- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,753
- 14,974
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
have just started reading a book "the lucifer principle" by howard bloom. my early broad overview of its premise- we as a society evolve in a pattern not dis similar to every other species group on the planet, and cruelty and "evil" (perceived morality) are a massive part of it. humanities history is littered with barbarism (our definition of it) and continues to be, bloom argues this is a natural and needed process for our evolution as a society.
highly recommended read if you are interested in societal evolution, morality and the human condition.
Can't you see how that is a bit of a problem though? Having neutrality as the starting point and asking for evidence of either existence or non-existence? I mean, the greatest evidence for the non-existence of something is... lack of evidence.
Abstract from the question of 'is there a God?' to more specific Gods. Does Zeus exist? If you said no, why did you say no? What evidence could you have of his non-existence? Do unicorns exist? Again, ask the same question as to why you wouldn't need contrary and conclusive evidence to answer that question.
Answering any question as to the existence of anything can't require conclusive evidence of its absence. Usually when this sort of question arrives you start on the default of non-existence. Then evidence is presented and depending on how compelling it is, your answer may range from 'unlikely that it exists' to 'it's highly probably that it exists.' A rock, for example would be an atheist. It doesn't think that there is a divine creator. It doesn't think at all. But that rock isn't claiming to have conclusive evidence of some claim. This is the nature of questions of existence and why a neutral view cannot be a logical starting point. Evidence only goes one way, so you would never be able to claim that something is absent.
In my view, people who say that agnosticism is the only logical choice are doing one of two things:
1 Claiming that there is clearly some, although disputable, evidence for the existence of a creator,
or
2 Using absolute knowledge as the standard to be able to make any sort of positive or negative claim, when this would rarely if ever happen otherwise. I mean what can we really claim to know anyway? We might just be tripping balls in an institution or we might just be some lines of code in some very elaborate game akin to the Sims.
I think most 'agnostics' are in the second camp, although some are genuinely in the first. I know that when I was younger and just starting to realise that I didn't believe in any sort of creator I started there. Agnosticism felt comfortable. It was like I wasn't bound to believing all the silly things but at the same time, saying that the principles that so many people base their lives by are... well horse s**t, felt disrespectful. But then I realised that I was already an atheist when it came to the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, Vishnu, the Jewish and Muslim versions of God. Why was I carving out some arbitrary exemption for a broader idea of any nondescript divine being?
The interesting question is are we really more civilised than the gorillas? the pain we are inflicting on our fellow humans, other creatures and above all on this planet is proof enough that at the very least its debatable
Howard Bloom points out many times in his book how it's been studied that gorillas and other apes will instinctively act in violent ways against their own kind if needed.
Social pecking orders are a big part of ape life too and being cruel and unkind to others below their status level is part of every day life.
Morals are an invented thing by humans that suggest some rules to go by so we get along in big groups without killing each other.
They had someone from the ABS promoting the census religion question on ABC radio yesterday. She then was talking about the "no religion " box as opposed to atheism. And then stated that anyone who put Jedi was a donkey vote.
Surely putting Jedi is as valid as ticking some other "acceptable" box, particularly if you don't want a given religion to claim your support, by putting Jedi you can diminish the standing of the other religion.
The sharp jump from 2005 onwards is probably the rise of New Atheism and internet becoming mainstream.
Only 2 choices?
What % of the 'Unaffiliated' believe or adhere to other alternate religions?
Way too generalized & narrow in scope.
Unaffiliated means unaffiliated, no religion.
we only need one question. do you believe in a creator? A) yes B) no.
I think its not quite simple as that, I like Dawkins think the god of Abrahamic religion is an absolutely ridiculous god. From genocidal to homophobic to sexual slavery he had it all. I wouldnt mind spinozas god, cause that seems more practical. God if he exists is unknowable, people who claim to know god from bible or the quran are so full of it and the texts are proof enough. Hence i dont concern myself in trying to know something which might exist outside of space time, cause we will never know anything outside our human senses anywaywe only need one question. do you believe in a creator? A) yes B) no.
Let me try and summarize it then: Christianity is at record lows, non-religion at record highs.
I reject that. There is a vast range of potentially unknowable possibilities between a) and b).
the basic question i was trying to get at is- are we humans the result of the natural world or was there a higher force that created us human beings? whether that be an abrahamic deity or any other currently unknowable method is open to a persons interpretation.I reject that. There is a vast range of potentially unknowable possibilities between a) and b).
i have explained and been very open re my history on the creator concept before on this and other threads i am surprised you see me as being so narrow minded if you have read those posts. i can not attest with any degree of certainty to the existence or otherwise of a creator/god/higher power as i have not seen external evidence or had personal experience of such.jason isn't exactly renowned for his religious/theological dexterity.
Surely by selecting any religion, mainstream or fringe, you go in the "religious" box.They had someone from the ABS promoting the census religion question on ABC radio yesterday. She then was talking about the "no religion " box as opposed to atheism. And then stated that anyone who put Jedi was a donkey vote.
Surely putting Jedi is as valid as ticking some other "acceptable" box, particularly if you don't want a given religion to claim your support, by putting Jedi you can diminish the standing of the other religion.
this quote seems to be playing out on BF/SRP and on a global scale.There's hope for mankind! hope the trend continues