The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."

Which made me think of this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

Thoughts?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

I see it as the complete opposite.

its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion.

I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."

Which made me think of this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I literally just posted about this in the other thread. I absolutely agree with you, but to a point, which I'll get to in a bit. I also agree with [censored] in that science has strived to come up with explanations for these things we don't fully understand. But as [censored] also said, the fact that people take religion as the explanation that makes them feel best is likely not enitrely true. I'm sure for many people, the fear of not knowing some of life's eternal, or not so eternal, questions may lead them to God as a way for comforting them. For others, faith is likely instilled in them at a young age by their parents, or they just happen to align with a particular religion's beliefs. However, if the beliefs happen to be of a moral nature, then you can refer back to the God thread about my thoughts on that.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.


The one thing about those who believe in God is that they tend to realize that they are making a leap of faith... the same can't often be said about those that believe in anything other than God (and everyone believes in something).

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]


Science cannot rationalize how we got here. There are plenty of people who believe in god that have no trouble rationalizing thier existence. You say they believe in a big Unicorn, but most of them, while in your opinion may be ignorant, are probably much more happy and at peace with things (ecspecially near the end of thier days). If ignorance is bliss, i have no trouble being happy.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Science cannot rationalize how we got here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not inclined to say that this is completely true, but suppose that it were. To me, this is pretty much saying that it is impossible to rationalize how we got here at all. There's not really a strictly rational way to introduce God to the conversation. In that case, why try to rationalize? Why does there need to be a reason at all? I've never really understood the "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" style questions.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people would rather put thier own feeling of intellectual superiority over other humans, in front of anything else.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people would rather put thier own feeling of intellectual superiority over other humans, in front of anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that many people do that, but I still find it hard to belive they genuinely don't want there to be a benevolent God.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly, to be frank.

I don't believe in God becuse I have no reason to, as there's nothing that I've seen that has convinced me. To suggest that I feel that way simply because I choose not to believe is pushing on insulting. (for the record, I think Paluka's line is insulting as well).

EDIT-

Also, we have one thread for talking about God, let's focus more on the topic in the op.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

How about we go one further and say our biggest flaw is the mind's ability to decieve itself, which the inability to accept the unknown can be lumped in with.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote has an implicit assumption that athiests are not moral, which is simply not true.

Which is better, acting moral because it is the correct thing to do, or acting moral soley because something is watching your every step and placing judgement on your actions?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need. To get back to the original quote, what's in it for atheists if there is no God? Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right? This is where intellectual superiority creeps in. You can get into a whole other thread about the merits of being right over wrong.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

Quids - well put. And a very real reason why people out-of-hand dismiss religion / religiosity / "God" etc. For fear of intellectual ridicule.

[ QUOTE ]
We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many very thoughtful, religious people who are not only torn about their faiths (one in particular is a Phd at MIT, quantum physics) but constantly re-investigating and questioning their belief system.

As someone else mentioned believing in a God is a leap of faith: in many ways, the thoughtful religious person is giving up control of his life and putting it in the hands of their God and this belief system without empirical intellectual underpinnings (ie based on faith). Some might see this as cowardly and stupid (acceding agency), others as a courageous act.

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need. To get back to the original quote, what's in it for atheists if there is no God? Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right? This is where intellectual superiority creeps in. You can get into a whole other thread about the merits of being right over wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right?

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that saying that you believe in God and believing the God is the same thing. I honestly don't believe in God. Going around telling people I do isn't going to get me into heaven.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement is no more or less true or stupid than yours.

Perhaps all the atheists you know would love that shot at eternal bliss in heaven... but ultimately they preferred to make a different leap of faith.

We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Religious people happen to make a leap of faith that is well-defined therefore much more open to questions / possible ridicule.

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith. I guess this is like the difference between guilty until proven innocent vs innocent until proven guilty. Everything I know about the world makes says that I should not believe in God until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would feel the same way about any supernatural or far-fetched fact or concept.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that saying that you believe in God and believing the God is the same thing. I honestly don't believe in God. Going around telling people I do isn't going to get me into heaven.
And this is cleary not a competition. I know people who "believe" that the Bears are definitely going to win the Super Bowl. They are retards, I don't care whether or not they end up being right.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can see that. Scienctifically, no, Im not 100% there is a God, spiritually/philisophically, yes, Im 100% certain.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see it as the complete opposite.

its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion.

I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. I would say then that the "flaw" would be accepting solutions to questions you have about life, etc. without questioning them to some degree, as well as failing to understand someone else's point of view on the same situation. I think that encompasses crazy religious people.

Being stubborn is, in some cases, a level of dangerous ignorance.

