romansh

It is an option. And perhaps a reasonable halfway step. But ultimately it does not address our emotional preferences having been formed by ancient societal taboos. Do you think we as a society and as individuals should address these societal taboos? And if so how and what time scale?

I would agree that withholding federal monies could be heavy handed and have many unintended and perhaps unwanted consequences. But then every journey begins with a first step. I disagree ... it is a fair comparison. The majority likely did not want to sit next to Rosa Parks. How many decades do we wait for Americans to be ready? Uncomfortableness I suspect is simply a politically correct euphemism for prejudice. I am prejudiced, I am totally uncomfortable/prejudiced when it comes transgender issues, but then my reason wins out over my emotion,

I am reminded of Heinlein's Starship Troopers, well the film anyway. The unisex showers. We have been programmed with society's fears and we pass them on to our children. I have been and I have passed on the programming too.

Once upon a time the majority would have been uncomfortable sitting in the same end of a bus with Rosa Parks? Don't get me wrong here, I too am uncomfortable. But then growing up can be uncomfortable as well.

Any idea why penes and sp-erm might be blocked on this progressive site? But what are your thoughts on the transgender toiletries?

pe·nis /ˈpēnis/ noun plural noun: penes; plural noun: penises 1 the male genital organ of higher vertebrates, carrying the duct for the transfer of ###### during copulation. In humans and most other mammals, it consists largely of erectile tissue and serves also for the elimination of urine. I had to smile ... just to prove my point; I presume, the automatic sexual content censor in my previous post blocked out the word and replaced it with #####. And it also censored the word sp-erm in this post.

The issue is fear ... and giving up years of indoctrination. Society, NA in particular, has developed a phobia of things sexual. Take a look at our TVs ... we can have death, mayhem, blood and gore galore on our TV screens. But the sight of a nipple or is avoided like the plague. It is an issue because we make it so.

I agree it does not matter ... But can I know it does not matter? As for awareness ... I am sure it is not what it seems, though I cannot know. Studies indicate awareness is a conglomerate of the last two or three seconds of our brain processes. Again I like pantheism ... it where we come full circle and theism meets atheism. Awaiting insights from God.

I can introduce to a whole branch of philosophy ... solipsism. Am I somebody's dream sort of thing. My basic assumption is that I exist in a universe ... I have to assume to make any sense of what I think I observe.

I am not sure I would call it intent, purpose or any other synonym. When I electrolyse a copper sulphate solution to make acid, oxygen and copper crystals ... I don't see intent there (other than perhaps my own illusory intent). If I relax the system and turn off the current, the oxygen, copper and acid recombine to make copper sulphate. All this and the universe is still unfolding. There appears to be no direction other than a higher entropy.

When you say Eastern religions ... I think primarily of Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism in it various forms. My understanding is Buddhism and Taoism are largely god free, so it would appear God had died there much earlier. I have heard Hinduism described as an atheistic religion, except for those that take it literally to various degrees. Being agnostically minded ... I am not sure of the word "divine". From recollection my trusty Oxford describes it as pertaining to God or godlike. So I suspect many use the word divine as meaning something else, perhaps closer to transcendent. But this word is also difficult in the sense of "beyond all categories of thought".

Paul wrote Paul ... all this is fair enough. Now I happen to think, as I suspect you do, that we cannot truly know anything. Am I being closed minded to people who claim they know or just merely believe there is no God or god? They may have a more accurate access to the universe than I do. I have no way of knowing. This all roots back to the free will thread ... if our thoughts are truly a product of what we use physics and chemistry to describe the behaviour of our brains, then for all the personal and psychological descriptions eg the closed mindedness of the some, we should consider the origin of the "chemistry" that created the closed mindedness. We happily talk of one another in terms of their psychological attributes. In reality we are all stuck in our chemical ruts. The strong atheist, the evangelical Christian, agnostics, progressives. Occasionally something bumps us into another chemical rut. I am not using rut as a negative term here. Again this is my opinion, but I am happy to debate it.

Fair enough Joseph, but for me the universal-intent are like eddies in a pond they flicker in and out of existence. I am driven to say, I have no evidence for this universal-intent, so I will give this belief a pass for the moment. But I do understand that your own personal eddy drives you to your belief.

Derek While I agree atheist historically has had negative connotations and still does for many even some here, eg Paul sees atheists as closed minded. I was surprised that you furthered this perception by saying: ... such titles point to - or at least imply - some sort of negativity, perhaps desperation ... Any such negativity (or positivity) for those of us who wish to see the "good" in everything is a reflection of our inner workings and relevant environment. That after God's apparent death we put art in its various forms on various pedestals which have come and gone as fashions wax and wain in seeing the noumenon. (reality a it really is). Things like spirituality waxed for a while. The more literal kind ... not the one we seem to profess here. While Peter Watson may not have chosen the title ... he does not seem to profess a preference for either and did he did not suggest a third option. I found he wrote extremely neutrally and rarely I found him expressing a personal view. This I think is why we might be putting our individual spins to the meaning of the content.

I agree Joseph. The universe is using* the concepts of hate and fear (and a whole bunch of positive) as well. I am sure hate and fear "have their place", but personally I would not advocate for them. I see no harm in pointing out there are alternative ways of looking at the unfolding universe, other than through the prism of dualism. Dualism is a concept that evolution has made easy for humans to understand. Does not make it an accurate reflection of reality. It is only a reflection of our perceptions. * We might be careful here not to anthropomorphize the universe by suggesting the universe has an intent. it is bad enough that we anthropomorphize our 1.3 kg of sloppy proteins, sugars and electrolytes. ps I very carefully did not use the word "should". At least in this thread. I am well aware of the nature of that word.

Primarily I see them as unnecessary. If a society unfolds (or evolves, it matters not) in a way that I like, is that positive? I might think of myself as proselytizing for agnosticism, but in fact this just a confabulation on my part. I might think of agnosticism in it broadest sense a positive attribute for individuals and society, but that too is a confabulation. The universe has been doing its thing for 99.999 % of existence without the concepts of virtues, ethics, morality and the like. I am sure it will carry on long just fine after those concepts have been ground back into stardust. I think another couple of Campbell quotes are apt: This is fairly straight forward. But this one is a bit more difficult: We live our lives where we put virtues, morality ethics and the like on a pedestal. Whether it is saying "yea" or a quiet acceptance. I won't argue. Personally, I listen to my wants. And by and large try and fulfill them. But even here I am being a little disingenuous. I recognize "my wants and I" are a response to how the universe is unfolding.

In North America ... the book is called The Age of Atheists (with the same subtitle). What I took away from it was when people lost their belief in God, many substituted other beliefs in "God's" place. http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=33234#p33234 It was a Christmas present from my wife. She tried reading afterwards but gave up a couple of days ago. I found it dense reading. Curious about the change of title?

At the risk of derailing this thread, I will give this question a shot. Firstly I don't think there is one path that everyone can take. We all come from different places in terms of experiences, emotions beliefs, cultures etc. I personally lost my belief in these types of concepts ... essentially it was the universe unfolding, but more pragmatically by introspection, eg When I look deep into myself I see the universe quietly staring back at me. It comes from the understanding there is not an intrinsic "I" that is pulling my levers. Probably similar too the Buddhist concept of not self. I think Joseph Campbell's quote here is relevant: Not everyone will have this point of view and that is OK too. The universe continues to unfold, regardless of what we think we believe. I am not sure I have answered your question Joseph?

Jim How do you see Bertrand's position as circular?

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.