(May 31, 2012 at 10:09 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 10:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Prove it

If I tell you that I see the colour red how can I prove it, especially if you deny the colour red exists, I can never prove it to you, but it doesn't mean thr colour doesn't exist.

---

(May 31, 2012 at 9:59 am)Chuck Wrote: Fuck off.

genius

You can prove to a blind person that the color red exists. It isn't that hard to come up with an experiment that will eliminate other possibilities than color for your ability to correctly identify things that are red under double blind conditions. You may not be able to describe 'red' sufficiently for a congentially blind person to imagine what it really looks like, but you can definitely prove you can see something they can't.

(May 31, 2012 at 11:12 am)Shell B Wrote: To be fair, my atheism does influence my art. I am not shackled by dogma when I create. I can write characters who are without god without making them villains. I can write characters who are religious who are bad guy because I'm not blind. I can write about religious characters who are good guys, also because I am not blind. I can draw anything without worrying whether I'm breaking a rule. The list goes on . . .

---

I should say that the fact that the logical guy was called Narcissus shows a seriously lack of understanding on that particular myth.

Well, I would say that the majority of the depictions of religious people in the media, soap operas, films etc these days are always painted as evil, villains etc. I can't think of any instance of modern film etc where the religious person is a good guy! As for Herman Hessse, I think he had a pretty good grasp of myth, he was a pretty switched on guy, you don't the Nobel Prize in lucky bags..

(May 31, 2012 at 10:41 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 10:15 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: When being sarcastic about how dense you are, you should be careful you don't demonstrate it. Evolution isn't the explanation for the origin of life, it's an explanation for the mad and wonderful diversity of life.

If you read the posts that is exactly my point. Mosrhun claimed evolution was an alternative to creation, I asked him therefore to explain how evolution created life, in order to show that it didn't, therefore is not an alternative to creation. He then changed his line to abiogenesis with no explanation of how that process works.

Abiogenesis is hypothetical (as in there are probably a dozen plausible pathways from non-life to life, but as this was billions of years ago the evidence to determine which one actually happened is very thin). If you think being able to explain the process of origins is so important, tell us how God did it. Evolution created the diversity of life, Moshrun is clearly aware that it is not the correct explanation of the origin of life; but I know you'll continue to believe Moshrun can't get his facts straight rather than 'creation' being a word that can be used in multiple senses.

(May 31, 2012 at 8:49 am)StatCrux Wrote: Because atheists "create" their own meaning for life (as attested to in this thread) if they believe this created meaning, that is faith. You replace belief in God with belief in your own created meaning, essentially you place yourself in the position of God, precisely what the Lucifer story warns us of doing. Christians admit they have faith, atheists won't admit it.

Like I said, where does the faith bit come in? Define 'faith'.

Having a sense of meaning in your life does not require faith. I'm not placing myself in the position of any deity. I'm simply using my ability to understand my surroundings and applying a sense of meaning in my life.
I see no reason to make it so needlessly complex like you have. It's actually quite simple.

(May 31, 2012 at 11:28 am)StatCrux Wrote: Well, I would say that the majority of the depictions of religious people in the media, soap operas, films etc these days are always painted as evil, villains etc. I can't think of any instance of modern film etc where the religious person is a good guy!

Who says I write screenplays? Persecution complex, anyone?

Quote:As for Herman Hessse, I think he had a pretty good grasp of myth, he was a pretty switched on guy, you don't the Nobel Prize in lucky bags..

"You don't the Nobel Prize lucky bags"? I feel compelled to point out that I am only fluent in English.

Well, I think his grasp of myth is not as good as you think. Narcissus was not a logical guy. He ignored a hot nymph who was in love with him, so he could stare at his own reflection until he died. Is there logic in that? I think not. I think the name was used to connote hubris among analytical thinkers. It's insulting and inaccurate.

whateverist Wrote:Did you have a point or did you just want to share the way the world looks to you?

My point is that belief in the existence of God has been a source of inspiration for many great works of art, poetry, music etc. If you take away that belief you a losing a source of inspiration, would a prevalently atheist culture produce as much great works of art? Whenever I listen to atheists arguments, they always strike me as being a harsh, gloomy and empty way of seeing reality, Christopher Hitchens even admitted as much in one debate. This view of existence doesn't appear to be a good basis for inspiring great art.

(May 31, 2012 at 11:41 am)StatCrux Wrote:

whateverist Wrote:Did you have a point or did you just want to share the way the world looks to you?

My point is that belief in the existence of God has been a source of inspiration for many great works of art, poetry, music etc. If you take away that belief you a losing a source of inspiration, would a prevalently atheist culture produce as much great works of art? Whenever I listen to atheists arguments, they always strike me as being a harsh, gloomy and empty way of seeing reality, Christopher Hitchens even admitted as much in one debate. This view of existence doesn't appear to be a good basis for inspiring great art.

Perhaps if anyone ever does a study comparing 'art rates' you can base your opinion on more than just your intuition.

(May 31, 2012 at 11:39 am)Shell B Wrote: I think not. I think the name was used to connote hubris among analytical thinkers. It's insulting and inaccurate.

"You don't get the Nobel Prize in lucky bags"? I feel compelled to point out that I am only fluent in English.

sorry missed a word or two out.

As for Narcissus, I don't think Herman Hesse intended any insult, he was more interested in the aspects of human nature, especially our base animal nature and how we rise above it to become fully human.

(May 31, 2012 at 11:41 am)StatCrux Wrote:

whateverist Wrote:Did you have a point or did you just want to share the way the world looks to you?

My point is that belief in the existence of God has been a source of inspiration for many great works of art, poetry, music etc. If you take away that belief you a losing a source of inspiration, would a prevalently atheist culture produce as much great works of art? Whenever I listen to atheists arguments, they always strike me as being a harsh, gloomy and empty way of seeing reality, Christopher Hitchens even admitted as much in one debate. This view of existence doesn't appear to be a good basis for inspiring great art.

More people believe in God, so it stands to reason that lots of art will be inspired by what one finds in religion, however, it is not religion itself that the inspiration is drawn from. It is the imagery or themes found in religion that is the inspiration. Many works of fiction can inspire great art.

Just because you do not believe in something, it does not mean you will not use it as inspiration for art. For example, there are many works of art based on the stories of H.P Lovecraft, it does not necessarily mean the artist believes Cthulhu is real.

(May 31, 2012 at 11:51 am)Tobie Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 11:41 am)StatCrux Wrote: My point is that belief in the existence of God has been a source of inspiration for many great works of art, poetry, music etc. If you take away that belief you a losing a source of inspiration, would a prevalently atheist culture produce as much great works of art? Whenever I listen to atheists arguments, they always strike me as being a harsh, gloomy and empty way of seeing reality, Christopher Hitchens even admitted as much in one debate. This view of existence doesn't appear to be a good basis for inspiring great art.

More people believe in God, so it stands to reason that lots of art will be inspired by what one finds in religion, however, it is not religion itself that the inspiration is drawn from. It is the imagery or themes found in religion that is the inspiration. Many works of fiction can inspire great art.

Just because you do not believe in something, it does not mean you will not use it as inspiration for art. For example, there are many works of art based on the stories of H.P Lovecraft, it does not necessarily mean the artist believes Cthulhu is real.

I'm not talking about subject matter, I'm talking about the kind of awareness that comes from a religious understanding of reality, it is this that inspires the imagination. That's how great art has a powerful effect on people, because we all recognize the transcendent and luminous, paintings based on HP Lovecraft may be good, but they would not have the same effect as great works of art that reach out and have a powerful effect on us. Go and see the Crucifixion by Matthias Grünewald with an open mind.