Also, I'm not saying "question everything" but simply take the time to understand it.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is no God doesn't have a faith?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that supernatural or whatever that is fine. Most Christians I know do not believe in these things. They make an exception for God.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that earth has been visited by martians? If not, would you say that this belief requires faith on your part?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all relative (yay cliches!). It seems that we're placing some sort of quantitative value on our respective "leaps of faith" in one direction of the other. Sure, the metaphysical at this point in time seems to some of us to be a high statistical improbability, but people that choose a side are taking a leap, or a hop, depending on how you look at it.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to be vague, but the faith I referred to is specifically the faith in there being a metaphysical being. As you'll see in my post above this one, I clarify this matter.

Edit: terminology

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

Paluka - sorry not meaning to stray from your original point with possible diction issues: I'm defining "metaphyiscal" as anything beyond the physical world (anything spiritual that cannot, to-date, be proven with empirical, human measurements). This is an umbrella term and includes any "God". Not meant as "supernatural" - like ghosts or something.

So yes - Christians believe in a metaphysical state / presence and it is the underpinning of their faith. They don't make an exception for their God existence of the metaphysical is intergral to their worldview.

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."

Which made me think of this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dids,


to get your thread back on track (the god vs no-god debate is stupid)

I would contend that its not mankind's inability to accept the unknowable and integrate it into his daily life which is most detrimental to his "progress" through the ages, for that desire to know, his creative drive, his need to *know* is perhaps one of hes most profound attributes, one of the very few distinctions that can be made between us and other animals. I would posit that it is man inability to critically examine why he knows what he knows. He simply accepts that his knowledge is truth, and refuses to consider what benefit is being served by knowing any particular fact. Man's base of knowledge has always been a self-serving instrument, meant to not only improve his life, but to help him adjust to his surroundings, both environmental and cultural. This is fine, and in fact is part of what being human is all about. Once this knowledge becomes a tool for mans complacency, or worse his enslavement, whether to religious or social ideology, that mankind is at his worse. Then knowledge becomes a justification for "immoral' behavior, a tool for those who are most willing to exploit others for their own gain.

This is especially true considering that most systems of knowledge are actually just belief systems put into place to fill the gaps of what is, at present, unknowable. Consider, 500 years ago, most of the population of the world knew that the world was flat, and that there was no possible way that earth was actually ball shaped. This was considered the enlightened belief, and anyone who said otherwise was osctracized as being insane or idiotic. If one also considers the notion of a geo-centric universe, it becomes very easy to understand that the idea that the divine plan placed the earth at the center of the universe fit very nicely into the conceit of medieval humanity. To which conceits does our knowledge serve today?

For what its worth, i do side with the athiests in the ongoing debate about the existence of god. I think for too long the idea of god and divine providence has served to explain away the ills of the world, which for the most part are human in origin. Its time for us to leave behind the old language of good and evil and begin to conceptualize of a truly human-born morality, and, while i certainly believe its possible to reorganize religious thought to promote such beliefs, i think the overwhelming magority of practitioners are unwilling to alter their beliefs from thier archaic origins. So while i think that, given the immense nature of this universe, and its infinite possibilities and mysteries, any existence of a god is utterly irrelevent to humanity, i think humanity is better served, at least at this point, in having a very strong, rational, KIND, and UNDERSTANDING athiest movement.


pjn

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to be vague, but the faith I referred to is specifically the faith in there being a metaphysical being. As you'll see in my post above this one, I clarify this matter.

Edit: terminology

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. However, the focus on such a limited meaning of the word faith is what makes it easier for some to ignore their own leap of faith. The notion that anyone who doesn't believe in the metaphysical or a metaphysical being doesn't have a faith is a convenient delusion.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

Razor - we are on the same page.

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

I envy people capable of believing in God.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

OP--

your statement is too broad. a more clear argument might make this thread more interesting.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one thing about those who believe in God is that they tend to realize that they are making a leap of faith... the same can't often be said about those that believe in anything other than God (and everyone believes in something).

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it's not that simple. Being an atheist is not an act of faith.

I for one am quite comfortable not knowing. If I feel a need to believe in anything, it's logic and rationality. But I would not characterize such a belief as faith.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" -Socrates

Dids stop plagiarizing the founder of Western philosophy!

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know, it's not that simple. Being an atheist is not an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it actually is that simple.

One can no more disprove the existence of God as prove His existance. Taking either position is an act of faith, to think otherwise is misguided. However, it is much more reassuring to convince oneself that one's own position is based on the logical and rational examination of the 'facts' while other positions are based on faith.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

A corollary to the first statement is people's inability to accept chance's role in life, and people scrambling to find patterns in randomness.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
A corollary to the first statement is people's inability to accept chance's role in life, and people scrambling to find patterns in randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard for me to see this as a flaw when I think it's so hugely essential to everything that we are. It has its downsides, sure, but without that urge I don't think humanity would be recognizable.