|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2003 : 23:12:05
|
Been having a bit of discussion on whether one can call themselves an Atheist with a guy at work.
This is what he responded to me....
This is my premise:
How can you totally discount the possibility of a god?
I dont think there is a higher power concerned with the individual lives of people on our planet either, maybe there is. But to discount the possibility is, in my opinion, even more ignorant then people who believe in a religion. As i said, Stephen Hawking said that time isn't relative before the big bang because it isnt relative to anything in the universe from that moment on. That's a cop out. What happened before the big bang? How did 'stuff' get here? We will never know and seeing we never will, how can we discount the possibility?
All these beret wearing wankers shit me to tears and love the idea of telling ppl they are athiests so they can pick apart organised religion. They should think about what they are saying when they say "I'm an Athiest"
Anthony
I have maintained that I am an Atheist because I don't believe any Gods or organized religion. Also, I do not believe that we are any different to any other species on the planet.
Any comments????
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2003 : 23:42:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzamThis is my premise:
How can you totally discount the possibility of a god?
I don't think atheists discount the possibility of a god existing. There's an insufficient amount of evidence in favor of a god existing, and until there is sufficient evidence judgement must be withheld.
quote:
I dont think there is a higher power concerned with the individual lives of people on our planet either, maybe there is. But to discount the possibility is, in my opinion, even more ignorant then people who believe in a religion. As i said, Stephen Hawking said that time isn't relative before the big bang because it isnt relative to anything in the universe from that moment on. That's a cop out. What happened before the big bang? How did 'stuff' get here? We will never know and seeing we never will, how can we discount the possibility?
The possibility isn't discounted, just not probable. Depending upon the deity being espoused here, there are arguments against the exsistence of most deities discussed by various religions. We don't even know if physics was the same as we understand it now before Plank Time.
If the question is 'how did stuff get here?' Why is it necessary for a deity to have created the 'stuff' and who or what created the deity. Deity is unnecessary to the concept of the 'creation' of the universe. It adds an additional question to the universe that has no answer. Parsimony.
quote:
All these beret wearing wankers shit me to tears and love the idea of telling ppl they are athiests so they can pick apart organised religion. They should think about what they are saying when they say "I'm an Athiest"
Never worn a beret in my life. Atheism isn't to do with picking apart organized religion, necessarily, it just makes a nice target of itself. Seriously though, there would be no conflict between the atheist and the theist if the concept of atheism wasn't so abhorrent to the theist. He's already classified atheists as 'beret wearing wankers'. This is prejudicial on his part. His perspective is skewed when it comes to what is an atheist. There is a very real difference between the atheist and anti-theist.
quote:
I have maintained that I am an Atheist because I don't believe any Gods or organized religion. Also, I do not believe that we are any different to any other species on the planet.
Any comments????
Agreed on your stance on atheism. This sounds like he views all atheists as anti-theists, when there is a difference. The anti-theist is as dogmatic as the theist, where the atheist eschews dogma. My two cents anyway. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 02:36:08 [Permalink]
|
I am an atheist because I lack theism. However, Madalyn Murray O'Hair once said that she knew that any gods she ever heard of did not exist. Jehovah does not exist. Get someone to describe their god, and chances are, you can find something that does not mesh with reality. Once a god is defined, it generally disappears.
It's true we cannot say that there might not be some gods out there somewhere. We cannot prove that I might be surrounded by invisible undetectable lime jello, either, but who cares? However, it's pretty safe to assume that it isn't likely and it's pretty safe to assume there are no gods. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 07/04/2003 11:55:47 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 03:52:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Jehovah does not exist.
He seem to have quite a few witnesses, though :(
quote:
Get someone to describe their god, and chances are, you can find something that does not mesh with reality. Once a god is defined, it generally disappears.
Very well said, and how true indeed. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 05:51:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
Been having a bit of discussion on whether one can call themselves an Atheist with a guy at work.
This is what he responded to me....
[i]This is my premise:
How can you totally discount the possibility of a god?
I dont think there is a higher power concerned with the individual lives of people on our planet either, maybe there is. But to discount the possibility is, in my opinion, even more ignorant then people who believe in a religion. As i said, Stephen Hawking said that time isn't relative before the big bang because it isnt relative to anything in the universe from that moment on. That's a cop out. What happened before the big bang? How did 'stuff' get here? We will never know and seeing we never will, how can we discount the possibility?
