If you can first define "God" we might be able to tell you why it doesn't exist.

(June 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 16, 2009 at 2:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Science leads me to greater insight and understanding of the physical universe. It's limited to that. (there's an opening if I ever saw one!

Now there you see is the crux of what I think is your extremely limited view on science ... I believe that not only does science answer many, many questions but it influences the way a person thinks, the way they analyze, evaluate and assess things. In short science & reason, once adopted as a rational outlook, mkes a person look at the world differently, evaluate it in a rational fashion, influences their entire outlook on life (or at least informs on it).

If you think that isn't true try reading a newspaper and you'll find that maybe 75% (perhaps even all) of the articles require some understanding, some comprehension of science ... a car loses control and results in a multi-car pileup (you can understand that because you have at least a basic grasp of physics, trajectories, velocities and the kinds of impacts that cause damage), a rugby player scores a 100yd try (again physics, velocities, trajectories ... I've no idea if there is such a thing as a 100yd try BTW), there's a swine flu epidemic in Mexico (you understand that because you have a basic grasp of biology and the way diseases are communicated from one person to another), there's a corrosive chemical spill on the interstate in America (you understand the dangers because you have a basic scientific understanding of how wind and atmosphere works, how chemicals react and corrode etc.). People naively claim that science doesn't affect culture but it touches on every aspect of our lives ... television, books, plays, films all rely these days on the technological advances of science ... we embrace science in every aspect of our daily lives, we live science, we breathe science, we ARE science are scence!

Science is what we are, what we do and if that isn't the very essence of a philosophy I don't know what it is.

Kyu

Hmm ok although I thought my other point was more pertinent. ..And sorry to be derailing the topic/ digressing.

The limit of your scientific philosophy is that it only deals with questions relating to empirical data. We can establish that proof of God may or may not be in the artifacts that are the physical universe. Scientific method finishes in it's usefulness there, unless you want to talk about the reasoning for (for example) biblical guidelines which I find to be tried and tested and work.

If you don't want to discuss whether or not God exists then we have no problem. If you need to then yes, we do. And science will not deal with such abstract thought because it lacks the ability to do so. We can use scientific method to dismiss impossible scenarios easily, but that leaves the vast majority of questions still unanswered.

Just to show that I am very seriously considering your argument.. Maybe I'm using scientific method to reach my understanding of God. The biblical statement of "God" = "I am" works scientifically for me. God 'just is'. He doesn't exist in linear time. It's an idea that is more scientific in nature than theological. Perhaps that's why I have no interest in religious forums because my language is more philosophy of science than pure theology.

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The limit of your scientific philosophy is that it only deals with questions relating to empirical data. We can establish that proof of God may or may not be in the artifacts that are the physical universe. Scientific method finishes in it's usefulness there, unless you want to talk about the reasoning for (for example) biblical guidelines which I find to be tried and tested and work.

Conversely the limit of any other philosophy (math excepted is that they cannot validatably demonstrate a single thing and therein lies your problem ... whilst I can be reasonably confident science works you rely on faith alone.

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't want to discuss whether or not God exists then we have no problem. If you need to then yes, we do. And science will not deal with such abstract thought because it lacks the ability to do so. We can use scientific method to dismiss impossible scenarios easily, but that leaves the vast majority of questions still unanswered.

I don't agree that science lacks the ability to do so, I think it is simply a matter of technical resolution, that our current level of technology is not sufficient to the task.

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Just to show that I am very seriously considering your argument.. Maybe I'm using scientific method to reach my understanding of God. The biblical statement of "God" = "I am" works scientifically for me. God 'just is'. He doesn't exist in linear time. It's an idea that is more scientific in nature than theological. Perhaps that's why I have no interest in religious forums because my language is more philosophy of science than pure theology.

I don't see how you think you might be using science to understand your god ... "God" = "I am" is the antipathy of everything science is about. It also highlights why I cannot accept your claim to doubt being key to your faith ... if your god "just is" then you're not doubting it at all are you?

Kyu

(June 16, 2009 at 9:37 pm)LEDO Wrote: If you can first define "God" we might be able to tell you why it doesn't exist.

I think you are missing the point of the thread. You tell me your life philosophy and try and defend it. God does not really have to come into it at all.

