No such thing as God.

[Didymos Thomas]

Iconoclast, this is a philosophy site and we are discussing age old questions. Generally, when discussing these questions through the ages, man has considered one another's opinions, offered point and counter point, and generally tried to cultivate a discussion, a helpful dialog.

The YUXI wasn't cute the first time around, and continuing the supposed problem is getting old. If you'd like to address my argument's then you would have engaged yourself in philosophy. Until that time, you're just running around in circles proclaiming your own views, never taking the time to consider disagreement from peers as being serious and worth addressing. And that is a terrible shame.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Y'all!

"Just think of it! We have come forth from this Earth of ours. And the Earth itself came of a galaxy, which, in turn, was a condensation of atoms gathered in from 'space'. The Earth may be regarded as a precipitation of 'space'. Is it a wonder, then, that the 'laws of that space' are ingrained our minds? The philosopher Alan Watts once said, "The Earth is peopling, as apple tree's 'apple'. People are produced from the earth as apples from apple tree's." We are the 'sensing organs' of the Earth. We are the 'senses' of the 'universe'. We have it all right here 'within us'. And the 'deities' that we once thought were 'out there', we now know, were projected out of 'ourselves'. " - Joseph Campbell

Yes indeed, welcome back Iconoclast!!!

I agree. God is the virtuousness within ourselves, the good, the sane, and frivolous when it comes to if it's corporeal or not. Simply believing in those fundamentals projects God, so in this sense, we believe in god. By being virtuous or whatever you want god to stand for, is it not the striving for perfection, therefore we have to believe in it and aren't it b/c we are far from perfect.
Being perfect is insane. Striving for perfection but knowing that it is unreachable is sane.

[Solace]

Iconoclast, this is a philosophy site and we are discussing age old questions. Generally, when discussing these questions through the ages, man has considered one another's opinions, offered point and counter point, and generally tried to cultivate a discussion, a helpful dialog.

Didymos, I can't pretend to be a student of philosophy, but I have read a little of it, particularly the ancient Greek philosophers. And I have to say that it seemed to me that quite often they didn't even listen to each other at all. All the major philosophers had little good to say about what the fellows that came before them held to be true. In fact, they were often downright disdainful of former opinions. Not that I'm condoning their behaviour, but it seems a bit misleading to me to suggest that, historically, philosophers made a habit of engaging in sensible, two-way discussions. Perhaps it's better to suggest that we learn from their mistakes and cultivate dialogue.

I do agree entirely with your second paragraph though.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Solace, quote: What I mean is, we don't consciously evolve...

Yes, we do. Humans do. That's exactly what the concept of God is. An evolutiuonary shortcut that boosted human development. But it's run out of validity - and is dragging us down. We need to find the next conceptual boost, and science is it.

Anybody here read angels and demons? I like the quote where he says that god and science should exist at once. God is the why and science is the how. Yes we consciously evolve, it's called learning, adding neurons and other such matter if you want a physical sense. I believe that god won't run out of validity for a long time. Religion will. Or at least it will have to evolve into something else. Monotheism is starting to seem primitive to me, it'll be given the same perspective as paganism eventually. But what god stands for should be a everlasting unity for humanity. That's what helps make us sane.

[Solace]

I was halfway through writing a rant about how evolving and learning are not the same thing, but then I decided to scratch it. A) it's off-topic, and B) why should I care if people can't figure out the difference?

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Solace

I was halfway through writing a rant about how evolving and learning are not the same thing, but then I decided to scratch it. A) it's off-topic, and B) why should I care if people can't figure out the difference?

Look, I'm not a technical person and to me I see the same effect on what I am trying to say from using the word 'learning' and the word 'evolving'.

Although I would like to hear the difference, it is important.

[Solace]

Well, here's what I see as the danger in equating learning to evolving: If we say that a learned man is more evolved than an unlearned one, then aren't we saying that the learned man is evolutionary superior? I'm sure that I'm not the only person around here who sees that there's something unsettling with this type of thinking.

[Holiday20310401]

Well,to be honest, I think that people with wisdom have a greater advantage in life, to me knowledge can help generate wisdom, than those with less.
I think that the voting system should reward those with more wisdom and are more informed in some way that included the public not just the politicians. We would live in more virtue that way.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I think that the voting system should reward those with more wisdom and are more informed in some way that included the public not just the politicians. We would live in more virtue that way.

Are these the same thing? I don't think they have much to do with one another, certainly not directly.

Furthermore, if people who are apparently wiser or more informed also happen to be more educated, then what you've unfortunately advocated is shifting political power towards the wealthy. Because wealth is unambiguously a major facilitator of education.

Finally, is virtue a concept that can be universalized such that you would create a political system out of it?

[Solace]

No, it isn't. When we bear in mind that power corrupts, all we can look for is the least unvirtous system. (I know I'm applying a sort of double negative, but it's early and my brain won't wake up.)

As for wisom and learning, all I can say is that I've known some very well educated fools in my day, just as I know some rather poorly educated wise men. That being said, I suppose it would precipitate the wise to want to learn. But as you pointed out, education requires a certain amount of wealth, and not all wise men have access to it.