Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1204440]

That might be part of the difference but, seemingly, animals do not have consciousness of self 9/quote]

Science has indeed demonstrated that animals do indeed have consciousness and many like birds, sea mammals, elephants and primates do have strong reasoning and emotional attributes to consciousness.




To a degree I agree, but you drifting in the unknown here.

Well what they reach for is unknown and it is 'more' (i.e. transcendent, beyond) any ultimate meaning they find in themselves - so they look 'outward' for more.

[Tassman]

I agree - at least at the beginning since most are introduced to their religion as infants but many, myself included, take the time to explore and examine and it becomes a choice for or against.

Except that your cultural conditioning influenced you to “explore and examine” the Christian religion and not say, Hinduism.

And I agree that churches are empty - but that, in large part, is because Christianity has not been consistently and thoughtfully re-presented to moderns.

No. I would say that the “churches are empty” in secular countries because leading opinion-makers in those countries are not religious and don’t talk religion and nor does the population in general..

Not only intelligence but we appear to have a higher or different consciousness, self-consciousness than other hominoids.

Not so. Sentience and awareness of internal or external existence, i.e. “consciousness”, is common among many creatures, not just the human animal.

Christianity evolved to explain lightening? Good one:+}

In a sense – it is the ‘god-did-it’ argument. Lightening is an example of natural events being attributable to god(s) in the pre-scientific era, to explain what was otherwise inexplicable in the natural world.

The meaning you have imposed on life is as much a belief system as any organized religion. And if the atheist is right then life is an accident, a happenstance........and, no matter your belief about finding some meaning - it is overwhelmed and made insignificant by the absurdity that it was all just an accident; it all makes no difference.

Homo sapiens have not “imposed meaning on life” they simply live it – just as other social creatures such as chimpanzees, orangutans and archaic humans like Neanderthal man and Homo erectus have lived their lives. It is and was no more a “belief system” for them as it is for us.

I respect your choice but scientific facts do not allow you to assert that life is meaningful. Any meaning imposed or suspected is not the result of verifiable facts: it is belief.

No, it is the result of the scientifically verifiable fact that we evolved via natural selection as a social species to find meaning in communal life. What is NOT a “verifiable fact” is the "belief" that individuals unilaterally get to reside in perpetuity with an unverifiable deity when they die.

[thormas]

Except that your cultural conditioning influenced you to “explore and examine” the Christian religion and not say, Hinduism.



No. I would say that the “churches are empty” in secular countries because leading opinion-makers in those countries are not religious and don’t talk religion and nor does the population in general..



Not so. Sentience and awareness of internal or external existence, i.e. “consciousness”, is common among many creatures, not just the human animal.



In a sense – it is the ‘god-did-it’ argument. Lightening is an example of natural events being attributable to god(s) in the pre-scientific era, to explain what was otherwise inexplicable in the natural world.



Homo sapiens have not “imposed meaning on life” they simply live it – just as other social creatures such as chimpanzees, orangutans and archaic humans like Neanderthal man and Homo erectus have lived their lives. It is and was no more a “belief system” for them as it is for us.



No, it is the result of the scientifically verifiable fact that we evolved via natural selection as a social species to find meaning in communal life. What is NOT a “verifiable fact” is the "belief" that individuals unilaterally get to reside in perpetuity with an unverifiable deity when they die.

Actually, I did study other religions and I studied philosophy.........but there is only so much time in the day, so I concentrated on Christianity and, continuing till today, I find immense value in other philosophies and religions and recognize that I was born into a Christian expression and that I also chose it. Just as some westerners can make a choice for Buddhism, some of us actually did make a choice for Christianity.

I wouldn't disagree with your characterization except that not sure who you include in 'opinion makers.' Does that mean when Biden, a practicing Catholic, becomes President..........we will all go back to the pews? However I would add that many of those so called opinion makers have rejected a traditional, theistic view of religion (Christianity included) which does not resonate with their modern worldview or philosophy. Thus my point about an update.

I did say self-consciousness. Of course animals have consciousness but they are not self-conscious - I never find my dogs contemplating the meaning of life while reading Kant or Heidegger ........nor do I see them worrying about their weight or comparing their bodies to the dog next door:+} Man is the self-conscious being.

