Life is Just an Illusion?

[Iacchus]

If our belief in god is so important to god, why would it alow us to $crew it up so badly? I know we are the ones messing things up. Why doesn't god unambiguously straighten things out again or put us back on the right track?

Yes, but how can we recognize anything, let alone God, unless we're allowed to do stupid things? If you don't have the proclivity to do bad, how will you differentiate between that and the proclivity to do good?

 

[uruk]

Why can't you just accept the fact that man is a creature of belief?

Are we playing a semmantical game?
There are many definitions and conantations attached to belief.
To which one are you refering? Oh wait!, what am I doing?
you change your defintions to whatever serves your purpose at the moment. You are not an ethical debater.

I'll just quote Carl Sagan:
"I don't want to believe in a god; I want to KNOW there is a god."

 

[Iacchus]

LOL...
Iacchus, you are not understanding much of this, are you?

I understand full well what I'm trying to express here. The thing I don't understand, is why you don't get it?

I have not argued against the idea that humans are creatures of belief. I have simply asked you to list the "set of beliefs" which you claim unite atheists. In this manner, I encourage you to compare atheism with religion, and yet you do not produce this list (nor admit your inability to do so). So, please, Iacchus, compare Atheism and religion--start by listing the "set of beliefs" which unite atheists.

My goodness! You mean we have at least one thing in common here?

One may believe many things, at many levels; this is wholly different from the existence of a set of beliefs which unite a group. This has been explained to you on at least two threads now, but you just don't appear to get it.

If you're not willing to accept that most Atheists, at least on this forum anyway, place faith in the merits of Science, in particular the theory of Evolution, what else can I say? Except of course, why do you continually try to censure me? ... Or, at the very least pass off what I have to say as gibberish or nonsense.

Also, you persist in using "you folks" when many here have pointed out that more diversity exists on this forum than you think.

Oh, do you mean like different denominations? Heck, even in the same church people have different beliefs. So what?

Lastly, I find it a tad amusing that you think that if we are creatures of belief, that adds credence to the existence of a deity. It could just as easily, and much more parsimoniously, be argued that any tendency toward belief was selected for because it promoted group identity and working together, and was thus adaptive for our species. A serendipitous result of such an adaptive process might be the formation of religions, the belief in deities. Thus, your notion of humans as creatures of belief lends itself nicely to people believing in a god despite no god being there. Are you sure this is a direction you want to go?

Of course if we understood that absolutes do exist and, that our interpretations of these absolutes are merely relative, we would also understand that this relativity is what constitutes faith and, our belief in these absolutes. In which case we must ask, is there an absolute sense of knowing, from which we derive what we know?

 

[Iacchus]

I profess many things, Iacchus - but this is neither the time nor the place for it. And my duties as Priest lay firmly within the unreal and the immaterial - the fields of belief - areas that I can set aside when discussing logic, reason, and science.

So you profess that which is supernatural or, at the very least that which is spiritual, and yet you deny it to everybody's face. Hmm ... very interesting. Why should anybody listen to you? Sounds to me like you might be playing a game of subtleties and subliminal messaging? ... aside from the fact that you're an all around nice guy of course. Is this what they teach you in witchcraft school?

 

[Iacchus]

Are we playing a semmantical game?
There are many definitions and conantations attached to belief.
To which one are you refering? Oh wait!, what am I doing?
you change your defintions to whatever serves your purpose at the moment. You are not an ethical debater.

Or, perhaps you don't understand?

I'll just quote Carl Sagan:
"I don't want to believe in a god; I want to KNOW there is a god."

Exactly! ...

 

[Hardenbergh]

EXACTLY!! EXACTLY!!

Just letting you know I'm around (and checking to see if you're being ethical or not).

 

[Z]

Yes, I profess the supernatural, when the time and place are right - and deny it, when the time and place for that is right too. In the light of science, logic, and reason, the supernatural does not exist. But I don't claim they exist, that is, I don't claim the supernatural is real. Science, logic, and reason deal with the real; the unreal or supernatural are the realm of imagination, emotion, and faith.

