Something I think bares reading.

[Ghel]

Andara, since you would rather discuss my tone than my actual arguments, I am not responding to a single point you made.

After all, we can not see it, must not exist. Right?

Observation includes far more than seeing. We can observe using the other senses, we can use instruments to detect things that our senses cannot, and we can make observations that detect variations over time. This idea that observation is merely "seeing" misrepresents science.

Closing ones mind to the fact there might be something beyond that horizon gets us nowhere. Even limits the amount of knowledge we might possibly gain.

Who's closing their mind to knowledge? Certainly not me. You know what really closes minds to knowledge? Religion, particularly theism. If one believes that everything is caused by a god (or "higher power," if you prefer), then one stops looking for answers.

Would you then argue that people should ignore the sailors claims?

That's a really funny analogy to use, since Greek sailors, in the 6th century BCE, were the first ones to bring back evidence that the Earth was round.

Right now our knowledge, technology, and understanding can not provide proof. So it can't exist right? We are still living in that flat earth?

Your analogy is breaking down. Are you trying to say that we still don't have evidence for a spherical Earth? Because we most certainly do. On the other hand, the total accumulated evidence for a god: 0.

While spirits do not by themselves prove a 'higher power', if there is life after death my hope is that somebody is there to explain things.

That's right, you "hope." You do not have evidence. Instead of looking for your "higher power" to explain things, why don't you read some of the popular science books that are available? Learn about what we really know; it's far more fascinating than anything religion or mysticism can make up.

You ask for proof, and currently there is none.

No, I ask for evidence, but you're right that there is none.

Should we not seek answers?

Of course we should, but we should seek answers that actually fit the evidence, not some pat answer handed down by an authority figure.

When someone proposes an explanation for something, the most important question we can ask is "is it true?" To quote PZ Myers, "that 'truth' is not some magical absolute, but something we can only approach by trial and error, and that truth is something you have to work towards, not simply accept dogmatically as given by some unquestionable source..."

I rather like the idea of Occam's Razor, that the best explanation is the simplest one that can account for all the evidence. If the explanation is more complex than it needs to be or if it doesn't account for some part of what is observed, than it is not a good explanation. Positing a "higher power," "creator," or "god" makes the explanation more complex than it needs to be to account for everything that humans have observed about the universe.

[Mytical]

Not much of a person to quote, but since some can not seem to understand (my fault I am sure) lets try this again.

Observation includes far more than seeing. We can observe using the other senses, we can use instruments to detect things that our senses cannot, and we can make observations that detect variations over time. This idea that observation is merely "seeing" misrepresents science.

True. I would have figured somebody as intelligent as you would figure out that I was speaking of all the senses, technology, and other means of 'proof'. My apologies for assuming.

Who's closing their mind to knowledge? Certainly not me. You know what really closes minds to knowledge? Religion, particularly theism. If one believes that everything is caused by a god (or "higher power," if you prefer), then one stops looking for answers.

For some, as others take anything else (including science) as a reason to stop looking for things they can not 'see' (and in clarification each time I say 'see' I will make sure to include that that means all the senses, technology, and other means currently available). Others, regardless of their belief, or lack of, question everything.

That's a really funny analogy to use, since Greek sailors, in the 6th century BCE, were the first ones to bring back evidence that the Earth was round.

Immaterial to the discussion, but interesting nontheless.

Your analogy is breaking down. Are you trying to say that we still don't have evidence for a spherical Earth? Because we most certainly do. On the other hand, the total accumulated evidence for a god: 0.

There I go assuming again, assuming that you would realize the metaphor. My fault entirely, I apologize. I am saying that just because currently we do not have evidence that a 'higher being' does not mean that we will never have. That we should keep looking beyond the horizon (and just so I cause no more confusion the horizon being something beyond death, not an actual physical horizon)

That's right, you "hope." You do not have evidence. Instead of looking for your "higher power" to explain things, why don't you read some of the popular science books that are available? Learn about what we really know; it's far more fascinating than anything religion or mysticism can make up.

This is where you assume. Acknowledging there may be a higher power does not answer my questions, so I continue to ask them. I just keep my mind open to the possibility. I realize and understand that just because we do not 'see' (again all five senses, technology, etc as covered before) something..does not mean it does not exist. After all, at one time we could not 'see' (thanks to lack of the right technology) many things. Who knows what we will be able to 'see' tomorrow (not literally tomorrow, just so there is no confusion).

Of course we should, but we should seek answers that actually fit the evidence, not some pat answer handed down by an authority figure.

