The newly named Philosophy and Mysteries of the Universe thread

[Demo]

The Philosophy and Mysteries of the universe thread
This is for discussion along the lines of religion, creationism, philosophy, morals, who built the pyramids, Is the LHC gona kill us all, things alone those lines
Post your beliefs and ideas, don’t get upset if someone differs on your opinion converse about the subject, and bring supporting evidence
----------------------------------------------
*what this thread is not*
1. What Tablet should I buy?
2. The secret to drawing anything in one step.
3. What’s the typical__________ of a concept artist? Fill in the blank (day like, salary, beverage of choice)
4. Noob beginner guide. We already have one for each section. If you have a question regarding, inserting images to a thread, posting rules, see one of these.
Beginners guide: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90377
Tablet info guide: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73139
-----------------------------------------------
*what is Approved*
1. Questions about Philosophy and other topics of ponderables
2. Serious questions

[ArtZealot]

What is it that defines something as good or true?

[Demo]

Artzelot is that a question or is that a comment about what i wrote??

[ArtZealot]

It's just something i've been thinking about lately...musing about, if you will.

Also i've been wondering, does the universe have a final purpose? what made the universe? If some say it was the big bang, then what was before that? where did it come from?

[Grief]

support section. (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=118)

[Grief]

I thought i would start out
1 . Their are names next to the levels of every one they say things like.
Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri, Myrmillo, Hoplomachi
iv looked them, up but haven't found any info.

HOW DO I CHANGE MY LEVEL/RANK? WHAT'S THIS MEAN?

When you see "Level 8 Gladiator: Thracian" by your avatar and user name, don't fret! These are just fun ranks based on your post count. You can't change them yourselves; they update automatically.
also if youre interested at what post level each title is at read this (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=128416).

2.Also one more thing on my mind their have been different artist along the last line in what i think is the professional gallery up above, that have been going up and then taken down are people hacking the gallery up their and posting art work. idk because the i thought that was the massive blacks gallery but the last seems like a random student.

Higher Authorities decide which members of the forum exhibit a standard high enough to be on permanent display. things have a way of working themselves out, i wouldnt let it ruin your day.

[Demo]

Grief thanks i literally thought i looked every where guess the right answer is sometimes right in front of you. for those names o well its a little dissipointment though i thought their was some type of meaning behind the names not just a persons description.

also the second one i kind of figured and wasnt really trying to rat any one out i was just wondering if that was the case or something else was up.

[Grief]

It's just something i've been thinking about lately...musing about, if you will.

Also i've been wondering, does the universe have a final purpose? what made the universe? If some say it was the big bang, then what was before that? where did it come from?

the big bang is merely the starting point to which space/time begins to expand from a singularity of matter.

i dont know how to answer the other parts of the question, but instead will rely on bullshit to arrive at a conclusion. Galactus, Devourer of Planets took a rage dump after eating an ungodly sum of chicken wings. The dump was delivered at the Universe's first Planet Hollywood, which now proudly boasts 78million light years of the gargantuan excrement (and is ever expanding) on display. Unfortunately our Universe is part of a multi-verse and is shunned and forsaken by other Universes due to its dubious creation and Paul Raiser sitcoms.

What is it that defines something as good or true?

personal preference, study, and observation for what is good.
science, reason, and logic for what is true.

[Demo]

wow now that iv seen the support forum i feel like making this whole thread was a wast of time o well we can stay off topic in here and it can be less formal then the support forum.

[Mirana]

for those names o well its a little dissipointment though i thought their was some type of meaning behind the names not just a persons description.

I kind of thought the "Gladiator" part in front of the ranking made it sort of obvious what the titles meant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_gladiator_types).

(Apparently I'm a "net fighter" haha! And I do so mostly nude! Beat that. ;) )

[Demo]

ok i get the gladiator part better now thanks mirana
o ok now i get it dident read far enough down on wiki thanks mirana

ok ok im an Myrmillo not terrible they Wore a helmet with a stylised fish on the crest (the mormylos or sea fish), as well as an arm guard (manica), a loincloth and belt, a gaiter on his right leg

[Jason Rainville]

the big bang is merely the starting point to which space/time begins to expand from a singularity of matter.

I heard from somewhere that it had no real 'starting point' and that time had a beginning is a simple misconception... I could be wrong. I think it was on youtube when the ExtantDodos were debunking "a case for a creator' and was commenting on some semantics around that particular idea.... not very important, though.

anyhow it's also neat that in the 4th dimension, our universe could look like a sphere. Since as 3 dimensional beings we could only witness a cross-section of the 4th dimension, as we pass through it we see linear time oblivious to the fact that it neither begins nor ends: maybe there is no beginning or end to the universe or time, just as there is no point south of the south pole.....

:0

[Equality72521]

Took too long to write this, Jason beat me ;)


funny this came up, i learned about the big bang today:

Keep in mind I learned this in philosophy class from a community college from a secular teacher. There are no religious bias to this, unless your atheist/agnostic.


Big Bang Theory (generalized): immense explosion of energy around 13 Billion years ago. Evidence supports this like the "red shift" of the light of stars, since it takes years for light to get to Earth. This supports the idea of out universe expanding, starting with the Big Bang. Three degrees of centigrade of energy float around our universe, which we can only assume is left over energy from the Big Bang. But the real question is: Did the BB cause it self?

No


(based on Aquinas)
Think of it this way. Nothing can come out of nothing. We assume we can know something is strictly impossible. Whatever comes into existence is created BY an existence (Mother gives birth to child), otherwise BB would exist to create itself, therefore existing before existing. And that is Impossible. Another theory is that the BB is part of a series of events, there was a contract before an expand. This theory also has its faults. For it to be a series, there would have to be a first set of the series. This theory could only exist in the past, there would not be a present or future, kinda of like the BB always happening, forever stuck in time. Think of a set of Dominoes, you line the up, you have a series waiting to be set off, but what would set it off? Get it? This one is hard for me too. What does that lead to? Aquinas believes this lead to the primary cause must always exist in its own nature and be above time and space. It also be uncaused, meaning the primary cause has always been, the was no "creating it" by something else.

In short, God.

But, Hume believes the primary cause could just be energy, just a helluva lot of energy. This gets caught up in the series thought. The energy is not above time and space and would repeat itself, but only if there would be a primary cause.

This is basically the Intelligent Design Theory, not necessarily Creationism. If you are more interested on ID, Ben Stein did a documentary called "Expelled" and is very compelling.

I have more notes from philosophy if anyone is interested, Demo could rename this the Philosophy Thread!

[Demo]

You know what hell with this lest just discuss a topic till we whear it out then will pick another one while still answering any smaller questions that havent been answerd along the way. get ready people its go time

[Craig D]

How about we start a spelling and grammar thread.

[bluefooted]

Nothing can come out of nothing. We assume we can know something is strictly impossible. Whatever comes into existence is created BY an existence (Mother gives birth to child), otherwise BB would exist to create itself, therefore existing before existing. And that is Impossible. Another theory is that the BB is part of a series of events, there was a contract before an expand. This theory also has its faults. For it to be a series, there would have to be a first set of the series. This theory could only exist in the past, there would not be a present or future, kinda of like the BB always happening, forever stuck in time. Think of a set of Dominoes, you line the up, you have a series waiting to be set off, but what would set it off? Get it? This one is hard for me too. What does that lead to? Aquinas believes this lead to the primary cause must always exist in its own nature and be above time and space. It also be uncaused, meaning the primary cause has always been, the was no "creating it" by something else.

In short, God.

If nothing can come from nothing, then what made God?

This is basically the Intelligent Design Theory, not necessarily Creationism. If you are more interested on ID, Ben Stein did a documentary called "Expelled" and is very compelling.

Are you fucking serious????? That is quite possibly the most dishonest and shitty movie I've ever seen. Darwin caused the holocaust? Yeah, right.

Question: Why do people find comfort in believing silly things? And I'm not (just) talking about religion.

[Elwell]

Question: Why do people find comfort in believing silly things? And I'm not (just) talking about religion.
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I assume you're familiar with this (http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893)?

[bhanu]

wheres the bathroom in here?

[Elwell]

wheres the bathroom in here?

You're posting in it.

[Chris Bennett]

I know it was a rhetorical question, but I assume you're familiar with this (http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893)?

Tristan, you have just solved one of my Christmas present problems!

[Equality72521]

bluefooted just thought i would post that since we were on the subject of the Big Bang, as stated those are the thoughts of Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) The good things about philosophers is there is a whole bunch of them, so you can pick who you like. There's Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume), Kierkegaard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard) (who may interest you), Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx), Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzche), Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant), you get the idea. It was a regurgitation of philosophy class, not necessarily my personal beliefs.

Kierkegaard makes a good point on the subject. Basically, every proof of God's existence must fail since arguments fill in concepts but assume existence. Faith is a venture, a giving away of one's self. This looks like a win-win situation. For those who who believe in the existence of God, the only way to do so must do on faith only, not evidence. and those who don't believe in a God are in the clear because there is no factual proof of the existence. Didnt mean to offend.

[Demo]

How about we start a spelling and grammar thread.
Dont worrie Craig D if there is something you dont understand you can just ask and someone will help you. what do you need help understanding

[bluefooted]

I'm not offended by philosophy talk :)

I do, however, find Expelled incredibly offensive and pretty much beneath contempt, so I'm interested when someone describes it as 'compelling'. Frankly, it almost compelled me to hurl.

