzen. I've not seen your posts
before and am, thusly, not familiar with your views on Humanism. If, in
fact, you are new to this newsgroup also, please let me welcome you to an
extraordinary group of folks who, though often differing in opinion,
continue to attempt to hammer out a basic definition of what a Humanist is
and isn't.
Now, friend, back to this wonderful discussion. Not being an "enlightened"
man, I have no knowledge of how one would prove a negative in the physical
world. You obviously have such knowledge. Rather than your spending the
time required to educate an old man, please allow me to concede the point
and begin again at "extraordinary claims".
You dismissed my entire thought because of one element; one of which you
claim superior knowledge:
>I have no objection to the comeback "The non-existence of God cannot
>be proved", but the claim that this is so because "you cannot prove
>a negative" is completely bogus.
I have read my original post over several times now and, for the life of me,
I can find no instance of a claim of the non-existence of a god attributed
to the inability of proving a negative. I can only find my statement
"..can't prove a negative" relative to "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof". I go on further to illustrate the difficulty of
proving a negative by suggesting the extraordinary claim of a "purple" cow.
Karl Senior rejoins, in essence, that this discussion is not tenable because
all peoples of the world do not accept the color purple in the same fashion.
If, in fact, we could canvass the entire population of planet earth and come
to a consensus that the mixture of the basic (requires further definition)
colors of red and blue produce a color that we may define as purple, I fear
then that we should be required to begin our canvass again to come to a
consensus of the word cow. I've conferred with my spouse and two neighbors
and, amazingly, we concur on both words. That concurrence, however, is not
definitive and could be attributed to the group of us living in a
"backwards" area of the Colonies. Aware of my severe limitations, let me
suggest that we accept the definition of both "purple" and "cow" that would
be proffered by any fifth grader in the United Kingdom.
>I don't know of any dividing line. As for what can be proved not to
>exist, that of course depends on what you mean by proof. I would guess
>that most people would agree that it can be "proved" that there are
>(at a given moment) no elephants in Albert Hall.
If I may be so bold, kind Sir, allow me to use your example of "proving
negatives" rather than my untenable "purple cow" offering. I should hold
that either of the statements, "There are elephants in Albert Hall (at a
given time)." or "There are no elephants in Albert Hall (at a given time)."
are exemplary in our discussion of "extraordinary claims". In my humble
opinion, the claimant of the first need merely to produce one elephant in
Albert Hall at any time in order to prove his/her claim. On the other hand,
(depending on the size of Albert Hall), I can envision a legion of
volunteers, working in shifts for a lifetime, passing the position down from
one generation to the next, never wavering in attentiveness for one second
in order to prove that "thus far, there are no elephants in Albert Hall. As
Sol reddens and swell in her dying moments, just before turning Mercury,
Venus, Mars and Earth into charring cinders, the last of the elephant
detectives of Albert Hall may take the smoking podium and declare "There are
no goddamn elephants in Albert Hall at any given goddamn time". I suppose
you're right, negatives can be proved, but don't they require a tremendous
amount of proof? Again, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
I disdain attempting to prove the negative, "There is no god". If there are
those among us who hold that a god exists, produce one or any evidence of
one and the matter will be closed forever. But, in the meantime, shall we
go a along together, not trying to impose our position on one another, doing
what we can to improve the lot of all?
James A. Temple
"Karl Senior" <karl.s...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Owa%4.682$Ne2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> > Sorry. One can't prove a negative. You see, as Carl Sagan once said,
> > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Once a theist makes
> the
> > extraordinary claim that a god exists, it is incumbent upon the theist
to
> > provide extraordinary proof to substantiate that claim.
>
> God is an extremely old word. The original thing that was named God may
well
> exist, but under a different guise. Everything is subjective and todays
> meaning may not have been yesteryears.
I agree, kind friend. Please permit me to add that I was using the word
"god" as it appears in current use.
> I can prove neither the existence nor the non existence of god. All I can
> say with this extremely limited single perspective is that I do not know.
>
> > Can you imagine the
> > difficulty you would have if I made the claim that there does exist a
cow
> > with a purple hue and expect you to provide the proof that there wasn't?
>
> If a man had been taught thay what we call brown is purple, you would have
> an extremely hard time proving to the man that there did not exist any
> purple cows.
>
>
> > You would, quite correctly, expect me to provide my evidence of a purple
> > cow. And, further, you would expect some collaboration from a third
party
> > who had looked at the evidence.
> >
> > So, kindly produce some evidence of a god and I'll be most happy to
peruse
> > it. I've been searching for such evidence for nearly sixty years. I
> truly
> > hope that you have such extraordinary evidence at hand~photos of gods,
> > letters, documents, first person interviews.
>
> Your sardonic sarcasm is a great defence for a strongly held point of
view.
Oh, Karl, my friend, I certainly wasn't attempting "sarcasm". Did you
overlook or just fail to copy my immediate apology?
>> Please allow me to apologize for what seems to be a flippant request
since I >>already know that such evidence does not exist. I merely want to
point out that I >>can accept you just as you are, Nick, "believing" in a
god as a act of faith rather >>than"accepting" a god as a result of proof.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
Torkel Franzen
>I can find no instance of a claim of the non-existence of a god attributed
>to the inability of proving a negative.
Nor did I find any such. What I objected to was the claim that
the non-existence of God cannot be proved because "you cannot prove
a negative". This claim I attributed to you on the basis of the
passage
>>What is your evidence that there definitely isn't a God?
>Sorry. One can't prove a negative
>On the other hand,
>(depending on the size of Albert Hall), I can envision a legion of
>volunteers, working in shifts for a lifetime, passing the position down from
>one generation to the next, never wavering in attentiveness for one second
>in order to prove that "thus far, there are no elephants in Albert
>Hall.
Why is that? A simple inspection is sufficient.
Karl Senior
> well
> > exist, but under a different guise. Everything is subjective and todays
> > meaning may not have been yesteryears.
>
> I agree, kind friend. Please permit me to add that I was using the word
> "god" as it appears in current use.
>
god is as subjective as the word ball. If you do not believe this, ask a
hundred people for their definition of god. It's the same as me asking you
now to picture a ball in your head, you can bet your boots that it's a
different ball to the one I'm thinking of. So if you talk to someone about
god, it is imperative to first find out what their definition of god is, in
that way you can talk along the same wavelength and prevent religious
arguments probably similar to those that created the first and on going
religions wars.
I hope this makes sense. After having read all the major religions texts (to
see what all the fuss was about!), they all seem to me to point to leading a
harmonious way of life. Different cultures across the globe some at
different times and some at similar times, all writing books and teachings
highlight a common theme; what is interesting to me about this is what was
the influence? When you find an answer, then what do you call it? Some maybe
called it Jehova, some Allah, some Atman, some The Tao, some Krishna, some
God....blah,blah, blah......
If a hundred people had invented the wheel would it matter what the wheel
was called or would it matter more what could be done with it?
Sorry if I've rattled on.
Kind regards
Karl
:o)
Nick White
> "James A. Temple" <bev...@flash.net> writes:
>
> >I can find no instance of a claim of the non-existence of a god
attributed
> >to the inability of proving a negative.
>
> Nor did I find any such. What I objected to was the claim that
> the non-existence of God cannot be proved because "you cannot prove
> a negative". This claim I attributed to you on the basis of the
> passage
>
I agree this was my point to begin with that you can prove a negative. That
is the mathematical way! Therefore the non existence of God cannot be
dismissed by saying that you can't prove a negative. And until you prove the
negative you cant dismiss the positive. That is maths for you.
The thing is that there are fores and againsts on both sides of the
argument. I agree with you James that if someone claims there is a God that
the evidence has to be extraordinary.
Christians would not have a problem with that in saying that is exactly the
nature of Jesus Christ. Extra...Ordinary ie miracles, fulfillment of
prophecy, supernatural interaction(baptism, desert, garden gesthemane,
death, resurrection, assention) etc.
These are the extraordinary claims of people who believe in a deity who
showed himself in the form of both God and Man(extraordinary in itself) and
backed it up with extraordinary love, extraordinary insight, & extraordinary
sacrifice.
Des
The verb prove can of course mean many things and whilst I agree that a
certain level of precision is a good thing, an excess can lead to charges of
pedantry ;-)
Prove in the mathematical or logical sense means to establish the truth of a
proposition through a sequence of statements each in turn of which can be
validly derived from some formal axiomatic system. In this sense, proof is
more of an unfolding or rearrangement of the minimum set of axioms needed to
define the formal system. The initial set of axioms has to be accepted
without proof based on inductive reasoning or faith.
Proof in the sense that I believe Jim is using it here is similar to the
notion of proof in the physical sciences which is really more about
discovery. In this sense of the word, you can only discover that something
exists you can't discover that it doesn't exist.
IMO truth is about pursuing the consequences of things which we have already
discovered - such as formal mathematical systems (or informal belief
systems) as well as about discovering new truths through observation and
experiment (and discussion).
I'm not at all sure whether the existence or not of God (he deserves the big
G if he exists!) is something which can be found from what we already know
or whether we need more powerful telescopes with which to look further out.
Thomas Aquinas (I believe) postulated many centuries ago that both routes
were available for finding God. Perhaps both routes are also available for
losing him.
Des
Torkel Franzen
>In this sense of the word, you can only discover that something
>exists you can't discover that it doesn't exist.
Nonsense. I can discover that there is - contrary to my fond
expectation - no elephant in Albert Hall by carrying out an inspection.
James A. Temple
> "James A. Temple" <bev...@flash.net> writes:
>>I can find no instance of a claim of the non-existence of a god attributed
>>to the inability of proving a negative.