One answer to to the question "how can you be sure there's no god?" is to replace "god" with any sort of mythological thing and turn the question around: if we have to allow the possibility of your/a god, then why not allow the possibility that there's a magical pink unicorn living on Mars? Or a fire-breathing clown living under the ocean?
At this point, the question becomes just silly. By arguing that a god should be assumed because it's hard to prove it's not there, a person is also required to allow for monsters under the bed and psycho killers hiding in every closet, and everything is just stupid. Obviously people don't go around thinking that unicorns are on Mars, and no one thinks they are ignorant. Why that doesn't apply when gods are involved is a, in my opinion, cultural leftover.
Finally, it seems to be a bit lazy to say that because we don't know/can't explain X, we should therefore posit that a god did it. Did god shoot JFK?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 06:41:18 [Permalink]
|
From what I've read, some percentage of atheists divide themselves into two camps: weak atheists simply don't believe in whatever god you care to name, while strong atheists claim that there is no god, or even that there cannot be a god.
Anthony is arguing against the strong atheist position only, and as a self-identified agnostic, I mostly agree with him. Just as there isn't any proof that any gods do exist, there isn't any real proof that gods do not or can not exist, either. While we don't need any gods to explain the phenomena we see (Trish's "argument from parsimony"), the lack of need doesn't necessitate their lack of existence.
Oh the other hand, Gorgo's words about defining gods are wise, indeed. If there does exist a god out there, somewhere, I'm firmly of the opinion that it is nothing like anybody has ever imagined, though I would hope it likes beer.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 10:29:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anthony is arguing against the strong atheist position only, and as a self-identified agnostic, I mostly agree with him. Just as there isn't any proof that any gods do exist, there isn't any real proof that gods do not or can not exist, either. While we don't need any gods to explain the phenomena we see (Trish's "argument from parsimony"), the lack of need doesn't necessitate their lack of existence.
Agreed. I just don't see the need to complicate the equation with using deity as the ultimate cause. Doesn't mean deity can't exist but suggests the possibility as highly unlikely. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 07:52:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Anthony is arguing against the strong atheist position only, and as a self-identified agnostic, I mostly agree with him. Just as there isn't any proof that any gods do exist, there isn't any real proof that gods do not or can not exist, either. While we don't need any gods to explain the phenomena we see (Trish's "argument from parsimony"), the lack of need doesn't necessitate their lack of existence.
Agreed. I just don't see the need to complicate the equation with using deity as the ultimate cause. Doesn't mean deity can't exist but suggests the possibility as highly unlikely.
I must disagree: The very phenomena we see implies the existence of some vast, over-seeing intelligence. That this intelligence doesn't often mix into our affairs (--or, when it does, does so in a subtle, nearly-indetectable manner--) merely affirms the vastness of that intelligence. (So vast would be such an intelligence that I doubt that the word "intelligence" is even remotely correct.)
I suspect that most of the atheist anti-deist arguments are actually against the consequent rise of a formal religion-----perhaps originally by good, "holy", right-meaning people but which is, almost immediately, siezed by power-mongers and/or money-grubbers. The vast intelligence that might be called "God" (by whatever Name), would be a Good intelligence----or at least as good as we see Nature is. (I, for one, think that Nature is "good"; that most of the not-good or bad stuff stems from Mankind's interference into Nature---usually, IMO, by the aforementioned power-mongers and money-grubbers for their own personal benefit.) |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 08:41:38 [Permalink]
|
The very phenomena we see tells us that the creation of god(s) is a fear and/or hatred of reality.
My atheistic arguments are based on the idea that reality is neither good nor bad, but what we make of it. If we reject reality with pseudoscience and religion, then we are afraid to see reality. How can we make the best of reality if we're afraid to look at it? I don't care what kind of anti-reality stance you have, it's all the same.
quote:
I must disagree: The very phenomena we see implies the existence of some vast, over-seeing intelligence. That this intelligence doesn't often mix into our affairs (--or, when it does, does so in a subtle, nearly-indetectable manner--) merely affirms the vastness of that intelligence. (So vast would be such an intelligence that I doubt that the word "intelligence" is even remotely correct.)
