Common ground.

[Aupmanyav]

...point was, there is an external influence acting upon man that incites him to go against his rationale - a spiritual warfare exists on this earth - life is not about flesh and blood as a big-bang theorist must purport, but it's rather about our moral conduct. Again, protoplasm & stardust are not capable of instilling in man these attributes or cognizance of justice and equity, hate or malevolence

Whatever exists and in the way it exists is (according to you) because of your God. Kindly question your God if what exists is bad.
As for how life came up and what it is for, we have different opinions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Love is one of the most powerful forces in the universe, as much as wickedness is senseless and self-annihilating - can you explain that according to the big-bang theory?

Uh, no.

But that is really out of the left field. Why would expect me to?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

...I ignored irrelevant or fallacious content

Too bad, then. My reply covered critical thinking (evaluating evidence), psychology (confirmation bias), and the evolution of the human nervous system. When I encounter what I consider fallacious thinking, I feel a duty to explain why, as I have in our posting, hence the philosophical discussion on the evaluation of evidence and arriving at sound conclusions. You might have benefitted from such a discussion had you engaged in one.

you have to stop the shallow and misguided perception of life and man.

You probably mean relax my standards of belief and admit religious ideas in. Then, I could go from misguided to on course, right? A mistake that people promoting religious belief to unbelievers such as this humanist have is that they assume that the unbeliever is unhappy, is looking for a life upgrade and a better worldview, and that he will look at the believer and envy him his happiness and centeredness. I already have a worldview that works well for me, and I am more at peace with myself and my world than you are, who seems agitated by life. You know, the sky is falling kind of thing. You see and therefore live in a darker world than I.

Many people are these days, but most because of real problems or imagined secular ones like a fear of Democrats bringing Communism to America or the false belief in a stolen election. But then there are the religious ones, whose religions have to impress on them how horrible life is and why they need to turn from secular society for answers to a god to protect them.

I see that a lot from the Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, they came knocking a while back and immediately began with the sky is falling and that's why I need God and their religion now. I explained that I disagreed about how bad things were. That put up a barrier that they could never pierce. Their whole pitch was based in this thinking. They assumed I suppose that I would agree with them, that their premise was a given, and that I was worried about the future the way they were and the way you sound like you are. But my world is serene and beautiful and my life agreeable to me.

We used to have a very active JW on these threads from down under with whom I had this discussion. She thought the response I just gave you was selfish, because others don't have it as well, so how could I be happy with so much suffering in the world, but that was her religion speaking - the one that tells her how horrible the world is and has her in a constant state of unrest waiting for paradise. I've avoided that in part by avoiding religion.

There is a profound evil on this earth, has there ever been an intellect throughout history who has denied this axiomatic fact?

I do, if by evil you mean more than human malice. Religious people seem to think of evil as a miasma or demon pervading the universe. I see these things in terms of evolution and psychology. I know, misguided, right? I should relax my standards for belief so that I can invite the demon thing onto my world map and experience life the way you do instead.

Can one explain such a 'dementia' in man via the big-bang theory

It can be explained naturalistically. What can't? We have no need for gods in science. No scientific theory or fact depends on their existence, and none are improved in terms of increased explanatory or predictive power by adding one or more gods. Try it yourself. Stick a god into evolutionary theory and see how it changes it. What is a god needed for there? Genetic variation and natural selection occur naturally, without intelligent oversight. Likewise with dementia. With Alzheimer's dementia, one can examine the pathology microscopically in neurons plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, and one can impact the progression using chemistry (prayer turns out to be ineffective). Where is a god needed for any of that?

You're not seeing the struggle in man, it's not about survival at all, it's about circumventing greed, selfishness, tyranny, abuse, intolerance, bigotry, chauvinism and misogyny, objectification and exploitation, etc...

