This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Faith today, faith yesterday

#21OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 8:05:11 PM(edited)
From: Gegengegengegen | Posted: 1/29/2013 11:56:23 AM | #005
Atheism, was by and large, psychologically impossible up until the 17th-18th centuries.


...

Yeah, I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Although the term atheism originated in the sixteenth century based on Ancient Greek %u1F04%u03B8%u03B5%u03BF%u03C2 "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history.

Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE.

---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#22GegengegengegenPosted 1/30/2013 8:40:25 AM
OzymandiasIV posted...
From: Gegengegengegen | Posted: 1/29/2013 11:56:23 AM | #005
Atheism, was by and large, psychologically impossible up until the 17th-18th centuries.


...

Yeah, I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Although the term atheism originated in the sixteenth century based on Ancient Greek %u1F04%u03B8%u03B5%u03BF%u03C2 "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history.

Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE.



http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Unbelief-16th-Century-Religion/dp/0674708261

this is a much better source than wikipedia.
#23ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 9:17:47 AM
almasbaby posted...

I'm not arguing with this. But have we got to the source of it? I mean the Prime Source, from whence it all came? For that I say "Goddidit". Don't you have a need to connect with where you came from? I feel that need. More importantly I feel a need to know that source is loving, wise, merciful and compassionate.

Just being a monkey's grandson doesn't really cut it for me. I mean, it's cool that our humble origins might have been space dust from a passing comet, but that doesn't satisfy a much more basic and primordial need to connect with God. That's something built-in, an integral part of me. What a shame if it's all for naught.

Meanwhile, you keep looking for better ways to surf the net and overcoming limitations if that's what makes your motor rum. It doesn't do much for me.


No, I don't think plugging an unknowable or purely speculative answer into a gap is either a good or helpful thing to do.

I am perfectly fine and humble enough to say "We don't know yet" in regards to conditions prior to the big bang. Just plugging an answer in because it makes you feel comfortable is about the worst thing you could do if you are seeking truth and confirmation of observation. Not only that, but it further dissuades yourself (and others, if the idea is spread) from seeking further knowledge.

I've used this example before, but Newton was working on some calculations (the three body problem I believe) which he started, but then deemed them only solvable or achievable by God. If he had stuck with it a bit longer, he probably would have figured it out as others did less than a century after his death.
#24kts123Posted 1/30/2013 10:23:01 AM(edited)
JonWood007 posted...
Intuition isn't reliable. So my point still stands. Just because people who lived 3000 years ago thought something was real with conviction doesn't mean it is.


Just curious.

What about your personal mental faculties made you able to realize God doesn't exist?

Mind you I was an atheist for a number of years. I've read up on my physics. I know the Big Bang was a rapid manifestation of spatial dimension. I know physics breaks down at Plank's Length, but that there is active research into what happened prior to this. I'm familiar with Evolution, various modes of selection, game theory, that not one fossil has ever been found in the wrong strata, etc. I'm familiar with Minkowski space, linear algebra's influence over the formulation of Matrix Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics. I'm fully aware of how intuition breaks down at small and big scales. I'm familiar with computational complexity, recursion, lambda-calculus, programming. I'm not living in some dark, pre-science bubble.

But for some reason, despite everything I know about modern science, I'm Christian and you aren't. So where did I go wrong, that you went right?
#25almasbaby(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 5:12:14 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
almasbaby posted...

I'm not arguing with this. But have we got to the source of it? I mean the Prime Source, from whence it all came? For that I say "Goddidit". Don't you have a need to connect with where you came from? I feel that need. More importantly I feel a need to know that source is loving, wise, merciful and compassionate.

Just being a monkey's grandson doesn't really cut it for me. I mean, it's cool that our humble origins might have been space dust from a passing comet, but that doesn't satisfy a much more basic and primordial need to connect with God. That's something built-in, an integral part of me. What a shame if it's all for naught.

Meanwhile, you keep looking for better ways to surf the net and overcoming limitations if that's what makes your motor rum. It doesn't do much for me.


No, I don't think plugging an unknowable or purely speculative answer into a gap is either a good or helpful thing to do.

I am perfectly fine and humble enough to say "We don't know yet" in regards to conditions prior to the big bang. Just plugging an answer in because it makes you feel comfortable is about the worst thing you could do if you are seeking truth and confirmation of observation. Not only that, but it further dissuades yourself (and others, if the idea is spread) from seeking further knowledge.

I've used this example before, but Newton was working on some calculations (the three body problem I believe) which he started, but then deemed them only solvable or achievable by God. If he had stuck with it a bit longer, he probably would have figured it out as others did less than a century after his death.


It's not about figuring things out, and using God to fill the gaps in knowledge that future generations will acquire. It's about making a connection, a living connection with a living God, returning to the source from which you came. I'm driven in this. I'm not trying to understand how the universe works. I'm trying to find my way back home.
#26ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 5:41:48 PM
almasbaby posted...

It's not about figuring things out, and using God to fill the gaps in knowledge that future generations will acquire. It's about making a connection, a living connection with a living God, returning to the source from which you came. I'm driven in this. I'm not trying to understand how the universe works. I'm trying to find my way back home.


I'm sorry that you feel lost and disconnected from this ethereal something, but not all of us feel that way.
#27almasbaby(Topic Creator)Posted 1/30/2013 5:57:06 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
almasbaby posted...

It's not about figuring things out, and using God to fill the gaps in knowledge that future generations will acquire. It's about making a connection, a living connection with a living God, returning to the source from which you came. I'm driven in this. I'm not trying to understand how the universe works. I'm trying to find my way back home.


I'm sorry that you feel lost and disconnected from this ethereal something, but not all of us feel that way.


I don't feel totally lost. I've made the connection in the past. It's just not as solid as it once was. But, for me, it's something well worth aspiring toward, again and again. I guess we're just on different wavelengths. At least I seem to have made my position clear on where I stand. But please, don't look down upon me with sympathy as if I'm suffering from a plight that you've been spared. I don't consider it that heavy a load, and when I do make that connection, I consider myself blessed.
#28JonWood007Posted 1/30/2013 6:04:04 PM
almasbaby posted...
JonWood007 posted...
Intuition isn't reliable. So my point still stands. Just because people who lived 3000 years ago thought something was real with conviction doesn't mean it is.


Well, maybe not, but you do prove Armstrong's point. Back then there was no question of its reality. Today there is. Maybe back then they were just more attuned than we are now. Maybe our scientific discoveries have made us too haughty.

Who was the scientist who told Napoleon when he was asked where God figured into his equations that he didn't? I forget, and honestly I don't even know it it was Napoleon he was talking to. The point is, science has made us proud of not needing God to explain nature's ways. But how far can we go with that? Can we really get to the very bottom of reality through the scientific method?

I think it's a shame that so many people have abandoned any other way of discerning it. I think we're missing something by it and will never touch reality's essense if we rely too heavily on it.


The real question is not whether we can get to the bottom of it scientifically, but whether alternate ways of "knowing" are actually reliable. I have my doubts. I don't see this as prideful at all. If anything, scholars are some of the most humble people around when they do their thing correctly. They are very cautious in making claims, and try to rule out every other possible explanation.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768