Playing the Atheist's advocate

[shawn001]

"after the big Bang everything has a cause" yes entrophy, why is that?

 

[shawn001]

"To evolve" is not the word I would use. Morality is IMO very much an intellectual skill. It will be directly affected by intellectual development, as well as by intellectual impairment. That is one of the reasons why I see intoxication as inherently immoral.



This may not have been a very good example of your point. Earth's orbit around the sun is hardly particularly precise, and to the extent that it is, it is because it is actually the result of competing forces meeting a balance.



We can't know that, but the available evidence certainly does not suggest that we are. Not IMO, at the very least.



I just don't know why you would say that. Neither the big bang nor biological evolution seem even roughly "meant to be".

Just curious LuisDantas, but there were a lot of really moral people who were intoxicated quite a bit. Not promoting intoxication of course, but a lot of great writers and artists ect...

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think, even Big-Bang had a cause though we cannot at present look beyond it. Nothing without a cause.

 

[shawn001]

I think, even Big-Bang had a cause though we cannot at present look beyond it. Nothing without a cause.

Not directing this at you Aupmanyav, just thoughts.

Humans have a problem with cause and effect. Its hardwired into us.

On the one hand though it doen't apply to 'God" or Gods's" the Alpha and Omega, but applies to nature and the big bang. A double standard?

Then I did a quick search and this came up on Pantheism, although I am sure it doesn't represent all Pantheism..



"The universe exists for itself, without cause or purpose. Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause. Nothing exists outside it that could be the source of its purpose."

The universe has no cause or purpose.

But that made me think, in Islam, Judaism and Christianity or any religion really, does that God exist for "itself without cause or purpose"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just curious LuisDantas, but there were a lot of really moral people who were intoxicated quite a bit.

Here is Indra, the great God of Indo-Aryans, who has imbibed more Soma than he could handle. Hear what he has to say:

कुवित्सोमस्यापामिति ll (kuvitsomasyāpāmiti - Have I not drunk of Soma juice?)

THIS, even this was my resolve, to win a cow, to win a steed; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
Like violent gusts of wind the draughts that I have drunk have lifted me; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
The draughts I drank have borne me up, as fleet-foot horses draw a car; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
The hymn hath reached me, like a cow who lows to meet her darling calf; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
As a wright bends a chariot-seat so round my heart I bend the hymn; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
Not as a mote within the eye count the Five Tribes of men with me; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
The heavens and earth themselves have not grown equal to one half of me; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
I in my grandeur have surpassed the heavens and all this spacious earth; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
Aha! this spacious earth will I deposit either here or there; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
In one short moment will I smite the earth in fury here or there; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
One of my flanks is in the sky; I let the other trail below; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
I, greatest of the Mighty Ones, am lifted to the firmament; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
I seek the worshipper's abode; oblation-bearer to the Gods; Have I not drunk of Soma juice?
(Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXIX. Indra)

 

[LuisDantas]

Just curious LuisDantas, but there were a lot of really moral people who were intoxicated quite a bit. Not promoting intoxication of course, but a lot of great writers and artists ect...

Do you mean to make a question? What would it be?

 

[shawn001]

no just stating it. and humans have been getting intoxicated since they figured out they could, some even use it for moral reasons. Of course there are the health issues.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The universe exists for itself, without cause or purpose. Nothing existed before it that could have been its cause. Nothing exists outside it that could be the source of its purpose."

But that made me think, in Islam, Judaism and Christianity or any religion really, does that God exist for "itself without cause or purpose"?

As you will agree, there are many views in Hinduism about it. The commonest view is that it is God's 'leela' (play). The 'advaita' view is that the universe is an illusion created by the power of Brahman, though Brahman itself is not involved or interested in it in any way (like the sun does not cause a shadow but its light does, and the sun and its light are inseparable). In Abrahamic religions, the creation is for the sole purpose of singing praises to their Gods to the exclusion of any other God or Goddess.

"2. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3. You shall have no other gods before me.
5. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6. but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20)

 

[LuisDantas]

no just stating it. and humans have been getting intoxicated since they figured out they could, some even use it for moral reasons. Of course there are the health issues.

I am just not following you. Is that supposed to challenge what I said?

Of course, intoxication has ancient history. Does that imply or suggest that it is not immoral? I'm not seeing it.

Nor do I have any idea of what intoxication for moral reasons would even be, much less how it could be a real thing.

 

[Marisa]

Do you think that a person's morality evolves over their lifespan?

May I make a suggestion? If you'd like to see morality in action, give some Frans deWaal a read. The Bonobo and The Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates and Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved are two excellent explorations of morality outside the human species. Without being critical of religion, deWaal explains that morality is probably a very necessary evolutionary trait among social animals (like us) and is, in fact, present in most apes, elephants, and even dogs just to name a few.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do we know God exists?

If God cannot be proven, how do we know that the God we serve is the right one?

