| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mayflow
Advanced Member
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 3877
|
 Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Atheism might as well be considered a religion. |
 |
|
| ohifwinterends wrote: | It takes an incredible amount of faith to completely rule out all possibility of there being a God. Is this not correct?
Agnostics are really the ones with the least amount of faith in anything. |
This is correct to me. The logic is precise, I believe. Of cousre I may believe that we are all gods and goddesses too, and there may not be just one. I don't really get this idea of just one creator anymore than I get the idea that just one being created New York city or anywheres else.
_________________
If a human dreams it is an Angel; How sure is it, that it isn't an Angel dreaming that it's human? - Blue Angel http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/index.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guyest85 ... thankx man. i try to speak to the truth about things. just tryin' to find the best way, ya know. "idealism"...in a sense...yeah i know that's an "ism". i won't claim what i write is perfect though and i'd rather just stop with ideals (a/"my" Book of Life/The Way of Life/Book of Ideals) and similar things...in a similar direction...stuff that's good-positive-for life-human life-human liberation and such.
language is an imperfect transmitter. still, i try to communicate. it's worth it. it's worth the effort.
"faith" with good reasons-strong feelings-strong beliefs for having it...for keeping faith. faith for me is trust...and i want to be rather sure of something/someone before i have faith in anything...before i give my trust to anyone. yup, it's important stuff for me too. my trust/faith is not blind. it is i hope well considered and felt in my soul...deep inside me (it-the thing-the person should agree-mesh well with my overall spirit).
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Getting fired up about this conversation is beyond me.
If i had to guess i'd say i'm one of the least spiritually concerned people on the board, i'm at least in that cluster.
belief of all kinds has become, for me, a product of humanity. The question of god has become a lower branch on the bigger heading of human operation. The physical fundamentals are way above that on the heirarchy, so that might give you some idea of how much consideration i give to the spiritual. It's down there because i can't do anything with a concept of god. The only time i have to deal with it is when another human gets the idea in their head.
a cognitive styles note: The consistency with which contributers believe in god, and the way they approach such issues has ruined the idea of something external reaching us, or us reaching out to something and feeling a connection for me.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guyest85
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Im a contributor and I have no problems being spiritual, or having faith, or a lack thereof.
I think great men are defined by their beliefs and the ability to stand by them in the face of adversity.
People (being men and women) and their beliefs have shaped the world and will continue to shape the world for all time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| C.Beck wrote: | | a cognitive styles note: The consistency with which contributers believe in god, and the way they approach such issues has ruined the idea of something external reaching us, or us reaching out to something and feeling a connection for me. |
Please explain. Do you mean to say that contributors have a high degree of consistency in matters of faith, or a low degree of consistency? Individual consistency, meaning they keep much the same beliefs over their entire life, or consistency across the type, meaning that the beliefs of most contributors are similar?
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Faith Belief in action. Belief describes a fact which Perceiver thought knows to be accurate. Faith combines Perceiver knowing in facts with Server knowing in actions. This enables Contributor strategy—which combines Perceiver and Server thought—to operate. In other words, faith is related to Contributor confidence. It is possible for an awake Contributor to build upon a foundation of mesmerized Perceiver and/or Server thought. This leads to blind 'faith.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find that contributers approach the issue of god with the same tools and come to similar conclusions. These conclusions are not the exact same but are like points along a budget line. They then proselytize to the same degree and are equally unshakable about what they have decided. It's just a dimension of their personality that i pay attention to. It's a common topic so i can compare the same issue as had by many subjects. I don't know of a single one yet who outright shuns religion, spirituality or other secular beliefs and everything inbetween.
I do know a few percievers who do. I know a lot of exhorters who don't give it a seconds thought but believe in god. i don't know many servers so i don't know much about what they believe.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guyest85
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I could see that being the case. A year ago or so I did much soul searching and research. I figured if I'm gonna put "faith" into something I ought to atleast research it and decide on what i thought was the best. Cause for one no one likes the guy who acts like he knows, without actually knowing jack shit. Everyone should do this, it really put my mind at rest on alot of things plus sparked the hunger for more knowledge.
Here we are
_________________
I don't, won't, cannot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
everytime i've looked at this page recently i've seen an ad at the top of this page for this: The God Who Wasn't There DVD (what i posted is only a portion of the ad's visual. i wasn't able to copy it so i just search the Net for a modest pic.
rotten folks have screwed this religion. this is obviously being done again. there's much good in that book. if, only people had seen Jesus as a guide and the righteous prophet that he likely really was. folks like this still exist now. this is not unbelievable. people have been led astray...lied to...and controlled for others' benefit. this is extremely sad. The Bible (this book) is explaining very well much that is now occurring. i believe many of these rotten folks (the kind described in the book) are now once again doing all they can to discredit anyone and anything that will allow people to see the truth about them and the slavematrix they have created. wake-up good people !
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CorruptAsHell
Member
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | And you can theoretically be God and be doing an atheist's will.
We could also all be in the matrix.
Our imaginations are wonderful things, no? |
You need serious help.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RadicalDreamer wrote: | | Annabel_Lee wrote: | | He seems to be of the same grain of people who argue endlessly about how evolution is not a "law" but a "theory". To theorize in science isn't a haphazard way of being led by a gut feeling or speculation. Extensive evidence is used to back a theoretical claim. Laws and theories aren't differentiated on a scale of trueness; laws make theories. They're really incomparable entities. |
I see your point to a degree. I was attracted to his point that some engage in speculation to try and explain "why" a specific trait is the way it is. There is an assumption by some that there is some intelligent purpose behind it. Mental illnesses are hinted at coding for human genius. It is the price a genius must pay for being one. "There is a fine line between genius and madness" as they say. If the kid wasn't a genius he might not be myopic. It is like some think evolution has a divine plan and a personality.