Elwell, I hadn't seen that, thanks!

[Equality72521]

its self-fulfilling prophecy, "a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'" -Wikipedia

you see? its like you already have the conclusion, but you warp your research to reach that conclusion instead of doing unbiased research.

So i already had a conception of the movie, therefore i had a bias towards the subject matter, just like you had a bias towards the subject, just a different perceptive bias.

Sooo, to settle it, we must agree to disagree on the movie "Expelled"

Again, I have more notes from Philosophy class and/or Sociology Class we can discuss

[bluefooted]

its self-fulfilling prophecy, "a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'" -Wikipedia

you see? its like you already have the conclusion, but you warp your research to reach that conclusion instead of doing unbiased research.

So i already had a conception of the movie, therefore i had a bias towards the subject matter, just like you had a bias towards the subject, just a different perceptive bias.

And I disagree with your assessment of me. I'm a liberal, and I hate Michael Moore movies, as well. Generally, I prefer 'documentaries' that claim to report facts to contain statements that are true rather than lies. Sure, some things are a matter of opinion, but some things aren't. This movie contains mostly lies.

If they'd marketed it as a fantasy, I might let it slide...

Again, I have more notes from Philosophy class and/or Sociology Class we can discuss

No thanks :)

[Jason Rainville]

Let's just get this out of the way, why Ben Stein is fucking retarded:

NiNGK3y5Ypg
3X8aifay678
ihYq2dGa29M

Thank you Thunderf00t!

[squidmonk3j]

Equality72521 - i'm sorry, but your notes seem awfully lacking:)

however, hume is an interesting read, especially his explorations into the problem of induction (and causation). also, unlike that bastard kant, his writings are actually readable.

"something cannot come from nothing" is logically a very weak statement, since it cannot be proven false.

the problem with epistemological studies (well, re rationalism and empiricism, at least), is that they always tend towards solipsism. and thus, most philosophers implement -some- notion of god/objective reality towards the final chapters....descartes is probably the most obvious example.

[Craig D]

The Philosophy and Mysteries of the universe thread
This is for discussion along the lines of religion, creationism, who built the pyramids, ...... bring supporting evidence



the bring supporting evidence part is particularly funny.
Trolls should be shot on sight.

[s.ketch]

I beleive in silly things. I choose not to say because they are very silly, even more so than religion. I can't speak for everyone so I will just speak on my own behalf and give the reasons why I think that I beleive in those things. These silly things that I beleive are a coping mechanism. They make me feel strong in moments of weakness, they make me feel smart in times of unavoidable ignorance, they make me feel brave when I am afraid, and they make me feel happy when there is no reason to.

However, I do not think believing in childish things gives me an excuse to be weak, ignorant, afraid, or sad. These are just temporary solutions until I can fix problems in my life or get through rough times. Religious people tend to think that they have the monopoly on faith, but that is far from the case. I think everyone has their own fables that they tell themselves in order to have hope in life. Intelligence comes when a person knows the difference between the lie and reality. Of course simply knowing the truth doesn't bestow wisdom. As to what else makes a person wise, I will tell you when I am older.

[Demo]

As in ha ha funny or like u think im an idiot funny. Hopefully not the second one, sorry about the grammer ill try making sure i reread everything.

As for most of the creation theories and the intelegent desigin stuff im not really to knowledgable on the subjuct, but im taking sociology and psychology classes next smester so ill sit on the sidelines and read what gets posted befor i make myself look even more like an idiot.

[Equality72521]

yeah my notes are lacking, I have no idea if I will be even able to pass my final exam next week. so i guess i made myself look foolish, :[ ill stick to things i know more about for future reference

[bluefooted]

yeah my notes are lacking, I have no idea if I will be even able to pass my final exam next week. so i guess i made myself look foolish, :[ ill stick to things i know more about for future reference

You know, the beauty of the Lounge is that there's really no penalty for being wrong.

[Jasonwclark]

This is for discussion along the lines of religion, creationism, philosophy, morals, who built the pyramids, Is the LHC gona kill us all, things alone those lines

Somehow I don't think this is what Pythagoras had in mind. :)

I will say this though - if you leave a philosophy classroom, feeling more certain in your knowledge about a subject than when you entered it, you're instructor probably isn't doing their job. In that sense, its good if you're second guessing yourself. ;) The entire discipline is designed to put the student in a state of aporia. Basically that's the point when you realize that you have no clue what you're talking about anymore, and that what you used to know doesn't really make any sense at all. Literally it means "without a path" or "without a way" and the whole thrust of western philosophy since Socrates hinges on the idea.

Philosophy is not a substitute for religious or spiritual mysticism. Some thinkers will try to push it in that direction, and you might find some interesting overlap between this discipline and others, but at its core Philosophy is about being uncomfortable and uncertain. You could study for years, and still never arrive at anything even approaching an answer to the question.

Thats not the whole picture I suppose, but it covers a lot of the essentials. You can also draw some useful insights into what Philosophy is all about, if you compare the Pre-Philosophical Greeks, to the guys who came along afterwards (Homer and Hesiod contra Thales for example.) Here are some of my wheeler notes you might find helpful.


Some general Features of Pre-philosophical Hellenic thought.

(NOTE BENE: None of these features is altogether rejected in the Presocratic period.)

Language: Non-literal use of language: metaphor and other figurative uses of language
deemed appropriate.
Psychology (PSUCHE and LOGOS): Account of the soul.
1. The Homeric soul is an insubstantial breath-like image of the body that:
a. Gives life to the body, and
b. Survives the body and exists (bloodlessly and miserably) in the underworld,
usually called Hades.
2. The two central tenets of the Orphic psychology are:
a. The human soul can survive death and undergo reincarnation.
b. The soul can survive death only if it is pure at death.
c. Cosmogony (KOSMOS and GENESIS): Account of the origin and development of the
KOSMOS.
- In its original state, the KOSMOS was a simple (usually organic) stuff.
- The KOSMOS developed from its original state by means of reproduction (at first
asexually, but thereafter usually by means of sexual union).

Theology (THEOS and LOGOS): Account of the divine/immortals/gods.
- Pantheism: Everything is composed of or identical with some god or other.
- Polytheism and Poly-daemonism: There are many gods and spirits in the
world.
- Anthropomorphism: All gods and spirits are similar to human beings either
physically or psychologically.

Cosmology (KOSMOS and LOGOS): Account of the structure and events in the world:
- The divine/immortal/godly parts of the KOSMOS are structured as follows:
a. OURANOS (the sky or heaven) is a solid and hemispherical bowl that covers
GE (the earth).
b. The surface of GE is flat and round.
c. The gap between OURANOS and GE is filled by AER (a mist in the lower
atmosphere) and AITHER (a fiery stuff in the upper atmosphere).
d. Below the surface of GE is HADES (the underworld).
e. Below HADES is TARTARUS (made of bronze).
f. OKEANOS (a great river) surrounds the perimeter of GE.
- Everything is ultimately and personally caused by the gods.

Epistemology (EPISTEME and LOGOS): Account of explanations of the world.
- Explanations are of particular events.
- All explanations ultimately reference gods.
- Acceptable explanations may be either logically (or “internally”) inconsistent,
inconsistent with observations (“externally inconsistent”), or both.

__________________________________________________ ___

Comparing the pre-philosophical ancient Greek context with the presocratic context

Shared Assumptions:
1) There is a physical world (a PHUSIS = a nature).
2) The physical world is a unified and ordered/structured world (a KOSMOS).
3) Everything is generated from something.
4) The KOSMOS was not created by anything.
5) Human beings can understand the KOSMOS.
6) Human beings can describe and communicate the order/structure of the KOSMOS by means of human languages.
7) The KOSMOS has a moral order/structure.
8 ) Divine beings are related in important ways to the KOSMOS.
9) The internal principles of the KOSMOS are sufficient to explain its history and structure.

Shared interests:
a. Interest in understanding the history of the KOSMOS. (For example, whether or not the KOSMOS had a beginning. whether or not it will have an end, what it was like in the past, what it will be like in the future.)
b. Interest in describing and explaining the nature of the KOSMOS. (They both asked questions of the following sort: What is the KOSMOS composed of, what accounts for the similarities and differences among things in the KOSMOS, what accounts for the changes that occur in the KOSMOS?)

The Traditional Greek Mythopoeic/Religious Outlook:

Events in the world:
- Events occur according to the desire of the gods, not
according to laws of nature.
- Everything is ultimately and personally cause by the
gods.

Explanations of the world:
- All explanations of the universe must ultimately make
reference to the gods.
- Explanations may be internally inconsistent, inconsistent
with other explanations, and inconsistent with observed facts.

Ethics:
1. Delphic inscriptions:
a. Know thyself.
b. Nothing in excess.
c. Curb your spirit.
d. Observe the limit.
e. Hate hubris.
f. Bow before the divine.
g. Fear authority.
h. Glory not in strength.

