Atheism

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Freecare, I read a whole book about Seth and "by" Seth and it was pretty heady stuff. I want to say that there is a popular children's poem or rhyme that was purportedly "written" by a diving board long ago. Can't recall the details, though.

I was just browsing this stuff and read the Seth parts and was surprised that someone else knew about this.

Like I said, it was something that I discovered by accident, and didn't really know what to think of it at the time. But of all the things that I've read that have gone in one ear out out the other, Seth has been rolling around in my brain for 30 years and I can't seem to shake it loose. And for obvious reasons it's been something I've always been reluctant to talk about; not because I'm ashamed of it - I've never had any shame - but more because most of time it's pointless to talk about it because most people will look right past the content to the source and make automatic, knee-jerk quality judgements.

One of my favorite lines from Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance is "The truth knocks on your door and you say 'go away, I'm looking for the truth', and it goes away."

But I've never really been fascinated or obsessed by the "occult" because most of it does raise immediate red flags. To me, all forms of "psychic powers" are the very rare exceptions and not the rule. What's ironic though is that during the cold war, both sides spent vast amounts of money on research into paranormal phenomenon. There are forces of the universe that we do not comprehend. Forces that can't be quantified. Things that science cannot and most likely will not ever explain.

The goal of the rational mind, and the only thing it gives value to is truth, but the irony is that not all truth can be comprehended by it.

And more people have read Seth than you would probably guess. It's not something that would ever come up in casual conversations: "Lovely weather we're having, our collective gestalts of awareness must really feel the need to create a sunny day..."

[Klast Brell]

Sorry man. I have to disagree. Beauty, inspiration, and intuition have been quantified by science. Beauty as they say is in the eye of the beholder. And as such, the criteria we subconsciously use to judge beauty has been described quantified and that data has been terrified by repeated experiments. The criteria can be boiled down to this. Fitness for breeding. That can be broken down to Youth and Health. This is wired in to every human being at a genetic level.

Youth is fairly easy to understand. The older we are the less able we are to provide food, shelter, etc. As women age they are more likely to produce children with birth defects. Eventually they stop ovulating all together.

Health affects your ability to support offspring. Signs of disease are unattractive. Smooth skin without blemishes is healthy skin. Skin with blemishes, lumps discolorations etc are signs of disease. Big breasts signal plenty of milk for the babies. Lots of other physical traits signal good genes that will be passed to offspring. Strong muscles, height, speed and dexterity. Things you don’t even consciously notice are picked up on by the brain and analyzed for genetic fitness.

Body and facial symmetry is a sign of good genes. Arms and legs that are unequal in size, crooked teeth, ears and eyes that are different sizes or not lined up evenly on the head are all signs of flawed genes. Even if the difference is not easily noticed the brain still detects it. Studies have been done where pictures were photo shopped so that various features were perfectly symmetrical and others were just a tiny bit off. An eye 5% bigger than the other, a nose a quarter inch off center. A mouth twisted a few degrees. Test subjects consistently rated a face photo shopped to be perfectly symmetrical as more attractive than the same face given a tiny unbalance.

Averageness is also a sign of genetic fitness. The further a face deviates from the norm the less attractive it is considered. Studies have been done where software was used to merge the features of multiple faces. Any of the individual faces were not very beautiful but the more faces that were blended in the more beautiful the composite became.

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaete ... /index.htm

So yes. Once again science has evicted God. That's the problem with the god of the gaps argument. That God shaped vacuum consistently gets smaller and smaller year by year. God made the rain until we figured out meteorology. God made man in his own image until we figured out evolution and genetics. God separated the land from the sky until we figured out Geology, astronomy, astrophysics. To say God did it, is just another way of saying science has not explained it yet.

[Garrdor]

ALL U ATHIESTS ARE WRONG.

U THINK UR OFF THE HOOK WHEN U DIE? WRONG. YOU GET TO BURN FOR ETERNITY. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA.

*throws empty redbull can down onto the sidewalk*

WUT? IM NOT PICKIN DIS SHIT UP. RAPTURE IS COMIN. IT DON'T MATTER!!!!!

[Alluveal]

Haha, I dated a guy who was an atheist and his biggest fear was drying--that the afterlife was exactly what you "thought" or "conceived" it to be, and since be believed there was nothing, he would exist in eternal nothingness afterwards.

Though, I think most atheists like to announce to the world that no afterlife exists and there is just dirt and worms and they're perfectly ok with that. I guess it's some kind of mental or emotional pissing contest. "Look at me, there is nothing beyond and I am ok, I don't need God, I am better than you. You're stupid for thinking there is an afterlife. It must be comforting, poor little believer! HAHA! LOOK AT MY GREATNESS!"

