Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theoryPage 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
I like this idea. It reminds me of Dawkins' idea about memes, something that I think is really cool, and really useful. I think it is so useful, that I would consider him for a Nobel prize for that one. But all his controversies and discussions about religion just cloud that. I think, that hundreds of years from now, that's how they'll think about Dawkin's contributions to science.

I know that seems a bit off-topic. But this is directly related to the idea of memes, and when we talk about memes, it's important to keep off Dawkins' controversies.

I think that CPGT directly needs the concept of memes as the currency of the beliefs that are transferred. Each belief is a meme, or a part of a meme, or both.

Creationism is a meme. Atheism that is opposed to creationism is also a meme.

Eventually (according to the theory of CPGT) the war between creationism vs atheism will result in a new group of thinking more efficient, more powerful, and more encompassing than either of the two groups.
Ahhh, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's a theory. But I'm not entirely sure that this will occur. It doesn't have to. All that has to happen, is that both ideas are motivated for something to occur. It seems to me that right now, we're just getting friction, that is causing splintering and conflict.

But I would agree that if we do fuse human concepts into one, that we'll fuse atheism and theism, into one combined, consistent whole, a view of G-d that is not anthromorphosised as an immoral, physical, super-being, like Superman, or the Greek gods, but more like the concept of a Universal Cosmic Consciousness, with each group expressing their admiration and respect for that UCC in whatever ways they feel most appropriate, while respecting others ways at the same time.

I think, in the future, we might still have the right of speech, not the right of free speech without limit, but the right of free speech with respect, the right to say anything you want, but only in ways that show respect for all other groups.
 Sk3pt1c
Joined: 11/25/2009
Msg: 4
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/6/2009 7:14:41 PM

I think, in the future, we might still have the right of speech, not the right of free speech without limit, but the right of free speech with respect, the right to say anything you want, but only in ways that show respect for all other groups.


I have to disagree with you here.
I think it's important to respect each others RIGHT to believe as they like, but I believe it's just plain wrong to say that we must respect WHAT they believe.
A good example? How about the fact that we allowed Afghanistan to write into their constitution that apostasy can still bring the death penalty. Hell, why are we there if we allow that kind of thing to go on? If we are going to sit back and allow political correctness stop us from standing up for basic human rights, then we get what we deserve.
I don't give time to those who tolerate intolerance. Many religions/religious people have no respect for out groups, and whats more, they actively attempt to subvert out groups, and have no time for basic human rights.
I know this makes me come off as one of those "fundamentalist atheists" and that's fine with me. I am who I am.
As far as Dawkins goes, hell, I say put him up for a Nobel prize BECAUSE of his controversies! I drove 12 hrs to Minneapolis this past spring to hear his "Purpose of Purpose" lecture, and he was spot on!
Pantheism, thats where I think we are headed, but again, I have to agree with Dawkins that this is merely "sexed up atheism"
Have you read his new book? It's better than The God Delusion.
Also, has anyone here read any Ayaan Hirsi Ali? "Infidel" gives an eye opening look into what growing up as a Muslim girl is like. I would also suggest "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer.
Sorry, didnt mean to rant!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 9:50:16 AM
RE Msg: 4 by Sk3pt1c:
I have to disagree with you here.
I think it's important to respect each others RIGHT to believe as they like, but I believe it's just plain wrong to say that we must respect WHAT they believe.
Then you realise, by the same token, that it's important for others to respect your right to believe as you liked, but that it's just plain wrong for anyone to respect WHAT you believe.

A good example? How about the fact that we allowed Afghanistan to write into their constitution that apostasy can still bring the death penalty.
It depends.

As long as they give the choice for an apostate to reject apostasy before killing him, then they are simply stamping out apostasy, and are not respecting apostasy. They only are against choice, when they demand that anyone who has ever chosen apostasy, even if they later rejected it, should be killed, simply for making that choice once in their lives. So as long as they give the apostate a chance to reject apostasy before killing him, then they are not respecting apostasy, but still are respecting the individual's right to choose apostasy.

I don't give time to those who tolerate intolerance. Many religions/religious people have no respect for out groups, and whats more, they actively attempt to subvert out groups, and have no time for basic human rights.
Many religions/religious people have plenty of respect for "out" groups. I have plenty of time for those, just as I do for non-religious people who have plenty of respect for "out" groups.

Many non-religious people have no respect for "out" groups, and what is more, they actively attempt to subvert "out" groups, and have no time for basic human rights. I don't give time to those people, any more than I give time to those religions/religious people who are intolerant.

I know this makes me come off as one of those "fundamentalist atheists" and that's fine with me. I am who I am.
It makes you come off as a NON-fundamentalist atheist. "Fundamentalist" means to return to the fundamentals. A "fundamentalist atheist" is someone who believes in the fundamentals of atheism, and nothing else. The fundamentals of atheism are just that G-d doesn't exist. Preaching about it, or casting insults on non-atheists, is not a part of that at all.

