romansh

I must admit, I can't help thinking of virtues (in pairs or otherwise) as illusions. Constructs of the mind and society. Virtues or their lack promulgate dualism ... It is something I think all people might move away from.

Paul Here is Bertrand Russell on the subject ... the piece I alluded to earlier. Proof of God Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. While I might not be sure where I am going in life, I go about as though I am sure.

I have no problem with what you say here. But by that logic (and I have a sneaking agreement here) trees don't exist either. They can be seen as temporary arrangements of atoms etc. a method of describing patterns. The apple is not made up apple pieces if you like.

You may well be Paul. But do you actively disbelieve those gods described literally exist or have literally ever existed other than as a concept? I am reminded of this Joseph Campbell story: Campbell recalled that as he emerged from a banquet he was approached by a member of a religious cult who asked, "Do you believe in God?" Campbell replied, "Young man, I don't think you know the implications of that question. I'm acquainted with hundreds of gods. (But) I think I know the one you're talking about. I believe in Him, too." The cultist then asked, "Sir, are you an atheist?" and Campbell replied, "I don't think you can call a person an atheist who believes in as many gods as I do."

There is much I don't 'know'. Does not mean I should give any the stuff I don't know about much credence. At least not without out a little bit of evidence. Now I don't much about Jim's views; just from the one relevant line he could be a strong atheist. That's fine. But I would not go about suggesting people are closed minded. Eventually someone will suggest, there is no point being so open minded our brains fall out. At that point the conversation tends to get lost. I firmly believe in dust bunnies. it could be one of those North American phrases. Hence I could argue for the existence of pink fluffy unicorns. I live my life without pink fluffy unicorns, aliens walking amongst us, gods, God and much else. Is that being open minded. I consider myself agnostic not so much I think there is any reasonable chance of god, but more in the sense I don't call myself an aphilatelist. Though I will admit to being a lapsed numismatician. Remember the term atheist is quite often used as a term of disparagement ... even JS Spong has been accused of being an atheist bishop. take a look at Joseph's post above. I am not sure whether he is pointing to a panentheistic or a pantheistic type of god. for me the latter is more atheistic than the former. But then again so what? Are you a strong atheist with respect to Norse, Greek and Roman gods Paul?

I am sure we don't ... but we just need to understand there is cause and effect. If that poorly understood thing enters this world to any significant degree would invalidate the first law of thermodynamics. (As does free will). Just going with the 'typical' understanding of God - a entity or energy, outside of our known physical realm, that interferes or influence this realm, somehow. This I think is far from typical in my experience. Again the laws of thermodynamics don't countenance this point of view. I'm not trying to debate whether or not that thing actually exists, I'm just saying that we know that we don't know everything, so maybe we don't know what we don't know - i.e. God? As an agnostic I don't know anything never mind everything. But then I can't know pink fluffy unicorns inhabit my workshop when I am not there. But they would explain the dust bunnies. By saying I actively disbelieve in pink fluffy unicorns, am I being closed minded? I don't think so. I would give a strong atheist the same wriggle room. Of course some might argue fluffy pink unicorns are a man made concept. But I could argue not ... our concept of unicorns are fluffy pink unicorn inspired.

There has been some discussion recently about people being "open minded", lacking belief etc recently. A no free will point of view would be a little circumspect about describing people as open minded etc. Now I don't think individuals can take credit in being open minded, sure or unsure etc ... in that I can't take credit for the configuration of my brain. Now at times I might think of myself as a bright, intelligent, spritely, good looking, plus sixty year old; these are things I cannot take credit for or be "blamed" for. I might think I pull the levers behind being intelligent etc; this I think is far from the case.

Hmmn If something is "untouchable" in effect it does not respond to cause and effect. If that is the case, then it may well exist, but then it may as well not exist, because it is irrelevant. Here I am using "touch" in its broadest sense.

There is much that I don't understand Paul. This does not make it supernatural. For example are quantum phenomena supernatural because likely you and I don't understand them?

