Atheism Not A Religion?

[Ahab]

I'm just saying that's a rather arbitrary way to define "supreme."

Arbitrary?  No.  It's what "supreme" is.  There is no other kind of being which is more supreme than we are, collectively, even though there are some bad apples among us.  If you don't see that is true for all of reality, you can at least see that is true on this planet.

 

And yes, we can keep getting better and better until we're as good as our kind of being can be.

[jkwilliams]

Arbitrary?  No.  It's what "supreme" is.  There is no other kind of being which is more supreme than we are, collectively, even though there are some bad apples among us.  If you don't see that is true for all of reality, you can at least see that is true on this planet.

 

And yes, we can keep getting better and better until we're as good as our kind of being can be.

I guess you and I have different ideas of what it means to be supreme.

[Analytics]

The supreme being on this planet, as a kind of being, among all other kinds, is us.  We are the supreme being on this planet.

 

...

 

It reminds me of a critic who said that Mormons have it exactly backwards when they say the Church is perfect but the members are not.  In reality, Mormon people are amazing, perfect people, but their Church has plenty of room for improvement.

 

Human beings--especially collectively--are now more powerful than the gods were imagined to be in the days of Homer. Is 'god' a third-person singular entity, or is god really first-person plural?  I believe in the latter.

[Analytics]

I guess you and I have different ideas of what it means to be supreme.

 

Human beings are supremely powerful.  But with regards to virtue, we could learn a lot from my dog.

[jkwilliams]

Human beings are supremely powerful.  But with regards to virtue, we could learn a lot from my dog.

Exactly.

[Ahab]

It reminds me of a critic who said that Mormons have it exactly backwards when they say the Church is perfect but the members are not.  In reality, Mormon people are amazing, perfect people, but their Church has plenty of room for improvement.

 

Human beings--especially collectively--are now more powerful than the gods were imagined to be in the days of Homer. Is 'god' a third-person singular entity, or is god really first-person plural?  I believe in the latter.

At least you can now say that you believe in a supreme being... whether you use the little "g" or the big "G".

[Ahab]

I guess you and I have different ideas of what it means to be supreme.

Even a supreme pizza can turn out bad when you use toppings that are rotten.  And yet it would still be called a supreme pizza.

 

Likewise, Satan is still the same kind of being we are even though he is the eiptomy of the worst we can be.

[Ahab]

Human beings are supremely powerful.  But with regards to virtue, we could learn a lot from my dog.

You're still the alpha in the familiy, though, I hope.  A good dog still needs a good leader. 

 

And there are some bad dogs, too, or rather some dogs that behave badly.

[jkwilliams]

Even a supreme pizza can turn out bad when you use toppings that are rotten.  And yet it would still be called a supreme pizza.

 

Likewise, Satan is still the same kind of being we are even though he is the eiptomy of the worst we can be.

Good example. It may be called a "supreme" pizza, but some people don't like a pizza with everything on it. If you're saying that "supreme" is just a label or name that doesn't mean "best," then you may have a point.

[Ahab]

Good example. It may be called a "supreme" pizza, but some people don't like a pizza with everything on it. If you're saying that "supreme" is just a label or name that doesn't mean "best," then you may have a point.

Yes, just as some people don't like our Father in heaven and would not call him the exemplar of how good our kind of being can be.  He is still an individual included within the classiication of being that is the best kind of being there is in all of existence, though.  Just as Satan is, with some people who say he is better than our Father in heaven. Both the best and worst of our kind is included.

[jkwilliams]

Yes, just as some people don't like our Father in heaven and would not call him the exemplar of how good our kind of being can be.  He is still an individual included within the classiication of being that is the best kind of being there is in all of existence, though.  Just as Satan is, with some people who say he is better than our Father in heaven. Both the best and worst of our kind is included.

So, it's just a label, then. OK.

[Ahab]

So, it's just a label, then. OK.

It's not "just" a label.  The label means something, and in this case the label "God" refers to the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, which is us, regardless of which one of us you think is the best of our kind.

[Stone holm]

It's not "just" a label.  The label means something, and in this case the label "God" refers to the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, which is us, regardless of which one of us you think is the best of our kind.

 

Do we really believe in that?  I mean we, as Mormons, have only one God with whom we have to do, but beyond that for Mormons is pretty much speculation.

[Analytics]

At least you can now say that you believe in a supreme being... whether you use the little "g" or the big "G".

 

My point has always been it depends upon how you define it.  If you define it that way, I totally believe in three Supreme beings: Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, and Florence Ballard.