2. The heroic virtues:
a. Strength
b. Courage
c. Piety
d. Beauty
e. Practical wisdom
f. Justice
g. Self-control


Principle differences between the pre-philosophical Greeks and the
presocratic philosophers:

Pre-philosophical Greeks:

1) Acceptance of traditional allegorical and metaphorical kinds of
explanation. (To put it roughly, the pre-philosophical Greeks explained the nature of the KOSMOS by means of figurative narratives involving anthropomorphically conceived divine beings and/or metaphorical symbols.)
2) Acceptance of tradition as an authoritative source of truth.
3) Belief that the order/structure of the KOSMOS is at times irrational.
4) Belief that the correct description or explanation of the KOSMOS can be
inconsistent and incomplete.

Presocratic philosophers:

We distinguish between the presocratic PHUSIKOI (i.e., the natural philosophers or “physicists”) and the Sophists. Both the PHUSIKOI and the Sophists embrace the following assumptions:

1) Rejection of figurative language, and the allegorical and metaphorical explanations in such language, in favor of explanations involving directly referential language. (A widespread effort to describe and explain things by means of laws or principles that are based upon human observations of the KOSMOS and not by means of stories that are derived from cultural traditions. Not every presocratic rejects all mythological explanation, but in general they did.)
2) Critical of and willing to reject the claims of tradition:
a. Theories shall not be accepted merely on the basis of authority:
1. Supernatural authority.
2. Human authority:
- Prophets and priests.
- Prevailing cultural norms.
b. Theories shall be accepted only on the basis of publicly available
evidence.
3) Belief that the order/structure of the KOSMOS is entirely rational.
4) Belief that the correct description and explanation of the KOSMOS is
consistent and complete.

The Presocratic PHUSIKOI:
The Milesian School of Philosophy:

The Milesian school of philosophy is so named because the three philosophers comprising the school, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, lived and worked in Miletus, a wealthy POLIS (city-state) in Ionia (i.e., a region including parts of the west coast of the modern nation state Turkey).

Three shared assumptions:
1. Everything is ultimately generated from one kind of basic
matter.
2. Everything is ultimately composed of one kind of basic matter.
(As a consequence of 1 and 2, The Milesians are called ‘material monists’.)
3. The basic stuff has the power to cause itself and other things to
change. (This view is called ‘hylozoism’.)

Thales of Miletus (625-SOMETIME AFTER 582 BC):

a. Basic ideas:
1. Everything is ultimately generated from water (HUDOR).
2. Everything is ultimately composed of water.
3. Water has the power to cause itself and other things to change.

b. Some arguments attributed to Thales by Aristotle:
P1: Everything is generated from a seed.
P2: Everything generated from a seed is ultimately generated from water.
C1: Everything is ultimately generated from water.

P3: Everything is nourished by water.
P4: Everything nourished by water is ultimately composed of water.
C2: Everything is ultimately composed of water.

P1: All gods, animals and plants cause change.
P2: Magnets cause change in iron.
P3: If gods, animals, plants and magnets cause change, then everything causes change.
C3. Everything causes change.

c. Seminal contributions:
1. Attempts to explain everything in terms of a publicly observable and natural substance. Thus, he attempts to explain everything without recourse to the supernatural. Moreover, his hypothesis is subject to public scrutiny.

2. He proposes a universal generalization (i.e., a claim having the form “All A are B”) in order to explain everything. He thus proposes the first rational “theory”.

533889

[squidmonk3j]

a quick summary of jason's post:

mythos -> logos

:)

EDIt:

Equality72521 - don't worry, dude...we're all fools here in the lounge.

[tobbA]

I don't think something can't come out of nothing. I mean... Suppose there is nothing. Then that nothing also is something. Because even if it's nothing then it still is something... even if that something is nothing.

And if we play with that thought a bit... it's a big controversy. So if that nothing is both something and nothing at the same time, then the paradox makes it all explode. Boom... And antimatter and matter are split into two which then kinda forms the universe... :)

[Jacob Kobryn]

All we are is energy condensed to a slow vibration...

[m@.]

About the Big Bang... I don't think there needs to be a question about "what was before?", just like we don't need to ask ourselves "what is smaller than 0 meter(or feet or whatever)?". If we see time as a dimension, what we do when we go back closer to the Big Bang is more like an inversely proportional "zooming in" closer to the singularity rather than a linear progression back in time. Just like we explore the infinitely microscopic by getting closer to "0 meter", and discover atoms, quarks, and the quantic dimensions.

It's just that our brain is so used to think about linear cause and effect in time (because it makes sense at the "medium"scale we live in), that it's hard to understand that there might be no "first cause" at all... and when we think about the Big Bang, we usually think about an "explosion" happening somewhere, when actually there was no somewhere at all. "somewhere" was what the big bang created. Another hard thing to understand too, the absence of void ...
Hope I made myself clear...

[Blahm]

from what i understand everything is just empty space gyrating around more empty space. In high energy physics there really is no limit to how far things can be broken down. An nobody has ever actually seen a particle up close becuase as soon as you magnify it that close it is composed of 99.9% empty space. And then all that lies before you is another order of magnitude in witch to magnify.

[Wadu]

Chew on some Richard Dawkins, es good for ya!:D

Richard Dawkins: The Genius of Charles Darwin. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&resnum=0&q=the%20genius%20of%20charles%20darwin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#)

There religion problem solved! :)

[Demo]

Unless you completly understand 100% of all modern science which is still lacking understanding of the complexities of a lot of things, then you shouldnt tell people to stop beleive in what they do because not every thing about what they beleive in can be proved. because that makes u a hypocrite

Please do not make this a religion propagand or bashing thread.

EDIT: took out bashing quote.
Also im not saying sicence completly lacks knowledge on everything im just saying weve come a long way but were still not their yet.

[Wadu]

Unless you completly understand 100% of all modern science which is still lacking understanding of the complexities of pretty much everything, then you shouldnt tell people to stop beleive in what they do because not every thing about what they beleive in can be proved. because that makes u a hypocrite

Please do not make this a religion propagand or bashing thread.

Lacking understanding of the complexities of pretty much everything seems kind of extreme. Then why would respected scientists label such things facts? Wouldn't that be a huge contradiction amongst the scientific community if they pushed opinion/theory to fact based on their beliefs? Or are we really just that fallible? Do I make any sense right now? Haha, but anyways I'll just stfu right now and go to sleep - i haven't in a very long time :zzz: sorry for the ranting/bashing, got carried away..


[[EDIT: Took out all the bs bashing in my previous post, but you quoted me! noooo:)]] lol

[Straight Edge Ryan]

Regarding how religion starts: I think how a lot of religion starts is chiefly due to how people explained things they couldn't possibly comprehend. For example, the Greeks didn't know that rain is caused by condensed water vapor in the atmosphere becoming dense enough to fall, so they attribute it to a god. This type of practice was common with most of the older pagan religions, people made up gods to explain otherwise unexplainable occurences in the world, which is why it's not uncommon for there to be gods that are respsonsible for rain, earthquakes, war, peace, love, the sea, etc.

In my humble opinion, I think arguing about whether or not a god (or gods) exist is pointless. The fact is, neither atheists nor theists know for certain, but many people act as if converting another person to their particular religious beliefs somehow makes their beliefs true. There either is or there isn't a god (okay, we could go into the whole or it both exists and doesn't exist or neither, but let's not argue semantics right now) if there is a god, the world will continue like it always has. If there isn't one, then it will still continue as it always has. The thing is what people believe is irrelevant, all that matters is what is. If everyone in the world believes there is a god and it turns out that there isn't, then what difference does it make? and vice versa

The problem, again in my humble opinion, with any religion or lack thereof tends to be in the people themselves, not always the beliefs of the religion. Atheists have attributed many bad things to religion: homophobia, sexism, racism, violence, war, murder, rape, etc. and theists have done the same to atheists. People talk is if religious beliefs are what motivate people to do those types of horrible things, but I believe that people don't do things like that because of religion, they do it for their own selfishness, and then try to use religion as justification, almost as if their religions give them a moral permission slip to do immoral things. I say the root of all these problems is selfish desires and inherent human tendencies that predisposes us to put ourselves before others. Despite what some people believe, I don't think that abolishing religion would be a good idea, nor would it dissolve all of these problems. Instead of constantly trying to debunk each others beliefs, I think we should put more of an effort into understanding each others beliefs, recognizing the difference between personal opinion and fact, respecting the beliefs of others even when we disagree with them, and making sure that we apply the moral teachings of whatever religion we belong to only to ourselves and not try to police the behavior of others based on a system of moral standards that they might not believe in

When it comes to how I think people should treat their own religious views, I think that a Japanese delegate that was in a interdenominational religious conference but it best: "my humble supserstition is Buddhism. What is yours?"

[Wadu]

In my humble opinion, I think arguing about whether or not a god (or gods) exist is pointless.

Oh but sometimes it's just too damn fun!:D It's immature, but I love attempting to piss off religious people - we both get mad about nothing. Pointless anger and frustration is the boooomb.(joke)

[squidmonk3j]

religion vs science is a dead end. it's basically apples and oranges. the two offer completely different models of reality....it's like having a blind man and a deaf man argue about the the reality of a guitar. penicillin isn't -better- than faith in God's mercy...it's just another way to go about living and dying.

re the "something from nothing" notion....simply because our apparatus of perception and biological processing power cannot accept such a breach of causality, doesn't mean it cannot happen. objective reality vs subjective reality...das ding an sich vs das ding für mich.

the main difference is probably that science's attitude towards objective reality is mirrored in wittgenstein's "wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" (where (or of what) one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence), while religion proposes this the knowable domain of divinity.

