Any primal non-christians here? page 8

[Tod]

Should a primal life include a belief in God ? Since the earliest evidence of mans existence god(s) have been depicted as a part of their life style. Why would you chose not to give weight to this aspect of the primal life style ? Could you be missing one ingredient in the recipe of all the ingredients that make up the primal life style.

[Him]

Should a primal life include a belief in God ? Since the earliest evidence of mans existence god(s) have been depicted as a part of their life style. Why would you chose not to give weight to this aspect of the primal life style ? Could you be missing one ingredient in the recipe of all the ingredients that make up the primal life style.

Historically, your parenthetical "(s)" shouldn't have been. Adamant monotheism appears to have followed agriculture, perhaps is a direct result of the more stable and geographically limited lifestyle that agriculture imposes. If you want to take your thought to its logical end, you could argue that all followers of Abrahamic religions should abandon them for pre-ag polytheist/deist/etc views.

As for why... basically the same reason we don't quit our jobs and head for the wilderness to live a truly primal existence...we don't want to give up the things we value about modern existence unless there is a strong argument that we truly must. We don't want to give up agriculture, modern surgical practices, computers, and so on, we just want to choose a more beneficial path within current day existence.

Besides that, you've just invented a variation on pascal's wager. As P's W demonstrates, you CAN'T truly join a religion for ulterior motives because it's motivated by self interest. In other words, a self-serving lie. You can't profess belief in god on the hope of salvation because it's a lie. You can't profess a belief in a spiritual or deist world to be more primal because that would be another lie. You either feel a thing or you don't - faking it doesn't count.

[sbhikes]

I try to stay away from religious topics.

I grew up in the Lutheran church. Baptized, confirmed. I'm well knowledgeable of the basic tenets. I even remember a lot of the old-time Lutheran music. But I stopped going to church a long time ago. I would not date someone who was so into religion than they insisted I go to church. I do miss the music sometimes.

Anyway, I have had a lot of time out in nature to ponder the words of Jesus. The actual words, not the interpreted ones. I felt I came to a truer understanding of his words out there in nature and what I think he was saying is basically the opposite of what I hear being said by the church. I think Daniel Suelo comes closer to explaining what our Judeo-Christian culture truly worships and what Jesus was really trying to say. Look him up if you are curious. Try to find where he explains how the concept of credit and debt is the true basis of our religion.

[sunsis]

Not religious. Sorry, I'm married to another atheist . Best of luck to you though.

[Scott F]

Him
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If the only tool you have is religion, then it is necessary to use religious concepts to make natural observations. There are still, in 2012, a whole lotta people on this earth whose only tool is religion. For them, it is absolutely necessary to include the ideal of a god to make observations about orbital mechanics.

Well you got on this one, Him, I am completely convinced the reason I don't float off into space is because god is holding my feet to the ground

Nothing in science has ever lead me to a belief in any god. Likewise with Fr George Coyne, director of the Vatican observatory, about his religious beliefs and science: When Science and Religion Meet - UWTV.org

Tod:
Should a primal life include a belief in God ? Since the earliest evidence of mans existence god(s) have been depicted as a part of their life style. Why would you chose not to give weight to this aspect of the primal life style ? Could you be missing one ingredient in the recipe of all the ingredients that make up the primal life style.

Him:
Historically, your parenthetical "(s)" shouldn't have been. Adamant monotheism appears to have followed agriculture, perhaps is a direct result of the more stable and geographically limited lifestyle that agriculture imposes. If you want to take your thought to its logical end, you could argue that all followers of Abrahamic religions should abandon them for pre-ag polytheist/deist/etc views.