You really want to stick with the evolution of Christianity as an explanation for lightening? Really? However, I do get your point but you seem to undervalue Judaism and Christianity as merely 'God did it' religions and you definitely ignore a more modern take on Christianity which definitely does not believe that God did it.

Well, as you have just indicated with 'god did it' religions, man does more than just live it, he seeks to understand it and discern meaning.

However, the atheist says there is no meaning. So even if we say man is like all other animals and just lives it and of course we know that animals 'just live it'............- there is no meaning: the just living means nothing, it is all an accident and no matter how cute the elephants are, no matter how 'human' we think some animals act - it simply does not matter because it is all an accident, all for naught, it signifies nothing. This is the atheist position or the ramification of that belief. My simple point about the atheist position is that it is a belief without justifiable facts; it 'imposes' or states its belief as much as any religious belief.

Finally, the theory of evolution is a description of the progression of life to higher and move adaptable life forms (including the formation of community) - it is not about meaning. That you say that life has meaning is your belief. Even with evolution there is no proof that such life is meaningful, just that it is. I think life is meaningful, but then again, I am not an atheist and I also recognize that my belief is just that..........belief.

[Tassman]

Actually, I did study other religions and I studied philosophy.........but there is only so much time in the day, so I concentrated on Christianity and, continuing till today, I find immense value in other philosophies and religions and recognize that I was born into a Christian expression and that I also chose it. Just as some westerners can make a choice for Buddhism, some of us actually did make a choice for Christianity.

And yet you focused upon Christianity because, as I suggested, the USA is a majority Christian country as opposed to being a majority Hindu or Muslim country.

I wouldn't disagree with your characterization except that not sure who you include in 'opinion makers.' Does that mean when Biden, a practicing Catholic, becomes President..........we will all go back to the pews? However I would add that many of those so called opinion makers have rejected a traditional, theistic view of religion (Christianity included) which does not resonate with their modern worldview or philosophy. Thus my point about an update.

The point about “opinion-makers” was in the context of “secular countries” with empty churches – which was the point under discussion. The USA, under Biden or anyone else, is effectively a religion-based country where Christianity still holds sway.

I did say self-consciousness. Of course animals have consciousness but they are not self-conscious - I never find my dogs contemplating the meaning of life while reading Kant or Heidegger ........nor do I see them worrying about their weight or comparing their bodies to the dog next door:+} Man is the self-conscious being.

"Man" is the most intelligent "self-conscious being". but, in fact many creatures are self-aware. “Apes, monkeys, elephants, magpies’ orcas and dolphins have been studied most frequently. The most relevant studies to this day that represent self-awareness in animals have been done on chimpanzees, dolphins, and magpies. Self-awareness in animals is tested through mirror self-recognition.” Wiki.

You really want to stick with the evolution of Christianity as an explanation for lightening? Really? However, I do get your point but you seem to undervalue Judaism and Christianity as merely 'God did it' religions and you definitely ignore a more modern take on Christianity which definitely does not believe that God did it.

That’s not the argument. The argument is that in the pre-scientific era natural occurrences, including lightening, were attributed to gods. The creation narratives in Genesis are a case in point.

Well, as you have just indicated with 'god did it' religions, man does more than just live it, he seeks to understand it and discern meaning.

All creatures seek to discern meaning and patterns to the best of their cognitive ability. It’s an instinctive survival mechanism.

However, the atheist says there is no meaning. So even if we say man is like all other animals and just lives it and of course we know that animals 'just live it'............- there is no meaning: the just living means nothing, it is all an accident and no matter how cute the elephants are, no matter how 'human' we think some animals act - it simply does not matter because it is all an accident, all for naught, it signifies nothing. This is the atheist position or the ramification of that belief. My simple point about the atheist position is that it is a belief without justifiable facts; it 'imposes' or states its belief as much as any religious belief.

No, the atheist does NOT say there is no meaning, just that “meaning” for homo sapiens is instinctively grounded in our evolution as a social species – a notion which is well understood and supported by evidence. This as opposed to imposing, “without justifiable facts” religious notions, supposedly revealed by a deity or deities as contained in holy books (written by man). And which are supported usually for cultural reasons.

