Samhain

Kamchatka:

Well, sorry, I have trouble holding more faith than that in anyone who believes so strongly in something which has just as much evidence of existence as Santa Claus or leprechauns. Is that a personal failing? Perhaps.

Well, yes. I won't try to deny that I've said some dumb shit before in my life, I do try to stay away from that now, though. When examining religion, though? I do feel that in regards to many apologists especially, my generalizations are more than warranted.

I'd provide evidence that Muhammed and Moses were tyrants, I don't have big beef with Buddha. The other two, if they are portrayed correctly by their respective books, would seem to be preying on the fears of humans for purposes of control. Religion is tyranny at its finest.

Well, thanks for your faith in me.
I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY answer, let alone a logical and competent one.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that as far as science and logic goes, god(s) haven't been able to be able to hold up against scrutinization.

What about them?

Perceptions, which fall under the ideas of science and logic and what humans hold to be true in an objective sense. Even if all is based upon human perception, which I think is a very arguable stand, then how could one still say that god(s) exist when human perceptions have created truth as governed by our own perceptions. The arguement that god(s) can exist because all is based upon human perception is irrelevant, since human perception has provided for the things which disprove god(s) quite well.

Hmm, well. Considering they all commit a common logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof" I'd still hold that they are ridiculous.

How can you say maybe not then?

Human inventions which deny and reject all other human inventions, namely the human invention we know as truth? That's quite a ridiculous argument. As I said, if everything is a human invention, including logic, science, etc. And all of these things fall better under the the human idea of "truth" then how can we hold that god(s) are true at the same time when they reject everything else we know to be true?

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

SteveD

Kamchatka,
I am not sure that I understand your position. Allow me to restate it in my words and you can tell me if I have it right.

Gods exist in the human mind, therefore gods, in actuality, exist. This applies to every concept of god that exists in the mind of man.

If a human conceives that Mother and Father are gods then they are. If a human conceives that the earth is god then it is. If I conceive that my cat is a god then it is.

Is this an accurate reflection of your view?

Steve


Edited for spelling

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: SteveD ]</p>

Philosoft

Kamchatka,

I'm going to devote a post to just this question so you don't miss it this time. Pay attention.

What definition of 'consciousness' are you using and how do you know what fully conscious means?

Okay, two questions. Sue me.

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

You said, "This might be true, but that does not mean infants worship their parents as we worship gods."

How do "we worship gods" Philosoft? This has become very interesting. First, Free12thinker essentially admits to being a god and now you admit to worshipping them.

You said, "In other words, he sees himself as her provider or protector. A far cry from transcendant creator."

No, he is her creator, purveyor of all things and her light. And because he is so benevolent, he will grant her independence.

You said, "I find it difficult, nay impossible to believe a child worships his parents as a creator."

Would it be easier to accept if a child worshipped his parents as Hercules and Xena? How about Yoda and princess Leah? How about the biggest, smartest, badass in the world and the warmest, softest shelter in a storm? Does that make it a little less "impossible"?

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

You said, "What definition of consciousness are you using and how do you know what fully conscious means?"

I'll try to make this fast since you may have to worship your gods this morning.

Conscious: Latin- conscius, knowing with others: com-, together + scire, to know. Having an awareness of one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts and of one's environment. The component of waking awareness perceptible by an individual at any given instant; consciousness.

Now, to use your terms, "pay attention."

Most of us are conscious, at least, from the time we open our eyes after birth. I would agree that babies are not "fully conscious." Each individual is conscious. None, that I no of, are fully conscious. We are all aware of our existence and environment to some degree. We, as individuals, and humanity as a whole are in the process of becoming more fully conscious, more aware of our environment, our senses, our existence etcetera.

Fully conscious would be total awareness, total understanding, complete knowledge- omniscience.

The evidence suggests that humanity is not capable of being fully conscious-omniscient. Samhain's "dumbasses" figured that out a long time ago, so they went about trying to relate themselves to omnipotence and gods were born. It is no accident that many of them resemble a child's view of mother and father.

Eventually the "dumbasses" devised systems of logic to become more fully conscious. Unfortunately, while we may have become more fully conscious, we are all still a bunch of "dumbasses".

Kamchatka

I'll get to the rest of your posts later.

Thought for a Sunday;

1st Commandment for modern society- Always wash your hands after wiping your "dumbass".

Adrian Selby

"The evidence suggests that humanity is not capable of being fully conscious-omniscient"

This means people are only dumbasses insofar as you define fully conscious as omnipotent. Which is far removed from what most of us term fully conscious. If you want to redefine terms, don't expect people to agree with the redefinition, especially when its as contentious as that.

Fully conscious means wide awake, as in, not sleepy, meaning alert. I am fully conscious because I am engaging my mental faculties entirely in providing this response. I am lucid, my mind is not distracted. You'll have to flesh out some idea of this scale of consciousness, only the only objects capable of consciousness at all are complex central nervous systems. Given these are finite in structure and limited to particular perspectives on the universe, by definition they cannot be omniscient.

"We are all aware of our existence and environment to some degree"

No, I am aware of this room I'm sat in as fully as I could ever be aware of it from the position I'm sat. I could only be less conscious of it if I was less conscious, perhaps sleepy or drugged.

Adrian

free12thinker

Kamchatka,

Why don't you bring up the post in which I supposedly admitting to being a God? Or are you just making these statements because I have'nt been around this post for a couple of days?

Yes I created my daughter. Just as my wife did. It's called intercourse. Sorry to be so blunt, but apparently, you need a refresher. And yes, as she is in her infancy still, I do provide her what she has, that's what parents do. But I am not a god. I am not omnipotent. I am not controller of anything, not even my daughter or my wife (I know this must burn you, huh?). No one is submissive to me, nor are they indebted to me for anything. And that may be the key. Although my wife and I created (you hate me using this word I know ) our daughter, she doesn't owe us anything for it, nor will be forced to follow our beliefs. REASON NUMERO UNO WHY I AM NOT HER GOD!

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

Samhain

Kamchatka:

No, as a child not fully "conscious" as stated before would likely have no knowledge of what Yoda, Princess Leah, Hurcules or Xena is, and it's arguable that the child would not know what a badass or a shelter is for lack of knowledge of such a definition. It's difficult to understand how a child could know of something when it expects nothing less. For the most part, parents treat their babies well. A child does not know what it is to be treated poorly. Thus we could say that it is not a feeling of affection or dependence upon the parents but one of expectation. It's the same thing as trying to explain what is "evil" to someone who has never experienced pain or "evil". If all a child knows is the good, then it does not know the reason for the good aside that it has certain benefactors. These are not "god" in the eyes of a child, but rather, I'd see parents as benefactors expected to do their duty to the child, for that's truly how I believe the child thinks - selfishly.

Sorry, your argument is non sequitur, at least until you come up with some good proofs.

Philosoft

I haven't the first clue what you're talking about.

<strong> Simply because he is fully responsible for her well-being doesn't mean he believes he can make god-like decisions for her.

<strong> Infant "worship" is nothing more than a naturally selected survival technique. Those that didn't have it obviously didn't live as long and were out-competed. It simply doesn't require this grand conscious framework that you ascribe to it.