The Ultimate Unknown
Offline This is my first post on this site. I wanted to first mention that the videos on this site are very interesting and informative in presenting another view.
This post is in regards to the ultimate unknown, the origin of life. It is my understanding that there is no way for a theist to prove that their god(s) created life nor is there a way for a non-theist to prove their point as well. The next part of this discussion is in regards to how theist and non-theist prove their point. Theist uses god(s) to explain this otherwise unknown origin of life to make it comprehensible. On the flip side we have non-theist explain origin of life through "scientific" explanations in their effort to make it comprehensible. Both sides are one in the same in their "belief" and steadfasteness of their explanation's validity that it seems as though it doesn't require a "god" to have a following, or a cult if you will.
An ideology is simply something that drives an individual, social groups, and eventually becomes instituted within society by the "superior" ideology regardless of whether a god is present or not in their ideology.
In this current day it appears that one side of the camp has the upper hands in instituting a creationist aspect to public education. Merely a distraction to bolster the evolution versus creationism argument. It seems that people are more comfortable with choosing a side rather than deciding that nobody is able to offer proof that their ideology is the truth to this unknown origin that we are all a part of.
- Login to post comments
I'm one of those atheists who is okay with saying I have NO IDEA how the universe started.
But I'm okay with that. It really is the ultimate unknown.
But theoretical physicists and stuff have their own theories, and all they want to find is the truth. Theists just want to find god.
[Origin: 1790–1800; ideo- + -logy; cf. F idéologie
Most atheists would be happy to not speak about "knowing how life originated", but in the current political climate that would not be wise. Atheists have been quite for a very long time, and it has taken quite a bit to stir such a dispirate group to action. Don't equate atheism to a religion, they are two vastly different things.
No Gods, Know Peace.
Its clear that we don't currently know the origin of life. I'm sure there are more than several theories abound that give an explanation to the origin, too numerous to keep track of both scientific/natural and those that include a deity(s) to be involved. These are still theories, a scientist or a religious zealot who "discovers" the origin is still a prophet in either case for the ideology that they support.
A cult is not a, "bad" thing. A car can have a cult like following etc. I believe all religions are a cult by definition, I suppose a more euphemistic label is, "social club." And I also wanted to point out that a religion doesn't require a god, just a fundemental belief.
The most pervasive ideology will shape a given region to their mold.
The issue is that there is a huge underlying hole in our history that is relevant to everybody. Dispite that there are still lines being drawn and people being divided simply because their ideology are not compatible.
Is unification among men possible, a time when men throw out their ideology and work together towards the common good of man.
It is late I'm probably blathering so I'll leave the post as it is.
Actually, Religion is the belief in a deity or deities. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions.
I'm agnostic, so I don't believe, nor do I disbelieve, that there is a god(s).
Hi Hikaru,
"Is unification among men possible, a time when men throw out their ideology and work together towards the common good of man."
The common good often requires individuals to sacrifice their own self interest, even their very lives. What is the unifying principle for which we ought to sacrifice ourselves? In the materialistic world, the only unifying principle is self-esteem or self-worth. I feel good about myself when I think of myself as the hero. If I sacrifice myself for the common good, of course everyone applauds me and with that praise and applause, I can grant myself worth. But it's a con job.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Umm, let's see.
"A llama forced a square peg, shoes on one foot, with ideals and ideally idealogs."
I think?
This is not fair at all. There is a gulf of difference between scientific and religious assertions. Science is not like religion at all in the area of enforcing ideology. In a very real sense, science has no ideology when one considers that science includes a principle of eternal revision. It makes no sense to say that something that allows itself to be revised whenever and wherever necessary in light of new findings carries an ideological torch. Not recognizing this is your main error.
The real problem with god is that he can be used to explain anything whether it's true or not. Why is the sky plaid? God made it that way. For this reason, all explanations that rely on God on not explanations at all.
When you get the creationists to admit that THEY DON'T KNOW if a god created the world and when you get the religious cultists to admit that THEY DON'T KNOW if there is a god or not, get back to me. Then maybe we can make some progress in this area where both you and I agree we should want to progress. If anyone if holding back this oneness, it's the cultists.
Could be or maybe: The eagle flies at night, but warthog still transgresses....I think we should have Wishkah come up with some kind of a Grammar thread so that we can point people toward it, and tell them "Speak Fucking English"...it's just an idea...
No Gods, Know Peace.
And jce!
This has been the great, undeserved, public relations victory of the creationists: to put the idea in people's heads that the creationist and scientific positions on the origin of life are somehow on the same ground, and that giving them equal time is only a question of fairness.
Let me be clear. There is only one way that people govern their affairs: through reason. Everyone, theist and atheist alike, at least attempts to use reason to guide their actions. Those that disparage science do so for highly rational political ends of their own. However the fact is and remains that the scientific theories about the origins of life are based on reason, and the others are based on faith.
Q: Since everyone uses reason to guide their actions, why would some groups like to discard the theories that come from reason?
A: Those groups must have something to gain that they value higher than the knowledge that would come from an accurate understanding of the natural world.
Q: What do creationist groups have to gain by forcing schools to teach a bogus theory of the origin of life?
A: They spark court battles which they lose, allowing them to portray themselves as oppressed martyrs, a minority struggling against the stifling power of the state.
Q: Why do they want to look like martyrs?
A: To mobilize their base and win elections.
Q: Why do they want to win elections.
A: Orwell answered that one in 1984. Power is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. For some people.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Sadly enough, I think Wishkah (and probably jce too) would love to be the Grammar and Spelling mod.....
No Gods, Know Peace.
I have rarely seen this put so well.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.