I get your point Jim. I would say I think taking religious texts literally is far from "prudent". Now, I know of no way of examining the existence of say deistic or panentheistic concepts of god. For me the arguments for are generally hand waving. The only sensible argument against them is that they are unnecessary hypotheses. Pantheism as Dawkins points out is sexed-up atheism, at least in my understanding. While I am skeptical of infinity, I am less so of zero. Any balanced equation depends on the existence of zero. Some physicists argue if we add up all the energy in this universe it comes to zero. Nihilism might be a valid position. Saying God is meaningless ... I agree up to a point. Though a literalist has a relatively well defined god and based on the claimed properties of that God, I think we can discount such interpretations.

As a non USA resident I won't vote but not surprisingly perhaps I will express an opinion. No way I would vote for any of the Republicans ... they have lost their way since the mid eighties. And the part that saddens me is they have dragged the Democrats to the right with them. I would likely vote Hilary, not because I agree with her ideals, it is simply that I think she would have a better chance moving the US's politics closer to the "centre" than Bernie. Political Compass is an interesting site ... it gives a slightly left leaning view of things in my view, but it has an interesting questionnaire ... I typically score about -4, -4 on it. Here is the site's take on the primaries. And here is the 2012 US election, or at least their viewpoint. And if we compare it to the 2008 election we can see Obama has been pulled way over during his first term.

Thanks Fatherman I found this quote on the Buddhism page at Religious Tolerance Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. I think this quote, ostensibly by Buddha not that it matters by who (we are all Buddha?), epitomizes the agnostic spirit. And there is much that I disagree with when it comes to Buddhism (at least the little I know of it). Incidentally the site is a useful to get a quick overview of a whole bunch of world views.

Thank you Joseph I think a very prudent response ;-)

When a thread goes off topic rather than just hiding the posts, open an appropriate thread or move the posts to a more appropriate thread if one exists. This is common practice on most fora. I would be surprised if the tools do not exist already to do this. Also I can't help thinking that the word hijacked has negative connotations. Whilst personally I am not bothered by it, those that have a need of "a safe place" to express their ideas might wonder about such emotive language and I can't help but think imply another's intentionality. Finally ... fora are places or a 'fiery furnace' to strengthen and refine ideas, concepts and beliefs. So long as this is done "respectfully" I essentially see no problem. sincerely rom.

But I think it has to come with a recognition we do make choices (consciously or otherwise). You and I have ended up on the atheistic side of the debate. Others on the theistic. Some of us are more ardent when we vocalize our positions than others. Militant moderation is OK for awhile. Acceptance of the things we might find abhorrent is a bit more tricky.

Being an eddy in an unfolding universe is or at least can be considered a gift. At least in my book.

I like the term agnostic when it is used to describe how we handle knowledge ... not just with respect to God and gods, but with respect to much wider aspect of our lives. I think agnosticism is a far more "powerful" concept than dealing with our beliefs. For me it throws into our lives a significant amount of skepticism and possibly a realization we make choices despite of our uncertainty. Consequently we might take care with our beliefs and how we impose them on others. Is this a gift?

The majority of atheists I come in contact with will categorically deny Abrahamic and perhaps other traditional Gods. Probably as do you and I. I find they are more circumspect around less well defined gods, for example panentheism and deism. I like the concept of ignosticism (as well as agnosticism). We "should" risk being accused of being semantic when it comes to God and gods in general. And perhaps with other terms like spiritual and transcendent.

I think most atheists are open minded. I think we need not to confound what is quite often spirited attacks on dogmatic religious beliefs. What do we mean by God? A deist god; kick started everything and then "buggered off"? A panentheistic god, that is in everything and is manipulating the materialist world? Or a more personal god that gives us "gifts" ... to keep this vaguely on topic. Whereas in pantheism where everything is god ... and here belief meets atheism. I have a sneaking respect for pantheism ... where both worlds meet and the debate is purely semantic and emotional. By saying you think atheists are not open minded about god, I question whether you are open minded about atheists? Think of Bertrand Russell, a poster boy for atheism ... he said something like before a philosophical audience he would call himself an agnostic and before the general public he would call himself an atheist to give the right impression. I suspect we live our lives atheistically Paul, and call ourselves agnostics.

An atheist on the Dawkins' Scale? I think that scale is simplistic, but to answer your question it is possibly 4 and upwards. 7 being a strong atheist and the other numbers being a weak atheist. Remember Paul ... that I think you don't choose your beliefs in the sense today I will be a strong atheist and at 4 pm tomorrow I will be an agnostic theist. (somebody who understands they don't have convincing evidence but believes anyway). Our beliefs creep up on us overtime. Children may be an exception, they tend to believe much of what their parents tell them.