If this were a board about faith or the supernatural, I'd be supporting notions of faith, concepts of the supernatural, etc. But I wouldn't ONCE offer 'proof', 'logic', or 'reason'. I come here to look at things from the logical, reasonable view. To understand the truth better. To learn to recognize the difference between the supernatural manifest and a really good con or scam.

I believe in a soul, but I argue against the soul in my discussions with Ian and BJ. Why? Because a soul makes no difference in the here and now, in the world of the real and the mundane. I argue against the Bible because it has been demonstrated, time and again, to be a fictitious work edited again and again by innumerable people for very political reasons. I argue against homeopathy because those who argue for it are trying to push a pseudoscience, not faith healing, not true science.

When I cast circle, I don't think that invisible wall of 'energy' is going to keep evil people away, or prevent a car from crashing into us; it's there to keep out 'negative thoughts' and 'bad energies'. It defines a psychological boundary for the participants in which they can relax their own 'mental defenses' and enjoy their experience. When I call to the Guardians of the Circle, I don't expect a set of giant supernatural creatures to appear around us; rather, I'm calling upon the innate qualities within each participant to emerge - the inherent innocence, curiosity, passion, etc. that we often submerge in order to 'get along'. Modern 'magick' is more about psychology than mysticism; the power comes from within the person to affect change in his or her own life. The best spells in the world won't do a thing if the persons they involve don't take action to make things happen. And for some reason, people take courage and do what they need to do easier, if they think they're being GRANTED that courage or whatever from 'supernatural forces' rather than merely looking within for the strength to carry on.

The core of religion for some people is the need to believe that there are no unknowns; that nothing happens without reason or purpose. The core of religion for others is to reach deep within each person to bring out their finest qualities. I chose to become a priest in the school of 'witchcraft' because I can use what I learned to bring out the best of each person without having to hobble them with fear of retribution from gods, or force them to behave a certain way just because doctrine says so. (And because it was cheaper and quicker than college )

But I feel I am blessed with a sufficiently capable mind; I can deal with both the unreal and the real in equal measure. I am fine with evolution - the process makes perfect sense - and am equally fine with believing some deity guides the process, for reasons unknown to us. I am fine with a deity creating the Universe, and am equally fine with that universe unfolding chaotically for no particular reason or purpose. I am fine with the accident of human life, and equally fine in the interest Deity takes in that accident. I embrace the material, physical world, but also embrace the supernatural, immaterial world. Both worlds have merit, but one must understand where each world should come into play.

Coming to a skeptic board and spouting off metaphysical claims is like walking through an alley in the Ghetto with bricks of pure gold and a sign that says, "Rob me, I'm easy". I might possess the gold and know where to take it, but I'm still likely to walk in the Ghetto looking for some excitement and a good, earthy time. Empty-handed, mind you.

I don't come here and say, "Goddess is Real". I say, "I believe in Deity, though I have no proof nor reason to do so." If you say, "God is real", I'll say, "Prove it. Or, what are your reasons for this statement?" And then I'll expect reasonable, logical explanations.

If, on the other hand, you come here saying, "I believe God exists, though I have no proof nor reason to do so," I would applaud your honesty. We could then perhaps discuss the philosophical and moral implications of your claim, and refine away from it that which is inherently illogical, false, or contradictory to reality.

Yes, it means I possess two faces - but all people do, ultimately. It's just how they deal with those two faces that matters - how their beliefs and their knowledge act within them, and how they act upon such beliefs and knowledge.

If the atheists and skeptics here really have a problem with my dual nature, I'm sure they'll let me know. I keep no secrets about what I am. But so far, it's folks like you, Radrook, etc. that are offended that I speak of both the real and the unreal, that I defend fact and logic but still believe in fantasy and emotion. I find that to be very interesting.

It seems skeptics are willing to accept someone's personal beliefs, as long as they are presented as beliefs and not facts. But non-skeptics cannot handle this dichotomy. Strange!

 

[Mercutio]

I understand full well what I'm trying to express here. The thing I don't understand, is why you don't get it?

If it is a problem of my comprehension, I would like to know. Are there any here who you think do understand what you are saying?

My goodness! You mean we have at least one thing in common here?

I am not opposed to agreeing with you, Iacchus. I do not disagree with you by reflex; I have simply asked you to back up a claim you made.

