[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m glad you’re here. I wanted to run an idea by you and lowbrass because I think your question is valid.
We know people deal with things differently.
Let’s say different people dealing with powerful experiences and trying to explain and make sense of things that are hard to explain and make sense of, use different tools to get the same job done for that inner person.
For some people the spiritual tool in it’s many forms feels more comfortable and works well for them. Atheists use a different tool. Each sometimes look at the other and wonders, “Why are you using that? It looks uncomfortable” It’s an aesthetic choice in that sense.
Sometimes atheists look at believers as if we’re trying to pound nails with a large uneven rock. If we would only drop the rock and pick up the modern efficient tool they prefer we would all be better off.
Believers look at atheists in a similar manner. Some just can’t fathom how you can possibly get the job done with the tools you’ve selected. “How can you possibly build anything worthwhile without the proper tools?” they ask.
In carpentry, in order for a house to come together different tools are required. Not everybody even prefers the same hammer. Rubber coated steel handle or wooden? What weight do you like? What length handle? Different carpenters find that different tools work better for them
Maybe, just maybe we can accept that aesthetic choice of different people and find a way to build something worthwhile together.
Now all join hands and sing.
Perhaps we can rewrite the old Donnie and Marie hit “I’m a little bit country, I’m a little bit rock and roll” to something that works for atheists and theists
[/QUOTE]
As nice as it would be to find some understanding on this issue, I don’t think it’ll ever happen. Can we live on the same planet together and live worthwhile lives? You betchya. But I don’t think “getting along” and enjoying the human existence in all it’s flavors has to involve “understanding” in the true sense of the word.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Well, because it’s a gap, meaning we don’t really know what it is. I can understanding hoping the answer is one thing or another, but to say you’re going with a particular answer until another one comes along doesn’t make sense to me. It’s perfectly ok (and in my opinion, intellectually healthy) to say “We don’t know.”
[/QUOTE]
I think it is too. I don’t think it’s healthy to emotionally cling to a certainty and deny other possibilities. Thats especially true when denial of clear evidence is involved.I also think it’s okay and healthy to choose an answer that fits for you until you gather more info.
I don’t see it as inert facts. These subjective issues and beliefs affect our decisions. So, when traveling down the road we come to an intersection where several roads meet. We can acknowledge we’re not sure which road takes us to the best possible destination but we can choose a road and see where it takes us. Is it better to stand still until we know for sure? I know you don’t mean that. We both move forward you choosing the road that feels right to you, and I choosing another. we may even discover that although they seem like two different directions now, they actually meet somewhere up ahead.
Which do you see as the most productive choices in this case? Also if you have time, what are your thoughts on my carpentry analogy.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think it is too. I don’t think it’s healthy to emotionally cling to a certainty and deny other possibilities. Thats especially true when denial of clear evidence is involved.I also think it’s okay and healthy to choose an answer that fits for you until you gather more info.
I don’t see it as inert facts. These subjective issues and beliefs affect our decisions. So, when traveling down the road we come to an intersection where several roads meet. We can acknowledge we’re not sure which road takes us to the best possible destination but we can choose a road and see where it takes us. Is it better to stand still until we know for sure? I know you don’t mean that. We both move forward you choosing the road that feels right to you, and I choosing another. we may even discover that although they seem like two different directions now, they actually meet somewhere up ahead.
Which do you see as the most productive choices in this case? Also if you have time, what are your thoughts on my carpentry analogy.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in this analogy, of course you make a choice because you have to. But you wouldn’t say it’s the right choice without knowing. Just a choice.
Which do you see as the most productive choices in this case? Also if you have time, what are your thoughts on my carpentry analogy.
[/QUOTE]
Well, truthfully…it strikes me as (“strikes”…get it? Hammer analogy? …nevermind) like you’re going out and buying a new hammer when the one you have is perfectly serviceable.
[QUOTE=Johanna]
Like I said, I think the concept of deity comes from perceiving such feelings of goodness as extending into the infinite. Sometimes these feelings occur so strongly as to overwhelm one’s comprehension and that makes it easy to think of them as infinite or coming from an infinite source.
[/QUOTE]
And here I’m not understanding your use of religious jargon again. What meaning of “infinite” are you using here? I understand what an infinite number is, but what is an infinite feeling, and how would you know it was infinite? To me, that’s like saying a flower is “infinitely blue”; I don’t see the applicability of the word “infinite” in this case.
And I’m still not understanding why these strong feelings that “overwhelm one’s comprehension” couldn’t be attributed to brain chemistry in your opinion. If I took LSD, I’m sure I could have feelings that “overwhelm my comprehension”, but I still wouldn’t find that to be supernatural. I would attribute it to the effect of chemicals on my brain chemistry. Also, isn’t it possible to have feelings of rage that overwhelm one’s comprehension? Is rage evidence of God as well?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think it is too. I don’t think it’s healthy to emotionally cling to a certainty and deny other possibilities. Thats especially true when denial of clear evidence is involved.I also think it’s okay and healthy to choose an answer that fits for you until you gather more info.
