Just to keep the ball rolling (!), a friend put referred me to this link. It's a very pithy argument against the conventional Christian theistic position
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm Personally, like most atheists, I put myself in the "weak atheist"/ agnostic position. That said, I do feel that our journey through life can lead us into an ever richer, "deeper" experience and appreciation of what life/existence is. I just don't see any compelling reason to identify this richness with any of the concepts of "God" I've come across. I can take an agnostic position on a first cause/unmoved mover/"ground of being"/etc. I just don't see the validity of the arguments which carry this on into any relevant sphere of our life and reason. Most theistic arguments follow the vector, "God exists, therefore ..." The most I can accept is; "God may/may not exist, therefore ... nothing." Francis On 11 Aug., 16:55, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " ... but I believe I understand why you make it. It's an atavistic > need to return theistic thought to its former place of universal > relevance. Since humanity as become progressively less superstitious, > the remaining forms of theistic thought find themselves in a difficult > position vs. plausibility." > > You " understand " nothing, as you.ve meant above in my context, Ian ? > > " Have you paused for a moment to consider that the lack of > understanding is yours, Vam ?" > > This too is a personal observation, irrelevant to the matter being > discussed ! > > " Remember, some of us were theists before and have walked up the path > you're on and found it's a dead-end." > > You have no idea of the path I'm on, Ian ! > > Having said that : The " value " in this discussion goes thus : > > The worker who sees himself as one that is breaking stones, which he's > doing, also thinks of himself as small ( perhaps, also feels unhappy > with himself on that account ) compared to one, doing the same work, > who sees himself as building a cathedral or the parliament building. > > The difference may be expressed as having a small or pin - hole view > or having the ' big ' picture. Though views are something we possess, > the views we have also possess us, and cause divergent idea about > oneself ( on scale of happiness, cheer ), attitudes toward their work > ( on scale of enthusiasm ), feelings towards others and the > environment ( on scale of empathy, goodwill and respect ). > > Applied to matter in the opening post : the big picture is the > universe, the one, the unit, the whole. And there is this entire > spectrum of views we have of ourself in its respect, between separate > from and one with it. These views of ours determine the idea we have > of ourself ( on scale of happiness, cheer ), attitudes toward their > work ( on scale of enthusiasm ), feelings towards others and the > environment ( on scale of empathy, goodwill and respect ). > > Philosophically, it reduces to the idea, identity, knowledge, we have > of ourself : PART ( the size may vary, with it its effects on us ) > OR WHOLE. > > The identity as One, Unit, Whole, is not easy to realise. Not because > it is difficult, but because it goes against our learnt habits and > perceived dividends that consume our will for identity with Whole. > > This is understandable value I am speaking of. The realisation, and > the experience, of that identity goes beyond mere understanding ! > > On Aug 11, 5:45 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Vam, > > > To address a your question "why are the Materialists or Atheists saying they > > alone are valid?" > > > That's quite a serious generalisation to make, but I believe I understand > > why you make it. It's an atavistic need to return theistic thought to its > > former place of universal relevance. Since humanity as become progressively > > less superstitious, the remaining forms of theistic thought find themselves > > in a difficult position vs. plausibility. > > > As I see it, empiricism and the scientific method are humanity's most > > powerful and accurate tools for answering questions about our world. Using > > these tools I can prove, and repeat upon demand, a hypothesis and then apply > > this learning. This -- to give some modest examples -- enables engineering, > > genetics, and medicine. > > > Now, given that superstitious modes of thought have been wrong about so very > > much (position of the Sun, age of the Earth, witches, illness, the origin > > and nature of species, etc, etc), it is right that the scientific method > > casts a very dubious eye over any and all claims made by supporters of > > theistic thinking. Why would it be otherwise? The burden of proof remains. > > > In other words, succinctly, I'm saying the answer to your question is this: > > Because of so many previous failures, it's not unreasonably to suggest that > > the very core of theistic thought -- the existence of the non-material > > outside of the material -- has proven itself unreliable. When you combine > > this with many theists' desire to again try to position spirituality at the > > top table (when it comes to answering questions about us and our world), you > > can see where the conflict comes from. > > > Vam also asked: "What prevents the understanding, even among people who are > > so well informed, read, educated, and intellectually endowed?" > > > Have you paused for a moment to consider that the lack of understanding is > > yours, Vam? Remember, some of us were theists before and have walked