I suspect that most of the atheist anti-deist arguments are actually against the consequent rise of a formal religion-----perhaps originally by good, "holy", right-meaning people but which is, almost immediately, siezed by power-mongers and/or money-grubbers. The vast intelligence that might be called "God" (by whatever Name), would be a Good intelligence----or at least as good as we see Nature is. (I, for one, think that Nature is "good"; that most of the not-good or bad stuff stems from Mankind's interference into Nature---usually, IMO, by the aforementioned power-mongers and money-grubbers for their own personal benefit.)
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 08:44:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I must disagree: The very phenomena we see implies the existence of some vast, over-seeing intelligence. That this intelligence doesn't often mix into our affairs (--or, when it does, does so in a subtle, nearly-indetectable manner--) merely affirms the vastness of that intelligence. (So vast would be such an intelligence that I doubt that the word "intelligence" is even remotely correct.)
How does the 'very phenomena we see' imply the existence of 'some vast, over-seeing intelligence'? We see pockets of organization in vast amounts of chaos, slowly degrading into an entropic state. We see laws of physics functioning as well as we've been able to define them. I don't see where a pocket of organized phenomena implies the existence of an intelligence behind the organization. I see mass collected and creating a gavitation well, still no intelligence.
quote:
I suspect that most of the atheist anti-deist arguments are actually against the consequent rise of a formal religion-----perhaps originally by good, "holy", right-meaning people but which is, almost immediately, siezed by power-mongers and/or money-grubbers. The vast intelligence that might be called "God" (by whatever Name), would be a Good intelligence----or at least as good as we see Nature is. (I, for one, think that Nature is "good"; that most of the not-good or bad stuff stems from Mankind's interference into Nature---usually, IMO, by the aforementioned power-mongers and money-grubbers for their own personal benefit.)
I see where you're coming from with the organized religion. Organized religion has a history of destroying that which it comes into conflict with. However, postulating the rise of religion as coming from 'good, "holy", right-meaning people' expect a knowledge of how a person felt. The better idea for the rise of deities is where diety was an answer to the unkown, unexplained phenomena watched by an ignorant, but questioning culture. How else do you explain many of the polytheistic peoples having gods of thunder, rain, war, the hunt, etc. These were concepts that were barely understood then, and even today are not as well understood as we'd like.
Nature is neither good nor evil, it just is. Does an animal growing sick and dying stem from man's interference. I see an assumption on your part that says man is not a part of nature or the natural order of things. The simple fact is, we are. We evolved a high order of intelligence and the capability to think, reason, create, use tools. No need for god here, just a twist in evolution that led us to understand, think, and reason about abstract concepts.
Let me ask you, why is an intelligence necessary to the universe? Is it because you personally can not accept that there are unexplained phenomena currently, or does it make you feel better that there might be an ultimate explaination? |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 09:34:06 [Permalink]
|
From Trish:quote:
Let me ask you, why is an intelligence necessary to the universe? Is it because you personally can not accept that there are unexplained phenomena currently, or does it make you feel better that there might be an ultimate explaination?
Of course, it isn't. IF, as you wrote earlier, it is true that:quote:
We see pockets of organization in vast amounts of chaos, slowly degrading into an entropic state.
I don't see this at all. In fact, I've never really bought into the 'entropy' business. ("Entropy" has different meanings in different fields of study. I'm thinking of the physics usage.) I simply don't believe that "we see pockets of organization in vast amounts of chaos"!! Don't beleive! Don't see how you CAN believe----O moderator of the Astronomy forum; O poster to the BABB. (No sarcasm intended.)
When I look out into the cosmos (--as I've done since high school--) I see VAST, almost uniform organization. I see little "chaos" and I most certainly do NOT see the degradation you describe.
Perhaps I can see that, with your viewpoint, that there is no such thing as any "directing/overseeing intelligence"; that we on Earth are just an instance of "a gaggle of monkeys finally typing out the entire works of Shakespeare"; that we are just a monsterous fluke of luck. BUT: I just don't believe that. I DO believe that almost everything has ever-INCREASING organization;---although I don't deny that there are fits of dis-organization. (As in: "Ashes to ashes; compost to compost".)