[Ahab]

My point has always been it depends upon how you define it.  If you define it that way, I totally believe in three Supreme beings: Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, and Florence Ballard.

So you admit yet again that you're theist.   To be more politically correct I'd say those are 3 of the people who are the kind of being that is the supreme being in all of existence, but you can believe in 3 Supreme beings if you want to.

[Analytics]

So you admit yet again that you're theist.   To be more politically correct I'd say those are 3 of the people who are the kind of being that is the supreme being in all of existence, but you can believe in 3 Supreme beings if you want to.

 

For the last time, it depends upon how you define it.  If you think Diana Ross is a god I certainly won't argue with you, although I would imagine several theists might.

[Ahab]

For the last time, it depends upon how you define it.  If you think Diana Ross is a god I certainly won't argue with you, although I would imagine several theists might.

Yeah, well it's not as if all theists are in agreement about theology, anyway.  And as I said, it would be more politically correct to say she is a person who is the kind of being that is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.  That is true even if some people don't agree.

[Brian 2.0]

Ahab,  are you defining human as the most supreme being on the planet becuase you see the sum of our parts as being the best?  Because obviously there are parts of humans that are not supreme when compared to other beings.  We seem to be supreme in intelligence, but we are definatley not supreme in terms of physical strength or plenty of other categories.

[Ahab]

Ahab,  are you defining human as the most supreme being on the planet becuase you see the sum of our parts as being the best?  Because obviously there are parts of humans that are not supreme when compared to other beings.  We seem to be supreme in intelligence, but we are definatley not supreme in terms of physical strength or plenty of other categories.

Yes to your question, I think, although I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms.  We, the supreme being, are the supreme being because there is no other being which is as amazing as we are, collectively.  Some other kinds of beings can do some amazing things too, but no other kind of being can do all we can do, or do it as well as we do.

 

I'd go into some detail but your personal beliefs may conflict with what I know our kind of being can do and has done.  But even as we are now, in our fallen condition, we can still do a lot of amazing things.  Think about how good we can be instead of how bad we can be.  And realize that we can put other kinds of beings to work for not only our own advantage, but also to help them to live a better life too.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

I don't see a contradiction between saying "objective reality exists" and saying, "quantum mechanics does a very good job of describing the fundamental nature of reality.”

 

Call me naive, but I think objective reality is out there.  I have no illusions about the ability of human beings to actually grasp objective reality, but I still think it exists.  Human thought consists of models.  And I believe George Box was quite right when he said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Perfect agreement.

 

But the problem is that you can never get outside the model to see if it "corresponds" to anything else- because all we see are models.

 

Believing in God is a model which gives people purpose in life and is useful.  It is as "true" a model as any.  It is "objective" in the sense that many find it useful and many find that it helps their lives immeasurably.

 

"You should not believe anything without evidence" is a statement which is accepted on faith as much as any- and as has been shown it hangs on the definition of "evidence".  One man's evidence is another man's conjecture.  That is even true in science or in a court of law.

 

For the theist, the evidence for the existence of God is a feeling in one's heart.  It is perfectly analogous to feeling love for your wife.  What is the evidence that I love my wife?  A feeling in my heart.

 

Loving someone gives one a purpose in life and makes your life richer.  Believing in God gives one purpose in life and makes your life richer.

 

Of course "objective reality exists"- but it is not "out there".   It is "in here".  You can personally never get "out there" because you cannot escape your human perceptions.  None of us can.

 

So what we call "out there" is actually our communal agreement on experiences- human experiences- which we all have, "in here".

 

We all agree about the boiling point of water because we all experience it the same way when we test it.  That is what we call "objective", but really it is the aggregate of billions of humans all agreeing on their subjective experiences.

 

So is the belief in God.

 

The problem is that not all of us love your wife, and accept your evidence that you do.  For all we know you may be plotting to run away to Tahiti with Calmoriah. 

 

So I am sorry, I cannot believe in the existence for your love for your wife.  I am an a-love-ist in regard to that.  It makes no difference to me if you love her or not.  You cannot prove to me that you love her.  But for you it may be very real.

 

So the usual response to this line of thinking is that "Oh- so that's what you mean by God- something that just gives you a good feeling".

 

No that is not what I mean at all.  The fact is that we cannot VERIFY God's existence though any means other than subjective "evidence" because our belief in God is based in subjective feelings, just as the "evidence" for you loving your wife is.  I am sure that you would say that loving your wife & family is a life-changing experience which gives your life profound joy and meaning.

