Freethought & Rationalism Archive

igfm_spanky · 06-21-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

If its all about having to see to believe then its kind of like giving up the search before you even start.

JEST2ASK · 06-21-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdumb

The point is that no two apples or things in existence are 100% the same on a molecular level or any other level. Therefore, to add one apple plus one apple is impossible. You wont wind up with two apples, you'll just wind up with 2 different things that best symbolize our definition of apples. Its not perfect.

I am sorry you have lost me

Quote:

we only label them apples because they share just enough characteritics to be labeled what we define as apples.

So why do we not have two separate things which are labelled ** apples :banghead:

We are not talking identical replicates on any level , we are not trying to come up with symbolic representations of the class / category ... Apple....

I think we have a major failure in language ... we need a Universal Translator ...

Wisdumb · 06-21-2006, 05:38 PM

JEST2ASK... My point is to not discredit math or science it is to simply show that all the values and definitions we have placed on things are representations more than anything else. So if you find a solution to a problem such as 1 apple + another apple your answer is also just a representation and not accurate. On a molecular level or any other level no two things in existence are the the same.

you stated : So why do we not have two separate things which are labelled ** apples?

The answer is that we are content with short cutting. So instead of doing the impossible and naming everything in the world something different, since no two things are 100% identical, it is easier to categorize them based on similarities and differences. That is why math, science, and even social sciences do not reflect the true answer to anything but rather make generalizations, some closer to the truth than others. Since you brought up language, when humans first made it up don't you think it would have been much easier to call two fruits that resembled one another, say banana, than to have a different name for each one. Its more convenient, its a short cut. That's all I'm saying. As a result every category of living and non living things is a social construct. Any solutions made involving these groupings is also just as abstract.

RakMaster · 06-21-2006, 05:49 PM

I wonder. If we use the word apple to describe a fruit, and the word car to describe a machine, and the word human to describe an organism, then what is God?

Give captain obvious here his due. Santa Claus and God are indeed nothing more than words. Unfortunately we have this small thing about language, and within a language words sort of requiring associative meanings for them. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a word called language in the first place. We'd all be grunting and groaning at each other.

Let me ask you. If - in an evolutionary paradigm - we have no need, history, or purpose for a thing such as god, then why o' why do we have a word that describes it?

Gawen · 06-21-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RakMaster

Let me ask you. If - in an evolutionary paradigm - we have no need, history, or purpose for a thing such as god, then why o' why do we have a word that describes it?

Because bronze-age goat-herders had imagination.

Gawen · 06-21-2006, 06:57 PM

And:

The mind seeks the path of least resistance, and the conclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the nature of his mind, experience, hereditary tendencies, society and a plethora of things that constitute the differences in an individual's thinking. But too many people have come to the conclusion that all is the result of design. That behind all things is an infinite personality; a Supreme Being. they account that the universe was created and set in motion by this infinite personality, that it is a miracle and supernaturally governed and preserved. They have seen...and many still do see with perfect clearness that matter could not possibly create itself, and therefore imagine a creator of matter.
Blah...blah...blah...

But, it does not occur to them that it is necessary to account for the existence of an infinite personality.

From a superstitious perspective a large majority of mankind has believed in (the biblical) "God". This Being has been inferred, planted and grown from superstitious phenomena into a belief system that guides a religious worldview.

Man in all ages has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and death, substance, force and why things are as they are.
Consider a caveman. Babies pop out of his females as if by magic. He subsisted on roots, plants and animals that could be killed with a club or a stone and yet could kill him equally as well. Countless objects of terror surround him. He stands next to rivers with no beginning or end, by bodies of water with only one shore. There are beasts mightier than he is. He suffers strange sicknesses. He trembles at the sound of thunder, blinded by lightning, hiding from the sky that grows black and menacing.

Then...once upon a time...that caveman begged for the protection of the Unknown.

In the terribly long dawn of human awakening, in the midst of pestilence and famine, crouched in dens of darkness, the seeds of superstition were sown in the imaginations of the minds of our ancestors. They thoroughly believed that everything happened in reference to him. He believed that by his actions, he could excite the anger, or by his worship placate the wrath, of the Unseen Unknown. They resorted to flattery and prayer and sacrifice. They put in stone, or carved in wood, the idea of their God(s). Before long, they built an altar, then a hut, a hovel, a shrine and at last, a cathedral for these entities. Before these images he bowed and prayed, and at these shrines, he lavished his wealth, and sought eternal protection for himself and for the ones he loved.

And he made others believe as he did.

The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They pretended or were deluded to have received messages from the (now no longer) Unseen Unknown. They stood between the helpless multitude and the Gods, which now have mighty attributes. They were the carriers of flags of truce to placate the wrath of the now Supreme Power. They would intercede for them, upon the labor of the deceived believers.