More: When you say that "Nature is neither good nor evil", I disagree. Was rounding up all the Jews in the '30s and '40s in Europe "neither good nor evil"? I say that it was evil. Was writing the Declaration of Independence neither good nor evil? I say that it was good. The real question is: "Can a difference between good and evil be detected?" I say: "Yes". It is possible to see some process and say "that is good" or "that is bad; even evil". I, for one, find that Nature here on Earth is pretty-much "good". And Nature on Mars is . . . . I don't know----maybe someday we'll get to Mars and will be able to make a judgment about that.
Even that last sentence is difficult, however: Throw me into the ice-water and I'll say "What an evil thing!" ("Been there, done that!" Brrrrr.) Yet a new-born Polar Bear cub on his/her first outing will discover the icy water and jump in with GLEE! ("All things are relative.")
When Gorgo says:quote:
My atheistic arguments are based on the idea that reality is neither good nor bad, but what we make of it. If we reject reality with pseudoscience and religion, then we are afraid to see reality.
, he is talking about a different thing than I am. He is "making gods"; I am making "formal, organized religion". To say (as did the ancient Mexicans) that the [volcano] gods are angry, "denies reality"-----who knows?
I, for one, subscribe to the thought that life-forms are hierchical: My cells are alive; my arm is alive; I am alive; the Local Ecology is alive; the Greater Ecology is alive; the Earth is alive; the Solar System is alive; the Milky Way is alive; the Universe is alive. And by alive I also mean "self-aware", just as are you and I. So, JUST MAYBE, when the Aztecs were doing certain unpleasant things that exuded "evil", perhaps the local volcano got angry and said in good Volcanoeese: STOP IT----"KABOOM, KABOOM". A god? Not in my mind; just a self-aware volcano which was a part of the local ecology and didn't like all the painfull screaming and shrieking that the Aztecs elicited from various captives.
BTW: I also subscribe to the widespread belief that while the BODY may die, the "intelligence"/"Spirit" moves on to a newly-conceived body. But, then, that subject would probably be a hijack of this thread. (Or: would it? Hmmm.) |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 10:17:18 [Permalink]
|
These things are neither good nor evil in and of themselves. Only your perception of these things makes them "good" or "evil." If you think life is something that is "good" then murder is something that is "evil."
If a certain kind of life is something that humans have placed a value on, then certainly murder might be something that works against those goals. However, there is nothing which gives life value outside of itself. If the earth were to blow up tomorrow, who would consider that "evil?"
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 10:28:24 [Permalink]
|
From Gorgo:quote:
These things are neither good nor evil in and of themselves. Only your perception of these things makes them "good" or "evil."
Yes, it is a problem. For example: If every SUV were to blow up on the highways tomorrow, I would say that it was a VERY good thing; yet many---even those not driving SUVs---would say that it was a VERY, VERY bad thing.
Still, I think that I have some ability to tell "good" from "not-good" or "bad" or "evil". I don't think that that ability is delusional. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 10:31:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I don't see this at all. In fact, I've never really bought into the 'entropy' business. ("Entropy" has different meanings in different fields of study. I'm thinking of the physics usage.) I simply don't believe that "we see pockets of organization in vast amounts of chaos"!! Don't beleive! Don't see how you CAN believe----O moderator of the Astronomy forum; O poster to the BABB. (No sarcasm intended.)
Describe a solar system, pocket of organization. Describe a galaxy, pocket of organization. There is organization, but what do we find between the solar systems/galaxies, chaos, a lack or organization to the material there. Reality and belief are separate critters.
quote:
When I look out into the cosmos (--as I've done since high school--) I see VAST, almost uniform organization. I see little "chaos" and I most certainly do NOT see the degradation you describe.
As have I. When you use your eyes or a limited optical telescope, there are things that you do not see. Red shift shows that our system is slowly expanding. Even our moon is slipping away from the earth, in a few decades, we won't have the spectacular lunar eclipses we see today. Orbits decay, this in itself shows to an extent that organization is not increasing.
quote:
Perhaps I can see that, with your viewpoint, that there is no such thing as any "directing/overseeing intelligence"; that we on Earth are just an instance of "a gaggle of monkeys finally typing out the entire works of Shakespeare"; that we are just a monsterous fluke of luck. BUT: I just don't believe that. I DO believe that almost everything has ever-INCREASING organization;---although I don't deny that there are fits of dis-organization. (As in: "Ashes to ashes; compost to compost".)