[Equality72521]

I agree with Faust, i think that this started with good intentions, but from reviewing the past histories, these kind of threads spiral WAY outta control. Sorry Demo, at least you got 2 pages of philosophy-esque thoughts.


Edit: Faust deleted the post

[Demo]

Im starting to think that also i was hopeing if we started this thread maybe it would cut down on these kind of arguments in other threads but now i think it might make it worse, i think i created a monster.

[m@.]

Instead of constantly trying to debunk each others beliefs, I think we should put more of an effort into understanding each others beliefs

That's all nice when you see religion like a "favorite movie or book" thing, where not much harm can be done, but when it goes into banning gay marriage, sending death threats (if not more) to doctors who practice abortions, going back to obscurantism by trying to teach things like creationism/intelligent design, terrorism, denial of women's rights, castes, and all kinds of intolerances, just in the name of some old fairytale books, there IS something to be done.
Ahh I wish I had the balls to be a militant atheist :(

[Straight Edge Ryan]

That's all nice when you see religion like a "favorite movie or book" thing, where not much harm can be done, but when it goes into banning gay marriage, sending death threats (if not more) to doctors who practice abortions, going back to obscurantism by trying to teach things like creationism/intelligent design, terrorism, denial of women's rights, castes, and all kinds of intolerances, just in the name of some old fairytale books, there IS something to be done.
Ahh I wish I had the balls to be a militant atheist :(

That's why further on I said that people also need to make sure that they don't try to police others life's based on their own personal beliefs. I think what religion someone belongs to is a matter of personal choice, when a person chooses to join a religion, they also choose to abide by its practices. Say for example, a religion has particularly sexist views, now I don't agree with or condone sexism, but if that religion approves of it, then its followers can apply those views to other followers. Kind of like, if I go to Germany, I abide by German laws, if I don't like German laws, I leave, and vice versa. But what I wouldn't do is go to Germany and apply American laws to the Germans. I think if creationists want to teach creationism to other creationists, then they should be allowed to do so in creationist schools, but I don't think that creationists should try to teach creationism to people with secular views in secular schools. I don't think we should force secular or religious teachings on anyone who doesn't want to learn them

Being a militant anything isn't good. If you dislike fundamentalist Christians because they refuse to listen to the views of others, then keep in mind that militant atheists are no better. In fact, extremist atheists and religious zealots are very similar in many ways if you think about it: they're both intolerant of each others views, they seek to push their viewpoints on others, they get belligerent or condescending to those who think differently, they have their own versions of morality, they both consider each others viewpoints on the afterlife to be "delusional", and they both have a moral agenda that they want to push on the world

Sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, violence, etc. are all things rooted in flaws of human nature, they're all rooted in fear and ignorance. Why are some people sexist? because they feel inferior to the opposite sex. Why are some people racist? because they are unfamiliar with different cultures and lifestyles that typically accompany people of differnt races. Why are some people homophobic? they feel inferior in their own sexual identity. These are all things that apply to all people, theist and atheist alike. You can't combat intolerance with intolerance, "hatred never at any time ceases through hatred. Hatred is only destroyed through love. This is an unalterable law"

Sorry I write so much, I tend to get a bit long winded haha

[Grief]

here's a fun fact:

every thread in the lounge if left to sit for a period of time will eventually grow into a predictable mindless discussion of religion and politics.

remember a few months ago when every thread turned into "show pics of animal genitalia"?
...i kinda miss those.

but what do i know, i'm an angry white, jewish, homosexual, racist, facist, liberal, asian, sexist, homophobic, neoconservative, communist, nazi, gay bashin', catholic, black, libertarian, librarian, lesbian, wwe diva, pot sucking, cock smoking, bible thumping, atheist.

[JL.Alfaro]

Billy Meier had a message, but no one wanted it. I find his story fascinating.
check it out its worth a watch real or not.

jsp6lF4SCKI&feature=related

[m@.]

Straight Edge Ryan :
A few things.
First, you're talking about atheism like it is a religion, and comparing it to religion on the same grounds.Well, it's not. Just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby. One quote from Richard Dawkins I like is (roughly) "all people are atheists for most of gods, some of us just go one god further"

And then,"Being a militant anything isn't good"...well... What about militants feminists in the sixties? or the militants for black rights? there are some causes worth fighting for, and I think atheism is one of them. Because those people, who we should let think what they want, still vote, and make decisions that affect everyone else's lives. And again, with religion, those decisions are based (to some extent of course) on old fairytales.

PS: another thing: about people saying those threads are pointless. I don't think they are. A lot of people here are teenagers/young adults, starting to ask themselves questions that can shape their whole life. While I agree that random posts on an art forum is not the best place to get answers, it's still better than nothing, and can be a good counterweight to, maybe, a very opinionated daily social environment, and sparkle interests in topics that one would otherwise never talk about in everyday life.

[Grief]

Billy Meier had a message, but no one wanted it. I find his story fascinating.
check it out its worth a watch real or not.

[spooky video]

billy was abducted by interstellar NAMBLA
D:

[kab]

The only thing we as humans know is that we don´t actually *know* anything. Also, everything is relative, we as observers create the rules of our world.

Everything most of us take as facts are actually opinions and conclusions arrived at by scientific methodology.

Scientific method is reliant on observation and reasoning. A scientist finds a way to run an experiment and observes the results, by excluding the possibilites that could not give those results, he then makes a conclusion that one possibility is correct. However, since we can never exclude all possibilities, only the ones we have observed, we can never be sure that there is not a different possibility that gives the same result aswell.

Albert Einstein said that man trying to figure out the workings of the world is like a man trying to figure out how a clock works. By being clever enough he can imagine a mechanism that explains how the arms move, but he can never open the clock to make sure his vision is correct. That is exactly how all "facts" are decided, by seeing something work and trying to imagine how.

We can never say that something is fact or exclude that there is something we cannot even imagine that is responsible for everything we see and experience.

[squidmonk3j]

gods don't kill ppl, ppl kill ppl.

[bluefooted]

The only thing we as humans know is that we don´t actually *know* anything. Also, everything is relative, we as observers create the rules of our world.

Everything most of us take as facts are actually opinions and conclusions arrived at by scientific methodology.

Scientific method is reliant on observation and reasoning. A scientist finds a way to run an experiment and observes the results, by excluding the possibilites that could not give those results, he then makes a conclusion that one possibility is correct. However, since we can never exclude all possibilities, only the ones we have observed, we can never be sure that there is not a different possibility that gives the same result aswell.

Albert Einstein said that man trying to figure out the workings of the world is like a man trying to figure out how a clock works. By being clever enough he can imagine a mechanism that explains how the arms move, but he can never open the clock to make sure his vision is correct. That is exactly how all "facts" are decided, by seeing something work and trying to imagine how.

We can never say that something is fact or exclude that there is something we cannot even imagine that is responsible for everything we see and experience.

LOL

(I wanted to just write 'LOL', but apparently that's too short.)

[kab]

I realise that what I wrote in the last post sounds eerily like a religious person saying science is false =p but that couldn´t be farther from the truth. I was just trying to make people think about how we arrive at what we call facts... =p

History shows that time and time again what everyone has thought was fact turned out to be false and don´t think it won´t happen with things we today accept as facts.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. He may also believe in the existence of the ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth."
-Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics (1938 )

[Duq]

I would just like to state that there is absolutly nothing wrong with old and ancient fairytales and the life lessons in them. If all religion, and their origins would dissapear that would be a huge loss for the human race. If anyone would ever get it in their head to ban this kind of material they are just as bad as being against gay marriages, etc.

And that was my random statement of the day!

Albert Einstein said that man trying to figure out the workings of the world is like a man trying to figure out how a clock works. By being clever enough he can imagine a mechanism that explains how the arms move, but he can never open the clock to make sure his vision is correct.

You can open the clock. Most clocks have a little door that allows you to take a peek inside, and fix stuff. As with all man made material we know exactly why it works because we made it. This quote really makes no sense, did you missquote him or something? Somehow I feel it should be about time, not clocks.

edit: just read your second post. If you want to get your point across, please include parts like "a closed watch" and "he has no way of opening the case" otherwise the quote just makes no sense.

[bluefooted]

I realise that what I wrote in the last post sounds eerily like a religious person saying science is false =p but that couldn´t be farther from the truth. I was just trying to make people think about how we arrive at what we call facts... =p

History shows that time and time again what everyone has thought was fact turned out to be false and don´t think it won´t happen with things we today accept as facts.

The universe is mysterious and all, but there are still facts! And it is possible to still know things. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. If that were the case then 'science' wouldn't work at all. Just because I can't rule out spirits as the cause of my result - because, by definition, they can't be ruled out - doesn't mean my result is suspect.

Sure, there's a lot of stuff we don't know and there might, might! be stuff that we will never know, but we know a lot. Just because you don't know everything, or one person couldn't possibly know everything that humans have discovered, doesn't mean that everything is somehow unknowable.