>Nor did I find any such. What I objected to was the claim that the
non-existence of >God cannot be proved because "you cannot prove a
negative". This claim I ?>attributed to you on the basis of the passage:
(exchange?)
Uh, you didn't find any such and you object on that basis anyway?
>>>What is your evidence that there definitely isn't a God?
>>Sorry. One can't prove a negative
Fascinating. I concede that I can't prove that there isn't a god and you
and Nick understand it to mean that I purport that my
inability-to-prove-the-non-existence-of-a- god stands as my justification
for declaring the non-existence of a god! Would the substitution of the
word "I" for the word "One" clarify my point for you gentlemen?
In any event, I should like to concede the point to you and to our good
friend, Nick. Perhaps we could prove that there isn't a god. But a number
of things prevent me from trying of which I should like to present only two:
1) As in the case of the facetious Albert Hall elephants, I feel that the
burden of proof of a claim rests with the claimant.
>>On the other hand, (depending on the size of Albert Hall), I can envision
a legion >>of volunteers, working in shifts for a lifetime, passing the
position down from one >>generation to the next, never wavering in
attentiveness for one second in order to >>prove that "thus far, there are
no elephants in Albert Hall.
> Why is that? A simple inspection is sufficient.
Ah, but what about the fourth dimension, that of "time"? Follow this
rambling if you can:
Supposing that I were the original claimant , "There are elephants in Albert
Hall". Further supposing that the elephant of my claim wasn't described by
me to be of the "pink" hue, (that is, "pink" as it is normally accepted only
by the majority of the fifth graders in the UK), that you, Nick, and Karl
had responded "Preposterous!" (as I probably would under the same
circumstances). Lastly, please suppose that I demanded, "Prove that there
are not!"
With cellular phones, "walkie/talkies" (Althiem, old friend, I'm afraid I
dated myself with that last one!), computers, etc., I suppose that, again
depending on the size of Albert Hall, a dedicated group of searchers could
produce the scenario of the following fantasy: "Unit one reporting in--no
elephants in the broom closet. Unit two--none in the boiler room; etc".
Thus at the end of such exercise, the one in charge could very well declare
( if no elephants were found), that "during the hours and minutes of so and
so, on the date of so and so, no elephants were found in Albert Hall".
Confident of the findings, the group could approach me only the hear me
exclaim, "One just slipped in as you were delivering your message." Or,
"What about the Invisible Elephant?" Or, "Oh yeah, what about tomorrow?
I'm certain that elephants will be in evidence in Albert Hall tomorrow." Or
next year. Or whenever.
Frankly, I feel that you good men would, with kindness and gentleness,
suggest that I produce some evidence of the presence of an elephant since I
was the claimant. And that nonsense brings me to~
2) The enormous effort required to canvass every person on earth, to look
into every nook and cranny, under each rock, leaf, etc., searching for a
(most-of-the-time-invisible) deity for the balance of time that this planet
will support life in order to prove that there isn't a god staggers the
imagination! This is one negative that, as my friend, Matthew Rowbotham, so
succinctly states, "is a 'biggy'". I beg your indulgence to allow me to
state unequivocally that "there are some negatives that defy proof."
Further, allow me to explain that such a declaration has no bearing upon the
proof of the existence or absence of a god. Only the declaration of the
existence of a god would demand extraordinary proof; demanding proof of a
negative declaration "There is no god" would be tantamount to demanding that
a human being, unassisted in any way, walk on water.
Des
Ah yes, but how do you know there isn't just a tiny tiny little elephant
somewhere that you missed?
OK I accept a lack of precision on my part.
You can of course draw the reasonable conclusion that there is no elephant
and you may reasonably call this proof.
However, strictly speaking, what you are really doing is falsifying a
collection of assertions of the form "there is an elephant at this location
and this measurement procedure will reveal it" You then put all these
falsifications together and contend that you have falsified the assertion
that there is an elephant in the Albert Hall - proved there is no elephant.
Now if you applied this reasoning to many good conjuring tricks you might be
forced to draw the conclusion that supernatural powers were at work -
whereas the problem actually lay in your measurement procedure.
To be fair, we can't rule out the possibility of an error in the measurement
procedure producing a false positive. So maybe we had one too many and we
only thought we saw an elephant. Generally however such measurement errors
can in principle be removed or reduced through repetition. However, I will
admit that even this is not without some risk. Nothing is ever simple, we
are I'm afraid always going to have to rely on some element of subjective
judgement - call it faith.
So I guess, if you push it, I'll have to concede this one.
But at the end of the day there's no substitute for a little human common
sense.
Des
Torkel Franzen
> Uh, you didn't find any such and you object on that basis anyway?
Nope. I did not object to any claim of the non-existence of a god
attributed to the inability of proving a negative. I objected to the
claim of the impossibility of proving the non-existence of a god
based on the impossibility of proving a negative.
> Ah, but what about the fourth dimension, that of "time"?
Hence my comment, at a given time. As for invisible elephants and
such, they were simply not at issue.
john langford
no elephants in the Albert Hall.....But...hang on a minute....do you mean
real elephants? Those great big things? What about those little wooden
elephants that come from India? The ever diminishing in size elephants... do
they count? Or a picture of an elephant. One thing I've learned from this
NG is that you have to dot every i and cross every t — you've got to get it
right or the 'nit pickers' will have a ball.
Re. God — of course he exists — in the minds of others. As I have mentioned
elsewhere in this NG you must define exactly what you are talking about. A
God can be perceived as an old man sitting on a cloud by some, or a
mathematical equation by others. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this NG,
if you were to describe God as something that is in all of us, something
that sits on your shoulder and nags at you every time you go to do, or have
done, something wrong, then I would have to say that I believe in God. But I
certainly don't go along with the one in the bible, or any other that has
supernatural powers and exists outside of me.
John = Cornwall Humanists + BHA
Oh yes... and he say that homosexuality is alright, — alright?
Danny Collman
>the evidence has to be extraordinary.
>
>Christians would not have a problem with that in saying that is exactly the
>nature of Jesus Christ. Extra...Ordinary ie miracles, fulfillment of
>prophecy, supernatural interaction(baptism, desert, garden gesthemane,
>death, resurrection, assention) etc.
>These are the extraordinary claims of people who believe in a deity who
>showed himself in the form of both God and Man(extraordinary in itself) and
>backed it up with extraordinary love, extraordinary insight, & extraordinary
>sacrifice.
No, I think you need to say rather, that "These are the extraordinary
claims of people who believe in a deity who...." was written about in a
particular book, which has a series of four narratives concerning this
particular man. Only the final narrative (Gospel of John), which is
highly theological in its nature, comes even anywhere near suggesting
that Jesus was Divine (ie God and human) - and those suggestions are
merely suggestions, not statements.
The 3 Synoptic Gospels don't come anywhere near describing him as such.
Further, he did not 'show himself' in those stories - three men wrote
about him - two of them copying the first with their own embellishments.
Does this mean that I'm saying I don't believe them? Yes, that is what
it means: there is absolutely NO independent contemporary evidence to
back up the Gospel writers' claims, and the Gospel Writers were writing
a generation after the supposed events. They were writing theology, not
history.
--
Danny Collman
James A. Temple
I feel as an artist must when, upon completing a painting on which he/she
has spent a great deal of effort, folks walk around it and say, "That's a
nice tree". 'Cept it was a mushroom. I'm convinced that I've got a short
some where in my remaining gray matter. Can one syllable words be so very
hard to understand?
Last ditch effort--you claim that a god exists? Prove it, if you desire to
try. Ignore the challenge, if you desire. But don't speak to me of
fantasies without facts and expect me to prove that the fantasies aren't
real. We've got too much to do to improve the state of ourselves and our
neighbors without wasting time on semantics~and we can do it better together
than individually.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
"Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
news:vcbhfb5...@beta13.sm.luth.se...
Torkel Franzen
> Last ditch effort--you claim that a god exists? Prove it, if you desire to
> try. Ignore the challenge, if you desire. But don't speak to me of
> fantasies without facts and expect me to prove that the fantasies aren't
> real.
There is no reason as far as I know why you should prove anything
about the unreality of fantasies, or about the reality of
un-fantasies, or about anything at all. My sole contribution to the
discussion has been the claim that whatever grounds there may be
for the assertion "the non-existence of God or a god cannot be
proved" - and there may be excellent grounds - the old formula
"you cannot prove a negative" is completely worthless as a
proposed justification for the assertion.
James A. Temple
Langford, Brendan, John Davies, et al, for your kind and supportive remarks
on this thread. While the entire project seems to have been a complete
waste of energy and time, I am persuaded that the effort merely gives
Humanists an excellent opportunity to study the various tactics used by
theists in a serious debate in which they have absolutely no chance of
winning and no choice of losing.
Semantics, definitions, ignoring direct questions~all abuses against common
sense used to prop up a lie given merit only by fanatical "belief". But,
far more importantly, dear friends, notice in your review of the entirety of
this thread that on THREE occasions I offered the view that, while it was
obvious that we could never come to an agreement about the subject, we
should agree to carry on together for in an effort to improve the lot of
mankind whenever and wherever we can. Not ONE comment, one word of
acknowledgment was offered by Torkel, Nick, or Karl Senior toward that end.
It is as it has always been: "Believe as I believe and be accepted or don't
believe as I believe and no work of yours, however fine, will be
acceptable." Pity.