As far as Dawkins goes, hell, I say put him up for a Nobel prize BECAUSE of his controversies! I drove 12 hrs to Minneapolis this past spring to hear his "Purpose of Purpose" lecture, and he was spot on!
There have been plenty of great atheistic thinkers through history, Hume and Bertrand Russell, to name a few. But they were founded in logic and reason. The reason why many people don't like Dawkins, is because Dawkins doesn't go in their line. He comes off as preachy, as making assumptions that aren't true, and almost preaching a religion of his own. As a result, some atheist philosophers refuse to agree with his views.

Pantheism, thats where I think we are headed,
Actually, the world is heading for what Irving Berlin called "pluralism". It's a view that no-one has the right to denigrate someone else's views. You are not smarter than everyone else. So others' views are just as worthy as yours. You would not denigrate your views. So why denigrate any views that are equal to yours?

That is nothing to do with religion. It's to do with how you consider others' views. In pluralism, it's just as offensive to be denigrating of another's religion, as it is to make fun of a vegetarian, just because you aren't one.

but again, I have to agree with Dawkins that this is merely "sexed up atheism"
One might only consider pluralism as a PC-version of atheism, if one believes that atheism is still the "exclusive truth", but that we wish to not tell everyone else that their beliefs are lies, to make our views seem more acceptable. But the attitude of believing that you are better than someone else, but pretending to uphold their beliefs as equally valid, even if it's just in terms of you having the "right" beliefs, or them having the "wrong" beliefs, is passive-aggressiveness. This is nothing more than passive-aggressive atheism.

Passive-aggressiveness always results in the same things. You cannot keep up a lie forever. Eventually, you slip up, and reveal that you believe that you are the only one wiht the truth, and that everyone else is delusional. Freud pointed out that you cannot help but reveal the truth sometime, due to the nature of the subconscious, and that this is intentional on the part of the subconscious. It's called a "Freudian slip". Passive-aggressiveness always reveals its aggressive nature. When that happens, then people acknowledge that you were always aggressive, but that you were trying to pretend you weren't, to trick them into believing that you were speaking from an assertion of logic and reason, when really you were trying to manipulate them instead of using force to make them think as you believe. It's equally repugnant.

But aggression will not be tolerated either. Aggression's root is the desire to force others to bend to your will. It matters not if that is in beliefs, or in actions. It is nothing more than a move towards totalitarian dictatorship. It has to be fought at all costs, or our liberty will be ripped from us.

That is why there are only 2 types of atheists, just like there are only 2 types of theists. Those who are oppressors, and pluralists. Pluralists respect that others might not want to accept that each person's view is as valid as their own. But if they are not, then from the others' perspective, our views are not as valid as theirs. It's fair play.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 6
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 3:06:26 PM

But I would agree that if we do fuse human concepts into one, that we'll fuse atheism and theism, into one combined, consistent whole, a view of G-d that is not anthromorphosised as an immoral, physical, super-being, like Superman, or the Greek gods, but more like the concept of a Universal Cosmic Consciousness, with each group expressing their admiration and respect for that UCC in whatever ways they feel most appropriate, while respecting others ways at the same time.


Actually this was done several thousand years ago. Taoism, which people often mistake for a religion, but it is not. It is a philosophy.

But a good thought, Scorp...

Great topic, Exo...I especially like the way you presented it...
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 3:28:10 PM
I think all belief systems should evolve.
which makes non of them 100% right at this moment.
WHICH should encourage us to at least listen to others.

for a minute or two anyway.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 8
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 3:36:45 PM

which makes non of them 100% right at this moment.


But the natural world is a dynamic one, it's constantly changing; that's the point.

"Moments" on their own, without being relative to other "moments", have nothing to compare to.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 4:00:52 PM
yes, but there are truths that stand the time forever.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 4:02:50 PM
RE Msg: 6 by Paul K:
When you wrote this, you had to have miswritten:

''As long as they give the choice for an apostate to reject apostasy before killing him, then they are simply stamping out apostasy, and are not respecting apostasy. They only are against choice, when they demand that anyone who has ever chosen apostasy, even if they later rejected it, should be killed, simply for making that choice once in their lives. So as long as they give the apostate a chance to reject apostasy before killing him, then they are not respecting apostasy, but still are respecting the individual's right to choose apostasy.''

WTF????? So you are saying that the right of "choice" is more important life? Given that there would be those that wouldn't reject apostasy, as long as the APOSTATE has the RIGHT to CHOOSE apostasy or not, is MORE important than whether or not they whack his head off???????????????????????