[kab]

Metaphors are funny things aren´t they, they don´t always make sense. =p

What I was getting at is that we shouldn´t be so quick to dismiss other peoples views on how the world works. Religion is not my cup of tea, but we can´t prove there is no god, or prove that one exists.

[m@.]

Duq : I totally agree. Just as banning Homer's works and its references to greek gods would suck.

And kab... "what everyone has thought was fact turned out to be false and don´t think it won´t happen with things we today accept as facts." , well, its more like we find bigger theories that encompass older theories as special cases of them. But it doesn't make the older, tested theories false. It just make them look as approximations that worked within the limited set of mind we had at that time. Einstein's relativity didn't suddenly make Newton's apple fall slower or faster :)

[kab]

I agree completely, bluefooted. My point was that we do not "know" anything, but we can still use science because most likely, we will find the answers. I am not discrediting science, even if my first post here made it seem that way. I´m just saying that nothing is 100% certain. And yes, m@, that is true, but we will never reach a point where we can be certain we are right, because our understanding is always limited to what we can actually test.

[Craig D]

kab, many things are 100% certain.

Saying there is ANY possibility that my dead dog from over 30 years ago will greet me at the door tomorrow is nuts.

[m@.]

well, actually, saying that something is 100% certain is not scientific :)
saying that you have
99,99999 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KKgvRw1rrU)...... chances of not being greeted by your dog is reasonable though :)

[kab]

Craig: I never said that everything is possible, I said that there is no way to prove that it isn´t. There is a difference. Most things we discover through science will be correct and there is nothing wrong with saying that a theory is wrong, but perhaps your theory isn´t right either, even if we cannot disprove it.

My goal was just to make people think twice before being too confident that they are right when debating things like religion and science.

[bluefooted]

I agree completely, bluefooted. My point was that we do not "know" anything, but we can still use science because most likely, we will find the answers.

And my point is: yes, we can 'know' things.

eta: I don't debate religion because there's nothing to debate, it's all opinion. We can debate science because that's the whole point!

[kab]

As m@ said, it is not scientific to say that anything is 100%... it might be 99.999infitity% and that should be more than enough for anyone.

I don´t claim that anything is false because you can´t prove it 100%

[Craig D]

You can't see me because my eyes are closed.

[kab]

I for one love the thought that everything we know is actually a theory, and I find it absolutely fantastic that science enables us to find theories that work across the board, making it very likely that we have indeed stumbled onto the truth.

Knowing that our understanding of the world has limitations is not a bad thing.

[evildisco]

Since I have no interest in these discussions anymore.

I think Craig needs to adopt this avatar.

[Jasonwclark]

The newly named Philosophy and Mysteries of the Universe thread

Its cool to have beliefs about these things, and to argue about them in the lounge. But that doesn't really qualify as Philosophy. Try to recall that Philosophy is not an alternative to Science. Philosophy gives rise to Science. Consider for example that it was Aristotle who first coined all the seminal scientific terms, like "matter" and "energy", and laid out the essentials proposition of science: to observe, divide, and organize the physical world in a way that makes sense. Actually there is an important connection between the etymology of our word 'science', and the etymology of our word 'scissors.'
Skeizdo (pretty catchy verb no?) :)

science c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)). Modern sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1678. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Gk. episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill.

Under the strict definition, Science is a branch of Philosophy. The fifth branch really, except that Physics developed into such a large discipline in its own right, that it quickly grew legs and took off. The other four branches of Philosophy have remained essentially the same since ancient times, though we're always adding more to our understanding of them. They are generally termed; Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, and Logic.

Metaphysic (Ontology =the study of being, and Cosmology = study of the Cosmos) was originally named for those sections of Aristotle which came immediately after the physics. It has since come take on a more expansive definition. Before the advent of modern science Physics and Meta-Physics were complimentary disciplines, the former to investigate observable materials, the latter to develop general principles which might explain them. Notions such as; time, space, property, attribute, causality etc. all fall within the purview of Metaphysics. This is not the same sort of Metaphysics that you're going to read about in the New Wave Bookstore, but the precursor to modern science.

Ethics (Axiology = study of the axioms) This is probably the only branch of philosophy that might actually land you a job when you finish school. It deals with things like right conduct, judgment, morality etc. which is all the rage these days. Immanuel Levinas is one of the few thinkers to put Ethics at the core of all branches of philosophy, but usually it is seen as the bridge between the esoteric musings of the classroom, and the actual world outside the classroom. How we manage our interactions with others etc. Anytime someone tries to talk to you about “the greatest good” or “right and wrong” they’re engaging in the philosophy of Ethics.

Epistemology = study of Knowledge. This is the branch of philosophy which tries to address what we know, and how we acquire such knowledge. It deals with questions about truth and certainty, how we transmit these ideas to each others using language, and whether or not we should trust them. Of all the branches of philosophy, the questions raised in epistemology, have a tendency to be among the most intractable. For example, Sartre and the French school out of WW2, tried to reduce a number of ethical dilemmas into epistemological dilemmas, as a way of undercutting them. The first part of Kant’s categorical imperative represents a similar attempt to highlight the important connection between Epistemology with Ethics.

Logic = Logos. This is the among the most colorful terms in the ancient Greek language. The Greek verb legein, in its most basic sense means “a gathering together and laying before.” So a gathering together of thoughts, presented in language - letters to form words, or sounds to form speech. A gathering together of ideas to form conceptual models, things of that sort. Basically it means to provide structure out of the desperate elements, so later thinkers will expand the definition into an even broader arena. Heraclitus is the first to really get down with the Logos, which he saw as being physically manifest as Fire. In the book of John this is the term used to describe God, and Marcus does something similar in the Meditiations, where the Logos is given a kind of divine status. The idea is always of an ordering, structuring divinity though. Formal Logic in philosophy doesn’t usually venture off into that direction, but is rather a kind of technical writing that verges on mathematics (Mathema and Legein are related concepts, going way back) which is used to bring clarity tophilosophical propositions. Modern symbolic logic still operates on the assumption of order though, and at their most grandiloquent even Logicians can sometimes adopt a certainly zealousness for order and consistency; Dr. Spock being your primo example.


Anyway the point I wanted to make, is that there is a rather wide gulf of difference between Philosophy with a capital Phi, and the cocktail party variety. “Our business philosophy” or “My personal philosophy about creationism” etc.

My degree might still be bullshit, but it’s a different kind of bullshit you know. Or at least, so I’d like to think. :)

[Craig D]

why evildisco not want play anymore?!?

[kab]

Jason, are you expecting an actual philosophy discussion online? I think that is alot to ask from a forum, I am guessing most of us don´t have the slightest clue:)

Everyone loves to talk about how they feel about things and we call it "our philosophy about *insert random topic*", I dont think many people think that it is actually philosophy though :)

If I got it correctly from your description though, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that discusses knowledge and adresses what we know and how certain we can be that our knowledge is actually correct, which is what we have been debating just now... so perhaps we got it ever so slightly right after all? :)

[Jacob Kobryn]

I quite enjoy discussing topics such as this but I am truly exhausted. I'll post in this thread a bit later.

For now: I am not religious but I have been binge listening to a band from France called Deathspell Omega recently. They have very intellectual and thought provoking lyrics about religion. Though I think that they are geniuses and no doubt the best black metal band in the world, I doubt that more than a handful of people on this website would enjoy their music. So, instead of posting their music, I'll just post some lyrics.

Si Monvmentvm Reqvires, Circvmspice (http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/deathspellomega/simonvmentvmreqvirescircvmspice.html#1)

Kenose (http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/deathspellomega/knse.html#1)

Diabolus Absconditus (http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/deathspellomega/crushingtheholytrinitydisc1of3.html#1)

Fas - Ite, Maledicti, In Ignem Aeternum (http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/deathspellomega/fasitemaledictiinignemaeternum.html#1)

(�Death is the most terrible thing; And to maintain its works is what requires the greatest strength� � Hegel)

Would it all be absurd?
Or might it make some kind of sense?
I�ve made myself sick wondering about it,
I awake in the morning �
Just the way millions do,
Millions of boys, girls, infants and old men,
Their slumber dissipated forever...
These millions, those slumbers have no meaning.
A hidden meaning?
Hidden, yes, �obviously�!
But if nothing has any meaning, there�s no point in my doing anything.
I�ll beg off.
I�ll use any deceitful means to get out of it,
In the end I�ll have to let go and sell myself to meaninglessness, nonsense:
That is man�s killer;
The one who tortures and kills, not a glimmer of hope left.
But if there is meaning?
Today I don�t know what it is.
Tomorrow?
Tomorrow, who can tell me?
Am I going to find out what it is?
No, I can�t conceive of any �meaning� other than �my� anguish, and as for that,
I know all about it.
And for the time being: nonsense.
Monsieur Nonsense is writing and understands that he is mad.
It�s atrocious.
But his madness, this meaninglessness � how �serious� it has become all of a sudden! �
Might that indeed be �meaningful�?
My life has only a meaning insofar as I lack one: oh, but let me be mad!
Make something of all this he who is able to,
Understand it he who is dying,
And there the living self is, knowing not why,
It�s teeth chattering in the lashing wind:
The immensity, the night engulfs it and,
All on purpose, that living self is there just in order... �not to know�.
But as for God?
God, if he knew, would be a swine.
He would entirely grasp the idea... but what would there be of the human about him?
Beyond, beyond everything... And yet farther, and even farther still...
HIMSELF, in an ecstasy, above an emptiness...

