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, 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.

>> OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics,
>> the religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.
> 
> It is in any case a problem with the Jewish God and the two other main
> religions that worship the same God. There are lots of rules but not
> much of metarules so you can derive the rules yourself. You are not
> allowed to eat pigs, but why? Thou shalt not kill. Ok, but is that in
> general or only humans? What is a human anyway? Is a Jew a human? Is a
> Christian not more than a dog? These may seem silly questions, but in
> any war the religious men often start by excluding the enemy from the
> human race. When becomes an embryo a human? Is there a point when
> Altzheimer's disease patients loose all humanity? Or (just to show I am
> Dutch) what is the problem with sex? Why is prostitution wrong? Why are
> hard drugs wrong and if they are why are they consuming wine as part of
> a ritual? The major problem with a single Jewish type God is that you
> can not know what the rules are. Apparently he has given some rules to
> some people, but do you believe these people when they say so? These
> rules are sometime contradictory, so at least one of them was lying, but
> which? There is no way any man can know.

So perhaps it would be accurate to say that you wouldn't believe in a 
deity as a moral/ethical authority.  Now *that's* something I would agree 
with.

> Buddhism is possibly a better option, but I do not know enough about it
> to be sure.

Nor do I if it comes to that.  I describe myself as non-theistic, and 
some parts of Buddhism seem to align with that, and some don't.

> 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. Af 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.

>> 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.

>>>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of
>>>> crackpots who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example). 
>>>> That doesn't constitute proof of any kind.
>>>
>>> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
>>> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
>>> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
>>> empty hat.
>>
>> Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.
>> Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.
> 
> You mean, that there was no trick involved?

Well, there could be a trick involved, but it would have to be a trick 
that could be exposed and duplicated.

For example, if I make a silk handkerchief vanish into thin air (a trick 
I know how to do and, for the sake of argument, you don't), I could show 
you how it works.  Then you'd know the trick, but there still is a trick, 
but it has to do with misdirection more than the spontaneous creation and 
destruction of the handkerchief itself.

>> I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not
>> getting the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch
>> up on that idea in Japanese culture?
> 
> Actually, no. It is something I heard so often and for such a long time,
> that I don't know a particular source. Basically the concept is that
> Japanese are so drilled in obeying the more powerful that they become
> incapable of original though. Because they would contradict a known
> authority. Basically the same concept as used for the middle ages in
> Europe (with the Europeans and the Muslims as the two sources that broke
> the chain). In both cases I am not sure how much it really explains.

I'll have to ask my brother (in Japan) about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message