Yet..that is what some are doing, and I don't mean religious or spiritual people either. Because it is not written down somewhere, or some 'authority figure says "It is not possible for a 'God' (insert whatever god or religion)" to exist..then it is not possible. They assume our limited human knowledge can KNOW, and it just can not.

[Andara Bledin]

Andara, since you would rather discuss my tone than my actual arguments, I am not responding to a single point you made.

I made a single statement explaining why people respond to your tone.

The rest of my post was specifically and only rebuttals to specific statements.

You are projecting a lot into my response that just doesn't exist.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

For some, as others take anything else (including science) as a reason to stop looking for things they can not 'see'...

If somebody thinks that science is a reason to stop looking for answers, they misunderstand science.

Others, regardless of their belief, or lack of, question everything.

I question everything. That's why I lack a belief in anything supernatural.

There I go assuming again, assuming that you would realize the metaphor.

I realize it's supposed to be a metaphor; I just don't think it's a very good one.

I am saying that just because currently we do not have evidence that a 'higher being' does not mean that we will never have. That we should keep looking beyond the horizon (and just so I cause no more confusion the horizon being something beyond death, not an actual physical horizon)

The problem here is that you presuppose that something exists beyond the "horizon." You presuppose that there is a "higher being" and waste time looking for it, when it might not even exist. Personal experience (such as yours with "spirits") carries no weight because it is, by definition, personal. There's no way to demonstrate to anybody else that it is true.

Acknowledging there may be a higher power does not answer my questions, so I continue to ask them.

That's a step in the right direction.

I just keep my mind open to the possibility.

By all means, keep an open mind; just not so open your brain falls out.

Who knows what we will be able to 'see' tomorrow...

Whatever we discover tomorrow will have evidence to back it up. Your presupposition of a "higher being" has no evidence behind it.

Because it is not written down somewhere, or some 'authority figure says "It is not possible for a 'God' (insert whatever god or religion)" to exist..then it is not possible.

It is true, for certain definitions of "God," that it is not possible for that God to exist. For example, logically inconsistent Gods.

They assume our limited human knowledge can KNOW, and it just can not.

It is possible to know, even based on our limited human knowledge, that something is impossible. It is also possible to aggragate information and determine, based on a lack of evidence, that a thing does not exist. For example, if a religion claims that A, B, and C should happen because of their beliefs, and A, B, and C fail to happen, that shows that their beliefs are wrong (maybe not completely, but at least partially).

Theists like to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the absence of evidence for a god that has been accumulated over the span of human history is evidence for the absence of a god. If there were a god who interfered in the lives of humans, we would expect to see some evidence of it. But there is none.

[Ghel]

The rest of my post was specifically and only rebuttals to specific statements.

I could be wrong. Let's take a second look.

Religion is just a handy excuse for being against things people fear.

Actually, relgion tends to instill irrational fear in people, such as the fear of Hell.

There are people who fear things that they understand just fine, but still cannot accept purely due to basic xenophobia.

Education can go a long way to calming xenophobia. Once a person understands something, they are less likely to fear it.

According to this statement, nobody has any business believing in the abstract or having faith in things that cannot be quantified, which is quite uncompromising and, in a lot of ways, intolerant.

I, personally, find this a very bland and cold way to exist and it's not for me.

Your analysis of my statement is partially correct. It's true that my philosophy is uncompromising. It is also intolerant towards falsehoods. But it is in no way bland or cold. The more I learn about reality, the more fascinating I find it, and the more flat and boring I find religious explanations.

Andara, you do include rebuttals to "specific statements," but no responses to my core statements: What evidence is there for a god (or higher power)? Why should I believe something for which there is no evidence? By what standard can you say that a god exists? (This last point goes along with my question about what method of gaining knowledge can give us as good of, if not better, results than science?)

[Mytical]

*Nods* and you are standing on the shore, looking at the horizon and assuming there is nothing beyond. Like those who still believe that the world is flat. It is not my job or duty to change your mind. Live and let live, and all of that. I do respect your views, and your right to them, even if I disagree with them.

I will leave with one final thought.

This statement : Whatever we discover tomorrow will have evidence to back it up. Your presupposition of a "higher being" has no evidence behind it.


Currently there is no proof, just as there was no proof (at the time) that something was beyond that horizon. If you don't even go looking, you will never find.

Peace.

[Gravekeeper]

Random quirkly point of interest: We just discovered the oldest galaxy we've ever seen clocking in at 13.6 billion years. So who the Hell knows. -.-

Actually, relgion tends to instill irrational fear in people, such as the fear of Hell.