Finally, the theory of evolution is a description of the progression of life to higher and move adaptable life forms (including the formation of community) - it is not about meaning. That you say that life has meaning is your belief. Even with evolution there is no proof that such life is meaningful, just that it is. I think life is meaningful, but then again, I am not an atheist and I also recognize that my belief is just that..........belief.

“Meaning” for homo sapiens is a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animal, which we share in other intelligent animals to a limited extent in simpler forms. Admittedly, it does not encompass ill-founded escapist notions of eternal life.

[thormas]

And yet you focused upon Christianity because, as I suggested, the USA is a majority Christian country as opposed to being a majority Hindu or Muslim country.



The point about “opinion-makers” was in the context of “secular countries” with empty churches – which was the point under discussion. The USA, under Biden or anyone else, is effectively a religion-based country where Christianity still holds sway.



"Man" is the most intelligent "self-conscious being". but, in fact many creatures are self-aware. “Apes, monkeys, elephants, magpies’ orcas and dolphins have been studied most frequently. The most relevant studies to this day that represent self-awareness in animals have been done on chimpanzees, dolphins, and magpies. Self-awareness in animals is tested through mirror self-recognition.” Wiki.



That’s not the argument. The argument is that in the pre-scientific era natural occurrences, including lightening, were attributed to gods. The creation narratives in Genesis are a case in point.



All creatures seek to discern meaning and patterns to the best of their cognitive ability. It’s an instinctive survival mechanism.



No, the atheist does NOT say there is no meaning, just that “meaning” for homo sapiens is instinctively grounded in our evolution as a social species – a notion which is well understood and supported by evidence. This as opposed to imposing, “without justifiable facts” religious notions, supposedly revealed by a deity or deities as contained in holy books (written by man). And which are supported usually for cultural reasons.



“Meaning” for homo sapiens is a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animal, which we share in other intelligent animals to a limited extent in simpler forms. Admittedly, it does not encompass ill-founded escapist notions of eternal life.

Already acknowledged but, again, I chose Christianity - after a study of western and eastern philosophies/religions - and my expression is rather different than many others.

Ok on Biden but I consider much of America's Christianity to be a total mis-understanding of Christianity: we seem to be a 'Christian nation' in the eyes of some but not in actual practice. Plus. we were not actually founded as a Christian nation - despite the claims of the right - as many of our founders were deists.

I have no problem recognizing some kinds or levels of greater awareness in other creatures (and we might be pleasantly surprised by further discoveries) but, still man is the self-conscious being who has moved 'beyond' instinct, who has created culture, who is truly capable of the highest level of consciousness. I still hold to what I said about my dogs and I extend it to those creatures you mentioned. There might be some degree of such awareness but man is both most intelligent but the most self-conscious - the seeker of meaning and the transcendent being.

I was kidding about your characterization about religion and lightening. But we are no longer pre-scientific and many, many people still opt for (belief) God over the atheist belief - the latter which is typically misunderstand at its core belief. As for Genesis, we have no idea what the writer actually thought (did he take his story literally?) but there is mythology in the Bible and many literal Christians miss it - Genesis being one. Today, one can accept the 'religious truth' of Genesis (what it states about God and man) but not take it literally. Science and religion (properly understood) are not at odds. Sisyphus is the perfect example of man in the atheistic belief: no matter how many times he pushes the rock up the hill, it means nothing and in the end it is where it began: at the bottom. All man's efforts, all his throughs, desires, little meanings are for naught and are unnoticed in the universe.

All creatures do not seek meaning........unless you define meaning in a very different way. Animals are driven and guided by instinct. The don't analyze patterns or discuss what those patterns are or what they mean - they just are. Not for man though......as you have indicated man seeks to understand why (among other questions).



Are you really an atheist? Have you actually examined this belief? Life is happenstance, an accident: there is no reason that it is, it just is and it actually might not have been. You, me, our loved ones, all who have or will ever exist are accidents that might not have been and in the end, as in the beginning, it means nothing. Our short existence of 1 year or 15, 45, 68, 80 or 108 is nothing in the vastness of time and space and doesn't even flicker in this galaxy amidst countless galaxies. If we never existed, it would mean just as ........little, i.e. nothing.