No, Tod makes a good point. Speculation: What if it is hardwired into human psychology to believe in a transcendent reality....to construct a mythology. It seems to me people generally....gravitate (no pun intended...OK maybe ) towards myth making about reality. Without even realizing it, plenty of proclaimed atheist do that with ethics. They are humanists arguing for Rights as if those Rights are some kind of universal imperative. You and I both agree (I think we do) there is no such thing as universal right within materialism. But of the debates I've had with atheists over the years, you are in the minority.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Humanism is compatible with atheism[25] and agnosticism,[26] but being atheist or agnostic does not, itself, make one a Humanist. Nevertheless, humanism is diametrically opposed to state atheism.[27][28] According to Paul Kurtz, considered by some to be the founder of the American secular humanist movement,[29] one of the differences between Marxist-Leninist atheists and humanists is the latter's commitment to "human freedom and democracy" while stating that the militant atheism of the Soviet Union consistently violated basic human rights.[30] Kurtz also stated that the "defense of religious liberty is as precious to the humanist as are the rights of the believers".[30] Greg M. Epstein states that, "modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God".[31]"

So Kurtz was from an American culture proclaiming that another culture violated basic human rights. Without his saying so, that's him rejecting moral (cultural) relativism.

But that is exactly what secular humanism is, a religion without a god. Call it the newest mythology. In a materialistic word, one that excludes faith and transcendence, what is the scientific conclusion for "basic human rights?" If I'm understanding you correctly we both realize there ain't one. In the Jewish/Christian tradition god is a transcendent moral being. He transcends the natural world. Basic universal human rights are by necessity transcendent moral qualities. They transcend the observable natural world (dualism as opposed to materialism's monism). All science (sociology/anthropology) can do with ethics is make an observation about cultural values; it can't say those moral values are better or superior to any other culture's moral code. So here's the point: an atheist who argues for such Rights and then derides a theist for his/her belief in a god, because science can't explain the truth of that deity, is being inconsistent. Both this atheist and the theist believe in a transcendent nature. They just differ on the particulars.

North Korea is state sponsored atheism but mythology its population engages in is "Dear Leader" worship. NORTH KOREA 'Dear Leader' worship as the one religion - Asia News

[Scott F]

I'm trying to come up with a clever quip about how atheism is only part of the picture, but it's obviously too early in the morning.

Location is more important than I realized when living in SoCal. North Texas is a whole different scene. San Diego seems like it would be a good choice. Plus you have the wild animal park and zoo....

North Texas? Are we neighbors?

[Him]

Neighbors? Very possible, at least broadly. I'm in far north Dallas.

Well you got on this one, Him, I am completely convinced the reason I don't float off into space is because god is holding my feet to the ground

You don't think there are people who believe that? Either directly, or in a variation such as, "gravity works because my God wants it to."

Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter to anyone but you. The fact that you believe whatever you believe is in no respect an answer to my statement. The fact is that some do believe that, very vocally.

Nothing in science has ever lead me to a belief in any god.

You do like the non sequiturs.

No, Tod makes a good point. Speculation: What if it is hardwired into human psychology to believe in a transcendent reality....to construct a mythology. It seems to me people generally....gravitate (no pun intended...OK maybe ) towards myth making about reality. Without even realizing it, plenty of proclaimed atheist do that with ethics. They are humanists arguing for Rights as if those Rights are some kind of universal imperative. You and I both agree (I think we do) there is no such thing as universal right within materialism. But of the debates I've had with atheists over the years, you are in the minority.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Humanism is compatible with atheism[25] and agnosticism,[26] but being atheist or agnostic does not, itself, make one a Humanist. Nevertheless, humanism is diametrically opposed to state atheism.[27][28] According to Paul Kurtz, considered by some to be the founder of the American secular humanist movement,[29] one of the differences between Marxist-Leninist atheists and humanists is the latter's commitment to "human freedom and democracy" while stating that the militant atheism of the Soviet Union consistently violated basic human rights.[30] Kurtz also stated that the "defense of religious liberty is as precious to the humanist as are the rights of the believers".[30] Greg M. Epstein states that, "modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God".[31]"

So Kurtz was from an American culture proclaiming that another culture violated basic human rights. Without his saying so, that's him rejecting moral (cultural) relativism.