Is this another invitation to board the faith express and join on your journey of despair? My approach has been to distinguish between problems I can help and those I cannot, help where I can, and accept the rest gracefully. My only interface with the problems you listed above is local charitable acts, voting from abroad, and posting on RF, where we often do address intolerance, bigotry, and misogyny in the Abrahamic religions. But that's about it, and it doesn't vex me.

Don't talk about evolution as though that's the extent of your insights of man and history.

You don't seem to understand the humanistic worldview, nor my thoughts on the history of the universe and of man, which recognizes several stages, biological evolution being only one. Before man could reach 2022, the galaxies and stars had to form and to forge the elements needed to construct his body and rocky planets like earth. Then comes chemical evolution, where these elements combine to form life. Now we get to the biological evolution part, where these primordial cells become multicellular animals over geological time as well as the rest of the tree of life living and extinct. Then, sentience arises, and we have the onset of psychological evolution, which in man culminates in intellect, or the ability to use symbols to reason and to communicate. This leads to the last phase, cultural evolution, wherein man tames fire, invents agriculture and animal husbandry and settles down, invents religions and later science, and generates a technological civilization. And that brings us to 2022, where he corrects the course of asteroids.

 

[CG Didymus]

You probably mean relax my standards of belief and admit religious ideas in.

Yes, he said, "you have to stop the shallow and misguided perception of life and man." So, how literal of a Christian is he? A young earther. A 6-day creationer? That God, the all-knowing created an archangel that he knew would rebel? But that was okay, because God had a plan to deal with it. He created a place to cast this rebellious angel and all his demons and all evil people into.

Other things, like did he part the seas, did dead people come back to life, did his Son walk on water, and did the Sun stop in the sky... Did all this stuff really, literally happen? As we know some Christians believe all of that. Of course, there only proof is their interpretation of the Bible. And to not believe them and their interpretation makes a person "shallow" and "misguided"?

I thank God for Atheists challenging those literal believing Christians. And that goes for them challenging the Baha'i Faith also. Both are just interpretations of religious writings that they make out to be the undeniable, infallible truth. But they contradict each other. What's up with that?

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, he said, "you have to stop the shallow and misguided perception of life and man." So, how literal of a Christian is he? A young earther. A 6-day creationer? That God, the all-knowing created an archangel that he knew would rebel? But that was okay, because God had a plan to deal with it. He created a place to cast this rebellious angel and all his demons and all evil people into.

Other things, like did he part the seas, did dead people come back to life, did his Son walk on water, and did the Sun stop in the sky... Did all this stuff really, literally happen? As we know some Christians believe all of that. Of course, there only proof is their interpretation of the Bible. And to not believe them and their interpretation makes a person "shallow" and "misguided"?

I thank God for Atheists challenging those literal believing Christians. And that goes for them challenging the Baha'i Faith also. Both are just interpretations of religious writings that they make out to be the undeniable, infallible truth. But they contradict each other. What's up with that?

The war of the infallibles, lol.

 

[DNB]

Whatever exists and in the way it exists is (according to you) because of your God. Kindly question your God if what exists is bad.
As for how life came up and what it is for, we have different opinions.

People are the same all over the world, from the beginning of time - ask anyone what they want, and they'll tell you 'love and respect'.
These are not the sentiments of a solely secular creature.

 

[DNB]

Uh, no.

But that is really out of the left field. Why would expect me to?

It explains our origins, and its source.

 

[DNB]

Too bad, then. My reply covered critical thinking (evaluating evidence), psychology (confirmation bias), and the evolution of the human nervous system. When I encounter what I consider fallacious thinking, I feel a duty to explain why, as I have in our posting, hence the philosophical discussion on the evaluation of evidence and arriving at sound conclusions. You might have benefitted from such a discussion had you engaged in one.



You probably mean relax my standards of belief and admit religious ideas in. Then, I could go from misguided to on course, right? A mistake that people promoting religious belief to unbelievers such as this humanist have is that they assume that the unbeliever is unhappy, is looking for a life upgrade and a better worldview, and that he will look at the believer and envy him his happiness and centeredness. I already have a worldview that works well for me, and I am more at peace with myself and my world than you are, who seems agitated by life. You know, the sky is falling kind of thing. You see and therefore live in a darker world than I.

