.

I think he aids the theist posit of associating 'good' with 'god,' and he ignores the many storytelling traditions which also assign such words as evil/jealous/vengeful/angry etc to god(s). — universeness

Good point ! Looking back on the era of the Young Hegelians and before, there's a definite purification of the God concept so that the obviously irrational and offensive stuff is removed. So you have a crude concept moving toward a rational concept toward finally a replacement of God by an awakened humanity who realizes that God was its dream of what it should/could be.

It really as something as simple as science or literature or music or philosophy. — lll

Fair enough.

God, for him, was just a projection of the best parts of ourselves — lll

Yeah, I just don't subscribe to the association.
I think its a valid approach to try to 'reconstruct' certain cultural terms.
Homosexuals tried it with 'gay.' I think it has had a mixed success but perhaps, overall it was successful.
Black folks attempted it with how the 'n' word is employed amongst themselves. I don't think this has been successful and I think it does them no favours to do that.
I don't think it can be done with a word like Nazi. Although the memory of one attempt (if you could call it such as a 'tongue in cheek') A couple I was friends with in my 20's. They loved humour and always 'wound each other up.' The held great house parties. They had a very angellic looking son and hen he was about 5, his mother taught him to say 'daddy is a nazi,' whenever she prompted him.
She did so during some parties, depending on the form of windup she was getting from her husband.
I and others at the party found this hilarious at the time but those who were new invites offered a more shocked or perplexed look. I still smile about it but I still think it will always be a rejected label.
I think the sooner we reject the god label the better for the progression of our species. We should not give it the association this Feuerbach did, in my humble opinion.

building Heaven on earth — lll

I note the 'traditional' context within which you use this term but again I consider my literal understanding of 'heaven on Earth,' as an inaccurate and undesirable goal for the human race. Humans cannot exist without comparators, the hungrier we are the more we enjoy eating. To a limit of course, those close to death due to hunger are incapable of displaying pleasure when they are given some food. If heaven is a place of no pain/stress/suffering/want then it would soon become a hell for humans.
It would be like having no more questions to ask. What would our purpose be then?

I've never heard of Tucker Carlson.
— Gregory A
— lll

No kidding? The dude is the, last I checked.

The originality of what I believe helps sustain me. If I were to see similar things coming from someone else I would be discouraged. It is the reason I don't take in the viewpoint of (prominent) others on my side. I'd seen part of a debate some years back by William Lane Craig and were not impressed. An excellent debater, but a bit too slick to be genuinely interested in the topic if I recall. Watched some Jordan Peterson, but still see someone who has not really grasped the seriousness of events.

If Richard Dawkins were a non-believer in a god/s we would (mostly) not know who he is.
— Gregory A

The Selfish Gene is an exciting/good book (you might like it, given your interest in chromosomes ), and I think he was already famous as a popularizer of evolutionary science and felt that rationality and science needed to be defended. Just as you may feel males need defending. If you read his book, you'll see why males and females automatically stay just about balanced. It's game-theoretical.

Hawking, Sagan & Gould all had high profiles too, but (likewise) for reasons that appeal to the public, not because of their contributions to science as great as those were.

The title 'The Selfish Gene' (although the book is genuine science I'm sure) is so atheistic as to put me off. If it's not obvious Dawkings is taking a shot at theism as he does with all titles of his books that I'm aware of. Otherwise, I have no real interest in chromosomes or genes as they play no part in my reasonings. The point had been, (and I should apologize for not elaborating on that) that my understandings I trace back that far. I don't see anyone else doing the same (I don't dare to look as I've said). That said I'm sure there are quite a few that see things in some sort of similar way (no one else here in the institute where I'm held does though).

And, no problem with the biological balances. But the socio-political imbalance we see symbolized as 'XXX - Y' tells us that 75% of the population will eventually be Left, 25% Right.


I see as the (symbolic) foundation for Left and Right, our 'X' and our 'Y' chromosomes.
— Gregory A

There are plenty of men on the left, plenty of women on the right. A war of the sexes sounds like a fortunately unrealistic nightmare. Some of us are married and/or have great friendships with women (or at least hope to at some point.)