For the ancients, in an age when reading and writing were unknown, and when history itself (hearsay) was orally handed down, nothing was rescued from oblivion except the wonderful; the miraculous. The more marvelous and fantastic the story, the greater the interest was excited. Bards and audience were alike ignorant and alike honest. At that time nothing was known and nothing suspected of the orderly course of nature and the unbroken and unbreakable chain of causes and effects. Everything was at the mercy of a being, or entities, which were themselves controlled by the same passions that dominated man. Ironic, isn't it? Moronic as well. Even today it is still thought of in this way by quite a few.

The more the ignorant are at odds with their environment and the less control they feel they have over it, the greater their belief in unseen powers. Superstition and imagination are a very powerful force when mixed together. Stir vigourously, add a pinch or two of pious fraud, a penchant for control of the masses and poof...GOD.

MythFree · 06-21-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

You mean you believe there is no God. You certainly don't know it for a fact, and have no evidence to support that assertion.

My evidence is during the last 50 years I have had encounters with creatures big and small,observed people via film and television searching the globe and interacting with all kinds of beings from ameba's to the obscure Allegheny Woodrat but never a 'God'.
We find evidence of former civilizations and even dinosaurs but no 'God'.

Believers are very astute at creating reasons why 'God' can't interact with us in a direct manner to defend the myth.

RakMaster · 06-21-2006, 09:43 PM

That's a really neat story, but it doesn't answer my question.

First of all, the earliest known records of human society are all associated with drawings, or writings. Both of these are means of concise, literal language communication. These writings are permanent in nature and they do not in fact create that mythology, but rather report the preconceived "mythology" to the reader. Writings and drawings therefore record things; permanently. Those fossils which are supposed to describe humankind before drawings or writings are dead, dry, fossilized bones unaccompanied by anything. Not a stitch. Not even a peep. So tell me, exactly how do you corroborate that neat little legend you just described?

When did the concept of god begin? You don't know, because in your concept of reality there is no possible way to track it down. When were there "cave men?" You don't know, because no one knows. We can say between 3 and 7 thousand years or so and then oops a man is suddenly found freeze dried on the top of a mountain in southern Italy and blows all that stuff away. So then we drop back ten, punt and say 10 to 115 thousand years or so. Then we find that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens lived simultaneously and ooops, there goes that one again. The truth is, unless you have some secret that even paleontologists don't know, you have no idea how old these things are. And still, none of this answers the question.

Your answer to my question is, of course, "why we invented God, that's why we got the word." You assert that mankind invented God without the benefit of a single reference to a plaque, stone, pottery shard or fossilized poo. Yet, somehow I'm supposed to say, "gee, that's so perfect, I don't know why I didn't see that before!" What you are doing is called argument by assertion. It's the same fallacy that some of these pseudo-theists around here are accused of using when attempting to prove the existence of God. So, either the argument works only when you want it to, or you can't use the argument either. Which one is it?

Some assume that because modern civilizations that appear primitive (American indigenous, Aborigines, South American indigenous, etc.) use word of mouth, that this is how it must have been way back when. Yet, strangely enough written language by modern science's own estimations is in some cases concurrent, and in other cases actually precedes these civilizations. But wait, there's more! The earliest known writings of mankind contain religious themes which describe a devastating flood and a man who seems to live forever!

So, I ask you once again.

Why - in an evolutionary paradigm - do we need a word like god?

Why not turn to your buddy Bob and say "Bob, stop this incessant, infernal thunder and lightning stuff!" I'll tell you why. Because Bob can't. So, because we know Bob can't stop the lightning, your proposition is we (humans or a human, whatever) decided one day that he needed something else, someone else to blame for the lightning. Viola; instant god. The question is why did he need a god to blame? Why wasn't it sufficient to say "that's the way it is, I guess I'll just have to deal with it." After all, if everything is caused by a "natural" process, then from where do we get this weird concept of something "unnatural?" Furthermore, where do we get the concept that we might even be able to stop the lightning ourselves? After all, no one has ever been able to do it before. Yet somehow we have this concept of not only tracking and observing weather, but actually controlling it too! In a natural world, why would we even bother with such a concept? Is it necessary for us to stop the weather? No, it's not. Then tell me, why do we bother with it at all?

Magus55 · 06-22-2006, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MythFree

My evidence is during the last 50 years I have had encounters with creatures big and small,observed people via film and television searching the globe and interacting with all kinds of beings from ameba's to the obscure Allegheny Woodrat but never a 'God'.
We find evidence of former civilizations and even dinosaurs but no 'God'.

Believers are very astute at creating reasons why 'God' can't interact with us in a direct manner to defend the myth.