up the > > path you're on and found it's a dead-end. > > > Ian > > > 2009/8/11 Vamadevananda <[email protected]> > > > > It isn't just the crusade part that baffles us. Let us read what Ian > > > posted in one of threads ( > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/b4e5458... > > > ... > > > > " I find the notion of God or the divine to be irrelevant when trying > > > to face > > > problems or pain in my life. This life, as I understand and perceive > > > it, is > > > a closed system; a singular reality, no need for, and no evidence of, > > > divinity. For example, when I want to drive change in my life, and > > > derive > > > strength for this, I find the idea of looking to the supernatural to > > > be very > > > odd. After all, if your guess about God's nature is inaccurate, then > > > this > > > so-called "divinity" will appear to be a very fickle or erratic thing > > > indeed! Sometimes it gives you what you pray and hope for, sometimes > > > it > > > shits all over you. Religious sorts all sorts ways of explaining their > > > way > > > out of this. It's called faith; the lie at any price. It either fuels > > > anxiety in trying to second-guess it or makes people vacuous morons > > > who > > > invest no real emotion in their life. I feel sorry for both. > > > > " For me, the notion of the divine is an unreliable tool for dealing > > > with > > > problems in our reality. I prefer to deal with this reality, the only > > > verifiable reality, in strictly human and non-spiritual terms. > > > Metaphysical > > > whimsy is a form of delusion and does not allow an individual to > > > really > > > face or understand self-evident facts; worse, it can make people > > > outright > > > deny cause, effect, and result. Someone dying has "gone to a better > > > place", > > > someone with a serious illness is "facing a trial set for them by > > > God", or > > > someone with a propensity for murder is "doing the devil's work". > > > > " This is no basis for understanding or dealing with our world. > > > > " I don't say that I have a perfect solution, but I do gain enormous > > > personal > > > strength by unflinchingly trying to distil things down to their > > > essential > > > truths based upon the evidence we can rely upon. If someone dies, > > > that > > > person ceases to exist; if someone has a serious illness, the > > > differential > > > diagnosis will be genetic and/or environmental; if someone has a > > > propensity > > > for murder, we'll look to clinical psychology to find out what > > > motivates > > > them. All of these evidence-based views of our reality are far more > > > satisfying to me than the weak band-aid of faith. Call me a cynic, > > > but > > > unless you're very easily satisfied, the whiff of bullshit starts to > > > defile > > > the flowery notions of divinity after a while. Give me something real. > > > I > > > want to feel it, my emotions define me, remind me that life is real > > > and > > > sometimes hard. To not feel pain or despair and resolve them is to > > > have lead > > > half a life. > > > > " I feel incredibly level facing reality in this way. Some things do > > > hurt, and > > > hurt like hell, but I am vastly more satisfied by a strictly this- > > > worldly > > > explanation and how this helps me resolve them. " > > > > It stands out that Ian speaks of strength and ability to live through > > > life situations and circumstance. His is a very valid, honorable and > > > welcome case for pragmatism, what works, and so on. > > > > But, he continues in the same breath, to say that Religion, Divinity, > > > God, Spirit, has no place in it, because they provide nothing to > > > empower and enable him, because they in fact have a debilitating > > > effect on these capabilities ( and need ) of his. > > > > Does he choose certainty ( and matter ) over doubt and contradiction > > > too soon ? Before he could see and retrieve the ' baby in the > > > bathwater ?' Is there a ' baby ' in the ' bathwater ?' > > > > The integrated ( inclusive ) understanding I am alluding to has never > > > been easy, ever, and at the best of the times been limited to very few > > > who perhaps spent a lifetime pursuing that ' value.' Why has the > > > value been debunked ? > > > > On Aug 11, 4:11 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So, why are the Materialists or Atheists saying they alone are valid, > > > > true, correct and, by implication and their crusade, have the sole > > > > right to exist or occupy the thought and knowledge space in human > > > > minds ? > > > > > As you might expect, I don't feel like I'm on a crusade. While a > > > > Christian might feel obligated to 'spread the word' I feel no such > > > > obligation to convince others that there is no God. I have noticed, > > > > however, that not all atheists/agnostics are as laid back as I am. I > > > > really don't understand their motivations. I assume in many cases > > > > it's folks looking for 15 minutes of fame or just enjoying causing a > > > > stir. Basically turning themselves into Celebrity Assholes. I see > > > > too much good from churches to want to ruin religion for anyone. > > > > > Didn't the commies try to stamp out religion? Maybe it's a commie > > > > pinko thing. Orn, can you explain it? > > > > > dj > > > > > heh > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Vamadevananda<[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > One dimension of the perennial debate between Theists and Atheists, > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