If you're not willing to accept that most Atheists, at least on this forum anyway, place faith in the merits of Science, in particular the theory of Evolution, what else can I say? Except of course, why do you continually try to censure me? ... Or, at the very least pass off what I have to say as gibberish or nonsense.

You are backpedaling from that claim, now. It does not matter whether most atheists on this forum are convinced by the success of science (BTW, your choice of words above is particularly galling, especially given how recently you have been corrected as to your use of "theory"), your claim was that atheists follow a "set of beliefs". Science is not practiced only by atheists, nor are atheists required to admire science. The two are independent of one another; there is no "faith in science" requirement for atheists. If "belief in science" was one of your fundamental tenets of atheism, please strike it from the list. And....please report the remainder of the list.

Why censure you? It is not personal; when you are wrong, I point it out. When you make a statement which is unsupported, I ask you to support it. (note, the latter is what has happened here; how is this censure?)

Oh, do you mean like different denominations? Heck, even in the same church people have different beliefs. So what?

This has been explained to you. Yes, people in the same church have different beliefs...but they also share a set of beliefs which define that church or denomination as separate from others. This is simply not the case with atheists--there are no defining "sets of beliefs" distinguishing the "denominations" of atheism. Any church would be happy to explain to you "what we believe"--they may even hand you a book, or pamphlets, or other literature which explains their set of beliefs, their doctrine. The equivalent simply does not exist with atheism.

Please feel free to make the same error again, though.

Of course if we understood that absolutes do exist and, that our interpretations of these absolutes are merely relative, we would also understand that this relativity is what constitutes faith and, our belief in these absolutes. In which case we must ask, is there an absolute sense of knowing, from which we derive what we know?

And you say that I am the one who tries to pass off what you say as gibberish?

 

[uruk]

Yes, but how can we recognize anything, let alone God, unless we're allowed to do stupid things? If you don't have the proclivity to do bad, how will you differentiate between that and the proclivity to do good?

This is philosophical hog swallow. good and bad is a point of view.
Why do we need evil in the first place? Just so that we can realise "hey, things are pretty good around here."? Please! If there was no evil then how could there be good, right? Wrong! Because good and evil are only concepts. What is good for one maybe evil for another. Beneficial /detrimental is a more accurate term. You do not need to know that not breathing is bad for you for you to continue breathing. Your body just does it naturaly. (you can hold your breath til you pass out, but then your autonomic reflexes take over and you start breathing again without you being cognizant. This is not necessaritly a bad thing either because you may be a kid throwing a tantrum to get a toy. when you pass out your parents freak out, you wind up in the hospital, and they give you the toy you wanted because they feel guilty that your in the hospital)

If god does not want us to stray it would not have givin us the ability to stray. In genesis man lived in purity in the garden of eden. Man did not know the meaning of evil. There was no evil there. except for the inexplicable presence of a talking snake and a tree with fruit that god did not want Adam to eat. This begs the questions why did god allow the talking snake to be in the garden and why did it put the tree in the garden to begin with? That is unless it wanted us to fail in the first place.
God made us with the weakness, it placed the temptation in our proximity, It allowed a coercive entity in with the mix. Then it has the audacity to get mad when we eventualy failed. That's like placing a pyromaniac child in room full of explosives and matches with a talking teddy bear telling the child to light a match. what did it expect to happen? O.K. maybe for some unfathomable reason it was hoping that adam would overcome the weakness bulit in to him by god and resist the coersion and temptation. But give adam only one chance at getting it right? Come on! What a heartless and unforgiving god!

If there is a god, and this is it? No thank you!

 

[Cosmo]

So, no way of going back to establish the experience you had here was real? Like I say, how do you know life isn't just an illusion? Certainly it can't be more than what believe if, it can't even be maintained after you die.

Why does it matter? Why do you feel a need to somehow return from the grave to verify what exactly you were doing up until your death?

Death is the end. There is nothing after it and no need to assume there is. Some people aren't comfortable with that, while others are.

 

[uruk]

Or, perhaps you don't understand?