Being miserable maybe part of evolution's divine plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_advantages_of_clinical_depression#cite_note-NeeseAdapt-12 |
Well the whys of changes in evolution exist at two levels. Mutations are always random. However, the way mutations find themselves expressed in a population, and a species (eventually possibly contributing to speciation) is what the broader view of evolution really hinges on--natural selection. At that level, there the favorably expressed traits will be the ones that are most favourable to existence in an environment. But there isn't secret coded design. The first stage is random and the second selects based on what's most favourable for a population in an environment.
I've heard of this one before. The logic is the same that governs the way most think of attitudes and moods in general. You need the lows to get to the highs. There needs to be an awareness of the risks and costs associated with an activity to aim for and maximize benefits. Of course he has mentioned that what he's saying is controversial, because the perception of what depression entails can range from a mere mood disorder to a significant pathology, but I think the general concept still remains.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | | Well the whys of changes in evolution exist at two levels. Mutations are always random. However, the way mutations find themselves expressed in a population, and a species (eventually possibly contributing to speciation) is what the broader view of evolution really hinges on--natural selection. At that level, there the favorably expressed traits will be the ones that are most favourable to existence in an environment. But there isn't secret coded design. The first stage is random and the second selects based on what's most favourable for a population in an environment. |
How are mutations random instead of selected for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadicalDreamer
Advanced Member
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 4049
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Annabel, how about the scientific discovers concerning schizophrenia? The science out there says it is either a mentally handicap (from testing) or the genes code for some super human intelligence (by testing). The carriers of these genes are either socially dysfunctional and can't get a date to save their lives or they are some super advanced social creature that have the best sex lives of all the members of our species.
A couple of years ago scientist created a genetic model on races. They said there are 5 races. If they tinkered with the model some more another race would appear in Pakistan. There is reason to assume that people's prejudices and flights of fancy can be hidden in what appears to be scientific work.
Criticism of the clusters study
Though the authors of the study do not equate the clusters with race there are some who view the studies on clusters as evidence of the existence of biological races. Hence these studies have attracted considerable controversy. Critics argue that using genetic information to determine an individual's continent of origin is not a new concept. Using the ABO, RH and MNS blood groups, scientists in the 1950s could already determine continent of origin based on known frequencies of these traits.
Critics argue that any attempt to divide humanity will always produce artificial results. They point to the fact that in the study when six clusters were used an additional cluster (race) appeared which consisted solely of the Kalash of Pakistan. Several groups in the study also appeared in two races such as Ethiopians, Hazara of Pakistan, and Uyghur from Pakistan and western China. Joseph Graves argues that in the study the people sampled were from regions separated by large distances such as South African Bantu and Russians. He argues that if more people came from the regions that bridge the continents results may have been different. Examples such as Armenians would cluster both with Asia and Europe. Somalians or Yemenites may cluster both with Africa and Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Does society really want to let the theory of evolution be the tool to explain the reasons behind phenomenon:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/071203_iq.htm
_________________
| Raven wrote: |  |
Function preference: Whatever my muse desires and requires at any given moment
Last edited by RadicalDreamer on Wed May 20, 2009 12:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_Lee wrote: | | Well the whys of changes in evolution exist at two levels. Mutations are always random. However, the way mutations find themselves expressed in a population, and a species (eventually possibly contributing to speciation) is what the broader view of evolution really hinges on--natural selection. At that level, the favorably expressed traits will be the ones that are most favourable to existence in an environment. But there isn't secret coded design. The first stage is random and the second selects based on what's most favourable for a population in an environment. |
How are mutations random instead of selected for? |
The key difference is that a genetic mutation is random at an individual level. But they are favourably selected for in a population through population checks: lack of food, mates, homes, disease, etc. that eventually lead to death.
Most mutations either go by unnoticed or produce some sort of functional disadvantage in an organism. However, every once in a while, an organism encounters a mutation that gives it a selective advantage in a particular environment. Again, it's worth noting the last clause because there is no intrinsically good or bad mutation, the advantage associated with a mutation and its subsequent expression in a population is dependent entirely on adaptation to the environment. So since our model organism had an advantageous mutation, it is going to find itself in a better shape than its competitors, attract more mates, find more food, build better homes, be more resilient to disease, etc. It's going to produce more offspring with the same kind of competitive advantage, who would go on to produce more offspring and so on. Eventually, the organisms with this mutation would predominate the previous "norm" until this becomes a norm.
There could be other possible mechanisms, of divergent evolution, parallel speciation and so on, but this would be the most commonly understood one.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RadicalDreamer wrote: | | Annabel, how about the scientific discovers concerning schizophrenia? The science out there says it is either a mentally handicap (from testing) or the genes code for some super human intelligence (by testing). The carriers of these genes are either socially dysfunctional and can't get a date to save their lives or they are some super advanced social creature that have the best sex lives of all the members of our species. |
From what I know on the issue, schizophrenia is actually based on polygenetic mutations. Basically, schizophrenia is caused by mutations occurring at different loci of different genes. It is argued that the individual mutations themselves may have been advantageous at one point of time. However, it is their collective expression that is manifested as the not-so-advantageous disorder.
So from what I can gauge, the disparity in the social lives of those with schizophrenia is probably dependent on the in how the mutated alleles are expressed at different loci. There are always gradients of intensity and severity in disorders anyways.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
