the truth

[alfonso]

it must be wonderful having it all figured out...

Wonderful, yes, like knowing what one's talking about. At least it's honest, the sociological description of the god phenomenon is not a fantasy but an observable reality.

[garyb]

it must be wonderful having it all figured out...

Wonderful, yes, like knowing what one's talking about. At least it's honest, the sociological description of the god phenomenon is not a fantasy but an observable reality.

an observation of some(or even many) people's interptretation of RELIGION or their IDEA of a god, which has nothing to do with an actual almighty being. by definition, God is unfathomable. people's ideas are pretty meaningless. i think it's really funny how smart people think that they(at least as a group) are just because they've managed to describe some small, obvious things about the order of the universe, like mathematics or quantum physics as though they've truly sussed out the mystery of existance. even if it all comes down to a few equations, what a wonder and how perfectly it reveals itself...

[dawman]

I would love to know the truth about our origins, as I just don't buy the Scientific evolution approach, and I can't possibly believe any text written thousands of years ago, that has been modified by historians in several languages.
How many here have actually tried to read the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, the Torah or Mahabharrata?
I find these books contradictory but fascinating at the same time.
I love to read Charles Berlitz, Eric VanDanniken and other books that have the ancient Cosmonaut theories also.
I really would love to have proof or at least a direction towards the truth before my time is up, but until then when I read and hope for inspiration, I can only notice the same theme that these books share about how we were created.
Perhaps that's the gig, a continued quest or search for truth which is unattainable?
We have no missing link from Ape to man, except some fossils of walking Homonids.
So of course we are all confused.
I really wish that someone would have asked Edgar Cayce while he slept what was the truth. After 14,000 readings and nobody ever asked him about God ?? Perhaps somebody did, but the person doing the dictations kept the truth hidden to avoid a contraversial statement.
Until the time comes to draw a conclusion that it's evolution or creation, I will just continue reading and wondering why after all of these scientific breakthroughs we still are confused.
Someday may never come, but it's been years of great reading and debates.

[dawman]

I agree 100%.
I am stuck in the middle, but I will keep searching with an open mind.
One things certain though. My son goes to a private school which is not easy financially, but I totally disagree with the current American public school system.
It is political in nature and people wonder why we have the worst in the industrial world.
Our children should be taught to have an open mind and hear all sides.
Many of my friends have children that try and tell their fathers what they are being taught and it is alarming.
My son knew when he was 1 1/2 years old that Santa was fake, as he recognized my face even though it was all gray.
Most children are much smarter than we give them credit for, and are capable of drawing their own conclusions for comparisons sake.
Do the public schools teach my son how to survive in case of social collapse.....no...I do.
Do they teach him about sex way to early......yes.
Funny how private education has practically zero dropout rates.
If you think about it, many families send their kids to public schools, then a large percentage of those kids have their parents pay a lot of money to send them to college.
Private schools have a high percentage of graduates that recieve scholadhips. So paying up front has it's advantages, and the teaching of Faith and Science is just a more well rounded approach IMHO.
My son loves Science and Palientology, and believes there is a God.
Should I tell him that there isn't..?
No way..it's a private decision he will make as he matures.
When I tell him about ancient Cosmonauts, it's another view that none of these schools teach, and I love to see the interesting looks as he adds yet another viewpoint.
I have always distrusted the extremes on either side of the equation, or ones who have all of the answers. I am stuck in the middle, but far from being stubborn and making claims that my short, insignificant pointless life has the answers.
I actually hope I can learn from my son, as I have tried to raise him to avoid the brainwashing of the public schools and military indoctrination that our children face.
I wonder if our prisons would be less populated if more viewpoints were offered to those people when they were children?

[ReD_MuZe]

The principle epistemologic limitation is for sure no evidence for god.

I think there is no definition of god - or should i say too many contradicting definition.
there can only be one correct definition.
if so which is it?

dissing scientists because they cant explain something that most likely doesn't exist is silly imo

[alfonso]

Following logic the A in Atheism the a is not only the Alpha privativum but also the Anti being against.

No more that not liking ice-cream means being anti ice-cream. Really.

You know, only if you make of ice-cream an ideology you will think that not liking ice-cream is the same as being against it. For me you can lick your ice-cream as much as you want, if you need all the others to like it as well in order to enjoy it, that's your problem, not mine...

[garyb]

yes, but he's correct.

a=anti, so atheism=anti theism or "against belief in a deity". this may or may not be something to be ashamed of. it's not something to deny, if one wishes to take the title, however.

[alfonso]

Science has access to the part of reality that is reacting to empirical tests. No more no less.

In case anyone believes that is all of reality.....

No, but who can access more than that? So that is the only reality i feel to make my decisions on. That's the only relevant one. Why should I trust another limited mind speaking of something that can't be accessed? The day I will access an absolute truth directly and I will be sure I didn't swallow some LSD accidentally, maybe, and i say maybe, I might consider a further analysis of what's happening, but I'm not going to "believe" in any fairy tale. I prefer to tame my fears on my own.

[garyb]

what does believing in a deity have to do with a fairy tale?
many beliefs about deities ARE fairy tales, but what does that have to do with YOUR thoughts?

Why should I trust another limited mind speaking of something that can't be accessed? exactly. this refers to scientists as well. one of the great chemists of the 20th century was my grandfather. you use his inventions daily. i must say, however, knowing him my whole life, that while he was a brilliant man and quite knowledgable about chemistry and physics, he was a quite ignorant man as well, as are we all.

your mind is quite Roman, Alfonso... Romans accept all gods and believe in none. i still like you, though. i know you're a good guy with love in his heart...

[alfonso]

yes, but he's correct.

a=anti, so atheism=anti theism or "against belief in a deity". this may or may not be something to be ashamed of. it's not something to deny, if one wishes to take the title, however.