I don’t see it as inert facts. These subjective issues and beliefs affect our decisions. So, when traveling down the road we come to an intersection where several roads meet. We can acknowledge we’re not sure which road takes us to the best possible destination but we can choose a road and see where it takes us. Is it better to stand still until we know for sure? I know you don’t mean that. We both move forward you choosing the road that feels right to you, and I choosing another. we may even discover that although they seem like two different directions now, they actually meet somewhere up ahead.
Which do you see as the most productive choices in this case? Also if you have time, what are your thoughts on my carpentry analogy.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see this as a bifurcation, though. You have a strong feeling. You have ample evidence that humans have feelings, and that feelings are a result of electrochemical activity in the brain. You invent another entity, called “God” to explain the same thing. You now have brain, electrochemical activity, emotion, and God. You haven’t chosen a road, you have built an unnecessary parallel road that goes to exactly the same place.
Or in the carpentry analogy, it’s like you already have a hammer, but you chose another hammer. But you didn’t just choose the other hammer; you connected the 2 hammers via some complex mechanism whereby operating the second hammer causes the first hammer to operate in exactly the same way as it would if you operated it directly.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
As nice as it would be to find some understanding on this issue, I don’t think it’ll ever happen. Can we live on the same planet together and live worthwhile lives? You betchya. But I don’t think “getting along” and enjoying the human existence in all it’s flavors has to involve “understanding” in the true sense of the word.
[/QUOTE]
I think that understanding is what we should be trying to build.
I can go to church with people who’s beliefs I may not agree with and we can enjoy the music together even though in a detailed discussion of belief we wouldn’t agree. Watching a beautiful sunset with an atheist friend we can both equally appreciate it’s beauty and stand in awe, without any conflict of belief.
What helps me is to accept and appreciate the fact that it is right and healthy for there to be different views and different paths. It is right for me to honor your right to choose your own path. Just like I don’t have to know, I also don’t have to understand all the time to appreciate the moment and the things we value in common. You go off and explore based on your beliefs and I go off with mine. We may come together here to discuss and in listening and trying to understand your perspective, my own is improved. Hopefully vice versa.
What seems counterproductive to this building are those on either side who insist on being right by proving the other wrong. They aren’t so much concerned about improving their perspective as they are about asserting the one they now hold onto others. I don’t count you in that group. When wanting to understand ourselves and others takes priority over the need to be right we do better. IMHO
When both respectfully allow others their path without too much criticism, ridicule or judgment, we do better.
All very idealistic I know. it’s a more complicated process than I’ve described here but I think the principle is sound. We can even challenge each others beliefs and take a stand against things we see as negative while we are building mutual understanding.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Well, truthfully…it strikes me as (“strikes”…get it? Hammer analogy? …nevermind) like you’re going out and buying a new hammer when the one you have is perfectly serviceable.
[/QUOTE]
LOL I get it.
Well, there’s another analogy I was all excited about shot to hell .
…shot to hell…get it
But semi seriously, my point is, why can’t I use the hammer that feels comfortable to me, and you use the one that is comfortable to you. It’s not that either hammer isn’t serviceable. They both are. It’s just me going with what fits me best. Shouldn’t I be the one to decide that for me? Shouldn’t you for you?
By the way Trini Lopez called and said if we keep using this analogy he wants royalties
too old?
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I don’t see this as a bifurcation, though. You have a strong feeling. You have ample evidence that humans have feelings, and that feelings are a result of electrochemical activity in the brain. You invent another entity, called “God” to explain the same thing. You now have brain, electrochemical activity, emotion, and God. You haven’t chosen a road, you have built an unnecessary parallel road that goes to exactly the same place.
[/QUOTE]
I see your point here but I don’t agree. Right now neither of us knows exactly where the roads lead do we?
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I don’t see this as a bifurcation, though. You have a strong feeling. You have ample evidence that humans have feelings, and that feelings are a result of electrochemical activity in the brain. You invent another entity, called “God” to explain the same thing. You now have brain, electrochemical activity, emotion, and God. You haven’t chosen a road, you have built an unnecessary parallel road that goes to exactly the same place.