Please explain.
I was writing it exactly as I intended. I was using the logic of the poster in msg 2. You can see exactly what results from it. It results in the same, from whoever, Muslims, Xians, Mormons, Moonies, atheists, whatever.

That's one reason why it's just not viable to say that you can respect someone's freedom of choice, and not respect what they believe in. It's both, or neither.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 14
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:03:16 PM

yes, but there are truths that stand the time forever.


Absolutes?

Care to name a few, ...or even one?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:48:16 PM
I'm a guy...........what are you getting at?

there are also many truths we don't know yet.

most don't look or care.

I am also going to say that a lot of us are looking in the wrong direction.

after all this old world isnt passing the grade, which might suggest we are on a wrong track.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 16
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:56:56 PM

there are also many truths we don't know yet.


I'd again ask for examples, but, well ...yknow.


most don't look or care


One of the two avenues of discovery does both, and does so with more doubt than certainty.


I am also going to say that a lot of us are looking in the wrong direction.


Some don't look at all, they even accept a certainty that has absolutely no evidence to support it


after all this old world isnt passing the grade


Compared to ???
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/7/2009 8:02:16 PM
I said, I'm a guy! absolutely!

compared to its potential.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/8/2009 10:18:45 AM
RE Msg: 15 by Paul K:
I DO believe in freedom of choice, and DO believe that people have the right to believe as they wish, even if it is my extinction. I would NOT respect that belief of theirs, but, unless they ACTED on it, I would respect their right in freedom of choice and thought. If they were to ACT on their belief, I would do whatever it took to protect myself and others who believed as I do. Once they were to ACT on their BELIEF, which I have no respect for in the first place, they would lose their right to that choice.
But if YOU think this, then others must be able to take the same view. So let's look at it from others' POV who agree with you:

People DO believe in freedom of choice, and DO believe that YOU have the right to believe as you wish, even if it means their extinction. People would NOT respect that belief of yours, but, unless you ACTED on it, people would respect your right in freedom of choice and thought. If YOU were to ACT on your belief, people would do whatever it took to protect themselves and others who believed as they do. Once YOU were to ACT on your BELIEF, which they have no respect for in the first place, YOU would lose YOUR right to that choice.

Effectively, that says that you can believe what you want. But if you try to act according to your beliefs, then everyone will stop you, and if required, incarcerate you, and if necessary, kill you. But you aren't going to act against your beliefs. So you can do nothing. Congratulations. You've just made a world in which you are not allowed to accomplish anything, especially running your own business.

Let me explain it this way........ At the risk of using a historic figure that is way-overused, Would you respect hitler for his belief that the arayan race was superior, and his heartfelt belief that jews should be exterminated? My guess is that you wouldn't. Neither do I. That having been said, if he just lived in the basement of a dinghy apartment in Austria somewhere, and just wrote leaflets that nobody read, and that is where it ended...... The question becomes........ SO EFFING WHAT......... However, when those beliefs of his become ACTION, then we have a problem.
The problem, is that Hitler DID live in a dingy basement, writing leaflets that nobody read. He wrote Mein Kampf when he was in Jail. At that point, he had some supporters, but for the most part, history ignored him. It was only AFTER this period, that he became the successful leader of Germany, and that was only because no-one but Churchill saw him as a threat, and even then, everyone in the UK and the US ignored Churchill's warnings.

What you are saying is that one cannot even have evil thoughts. As far as I am concerned, those with evil in their hearts can marinate in as much evil and hate as they wish, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ACT ON IT. See the difference? What you are arguing for is political correctness in its n'th degree.
No. What I am saying, is that psychology has shown us that if you believe something, the subconscious will force you to act on it, no matter what it is. It's impossible for you not to act on your beliefs. So you're going to encourage others to marinate evil in their hearts, will full subconscious knowledge that they will act on it, and when that happens, you're going to do "whatever it took" to protect myself and others who believed as I do. But you've never defined what that is. Usually, that involves pitchforks and burning alive, or white pointy hats and hanging, or a stay in Guantanamo and water-torture. You're advocating a supposedly liberal viewpoint, that must result in a tyrannical attack on others, without ever stating where you will stop, which is almost always way past the atrocity line. Your views do NOT fill me with happiness.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/8/2009 10:45:13 AM
hey paul, talking evil IS acting it out.
that's all some have to do.
others carry on with the actual carnage.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:04:46 PM
paul

where does verbalizing crazy thoughts fit in?
know what I mean?........just put the crazy ideas out there, and let the sheeples take over.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:59:47 PM
miss read your hitler comment, paul, thought you approved.

but, you know, if the rest of the world could think properly for themselves, [which it never will], we wouldn't have a problem with the odd lunetic spewing crap.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 12/8/2009 1:51:27 PM
hey mark

is this the wise way to do whatever you are doing?

just wondering.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 25
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/24/2010 2:43:50 PM
The thing that's missing from typical cosmology discussions is the notion of questioning the very notion that there has to be a "beginning."

