What's arrogant about it, though? Why do you think it's arrogant? You bet who regrets what, exactly? You bet that the myth of a supreme being "regrets" conferring dominion over all the other animals who don't have this myth, or the ability to have mythical beliefs? Or you bet that humans who are capable of forming mythical beliefs have to also form the myth that the first myth is "regrettable"?
that some think that god only exists for humans.. i bet god regrets giving humans dominion over the animals..look at the rate of species extinction..
In the beginning, Man created god. And in his arrogance, Man said that he had dominion over the animals.
Well, some humans think that God exists for them. That is, God is something entirely personal. If God is a person, perhaps they do regret "giving" humans a special place. Me, I don't think God is a person, I think I'm a person and God is something else. I also think the supernatural God is a myth because God is quite a natural thing for me, personally. A bit like how listening to music is a natural thing. One's taste in music is generally personal, but we all share the ability to appreciate rhythm and harmony.
i believe that to be a piece of the puzzle.. because you can see god there, it gives you an unique perspective that contributes to the bigger picture.. your a specialist.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think I'm a specialist. Actually my "piece of the puzzle" is quite prosaic and ordinary, I could be totally non-materialistic and sit around meditating, say on a street corner with a bowl next to me, like thousands of people in India. But I don't because I live in the "ordinary" world along with a lot of other "ordinary" people, who have jobs, raise families, buy a lot of generally useless rubbish, watch crap on TV, etc. This only detracts from the natural "inner" world I also know about, I can live with that. Actually I believe everyone else knows about it too.
It depends upon the claims being made. Science is just a methodology for examining the physical world. It depends upon certain conditions (primarily testability) that are not available for all phenomena. So the question becomes, are the claims being made testable? If they are, then they fall under the purview of science. So if someone states, for example, that faith healing is true we can examine that claim. For subjective experiences, not so much. There's really no way to test someone's experience of Nirvana or God, or the lack thereof. Which is fine, we have to allow for those differences. We can debate them and analyze the rational of their interpretation, but ultimately they belong wholly to the person who has them. The problem I find is that people who have such experiences rarely stay within these limitations. They set off making claims they cannot substantiate and tend to get rather upset when the claims are examined. I can make a personal analogy. I have color deficient vision. So from a very young age I realized that the world I see was not the same world other people see. In a sense, I am inherently "atheistic" about certain shades of green (they appear grey to me). Yet lots of people tell me that these shades to exist. How am I to know whether they do or not? Well, the simplest method is to analyze the claims. If one person tells me that a particular object is green I can go ask another person to see if they agree. The more congruent the answers, the more likely they are to be accurate. Yet, when you start testing people about god, there is very little in the way of congruence. If we start redefining god in the most basic and general concepts that are common to the perception you will find they become very vague indeed. In general terms your definition is spot on, "that which is beyond the understanding" or a sense of unity. But anything then said beyond this is not about god. Rather it is a reflection of the psychology of those making the statements. If you examine the statements you'll find strong support for this. They are almost entirely emotive. I don't find that term particularly problematic. Certainly the idea of what existence is can be loaded with superstition and myth but it's relatively simple to strip it down to its essentials. I don't find this true of the term "god". It depends on how you define "superiority". It's a value based determination so it does indeed seem rather self serving to judge all animals by human standards. Humans don't make very good toads and probably wouldn't fare well in judgment if toads had a value system. All the more reason to reach outside our subjective experiences. These things don't hold up under broader examination. ~Raithere
I guess I don't have much more to say here. I find your approach problematic. But I'm sure you've figured that by now. ~Raithere
It is her approach toward the subject in general that I find problematic, not that specific statement. There was just really nothing further to discuss, Lori's experience is sufficient for her, it is not for me. No use belaboring the point. ~Raithere
Some people seem to believe that the question: "Do you believe in God?" is a simple question. Why it isn't a simple question is apparent when you compare it with another simple question like: "Do you believe in the power of consumer markets?". If you're doing a survey, it's probably a good idea to make sure the sample group has the same idea about the subject. God doesn't, in general, have this simple property. What does "believe in" mean anyway? Is it implying the existence of something--market forces, oxygen--so you believe in the existence of the subject? Do I believe in oxygen? It's an odd question, because I believe or I know that I breathe oxygen. If I substitute the word "God" I still can't personally find any real difference between God and breathing oxygen. This constitutes any proof I need, but I don't need one.
I am an atheist. But I am mathematically inclined and value proof. If god created a circle on a plane surface in which the relationship between circumference and diameter was NOT equal to pi (3.141592...), that would be enough proof for me. Or, if god inserted a new integer between 4 and 5, that also would be enough proof. Or, made Euler's formula invalid. Or, ...
But that thread was started by a troll that I have put on ignore... I won't enable his ego gratification complex.
