Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Justin Hale]

[mindmetoo]

[tomato]

[Rteacher]

I think it's best to experiment and find out for yourself ...
http://www.prabhupadaconnect.com/lecture24.html

[ED209]

[tomato]

[tomato]

Rteacher, I have been thinking about your giant god who exhales universes in bubbles.
Is there oxygen where your giant god lives?
Or, in his omnipotence, is he breathing without oxygen?

[itaewonguy]

[ChopChaeJoe]

Why not? Not your god, of course.

[crusher_of_heads]

I don't believe any Christians will die because they leave the fan on during hot summer nights.


It's true.

[Arthur Dent]

I have been a skeptic for quite some time - and when I say skeptic, I mean that it has been my practice to seek some proof of anything anyone says or believes, where time and energy permit. The world and the universe at large are simply too large for any one (at least most, who have to make a living) person to follow up on each and every issue or subject. So, we must depend on others to do some heavy lifting in the thought department, and then consider carefully what conclusions they arrive at in their various fields.

It is safe to say that without the all-encompassing curiosity of many individuals throughout history, we would not be enjoying the level of education, awareness, and technological achievements in all fields which we quite obviously have access to today. The negative aspects of our investigations and discoveries - and admittedly, there are many - notwithstanding.

In reading, and following closely the logic and reason the 'inquirer' has used, it is necessary to fully understand this path.

Obvious, you say, and you would be right.

However, it is rarely commented upon that the amount of reading and thinking - research - which one needs to undertake in order to come up with a successful argument, is prodigious in the extreme. However with practice, one can learn to recognize fallacious or simply puerile arguments with ease, and thus save time and energy for more worthy endeavors. In addition to reading scholarly or related works relating to an argument, and considering them carefully alone, or with others, it is also necessary to follow what is going on the public realm and thus to relate one's argument to the 'real world.'

This being agreed upon, why do we often comment so offhandedly about things which we have only briefly considered and perhaps examined in only one or two dimensions or areas?

Recently, I have begun reading Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" and though I had already been convinced of my views in this area, I have been quite surprised by both it's accessibility in terms of ease of reading and understanding difficult and - at times - complex areas of thought and research, as well as his challenging views in terms of why one should challenge accepted views with regard to belief in deities and of the 'sacred ground' - in the non-religious sense - of religion.

I had previously been somewhat of a mute atheist. Life has its distractions as well. Besides, what was the point? People have their beliefs, I have my views. Leave well enough alone. However, the do-nothings have at least as much responsibility as those who are actively engaged, whatever the endeavour, belief, political situation, or what have you. This is where the expression "having the courage of your convictions" comes from.

By this I do not mean that I intend to become some kind of crusader against religious belief. However, I am convinced that the real struggle is to challenge poor or lazy reasoning, and to point out superstition and fakery where they exist. There is also the issue of those who usurp and abuse the beliefs of others for their own gain. These are not intangible problems to be solved by dreamy academics, but rather real difficulties that affect us all. In politics, in daily life, economically and in issues of access and freedom of thought.

There is no good reason to put up with any of this. Indeed, it demeans us to do so. It is not a question of pride, but rather of challenging ourselves to transcend our weaknesses.

Atheism is not a religious belief but rather the lack of any belief in a deity or deities, and a firm conviction that reason and logic are necessary if one wishes to have an accurate view of the world around us - along with seeking proof and constantly challenging view's, one's own as well as those of others.

I would - so far - recommend reading Dawkin's book to anyone who seeks to have a better understanding of these issues.

[NQP]

Anyone who claims to know, one way or the other, something that is unknowable, is foolish at best. I believe that there is a lot that man cant explain or understand. Many choose to call this God. All matter is comprised of the same molecules. Scientific fact. Could there be some common conciousness or energy that links all of this? That doesn't seem like an outlandish proposition. We cannot explain this yet so we use legends and historic tales(religion) to do this. The real insanity IMHO is to allow a disbelief in things religous to lead to a disbelief in all things spiritual or "God" related. They are not nessecarily one in the same.

When confronted with a person with a strong belief of the existence or non-existence of God, my reply is the same; You may be right.

[Kuros]

[Arthur Dent]

NQP wrote:
"Anyone who claims to know, one way or the other, something that is unknowable, is foolish at best."