Cognitive activity: God comes to be known in ways that originate in God solely
God is nothing if He is not, in every sense, the surpassing God;
In the sense of common everyday being, in the sense of dread,
Horror and impurity, and, finally, in the sense of nothing...

He is mystery, indeed he is the absolute mystery
Divine disclosure is in direct proportion
To the degree of divine concealment
Intensification of revelation equals
To increase of god�s hiddenness
Descent of the Deus Absconditus

The unreservedly open spirit � open to death, to torment, to joy -,
The open spirit, open and dying,
Suffering and dying and happy, stands in a certain veiled light:
That light is divine.
And the cry that breaks from a twisted mouth may perhaps twist him who utters it,
But what he speaks is an immense alleluia, flung into endless silence, and lost there.

Shall my only victory be available in conscience?
Why is absence the proof, when I demand palpable presence?
There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough darkness to humble them
There is enough darkness to blind the reprobate and enough clarity to condemn them,
And make them without excuse

Our perception is subject to the fissure of concupiscence
Woestruck am I realizing that the light cast on this
Chiaroscuro world is partial and selective
Division, election and predestination
Enabled by grace or left to one�s own device...

Anguish only is sovereign absolute.
The sovereign is a king no more: it dwells low-biding in big cities.
It knits itself up in silence, obscuring it�s sorrow.
Crouching thick-wrapped, there it waits,
Lies waiting for the advent of Him who shall strike a general terror;
But meanwhile and even so sorrow scornfully mocks at all that comes to pass, at all there is.

From very high above a kind of stillness swept down upon me and froze me
It was as though I were borne aloft in a flight of headless and unbodied angels
Shaped from the broad swooping of wings, but it was simpler than that
I became unhappy and felt painfully forsaken, as one is when in the presence of God

She was seated, she held one leg stuck up in the air, to open her crack
Yet wider she used her fingers to draw the folds of skin apart
And so her �old rag and ruin� loured at me, hairy and pink,
Just as full of life as some loathsome squid
�Why�, I stammered in a subdued tone, �Why are you doing that?�
�You can see for yourself�, she said, �I�m God�

No use laying it all up to irony when I say of her that she is GOD.
But GOD figured as a public and gone crazy �
That, viewed through the optic of �philosophy�, makes no sense at all.
I don�t mind having my sorrow derided if derided it has to be,
He only will grasp me aright whose heart holds a wound that is an incurable wound,
Who never, for anything, in any way, would be cured of it...
And what man, if so wounded, would ever be willing to �die� of any other hurt?

If there is nothing that surpasses our powers and our understanding,
If we do not acknowledge something greater than ourselves,
Greater than we are despite ourselves,
Something which at all costs must not be,
Then we do not reach the insensate moment towards which we strive
With all that is in our power and which at the same time
We exert with all our power to stave off

I can utter no word, O my God, unless I be permitted by Thee
And can move in no direction until I obtain Thy sanction
It is Thou, O my God, Who hast called me into being through the power
Of Thy might, and has endued me with Thy grace to manifest Thy Cause

The act whereby being � existence � is bestowed upon us
Is an unbearable surpassing of being,
An act no less unbearable than that of dying.
And since, in death, being is taken away from us at the same time it is given us,
We must seek for it in the feeling of dying,
In those unbearable moments when it seems to us that we are dying
Because the existence in us,
During these interludes,
Exists through nothing but a sustaining and ruinous excess,
When the fullness of horror and that of joy coincide.

As I waited for annihilation, all that subsisted in me
Seemed to me to be the dross over which man�s life tarries...

�Diabolus Absconditus�: the conjunction of intellect
And psychotropic-altered senses supported by insistent and archaic sounds


Actually I guess I'll post a link. If you DO like it, then pm me, if you don't, then don't spam the thread please.

Mf0qaIzaYDc

[evildisco]

why evildisco not want play anymore?!?

I need some verbal peptobismol.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

Straight Edge Ryan :
A few things.
First, you're talking about atheism like it is a religion, and comparing it to religion on the same grounds.Well, it's not. Just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby. One quote from Richard Dawkins I like is (roughly) "all people are atheists for most of gods, some of us just go one god further"

And then,"Being a militant anything isn't good"...well... What about militants feminists in the sixties? or the militants for black rights? there are some causes worth fighting for, and I think atheism is one of them. Because those people, who we should let think what they want, still vote, and make decisions that affect everyone else's lives. And again, with religion, those decisions are based (to some extent of course) on old fairytales.

PS: another thing: about people saying those threads are pointless. I don't think they are. A lot of people here are teenagers/young adults, starting to ask themselves questions that can shape their whole life. While I agree that random posts on an art forum is not the best place to get answers, it's still better than nothing, and can be a good counterweight to, maybe, a very opinionated daily social environment, and sparkle interests in topics that one would otherwise never talk about in everyday life.

I've seen many atheists treat atheism like a religion. In fact, atheism is similar to theism in many ways. Both tend to be concerned with the same subject matter, the most prominent of which is the afterlife, both tend to draw their support for their beliefs based on the moral standards in their respective religion (or lack thereof), both have peacful followers and violent followers, both have a message, and both think that their belief system will somehow better humanity. When atheists oppose religion, isn't it because they disagree with that religions morals? How can you oppose a set of morals unless you have your own set as well? Religion teaches moral standards because they believe it will better humanity. Atheists do the same thing, just not in the name of any god. When you see an atheist trying to convince people that there is no god, how is that different from a missionary trying to convince people that there is one? For the most part, all religion is, is a series of moral standards justified by the claim of the presence of an omnipotent figure, atheism is a series of moral standards based on rationality and logic. The only difference is to whom or what they attribute their morals to

And you're right, there are causes worth fighting for, but there are ways of fighting without violence. Do you reallly think women gained rights because of militant feminists? Keep in mind when I say "militant feminists" I mean the man-hating, screaming in your face, "you can't say this or this or this or you're a chauvanist!" feminist. Do you think that it was anger and violence that got people to listen to them, or was it diplomacy? The same goes for the militants for black rights, how many civil rights militants had their beliefs of equal rights fueled by anger at white people? How many black power groups, racist against whites, incited violence? Do you think it was the black people that acted violent that got racist white people to question their views, or was it the peacful ones? Malcolm X called for black rights "by any means necessary", Martin Luther King Jr. called for peace. If you notice, we don't have a "Malcolm X day". Militant behavior does nothing but prolong diplomacy, incite violence, and further the rift between the speaker and their target audience. Think about it, have you ever gotten into an argument with someone, and had the other person get right in your face and yell at you and insult you? Did you really want to hear what they had to say after that?

And I agree with you in that I don't see why people always discourage threads like these. Discussing topics with people of opposing viewpoints is NEVER pointless, in my humble opinion.

[m@.]

Straight Edge Ryan :

First off, sorry for the misuse of the word militant. I meant activist. (English is not my first language..) :( militant has a violent connotation which I didn't mean. I agree that violence is no solution!

And about atheism, if you talk about it with religious terms, of course it will sound like a religion :P
it's like, I could call myself a "a-ghostist" because I don't believe in ghosts, but that doesn't mean I need an alternate explanation for the spirits some people say they have seen. I just don't believe in them like I don't believe in an infinite number of other things. And since it happens that religion is such a big deal to a lot of people, I get categorized as an "atheist". If our beliefs about the existence of ghosts were a big deal, I would be categorized as a "aghostist" and might end up in some heated discussions about the existence or not of ghosts, and the word "atheist" might not exist at all because nobody would care if you believe or not in the particular superstition that there is supreme creator.

And I don't think atheism is concerned about afterlife at all, just as not believing in the loch ness monster doesn't make you concerned about what exactly lives in the loch ness lake...you just don't care.

[evildisco]

Couldn't resist...sort of...

Ryan reason people discourage these threads is because they usually end up the same way. One side tries to make an argument the other one responds by saying that their argument is better because the other side's is invalid and eventually everyone gets frustrated and starts posting penises and tiny hitlers because the bottom line no one is going to convince no one.

That's my opinion on the matter.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

m@.:

First off, if english is your second language I'm impressed because I honestly couldn't tell until you said anything

The type of atheism you're talking about is the type I support. I think people should keep their religious beliefs (I do consider atheism a religious belief, but let's not argue over that) on personal levels. As you said, the problem with religion is when people start doing things like banning homosexuality, blowing up abortion clinics, etc. The problem is they apply THEIR beliefs to OTHER people, which is why they sometimes feel that they're justified in doing some horribly inhumane things. They basically say "my religion condemns this so no one should do it". BUT imagine that those same people decide that they will only apply their religious beliefs to themselves, they say "my religion condemnds this so I'm not going to do it". Problems arise when someone of one religion holds a person of another religion to their standards. If people learn to apply their beliefs only to themselves, and learn to respect the beliefs of others even when they disagree with them, then I believe it would be possible for people of all beliefs, atheist and theist alike, to coexist peacefully and tolerantly with one another

[m@.]

yeah, if religion was just a hobby and wouldn't be a critical aspect of how people and countries act, I'll be all for it.