There may be a better condensed version of the central theme of Humanism
somewhere in this newsgroup, but I don't think so. Each Humanist attempted
to get solid, factual answers to serious questions and none were
forthcoming. The offer was repeatedly made to carry on together in spite of
lack of agreement and it was repeatedly ignored. Fellow humanists, you make
me very proud. In the face of infuriating non-response and frustrating
segues, you responded politely, pleasantly, and firmly without rancor.
While we will never persuade these three fine adversaries to accept our
position, I do hope that their philosophy of "belief without substantiation"
serves them well. Further, that it will encourage them to do whatever they
can for the benefit of mankind, even if that encouragement comes from the
threat of eternal torture or promise of eternal reward that is a part of
their philosophy. No matter the motivation; the beneficial results are
still desired.
Finally, what have I learned from this exercise in futility? The same
lesson that each of us has learned on so many occasions. Whenever we
respond to "bait" with reason and common sense, we wind up angry,
frustrated, bitter, and worse, reclusive. I vow henceforth to use Danny
Collman's wonderful newsgroup as a forum to distill the values and goals of
Humanism; to encourage others in their search for a sustaining life
philosophy sans god, but only at their request; to politely and sincerely
answer serious questions about Humanism proffered by theists; and never to
be drawn in to a senseless, time-wasting, deadend debate that accomplishes
nothing.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
"Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
news:vcbu2f4...@beta13.sm.luth.se...
Des
Thanks for the thanks but I'm not sure I really merit it.
I think you are probably making wrong assumptions about Torkel's religious
beliefs but I'll let him answer for those.
More importantly though, I would urge you not to be too harsh on those
(including myself) who enjoy the cut and thrust of a good debate including
those that can become bogged down in "semantic" details. I view Usenet as a
really useful forum for this particular type of debate - which could rapidly
lose you all friends if conducted to the same depth on social occasions.
Being forced to justify your assertions and opinions right down to the last
detail is a really enriching experience. You don't have to get drawn in -
but we all do of course. And you can always spot the trouble maker and give
them a wide berth.
I for one enjoy reading your postings so I hope your last post doesn't mean
we'll see less in future.
Des
James A. Temple
address". I fully intend to generate tomes of "unenlightened" speculation
for you and my other kindred spirits on this fine newsgroup to dismiss,
accept or ignore as your/their "lights" suggest.
As to a good "fight" (thankfully, a verbal fight at my age, but there was a
time here in Texas...oh, never mind), it does, indeed, "quicken the blood"
with a fine mixture of testosterone, adrenaline and good bourbon whiskey.
(And the world thinks that gasoline and oxygen are powerful, HAH!) As you
so correctly point out, the skills of rhetoric, brevity, reason,
elucidation, etc. are honed in a rousing debate. It is not my nature to
shrink from a good debate, knowing at the outset that the tools I bring to
the fray are limited, dated, worn out, insufficient even when they were new.
In any other forum other than one of Humanism, I doubt that I could mentally
recover from "wounds" inflicted upon my psyche during even a minor skirmish.
But here, away from the world of unreality, bantering with friends of a
common and, yet, evolving philosophy, testing, tasting, sniffing, as it
were, all the delicacies offered at this wonderful smorgasbord of uncommon
sense and reasoning~ah, my friend, I am daily recharged, no, heartened by
the Humanist postings. I have often observed that when a "jab" or "cut"
becomes too personal or is perceived to have "hurt" an adversary, the
Humanist quickly renders a few pleasant words of kindness, even
encouragement, before the contest is rejoined. I love that!
You are much too modest, my friend, about your contributions. Though our
philosophy with regard to religion may parallel in many cases, I find that I
disagree with your conclusions about other aspects of life more often than
not. I've read with interest your posts, watched you get more and more
involved in a thread wherein it seems that you have no choice but to
surrender the point, and yet you sally forth with dignity and grace, often
cooling the "atmosphere" with kind words and agreement. That, to me, is a
sign of great character. I'm truly honored to be associated with men and
women of that noble reflection.
Thank you for your kind remonstrance on "not being too harsh" on you,
Torkel, Nick, or Karl. Perish the thought! I would expect of each of you,
your very best in defense of your personal philosophy. The only person
involved in the wonderful recent "set-to" who disappointed me is "me"! To
allow myself to be involved in a debate based on semantics is childish on my
part. I shall endeavor not to do so again. (Kindly remind me of that
pledge when you observe me slipping.)
And, finally, to my more than worthy adversaries in this one instance,
hopefully colleagues in another, please accept my earnest apologies if I
have offended any of you. Any perceived offense is the result of ignorance,
not malice.
It has been a while since I pissed off my dear cyberfriend, Altheim. I'll
lurk for a moment or two and attempt to bait him into a defenseless
position. Gad! the scars we inflict while professing "love".
My best regards to you all.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
Oh, it seems that I have slipped from the Texas vernacular that is my normal
fare. To some it may appear too "affected". To others, it may represent
the common language of my local peers. Have any of you a preference? I'd
be at home complyin' in either fashion. Fact is, I'd be tickled to read a
post 'r two in the dialect of the senders neighborhood. Might require a tad
bit of 'terpretation, though.
"Des" <d...@removegrenfell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:960454630.16376.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Nick White
James A. Temple <bev...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:5pI%4.5952$Md1.3...@news.flash.net...
> Many thanks to Matthew Rowbotham, Des, Altheim, Danny Collman, John
> Langford, Brendan, John Davies, et al, for your kind and supportive
remarks
> on this thread. While the entire project seems to have been a complete
> waste of energy and time, I am persuaded that the effort merely gives
> Humanists an excellent opportunity to study the various tactics used by
> theists in a serious debate in which they have absolutely no chance of
> winning and no choice of losing.
were being competetive rather that broad minded how foolish of you to think
that you are so right! I haven't lost anything i believe in something and
you believe that there is nothing to believe in so who really wins? I think
that we both input into the world we both do good things, we act well
because we want to see things happen or ideas reflected. How does winning
come into this? I dont see it. If anything is futile it is your point here.
>
> Semantics, definitions, ignoring direct questions~all abuses against
common
> sense used to prop up a lie given merit only by fanatical "belief". But,
> far more importantly, dear friends, notice in your review of the entirety
of
> this thread that on THREE occasions I offered the view that, while it was
> obvious that we could never come to an agreement about the subject, we
> should agree to carry on together for in an effort to improve the lot of
> mankind whenever and wherever we can. Not ONE comment, one word of
> acknowledgment was offered by Torkel, Nick, or Karl Senior toward that
end.
> It is as it has always been: "Believe as I believe and be accepted or
don't
> believe as I believe and no work of yours, however fine, will be
> acceptable." Pity.
You don't have to believe as I do but you may want to consider the call to
belief,trust and faith that comes from Jesus!!!! Matt 4:19 "Come follow me"
Also it just depend on how you want to better mankind and how you can see
it come about. You didn't address these issues! Christians see it being made
a reality in reflecting the love that has come from God in Christ. From whom
laws, values and ways of relating were given to man so that they could
indeed form a society the way God wanted it in love, acceptance, peace and
unity. Man rebels against this and is the why we have so many problems. We
need help if we want to make head way in making society better we got it in
Jesus.
> There may be a better condensed version of the central theme of Humanism
> somewhere in this newsgroup, but I don't think so. Each Humanist
attempted
> to get solid, factual answers to serious questions and none were
> forthcoming. The offer was repeatedly made to carry on together in spite
of
> lack of agreement and it was repeatedly ignored. Fellow humanists, you
make
> me very proud. In the face of infuriating non-response and frustrating
> segues, you responded politely, pleasantly, and firmly without rancor.
>
> While we will never persuade these three fine adversaries to accept our
> position, I do hope that their philosophy of "belief without
substantiation"
> serves them well. Further, that it will encourage them to do whatever
they
> can for the benefit of mankind, even if that encouragement comes from the
> threat of eternal torture or promise of eternal reward that is a part of
> their philosophy. No matter the motivation; the beneficial results are
> still desired.
This really does show your lack of understanding of Religions. Christians
believe that it is by grace that you are saved! A free gift!! You can do
good things for the world, for humanity, the physical, temporal world that
is great and i admonish it. But Christians would say if you try to use them
as credit points for salvation in the spiritual realm that lasts for
eternity then you have missed the point of Gods sacrifice in Jesus Christ!
William Jenkyns confirms this in his quote "We're not justified in doing
Good, but in being Justified we do Good!" Ref Ephesians 2:8-10
The fact is that you can't just say that the existence of God is
unsubstanciated. I think that you were annoyed at Torkel because he made the
fine point that you can't just say that you cant prove a negative and then
say therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist. You could prove it if
you had evidence! The thing is the non existence of God would have been
proven long before this time if there was any evidence. Therefore if you say
my claims of existence are unsubstanciated then your claims of nonexistence
are equally unsubstanciated.
> Finally, what have I learned from this exercise in futility? The same
> lesson that each of us has learned on so many occasions. Whenever we
> respond to "bait" with reason and common sense, we wind up angry,
> frustrated, bitter, and worse, reclusive. I vow henceforth to use Danny
> Collman's wonderful newsgroup as a forum to distill the values and goals
of
> Humanism; to encourage others in their search for a sustaining life
> philosophy sans god, but only at their request; to politely and sincerely
> answer serious questions about Humanism proffered by theists; and never to
> be drawn in to a senseless, time-wasting, deadend debate that accomplishes
> nothing.
I hope that this wasn't a waste of time in fact i think that was a great
discussion i am disappointed that you had to go and divide us into groups at
the top of the page. Is this news group about discriminating against
theists? You showed division, oppression and slander even though you claim
to be so moral.
