<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Defining Atheism: Part Two</title>
	<link>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:30:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: dave walker</title>
		<link>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>dave walker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:07:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/#comment-460</guid>
		<description>having no personal experience of the supernatural I regard it as a human  
  invention devised to make more palatable the bitter pill of death, but would like
  to be proved wrong. 

  I share your curiosity about alien life. If it exists on distant worlds orbiting     
  other stars, who is to say that evolution would necessarily produce intelligent,   
  technologically adept apemen like us? We aren't the target of Earth evolution 
  but just one of an infinite range of possible species, so it follows that any 
  intelligent aliens on a far flung planet could be of a completely different 
  pattern. Brainy fish creatures, huge reptiles or peculiar luminescent floating
  plaques on a liquid world might represent the dominant life forms, with no 
  Earthlike technologies enabling them to communicate their presence to us.

  My hope is that alien life might be found in my lifetime in our solar system, 
  perhaps in microbial form beneath the crust of an area of Mars where water 
  exists or under the surface of Jupiter's mysterious satellite, Europa.

  Soul music is another matter. I don't associate soul with any kind of        
  disembodied entity, it's more like hearing an authentic voice that hits the spot, 
  stimulates the correct electro chemical pleasure centre in the brain's frontal
  lobe or something. Al Green can do it for me, or Curtis Mayfield, Or Jeff Beck, 
  or Edward Elgar. It's a nice feeling, but probably completely explainable within 
  boring old mechanistic parameters....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>having no personal experience of the supernatural I regard it as a human<br />
  invention devised to make more palatable the bitter pill of death, but would like<br />
  to be proved wrong. </p>
<p>  I share your curiosity about alien life. If it exists on distant worlds orbiting<br />
  other stars, who is to say that evolution would necessarily produce intelligent,<br />
  technologically adept apemen like us? We aren&#8217;t the target of Earth evolution<br />
  but just one of an infinite range of possible species, so it follows that any<br />
  intelligent aliens on a far flung planet could be of a completely different<br />
  pattern. Brainy fish creatures, huge reptiles or peculiar luminescent floating<br />
  plaques on a liquid world might represent the dominant life forms, with no<br />
  Earthlike technologies enabling them to communicate their presence to us.</p>
<p>  My hope is that alien life might be found in my lifetime in our solar system,<br />
  perhaps in microbial form beneath the crust of an area of Mars where water<br />
  exists or under the surface of Jupiter&#8217;s mysterious satellite, Europa.</p>
<p>  Soul music is another matter. I don&#8217;t associate soul with any kind of<br />
  disembodied entity, it&#8217;s more like hearing an authentic voice that hits the spot,<br />
  stimulates the correct electro chemical pleasure centre in the brain&#8217;s frontal<br />
  lobe or something. Al Green can do it for me, or Curtis Mayfield, Or Jeff Beck,<br />
  or Edward Elgar. It&#8217;s a nice feeling, but probably completely explainable within<br />
  boring old mechanistic parameters&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/#comment-459</link>
		<dc:creator>John Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/#comment-459</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;why single gods out from a multitude of other unprovable and evidence free items that one could bring up to argue about&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I don't single out gods. In fact, I'm pretty sure nobody does. The question isn't really about God so much as it is about the metaphysical. The soul, ghosts, God and gods, the "supernatural". The question that concerns most people is whether or not the physical universe is the only universe. 

I have to admit, I find the question interesting. I don't see any evidence for "souls" or non-physical reality, but then we don't see any evidence for alien civilizations either, and that doesn't stop our curiosity.

&lt;blockquote&gt;In a world of fairness and justice, shouldn’t every dubious entity to find expression in the human imagination be accorded an A prefixed entry in the
Webster’s to define non believers?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Words are often the product of necessity. If enough people become interested in denying that souls exist, maybe we will have a word for that. Just don't tell James Brown. ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>why single gods out from a multitude of other unprovable and evidence free items that one could bring up to argue about</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t single out gods. In fact, I&#8217;m pretty sure nobody does. The question isn&#8217;t really about God so much as it is about the metaphysical. The soul, ghosts, God and gods, the &#8220;supernatural&#8221;. The question that concerns most people is whether or not the physical universe is the only universe. </p>
<p>I have to admit, I find the question interesting. I don&#8217;t see any evidence for &#8220;souls&#8221; or non-physical reality, but then we don&#8217;t see any evidence for alien civilizations either, and that doesn&#8217;t stop our curiosity.</p>
<blockquote><p>In a world of fairness and justice, shouldn’t every dubious entity to find expression in the human imagination be accorded an A prefixed entry in the<br />
Webster’s to define non believers?</p></blockquote>
<p>Words are often the product of necessity. If enough people become interested in denying that souls exist, maybe we will have a word for that. Just don&#8217;t tell James Brown. <img src='http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave walker</title>
		<link>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/#comment-456</link>
		<dc:creator>dave walker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/18/defining-atheism-part-two/#comment-456</guid>
		<description>All very philosophically sound I'm sure but what about the fact that there's no 
  evidence to make anyone propose the existence of a god in the first place? 
  why single gods out from a multitude of other unprovable and evidence free 
  items that one could bring up to argue about. Why hasn't The Oxford 
  Companion To Philosophy and Webster's International Dictionary devoted
  entries to A-fairyism, A-santaism, A-teapotism and A-t'pauism. [the last of 
  these is for a type of person who doesn't believe in Spock's mother].
 
  In a world of fairness and justice, shouldn't every dubious entity to find 
  expression in the human imagination be accorded an A prefixed entry in the 
  Webster's to define non believers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All very philosophically sound I&#8217;m sure but what about the fact that there&#8217;s no<br />
  evidence to make anyone propose the existence of a god in the first place?<br />
  why single gods out from a multitude of other unprovable and evidence free<br />
  items that one could bring up to argue about. Why hasn&#8217;t The Oxford<br />
  Companion To Philosophy and Webster&#8217;s International Dictionary devoted<br />
  entries to A-fairyism, A-santaism, A-teapotism and A-t&#8217;pauism. [the last of<br />
  these is for a type of person who doesn&#8217;t believe in Spock&#8217;s mother].</p>
<p>  In a world of fairness and justice, shouldn&#8217;t every dubious entity to find<br />
  expression in the human imagination be accorded an A prefixed entry in the<br />
  Webster&#8217;s to define non believers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