Thing is, the people I know who believe in an afterlife don't do so because it gives them comfort. For me, it makes no sense that energy just dies, that your consciousness disappears when the physical form is removed. Because I can't stick that belief on a piece of glass and slide it under a microscope to "prove" to atheists that it's there, doesn't make it silly, stupid or ridiculous.

[Harlowe]

There is definitely just as much of a superiority complex and condescension with non-believers as you see with religious extremists. To me it's just another form of extremism.

[Klast Brell]

There is definitely just as much of a superiority complex and condescension with non-believers as you see with religious extremists. To me it's just another form of extremism.

Are you saying all non believers? Or just the extremist non believers?

[Alluveal]

There is definitely just as much of a superiority complex and condescension with non-believers as you see with religious extremists. To me it's just another form of extremism.

I would have to agree with you 100%. The extremists on both sides are annoying as fuck and they're more alike than either will ever admit.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

To say God did it, is just another way of saying science has not explained it yet.

Do you have any proof that science will eventually explain everything? If not, what is the basis for your belief? Are you trying to say you have faith in science? Faith in something the existence of which can not be proven by empirical evidence? Sounds like science is your religion

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I was going to pose some of these same questions to scientists, but of the 2 people I can think of off the top of my head with "scientist" in their actual job description (one a nuclear physicist), one is a christian and one is an avid Seth reader.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

[Alluveal]

Klast Said

It struck me that this god was a total dickhead. No better than the guy who sets his cheeseburger in front of a bunch of puppies and then kicks every one that comes near. I saw no evidence that god existed at all and if he did he was a total prick. At that point I could not maintain the mental gymnastics required to believe that god was even an absentee landlord.

I just reread your first post, Klast, and this stuck out. You need to read some Jung if you haven't already, specifically his autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections.) He came to the conclusion that God was one of two things:

1. He was NOT all-knowing/all-powerful.
2. He was capable of evil.

Jung felt that all things have a light and dark aspect, therefore that God has a "shadow" side like we all do. It would definitely lend to the argument of the existence of evil. Just something I wanted to throw your way. It's a great read. Jung blows my mind, especially when he talks about his childhood experiences with God and how he came to view God later in life.

[Harlowe]

There is definitely just as much of a superiority complex and condescension with non-believers as you see with religious extremists. To me it's just another form of extremism.

Are you saying all non believers? Or just the extremist non believers?

Definitely not "all" on either side. I should have been more clear - I'm saying there is no shortage of superiority and disrespect in believers or non-believers with regard to others views on God.

[Klast Brell]

Argh Ive fallen in to your trap!

Oh wait. No I haven't. Sometimes people say that atheists have faith. Perhaps you feel that faith is a natural state and you can't imagine it's absence. Therefore you assign the word faith to an atheist. As if you feel that color is a trait that all things must have, so you insist that air is colored "clear". I mentioned this in an earlier post in this thread. I have as much faith in the non existence of god as I have faith that My left kneecap is not an alien shape changer that is plotting to kill me.


I suppose that if I was pinned down to a more precise statement I would say that I do not believe that science will find all the answers to everything, simply because every discovery creates opportunities for new questions. The study of electrons protons and neutrons led to questions about subatomic particles. The Large Hadron Collider will yield new knowledge. And based on that knowledge new questions will be asked. I don't think humanity will ever run out of new questions to ask. But I do not see any of those questions ever being answered with the supernatural. Every time something was measured, tested, or analyzed mundane traits were found. Every time science advanced to the point where a reliable test for the presence or absence of god could be performed, the test reported absence. This pattern had been repeated millions of times in laboratories across the world. I have no reason to believe the pattern will be broken.

Do you want to say that is an expression of faith on my part? That Klast has faith that the pattern will never be broken? It's just not an active volitional faith. It's just a rational conclusion. Science has always narrowed the gap god lives in. I have no reason to believe it will not continue to narrow that gap. The same way that my knee has always been a plain human knee. It never polymorphed in to a homicidal alien, and I have no reason to doubt that it will to doubt that my knee will remain that way. Is that faith? To me it's logic.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Probably shouldn't be posting on philosopy while stoned, but I'll make a go of it.

The definition of faith to me is the belief in that which cannot be proven. It could be belief based on statistical analysis, anecdotal evidence, personal experience or just a tingly feeling. Maybe the difference between us is sometimes I'll give the tingly feeling just as much creedence. And maybe the F word has negative connotations for you because it smacks of religion, but it's just a word.

But I'm not implying that you're a closet bible thumper or that your beliefs are wrong. As a rational thinker myself I welcome science to disprove God or Jesus to appear on CNN and give us a honey-do list. Either way I would like to think that I'd take it in good humor. Although the irrational part of me would say it would be just our luck to have Jesus appear about 10 minutes after the God detector shows a red light. DOH.