Paul Dawkins on the possibility of god http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Paul Here you propagate the myth that atheists as a class are not open minded. I call myself an agnostic ... more because it is the way I handle "knowledge" rather than any beliefs I may or may not hold.

I wasn't referring to the film of that name. I meant "shades of grey" in sense of seeing more options than just the absolutes (moral action vs immoral action). Like for example, scale from 0 to 100 would be much better. I was referring to the fact that you seem to insist that morality must be decided in a on/off - manner when an action is either moral or not. I know you were not referring to the book, but I was. Where is the film on your morality scale and why would some see it as depraved? So what are the 0 and 100 on your behaviourally anchored rating scale? "Being honest" is not same thing as "agreeing with you". Just for info. I was referring to being honest with oneself. Chamberlains decision was, in hindsight, at least poor judgement of the situation. I don't know what his motives were, and from moral point of view, that's usually what makes a lot of difference. Like for example, was he a peace-loving person, or a coward, or simply a calculating, cynical pragmatist who thought war would be too costly for his other goals and thus wanted to avoid it. Nobody probably will ever know that side of the story, since participants have been dead for a long time and we can only guess. So where was Chamberlain in your behaviourally anchored rating scale? Or does morality even enter into the arena? What about the government that takes a country into war where is that in your rating scale? A few years ago we had a person off his meds hack off somebody's head with a knife on a greyhound bus. Where do we put that on your scale? Recently he got released from psychiatric hospital, people are up in arms so to speak. How moral is it that he should get an early release? What I am actually claiming is actions are not actually moral or immoral and that there is not some duality with an imaginary scale in between. The concept of morality is an illusion if you like.

Jack of Spades What about shades of grey? 50? Are the book and film immoral, "good", prudent etc? Totally in the eye of the beholder. What lessons about prudence can we learn from the film? Real life morals aren't, imo, a cases of "right" and "wrong" but rather cases of "How messed up this is in a scale from 0 to 100?". Are we arguing for a post modernist/relativist view here? Again if I meet my goals without too much collateral damage is that moral? Historically these situations are decided by force. Yep the winners get to decide whether an action was moral or not. Of course later revisionists might get to revise the history. Philoshopically, I can't really say much about it. And yet it is a philosophical question. If we try to keep it practical, with some implications to everyday life, such cases are rather rare. Usually, like in case of murderous psychos, the case is not so much that one individual have very different idea of morality, but rather that the individuals are uninterested of following *any* standards of established morality. In everyday life I can go about my life quite happily amorally. To the outside person I could appear to be quite moral. Except of course if a devout Christian might ask me "do I believe in Jesus?" At that point I appear less moral in those eyes, because apparently I can't be moral without the appropriate beliefs. I think ownership of land is a good historical example, when two cultures with different view on ownership of land encounter (one nomadic, and other one which believes that individuals can own a piece of land), there will be a conflict. This is an interesting one for me. I sometimes listen to native elders speaking of their special affinity for the land or something similar. I was born in Canada, went to the UK at a very young age, spent all my formative years in there and then some. Worked in South Africa for six and returned to Canada for the last thirty years. My ancestors left Africa some 150 000 years ago, give or take. They wandered through Asia and Europe and ended up in the Baltic Sates. We are all nomadic, but on different time scales. But even in those conflicts, to me it's clear that some individuals acted in more moral fashion than others. Like for example, by trying to find a compromise or by trying to make agreements between different views to avoid violence. Sometimes violence is seen as moral sometimes as not. Neville Chamberlin appeased Hitler to avoid violence to have peace for our time. Was that moral? I think looking back on history it is wiser or perhaps more prudent not to describe events as moral or immoral. Be honest, and just say it does or does not agree with your wants. Describing something as immoral is an opportunity to blame and then forgive. Where in reality there was nothing to forgive in the first place.

Safe travels Bill. While a death pushed me to question my beliefs as inevitably these things can, it is sort of a gift as I said before. An unwelcome gift but a gift nevertheless. Part of me agrees with your assessment of PC, another part not. Death in my case shed me of my belief in dualism in its various forms. One day I will become ordinary star dust, if there is such a thing. May the wind be at your back.