The base fact of evolution is not meaning, no more than the base fact of gravity is meaning - both are descriptions of a process. That there is gravity, that there is evolution does not go to whether life is meaningful or purposeful. Of course man is a social creature, so are wolves. Man has the same 'meaning' as a wolf, a tree or a rock in the immensity of time and space, it doesn't even register. Whatever purpose you say it has because we're social being is meaningless and changes nothing. Whether you lived or never existed doesn't matter, changes nothing, affects nothing, means nothing in the actual atheistic belief. Sisyphus is the epitome of man in the atheist belief: no matter how many times he pushes the rock up the hill, in the end, it is where it began: at the bottom. Man has not made any difference and didn't even register in the vastness of time and space.

Finally, the Christian or the religious person doesn't impose meaning. They simply say No! to the atheist belief: rather, they believe there is meaning, that the process of evolution resulted in self conscious human life which enable men and women to discern meaning and live it.

[Tassman]

Already acknowledged but, again, I chose Christianity - after a study of western and eastern philosophies/religions - and my expression is rather different than many others.

Nevertheless you “chose Christianity” – it would have been viewed as a tad eccentric if you had embraced Hinduism in a predominantly Christian society.

Ok on Biden but I consider much of America's Christianity to be a total mis-understanding of Christianity: we seem to be a 'Christian nation' in the eyes of some but not in actual practice.

Nothing unusual about that. Christians, almost from the beginning, have been divided.

Plus. we were not actually founded as a Christian nation - despite the claims of the right - as many of our founders were deists.

Indeed. Try telling that to some of the Evangelicals in the US.

I have no problem recognizing some kinds or levels of greater awareness in other creatures (and we might be pleasantly surprised by further discoveries) but, still man is the self-conscious being who has moved 'beyond' instinct, who has created culture, who is truly capable of the highest level of consciousness. I still hold to what I said about my dogs and I extend it to those creatures you mentioned. There might be some degree of such awareness but man is both most intelligent but the most self-conscious - the seeker of meaning and the transcendent being.

Man is certainly the most intelligent - at least until self-modifying AI entities take over – but he is no different in kind to other intelligent, self-aware social animals.

I was kidding about your characterization about religion and lightening. But we are no longer pre-scientific and many, many people still opt for (belief) God over the atheist belief - the latter which is typically misunderstand at its core belief. As for Genesis, we have no idea what the writer actually thought (did he take his story literally?) but there is mythology in the Bible and many literal Christians miss it - Genesis being one. Today, one can accept the 'religious truth' of Genesis (what it states about God and man) but not take it literally. Science and religion (properly understood) are not at odds. Sisyphus is the perfect example of man in the atheistic belief: no matter how many times he pushes the rock up the hill, it means nothing and in the end it is where it began: at the bottom. All man's efforts, all his throughs, desires, little meanings are for naught and are unnoticed in the universe.

There is NO atheist belief system. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

All creatures do not seek meaning........unless you define meaning in a very different way. Animals are driven and guided by instinct. The don't analyze patterns or discuss what those patterns are or what they mean - they just are. Not for man though......as you have indicated man seeks to understand why (among other questions).

Humans too are guided by instinct – the survival instinct - it’s just that we are more intelligent at it. All humans, both archaic and modern, developed concepts and ideas in an attempt to explain the world in which they lived – initially primitive religious notions such as animism prevailed. And then on to polytheism. And then monotheism. Ultimately and most productively, the scientific method. The last is the most successful in that it can be objectively verified – unlike religions – and this is where we are today.

Are you really an atheist? Have you actually examined this belief?

Again, atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of deities. It is not a belief system in and of itself.

Life is happenstance, an accident: there is no reason that it is, it just is and it actually might not have been. You, me, our loved ones, all who have or will ever exist are accidents that might not have been and in the end, as in the beginning, it means nothing. Our short existence of 1 year or 15, 45, 68, 80 or 108 is nothing in the vastness of time and space and doesn't even flicker in this galaxy amidst countless galaxies. If we never existed, it would mean just as ........little, i.e. nothing.