Never heard of the "battle of the sexes"? It's been promoted for years by the media.

Don't let a comfortable existence lull you into a false sense of security, I'm a theist yet can still foresee terrible outcomes, you, a non-believer should have no excuses.
— Gregory A

I'm genuinely concerned that you might be troubled in some way. From my perspective, you are worried about something that's as unlikely as aliens attacking the planet. Please seek help if you are having violent fantasies. Seriously.

Even if there were aliens they would hardly attack our planet. Between them and us would be infinite reasons not to. That is the amount of resources out there would guarantee them having no reasons to be interested in us. I mean the universe could hardly be so crowded. The elimination of all males on the other hand is inevitable, only a small chance of averting this as an outcome.

Consider, if by chance I'm right, and others like me are right, then what chance is there?

There's an element of concern masking your ad-hom, sure. But still when a non-believer tries to reassure a theist everything will turn out ok everybody should start sh*tting themselves I would have thought.

My metaphor is misleading, I see. The 'ghost' just refers to the popular idea of a solitary consciousness. One philosopher (Ryle) called this 'the ghost in the machine.' The far out version would be : how do you know that you are a singular person? Why are you an 'I' and not a 'we' or a 'this' ? We inherit ways of talking and thinking, and we take them as if they are more than that. — lll

Yeah, 'ghosts in the machine' became a song title, movie title as well I think. It's a good emotive phrase when I remove my 'literalist' hat.
I can only answer the personal existence question with my personal view. I think therefore I am is enough for me and I reject solipsism as nonsense.

a replacement of God by an awakened humanity who realizes that God was its dream of what it should/could be. — lll

All the curent evanhellical ba****** use this exact subterfuge to convince duped theists to contribute many millions to their personal bank accounts.

Nice ! We using the ordinary 'magic' of language for that right now. Amazing ability we've evolved biologically, culturally, and technologically (given the help of the screens and wires.) — lll

I think this will only grow in the future possibly even exponentially, but do you think there is anything in this that speaks for the posit of an emerging panpsychism?

The title 'The Selfish Gene' (although the book is genuine science I'm sure) is so atheistic as to put me off. If it's not obvious Dawkings is taking a shot at theism as he does with all titles of his books that I'm aware of. — Gregory A

He himself reports his personal conflict (before, during, and after the date of first publish) regarding his choice of title for this book and if you watch his interviews you will see that overall, he thinks his choice was a bad one but he is (no surprise) nonetheless happy regarding the success of the book.

:rofl:

The Selfish Gene should have been called The Altruist Gene. Genes just developed in early protein lifeforms. The help us making the right proteins available and create new ones. There is the chicken and egg problem. Proteins are formed in ribosomes. They are a structure made of proteins. What came first? The proteins obviously. They were there before ribosomes and before DNA. Let me use this forum to thank those little wokkels for their serviced they gave us already billions of years! Thank you wokkel genes! With proud we shuffle you on to next generations, to make your services available to new life!

You had to show me where he didn’t say what I said he said about Dark Energy, and actually said that it wasn’t a good argument for an omnipotent power, not what his poor philosophical mind says about God when equating God with religion and faith. The point I made was that even with his poor philosophical mind he still logically deduced that Dark Energy displays the characteristics of an omnipotent power. — Joe Mello

Dear uncle Crazy Joe Mello!

I'm sorry to see you have your periodic episode. Last week godkind finally was able to communicate a message to mankind, by means of a dream I had which will be revealed before to long. Let me tell you: dark energy is just a necessary means they invented after a depressing global event in the heavens. It's just an ingredient invented, not to express their omnipotence but to bring relief for the god beings. I saw the mechanism leading to the accelerated expansion of the universe they created to ease themselves.

They added, especially for you, a short message. They are aware of your awareness of heaven. But you are fooling yourself. They don't like the image you mirror and show mankind. They asked me, because they care about you, to help you and give you some support in the difficult times you experience during your episodes. So, uncle Joe, consider the gods on your side and try not to run too high. My thoughts are with you and the gods care about you! Say hi to dr. Piller and to that nice nurse!

