On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:

>>> 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.

Touché. ;)

>> 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.

In thinking about it, I'm not sure that I really have 'deep beliefs'.  I 
probably do, but I can't think of anything that I'm so certain of that I 
can't be persuaded that I'm wrong.  There are things, certainly, that it 
would take a lot to convince me of (like the existence of a deity), but I 
like to think I have an open mind and am willing to learn new information 
even if it contradicts something I think I'm pretty sure of.

So maybe I'm the weird one after all. ;)

>> 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?

I guess I'm separating the 'did something create all this' from the 'does 
that something presume to tell us how to behave', but not being clear 
that I am doing that.

I'm open to discovering that there was a supreme creator of the 
universe.  I'm not open to that supreme creator telling me how to live my 
life, because for me, doing the right thing is reward enough - I don't 
need to be bribed with a promise of eternal life in heaven (for example).

And let's face it, that *is* bribery.

>>>> 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?)

Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want to 
be sure before I comment. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message