On 11 Jul 2009 03:14:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to


Gosh! I must be a cynic too then. Although I would substitute "organised"
religion for religion.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-7-2009 9:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:32 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know the answer to
>> fundamental questions like the existence of one or more Gods. That is
>> fundamentally different from someone who merely does not know, or
>> doesn't care.
> 
> Well, yes and no.  It may be that we cannot know the answer to these 
> questions, but the acknowledgment that one doesn't know (or doesn't care) 
> is a type of manifestation of the same line of thinking, at least from my 
> point of view.

I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you 
can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the 
search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions from 
others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound 
basis to build your own ethics.
I don't like the "I don't care".

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>
>Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.

I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument (if that's what you mean) is
faulty. Firstly it needs you to recognise that a watch is an artefact. Secondly
it was created to support a position (God must exist). I could go on but people
better than I have taken it to bits, like an old watch.
Even if it were true why should such a god be worshiped or even honoured?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:58:05 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 11-7-2009 9:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:32 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know the answer to
>>> fundamental questions like the existence of one or more Gods. That is
>>> fundamentally different from someone who merely does not know, or
>>> doesn't care.
>> 
>> Well, yes and no.  It may be that we cannot know the answer to these
>> questions, but the acknowledgment that one doesn't know (or doesn't
>> care) is a type of manifestation of the same line of thinking, at least
>> from my point of view.
> 
> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you
> can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the
> search ended. 

I don't think that necessarily follows.  Just because one can't know 
something doesn't necessarily mean the search has ended - some people are 
just that stubborn. ;-)

> The former means that you are open to suggestions from
> others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound
> basis to build your own ethics.

Perhaps, I'll have to think on that some more.

> I don't like the "I don't care".

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who have come to 
that conclusion, either.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:49:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>>
>>Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.
> 
> I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument (if that's what you mean)
> is faulty. Firstly it needs you to recognise that a watch is an
> artefact. Secondly it was created to support a position (God must
> exist). I could go on but people better than I have taken it to bits,
> like an old watch. Even if it were true why should such a god be
> worshiped or even honoured?

Well, assuming it were true, I would agree that worship would be 
inappropriate, but marvel/honour of someone who created something that 
complex?  Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a 
high degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:23:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2009 03:14:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to
> 
> 
> Gosh! I must be a cynic too then. Although I would substitute
> "organised" religion for religion.

LOL, point well taken.  I am cynical about organised religion, at 
that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:11:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same
>> business.
> 
> Very true.  The fundamental difference is that the Government deals in 
> your life today, religion typically deals in your eternal life. 

No, that's what I'm saying. Religions don't tell you about your eternal 
life. They tell you about what you have to do *today* to get your eternal 
reward. I can't think of any religion that tells you about your eternal life 
without telling you how to behave in this one.

My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, you can either 
increase the reward for cooperating or increase the punishment for refusing 
to cooperate. And government and religion are both in a good position to do 
one or the other of those.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> God created x, y, and z. 

Um, OK.  I think an awful lot of religious nuts think God is actively 
intervening, tho.

I had another thought, tho...   People say "the universe was created, and 
thus needs a creator."  But what makes people think the universe hasn't been 
around forever?

Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years. 
Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into 
one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the 
first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2009 03:19:23 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> The clockmaker theory, then?
>> Something like, yeah, if I understand correctly.
> 
> I don't think so. IIRC the watchmaker argument

I think the watchmaker argument and the clockmaker argument are different.

Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God exists 
to design it.

Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now it 
just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.

As I understand it...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 12:01:34 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:23:33 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jul 2009 03:14:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to
>> 
>> 
>> Gosh! I must be a cynic too then. Although I would substitute
>> "organised" religion for religion.
>
>LOL, point well taken.  I am cynical about organised religion, at 
>that. :-)
>

They turned into a means of controlling the people a long time ago. IMO.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message