Case in point.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Isn't it the least bit odd that this sort of thing keeps cropping up time after time? It must be evidence of something. And, while I certainly wouldn't put it past man's folly, it's hard to imagine that there isn't something more to it than that. Is it possible that many began with an original experience which, through time and abuse, and politics? that the original message got lost?

Actually, Carl Sagan mused many times (once in the TV series Cosmos, and in a few of his books) that there is such an experience that all humans share... being born.

it's hard to imagine that there isn't something more to it than that

Maybe you just need to exercise your imagination some?

 

[Iacchus]

Death is the end. There is nothing after it and no need to assume there is. Some people aren't comfortable with that, while others are.

Death is the end of this life as we know it. I agree.

 

[Iacchus]

Maybe you just need to exercise your imagination some?

In what way? Imagine what it's like not to exist?

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, I profess the supernatural, when the time and place are right - and deny it, when the time and place for that is right too. In the light of science, logic, and reason, the supernatural does not exist. But I don't claim they exist, that is, I don't claim the supernatural is real. Science, logic, and reason deal with the real; the unreal or supernatural are the realm of imagination, emotion, and faith.

Humbo mumbo jumbo. Go away, and leave me alone ...

 

[Iacchus]

This is philosophical hog swallow. good and bad is a point of view.

There's no such thing as right and wrong, right? Well, there most certainly is! ...

Why do we need evil in the first place? Just so that we can realise "hey, things are pretty good around here."? Please! If there was no evil then how could there be good, right? Wrong! Because good and evil are only concepts. What is good for one maybe evil for another. Beneficial /detrimental is a more accurate term. You do not need to know that not breathing is bad for you for you to continue breathing. Your body just does it naturaly. (you can hold your breath til you pass out, but then your autonomic reflexes take over and you start breathing again without you being cognizant. This is not necessaritly a bad thing either because you may be a kid throwing a tantrum to get a toy. when you pass out your parents freak out, you wind up in the hospital, and they give you the toy you wanted because they feel guilty that your in the hospital)

Why have form, without the space which exists between form? Why have light, without shadow?

If god does not want us to stray it would not have givin us the ability to stray. In genesis man lived in purity in the garden of eden. Man did not know the meaning of evil. There was no evil there. except for the inexplicable presence of a talking snake and a tree with fruit that god did not want Adam to eat. This begs the questions why did god allow the talking snake to be in the garden and why did it put the tree in the garden to begin with? That is unless it wanted us to fail in the first place.

In other words this "God" of yours wants good little robots.

God made us with the weakness, it placed the temptation in our proximity, It allowed a coercive entity in with the mix. Then it has the audacity to get mad when we eventualy failed. That's like placing a pyromaniac child in room full of explosives and matches with a talking teddy bear telling the child to light a match. what did it expect to happen? O.K. maybe for some unfathomable reason it was hoping that adam would overcome the weakness bulit in to him by god and resist the coersion and temptation. But give adam only one chance at getting it right? Come on! What a heartless and unforgiving god!

This failing of yours is merely a matter of cause and effect which, is spelled out as R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.

If there is a god, and this is it? No thank you!

Tough! You're stuck with it either way.

 

[Iacchus]

If it is a problem of my comprehension, I would like to know. Are there any here who you think do understand what you are saying?

Well, certainly if you think the problem is with me, then I'm not the one to be telling you this. Why? Because I will always be wrong in your eyes.

I am not opposed to agreeing with you, Iacchus. I do not disagree with you by reflex; I have simply asked you to back up a claim you made.

What? Backup that which we could never hope to agree upon? Is this to imply that I have nothing better to do? Of course to imply as such, suggests there is such a thing as right and wrong now doesn't it?

You are backpedaling from that claim, now. It does not matter whether most atheists on this forum are convinced by the success of science (BTW, your choice of words above is particularly galling, especially given how recently you have been corrected as to your use of "theory"), your claim was that atheists follow a "set of beliefs". Science is not practiced only by atheists, nor are atheists required to admire science. The two are independent of one another; there is no "faith in science" requirement for atheists. If "belief in science" was one of your fundamental tenets of atheism, please strike it from the list. And....please report the remainder of the list.

And is this perchance the "Atheist" speaking in you? Yes or no?