Maybe i should be congratulating the others in being bold enough not to just
accept your absence of God doctine as truth. I think that they made points
that do have a substanciation and that were clearly described and presented
but you just got annoyed and used harsh sarcasm. I wasn't baiting you I was
trying to discuss the existence of God thats all.
Your with love
Nick
Des
The thing that troubles me most about people who believe in god is not that
they believe in god in general but that they believe in a specific god.
There seems to be a very (>90+%) strong correlation between the god of the
parents and the god of the children. It's difficult not to draw the
conclusion that there is very little objective analysis going on in the
heads of many such believers - but what do I know.
I've tried to argue against absolute secularism and a denial of the
spiritual. There's even a part of me that says that religious belief is to
be preferred above the total nihilism that I see so much of these days. I
also admit to having some fond memories of my days as an altar boy, the
smell of the incense and all the marvellous mysteries like
transubstantiation and plenary indulgences - ah halcyon days.
However we are supposed to be thinking intelligent adults in these
discussions not thumb sucking children. It is our duty to examine the
beliefs we inherit and compare them with others and with the knowledge we
gain from an examination of our physical world. In this light, the balance
of probability (to put it mildly) is that the bible and many other religious
works are almost 100% wrong in matters of fact and detail. I've watched so
many people try to wriggle on this hook and have concluded that these people
have a lack of intellectual courage rather than a surfeit of divine faith.
You can't look to science to provide a final answer to all our questions but
you can't ignore what it tells us either.
Isn't it about time the major religions of the world abandoned all their
claims to truth and simply limited themselves to espousing their values
instead. We mind find then that there was actually quite a large consensus.
Des
Torkel Franzen
>In this light, the balance
>of probability (to put it mildly) is that the bible and many other religious
>works are almost 100% wrong in matters of fact and detail.
What matters of fact do you have in mind here?
Matthew Rowbotham
on how you look at it) point
Nick White wrote:
>
<loads snipped>
>
> The fact is that you can't just say that the existence of God is
> unsubstanciated. I think that you were annoyed at Torkel because he made the
> fine point that you can't just say that you cant prove a negative and then
> say therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist. You could prove it if
> you had evidence! The thing is the non existence of God would have been
> proven long before this time if there was any evidence.
RUBBISH! Give me a way - any way - in which the nonexistence of a god can be
proved?
Prove to me, for example, that Baloo, the bear god of the islanders of Gulibull,
does not exist.
> Therefore if you say
> my claims of existence are unsubstanciated then your claims of nonexistence
> are equally unsubstanciated.
Rubbish rubbish rubbish.
The only 'physical world' negatives which have been shown to be provable are
localised ones - local both temporally and spatially.
The god you claim is meant to be both eternal and omnipresent. I can't prove
that he doesn't exist *anywhere* because it would be impossible to verify such a
claim - the Albert Hall analogy breaks down when the localised area is much
bigger than, say, a village.
It is impossible for me to prove the non-existence of god. The default
assumption must therefore be that there is no God (because the alternative would
be irrebuttable - which would be no use at all). Therefore the onus is on
religious people to show the existence of a god.
And you can't use a religious text to prove ANYTHING! So please stop quoting
them because they depend upon FAITH! That's like me showing you a map of the
earth when it was considered to be flat, and trying to use it to prove that the
earth is flat.
I will say now that it is impossible to prove that something does not, and never
has existed throughout the universe. Would someone care to contradict me?
Please stop trying to equate a belief in god with a disbelief in god. One is a
product of faith, the other a product of reason. I may be wrong, but if I am it
will not be through faulty logic. You may be right, but I'd rather be wrong and
stick to my principles than be gullible and happen to be right.
I've had plenty of Christians try to persuade me towards faith. My usual
question to them is then "Have you had personal experience of God?" to which
they usually reply yes. I then tell them that my principles do not allow me to
accept someone else's subjective proof because I know the mind can be fooled. At
the same time, I personally have not experienced god in any way. Therefore why
should I make that leap of faith against all my principles?
Matt
Torkel Franzen
>The only 'physical world' negatives which have been shown to be provable are
>localised ones - local both temporally and spatially.
Yes, but we can also give reasons, normally regarded as conclusive,
for holding e.g. that there does not exist a perpetuum mobile
anywhere.
This said, I quite agree that it's senseless to demand a "proof that
there is no God", and that it is in no way an argument supporting
theism that no "proof that there is no God" can be presented.
>It is impossible for me to prove the non-existence of god. The default
>assumption must therefore be that there is no God (because the
>alternative would be irrebuttable - which would be no use at all).
This, however, is not convincing. It's quite impossible for me to
prove that there isn't life on some planet in the Andromeda galaxy, but
that doesn't mean that my default assumption must be that there isn't.
Rather, I don't assume anything about the matter.
Nick White
> I stuffed up here i confused admonish with encourage or endorse!!!! Sorry
i guess that shows my bad vocab ok hope you can understand it now
Nick
> This really does show your lack of understanding of Religions. Christians
> believe that it is by grace that you are saved! A free gift!! You can do
> good things for the world, for humanity, the physical, temporal world that
Matthew Rowbotham
I see your point, but remember that the claims are of a personal god who plays a
part in our daily lives (answering prayers/performing miracles/forgiving sins
yadda yadda). I think it's quite reasonable to have a default assumption in this
respect.
I am quite willing to have absolutely no assumptions on a god who lives far far
away and doesn't give a toss about mere earthlings :-)
Matt
Torkel Franzen
> Just a very quick list from memory and without extensive revision :-
>
> OT
> Creation story
> Flood
> Exodus
>
> to name only a few
Many Christians have no problem with the view that these are all
myths, in some cases (flood, exodus) perhaps loosely connected with
historical events.
> NT
> Birth and upbringing of Christ
> Miracles
> Details of crucifixion and burial
> Resurrection details
Many Christians have no problem with the view that the accounts of
the life of Christ contain invention, misunderstanding, incorrect
traditions, contradictions. They would say that the central message
of the Gospels is not dependent on these details.
Des
> Many Christians have no problem with the view that the accounts of
> the life of Christ contain invention, misunderstanding, incorrect
> traditions, contradictions. They would say that the central message
> of the Gospels is not dependent on these details.
And what would they say the central message of the Gospels was?
And why would they give this more credit than the messages of other
religions or no religions at all?
Des
Des
No comment on correlation between faith of parents and children.
Then..
Just a very quick list from memory and without extensive revision :-
OT
Creation story
Flood
Exodus
to name only a few
NT
Birth and upbringing of Christ
Miracles
Details of crucifixion and burial
Resurrection details
In the case of the NT it looks very much like the differences in the 4 major
accounts (ignoring the Gnostics) are based more on political and cultural
motivations than a desire to give an accurate narrative - which would of
course be difficult anyway given the period of time that had elapsed and the
need (for the most part) to rely on hearsay.
Torkel Franzen
> I see your point, but remember that the claims are of a personal god
> who plays a part in our daily lives (answering prayers/performing
> miracles/forgiving sins yadda yadda). I think it's quite reasonable
> to have a default assumption in this respect.
I would prefer to say, rather, that if there is such a God, he
doesn't bother me, and I don't bother him, so it's all one whether
he exists or not. But the distinction between this and your
"default assumption" is no doubt a fine one...
Torkel Franzen
>And what would they say the central message of the Gospels was?
I'm not really qualified to say, but I'm pretty sure that the
special relation of Jesus to both God and humanity is essential
to Christian doctrine.
>And why would they give this more credit than the messages of other
>religions or no religions at all?
That's another kettle of fish entirely. I was responding to your
suggestion that factual and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible
should prompt Christians to promote "values" rather than religious
doctrine.
James A. Temple
"Nick White" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:8hq9j2$shf$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> You don't have to believe as I do but you may want to consider the call to
> belief,trust and faith that comes from Jesus!!!! Matt 4:19 "Come follow
me"
Thank you, Nick. I perceive that your kind offer is made through love.
Please be assured that haven't made my decision to declare myself a Humanist
without years and years of study and self-reflection. I hope you understand
that my decision not to accept a life philosopy based on "belief without
substantiation" is not meant as an affront to anyone who chooses to do so.
I must tell you that, here in Texas, in my old guitar store, my red-necked
pals all profess the Christian faith, to a man. In fact, one is a Baptist
minister. All are aware that I am a Humanist. We continue to love each
other and assist each other at every opportunity. I truly hope that you and
I can come to that very arrangement~that we can accept each other, warts and
all, and continue together, each trying to do his best to improve the lot of
mankind.
> Also it just depend on how you want to better mankind and how you can see
> it come about. You didn't address these issues!
Therein lies the problem, my friend. My post wasn't concerned with "how to
better mankind". The point with which I was concerned was "The difficulty
of proving a negative". It think would make an interesting thread to
contemplate the ways to assist mankind but my post had nothing to say on
that matter. I must be honest and tell you that, even though I have
experienced it many times, it still grates on me to be chastized for
something I didn't do or say. I didn't address those issues because the
thread didn't concern them.
> Christians see it being made
> a reality in reflecting the love that has come from God in Christ. From
whom
> laws, values and ways of relating were given to man so that they could
> indeed form a society the way God wanted it in love, acceptance, peace and
> unity. Man rebels against this and is the why we have so many problems. We
> need help if we want to make head way in making society better we got it
in
> Jesus.
I fully understand that, as a Christian, you are taught that the greatest
activity that you can perform for the good of mankind is to present the
Christian religion and offer others the opportunity for "salvation" (Go ye,
therefore, into all nations, teaching them to observe....). I, OTOH, will
disdain from promoting my philosophy as I do what we can for others.
