2008 Templeton prize winner.

[2b]

NewScientist.com news service

Any one who is aware of what the Templeton foundations' goals are or anyone who has read Dawkins for that matter will understand the issues behind this prize. His work does sound interesting.

[Guest shroomnoob]

Now they are paying theists to bastardize science and justify irrational bs.

What a crazy world we live in..

Go Dawkins

[puck]

shroomnoob, are you perchance an *hushed tones* atheist?

Y'know the most annoying thing about people of strong belief? Evangelism, proselytising and lack of respect for metaphysical diversity. Contrasted with people of strong faith, who tend to just chill out and accept whatever.

Trouble is, atheism is as much a belief system as any theism. A little harder to see as such, due to a certain modern conceptual hegemony. I did it for a few years, militantly of course, and I regret none of that. (Still, I reckon I should've listened to the Druids in the dream I had as a kid the first time I flirted in that direction, warning me against it.)

Faith in spiritual realms, in God, or in the non-existence of both, in my shaky linguistic definitions anyway, is different to 'belief' in that it is highly personal and doesn't lend itself to being forced on others.

I'm not accusing you of forcing your beliefs on others, but I have noticed a certain arrogance in the way you put them forward. It can make for good debates, but can be interpreted as obnoxious in the wrong setting...

But then what do I care? You're going to hell anyway, seeing as you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

(Pls note puck is being ironic - he enjoys making fun of his own beliefs, as he tends to do it better than other people do.)

[Guest shroomnoob]

Well i agree with you that atheists are just a ludicrous as theists and that is why i am not an atheist.

But still, theists have nothing more than faith to go on they are fair game.

[Guest Øskorei]

Trouble is, atheism is as much a belief system as any theism.

Fuck yes. So too the 'rules' of anarchy. And for that matter, those who try too hard to represent themselves as 'alternative'. Classifications are such bullshit.

Resist "The Man", then Resist the Resistance Movement. Be at one within and regard both left & right belief branding as a sporting brainwash. Question the authorities that tell us to question authority.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Øskorei

[Guest shroomnoob]

wtf

I was think more along the lines of being an open minded skeptic and not making claims of certainty one way or the other when you simply dont know.

[puck]

Øskorei, you make it too bloody hard. What if I wanna bleat like a sheep? Who will tell me what to do? (Gotta say, my teenage rebellion was kinda blown apart when reading a social psychology textbook. Two groups of people dependent on the status quo: conformists and anti-conformists. The independent person is something other entirely.)

Noob, please tell me, because I am inordinately fascinated by you, if not also by your arsehole. Not that I have any desire to put you in a category - well, fuck it, yes I do. Define yourself for me! Reduce your belief system into a short paragraph that I might classify it according to my metaphysical nomenclature.

Seriously tho, if you're agnostic, isn't there some sort of humbling process that goes with an admission - etymologically speaking - of 'not knowing'?

If nothing else, tell me what you do not find ludicrous. Unless everything is, which is fair enough...

[Guest shroomnoob]

I am the author of the following book: http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/

Its more of a 50 page booklet really full of my terrible grammar and ramblings but i managed to piss off a few thousand buddhists with it.

If i was to define myself i would have to say that i am a talking monkey with clothes on that doesnt know and finds it highly unlikely that any monkey alive today or throughout history has known. One step up from a chimpanzee and a loooooooooooong way away from omniscience and "truth" leaving me with little more than pesky skepticism and the likelihood of nihlism.

[Guest Øskorei]

I am the author of the following book: http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/

Oh yea..... Onemind.

[Guest shroomnoob]

[t st tantra]

anyone who can piss off a few thousand budhists cant be all bad.......

t s t .

[MORG]

anyone who can piss off a few thousand budhists cant be all bad.......

t s t .

That's why we gave em the Olympic games

[nabraxas]

THE FOURTEEN PRECEPTS OF ENGAGED BUDDHISM

2

Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

6

Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.

9

Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively.

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/14_precepts.html

i guess if anyone was pissed off by onemind's views they couldn't really be called buddhist.