But that is exactly what secular humanism is, a religion without a god. Call it the newest mythology. In a materialistic word, one that excludes faith and transcendence, what is the scientific conclusion for "basic human rights?" If I'm understanding you correctly we both realize there ain't one. In the Jewish/Christian tradition god is a transcendent moral being. He transcends the natural world. Basic universal human rights are by necessity transcendent moral qualities. They transcend the observable natural world (dualism as opposed to materialism's monism). All science (sociology/anthropology) can do with ethics is make an observation about cultural values; it can't say those moral values are better or superior to any other culture's moral code. So here's the point: an atheist who argues for such Rights and then derides a theist for his/her belief in a god, because science can't explain the truth of that deity, is being inconsistent. Both this atheist and the theist believe in a transcendent nature. They just differ on the particulars.

North Korea is state sponsored atheism but mythology its population engages in is "Dear Leader" worship. NORTH KOREA 'Dear Leader' worship as the one religion - Asia News

I don't know anything about secular humanism so I can't address that. I'm not in North Korea so that is another non sequitur as far as I'm concerned.

As for morality within materialism, I'll share my view.

1) I am apparently conscious.
2) consciousness is apparently information, not matter. The information happens to exist as a pattern in the material world but it is distinct.
3) the complexity of information required for consciousness is apparently very high, much higher than I can duplicate or repair with the tools available to me
4) from a subjective point of view, the preceeding points predispose me to value the information, and the material manifestation of that information, which makes "me", and to try to sustain and defend it
5) I am not capable of accomplishing the goal stated in point #4 on my own strength - there is always something stronger, hungrier, more dangerous, more insidious than I can deal with on my own
6) the logical solution to point #5 is to recruit assistance
7) assistance, from others who are in my exact situation (conscious, fragile), is not something I can expect to be given unilaterally - I must trade for it
8) the only commodity that I have which is - at the deepest level - worthwhile in trade is reciprocity; if I want to be helped to survive I must help others in turn

That gives me my first ethical building block: harming others endangers me;helping benefits me

It also raises another point: Everything has an information component which is similar in nature to my consciousness. How do I differentiate between for example destroying a painting and destroying a painter? Answer: Complexity and reproducability. A painting maybe reproduced, a painter cannot be using any technology available to me. The sharp edge is that destroying something you cannot fix is irreparable harm. It takes away choices and possibility in a way you cannot repair.

That gives us our second ethical building block: there are different levels of harm, and some levels are absolute.

You can begin to see the interplay even with only these two building blocks. Since Causing absolute harm justifies, in the subjective view of anything that may be subject to such harm, absolute harm in response, it is dangerous to our self and should be avoided.

I could keep going but you are already bored. The point is, I can build an ethical system I am comfortable with using only my subjective opinion that I am conscious and my understanding of how that relates to the physical world. My ethical system has some absolutes which are as objective as any ethical system can possibly be. My ethical system is not based on anything supernatural, does not require a deity, and does not require outside references to provide consistent results or benefit to all in proximity to someone following my system.

The thing some folks seem to miss in their rush to say you gotta have a god to have objective morality is that as conscious beings we have some perfectly natural absolutes in common with each other. If I disorder your information (e.g. by pithing you like a frog) I have done something absolute to you. You don't need a god to make that objectively true, or to make the problem absolutely common to everyone.

[Tod]

Him- "Historically, your parenthetical (s) shouldn't have been." Thanks for the grammar lesson and yes historically you are correct. F.Y.I. my style of writing is commonly excepted among friends in informal communication formats (Chat room SMS and Messenger Abbreviations) Your hysteron proteron is based on your own addlad and your own rhetorical device, Plainly stated nothing more than literal insignificance. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying by making correlations between my writing and that of Pascal (by the way was a Christian philosopher). With that said I will leave you to the king's English. L.M.A.O.

[Him]

I didn't give a grammar lesson. I pointed out that it would not be a god. It would be lots of gods.

As for Blaise, did you catch what I did with his wager?

[drssgchic]

If I can get a word in edge-wise, most of the reason for gods was to explain the unexplainable while myths were, broadly, teaching stories. We don't have them because we need THEM, we have them so we have the rules and explanations a thinking being needs to understand and function in the world. They have become more elaborate over time because who doesn't like to embroider a good story?