Really? And you are allowed to say that the existence of God is
substantiated? Why the double standard? I and, perhaps, others hold that we
have never seen the existence of any god or gods during a lifetime of
experience and study. Yet, we should be required to accept substantiation
on the word of you and other "believers"?
>I think that you were annoyed at Torkel because he made the
> fine point that you can't just say that you cant prove a negative and then
> say therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist. You could prove it
if
> you had evidence! The thing is the non existence of God would have been
> proven long before this time if there was any evidence.
Oh, Nick, thank you for giving me one more shot at that declaration. First,
allow me to say that, I, personally, Jim Temple, cannot prove a negative.
Nor do I have any desire to attempt to prove a negative. I have neither the
time, education, or resources required to prove a negative. It is
completely beyond my ability to do so.
Second, the declaration, "God doesn't exist" is a negative. If you accept
that I have been honest in my first statement, you can readily see that it
is beyond my (and, perhaps, mine alone) ability to prove that particular
negative declaration.
Third, (Here I am compelled to paste your statement again for clarity;
please forgive the redundance.).(...you can't just say that you cant prove a
negative and then
say therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist) You and Torkul both
make this statement and it completely baffles me. Let me examine the
statement further:
Jim Temple admits that he can not prove a negative. Jim Temple states a
negative, "God does not exist". By substitution: Jim Temple admits that he
cannot prove "God does not exist".
Shouldn't you, Torkul and all the "believers" who had knowledge of that
admission be pleased? And, further, Nick, if you have ever had occasion to
accept anything I write as "truth", then please accept this: If I could
prove a negative and, if as a result of that ability, I could prove that a
god or gods did not exist, I would find it extra-ordinarily difficult not to
present such proof to the world at-large. What a burden that would place
upon me. Destroy the basic tenet of ever major religion in the world merely
for the self-satisfaction of doing so? I don't believe I could ever be that
selfish; and, yet, if it were true, shouldn't the world face up to the fact?
No, my friend, I cannot prove a negative; I cannot prove that a god does not
exist.
Fourth: My ultimate points were and are: 1) I do not claim that a god
exists. 2) Extra -ordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 3) I cannot
prove a negative. 4) I cannot prove that a god does not exist.
Again, I must be redundant and paste the following:
"I think that you were annoyed at Torkel because he made the fine point that
you can't just say that you cant prove a negative and then say therefore you
can't prove that God doesn't exist."
I can and do say so. Your declaration, "...he made the fine point
that......" is tantamount to declaring: "I've just given a lecture on gun
safety, during which I shot myself in the foot." Mighty fine point, indeed!
>Therefore if you say my claims of existence are unsubstanciated then your
claims
> of nonexistence are equally unsubstanciated.
Claims? What claims? I merely stated that I can't substantiate the
non-existence of a god. I made no claims that there isn't one. How on
earth would I prove that?
> I hope that this wasn't a waste of time in fact i think that was a great
> discussion i am disappointed that you had to go and divide us into groups
at
> the top of the page. Is this news group about discriminating against
> theists? You showed division, oppression and slander even though you claim
> to be so moral.
I showed division? I seem to recall that I suggested we forget differences
and proceed together, a suggestion that was and continues to be ignored.
Oppression? Slander?
If you are able to provide examples of either of those claims "within
context", please do so and I'll never post to this newsgroup again. Are you
willing to make a similar pledge and allow those who regularly post to this
group decide which of us is to leave?
"..claim to be so moral".
Please provide examples of my claim to morality. My only claim is that I
hope to be moral someday~by a Humanist definition.
> Maybe i should be congratulating the others in being bold enough not to
just
> accept your absence of God doctine as truth.
Pardon me again, Nick. I never held out an absence-of-god doctrine as
truth. I held out an I-can't-prove-a-negative doctrine as a "personal"
truth.
>I think that they made points that do have a substanciation and that were
clearly >described and presented but you just got annoyed and used harsh
sarcasm.
Indeed, you, Turk, and Karl made several good points. Whether those points
were substantiated or not remains questionable. And, indeed, I became
annoyed~NOT at the points that you fine gentlemen made BUT at attributing my
declaration that "I cannot prove a negative" (unfortunately, in the original
post, I used the word "One" rather than "I", but I made that admission and
correction in my next post); therefore, I cannot prove that a god does not
exist" was tantamount to saying that, "Therefore, a god does not exist".
>I wasn't baiting you I was trying to discuss the existence of God thats
all.
I understand and appreciate that, Nick. But, can you see that I wasn't
discussing the existence of a god but I was discussing the fact that "I"
can't prove a negative and, thus, can't prove that a god does not exist. I
would never debate the existence of a god. I've accepted that there isn't a
god based my own reasons; you believe that there is one for your own
reasons. Why should we quarrel over that?
I had decided not to consider this ad nauseum again, but your kind letter
made me feel as though a response is necessary~NOT for either of us to
"prove" a point, but merely to be understood--to clarify rather than
reiterate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so. We may never
agree on anything except to be friends and respect each other's philosophy.
Hey, my friend, that's not such a bad deal!
James A. Temple
> You don't have to believe as I do but you may want to consider the call to
> belief,trust and faith that comes from Jesus!!!! Matt 4:19 "Come follow
>me"
Thank you, Nick. I perceive that your kind offer is made through love.
Please be assured that haven't made my decision to declare myself a Humanist
without years and years of study and self-reflection. I hope you understand
that my decision not to accept a life philosophy based on "belief" is not
meant
as an affront to anyone who chooses to do so. I must tell you that, here in
Texas, in my old guitar store, my red-necked pals all profess the Christian
faith, to a man. In fact, one is a Baptist minister. All are aware that I
am a Humanist. We continue to love each other and assist each other at
every opportunity. I truly hope that you and
I can come to that very arrangement~that we can accept each other, warts and
all, and continue together, each trying to do his best to improve the lot of
mankind.
> Also it just depend on how you want to better mankind and how you can see
> it come about. You didn't address these issues!
Therein lies the problem, my friend. My post wasn't concerned with "how to
better mankind". The point with which I was concerned was "The difficulty
of proving a negative". It think would make an interesting thread to
contemplate the ways to assist mankind but my post had nothing to say on
that matter. I must be honest and tell you that, even though I have
experienced it many times, it still grates on me to be chastised for
something I didn't do or say. I didn't address those issues because the
thread didn't concern them.
> Christians see it being made a reality in reflecting the love that has
come from God > in Christ. From whom laws, values and ways of relating were
given to man so that
> they could indeed form a society the way God wanted it in love,
acceptance, peace > and unity. Man rebels against this and is the why we
have so many problems. We
> need help if we want to make head way in making society better we got it
in
> Jesus.
I fully understand that, as a Christian, you are taught that the greatest
activity that you can perform for the good of mankind is to present the
Christian religion and offer others the opportunity for "salvation" (Go ye,
therefore, into all nations, teaching them to observe....). I, OTOH, will
disdain from promoting my philosophy as I do what I can for others.
Really? And you are allowed to say that the existence of God is
substantiated? Why the double standard? I and, perhaps, others hold that we
have never seen the existence of any god or gods during a lifetime of
experience and study. Yet, we should be required to accept substantiation
on the word of you and other "believers"?
>I think that you were annoyed at Torkel because he made the
> fine point that you can't just say that you cant prove a negative and then
> say therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist. You could prove it
if
> you had evidence! The thing is the non existence of God would have been
> proven long before this time if there was any evidence.
Oh, Nick, thank you for giving me one more shot at that declaration. First,
allow me to say that, I, personally, Jim Temple, cannot prove a negative.
Nor do I have any desire to attempt to prove a negative. I have neither the
time, education, or resources required to prove a negative. It is
completely beyond my ability to do so.
Second, the declaration, "God doesn't exist" is a negative. If you accept
that I have been honest in my first statement, you can readily see that it
is beyond my (and, perhaps, mine alone) ability to prove that particular
negative declaration.
Third, (Here I am compelled to paste your statement again for clarity;
please forgive the redundancy.).(...you can't just say that you cant prove a
negative and then
say therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist) You and Torkel both
make this statement and it completely baffles me. Let me examine the
statement further:
Jim Temple admits that he can not prove a negative. Jim Temple states a
negative, "God does not exist". By substitution: Jim Temple admits that he
cannot prove "God does not exist".
Shouldn't you, Torkel and all the "believers" who have knowledge of that
admission be pleased? And, further, Nick, if you have ever had occasion to
accept anything I write as "truth", then please accept this: If I could
prove a negative and, if as a result of that ability, I could prove that a
god or gods did not exist, I would find it extraordinarily difficult not to
present such proof to the world at-large. What a burden that would place
upon me. Destroy the basic tenet of ever major religion in the world merely
for the self-satisfaction of doing so? I don't believe I could ever be that
selfish; and, yet, if it were true, shouldn't the world face up to the fact?
No, my friend, I cannot prove a negative; I cannot prove that a god does not
exist.
Fourth: My ultimate points were and are: 1) I do not claim that a god
exists. 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 3) I cannot
prove a negative. 4) I cannot prove that a god does not exist.
Again, I must be redundant and paste the following:
"I think that you were annoyed at Torkel because he made the fine point that
you can't just say that you cant prove a negative and then say therefore you
can't prove that God doesn't exist."
I can and do say so. Your declaration, "...he made the fine point
that......" is tantamount to declaring: "I've just given a lecture on gun
safety, during which I shot myself in the foot." Mighty fine point, indeed!
>Therefore if you say my claims of existence are unsubstanciated then your
claims
> of nonexistence are equally unsubstanciated.
Claims? What claims? I merely stated that I can't substantiate the
non-existence of a god. I made no claims that there isn't one. How on
earth would I prove that? I can't prove that negative.