The base fact of evolution is not meaning, no more than the base fact of gravity is meaning - both are descriptions of a process. That there is gravity, that there is evolution does not go to whether life is meaningful or purposeful. Of course man is a social creature, so are wolves. Man has the same 'meaning' as a wolf, a tree or a rock in the immensity of time and space, it doesn't even register. Whatever purpose you say it has because we're social being is meaningless and changes nothing. Whether you lived or never existed doesn't matter, changes nothing, affects nothing, means nothing in the actual atheistic belief. Sisyphus is the epitome of man in the atheist belief: no matter how many times he pushes the rock up the hill, in the end, it is where it began: at the bottom. Man has not made any difference and didn't even register in the vastness of time and space.

Yes. Do you have a problem with this?

The “meaning” we seek is within the context of our evolved nature as intelligent social animals. It amounts to seeking personal fulfillment within the confines of communal living. This is a product of evolution and lends itself to our survival as a species. We have strong evidence that the same applied to now extinct archaic humans such as Homo erectus c.750,000 years ago and Neanderthal Man c.40,000 years ago. And others. They too have ultimately “not made any difference nor even register in the vastness of time and space”. And neither, probably, will we.

Finally, the Christian or the religious person doesn't impose meaning. They simply say No! to the atheist belief: rather, they believe there is meaning, that the process of evolution resulted in self conscious human life which enable men and women to discern meaning and live it.

Wishful thinking does not make it so.

[thormas]

Nevertheless you “chose Christianity” – it would have been viewed as a tad eccentric if you had embraced Hinduism in a predominantly Christian society.



Nothing unusual about that. Christians, almost from the beginning, have been divided.



Indeed. Try telling that to some of the Evangelicals in the US.



Man is certainly the most intelligent - at least until self-modifying AI entities take over – but he is no different in kind to other intelligent, self-aware social animals.



There is NO atheist belief system. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of deities.



Humans too are guided by instinct – the survival instinct - it’s just that we are more intelligent at it. All humans, both archaic and modern, developed concepts and ideas in an attempt to explain the world in which they lived – initially primitive religious notions such as animism prevailed. And then on to polytheism. And then monotheism. Ultimately and most productively, the scientific method. The last is the most successful in that it can be objectively verified – unlike religions – and this is where we are today.



Again, atheism is simply an absence of belief in the existence of deities. It is not a belief system in and of itself.



Yes. Do you have a problem with this?

The “meaning” we seek is within the context of our evolved nature as intelligent social animals. It amounts to seeking personal fulfillment within the confines of communal living. This is a product of evolution and lends itself to our survival as a species. We have strong evidence that the same applied to now extinct archaic humans such as Homo erectus c.750,000 years ago and Neanderthal Man c.40,000 years ago. And others. They too have ultimately “not made any difference nor even register in the vastness of time and space”. And neither, probably, will we.



Wishful thinking does not make it so.

No more eccentric that a guy in business who always has a theology book in hand........ in the 21st C :+} And I never thought Richard Gere eccentric for opting for Buddhism.

And we were not - to the dismay of the religious right - created a Christian nation (since Christians are not deists). But I do agree it makes for interesting table talk with 'other' Christians.

Well the bottom line is that man is different be it in kind or degree..........and that makes him special.

I know there is no formal atheist belief system but if one considers this position.......some conclusions are inevitable and I am simply talking about the ramifications of the belief.

However man is not ruled by instincts as are other animals. And I agree that humans developed religious concepts but the scientific method is not a 'religious notion' and is different in kind (not degree) from religion.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities, there is no God......all I'm asking is do you understand such a belief and its logical conclusions? No belief is a single assertion (there is no God, there is a God)..........there is always more. Oddly, some atheists seem to lack the insight into their own assertion.

My only 'problem' with the atheist view is that I don't accept it and see it as ill-conceived and little understood by its adherents. However I have no problem with the individual atheist, among whom are some of my best friends.


Christianity or other religious ideas about meaning are not wishful thinking but belief.............just as much atheism is a belief.

[Tassman]

No more eccentric that a guy in business who always has a theology book in hand........ in the 21st C :+} And I never thought Richard Gere eccentric for opting for Buddhism.

We expect our film-stars and celebrities to be eccentric – it goes with the territory.