This is why I perfer Karmic systems, as it puts the onus upon me, myself and I for my actions. Rather than some dude with a pitch fork.

[Andara Bledin]

This is why I perfer Karmic systems, as it puts the onus upon me, myself and I for my actions. Rather than some dude with a pitch fork.

I don't believe in the dude with the pitchfork. At least, not like that, anyway. And even if he were to exist like that, he has no power over me that I don't give him, which puts the onus squarely on my own shoulders.

Different paths, same result.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I don't believe in the dude with the pitchfork. At least, not like that, anyway. And even if he were to exist like that, he has no power over me that I don't give him, which puts the onus squarely on my own shoulders.

Different paths, same result.

^-.-^

The Devil amuses me. Seeing as he's not actually described anywhere in the Bible as anything more than a voice. All the pitch fork/horns shit was glued on during the Middle Ages to scare people. Which means the Devil would technically still look just like an angel which.....ok, well technical, angels in the Bible looked absolute fscking terrifying so I guess there's that. Seriously, what the hell? "Wheels within wheels, the rims of which are covered in eyes"? Holy (*@$. Angel or not I would run screaming from that. >.>

Nevermind Cherubs. Ezekiel 10:14 "Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle."

Sweet Jeebus.

Just like the Devil, Angels got an overhaul in the Middle Ages to make them look awesome ( instead of unbridled nightmare fuel ).

[Mytical]

Just like the snake and 'satan'. Or Satan and Lucifer. It's kinda confusing. The snake is neither satan nor lucifer. Lucifer is the 'morning star', and got thrown to earth..yet Satan is the bad guy (and apparently not the same being). I need a score card.

[Ghel]

It so hard to keep track of what matches up with what in the Bible. That's part of the reason that I don't consider it an authority on anything, including the character of God ("character" meaning both the sum of his traits and that he's a fictional character).

*Nods* and you are standing on the shore, looking at the horizon and assuming there is nothing beyond.

This kind of reminds me of the first episode of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, although you're looking at things from a different perspective than Sagan. In the episode, he says such things as "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. ... Recently, we've managed to wade a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting." and "We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." Good advice, there.

I have no problem with someone saying that "such-and-such would be really neat." But to go looking for it when there's not a whit of evidence is a waste of time. Better to spend your life grounded in reality than chasing after leprechauns.

[Gravekeeper]

I <3 Carl Sagan ( and indeed the entire symphony <cough> ).

It so hard to keep track of what matches up with what in the Bible. That's part of the reason that I don't consider it an authority on anything, including the character of God ("character" meaning both the sum of his traits and that he's a fictional character).

I recall reading this one thesis many years ago that suggested that the Bible ( sans Gospels ) had several parts collected from previous legends ( which much of it was, honestly ) but specifically Sumerian. And that there quite literally was two "Gods" as some of the superpowered stuff being attributed to God in the various legends/fables was actually from two seperate gods in Sumerian legends/fables. Hence God going bipolar and sometimes being loving and wise, but other times being totally insane, destructive and vengeful. Because they had to rewrite and combine them into one God. Bonus Fun fact: Sumerian Gods have a "holy trinity" of 3 gods, one in Heaven, one that represents the Earth, and a third who is the son of the one in Heaven. -.-

Was an interesting read, wish I could find it.

[Ghel]

Symphony of Science is awesome. I particularly like The Poetry of Reality, which talks about how science shines light on the world.

Tracy Harris of the Atheist Experience has did a series on the Gods (yes, plural) of the Old Testament. You can find the videos here, here, and here. They're really interesting and informative.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=248 is pretty concise.

Rapscallion

[Talon]

This is why I perfer Karmic systems, as it puts the onus upon me, myself and I for my actions. Rather than some dude with a pitch fork.

So your Karma ran over the Dogma?

Ok back to being serious.

Karma's a nice idea, but it's demonstrably wrong. It is entirely possible to live a virtuous life, not lie/cheat/steal/murder, and still get kicked in the teeth by life. Look to any war or natural disaster for proof of that. The virtuous die right along with the wicked. And the most damning thing of all: sometimes we have no choice but to be "bad" in order to survive. Some poor kid growing up in a shantytown? They can steal, or they can starve.

Then there's the flipside. History is full of examples of the most vile, contemptible mass-murdering scumbags. Did the Universe magically punish those people? On the contrary, many of them prospered from their misdeeds. Granted they probably had to sleep with both eyes open for the rest of their lives, but that strikes me as a very small consolation prize.

Being good certainly has advantages within a human community. But it's not going to magically change the universe.