Agreed. However, our ability to know or not know something is dependent on our technology and our conscious choice to explore and ask questions, as well as our application of the scientific method in its various fields. Religion - at least institutionalized religion - claims to provide the answers within the framework of what it already knows. This despite the fact that we know a great deal more than we did when these religions began many hundreds of years ago. The question arising now (not that it hasn't arisen before) is whether we can or cannot prove the existence of god (or gods).

Further - the advancements in the field of probability theory being what they are - we all make decisions based on probability; the stock market - indeed, world economies - is one example, personal decisions about careers - "Should I be a water carrier, or a fruit salesman? Which one will make me happier? Which will one will make me richer? Which of these options do I value more?" And here, personal happiness and fulfillment versus wealth and power, is where the human element arises. If we use probability to determine our life choices, decisions which will affect our lives in very personal and real ways, should we not use probability to determine the accuracy of larger issues (larger than just our own life that is)?


NQP wrote:
"I believe that there is a lot that man cant explain or understand. Many choose to call this God."

Uncharitably, an objective reader would decide that these two sentences are not directly related. I know how difficult it can be to express these kinds of questions/arguments. It is not my intention to criticize you for unclear statements, merely to point out that lack of clarity can easily lead to misunderstanding - on both sides.

Charitably, one can understand your intention with these statements. The unknowable is attributed to a god or gods. As an imperfect example of this kind of attribution, I once met a young woman who had lost her purse the previous evening. She had had a great deal to drink. Nevertheless, she felt guilty about having drunk so much, and so attributed the loss of her purse not to alcohol, but to gods punishment for having drunk so much. Which is more reasonably probable? In this case, for many at least, it would seem likely - probable - that the alcohol was the culprit, rather than an ever-vigilant unknown force who seeks to punish wherever possible.

Additionally, just because we cannot explain something is not a reason to ascribe it to something else we can neither understand nor explain. This would seem doubly foolish. We may yet come to understand, just as we have with many things up to the present day.

A belief in god may involve a laziness in thought, or merely the inability to show one way or another the proof of existence. "I don't understand something, so it is gods doing." This was excusable in the past to some extent. I don't believe it is the case for all now.

NQP wrote:
"All matter is comprised of the same molecules. Scientific fact. Could there be some common conciousness or energy that links all of this? That doesn't seem like an outlandish proposition."

Here it seems you are combining scientific fact with something akin to the Gaia hypothesis. I may be mistaken in determining your intent. That all matter in the universe interacts with its neighbour is not in doubt. The nature of that involvement, however, is not fully understood by all. Science has determined a fair portion of that relationship. Magnetic fields, gravity, radiation, etc. That the sun possesses some form of consciousness does some fairly outlandish.


NQP wrote:
"We cannot explain this yet so we use legends and historic tales(religion) to do this. The real insanity IMHO is to allow a disbelief in things religous to lead to a disbelief in all things spiritual or "God" related. They are not nessecarily one in the same."

The first sentence is quite correct. We had no explanation. We felt the need for one. We made one up. A completely understandable decision. Science operates differently. Choose a question. Formulate a theory. Prove or disprove it.

The second part relates more to what I would term the human perspective. We are not - strictly speaking - born scientists. We have - to varying degrees amongst individuals and cultures - a spiritual or emotional nature. Our brains are not computers. There is an emotional aspect to our lives - and here I would add that I would not wish to do without it - who would? However, nor would I choose to let that side of me determine my life choices entirely.

In referring to the religious, I would reverse your statement to something like this (And here I am merely guessing at your intent): To allow a disbelief in a higher power, supernatural being, or god, to lead to a disbelief in the religious (and here I would change the term religious to "sense of wonder and awe") when witnessing the immensity, variety and complexity of the universe, would be, if not insane, certainly less worthy of our abilities and an insult to the universe. It would also be much less interesting and enjoyable.

It is an uncommon view (amongst some) that scientists possess a sense of wonder. In fact, I would suggest it is often that sense of wonder which propels them along their chosen path. Atheists (as only one aspect of a person, just as being religious or believing in a god is only one aspect of another person) may well feel the same sense of wonder, but choose a different approach from the religious and the theistic.

In the above sense, I agree. To be religious and to be a believer in a god(s) are not one and the same thing.

Kuros. Hilarious! Who knew Darwin was such an accomplished dancer....apparently he has evolved...

[Its just a ride]

I believe in the miracle of turning food into poo.