On 25-4-2011 21:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:28:06 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
>>>>
>>>> yes
>>>>
>>>>> I still find that quite unusual.
>>>>
>>>> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that?
>>
>> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no
>> real evidence for that)
>
> Well, I am,

I have only your word for it.

> but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to
> know) everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual,
> as the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things
> that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope
> with having things that can't be explained.
>
> But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.

More or less that we all think we are rational, but that is only true as 
long as the information is not in conflict with our deepest believes.
What seems to make me unusual here in this group that I freely admit it 
and grand others the right to be so too.

>> Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and
>> what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work
>> myself. At first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always
>> fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among
>> others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out
>> to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem.
>> Essentially an existential one.
>
> That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created all
> tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you now,
> both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.

If it didn't create it, it has no business telling us what to do. If it 
does not have a plan for it that we can use to know how to behave, why 
create it in the first place?

>>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
>>
>> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
>> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
>> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.
>
> True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a
> coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe)
> might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
> ethical entanglements.

Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe. 
(my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't 
you missing a negation', but where to put it?)

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message