If one looks deep enough into it, all beginnings, as we know them, are defined, and the real processes (in a physical sense) are more like transformations.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 26
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/24/2010 2:53:09 PM
hi... with man made concepts I can see this working however with True Conversion Gods Spirit Convicts an individual, not a group of fellow individuals... God is not human, His Frequency is Universal Truth... Truth does not evolve, it is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow and Forever... what evolves is the individuals Connection to and the Acceptance of Gods Universal Truth... blessings
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 28
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/25/2010 1:47:09 AM
It's evident to me the idea of "God" as some sort of monarch who lords over everything is a throwback from the Bronze Age, when monarchy was all people knew.

God as being the great spirit in everything human, animal, mineral, energetic, etc., makes more sense to me. Within that context, "God's Universal Truth" is a self-evident truism: the frequency is simply that of the dance of life itself. And of course the more one is attuned to it, the more one shall be blessed.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 29
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/25/2010 6:37:02 PM
hi.. in response to message 36... again, in True Conversion it will never be a matter of evolving or giving in, it will always be a personal choice between the individual and Their Maker, no other being is involved.. I am just saying... whatever I am planting, rest assured that if it is Truth, it is not of my making... and yes, Gods Will WILL be done.. the Idea is that God Loves us so much that He Offers us a place in His Will... God does not benefit because we accept His Truth, we do.. see the need now???....well I do... as far as physical observations go, I could write a book on them but it has already been done.... my answer to the OP remains the same, the theory does not apply to True Conversion....blessings
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 30
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/26/2010 7:34:17 AM
Let's drag it back to exogenist's CPGT theory. I'm just going to be as deliberately provocative as possible, because (a) it's faster, and (b) I'm bored and I like provoking (debates, stodgy people, potentially dangerous animals, etc.)

1. "...taken from my all matter is conscious assumption." Er, WTF? All matter is conscious? Howzat? Please identify for me, if you would, one (1) bona fide piece of evidence that could possibly suggest that such an assumption is accurate. Live humans are conscious. Living dogs are conscious. Trees? Very unlikely. Rocks, dirt, dead pigs? I defy you to establish that the bacon I just ate was conscious. Unless you're simply insisting on a peculiar definition of "conscious". In which case, o.k., the bacon was conscious, and I'm Harvey Keitel, where's my royalty cheques, d*mmit?

2. Other than that oddity, this so-called CPGT is just garden-variety Hegel presented with a different grab-bag of meaningless metaphors (nodes, tendencies, symbiosis, software) and a pinch of geographic determinism tossed in for flavour. Still tastes pretty much the same, though.

3. The CPGT probably isn't Taoism (or Daoism, pick your transliteration). As for Daoism being a "philosopy" not a "religion" it's quite a leap in logic to presume that it's unnamed inventor (or inventors-- the various Chinese civilizations in that era did not have our fixation on authorship) made such distinctions.

4. Back to the "everything being conscious" business: once you accept that what's going on here is nothing more than peculiar redefinition of the word, this CPGT is nothing more than garden-variety atheism, albeit with funny metaphors.

Once you have gotten away from the notion of a distinct entity or entities which have done various things (kick-started the world, invented the days of the week as a pretext for not working on one of them, gotten miffed at a guy for eating fruit you put there in the first place, planted a few fossils to mislead English naturalists on ocean voyages, arranged for the enslavement and subsequent liberation of a group of desert vagabonds whose children would subsequently be forbidden to eat lobster or cheesesteaks without getting you angry) and into the airy territory of 'rocks think therefore the universe is similar to a human mind' you're talking atheism, my friend, pure and simple.

EDIT: Oh, and Paul K, (hello again) talking is not action. Action is action. Talking is talking. Hence that whole First Amendment business.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 33
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/26/2010 2:27:22 PM
"Arguing the ideological structure and their effect on society in context of CPGT or its dis-proof is preferred."

bingo, another thread where Truth is made void...ok, last comment on a thread that only wants theories and lies... the problem with scientific and philosophical people is that they already think they know everything and that they are above enlightenment... sometimes the True answers are not popular but censoring any answer is closed... blessings
 DearlyDeparted™
Joined: 1/21/2010
Msg: 34
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/26/2010 2:30:18 PM

they know everything and that they are above enlightenment

So says the arbiter of truth....


True answers

Usually have evidence of their truth.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 35
Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory
Posted: 1/26/2010 3:16:32 PM

the problem with scientific and philosophical people is that they already think they know everything


That's funny - scientific and philosophical people are the first to admit that they don't know everything... that's the whole basis for their inquiries.

The *religious*, on the other hand, are the ones claiming to be privy to 'Ultimate Truth and Knowledge'.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Creationism vs. Atheism and the CPGT theory