CDZ A Question For Atheists

[Spare_change]

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

You can believe as you wish ... but you cannot definitively say that it isn't so. You have done nothing more than reserved your right to be wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

You can believe as you wish ... but you cannot definitively say that it isn't so. You have done nothing more than reserved your right to be wrong.

Nothing can be proven, one way or the other. I am simply stating my beliefs.

 

[Spare_change]

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

You can believe as you wish ... but you cannot definitively say that it isn't so. You have done nothing more than reserved your right to be wrong.

Nothing can be proven, one way or the other. I am simply stating my beliefs.

So, unlike your atheistic counterparts here, you are willing to recognize the potential for the existence of a greater 'deity', and you won't stoop to calling people names and showering them with castigating comments?

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

You can believe as you wish ... but you cannot definitively say that it isn't so. You have done nothing more than reserved your right to be wrong.

Nothing can be proven, one way or the other. I am simply stating my beliefs.

So, unlike your atheistic counterparts here, you are willing to recognize the potential for the existence of a greater 'deity', and you won't stoop to calling people names and showering them with castigating comments?

No I don't. But then, I have had rude comments thrown at me from both militant atheists and fundamentalist xtians.

 

[Spare_change]

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

You can believe as you wish ... but you cannot definitively say that it isn't so. You have done nothing more than reserved your right to be wrong.

Nothing can be proven, one way or the other. I am simply stating my beliefs.

So, unlike your atheistic counterparts here, you are willing to recognize the potential for the existence of a greater 'deity', and you won't stoop to calling people names and showering them with castigating comments?

No I don't. But then, I have had rude comments thrown at me from both militant atheists and fundamentalist xtians.

They call that being an equal opportunity target.

 

[sealybobo]

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

I read it. Math is always right.

So you worship math? Math is your god?

Show me the math community consensus showing they agree math proves a god. And toss out the theistical mathamaticians. Theyre like creation scientists.

I live my life without a god really. I think something created us in the beginning but it really has no effect on my life. People who feel an overwhelming need to convert others to their belief of the start of the world bother me.

It should really go back to the way it was when I was growing up. Most people kept that shit to themselves. You know who started this? Ronald Reagan when he used the moral majority to win elections. Turned christians into good little republicans by using wedge issues like god, gays, guns and racism. Abortion abortion abortion.

I don't think religion really wants to have an open public debate with atheists because the scientific atheist really does well against a theist in debates as far as I have seen. I use to believe but then realized I actually don't believe. Not only don't I believe, I think the idea is bad for us. The idea has been used for thousands of years to control us and has held us back in many ways. Too many to go into now. Point is, the truth is so much better than the stories. Have you seen this?



Think about how small we are compared to a Red Hypergiant. Consider how large the universe is. Consider how primitive, superstitious, uneducated, naive, gullible, stupid, brainwashed people can be.

I just think that when 90% of the population believes a lie, that's a problem. Live and let live? Sure. I do in my normal life. But that isn't what USMB is all about now is it? And the internet has played a huge role in converting people into atheists. I admit I may still believe in god if it weren't for the internet. To be able to google every question and research both sides of the issue rather than just listening to a preacher and your parents telling you you're going to go to hell. God bless the internet. LOL.

 

[orogenicman]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

 

[sealybobo]

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

In other words there is no god as theists claim. No god visited Abraham, Noah, Moses, Joseph Smith, Mohammad or sent Jesus. These are all snake oil salesmen cults that turned into churches.

 

[sealybobo]

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

I read it. Math is always right.

So you worship math? Math is your god?

Show me the math community consensus showing they agree math proves a god. And toss out the theistical mathamaticians. Theyre like creation scientists.

I live my life without a god really. I think something created us in the beginning but it really has no effect on my life. People who feel an overwhelming need to convert others to their belief of the start of the world bother me.

Do you mean something created us or something created the big bang? Because we didn't happen for another 10 billion years. So you think some "thing" created the universe. This thing would have to be very big to created everything in our universe. How come we can't see it? Why does it hide from us? Does it die? Why do you think something that never dies exists and created us? Can you show me one thing that lives forever?

You think? Based on what do you think this? And why do you not like the multiverse theory? We are just one bubble of an infinite number of bubbles. Just like you look under a microscope and see living things in a drop of water, you are actually even smaller than that.

 

[sealybobo]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

 

[orogenicman]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

I take it you have the attention span of a gerbil. My apologies. I can't be kind about this. Because it takes most people all of two minutes to read that quote. So I fail to understand the issue you have reading it.