What evidence is there for God? And if there were evidence wouldn't that be proof?

Does the theory of evolution botch the idea that what we see in nature is proof of God's existence?

Are the holy books of any religions evidence of God's existence, why or why not?

I'd say the best evidence we can have of anything is personal experience, but it is still important to acknowledge faith in our beliefs, theism or atheism.
I agree with the same ultimate evidence I think most of humanity had always seen, that chance is not an adequate explanation for the world we see around us
And apparently most do not see evolution as contradicting God, the level of belief in pure evolution with no God is <20% in the US in the most recent Gallup poll I believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd say the best evidence we can have of anything is personal experience, but it is still important to acknowledge faith in our beliefs, theism or atheism.

You're confusing "most convincing" with "best"...

I agree with the same ultimate evidence I think most of humanity had always seen, that chance is not an adequate explanation for the world we see around us
And apparently most do not see evolution as contradicting God, the level of belief in pure evolution with no God is <20% in the US in the most recent Gallup poll I believe.

... and "belief" with "knowledge".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does that imply or suggest that it is not immoral?

It is immoral if 1. it is harming one's health, 2. one cannot afford the quantity that one wants to drink, 3. drinking in a quantity that one loses control of mind and body, or 4. it is endangering one's family life. If it is for fun or for heart (doctors say a peg or two are going to benefit), then, no harm.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is immoral if 1. it is harming one's health, 2. one cannot afford the quantity that one wants to drink, 3. drinking in a quantity that one loses control of mind and body, or 4. it is endangering one's family life. If it is for fun or for heart (doctors say a peg or two are going to benefit), then, no harm.

3 is the dealbreaker. That is what "intoxication" means, isn't it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're confusing "most convincing" with "best"...




... and "belief" with "knowledge".

Let me rephrase then, to the best of our knowledge, most of us believe God exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me rephrase then, to the best of our knowledge, most of us believe God exists.

Oh, sure.

More precisely, most people hold beliefs in the existence of some variety of supernatural entities;

Still most people (but not exactly the same number) see fit to describe those entities they believe to exist according to at least one of the many concepts loosely translated as "god".

It is very much as stretch to call many of those,(such as the cargo cults' recipients of worship, the animist beliefs' spirits, ancestors who are the object of ancestor worship, the Dharmic deities or the Shinto Kami) "god", but people do so anyway, because for many people there is such a powerful drive to convince themselves that they already understand other people's beliefs.

Anthropology learned and teaches a lot about why that is so and how that works. So does social psychology. Frankly, so does psychopathology.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, sure.

More precisely, most people hold beliefs in the existence of some variety of supernatural entities;

Still most people (but not exactly the same number) see fit to describe those entities they believe to exist according to at least one of the many concepts loosely translated as "god".

It is very much as stretch to call many of those,(such as the cargo cults' recipients of worship, the animist beliefs' spirits, ancestors who are the object of ancestor worship, the Dharmic deities or the Shinto Kami) "god", but people do so anyway, because for many people there is such a powerful drive to convince themselves that they already understand other people's beliefs.

Anthropology learned and teaches a lot about why that is so and how that works. So does social psychology. Frankly, so does psychopathology.

I agree, though most of humanity has always believed in a God of some kind, there are many different versions. For those who have other beliefs, there are also many versions. Some used to believe the universe was static/eternal and hence had no creation event or creator. Some still believe in the 'Big Crunch' some imagine a vast or infinite multiverses - other realms of reality where anything and everything is possible.

We are all curious about life, the universe, everything so to speak, and that's what makes us unique, something to be proud of. As long as we all acknowledge it comes down to personal faith, not inherent superiority of intellect or social status or race or otherwise, then we have freedom to follow our beliefs, we can all get along and remain open to challenging our own beliefs on their own merits.

 

[RedDragon94]

May I make a suggestion? If you'd like to see morality in action, give some Frans deWaal a read. The Bonobo and The Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates and Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved are two excellent explorations of morality outside the human species. Without being critical of religion, deWaal explains that morality is probably a very necessary evolutionary trait among social animals (like us) and is, in fact, present in most apes, elephants, and even dogs just to name a few.

Thank you, I'm going to write them down.

 

[RedDragon94]

(I have an M.S. in evolution and ecology as well as an M.A. in theology)

Were you a Christian at the time you got the theology degree?

 

[shawn001]

As you will agree, there are many views in Hinduism about it. The commonest view is that it is God's 'leela' (play). The 'advaita' view is that the universe is an illusion created by the power of Brahman, though Brahman itself is not involved or interested in it in any way (like the sun does not cause a shadow but its light does, and the sun and its light are inseparable). In Abrahamic religions, the creation is for the sole purpose of singing praises to their Gods to the exclusion of any other God or Goddess.

"2. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3. You shall have no other gods before me.
5. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6. but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20)

Yeah, an omnipotent jealous God.