All the best, little EugeneW

The Selfish Gene should have been called The Altruist Gene. — EugeneW

I think Dawkins himself actually suggested that this title would have been better. Do you get that title from watching one of his interviews?

The way I see it subjective atheism isn’t a bad thing; there are many good arguments to be an atheist. Collective atheism is truly the bad idea. In some countries, notably the memory of the USSR and Maoist China, collective atheism ran the show. If one professed faith in Christianity, Judaism, or adhered to the “Three Teachings” of China (i.e. Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism) one could be thrown in prison. I’m sure that if one professed a subtle deism where God was just the “maker and winder of the clock” he too would face the same punishment. I personally find the transcendental argument to be appealing, which goes something like this:

1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).

2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.

3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.

St. Thomas Aquinas put emphasis on the transcendentals, the properties that make up reality. Although there are more he focused on three in particular: truth, goodness, and beauty. I believe that these three point to the existence of God but also points to man being a spiritual creature; we have the capacity to know the truth, we have the ability to do the good, and we can know what is intrinsically beautiful. In my opinion this triad of transcendentals points to why I personally believe Christianity is true. Other religions carry truth and goodness but beauty is absent and by this I do not mean religions are not aesthetically pleasing. Buddhist prayers are beautiful as well as the Islamic call to prayer and Jewish temple services. When I say they lack beauty I mean that they lack it as a property of reality, of being. The doctrine of the Incarnation, when God via his kenosis (self-emptying) becomes man in the person of Christ, shows us a God that truly experiences the human condition. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ also points to what is truly beautiful. This, of course, is just my opinion and is not meant to insult.

Most concepts of God have him as incomprehensible, inexplicable and unknowable to human intelligence. So what am I saying if I claim either to believe or not to believe in something that is like this? God might be seen as a kind of surmise, or an assumption, much in the same way as reality. We can only know reality as a possibility, an assumption, or maybe as a necessary condition to our knowing, but we cannot know reality 'as it really is'. God might be the same.

Let me use this forum to thank those little wokkels for their serviced they gave us already billions of years! Thank you wokkel genes! With proud we shuffle you on to next generations, to make your services available to new life! — EugeneW

This is an example of your ability to exclaim wonder and credit for the workings of naturalism. Are you sure such thoughts cannot sustain your humanism? Are you sure you definitely need external gods as the (for me rather boring) source?
I far prefer the profound mystery of not knowing and really not needing to know the absolute truth regarding the source/origin of our Universe. I can live FULLY and HAPPILY without a 'god crutch'.

No. I read the book and when he said that organisms are vessels to secure the procreation of genes (or memes) I just thought, why aren't genes just in our service instead of we in theirs? Altruistic, that is.

There is dogma in biology also. The central dogma in biology, it's even called! Sounds pretty religious to me...

which I did when getting a Philosophy degree and Graduate degree in Professional Writing. — Joe Mello

You have mentioned this several times, as if it confers a kind of authority. What is your degree in philosophy? An AA or BA or equivalent. Surely if it was a higher degree you would have said so. Instead you have graduate degree in professional writing.

You should know that there are some here who have a Ph.D. or equivalent in philosophy, but we are confident enough in our education to rely on the strength of our arguments rather than our degree status. With a BA you have only begun to scratch the surface.

I agree with the inherent ontological and ethical necessity of man to have an action such as christ did. I don't even mean politically in that we needed that to be where we are today. Just looking at Socrates who showed an ethically important action, we have the foundation for western philosophy (which was supplanted by christianity during Rome and then christianity became the basis of early modern philosophy).

That being said, I feel the transcendental argument fails due to its circularity. I'm more an advocate of the ontological argument (which Plato would have enjoyed) and the cosmological argument (which would point to Aristotle's prime mover) slightly less. I don't see the benefit or historical relevance for the transcendental argument. If you already believe then sure it makes sense even with less explanatory power.
I'm reminded of a hegelian who was asked to formalize their position and he said "a", which is formal and still just an assertion.