So because you personally haven't found "God", he automatically doesn't exist? Now, did you search through the rest of the universe, or just this tiny little floating rock we're on that accounts for what, .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of everything that exists in the Universe? God also isn't physical, so why would you expect to find evidence for Him comparable to the evidence found by former civilizations and Dinosaurs?

Quasimofo · 06-22-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

So because you personally haven't found "God", he automatically doesn't exist? Now, did you search through the rest of the universe, or just this tiny little floating rock we're on that accounts for what, .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of everything that exists in the Universe? God also isn't physical, so why would you expect to find evidence for Him comparable to the evidence found by former civilizations and Dinosaurs?

It depends on what "God" you are talking about here. If it is the God who will punish you if you don't end up finding him then yes, you SHOULD expect to find some evidence of him...if we are talking about the Abrahamic God it would seem in our quest to find him all we have found is evidence contradictory to what has been written about him... God would have known this evidence was there, but the people of the time sure as hell didn't. Funny how a god's word could become so quickly out-of-date. So not only do we not find ANY physical evidence to support his existence but instead we find evidence to oppose it. The suggestion that we should have to scour the universe to find it is ridiculous if you are referring to a discovery of significant consequence, a discovery which our eternity relies on.

But if we are talking about a god never attempted to be explained by humans, a god which is not remarkably similar to those who created the idea (one which doesn't feel basic human emotions for instance), a god which poses no punishment to those who do not discover it then yes, this is a being we can never be certain of whether or not it exists...but if it doesn't pose us any threat then I see no point in struggling to discover it when we have just stated that it is not "physical" and cannot be discovered.

Believe in god...that's fine, it is just as valid as believing there is no god. Believe in a god that will punish you if you don't, now you are just being absurd. I think when an Atheist says "there is no God" they are generally referring to that totalitarian dictator in the sky...the one who, for some reason, thought it would be possible to build a tower tall enough to reach him.

06-21-2006, 05:49 PM	#24
RakMaster Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Middleton Posts: 6	Hmmm... I wonder. If we use the word apple to describe a fruit, and the word car to describe a machine, and the word human to describe an organism, then what is God? Give captain obvious here his due. Santa Claus and God are indeed nothing more than words. Unfortunately we have this small thing about language, and within a language words sort of requiring associative meanings for them. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a word called language in the first place. We'd all be grunting and groaning at each other. Let me ask you. If - in an evolutionary paradigm - we have no need, history, or purpose for a thing such as god, then why o' why do we have a word that describes it?

06-21-2006, 09:43 PM	#28
RakMaster Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Middleton Posts: 6	Hmmm... That's a really neat story, but it doesn't answer my question. First of all, the earliest known records of human society are all associated with drawings, or writings. Both of these are means of concise, literal language communication. These writings are permanent in nature and they do not in fact create that mythology, but rather report the preconceived "mythology" to the reader. Writings and drawings therefore record things; permanently. Those fossils which are supposed to describe humankind before drawings or writings are dead, dry, fossilized bones unaccompanied by anything. Not a stitch. Not even a peep. So tell me, exactly how do you corroborate that neat little legend you just described? When did the concept of god begin? You don't know, because in your concept of reality there is no possible way to track it down. When were there "cave men?" You don't know, because no one knows. We can say between 3 and 7 thousand years or so and then oops a man is suddenly found freeze dried on the top of a mountain in southern Italy and blows all that stuff away. So then we drop back ten, punt and say 10 to 115 thousand years or so. Then we find that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens lived simultaneously and ooops, there goes that one again. The truth is, unless you have some secret that even paleontologists don't know, you have no idea how old these things are. And still, none of this answers the question. Your answer to my question is, of course, "why we invented God, that's why we got the word." You assert that mankind invented God without the benefit of a single reference to a plaque, stone, pottery shard or fossilized poo. Yet, somehow I'm supposed to say, "gee, that's so perfect, I don't know why I didn't see that before!" What you are doing is called argument by assertion. It's the same fallacy that some of these pseudo-theists around here are accused of using when attempting to prove the existence of God. So, either the argument works only when you want it to, or you can't use the argument either. Which one is it? Some assume that because modern civilizations that appear primitive (American indigenous, Aborigines, South American indigenous, etc.) use word of mouth, that this is how it must have been way back when. Yet, strangely enough written language by modern science's own estimations is in some cases concurrent, and in other cases actually precedes these civilizations. But wait, there's more! The earliest known writings of mankind contain religious themes which describe a devastating flood and a man who seems to live forever! So, I ask you once again. Why - in an evolutionary paradigm - do we need a word like god? Why not turn to your buddy Bob and say "Bob, stop this incessant, infernal thunder and lightning stuff!" I'll tell you why. Because Bob can't. So, because we know Bob can't stop the lightning, your proposition is we (humans or a human, whatever) decided one day that he needed something else, someone else to blame for the lightning. Viola; instant god. The question is why did he need a god to blame? Why wasn't it sufficient to say "that's the way it is, I guess I'll just have to deal with it." After all, if everything is caused by a "natural" process, then from where do we get this weird concept of something "unnatural?" Furthermore, where do we get the concept that we might even be able to stop the lightning ourselves? After all, no one has ever been able to do it before. Yet somehow we have this concept of not only tracking and observing weather, but actually controlling it too! In a natural world, why would we even bother with such a concept? Is it necessary for us to stop the weather? No, it's not. Then tell me, why do we bother with it at all?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2006, 05:38 PM	#23
Wisdumb Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: United States Posts: 103	JEST2ASK... My point is to not discredit math or science it is to simply show that all the values and definitions we have placed on things are representations more than anything else. So if you find a solution to a problem such as 1 apple + another apple your answer is also just a representation and not accurate. On a molecular level or any other level no two things in existence are the the same. you stated : So why do we not have two separate things which are labelled ** apples? The answer is that we are content with short cutting. So instead of doing the impossible and naming everything in the world something different, since no two things are 100% identical, it is easier to categorize them based on similarities and differences. That is why math, science, and even social sciences do not reflect the true answer to anything but rather make generalizations, some closer to the truth than others. Since you brought up language, when humans first made it up don't you think it would have been much easier to call two fruits that resembled one another, say banana, than to have a different name for each one. Its more convenient, its a short cut. That's all I'm saying. As a result every category of living and non living things is a social construct. Any solutions made involving these groupings is also just as abstract.