 

[sealybobo]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

I take it you have the attention span of a gerbil. My apologies. I can't be kind about this. Because it takes most people all of two minutes to read that quote. So I fail to understand the issue you have reading it.

LOL. Seemed longer on my phone. You know I'm just fucking with you. Fuck with your mentor fuck with you, huh? LOL JK bro I respect you.

 

[WinterBorn]

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.

Did you read that link? It actually does not prove God exists.

from your link:

"As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

"The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived."

But, it does raise an interesting question ....

If you believe in mathematical infinity, but can't express it, why is it impossible to believe that there are other things, to include the definition of a higher being, that exist beyond the human comprehension?

I do not definitively say that there is nothing beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe there is any magic-man in the sky watching our every move and judging us on them.

In other words there is no god as theists claim. No god visited Abraham, Noah, Moses, Joseph Smith, Mohammad or sent Jesus. These are all snake oil salesmen cults that turned into churches.

I think a primitive people created answers to questions.

 

[orogenicman]

Something my college mentor wrote 13 years ago:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
*********************************
Now, I am not a religious man, and have over the years had religious people ask me questions like 'how can atheists claim morality of you don't believe in anything'? If your morality depends on belief in something for which you have no evidence of its existence, then I question the nature of your morality, and the motive behind it.

I am a humanist, maybe one of the last humanists. In that vein, I think it was Albert Einstein who said it best:

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space and personal consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

I take it you have the attention span of a gerbil. My apologies. I can't be kind about this. Because it takes most people all of two minutes to read that quote. So I fail to understand the issue you have reading it.

LOL. Seemed longer on my phone. You know I'm just fucking with you. Fuck with your mentor fuck with you, huh? LOL JK bro I respect you.

Didn't know you were reading it from your phone. I forget that others aren't sitting at a monitor like me. I have a mobile phone but it only does dumb stuff like make phone calls.

 

[dblack]

Our mentor is a windbag. I feel greatful for the time I got and the love and joy I've experienced. But when its over that's it. And I feel sorry for the kid who died at 2 of cancer but that's life. Anything else is wishful thinking. I hope you are right and there is more. But probably not.

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

I take it you have the attention span of a gerbil. My apologies. I can't be kind about this. Because it takes most people all of two minutes to read that quote. So I fail to understand the issue you have reading it.

LOL. Seemed longer on my phone. You know I'm just fucking with you. Fuck with your mentor fuck with you, huh? LOL JK bro I respect you.

Didn't know you were reading it from your phone. I forget that others aren't sitting at a monitor like me. I have a mobile phone but it only does dumb stuff like make phone calls.

Your phone does live streaming audio? Impressive!

 

[orogenicman]

I don't understand at all what you are talking about.

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

I take it you have the attention span of a gerbil. My apologies. I can't be kind about this. Because it takes most people all of two minutes to read that quote. So I fail to understand the issue you have reading it.

LOL. Seemed longer on my phone. You know I'm just fucking with you. Fuck with your mentor fuck with you, huh? LOL JK bro I respect you.

Didn't know you were reading it from your phone. I forget that others aren't sitting at a monitor like me. I have a mobile phone but it only does dumb stuff like make phone calls.

Your phone does live streaming audio? Impressive!

Erm, no. As I said, it only does dumb stuff like make phone calls?

 

[jziegle1]

Ok, say this "god' did provide the framework for these laws and morals you speak of. WHAT DID GOD BASE THEM OFF?

 

[dblack]

Your mentor went on and on to be honest I don't even know what we were talking about. I just couldn't continue reading all that. He really said all that? Geez did he ever shut up?

I take it you have the attention span of a gerbil. My apologies. I can't be kind about this. Because it takes most people all of two minutes to read that quote. So I fail to understand the issue you have reading it.

LOL. Seemed longer on my phone. You know I'm just fucking with you. Fuck with your mentor fuck with you, huh? LOL JK bro I respect you.

Didn't know you were reading it from your phone. I forget that others aren't sitting at a monitor like me. I have a mobile phone but it only does dumb stuff like make phone calls.

Your phone does live streaming audio? Impressive!

Erm, no. As I said, it only does dumb stuff like make phone calls?

Uh.... nevermind.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

Yeah, I've never understood that one, either.

.

 

[sealybobo]

Ok, say this "god' did provide the framework for these laws and morals you speak of. WHAT DID GOD BASE THEM OFF?

Human behavior. Animal behavior.