> I hope that this wasn't a waste of time in fact i think that was a great
> discussion i am disappointed that you had to go and divide us into groups
at
> the top of the page. Is this news group about discriminating against
> theists? You showed division, oppression and slander even though you claim
> to be so moral.
I showed division? I seem to recall that I suggested we forget differences
and proceed together, a suggestion that was and continues to be ignored.
Oppression? Slander?
If you are able to provide examples of either of those claims "within
context", please do so. We'll ask for a consensus of fellow "posters". If
the majority find that your accusation is valid, I'll never post to this
newsgroup again. Obviously, a third party would be required to report to
you some slanderous statement that they overheard before I could be
convicted of slander. I truly don't think that is the case. And, further,
I don't believe I libeled anyone, nor did you accuse me of libel. That
leaves "oppression" to be adjudicated by our peers.
"..claim to be so moral".
Please provide examples of my claim to morality. My only claim is that I
hope to be moral someday~by a Humanist definition.
> Maybe i should be congratulating the others in being bold enough not to
just
> accept your absence of God doctine as truth.
Pardon me again, Nick. I never held out an absence-of-god doctrine as
truth. I held out an I-can't-prove-a-negative doctrine as truth.
>I think that they made points that do have a substanciation and that were
> clearly described and presented but you just got annoyed and used harsh
> sarcasm.
Indeed, you, Torkel, and Karl made several points. Whether those points
were substantiated or not remains questionable. And, indeed, I became
annoyed~NOT at the points that you fine gentlemen made BUT at attributing my
declaration that "I cannot prove a negative"; therefore, I cannot prove that
a god does not exist" was tantamount to saying that, "Therefore, a god does
not exist".
>I wasn't baiting you I was trying to discuss the existence of God thats
all.
I understand and appreciate that, Nick. But, can you see that I wasn't
discussing the existence of a god but I was discussing the fact that "I"
can't prove a negative and, thus, can't prove that a god does not exist. I
would never debate the existence of a god. I've accepted that there isn't a
god based my own reasons; you believe that there is one for your own
reasons. Why should we quarrel over that?
I had decided not to consider this ad nauseum again, but your kind letter
made me feel as though a response is necessary~NOT for either of us to
"prove" a point, but merely to be understood--to clarify rather than
reiterate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so. We may never
agree on anything except to be friends and respect each other's philosophy.
Nick, my friend, that's not such a bad deal! Now, if I can strike such a
bargain with my old pal, Altheim,....
James A. Temple
>....... I can discover that there is - contrary to my fond
> expectation - no elephant in Albert Hall by carrying out an inspection.
Just one? Could we then just carry out just one inspection of planet earth
to discover a god? Either result of such an inspection would be a very
singular event! Elephants, so far as I know, are visible creatures, making
their discovery a bit easier. Seems that the comparison begs a huge stretch
of the imagination to actually be comparable. But, you suggested the
comparison. Please explain how these two distinct situations compare:
There are no elephants in Albert Hall.
There is no god in the universe.
Are you suggesting that both claims could be resolved with a one definitive
inspection?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Oh, it just occurred to me, perhaps elephants can be invisible. I just
recalled an elementary school puzzler:
"Where do elephants hide?"
"In rose bushes!"
"Are you serious?"
"Yes. Have you ever seen an elephant in a rose bush?"
"No."
"Works well, doesn't it?"
Torkel Franzen
> There are no elephants in Albert Hall.
> There is no god in the universe.
>
> Are you suggesting that both claims could be resolved with a one definitive
> inspection?
Well, no. Since the point seems - contrary to my expectations - to
be difficult or recondite, let me repeat: there may be excellent
grounds for the assertion "the existence of a God cannot be
disproved", but the tired old formula "you cannot prove a negative"
does not constitute such grounds.
Matthew Rowbotham
Torkel Franzen wrote:
How about the vibrant new formula "you cannot prove that something has never
existed anywhere in the universe"?
Matt
Torkel Franzen
> How about the vibrant new formula "you cannot prove that something has never
> existed anywhere in the universe"?
This formula may be more or less plausible, depending on what you
mean by "prove". For a counterexample to one interpretatin of the
formula, we have good arguments (often considered conclusive) for
the assertion "a perpetuum mobile has never existed anywhere in the
universe".
Torkel Franzen
> This being because it would contravene the laws of physics, yes?
> Well wouldn't the god we suggest do just that too? Just a thought...
In that case, its existence would be disprovable, contrary to your
"vibrant new formula".
Matthew Rowbotham
This being because it would contravene the laws of physics, yes? Well wouldn't the
god we suggest do just that too? Just a thought...
Matt
Des
> Matthew Rowbotham <matthew....@nospamjesus.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > This being because it would contravene the laws of physics, yes?
> > Well wouldn't the god we suggest do just that too? Just a thought...
>
> "vibrant new formula".
I need a little help with this one :-(
Des
John Davies
<tor...@sm.luth.se> writes
>"Des" <d...@removegrenfell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Just a very quick list from memory and without extensive revision :-
>>
>> OT
>> Creation story
>> Flood
>> Exodus
>>
>> to name only a few
>
>myths, in some cases (flood, exodus) perhaps loosely connected with
>historical events.
>
>> Birth and upbringing of Christ
>> Miracles
>> Details of crucifixion and burial
>> Resurrection details
>
>the life of Christ contain invention, misunderstanding, incorrect
>traditions, contradictions. They would say that the central message
>of the Gospels is not dependent on these details.
It is of course quite true that many, perhaps even most, Christians no
longer believe in the literal truth of the bible. Indeed, when one
listens to someone like the former Bishop of Durham, (David Jenkins, is
it?) an atheist like myself finds it hard to find anything much to
disagree with him about: he doesn't accept the creation myth presented
in Genesis; he doesn't believe in the virgin birth; doesn't think any
miracles really happened; and he denies that Christ literally came to
life again after being crucified. But then he gives us the conclusion,
apparently unrelated to what has gone before, that nevertheless there is
*some* kind of truth buried in the gospels, allegorical or metaphoric or
whatever, and that he does believe in the existence of a god whose "son"
(whatever that might mean in this context) is Christ.
As I understand it, Jenkins represents pretty much what the modern
Church of England really believes, though some of his colleagues seem to
think it's rather bad form to actually say as much in public, for fear
of causing cardiac arrest in the more elderly members of their
congregations. One is left gasping by the extraordinary intellectual
conjuring trick that has been pulled off right under one's nose: here is
someone with every outward sign of intelligence and rationality, who
readily agrees that much of the bible is simply fiction, but who
nevertheless still believes, on what grounds he never makes clear, that
there is a god who takes an active daily interest in the activities of
his creation. It is like hearing a defence lawyer admit that the
evidence of his client, the only defence witness, is a tissue of lies
from beginning to end, but nevertheless insists we should acquit him.
I hope I haven't too grossly misrepresented the beliefs of the right
reverend and subtle gentleman. If I have, perhaps someone can tell me
what he really believes, and how he justifies it. But so far as I can
understand his position, it comes down to that incantatory and
mysterious word "faith". In that respect, for all his intelligence and
sophistication, he is no different from the most wilfully stupid of
fundamentalist evolution-deniers: he believes in god because he wants
to, not because there is any evidence for it.
That is why dialogue between believers and non-believers is futile. It
is quite unlike the passionate and eventually fruitful disputes that
sometimes occur between scientists about the proper interpretation of a
series of experiments: scientists are agreed on the rules which govern
the debate. The essential dispute between believers and unbelievers is
not about the existence or non-existence of god, but about the rules by
which the dispute can be resolved.
As for those rules, one could say quite a lot, and at some later date I
may. For now, all I'll say is this: it is not very helpful to talk about
"proof", for the word means different things in different contexts, and
we can never have absolute proof of anything. The nearest we ever get to
absolute certainty is the proofs of mathematics or formal logic, which
all boil down to a statement of the form "If propositions x and y are
true, then proposition z is true". We can be pretty confident of the
truth of such a proof, but it tells us nothing about the truth of
propositions x and y, nor does it tell us anything about the real
world; though such proofs may assist us in arriving at conclusions about
the real world when we have done a lot of observation and measurement of
it. The kind of proof most of us in this group would demand is akin to
what would be acceptable to a scientist or a jury: that is to say
supported by evidence which puts the matter beyond reasonable doubt. In
50-odd years of discussing and thinking about this, no religionist I
have heard or read has ever come anywhere near that standard. In the
end, they all fall back on "faith".
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Torkel Franzen
> One is left gasping by the extraordinary intellectual
> conjuring trick that has been pulled off right under one's nose: here is
> someone with every outward sign of intelligence and rationality, who
> readily agrees that much of the bible is simply fiction, but who
> nevertheless still believes, on what grounds he never makes clear, that
> there is a god who takes an active daily interest in the activities of
> his creation. It is like hearing a defence lawyer admit that the
> evidence of his client, the only defence witness, is a tissue of lies
> from beginning to end, but nevertheless insists we should acquit
> him.
I don't see the analogy. It's not as though he is trying to persuade
you of the truth of his beliefs, or to present evidence that they are
true.
> I hope I haven't too grossly misrepresented the beliefs of the right
> reverend and subtle gentleman. If I have, perhaps someone can tell me
> what he really believes, and how he justifies it. But so far as I can
> understand his position, it comes down to that incantatory and
> mysterious word "faith". In that respect, for all his intelligence and
> sophistication, he is no different from the most wilfully stupid of
> fundamentalist evolution-deniers: he believes in god because he wants
> to, not because there is any evidence for it.