Why censure you? It is not personal; when you are wrong, I point it out. When you make a statement which is unsupported, I ask you to support it. (note, the latter is what has happened here; how is this censure?)

Oh I see, the whole thing makes you look right. Well, give that man a brownie award!

This has been explained to you. Yes, people in the same church have different beliefs...but they also share a set of beliefs which define that church or denomination as separate from others. This is simply not the case with atheists--there are no defining "sets of beliefs" distinguishing the "denominations" of atheism. Any church would be happy to explain to you "what we believe"--they may even hand you a book, or pamphlets, or other literature which explains their set of beliefs, their doctrine. The equivalent simply does not exist with atheism.

If Atheism merely stems from the lack of belief in something, then there's nothing to be said about it. There shouldn't even be a label for it. For as you and others continue to stress, there's nothing to be professed from a lack of belief. So put up or shut up!

Please feel free to make the same error again, though.

Of course, we wouldn't want to make anybody else look wrong, now would we? So long as the scapegoat is here that is ...

And you say that I am the one who tries to pass off what you say as gibberish?

Do these words you say here actually mean something? Or, is it just a matter of what you believe? Because certainly not everybody thinks alike, right?

 

[Iacchus]

Roy Masters

Ladies and gentlemen ...

And now, from the Foundation of Human Understanding, here is, Roy Masters

 

[Z]

Humbo mumbo jumbo. Go away, and leave me alone ...

Curious, the kettle thought,
When thus addressed by the pot.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, certainly if you think the problem is with me, then I'm not the one to be telling you this. Why? Because I will always be wrong in your eyes.

I have agreed and disagreed with many who post here. There is no one (not even you) with whom I always disagree, or always agree. It looks like you are taking this personally.

What? Backup that which we could never hope to agree upon? Is this to imply that I have nothing better to do? Of course to imply as such, suggests there is such a thing as right and wrong now doesn't it?

Back up your statement, that is all. You made a statement of fact which you really ought to be able to support. You said atheism is a "set of beliefs, like any other religion". If you believe this to be true, and were not merely making noise, you should be able to tell us this set of beliefs. Why on earth do you suppose we could never hope to agree that you think all atheists believe X, Y, ansd Z? I may or may not agree that atheists do believe these things, but what I asked for was your list.

I don't mean to suggest you do or do not have better things to do. I have no way of knowing, and it is not relevant to the discussion. Your last sentence is a non-sequitor, and I don't see how that is implied.

And is this perchance the "Atheist" speaking in you? Yes or no?

No, of course. Why would the atheist in me speak about science,when I just explained to you that atheism and science are independent? The whole notion of the atheist in me speaking on any subject but the purported existence of a god is silly.

Oh I see, the whole thing makes you look right. Well, give that man a brownie award!

Please, just stick to answering the questions. You don't do sarcasm well.

If Atheism merely stems from the lack of belief in something, then there's nothing to be said about it. There shouldn't even be a label for it. For as you and others continue to stress, there's nothing to be professed from a lack of belief. So put up or shut up!

Careful, Iacchus--you are frightfully close to the truth here! As Stimpy told you earlier, atheism is defined negatively; that is, it is "not theism". And the idea that "there's nothing to be said about it" is exactly right, if by this you mean that there is no "set of beliefs" which defines atheism. The label is an odd one, I agree, sort of a "none of the above" category. It would be silly to label Catholics by what they arenot, or Baptists, or Muslims, or....well, any group that can be defined by a set of beliefs. And as for nothing to be professed...aside from the lack of belief in a deity, you are right--there really is nothing atheists get together to profess.

Of course, we wouldn't want to make anybody else look wrong, now would we? So long as the scapegoat is here that is ...

Again you are taking this personally. If you listed your alleged set of beliefs when I asked you, days ago, I would have had no reason to say what I did. If you like, I could easily find the quotes where the concept was explained to you, then your claim following that and ignoring the explanation. Or would that be picking on you?

Do these words you say here actually mean something? Or, is it just a matter of what you believe? Because certainly not everybody thinks alike, right?

And it is perfectly fine to not think alike, Iacchus. But when you make a claim that can be backed up but refuse to do so... well, we get a thread like this.