The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[cnfuzzd]

[ 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

[Razor]

[ 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.

[Aloysius]

Razor - we are on the same page.

-Al

[fish2plus2]

I envy people capable of believing in God.

[Go_Blue88]

OP--

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

[maryfield48]

[ 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.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ 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!

[Razor]

[ 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.

[Jack of Arcades]

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.

[gumpzilla]

[ 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.