I far prefer the profound mystery of not knowing and really not needing to know the absolute truth regarding the source/origin of our Universe. I can live FULLY and HAPPILY without a 'god crutch' — universeness

Well, realizing that the universe is the same as heaven breaths the live into it, about which Hawking asked. The fire in the equations. The gods invented two basic particles. As I already thought. The two massless Weyl particles and 7 gauge fields between them. And the space to live in. They brought it into existence after they got bored with eternally making love and hate and now they lay back watching all creatures in the universe (one for every god) playing the game they used to.

Only those damned homosapiens-gods gave some trouble...

notably the memory of the USSR and Maoist China, collective atheism ran the show — Dermot Griffin

I agree and I think this was a poorly judged and fear-based reaction to the 'divine right of kings or/and aristocracy' that the few had manipulated from religions historically. People had suffered so much and religion was weaponised against them. This was not the fault of the god posit but was the fault of the nefarious ba****** that manipulated it.

I would personally prefer dialogue with you on this point rather than your further reasoning that leads you to assert god exists, at least for now.

God might be the same — Mike Radford

I think you summarise the theist/atheist debate quite well.
It's currently at panto stage really.

God exists?
Theist: Oh yes it does!
Atheist: Nah! seriously unlikely that it does!
Ok, so I altered the traditional panto style exchange, just a little!

You think poorly, write poorly, and are simply a face in a crowd of others like you with very big mouths attached to very small minds — Joe Mello

Uncle Joe! Don't stain your philosophy degree! I don't show off with my physics degree uncle! Why doing it with yours,? By the way, exactly because I actually know something about physics, your adagio of comparing dark energy with omnipotence is nonsense. It's no proof of god. It's just a clever stuff the created. Expansion of 3d into 4d ,(approximations, but useful)

No. I read the book and when he said that organisms are vessels to secure the procreation of genes (or memes) I just thought, why aren't genes just in our service instead of we in theirs? Altruistic, that is. — EugeneW

Well, I am almost certain that 'The altruistic gene' was one of the titles he thought might have been a better choice.

Well, I am almost certain that 'The altruistic gene' was one of the titles he thought might have been a better choice.
4m — universeness

The cover wouldn't match the content then.

in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver. — Dermot Griffin

If there were no structure to the “materialist universe,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, nothing would be possible and there could only be chaos (though chaos would have no meaning).

Other religions carry truth and goodness but beauty is absent and by this I do not mean religions are not aesthetically pleasing. Buddhist prayers are beautiful as well as the Islamic call to prayer and Jewish temple services. When I say they lack beauty I mean that they lack it as a property of reality, of being. — Dermot Griffin

This seems to only mean that you experience beauty exclusively in your own religion. Have you considered that the same might be true for others in their religious experience?

The cover wouldn't match the content then — EugeneW

Keep the faith man! Dawkins would have found a way!

Keep the faith man! Dawkins would have found a way! — universeness

I don't think so. He obediently sticks to the dogma...

If there were no structure to the “materialist universe,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, nothing would be possible and there could only be chaos (though chaos would have no meaning). — praxis

When the meaning given by universal creatures was all the meaning around, the meaning would be... eeeh... meaningless! If only matter with a non-material element in it existed, what would be the meaning of life?

I don't think gods and their story offer a moral compass, or any of that kind of BS. But they offer the answer to why all is there. Science can't explain. Be it Dawkins or Hawking.

I don't think so. He obediently sticks to the dogma... — EugeneW

Stealing/plagerising William Cowper (1773) (keeps old Joe Mello happy):
Dawkins works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
Also stealing from Omar Khyyam:
Dawkins moving finger writes and having writ, moves on.
Or just me, as a fan:
Good job, well done Mr Dawkins, keep doing what you do best.
Just my opinion @EugeneW sorry if it offends.

what would be the meaning of life? — EugeneW

Why not TO LIVE? is that not enough?