So what I am saying is that I really think you do have a fundamental belief in science even though there's phenomenon it can't currently explain. Dance around the semantics but we both have "faith" in our beliefs. I personally like the word Faith just because I'm mean and I know the Klast doesn't like that word. You could call it a "reasonable belief based on strong anecdotal evidence" but it still quacks like a duck. It's also how you wield that belief. And I'm not even sure for me they are opposing faiths. I'm an engineer and almost every one of my friends and family are engineers, mathematicians and scientists all with impressive resumes. I'm right there at the rational altar with ya buddy. But to me none of that conflicts with having a strong gut feeling that there's some unknown and powerful force that totally transcends all this weirdness we call life. I guess unlike most christians I would also be comfortable calling that semantics as well. An unidentified powerful force (seth uses the term all that is) could be just like a UFO - we don't know what the fuck it is, but it's like really powerful and stuff.

(If none of that made sense I'll try again tomorrow)

[Harlowe]

I don't consider it a faith, just a rigid belief. No more or less rigid than a person that believes in God, but it's rigid. Now if we are talking religious, I consider extreme Atheists just as religious, judgmental and close-minded as the most extreme Evangelists. Both are chronically stubborn about other possibilities, they will not even entertain that they could be wrong and they both think people that do not believe what they believe are crazy. Which tends to lead to them both to being very preachy and defensive about their belief.

Like Alluveal said, it's funny how alike they actually are.

ETA: Freecare you made perfect sense to me.

[Alluveal]

I think Klast needs to post more pictures of his baldness and then I'll consider atheism.

[Select]

Jung felt that all things have a light and dark aspect, therefore that God has a "shadow" side like we all do.

Then he's a huge complex when it comes to taking blame. "That evil? Oh. that's that other guy... Wasn't me!"

I am half kidding. I just skimmed through the new posts and I'll catch up later. One thing I like about being "agnostic" is that I don't have afterlife pissing contests.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I agree with you about rigid belief systems, Harlowe. So far I have yet to see one where all the pieces fit perfectly. Really the only belief systems I'm suspicious of are the ones that claim to be the ultimate truth, and even those have some good nuggets of wisdom.

I like to think of my own beliefs as a composite of what I've read about in philosophy, religion and mysticism and seen and felt in daily experience. The extremes are easy for me to reject, such as eternal damnation of christianity or a world without meaning of rational thought. Those don't have the ring of truth for me. Some things like the golden rule from christianity and reincarnation from hinduism for me make the bell go ding ding ding. Seems to me like wisdom is to be had pretty much everywhere you look and if you want it bad enough you'll have it, at least in some form. Also seems to me that each person has an individual truth, and that for whatever reason (call it God or Determinism or whatever suits you) there's a great deal of overlap in these truths. Most of us agree that kicking a puppy is pretty fucked up, even though we might have radically different belief systems.

Each individual may not be entitled to a complete understanding of life, the universe and everything, but most people from what I've seen can catch a pretty good glimpse, and I think a great many do. And that gets back to my personal belief as to the meaning of life; that a) we're all here to figure shit out on our own ... the hard way and b) those farther along in line are supposed to lend a hand to the slow pokes. As to the purpose of existence, most belief systems agree on that, except the ones at either end of the spectrum.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I Ching (?) says that the yin and yang both contain the seeds of each other. As a metaphor for good and evil it makes sense. All good contains the seeds of evil and vise versa. I believe that. But it's much more of a head trip to ponder that all things contain the seeds of their opposite.

[Ddrak]

I find atheists that have to bring up strawmen to battle religion quite amusing. The "God of the gaps" argument isn't one that is made by any religion, organized or not. They will either decree that science must be wrong if it disagrees with their belief system (unfortunately most of them), or they will say that science will only discover more of God rather than restrict God (my personal belief).

Science has already discovered that at a fundamental level some things are unknowable. That doesn't mean that it "hasn't been discovered yet" but that it's actually not possible to know it without violating important quantum laws. Guess what - God isn't there, despite the desire for atheists to put him/her there. That's the world he made, not what he is. A strong religion will simply state that the more you *know* the more you know God, and to believe God is what you don't know is really the antithesis of any sort of sane thinking.

Dd

[Alluveal]

I find atheists that have to bring up strawmen to battle religion quite amusing. The "God of the gaps" argument isn't one that is made by any religion, organized or not. They will either decree that science must be wrong if it disagrees with their belief system (unfortunately most of them), or they will say that science will only discover more of God rather than restrict God (my personal belief).

This is how I see it as well. I believe that one of our next great leaps in science will be one based in something spiritual.