[/QUOTE]
okay I looked it up
Main Entry: bi·fur·ca·tion
Pronunciation: “bI-(”)f&r-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the point at which bifurcating occurs
2 : the act of bifurcating : the state of being bifurcated
Yeah, what I meant was that a choice between one or the other isn’t necessary to proceed forward, which I think is what Kalhoun already said. It’s not like your life will end if you don’t pick an explanation for every unanswered question in the universe. You can continue to live your life and simply say, “I don’t know”. In your analogy, you’re stuck in one place until you choose a road. In reality, you are not.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Yeah, what I meant was that a choice between one or the other isn’t necessary to proceed forward, which I think is what Kalhoun already said. It’s not like your life will end if you don’t pick an explanation for every unanswered question in the universe. You can continue to live your life and simply say, “I don’t know”. In your analogy, you’re stuck in one place until you choose a road. In reality, you are not.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I do see the point but don’t agree. The road is just day to day life and we have no choice but to travel it. Whatever belief system we have, what we value, how we make decisions and why are the steps we take.
I realize we can, continue on not knowing. I’d say we have little choice to do anything else.
I’d say even people who try to stagnate can only achieve marginal success. I’m not implying that we need an answer for every unsolved mystery. I’m just saying it’s perfectly normal and healthy to pick one and say, “This feels right, and even though I don’t know for sure, I’m going to see where this takes me.”
If I’m hearing you and some other atheists correctly you’re saying adding god belief into the mix is unnecessary. The thing is, you can’t know that…for me. You can only know that for you. Thats the nature of the road and our individuality.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
What helps me is to accept and appreciate the fact that it is right and healthy for there to be different views and different paths. It is right for me to honor your right to choose your own path. Just like I don’t have to know, I also don’t have to understand all the time to appreciate the moment and the things we value in common. You go off and explore based on your beliefs and I go off with mine. We may come together here to discuss and in listening and trying to understand your perspective, my own is improved. Hopefully vice versa.
[/quote]
I agree with this. It doesn’t have to be a battlefield (unless, say, a secular nation decides that allowing religion to interfere with non-believers’ lives is ok). I don’t understand the believers’ take and I have no problem with people pursuing happiness in their own way.
Well, without getting into a who’s right and who’s wrong pissing match, there is a correct answer to the question. We just haven’t found it yet. It’s not so much a matter of “proving” the other guy wrong as it is a matter of finding out the truth. I think that “believing” something based on standards that are not generally accepted as proof does little for the quest.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I agree with this. It doesn’t have to be a battlefield (unless, say, a secular nation decides that allowing religion to interfere with non-believers’ lives is ok). I don’t understand the believers’ take and I have no problem with people pursuing happiness in their own way.
[/QUOTE]
See, we’ve found a common belief.
I agree with this too. The subjective and objective often get confused when discussing belief systems, right wrong, moral and immoral.
Thats why in the thread on faith I proposed a “true” faith that moved forward while honestly evaluating new evidence and experiences. I’m tired of faith being an excuse to refuse to look at real evidence and realistic alternatives. I agree with you. If we were to name the destination, it should be …truth…
Well, there’s another analogy I was all excited about shot to hell .
…shot to hell…get it
But semi seriously, my point is, why can’t I use the hammer that feels comfortable to me, and you use the one that is comfortable to you. It’s not that either hammer isn’t serviceable. They both are. It’s just me going with what fits me best. Shouldn’t I be the one to decide that for me? Shouldn’t you for you?
By the way Trini Lopez called and said if we keep using this analogy he wants royalties
too old?
[/QUOTE]
I’m just saying that yours might not actually be a hammer. It might actually be an electric sander or a miter box.
(Pete Seeger; not Trini Lopez…and no, unfortunately, not too old. Damn.)
If I’m hearing you and some other atheists correctly you’re saying adding god belief into the mix is unnecessary. The thing is, you can’t know that…for me. You can only know that for you. Thats the nature of the road and our individuality.
[/QUOTE]
You imply that truth is subjective. I don’t believe that it is. We can have different beliefs, but one of us is right and the other wrong. I can believe that there is a giant statue of George Washington sitting in a chair in D.C., and you can believe it’s a statue of Lincoln, but I would be wrong and you would be right. My believing it is Washington does not make it so. There is in fact an objective truth that exists independently of your or my beliefs. Some people used to believe that the Earth was flat, while others believed it was spherical. The former were wrong, and the latter were right. I disagree that one group can’t know what is true for the other group. The belief that the Earth was flat did not make it flat.
Of course you have every right to believe whatever you believe. I’m only telling you what I believe (or don’t believe, in this case). And I don’t believe there are 2 valid truths; if one is true then the other is false.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I realize we can, continue on not knowing. I’d say we have little choice to do anything else.
I’d say even people who try to stagnate can only achieve marginal success. I’m not implying that we need an answer for every unsolved mystery. I’m just saying it’s perfectly normal and healthy to pick one and say, “This feels right, and even though I don’t know for sure, I’m going to see where this takes me.”
[/QUOTE]
But I don’t think admitting you don’t know the answer to a question is “stagnating”. I think it’s better to proceed without assumptions rather than to make assumptions that might be incorrect.