I will not return on what I already said about my positions, I already have explained it well.
But Gary, please, avoid to throw yourself in a field that is evidently out of your reach.

"a" from the Greek is a suffix that means "missing" of something. Nothing else. For example "akefalos" in Greek means "without the head". "Atachtos" in Greek means without discipline. "Anorexikos" means without appetite. "Atheos" means "without god".

"anti" from the Greek means "in front" and "on the other side". So, "Antikefalos" means at the other side from the head, for example at the feet. Near Corfu, where my mother comes from (...yes she's Greek and I speak fluent Greek too) there are two little islands, Paxos and Antipaxos, which are simply the biggest one, Paxos and the small one, Antipaxos, in front of it. Antikefalos and Antipaxos don't mean in anyway "without head" or "without Paxos" but just at the opposite side of the considered area.

Another example in English (from Greek anyway): apathetic and antipathetic. Same meaning? maybe not.....and where is the difference?

Frankly, you might consider studying a bit of a language not only to speak it but to give lessons on it....and to a Greek speaking person!!!...oh well!

[garyb]

well, thanks for the help!

so you are without deity. good for you. as i said, very Roman, not against the various gods, just not believing in them.....

[alfonso]

More Greek I'd say...i was born in Naples (Napoli) which was born in ancient times as a Greek colony in Italy, and I was there for all my studies and also the beginning of my musical career, until the age of 28.
I'm also half Greek, from my mother and learned the language along with Italian, from the beginning of my life.....

The difference between the two mindsets is that the Greek-Neapolitan feels more at home in the whole world, the Roman thinks the whole world is his home....not so subtle of a difference.

[alfonso]

i dont believe.
Science or a bit wider empiricism does not cover your whole lie and your decisions

What about sorrow, love, what about music you like and people you make friends or not.

These are non scientific areas.
Not even the biochemical basics are understood leave alone the concepts of a thought a memory or a feeling.
So how do you handle this part of your life.
You acess it with your non scientific conciousness

I think that this vice to talk about things without knowing them is hard to eradicate....first of all there are tons of studies about memory and feelings. All the brain areas involved are studied in deep and there are evidences on these subjects that you don't even suspect. There are people who with traumatic brain damages or tumors or other misfunctions loose memory, feelings and all other known mental activity. All this is studied and documented with thousands and thousands of reported cases.
Through electrical stimulations of brain areas it's possible to induce all sorts of feelings, images and sounds, fear, anxiety or pleasure. There are studies about drugs and how do they work. You can monitor brain areas activation or de-activation during different tasks and conditions.

The fact that we live all these things as an experience without analyzing them doesn't allow us to give pseudo-explanations of some magical supernatural intervention only because we don't have a clue.

Bottom line: science gives explanations through hard work and studies. These explanations are limited, partial and always a "work in progress". These are the only explanations worth considering, because all the other ones are based on fried air.

If you say, and I agree, that you can't trust completely science, which is the fruit of hard work and study, how do you pretend I should give any credit to theories that aren't even based on the limited scientific methodology?

I accept to have a limited knowledge and I prefer it to any pretentious delirium of universal truth.
Knowing not to know is always better than pretending to know what you don't.

[alfonso]

All i point out that empiricism and science is NOT the answer to full access.
This is what I said before and what I see given here.

I fully agree on this

Being capable of saying somehow a thought or memory is located somewhere in the brains is pretty much the same like stating earth is 6000 or 5 billion years old.
You dont know and very likely will not for a couple of decades if not centuries.

You don't know what you're talking about. Quote the precise studies existing and demonstrate they are wrong. But I think that you don't even suspect that those studies exist and what do they say. You have no titles to say that. Know the tale of the fox and the grapes? Intellectually you are behaving like that fox.

There is no pain in admitting that science is not the bible for atheists.
Science is not meant that way and it is even obscene to abuse science for that.

Atheists, regardless if non or anti, need to seek another starting ground for their full access to reality.

Science does not, does not need to and is not supposed to do so.

What you don't get is that I refuse the possibility of a so called "full access to reality" for anyone. I think that science gives the best relative/operative approximation. Any claim of truth is a lie. So we agree on the limits of science. What surprises me is that it's not me that claims a "full access to reality", but you, and you accuse me to pursue such an absurdity through science....that's the well known technique of the holy inquisition to attribute its own thoughts and meanings that don't exist in the mind of your opponent.

I prefer to say that the elevation of the materialistic and deterministic world view as it is practised by atheists typically in order to demonstrate their solid logic and scientific ground is very often neglecting the knowledge about the epistemologic limits.

You must know some very weak atheists and wannabe scientists. Epistemologic limits are the core of a correct scientific method. Knowledge is the recognition of limits, absolute truth is the opposite of knowledge. Thinking that what you feel is how it is, that is ignorance, of the dangerous kind, the unrecognized one.

[braincell]

The people in this group who are saying god isn't anything specific do not represent what most people (at least in my country) think of god.

If some atheists are angry (and I am one of them), it is because of the centuries of lies, domination and persecution by fundamentalists against anyone who has a different belief than they have.

[siriusbliss]

People mix up religion with their beliefs, and their beliefs with reality, and reality with true ontology, and ontology with their psychology, and on and on. The arguments easily fall into fighting over syntax and mental definitions. It's ALL a waste of time.

I don't believe in God.
I don't believe in Atheism.
I don't believe in anything (other than believing I don't believe anything).

But I DO know what I know

Greg

http://godpart.com/

[garyb]

i just thought it was a funny graph...

[alfonso]

.....So there is no comprehensive explanation....

If you agree on this we can fully agree

[alfonso]

Man! I love that Vaucanson Duck!