[Straight Edge Ryan]

In many cases it's used for the basis of meaning of life itself, so I wouldn't expect to see it turn into just a hobby anytime soon haha. I doubt there will be complete tolerance of religious beliefs in either of our life times, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying haha. All we can really do, is do what we think is right

[VulgarDragon]

Talking about religion in a philosophy thread? Hmmm...I think there's difference between the two...religion is all about defining God or some deity and how to worship, while philosophy is all about old Greek men sitting around in a sauna discussing the meaning of life. Just kidding about the last bit, but philosophy is defined in Wiki as:

"Philosophy is the investigation of truth, existence, knowledge, and conduct through logic and reason. It is an attempt to study the nature of existence, validity, justice, beauty, mind, and language. As Anthony Quinton put it, philosophy is "thinking about thinking."

Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[2] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom." (quoted from Wikipedia)

And religion...

"A religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power. It is generally expressed as prayers, rituals, or other practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively." (also quoted from Wikipedia)

I just thought I would mention this in case anyone is interested.

[HunterKiller_]

Interesting discussion.

More science, less religion please.

[MiniGoth]

I too, am confused as to what faith has to do with philosophy. Faith will fail as a logic modifier, because it's tenets can neither be proven nor disproved.

[DannySketch]

The subject of logic is not the only feature that philosophy can address.

[Jasonwclark]

Jason, are you expecting an actual philosophy discussion online?

Not really. But since this is "The Philosophy and ..." thread, I felt the need to at least say something. :)

I too, am confused as to what faith has to do with philosophy. Faith will fail as a logic modifier, because it's tenets can neither be proven nor disproved.

Well, every discipline has a little smoke and mirrors at work somewhere. If you want to find out where the leap of faith moment occurs in formal logic, you have to go all the way back to the foundations, in Parmenides and Aristotle. Basically, before you can get anywhere in logic you have to accept a few things as given. The Law of Contradiction, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and what might be termed the Principle of Symbolic Identity (A=A) etc. These are axiomatic presuppositions, which you just have to accept outright, because there is no way to prove them.

Some thinkers, following Heraclitus or Nietzsche, might reject one of these axioms, and wind up viewing Logic as just a kind of false-abstraction that has no meaningful correspondence with reality. Most accept them as reasonably credible though.

There are leap of faith moments in science and mathematics as well, but these usually occur at the edges of our understanding, or at the foundations of that branch of learning. People are generally more interested in landing research grants, than they are in questioning their most sacred beliefs, so they might not be the most popular topics for discussion. Somewhere along the way though, you always have to adopt a metaphor or embrace a fiction to move forward. That doesn't mean that some fictions aren't still better than others though, and more useful to hang onto.

If you're going to take a leap, it should at least be a well calculated one. Right? ;)

[VulgarDragon]

I too, am confused as to what faith has to do with philosophy. Faith will fail as a logic modifier, because it's tenets can neither be proven nor disproved.

Philosophy is about many things, and religion is one of them. It's all about arguing about the logic of whatever using logic based on observations. For example, I could use science or what I observe to argue for the existence of a higher power.



eta: I don't debate religion because there's nothing to debate, it's all opinion. We can debate science because that's the whole point!

Actually, some elements of religion can be debated using science or logic. Take the moral codes, for example...the commandments on killing and stealing are justified as protection for individuals. Sexual conduct codes can be argued that they were intended to help prevent sexual transmitted diseases, inbreeding, and to promote population growth. In this day and age where we have too many people and prevention for STDs, probably no big deal, but back then, it was a life-and-death matter. Even the dietary laws can be interpreted logically, for example, pork was prohibited because raising pigs as a livestock is destructive to the environment and also they carry a number of parasites and viruses that can infect humans.

[bluefooted]

Actually, some elements of religion can be debated using science or logic. Take the moral codes, for example...the commandments on killing and stealing are justified as protection for individuals. Sexual conduct codes can be argued that they were intended to help prevent sexual transmitted diseases, inbreeding, and to promote population growth. In this day and age where we have too many people and prevention for STDs, probably no big deal, but back then, it was a life-and-death matter. Even the dietary laws can be interpreted logically, for example, pork was prohibited because raising pigs as a livestock is destructive to the environment and also they carry a number of parasites and viruses that can infect humans.

You might be able to argue that some 'religious' guidelines were based on practical matters, but there's no way to use science to say these guidelines were handed down by a god. If they're just common sense rules of thumb, then there's really nothing inherently religious about them.

Also, I don't consider 'morals' or ethics to be informed by religion at all. Actually, I think it's the other way around.

[VulgarDragon]

Yeah. There is no way to prove that the moral guidelines came from a higher power or proven practices, but it is interesting to note that some of them were ahead of their time before they understood anything about genetics and disease. And effective too... when someone broke a commandment and got a terrible disease, they thought it was God punishing them, when actually they exposed themselves by crossing that line.

And of course, it is usually the people themselves who make up many of the religious rules....so no logic there.

[squidmonk3j]

science offers scientifical facts, not Facts. the difference might appear to be superficial, but it is important nonetheless. scientifical facts only make sense within the realm of science. remove/replace the paradigms, axioms, instruments, and the truths disappear.

remember, a few centuries ago, the world -was- flat. today we know otherwise. and tomorrow ppl will know different again.

whether or not science is -progressing- in tune with objective reality is impossible to say.

[Jason Rainville]

remember, a few centuries ago, the world -was- flat.

No, it was believed to be flat. Reality is reality no matter what we think. I agree that human knowledge is cumulative and we will know more about the universe in the coming years, but that's a pretty big statement to say the shape of the world will change as we understand it.

whether or not science is -progressing- in tune with objective reality is impossible to say.

Are you serious? You just mentioned that the world was understood to be flat, and now based on objective evidence, we know it to be spherical. We know how the planets 'stay aloft' how we got here etc. based on objective observations. How could it be 'impossible' to know science is moving along with reality?

[squidmonk3j]

actually, we now believe the earth to be ovoid. we left the "spherical" theory some years ago.

[Elwell]

actually, we now believe the earth to be ovoid. we left the "spherical" theory some years ago.
Isaac Asimov (a far wiser man than you or I) has already addressed this argument, both in it's specifics and generalities, in the Relativity of Wrong:
I recieved a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." The essay continues here (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) in shortened form, and can be found in full in this collection (http://books.google.com/books?id=-MDCAAAACAAJ&dq=asimov+relativity+of+wrong).

[s.ketch]

Actually, actually, actually, actually

The world was never flat.
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

If you notice in this scene that the king is holding a globe which represented Earth. (http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux14.htm)

[VulgarDragon]

remember, a few centuries ago, the world -was- flat. today we know otherwise.

Actually, many people knew (or suspected) that the earth was not flat for thousands of years. For example, the Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Check this entry in Wiki for more about this flat earth idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth).

Edit: Just now saw Bucky's post...this wiki entry is a different one but still good read.

[Elwell]

Actually, actually, actually, actually

Never is too strong a word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

(EDIT: Arrg! Cross post!)

[s.ketch]

Actually he said a few centuries ago which are the middle ages which is wrong.

Actually.

[squidmonk3j]

thank you for linking that, elwell...i read the shortened version, and he obviously makes a good point. but i dare say he is commenting from a very biased and perhaps to narrow a point of view.

"Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete. "

the positions are not mutually exclusive. a theory might be refined ad infinitum and still be utterly incorrect.

if you assume that our current perception and processing power enable us to fully appreciate the extent of existence, and that science is the ideal method for analysis of this interaction, then yes, scientific theories will move along a positive curve of constant refinement. our models will be "less wrong" for each iteration, so to speak.

but, if you grant the possibility that we are not optimally equipped to deal with Reality, any and every model, which inevitably will be based upon our apparatus of perception and processing, will most likely be incorrect.

it is, of course, impossible to imagine a non-anthropocentric view of the world, but i'd like to attempt an imaginative extrapolation to indicate my point further...

let's say we fast forward human evolution (heh) 2 million years into the future. our brains have develeoped further, adding a supracortex to it's structure. this has enabled us extra sensory perception and extra processing power. we sense beyond ultraviolet and infrared, beyond electromagnetic fields etc etc. our processing power makes our current level pre-simian in comparison. in short, our ability to interact with reality is heightened.

if this is at all a possibility, then obviously our future models of reality would likely be vastly different from our current ones. they -might- also be equivalently refined scientific theories, but they might also have made a vastly different step.

mythos -> logos -> ?

[Black Spot]

Maybe they were right (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/25/truman.syndrome/index.html) and every one else is wrong.

[Diphallia]

I usually am.

[SoufMeng]

Squidmonk, that was confusing!


The positions are not mutually exclusive. a theory might be refined ad infinitum and still be utterly incorrect.

Why would you say that? Can you provide an example?
How can a theory be constantly refined and yet be utterly incorrect.
If it is being refined it will either get more and more wrong -then "refined" is not the appropriate word- up to the point that those men will have to step back or more and more correct.
The said theory wont remain evenly/utterly incorrect all along the refinement process, will it?


let's say we fast forward human evolution (heh) 2 million years into the future. our brains have develeoped further, adding a supracortex to it's structure. this has enabled us extra sensory perception and extra processing power. we sense beyond ultraviolet and infrared, beyond electromagnetic fields etc etc. our processing power makes our current level pre-simian in comparison. in short, our ability to interact with reality is heightened.
All the underlined words in the above quote of your post suggest improvement and refinement more than complete revolution. So according to you Asimov is still right but yet you "dare say he is commenting from a very biased and perhaps to narrow a point of view." ?

but i'd like to attempt an imaginative extrapolation to indicate my point further...
What point?
Did i miss something?