There is the appearance of increasing organization on earth, but remember the earth is an open system, receiving energy from an outside source. What happens to the earth when that energy source is removed? During it's removal, the earth -as we know it- will be destroyed. It will become a lifeless hunk of rock. Does the burnout of the sun suggest increasing organization? Does the hydrogen-hydrogen reaction of the sun suggest increasing organization or decay? As the sun runs out of hydrogen, it increases in size and has to resort to other harder to fuse molecules as an energy source. (I don't really mean to anthropormorphize the sun, but the best way I can explain....) This will eventually cause the sun to destroy itself as a yellow star and become a red dwarf, is this increasing organization????
quote:
More: When you say that "Nature is neither good nor evil", I disagree. Was rounding up all the Jews in the '30s and '40s in Europe "neither good nor evil"? I say that it was evil. Was writing the Declaration of Independence neither good nor evil? I say that it was good. The real question is: "Can a difference between good and evil be detected?" I say: "Yes". It is possible to see some process and say "that is good" or "that is bad; even evil". I, for one, find that Nature here on Earth is pretty-much "good". And Nature on Mars is . . . . I don't know----maybe someday we'll get to Mars and will be able to make a judgment about that.
Good and evil are based upon our cultural perceptions of morality and ethics. As for the rounding up of jews, that was evil, because man has a notion that genocide is evil. Did the Germans view as evil the rounding up and destruction of those they perceived were oppressing them and their opportunity as evil? I'm sure individuals did, however, it happened and therefore, some did not view it as evil, per se, but as a necessary action for the survival of the German people. Does this make the German people necessarily evil or just misguided in their notions?
You discuss nature as being good. Is it good or evil for the rabbit that is brought down to feed the fox and her kits? I'm sure, were the rabbit cognizant to good and evil, the rabbit would view it as evil. Were the fox cognizant, she'd say it was necessary. Is it evil for humans to raise livestock and slaughter them for food? or is it just necessity? There are actions that seem as necessity today that in the annals of history may be viewed as evil, but the perspective has changed. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki evil or necessary to end a war? The mass destruction and amount of death in so short a time were evil, in their way, but were the same number of deaths or more drug out over time more or less evil? Was our lack of understanding of the long term impacts of a nuclear blast more evil than dropping the bomb itself? Good and evil are not necessarily so cut and dried that two people can look at the same situation/thing and say it is good or evil. There are only shades of gray surrounding our understanding of right action and wrong action.
quote:
Even that last sentence is difficult, however: Throw me into the ice-water and I'll say "What an evil thing!" ("Been there, done that!" Brrrrr.) Yet a new-born Polar Bear cub on his/her first outing will discover the icy water and jump in with GLEE! ("All things are relative.")
You have said all things are relative, to some extent they are. As a reasoning creature humans can agree on the rightness or wrongness of an act, but not to the same degree of agreement as we can 2+2=4. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 07/03/2003 10:35:14 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 11:02:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I don't see this at all. In fact, I've never really bought into the 'entropy' business. ("Entropy" has different meanings in different fields of study. I'm thinking of the physics usage.) I simply don't believe that "we see pockets of organization in vast amounts of chaos"!! Don't beleive! Don't see how you CAN believe----O moderator of the Astronomy forum; O poster to the BABB. (No sarcasm intended.)
Describe a solar system, pocket of organization. Describe a galaxy, pocket of organization. There is organization, but what do we find between the solar systems/galaxies, chaos, a lack or organization to the material there. Reality and belief are separate critters.
quote:
More from Computer Org:
When I look out into the cosmos (--as I've done since high school--) I see VAST, almost uniform organization. I see little "chaos" and I most certainly do NOT see the degradation you describe.
As have I. When you use your eyes or a limited optical telescope, there are things that you do not see. Red shift shows that our system is slowly expanding. Even our moon is slipping away from the earth, in a few decades, we won't have the spectacular lunar eclipses we see today. Orbits decay, this in itself shows to an extent that organization is not increasing.
quote:
Yet more by Computer Org:
Perhaps I can see that, with your viewpoint, that there is no such thing as any "directing/overseeing intelligence"; that we on Earth are just an instance of "a gaggle of monkeys finally typing out the entire works of Shakespeare"; that we are just a monsterous fluke of luck. BUT: I just don't believe that. I DO believe that almost everything has ever-INCREASING organization;---although I don't deny that there are fits of dis-organization. (As in: "Ashes to ashes; compost to compost".)