Your description of faith as "believing because you want to" isn't
really psychologically accurate. There are many who present themselves
as having "unwilling faith". They feel that they can't avoid it.
C.S.Lewis, for example, describing himself as one of the most
unwilling of converts.
Certainly faith is a necessary part of Christian belief, and clearly
there are people who do and people who do not have a natural
inclination towards faith. As we know, many people who do have faith
are highly intelligent, and have much less in common with
narrow-minded Bible-thumpers than do the fanatical atheists in
alt.atheism. If we want to understand faith (which we may or may not
want to do), we will have to set aside preconceptions about why
and how people come to have faith, and approach the question in
a more philosophical spirit.
John Davies
<tor...@sm.luth.se> writes
>John Davies <jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > One is left gasping by the extraordinary intellectual
> > conjuring trick that has been pulled off right under one's nose: here is
> > someone with every outward sign of intelligence and rationality, who
> > readily agrees that much of the bible is simply fiction, but who
> > nevertheless still believes, on what grounds he never makes clear, that
> > there is a god who takes an active daily interest in the activities of
> > his creation. It is like hearing a defence lawyer admit that the
> > evidence of his client, the only defence witness, is a tissue of lies
> > from beginning to end, but nevertheless insists we should acquit
> > him.
>
>you of the truth of his beliefs,
errmm... We're talking here about a Bishop of the Church of England, and
you say he's not trying to persuade us of the truth of his beliefs?
Isn't that part of his job description?
>or to present evidence that they are
>true.
Well, maybe not: which is just as well, since the evidence is in such
short supply.
[...]
> Your description of faith as "believing because you want to" isn't
>really psychologically accurate. There are many who present themselves
>as having "unwilling faith". They feel that they can't avoid it.
>C.S.Lewis, for example, describing himself as one of the most
>unwilling of converts.
I wouldn't claim any great expertise in the psychology of believers, but
if someone believes something against what his reason tells him is the
truth, the most obvious explanation is that at least part of him wants
to believe in it. Or alternatively, that he's suffering from some kind
of mental illness. I wouldn't think the latter alternative is likely to
be true of either David Jenkins or C S Lewis, though I keep an open mind
about some other Christians.
> Certainly faith is a necessary part of Christian belief, and clearly
>there are people who do and people who do not have a natural
>inclination towards faith. As we know, many people who do have faith
>are highly intelligent, and have much less in common with
>narrow-minded Bible-thumpers than do the fanatical atheists in
>alt.atheism. If we want to understand faith (which we may or may not
>want to do), we will have to set aside preconceptions about why
>and how people come to have faith, and approach the question in
>a more philosophical spirit.
I haven't a clue what you mean by that last sentence. I thought my
approach had been philosophical: I was pointing out that religious
belief was of a fundamentally different nature from what one might
broadly categorise as scientific or rational belief. That leads to major
problems when people make statements (about the existence of a god, or
the after life or whatever) which purport to be an accurate depiction of
the real world. When they do that, they can hardly complain if non-
believers apply the same rigorous reasoning to those statements that is
rightly applied to any other statement about the real world.
Which brings me back to my original puzzlement over the position of the
former Bishop of Durham. Does he believe in the existence of god in the
way I "believe" in, say, the "existence" of Hamlet: that is to say as a
brilliant creation of the human mind? Or does he really think that such
an entity has the same kind of physical existence as the Andromeda
galaxy or the M1 motorway?
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Torkel Franzen
> errmm... We're talking here about a Bishop of the Church of England, and
> you say he's not trying to persuade us of the truth of his beliefs?
> Isn't that part of his job description?
No. Did you get the impression that he was in fact trying to
persuade you of the truth of his beliefs?
> I wouldn't claim any great expertise in the psychology of believers, but
> if someone believes something against what his reason tells him is the
> truth, the most obvious explanation is that at least part of him wants
> to believe in it.
Why do you think his reason tells him it isn't true? Quite possibly
his reason doesn't tell him anything about the matter.
> I haven't a clue what you mean by that last sentence. I thought my
> approach had been philosophical: I was pointing out that religious
> belief was of a fundamentally different nature from what one might
> broadly categorise as scientific or rational belief. That leads to major
> problems when people make statements (about the existence of a god, or
> the after life or whatever) which purport to be an accurate depiction of
> the real world. When they do that, they can hardly complain if non-
> believers apply the same rigorous reasoning to those statements that is
> rightly applied to any other statement about the real world.
Why should they complain? Again, why should they think that your
rigorous reasoning is at all relevant to religion? Probably few
believers today would hold that their faith is supported by
"rigorous reasoning", or can be overthrown by "rigorous reasoning".
> Which brings me back to my original puzzlement over the position of the
> former Bishop of Durham. Does he believe in the existence of god in the
> way I "believe" in, say, the "existence" of Hamlet: that is to say as a
> brilliant creation of the human mind? Or does he really think that such
> an entity has the same kind of physical existence as the Andromeda
> galaxy or the M1 motorway?
You must ask him.
Steve Marshall
Nick White wrote ,
> If there is no evidence today that there is a God would you also agree
that
> along your thinking that there is also no evidence to say that there is
not
> a God. In that case you just choose to believe that there is not rather
that
> know that there is not. (Yes)?
Actually there is evidence to say that there is not a God - if you accept
what Richard Dawkins says. Some things are hard to disprove. I have green
elephants in my garden. They are tiny and very elusive adn are only found in
this part of the world. Disprove that if you can !
> In truth we are not talking about something that obeys to the laws of
> universe/nature in fact we are talking about the existence of a
supernatural
> deity who defies the laws of the universe/nature (right?).
Man decides what God is and you seem to be reinventing him. I couldn't tell
you what laws something I have never encountered obeys. If this thing is
outside of our universe then he certainly isn't here. So how can you say
that this thing exists ?
>Has any person ever done things that defied nature?
I could say yes. Manned flight, trips to the moon, deep see diving etc etc
>Who is Jesus? He was supposed
> to have performed many miracles (ie supernatural event) eg walk on water,
> heal sick, raise people from the dead, even himself. So he either did 2
> things he deceived a lot of people was a clever magician, a liar, and a
> lunatic who died for a cause that in essense was a load of garbage. Or he
> was as he said sent from the Father to reveal the truth that the abundant
> life and love in acceptance is found in him!!
I fail to see how getting yourself killed reveals any truth. Much of what we
know of Jesus was written 200 years after his death. None was written by
him. I don't think he was God and he never said he was. I think he was like
many other religious gurus - something of a fraudster, no matter how well
intentioned. I think he was very clever adn probably was a great healer, but
he did nothing that was supernatural.
>
.
> Is life better if you can acknowledge that there could be a God and live
to
> find the spiritual truth or if you live a life that avoids compromising
your
> intellectual solidarity to consider something that you can't fathom with
> pure logic and in doing so jeopardising the possibility for a life that
may
> fullfill the one of this world??????
> The ball is in your court if you could reconsider for one second that you
> might not know all the facts I would say read the Gospel of John to find
out
> if Jesus is a fraud. Secondly to read a book called "Evidence that demands
a
> verdict" by Josh McDowell. It was written by an atheist who decided to
prove
> that Christianity was lies. He ended up writing this book.
> I don't profess to know everything either but this is another perspective.
I am open to the possibility of there being a God. I am not an atheist. I
have considered religion and like many here grew up being taught about
Christianity. I did my Religious Education O level.
Perhaps there is a God - When I really, really wanted there to be one he
wasn't around. I read passages in the Bible and they did no good. When I
most needed it you God let me down. Christian keep an telling you how God
will be there in your time of need. Didn't happen for me ! I have to
conclude that he wasn't there to listen to me. Or that the Christians don't
know what they are talking about.
Either way I try and live my life the best I can and certainly don't think I
am wasting it because I don't search for some mystical element.
I don't know everything, but I don't accept what others say without
question. If what they say doesn't stand up to the questioning then it gets
rejected.
Steve Marshall
Des
"Steve Marshall" <st...@marshallmcgurk.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8i62hb$6b5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Either way I try and live my life the best I can and certainly don't think
I
> am wasting it because I don't search for some mystical element.
>
So how do you explain that feeling you get when you :-
- go out into the countryside early on a summer morning
- watch a beautiful sunset
- watch a solar eclipse (even after all the hype)
- (substitute favourite hair bristling experience here)
-
Des
Torkel Franzen
> Actually there is evidence to say that there is not a God - if you accept
> what Richard Dawkins says.
You can find evidence either way - after all, "evidence" can be
pretty much anything.
> >Has any person ever done things that defied nature?
> I could say yes. Manned flight, trips to the moon, deep see diving
> etc etc
Surely this is not "defying nature", which sounds like a very silly
thing to attempt, but rather "doing things based on sound knowledge
of nature".
> I am open to the possibility of there being a God. I am not an atheist. I
> have considered religion and like many here grew up being taught about
> Christianity.
Inevitably, nearly all God discussions in news concern the
God of Christianity. But the God of Christianity is after all a highly
specialized conception.
Mark....@bristol.ac.uk
: So how do you explain that feeling you get when you :-
: - go out into the countryside early on a summer morning
: - watch a beautiful sunset
: - watch a solar eclipse (even after all the hype)
: - (substitute favourite hair bristling experience here)
Wonder and awe are not reserved only for those who believe in 'spirit' of
some sort. When I watch a beautiful sunset, I know that the wonder I
feel, the warm tingles, the brimming happiness, the deep contentment -
they are the results of seratonin, dopamine, adrenaline, endorphine
levels changing in my brain and blood as a result of what I'm seeing,
experiencing, thinking; chain reactions setting off well worn neural
pathways. There seems to be this popular idea that reductionism
somehow takes the joy out of things, yet this is so untrue. I know
exactly what chemicals are in a cold beer, how it is made, how it got
from the field to my hand; yet when I pick up that bottle on a hot
summer day I just know it's going to be great to slump into a
chair and gulp it - I just know that the feeling will be perfect. Things
dont need to be a mystery to be wonderful. I am still in awe of the
universe, even though I believe it to be just a collection of particles
interacting. The awe comes from how something so diverse, complex and
wonderful could come from just simple forces and probabilities.