[s.ketch]

Our brains will evolve as they need to rather than arbitrarily gaining extra features. If ESP is needed, then something will happen in that department. I doubt super powers are in our next step of evolution. Most likely it will be how we process synthetic materials, adjustments to a less active life style, being prone or being protected from new diseases, and adjusting to medical technology. The problem is there is no telling how fast life as a human will change or how much it will stay constant, so the biological problems we have now may not be an issue tomorrow. Two generations of fast food shouldn't dramatically change the gene pool, but if we stay the same as we are now for a few hundred years, then we may start to see the smaller ramifications for that.

[Grief]

It's like the Lounge but in convinient television form:

GbizzLzcpnM

[squidmonk3j]

s.m. -

1) the most obvious comparison would be supernatural explanations of physical phenomena...the refinement/permutations of mythological/religious thought have "evolved" over time. but the framework remains. previous dogma will be regarded as less refined / in tune with divine truth, but the superparadigm barrier (as good a phrase as any, i guess) cannot be broken....unless it is discarded in favour for a new model of reality, i.e. Logos.

2) this would be like asking a caveman to predict cell phones.

3) my point is non-anthropocentric.

[SoufMeng]

Hmm now im not really sure why you use mythological/religious beliefs as examples in a discussion about refinement of scientific theories...
I should have put it this way: why do you think Isaac Asimov's essay is narrow minded and biased? What is it you disagree with?
Post 97 confused me and i must admit your last one didnt enlighten me much more either.
Maybe im too thickheaded to get your point but unless im proved wrong i stand by my opinion that post 97 on Asimov's essay was inconsistent.:shrug:
Maybe im wrong, it doesnt matter anyway (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2033250&postcount=32).
2hours ago I had planned on reading and practising all the chapter on architects perspective and scaling the figure from Loomis' book but i wasted my time in the forums instead...
So now ill just stop posting in the lounge for the rest of the day (weekend?) to teach myself some selfdiscipline.
Oh and its S.M not s.m. :)

[HunterKiller_]

Our brains will evolve as they need to rather than arbitrarily gaining extra features. If ESP is needed, then something will happen in that department.

Uh, are you saying that evolution happens whenever an organism 'needs' something?
I hope not.

[Prometheus|ANJ]

I think the idea with science is to provide useful models. Even if the theory of gravity is 'incorrect' (we all know it's the FSM pushing us down, duuuh), it is still useful, and it's becoming more useful as we refine it. A flat earth theory isn't useful because we would predict that we'd fall off the edge rather than wrapping around. A round earth theory is more useful, but probably won't do when designing GPS systems.

True, some models might be useful but ultimately local optimums / dead ends. A few planetary models comes to mind. Those theories had huge flaws though, and they weren't very pretty. With our current model we can predict the positions of planets very precisely. If there is another model, then it wouldn't really be a huge improvement as far as accuracy goes.

We don't need millions of years of evolution to gain more sensory organs to do better science. Technology is already augmenting us here. Many astronomy photos are not taken in visible light. Of cource, if we ever manage to develop neural interfaces, allowing parts of our experiences to be digitalized, then of course we could augment ourself further, and long range telepathy wouldn't be a problem.

However, a lot of science is now so complex that humans can't actually work with it anyways. We use machines to do the observations and complex calculations on massive amounts of data. The output data has to be displayed to us in a simplified way, like a 2D diagram with time steps, then scientists presents an even more simplified view to the public... "See, the universe is kind of like a balloon..."

Reminds me of this: The universe is queerer than we can suppose: Richard Dawkins on TED.com (http://blog.ted.com/2007/04/richard_dawkins_2.php)

[Jacob Kobryn]

That was extremely interesting. Thank you for that link Matt.

[Jacob Kobryn]

From the belief that we evolve and adapt when need something, would it then imply that early humans worshiped so many idles and were so strong in their religious beliefs because they needed to? Perhaps our species is becoming less theistic because of our ability to comprehend the complexities (the "queerness") of our existence?

p.s. Did anyone read the DSO lyrics? What did you think? Their lyrics are mainly on the metaphysical theories of God, Satan, and mans relationship with the two. It's certainly not enough for me to become theistic, but it is thought provoking at least.

[Jacob Kobryn]

I'm sorry for the post whoring but I just had this idea.

From a scientific perspective, why do we have pleasures or pains? Is it because we are so naturally lazy that without them we would never reproduce or eat and we are stupid that without pains we would constantly harm ourselves? There is a flaw in the "we have pains in order to avoid harm" belief and that is that a lot of harmful things cause pleasure, so why doesn't our brain then perceive these things as painful?

Also why does our species enjoy art or music? No other species creates such things other than naturally occurring aesthetics. It seems irregular to enjoy a painting or to enjoy creating one. What benefit does that have for ourselves or for our species?

[Opilione]

would it then imply that early humans worshiped so many idols and were so strong in their religious beliefs because they needed to?
Define need. Certain sections of society needed certain things and other sections of society usually needed other things. What's good for the goose is rarely good for the gander, etc etc. What generally happened was that the section of society with the most efficient ability to kill other people were the ones whose need won out. Did people really need to believe in something to make efficient methods of killing people? Perhaps you could argue it's more of an issue of believing in stories rather than idols or gods, since stories are what controls people. You construct enough of the right kinds of narrative in a society - a narrative of authoritarianism, a narrative of exclusion, a narrative of aggression and violence, a narrative of Imperialism and divine right - you have a pretty efficient killing-machine society. Call them narratives, discourses, paradigms, themes, "cultural values", morals, philosphies, whatever you want. It's all the same thing - stories designed to make people think a certain way.

It's not a conspiracy theory or an inherently good or bad thing, just the way humans function. And without the powerful belief in the stories, it's likely a lot of the defining events in human history would not have happened.

Also
No other species creates such things other than naturally occurring aesthetics.
The aesthetically pleasing and highly & unnaturally contrived nests of male birds to attract female birds don't count?

[bluefooted]

I'm sorry for the post whoring but I just had this idea.

From a scientific perspective, why do we have pleasures or pains? Is it because we are so naturally lazy that without them we would never reproduce or eat and we are stupid that without pains we would constantly harm ourselves? There is a flaw in the "we have pains in order to avoid harm" belief and that is that a lot of harmful things cause pleasure, so why doesn't our brain then perceive these things as painful?

Actually... (okay I'll stop) but that's pretty much exactly right. There's a genetic disease (forgot what it's called) that causes people to not ever feel pain. These people don't usually live very long. It's not just that they don't notice when they hurt themselves, they also have never known what it's like to hurt themselves, so they don't really learn to avoid situations that normal people would avoid. Think about how fast you learn to avoid touching a hot stove after you've made that mistake once - you'll never do it intentionally again.

By harmful things that cause pleasure do you mean like drugs and such? Or are you referring to people who get off on pain? Lots of drugs actually take advantage of existing 'pleasure' or 'reward' centers in the brain. These are parts of your brain that facilitate 'good' behaviors like eating and having sex. But we know other things can stimulate these brain pathways directly by chemically binding to receptors at different points (lots of drugs), or by simply invoking the same pathway (things like gambling and using the interweb). That's why people get addicted to these things. It's physiological. As far as people who get off on pain: sometimes that's learned, and you can reshape or redirect pathways in your brain so that some signals that would normally be painful are interpreted as pleasure. It could also arise through problems during brain development, and some diseases cause this as well.

Remember that it's hard to separate yourself from the actual processes that make you who you are because our brains are who we are. But imagine if there was no pleasure gained from having sex: no one had ever associated sex with pleasure and it just didn't feel good. I doubt anyone would go out of their way to have sex.

Also why does our species enjoy art or music? No other species creates such things other than naturally occurring aesthetics. It seems irregular to enjoy a painting or to enjoy creating one. What benefit does that have for ourselves or for our species?

The fantastic bird nests were already mentioned (google bowerbirds), but lots of other species have courtship dances, bright colors, beautiful songs. They 'appreciate' beauty too, they just do it in a different way. Here's a link to some bowerbird stuff:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bowerbirds/

Check out the 'Are bowers art?' page for some pictures (for some reason, it's really hard to find pictures of some of the more spectacular bowers).

[Gory]

It's called CIPA, bluefooted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis

Hooray House!

edit- Don't some elephants paint? Although I don't know whether it's just because that's how they're trained or they actually enjoy it. Hmm...

[s.ketch]

Uh, are you saying that evolution happens whenever an organism 'needs' something?
I hope not.

Even if a mutation allowed for a type of ESP, lets say seeing beyond visible light, it would probably be phased out through natural selection. I wouldn't consider it needed to enhance survival or reproduction. It would be cool to be able to to that, but probably would never become a common trait. The only way I would see it staying is for some kind of adaptation to living in an environment where a person with that ability is more likely to survive and reproduce (aka needed). I would think that mammals in situations of low or no light, even blindness tend to convert to sonar rather than infrared like reptiles.