There is the appearance of increasing organization on earth, but remember the earth is an open system, receiving energy from an outside source. What happens to the earth when that energy source is removed? During it's removal, the earth -as we know it- will be destroyed. It will become a lifeless hunk of rock. Does the burnout of the sun suggest increasing organization? Does the hydrogen-hydrogen reaction of the sun suggest increasing organization or decay? As the sun runs out of hydrogen, it increases in size and has to resort to other harder to fuse molecules as an energy source. (I don't really mean to anthropormorphize the sun, but the best way I can explain....) This will eventually cause the sun to destroy itself as a yellow star and become a red dwarf, is this increasing organization????
Well: When I wrote "Ashes to ashes; compost to compost" I was including even very big things, such as stars and their respective stellar system. Some of our bodies are bigger than others.
quote:
More original posting from Trish:
quote:
From Computer Org:
More: When you say that "Nature is neither good nor evil", I disagree. Was rounding up all the Jews in the '30s and '40s in Europe "neither good nor evil"? I say that it was evil. Was writing the Declaration of Independence neither good nor evil? I say that it was good. The real question is: "Can a difference between good and evil be detected?" I say: "Yes". It is possible to see some process and say "that is good" or "that is bad; even evil". I, for one, find that Nature here on Earth is pretty-much "good". And Nature on Mars is . . . . I don't know----maybe someday we'll get to Mars and will be able to make a judgment about that.
Good and evil are based upon our cultural perceptions of morality and ethics. As for the rounding up of jews, that was evil, because man has a notion that genocide is evil. Did the Germans view as evil the rounding up and destruction of those they perceived were oppressing them and their opportunity as evil? I'm sure individuals did, however, it happened and therefore, some did not view it as evil, per se, but as a necessary action for the survival of the German people. Does this make the German people necessarily evil or just misguided in their notions?
You discuss nature as being good. Is it good or evil for the rabbit that is brought down to feed the fox and her kits? I'm sure, were the rabbit cognizant to good and evil, the rabbit would view it as evil. Were the fox cognizant, she'd say it was necessary. Is it evil for humans to raise livestock and slaughter them for food? or is it just necessity? There are actions that seem as necessity today that in the annals of history may be viewed as evil, but the perspective has changed. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki evil or necessary to end a war? The mass destruction and amount of death in so short a time were evil, in their way, but were the same number of deaths or more drug out over time more or less evil? Was our lack of understanding of the long term impacts of a nuclear blast more evil than dropping the bomb itself? Good and evil are not necessarily so cut and dried that two people can look at the same situation/thing and say it is good or evil. There are only shades of gray surrounding our understanding of right action and wrong action.
quote:
From Computer Org:
Even that last sentence is difficult, however: Throw me into the ice-water and I'll say "What an evil thing!" ("Been there, done that!" Brrrrr.) Yet a new-born Polar Bear cub on his/her first outing will discover the icy water and jump in with GLEE! ("All things are relative.")
From Trish:
You have said all things are relative, to some extent they are. As a reasoning creature humans can agree on the rightness or wrongness of an act, but not to the same degree of agreement as we can 2+2=4.
Ahh, you strike me in my mathematician's heart: In truth 2+2 will always be 4. I have many times over the past several years tried---always in vain---to figure some clever way to say that under such-and-such circumstances 2+2 might be something other than 4----always with failure! That 2+2=4 seems to be an unvarying truth.
As to the goodness or badness of other things, it does seem that it can be very difficult to say with certainty: "That is unquestionably GOOD" (or vice versa for "bad"). Much does seem to depend on your perspective. Still: I DO think that I have some abili |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 07/03/2003 11:19:17 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 11:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As to the goodness or badness of other things, it does seem that it can be very difficult to say with certainty: "That is unquestionably GOOD" (or vice versa for "bad"). Much does seem to depend on your perspective. Still: I DO think that I have some ability to tell something that is "good" from something that is "bad" and that that ability is not a delusion.
I'm not saying it's delusional, just that there is no real agreed upon standard of right and wrong. Rightness and wrongness are shade of gray, not black and white. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