And we were not - to the dismay of the religious right - created a Christian nation (since Christians are not deists). But I do agree it makes for interesting table talk with 'other' Christians.

I know that and you are correct. Nevertheless the majority of the population are Christians.

Well the bottom line is that man is different be it in kind or degree..........and that makes him special.

Man may be different in degree, i.e. he is more intelligent, but that does not make him “special”. Gorillas are much more intelligent than monkeys, for example, but this does not make them particularly “special”. Just more intelligent.

I know there is no formal atheist belief system but if one considers this position.......some conclusions are inevitable and I am simply talking about the ramifications of the belief.

There is “no formal atheist belief system”, because atheism is not a belief. Atheism is by definition an absence of belief in the existence of deities. It is the antithesis of a belief system.

However man is not ruled by instincts as are other animals.

Homo sapiens are ruled by the survival instinct, as are all living creatures. The origin of our communal living is biological i.e. natural selection, not religion. It is a survival mechanism for a social species such as us.

And I agree that humans developed religious concepts but the scientific method is not a 'religious notion' and is different in kind (not degree) from religion.

The scientific method was devised to enable us to understand why the world is the way it is – a position occupied by religion in the prescientific era.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities, there is no God......all I'm asking is do you understand such a belief and its logical conclusions? No belief is a single assertion (there is no God, there is a God)..........there is always more. Oddly, some atheists seem to lack the insight into their own assertion.

No. Atheism is not a “belief” in anything. It is an absence of belief in the unsubstantiated claims of theists.

My only 'problem' with the atheist view is that I don't accept it and see it as ill-conceived and little understood by its adherents. However I have no problem with the individual atheist, among whom are some of my best friends.

I’m afraid your non-acceptance of atheism is irrational. But I too have no problems with individuals who unlike me, choose to believe in gods

Christianity or other religious ideas about meaning are not wishful thinking but belief.............just as much atheism is a belief.

Belief based upon non-verifiable claims are “wishful thinking. Atheism is no more a “belief” than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[shunyadragon]

No more eccentric that a guy in business who always has a theology book in hand........ in the 21st C :+} And I never thought Richard Gere eccentric for opting for Buddhism.

I do not believe eccentric choices is a major issue in the history of choices of religion or non-religion particularly in the contemporary world. The by far dominant reason for choices people make concerning their religion remains their culture and peer community they are raised in. The tribal yearning for a sense of community and identity dominates humanity concerning faith choices.

One major bigger in the contemporary world is all the different possible 'faith' choices are known worldwide, and we are faced with direct confrontation with those that believe differently at the personal level.

As Richard Gere's choice I consider it a more reasonable alternative than the Judeo-Christian choices today. Many in the West have chosen Buddhism for to me many obvious reasons of the nature of the different choices in the contemporary world. I have been close to Buddhism sense my youth with the study of 'Arts of the Way (Martial Arts) and remain close to the teachings, but like Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other ancient religions they reflect the tribal culture of the past and not remotely reflecting the universal spiritual relationships of ALL of humanity. Yes, atheism as well as agnosticism are 'faith' choices, but I have empathy for their choices as pragmatic more realistic choices based on an appeal to the universal nature of our existence that is not reflected in the perspective of ancient tribal religions with a limited cosmology and and ability to relate to those that believe differently..

I consider the ancient tribal religions a trapped and in conflict between the greater reality of the contemporary world, and clinging to ancient tribal world perspectives that are no longer justifiable. Clinging and impermanence is an important issue I learned through Buddhist teaching. Nothing is permanent and everything always changes from the human perspective.

The above describes to a great degree the difficulty you face arguing for an ancient tribal religion. Such an appeal has little meaning to the atheist and agnostic as asserting that their choice is just a 'faith choice too,.

[thormas]

Well, I do grant that some of the 'famous' are eccentric:+} And I do agree that too many Christians have the wrong idea that we were created a Christian nation. Thus the problem with not studying history.

On man we differ as the very fact of his higher intelligence and higher (self) consciousness makes him different and special. And, given your example, it does seem that gorillas are special.

We also differ on atheism: the mere 'absence of belief' is (also) a choice to not believe in God or a diety and there are ramifications of that belief just as there are ramification of any belief.