 

I don't think you would say you love your wife because "it feels good", because that is to trivialize it beyond recognition.

 

Using loving feelings is an ANALOGY for the kind of "evidence" I am using here.

 

So for me, seeing it this way, the overwhelming "evidence" for the existence of God is unmistakable and profound.  He has changed my life.  I have seen miracles.

 

I have as much evidence for believing in him as I have for believing that I love my wife.  And yes, that is absolute certainty.

[mfbukowski]

I am going to disagree wtih you on this. I think an honest effort to restate what some one has said is very key in the communication process is quite effective at understanding what some one has said.  If I understand you correctly you think that to restate some one is always a distortion?

Of course it is useful as feedback- if the person agrees with you, then you know you have a meeting of the minds.

 

But what is said is what is said.  The words ARE what is said.  You change the words, you change what is said.  But of course communication is a two-way street and that is why we get so frustrated with "semantics" because semantic arguments are not communication.

 

But if someone disagrees with the re-statement, clearly going back and telling them over and again what "they said" is ridiculous.  You have no communication.  You may have debate points but no communication.

[mfbukowski]

 

I've really watched it all the way through once, and have watched segments of it two or three times.

 

I have no problem with what he says. Something about my own beliefs that I’ve left out of the discussion until now is that my lack of belief isn’t based solely on the (hopefully) rational things I’ve been discussing on this thread.  Other questions I’ve considered is whether believing would be subjectively satisfying for me, and whether believing would make me personally a better person.

 

I’m quite open to the possibility that better people than me believe because their superior reasoning faculties figured out the truth.  And I have no problem with people believing because they find it satisfying.

 

The video talks about a biology professor who is a church-going believer on Sunday.  Certain people she knows at church don’t approve of her scientific conclusions, and certain scientific colleagues don’t approve of the mythology she subscribes to on Sunday.  She shrugs her shoulders and finds both her religious life and professional life meaningful and satisfying, and feels no need to reconcile the two.  Rorty’s position is that it’s fine for her to live her life that way.  Isn’t that the main point?

 

If that floats her boat, I am totally fine with it too.

No the real point is that there is nothing to "reconcile".

 

The religious belief and the scientific belief are talking about different things, as different as baseball and impressionist paintings.

 

I don't need to "reconcile" my love for Picasso, say, with being a fan of the LA Dodgers.  Go Blue!!

Edited November 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Brian 2.0]

I see.

 

And what evidence would you need to know that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

 

The point is, that we believe all kinds of things for good reasons, but without evidence.  We make life changing decisions without evidence.  What is your evidence for being in love, or getting married?

 

And what evidence do you have for the idea that we are supposed to have "evidence" in the first place?  It seems that you take that on faith.

 

As for killing babies, I guess I'm not sure that there are objective moral facts out there.  I do feel it is wrong to kill babies. I don't know where that impulse came from, if I was "raised" that way, if evolution instilled it into us because it helps the species, if it's because i'm a sentient being that has the ability to empathize, if I'm inherently acting self-interested because I want to foster cooperation because cooperation eventually benefits me.

 

Either way, I have chosen to believe that killing babies is wrong, and I would say my best evidence for that belief is that I do not want to be killed myself, most everyone I know doesn't want to be killed, so I would assume a baby doesn't want to be killed even though it can't express that.  And I choose to be in a society that has laws to protect that right.  I'm kind of making this up as I go along so I'm sure there are holes in this.

 

Would you say you have evidence that killing babies is wrong?  What is that evidence?

 

As for getting married, I for sure used PLENTY of evidence to make the decision to get married.   Who doesn't (besides arranged marriages I guess)?

 

As for valueing evidence in the first place, that just seems to be the best way I have found to determine my decisions and attempt to understand the world around me.  I'm open to hearing other methods, but all the other methods I've heard don't work for me as well as using evidence to determine belief.  The more evidence, the stronger the belief.  On any given subject, my belief scales with the evidence.

[Brian 2.0]

 

I don't need to "reconcile" my love for Picasso, say, with being a fan of the LA Dodgers.  Go Blue!!

 

Now I see why we bump head sometimes!  I live in LA but I'm diehard SF Giants fan -- you know, the team that won the world series 2 of the last 4 years, that one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah, yeah, yeah... we blew it this year.

[Ahab]

Now I see why we bump head sometimes!  I live in LA but I'm diehard SF Giants fan -- you know, the team that won the world series 2 of the last 4 years, that one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah, yeah, yeah... we blew it this year.

...so you're saying it's because of baseball, or because you're both rooting for opposing teams???