[chilli]

THE FOURTEEN PRECEPTS OF ENGAGED BUDDHISM

2

Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

6

Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.

9

Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively.

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/14_precepts.html

i guess if anyone was pissed off by onemind's views they couldn't really be called buddhist.

Well, only if all buddhists perfectly embody the ideals they are striving to attain.

[nabraxas]

i don't think you'd have to be anywhere near a perfect buddhist to have the sense not to get pissed off by onemind's "terrible grammar and ramblings"

[chilli]

i don't think you'd have to be anywhere near a perfect buddhist to have the sense not to get pissed off by onemind's "terrible grammar and ramblings"

I just read that sentence at least ten times, and I'm still not quite sure I get what you are saying... I'm sure it's my brain that's at fault, but could you rephrase because I want to get it.

PS. This is not a sarcastic joke, I really want to know. I think you mean anyone would get pissed off if they had to read onemind's book, but it doesn't read like that, which is why I assume my perverse brain is at fault (ie. it's arriving at a different conclusion to the one you have expressly written).

[nabraxas]

i meant that it shouldn't be too hard to remain calm when faced w/onemind's "terrible grammar and ramblings".

i realised it was abit ov a mouthful when i posted it, but couldn't find a more snappy phrasing.

[puck]

any interaction is an opportunity to learn. when emotion is stimulated, it can be a good sign that "there's learning to be done, boy." it's being mindful of the emotion, i've been told, that's the key, rather than engaging with it. oh, you can piss of a Buddhist alright, he just might not let on, cuz he's too busy studying the situation.

anyway, back to the original topic of the thread.

It doesn't seem to me that finding common ground between science and some particular theological conception of God should be held to be 'bastardising science'. At least by being consciously pursued it gives a salutary alternative to the atheistic tendencies of people to do the same unconsciously. There's a whole scientistic convention of thinking that 'because all phenomena in set X are explicable without resort to theological concept G (and incidentally set X, containing all the phenomena which are of interest to us, is by convention the only set of valid, actual, real phenomena) therefore G does not exist.' It is quite funny.

Atheist scientists have a great love of Occam's Razor: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, or in plain language: keep it simple stupid, don't make a fancy-shmancy explanation when a simple one will do. In many valid explanations of cosmology, God is not required, therefore oughtn't be postulated. But hang on, i say the non-existence of God is an entity as much as It's existence. Don't fucken multiply that one, mister.

[2b]

Michael (Michal) Hellers' work quite frankly is beyond me. Non-commutative geometry and groupoid theory are very heavy going. It always makes me step back and look at my own preconceived ideas of religious people when it appears they actually have faith and a brilliant mind. Dawkins thinks that faith falls away as inteligence increases, but I come across many more exceptions to this idea than I feel comfortable with. I have always considered myself 'agnostic with doubts'. Not having the strength to be athiest and being a fence sitter is a little weak , but I just can't say that the issue of faith is binary.

[puck]

I think that intelligence and faith are competely separate spectra. Although, it is curious to discover a few facts about Personality Psychology. One of the Five Factors in some personality-psychological paradigms is Openness, or Openness to Experience. It correlates highly with certain religious orientations (definitely not with fundamentalism), belief in magic etc, and is also the only factor of personality that has any significant correlation with Intelligence. This relationship is weak, but it exists nonetheless.

There are a huge number of intelligent atheists - Dawkins and noob among them - but I am uncomfortable with the number of them who act like arseholes. The religious bigots who act like arseholes tend to be highly unintelligent, in my experience. But then, I feel mysefl projecting. In a lot of ways, these dickheads are very intelligent, but the fact that men of faith can be arseholes leads me to think of them as stupid. I dunno.

I tend to think that anyone with a large degree of practical metaphysical and interpersonal intelligence will have the humility to accept that others' ideas about the Universe are at least as valid as their own, even if the other person lack the ability to articulate or rationalise them to the same level of sophistication. Meaning: just cuz i use big words don't make me right. Just cuz i think about it real hard, don't make it so.