Man can choose against his survival instinct, so he is not ruled (absolutely) by it, nor is he ruled by his instinct to procreate (although some might be) :+} I have no problem recognizing community as part of biology but religion , just as culture, does give a further. deeper meaning. And, again, some men and women go against this 'instinct.'

I do grant that science enables us to understand the world as it is but the 'why'.....not so much. Science can posit a big bang but as to why there is something rather than nothing - not so much.

Actually I don't believe in gods nor do I believe in a traditional theistic idea of God. And my take on atheism is hardly irrational (and I have no problems with atheists). I simply recognize the ramifications of their 'absence of belief:' that life is an accident, that life is without ultimate purpose, that life is meaninglessness and, therefore, all human efforts and actions in life are absurd. The agnostic, at least, says, 'I don't know' but those atheists who live as if life has meaning, dismisses by their very actions, their 'absence of belief.'

You almost have it: if you don't collect stamps you don't indulge in that hobby because you don't believe it will be fun or satisfying.....so, such a person, has other hobbies that they do believe will be fun and satisfying. So collecting stamps is not your hobby and religion is not your belief - thus you have other hobbies and another belief......atheism.

And, I have never found religion to be wishful thinking......jsut more purposeful than the atheist ever imagined in his absence of belief:+}

[Tassman]

Well, I do grant that some of the 'famous' are eccentric:+} And I do agree that too many Christians have the wrong idea that we were created a Christian nation. Thus the problem with not studying history.

Agreed.

On man we differ as the very fact of his higher intelligence and higher (self) consciousness makes him different and special. And, given your example, it does seem that gorillas are special.

“Special” is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual”. There is nothing unusual in Homo sapiens having “higher intelligence and higher (self) consciousness” than other primates, than there is in primates having higher intelligence than other mammals.

We also differ on atheism: the mere 'absence of belief' is (also) a choice to not believe in God or a diety and there are ramifications of that belief just as there are ramification of any belief.

It is NOT “a choice to not believe in God or a deity” when one has been raised in a secular society (Australia in my case) where religious observance is confined to weddings and funerals – if then. It’s a non-issue.

Man can choose against his survival instinct, so he is not ruled (absolutely) by it, nor is he ruled by his instinct to procreate (although some might be) :+} I have no problem recognizing community as part of biology but religion , just as culture, does give a further. deeper meaning. And, again, some men and women go against this 'instinct.'

The “survival instinct” for a social species such as us, also encompasses an intuitive sense of communal preservation. It is in our individual interest to ensure the preservation of our community, because it is necessary for our own survival as social animals.

As for religion, at bottom it merely addresses “survival” for eternity, which reinforces our primal survival instinct, i.e. not only do you instinctively want to survive but you want to survive forever. This despite the lack of evidence of individual consciousness surviving the death of the brain.

I do grant that science enables us to understand the world as it is but the 'why'.....not so much. Science can posit a big bang but as to why there is something rather than nothing - not so much.

Science is better placed than theology or philosophy to answer such questions. And why would you assume there is a “why” other than the evolved need for the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals?

Actually I don't believe in gods nor do I believe in a traditional theistic idea of God. And my take on atheism is hardly irrational (and I have no problems with atheists). I simply recognize the ramifications of their 'absence of belief:' that life is an accident, that life is without ultimate purpose, that life is meaninglessness and, therefore, all human efforts and actions in life are absurd. The agnostic, at least, says, 'I don't know' but those atheists who live as if life has meaning, dismisses by their very actions, their 'absence of belief.'

the only ramifications of “absence of belief” that life has “ultimate purpose is the rejection of futile attempts at escapism.

You almost have it: if you don't collect stamps you don't indulge in that hobby because you don't believe it will be fun or satisfying.....so, such a person, has other hobbies that they do believe will be fun and satisfying. So collecting stamps is not your hobby and religion is not your belief - thus you have other hobbies and another belief......atheism.

Nonsense. The point you missed is that non-indulgence in stamp-collecting is no more a “belief system” than non-belief in deities is a belief system.

And, I have never found religion to be wishful thinking......jsut more purposeful than the atheist ever imagined in his absence of belief:+}

Except that this "purposefulness" is grounded in unevidenced wishful thinking.