Very intresting view Kyu. How do you calculate morals though? I mean abstract consepts like right and wrong are hardly scientific in that they are neither quantifiable or objective.

God doesn't have to come into it at all? Well, indeed - in the sense that atheism is merely not believing in Gods--it's without Gods...so "God" doesn't 'come into it'...more like out of it cos he has no place--; but therefore - it's not a philosophy, so once again if you're talking about why atheism is 'the right path'...I personally am an atheist because I don't believe in "God(s)" without evidence. But atheism itself isn't a path and isn't a philosophy, merely not believing in God(s) in and of itself (which is all atheism is by definition) - is no 'path'...it's one absence of a belief. It contains no ideology whatsoever.

So once again I don't understand what you mean. Because as others have said and I have said - atheism is not a philosophy and not a 'path'. There are many 'paths' to atheism. But that's a different matter - in my case it's just general skepticism and embracing evidence...that's my path to atheism. But atheism itself isn't a path.

EvF

(June 17, 2009 at 8:49 am)dagda Wrote: I think you are missing the point of the thread. You tell me your life philosophy and try and defend it. God does not really have to come into it at all.

As a moral relativist I can't really. I mean I can tell you they are but I can't really defend them terribly well (in an absolutist sense).

(June 17, 2009 at 8:49 am)dagda Wrote: Very intresting view Kyu. How do you calculate morals though? I mean abstract consepts like right and wrong are hardly scientific in that they are neither quantifiable or objective.

I don't really "calculate" them as such but I decide which ones are right or wrong sure. Personally I would say science play a big part in what I decide is right or wrong inasmuch as it informs me and so allows me to evaluate something (to give an example the atomic bomb is just a very big bang on the face of it but science tells me that there are longer lasting effects due to radioactivity and because of that I would generally say it's use in all but the most extreme circumstances is immoral) and because of evolution (generally in the scientific sphere) i.e. the evolution of consciousness, conscience and morality.

Kyu

I draw your attention to an earlier post EvF;

'As you are the atheists, I stand corrected. With this latest revelation, I will change the direction of the thread. Show me why your life philosophy is the right path to be on. I suppose you will have to define you life philosophy first. '


As atheism clearly can not be your life philosophy then I assume that you have not read my post. How rude! State your life philosophy and defend it.

Well I did read that...yesterday - I just forgot...apologies..maybe you should rename the thread then because it's both incorrect and misleading now?

My life philosophy...hmm hard one. I have way too much stuff mixed in...I'll have a go.

No absolute rules but shitloads of guidelines...the two E's are important to me: Evidence and Empathy.

I don't have any simple philosophy...I'd say primarily it's just about only going with the evidence when it comes to believing something - and about having humility so you don't oversimplify life and don't arrogantly claim what you can't possibly know...I think most 'philosophies' are generally over simplified and cliche. I think the only truly simple philosophy that's valid is ultimately to not absolutely have one philosophy...there is good that can be found from anywhere. Ultimately I'm agnostic about everything. And the empathy just comes naturally...although rationality helps because delusion can certainly make it harder for you to empathize.

If I could put my 'life philosophy' in one quote I think it would be, basically, this:

"Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it." - Bruce Lee

Furthermore: I have been described by quite a few different people independently over the years as 'Very Zen' I guess because I'm very laid back with people...I have thought and said (and meant) thins like "I generally like/love people...and if they like/love me back then that's just a bonus".

I have never actually read up on any 'Zen' at all and know nothing about it really...just heard some stuff Bruce Lee has said I guess..and he incorporated some 'Zen' as well as Taoism and Confucianism (which I also don't really know anything about).

It's hard for me to hate a person. It can be an awful lot easier for me to hate their actions; I have no enemies both ways...sometimes people dislike me but it never goes back the other way.

I don't disrespect 'the person' - I try never to give any nonjokingly ad homs, but I can quite easily disrespect 'the person''s "Belief"s. I believe people are more than what they 'stand for'. There is a lot they're unaware of.

Well that's about all I can give--at least atm--really Dagda mate.