Many people are these days, but most because of real problems or imagined secular ones like a fear of Democrats bringing Communism to America or the false belief in a stolen election. But then there are the religious ones, whose religions have to impress on them how horrible life is and why they need to turn from secular society for answers to a god to protect them.

I see that a lot from the Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, they came knocking a while back and immediately began with the sky is falling and that's why I need God and their religion now. I explained that I disagreed about how bad things were. That put up a barrier that they could never pierce. Their whole pitch was based in this thinking. They assumed I suppose that I would agree with them, that their premise was a given, and that I was worried about the future the way they were and the way you sound like you are. But my world is serene and beautiful and my life agreeable to me.

We used to have a very active JW on these threads from down under with whom I had this discussion. She thought the response I just gave you was selfish, because others don't have it as well, so how could I be happy with so much suffering in the world, but that was her religion speaking - the one that tells her how horrible the world is and has her in a constant state of unrest waiting for paradise. I've avoided that in part by avoiding religion.



I do, if by evil you mean more than human malice. Religious people seem to think of evil as a miasma or demon pervading the universe. I see these things in terms of evolution and psychology. I know, misguided, right? I should relax my standards for belief so that I can invite the demon thing onto my world map and experience life the way you do instead.



It can be explained naturalistically. What can't? We have no need for gods in science. No scientific theory or fact depends on their existence, and none are improved in terms of increased explanatory or predictive power by adding one or more gods. Try it yourself. Stick a god into evolutionary theory and see how it changes it. What is a god needed for there? Genetic variation and natural selection occur naturally, without intelligent oversight. Likewise with dementia. With Alzheimer's dementia, one can examine the pathology microscopically in neurons plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, and one can impact the progression using chemistry (prayer turns out to be ineffective). Where is a god needed for any of that?



Is this another invitation to board the faith express and join on your journey of despair? My approach has been to distinguish between problems I can help and those I cannot, help where I can, and accept the rest gracefully. My only interface with the problems you listed above is local charitable acts, voting from abroad, and posting on RF, where we often do address intolerance, bigotry, and misogyny in the Abrahamic religions. But that's about it, and it doesn't vex me.



You don't seem to understand the humanistic worldview, nor my thoughts on the history of the universe and of man, which recognizes several stages, biological evolution being only one. Before man could reach 2022, the galaxies and stars had to form and to forge the elements needed to construct his body and rocky planets like earth. Then comes chemical evolution, where these elements combine to form life. Now we get to the biological evolution part, where these primordial cells become multicellular animals over geological time as well as the rest of the tree of life living and extinct. Then, sentience arises, and we have the onset of psychological evolution, which in man culminates in intellect, or the ability to use symbols to reason and to communicate. This leads to the last phase, cultural evolution, wherein man tames fire, invents agriculture and animal husbandry and settles down, invents religions and later science, and generates a technological civilization. And that brings us to 2022, where he corrects the course of asteroids.

Man has never changed, read your history books. Two lovers in the 2nd millennium BCE had the exact same desires, insecurities, naiveté, lust and passion as anyone in the 21st century CE. A greedy tyrant during the 1500s, had the exact same disposition and intent as that of a modern day despot. A jock has always been a jock, as much as a nerd has always been so since time began - no one is evolving. Greed, charity, abuse, compassion, aspirations, vindictiveness, curiosity, frivolity, complacency and pretense has never changed or developed within man - Caesar was the same person as Alexander or Genghis Khan, Beethoven as Andre Segovia, Da Vinci as Danby, Socrates as Kierkegaard, etc...

Again, it is the spirit in man that defines him and life, and determines all outcomes on earth. And, not the physical attributes of the universe or human beings that define the world that we live in, and how we are to conduct ourselves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

- ask anyone what they want, and they'll tell you 'love and respect'.