[thormas]

Agreed.

It seems obvious that there is something unusual and special about man in comparison to other creatures.
I'm not saying that atheism is or has an issue but it is not simply a passive denial it is an active stance.............as evidenced by your very active role in this discussion.
Again, if one can go against instinct - especially one as vital and basic as survival - there is more than just instinct involved. And the second we get a 'man' who sacrifices himself for a stranger, the case is made.
Actually that is an old time take on religion (albeit true of some past Christian societies): Christianity is or should be about the now for it is here and now that one (can) becomes truly, fully human (what the Greek Fathers called divinization) and the understanding is that once one has such life, it does not end in death but continues. However, if all one does is look to some future life they are sure to trip over their own feet and . So, life eternal is to be lived in the here and now and the rest is out of our hands. Eternal life is not about time after death but about a depth of life that is not lost. And of course there is no evidence of consciousness after death because science does not deal with that which is outside of history. Plus if we had such evidence it would personally freak me out!

I have no problem valuing science, the areas it explores and the answers it provides.........but it can never answer 'why.' As to the why........I have spoken about the alternative, the atheist stance, that, if understood, results in meaninglessness and absurdity so it would be absurd for me or many/most to accept that position.

Again you are dealing with 'old time religion' as I know of no modern, or liberal or progressive or even many (any?) traditional Christians who are looking to escape. I grew up a Catholic and none of my friends or family were looking to escape anything (of course there was crazy Uncle Harry).

[shunyadragon]

It seems obvious that there is something unusual and special about man in comparison to other creatures.

I believe there is something unique and different about all of God's diverse creatures, and to claim this to far for humans is egocentric.

I have no problem valuing science, the areas it explores and the answers it provides.........but it can never answer 'why.' As to the why........I have spoken about the alternative, the atheist stance, that, if understood, results in meaninglessness and absurdity so it would be absurd for me or many/most to accept that position.

Science never claims answer the question why,, and that is a good thing. The answer why, can be used to justify any philosophical position from atheism to theism and everything in between.

Again you are dealing with 'old time religion' as I know of no modern, or liberal or progressive or even many (any?) traditional Christians who are looking to escape. I grew up a Catholic and none of my friends or family were looking to escape anything (of course there was crazy Uncle Harry).

That is, of course, unfortunate clinging mindlessly to ancient archeac tribal belief that divide humanity.

[thormas]

I believe there is something unique and different about all of God's diverse creatures, and to claim this to far for humans is egocentric.

Science never claims answer the question why,, and that is a good thing. The answer why, can be used to justify any philosophical position from atheism to theism and everything in between.

That is, of course, unfortunate clinging mindlessly to ancient archeac tribal belief that divide humanity.

To make such a statement about man is to simply acknowledge that, to the best of our current knowledge, man is unique in his (self) consciousness and the only one who can be open to the Ultimate Consciousness that is God. And this is also a faith statement, believing that we are the ones born in the image and to be the likeness of God. This is not to denigrate other creatures but to also accept our responsibility as co-creators and caretakers of creation.

So we agree on science: the 'why' is not their purview. Still, no matter any justification, the question is one which, as Andrew Greeley said decades ago, that man, by his very nature, asks and for which he must have at least a 'rough and ready' answer. The mythos - answers for the why and even the who - are flip sides of the ethos - an answer for how we are to act.

[shunyadragon]

To make such a statement about man is to simply acknowledge that, to the best of our current knowledge, man is unique in his (self) consciousness and the only one who can be open to the Ultimate Consciousness that is God. And this is also a faith statement, believing that we are the ones born in the image and to be the likeness of God. This is not to denigrate other creatures but to also accept our responsibility as co-creators and caretakers of creation.

So we agree on science: the 'why' is not their purview. Still, no matter any justification, the question is one which, as Andrew Greeley said decades ago, that man, by his very nature, asks and for which he must have at least a 'rough and ready' answer. The mythos - answers for the why and even the who - are flip sides of the ethos - an answer for how we are to act.

Argument for the uniqueness is not a good argument for ones choice of belief and/or non-belief. It is simply a fact of nature.