EDIT: Here's 2 more Bruce Lee quotes that add to what I think the be the 'philosophy of no philosophy' - or basically about being open minded...Jeet Kune Do in other words (The Martial Arts style Bruce Lee created)...for Bruce Lee 'Martial Arts' wasn't just about 'fighting' (at least not just on the outside anyway).

"In Jeet Kune Do, it’s not how much you have learned, but how much you have absorbed from what you have learned. It is not how much fixed knowledge you can accumulate, but what you can apply livingly that counts. ‘Being’ is more valued than ‘doing’." - Bruce Lee

"The man who is really serious, with the urge to find out what truth is, has no style at all. He lives only in what is." - Bruce Lee



EvF

Getting into what I do believe in I think right now I would have to say Secular Humanism. I won't claim to have identical beliefs to another Humanist because I didn't look at Humanism and think "Hey! That's for me!" but, rather I read the details on it somewhat recently and found that I agreed, at least on a basic level with most things described as a part of Secular Humanism.

The term Secular humanism itself came around to seperate from Religious humanism, theists who focused mainly on living a good live and helping everyone to do the same. The main different being that Secular Humanism rejects the supernatural.

I could go over the core bits of Secular Humanism as per my research online but, that would defeat the point. Instead I will try to cover things from my own point of view.

In short, I live to experience. I recognise that this life may be the only one I will ever experience, indeed all evidence suggests that even if I am incorrect and I will return that I will not remember a thing. Due to this I try to live my life for today and tomorrow, without getting caught up in the past.

To avoid a wall of text I will try to cover individual points seperately. The first thing I will go over is my desire for knowledge. Most of this was said in my thread 'Why militant?' (http://atheistforums.org/thread-1307.html) but, I'll say a little anyways.

Basically, because I have such a love for learning and new experiences I have found that almost always the story I am told is wrong. Not intentionally mind you but, when people tell me about an experience their perspective is biased, when passing on a message they use their own words instead of quoting the source. Everything needs to be examined, if only for a moment using logic and critical thinking to determine how likely it is to be true. If not very likely then some research might be in order.

I am a particularly social person so, it stands to reason that I have cause to not piss off the entire population. One of the things I have found is that despite multiple human traits that should be helping us work together (empathy, morality or even the desire to familial ties) people seem to see the worst of each other. This is especially true on the internet where names are merely an alias, we comunicate via text which fails to convey emotion or any real understanding in the hands of the masses and everyone puts on yet another mask for the veil of anonymity. I have concluded that in almost every situation it is best to assume the best intentions from our fellow human beings. If done both ways it will avoid a lot of hurt feelings and ignorant misunderstandings.

I feel the need to try to improve things where I can, for instance the only jobs I consider worth working are jobs like teaching, science work, studies or research or trades. The kind of jobs that cause our society to progress instead of turn water in the monotony of capitalisim. Through this I doubt every rule or law and ask myself 'should this be?'


I could go on lomnger but, I think that is enough material and frankly I have yet to eat breakfast so, to sum it up:


Doubt reality and seek to understand how things really work. You can benefit and bring benefit from understanding.

So your best to work alongside others and to understand them. We're all in this world together and it's about time we got over these dividing concepts like tribes, faith groups and countries so, we can work together.

Work to improve society, it will never be perfect, it couldn't be we're human but, if life was even slightly better for our children. If we could make life even just a little bit better, how could it not be worth it?

(June 17, 2009 at 8:49 am)dagda Wrote:

(June 16, 2009 at 9:37 pm)LEDO Wrote: If you can first define "God" we might be able to tell you why it doesn't exist.

I think you are missing the point of the thread. You tell me your life philosophy and try and defend it. God does not really have to come into it at all.

Very intresting view Kyu. How do you calculate morals though? I mean abstract consepts like right and wrong are hardly scientific in that they are neither quantifiable or objective.

Like I said before there is no frame of reference in quantum physics for what most people consider "god." Does your "god" think? If so then where is its brain? Only organic life forms can think. Thoughts do not exist in the etheral, they must be contained by something physical. On what planet does your god's brain exist? These questions as silly as they may seem simply demonstrate the absurdity of the question as to the existance of what is traditionally defined as "god."

Or do you mean "god" as the "first cause." I cannot refute a "first cause" or a prime mover, just one that thinks.