Not all deserve it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It explains our origins, and its source.

Science knows our source and origin, also knows a lot about expression of love. You know how Red Riding Hood was fooled? Or what the croc in the famous Hindu fable said to the monkey? The Monkey and The Crocodile Story in English from the Panchatantra

Actually the shrewd croc said a beautiful Sanskrit verse to establish "love among all creatures":

Ayam Nijah Paro Veti Gananam Laghucetasam; Udaracaritanam Tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
('This is mine, this is someone else's', this is the thinking of 'small-hearted' people; for the 'large-hearted', the whole world is a family)

 

[LuisDantas]

It explains our origins, and its source.

Sorry, but It looks like you confused yourself.

This post of yours bears no relation to the one that I replied to.


Besides, you are not offering any sort of explanation. Instead, you are making a claim of faith.

Your privilege, but that does not make an explanation out of it.

 

[DNB]

Not all deserve it.

non-sequitur

 

[DNB]

Science knows our source and origin, also knows a lot about expression of love. You know how Red Riding Hood was fooled? Or what the croc in the famous Hindu fable said to the monkey? The Monkey and The Crocodile Story in English from the Panchatantra

Actually the shrewd croc said a beautiful Sanskrit verse to establish "love among all creatures":

Ayam Nijah Paro Veti Gananam Laghucetasam; Udaracaritanam Tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
('This is mine, this is someone else's', this is the thinking of 'small-hearted' people; for the 'large-hearted', the whole world is a family)

Yes, I must admit, I've always felt so much love from the crocodiles, and even most reptiles. Rattle snakes, now there's a real affectionate and compassionate creature.
The wolf lied to little red riding hood. But, do we blame LRRH for being naive, or the wolf for exploiting and preying on a vulnerable creature. Where were LRRH's parents in all this, was she old enough to be left alone? Was she impoverished, and therefore forced to live in a bad part of town? Did the wolf have any priors, and therefore did the system fail in keeping him either incarcerated or under watch?

 

[DNB]

Sorry, but It looks like you confused yourself.

This post of yours bears no relation to the one that I replied to.


Besides, you are not offering any sort of explanation. Instead, you are making a claim of faith.

Your privilege, but that does not make an explanation out of it.

...confused in what manner - in expecting any factual insights from yourself - possibly

 

[LuisDantas]

...confused in what manner - in expecting any factual insights from yourself - possibly

Do you honestly don't notice the disconnect?

I will have to accept that then.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. or the wolf for exploiting and preying on a vulnerable creature.

Religion also exploits the weaknesses of humans - promise of help in difficulties, fear of death and finally promising 'everlasting life' of which there is no evidence.

 

[DNB]

Religion also exploits the weaknesses of humans - promise of help in difficulties, fear of death and finally promising 'everlasting life' of which there is no evidence.

...man's hopes and desires is the most apparent evidence - such a disposition does not come from the material elements.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hope and desires are based on material needs.

 

[joelr]

How can believers and atheists find common ground to be able to say.

You know, I see you as a human being, no matter if you believe in a religion or not.
I want to know you as a person, but if you believe or not, that is your private choice.

I can love you for just being you.

Jordon Peterson, psychologist, social media personality, Jonathan Pageau, Christian, and Mohammed Hijab, Muslim met for a discussion which was decent. Until the end when Hijab who represented Islam started with apologetics and "what if I could prove to you that Muhammad actually spoke to an angel, blah, blah..." and starts in with his "prophecy" about how it was predicted in 8 years the Persian army would beat Rome........
As if it's a real deity and the best it can do is predict a war (which is 50/50) in 8 years instead of telling them about atoms and the universe and black holes and stuff we don't even know right now. As if when the Muslim text was reproduced (they didn't have photocopiers) scribes couldn't jigger numbers and make prophecy look a bit more impressive?
Anyway he lost Jordon there and it shows how difficult it is for religions to not want to indoctrinate.