06-21-2006, 06:57 PM	#26
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	And: The mind seeks the path of least resistance, and the conclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the nature of his mind, experience, hereditary tendencies, society and a plethora of things that constitute the differences in an individual's thinking. But too many people have come to the conclusion that all is the result of design. That behind all things is an infinite personality; a Supreme Being. they account that the universe was created and set in motion by this infinite personality, that it is a miracle and supernaturally governed and preserved. They have seen...and many still do see with perfect clearness that matter could not possibly create itself, and therefore imagine a creator of matter. Blah...blah...blah... But, it does not occur to them that it is necessary to account for the existence of an infinite personality. From a superstitious perspective a large majority of mankind has believed in (the biblical) "God". This Being has been inferred, planted and grown from superstitious phenomena into a belief system that guides a religious worldview. Man in all ages has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and death, substance, force and why things are as they are. Consider a caveman. Babies pop out of his females as if by magic. He subsisted on roots, plants and animals that could be killed with a club or a stone and yet could kill him equally as well. Countless objects of terror surround him. He stands next to rivers with no beginning or end, by bodies of water with only one shore. There are beasts mightier than he is. He suffers strange sicknesses. He trembles at the sound of thunder, blinded by lightning, hiding from the sky that grows black and menacing. Then...once upon a time...that caveman begged for the protection of the Unknown. In the terribly long dawn of human awakening, in the midst of pestilence and famine, crouched in dens of darkness, the seeds of superstition were sown in the imaginations of the minds of our ancestors. They thoroughly believed that everything happened in reference to him. He believed that by his actions, he could excite the anger, or by his worship placate the wrath, of the Unseen Unknown. They resorted to flattery and prayer and sacrifice. They put in stone, or carved in wood, the idea of their God(s). Before long, they built an altar, then a hut, a hovel, a shrine and at last, a cathedral for these entities. Before these images he bowed and prayed, and at these shrines, he lavished his wealth, and sought eternal protection for himself and for the ones he loved. And he made others believe as he did. The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They pretended or were deluded to have received messages from the (now no longer) Unseen Unknown. They stood between the helpless multitude and the Gods, which now have mighty attributes. They were the carriers of flags of truce to placate the wrath of the now Supreme Power. They would intercede for them, upon the labor of the deceived believers. For the ancients, in an age when reading and writing were unknown, and when history itself (hearsay) was orally handed down, nothing was rescued from oblivion except the wonderful; the miraculous. The more marvelous and fantastic the story, the greater the interest was excited. Bards and audience were alike ignorant and alike honest. At that time nothing was known and nothing suspected of the orderly course of nature and the unbroken and unbreakable chain of causes and effects. Everything was at the mercy of a being, or entities, which were themselves controlled by the same passions that dominated man. Ironic, isn't it? Moronic as well. Even today it is still thought of in this way by quite a few. The more the ignorant are at odds with their environment and the less control they feel they have over it, the greater their belief in unseen powers. Superstition and imagination are a very powerful force when mixed together. Stir vigourously, add a pinch or two of pious fraud, a penchant for control of the masses and poof...GOD.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.