Mark
Des
<Mark....@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fw57x...@bath.ac.uk...
> Wonder and awe are not reserved only for those who believe in 'spirit' of
> some sort. When I watch a beautiful sunset, I know that the wonder I
> feel, the warm tingles, the brimming happiness, the deep contentment -
> they are the results of seratonin, dopamine, adrenaline, endorphine
> levels changing in my brain and blood as a result of what I'm seeing,
> experiencing, thinking; chain reactions setting off well worn neural
> pathways.
Those physiological phenomena can explain the functionality of how you react
to such a spectacle but they do not explain the fact that you are aware of
the beauty in the spectacle or the sense of awe itself. These seem to be
quite surpless to requirements.
>There seems to be this popular idea that reductionism
> somehow takes the joy out of things, yet this is so untrue. I know
> exactly what chemicals are in a cold beer, how it is made, how it got
> from the field to my hand;
You (and I) know only a fraction of the history of the beer and of
ourselves.
That said, I am a completely unreconstructed reductionist with a deep seated
disdain of any form of magical emergence - especially the idea that
consciousness emerges from some form of highly complex mechanistic brain. We
must go on unfolding but we shouldn't expect to ever get to the centre.
Maybe the whole point is that we don't
> yet when I pick up that bottle on a hot
> summer day I just know it's going to be great to slump into a
> chair and gulp it - I just know that the feeling will be perfect.
You don't have kids then ;-)
Peter Ashby
<d...@removegrenfell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <Mark....@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fw57x...@bath.ac.uk...
>
> > Wonder and awe are not reserved only for those who believe in 'spirit' of
> > some sort. When I watch a beautiful sunset, I know that the wonder I
> > feel, the warm tingles, the brimming happiness, the deep contentment -
> > they are the results of seratonin, dopamine, adrenaline, endorphine
> > levels changing in my brain and blood as a result of what I'm seeing,
> > experiencing, thinking; chain reactions setting off well worn neural
> > pathways.
>
> Those physiological phenomena can explain the functionality of how you react
> to such a spectacle but they do not explain the fact that you are aware of
> the beauty in the spectacle or the sense of awe itself. These seem to be
> quite surpless to requirements.
Which requirements might those be? I can think of several evolutionary
just so stories to posit the survival advantages of awe and wonder. As I
have said in another thread I view this attempt to parcel off areas which
cannot be investigated or explained by science as dangerous. I also find
it both depressing and lacking in imagination. If recourse to 'spirit' is
our only response to that which we cannot currently fully explain then our
imaginations are very sadly lacking. I expect that a scientific
explanation of awe and wonder will elicit just those feelings in me. I
hope I live to experience it. I feel exactly those feelings when
contemplating the biological possibilities an ocean on Europa suggests.
> >There seems to be this popular idea that reductionism
> > somehow takes the joy out of things, yet this is so untrue. I know
> > exactly what chemicals are in a cold beer, how it is made, how it got
> > from the field to my hand;
>
> You (and I) know only a fraction of the history of the beer and of
> ourselves.
> That said, I am a completely unreconstructed reductionist with a deep seated
> disdain of any form of magical emergence - especially the idea that
> consciousness emerges from some form of highly complex mechanistic brain. We
> must go on unfolding but we shouldn't expect to ever get to the centre.
> Maybe the whole point is that we don't
The problem with reductionism is knowing when you have reduced enough to
still have explanatory power over the whole. Penrose's ideas are a
reductionism too far IMHO.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee
Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
Dave Blair
news:960991125.18674.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> <Mark....@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Fw57x...@bath.ac.uk...
>
> > Wonder and awe are not reserved only for those who believe in
> > 'spirit' of some sort. When I watch a beautiful sunset, I
> > know that the wonder I feel, the warm tingles, the brimming
> > happiness, the deep contentment - they are the results of
> > seratonin, dopamine, adrenaline, endorphine levels changing
> > in my brain and blood as a result of what I'm seeing,
> > experiencing, thinking; chain reactions setting off well worn
> > neural pathways.
>
> Those physiological phenomena can explain the functionality of
> how you react to such a spectacle but they do not explain the
> fact that you are aware of the beauty in the spectacle or the
> sense of awe itself. These seem to be quite surpless to
> requirements.
The problem is, you still seem to see nature as analogue to some
master designer (call it God if you want) which designed the
human being as some machine with a ready-made function set with
some purpose or other.
Nature didn't design anything, the human developed. Good features
stayed, bad ones were bred out, and seeemingly superfluous
idiosyncracies were either kept or bred out, depending on how
they affected the reproductive capability of the individual
human. Therefore, the human can be full of "faults" and
redundancy (according to our necessary limited understanding),
but as long as there's no harm done, who cares?
Now, try this thought experiment: What would happen if the human
race, as a whole, suddenly stopped appreciating red sunsets? This
be inconsistent if the human being suddenly stopped responding to
esthetic signals in any shape or form. Well, probably nothing, as
long as the human race still experienced gratification after sex,
the human race would continue to grow. But what if only certain
people had this ability suddenly removed? This actually happens,
frx when there is a lesion in an area belonging to the upper
lymbic system, or the fornix has been divided (frx. after
surgery). Would these people be compromised in their reproductive
capability? Very probably, as they would have no sense of style,
beauty, or whatever would make them visually attractive to
members of the opposite sex. So, apparently, esthetics (as the
conditioned response) *is* important to the individual's
reproductive capability.
These euphoric feelings you refer to are not conscious as such
(although they are obviously triggered by conscious stimuli),
they are conditioned responses which are "acquired" into the
lymbic system, and are therefore largely immutable, once there.
The facility for developing CR's is an absolutely essential part
of the learning process for all mammals, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that all CR's are necessary, because *it isn't
necessary for the organism to have only necessary CR's*. Also,
for the brain to develop CR's according to potential necessity
and non-necessity would be one whole lot more complicated, and
no more desirable than to have the brain developing the CR's
regardless of whether these may or may not actually be necessary.
That's the whole point: CR's aren't acquired consciously, but
only the conscious can decide whether an affirmative conditioned
response to a beautiful sunset is more useful than one to the
sight or smell of food when hungry.
So, yes, a lot of CR's (in this case, the expression of
catecholamines, neurotransmitters etc. as a CR of seeing a
beautiful sunset) are utterly inexplicable as to their
use, but are just as genuine and natural as more "useful", or
even life-saving CR's (such as the satisfaction felt after
drinking a cold beer on a hot summer's day).
Btw, this all ties in with the debate on sexual preference.
Dave
--
Dave Blair
Halle/Saale, Germany
Steve Marshall
Torkel Franzen wrote >
> > Actually there is evidence to say that there is not a God - if you
accept
> > what Richard Dawkins says.
>
> You can find evidence either way - after all, "evidence" can be
> pretty much anything.
>
beleive in a God which is different.
> > >Has any person ever done things that defied nature?
> > I could say yes. Manned flight, trips to the moon, deep see diving
> > etc etc
>
> Surely this is not "defying nature", which sounds like a very silly
> thing to attempt, but rather "doing things based on sound knowledge
> of nature".
nature. But you could say science is the study of nature.
What about genetic engineering ? Test tube babies and the like ? Atom bombs
? More things that are going against nature. Again science is being used but
here science is directly altering what is natural.
> Inevitably, nearly all God discussions in news concern the
> God of Christianity. But the God of Christianity is after all a highly
> specialized conception.
>
Just like all the other versions. Created by Man to suit his needs. Why
should the Christian God be any less plausible than any other type?
Steve Marshall
Steve Marshall
> It is of course quite true that many, perhaps even most, Christians no
> longer believe in the literal truth of the bible.
Religion has changed throughout history to fit what ever seem appropriate at
the time.
Think about that !
God is truth ????
Steve Marshall
Steve Marshall
>
> - go out into the countryside early on a summer morning
> - watch a beautiful sunset
They're fascinating. I look at them and think that it is nice just as when I
hear something I like, I like the sound. I get pleasure from these things.
To think that there must be a God doing such things for us is so primitive
and naive ! There are things we can't comprehend. There are things that are
fantastically complicated. None is a reason for there being a God.
> - watch a solar eclipse (even after all the hype)
building up overhead thinking this was exactly what I had predicted. Maybe
I'm psychic !!!
Steve Marshall
Steve Marshall
Torkel Franzen wrote
>
> > Just a very quick list from memory and without extensive revision :-
> >
> > OT
> > Creation story
> > Flood
> > Exodus
> >
> > to name only a few
>
> Many Christians have no problem with the view that these are all
> myths, in some cases (flood, exodus) perhaps loosely connected with
> historical events.
>
only take account of the parts that seem to fit the bill. Astrology is
wonderful if you ignore all the times it gets it wrong. That is how it fools
so many people.
The OT has many facts and is used by archiologists as one of the few texts
from the period. There is much that is true in the Bible. The flood story is
in many religious books and there is growing beleif in it actually happing -
though not on the scale of the Biblical saga.
I have never heard any explanation for Moses (and Adam) living to be 950.
Steve Marshall