Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rose]

My point with the anthill is to ask, why does there need to be a "single" consciousness at all? That's pretty much only basing this idea of a single entity "God" on ourselves. And it's arrogant to say that the way we "just happen" to operate as evolved entities, is ALSO the way "the creator of the universe" operates.

Anyway, why even a consciousness at all? Why limit the universe's potential by the model of our own existence, since we're a fairly insignificant randomly-created thing. "Consciousness" is something we only really know about from OURSELVES. To state the entirety of everything, ever, works on our personal species principle is very arrogant.

Why does the have to be a "mind" behind anything at all? Pretty much humans are very good at anthropomorphizing - probably due to our evolution as a social creature we project the idea of consciousness onto everything and everyone so we can better judge their future behavior. It works well for other humans, but not so well for inanimate objects. We see a "mind" in everything - volcanoes, trees, rocks, the wind, the moon, the sun, the stars, the Earth itself. We we wrong about there being a mind inside all those other things - i don't see any reason to give the benefit of the doubt to people who say "well we can't say for sure, so there's definitely a Mind behind the universe itself!".

This is the whole point of being an agnostic, though. It's impossible to know.

I think there is one, far greater and more vast than ours, but I know I could be wrong.

[Xantalos]

Well in Catholocism God is split into three consciousnesses.

Don't worry, it actually makes sense.

Because God got so offended by two people who don't even exist gaining sentience that he had to go down to earth in the form of a boy via impregnating a virgin teen with himself by willing it so, then spreading his word around before dying to appease himself.
God got some serious multiple personality disorder.

[Neonivek]

Well in Catholocism God is split into three consciousnesses.

Don't worry, it actually makes sense.

My personal theory is the three-way split is created by its own perfection and is a way to manifest as contradictory forms. (or rather so god can exhibit forms of perfection that cannot exist in a single being)

Unfortunately I cannot stay in this conversation type for now. It makes me queasy for some reason.

[Solifuge]

Perhaps because I feel like there is some... I dunno, sense of awe that appears to be widespread to human beings who have lived a particular while.  "This all happened!  How fantastic!  I'm a living being!"  And I would understand this sense of grandeur in miniature things to be the whisperings of a god, if you like--the moments at which a human being could safely scrape up against divinity.

But at the same time, I don't understand why with one side of the mouth a person could say "I am open and forgiving and humble" and with the other side of the mouth a person could say "You are going to burn in hell for all eternity even though you haven't broken any of the things we both know to be sins." (you know, obvious moral wrongs)

-snip-

Movements atheists proselytize and argue much like the more irritating religious folks with whom I'm familiar (so, if you drop that you're a believer of any stripe in a conversation, such a person would consider it his responsibility to divest you of your faith then and there).

"Movement Atheists," huh? I never had those words until now, so thank you! The reason I started using the term Agnostic instead of Atheist to describe my beliefs is because I wanted to distance myself from that sort of behavior. Richard Dawkins, though his enthusiasm is wonderful, really bothers me for reasons I haven't explored. I think it's that he's a dogmatic, callous, proselytizing ass- many of the things he decries about organized religion. Spirituality or religion, in my experience, aren't the universal forces for ignorance and suffering he makes them out to be. Even if there is nothing like God out there, a spirituality can help heal and provide direction for people who are lost and hurt, and gives us training wheels for moral behavior.

And then there's that "widespread sense of awe" you mention. It seems pretty universal to the human experience, to feel like there's some aspect of the consciousness or the self that extends beyond the immediately material. I don't feel that I can both assume I'm just a small conglomeration of limited sensory organs and neurons, while at the same time assuming an objective and solid-enough vantage point on the universe to really know its nature. Maybe this sense of Grandeur -is- just an evolutionary adaptation to keep us sane, and keep us from succumbing to feelings of futility at life, as conscious beings capable of abstract thought. Maybe there is a spiritual, non-material component to the self, like an immortal soul that reincarnates or gets to chill with a bunch of naked winged babies, flaming wheels, and/or giant orbs of eyes and wings once we die.

I just can't reconcile assuming I'm just this bag of meat with a limited perspective, and also assume that this bag of meat has such an objective and amazing vantage on the universe to know what it, itself, is. The mirror cannot know itself.

-snip-

This, very much. Though I can't go so far as to say that volcanoes, trees, etc. don't have anything like a mind; there's no reason for me to suspect it, but I also don't like ruling things out unless I have proof.. and I don't understand the nature of consciousness nearly well enough to know where it can be ascribed. Best guess is it's a Brain-based thing, but I don't know how the hell it even. Also, it's comforting to feel like I'm more than an illusion created as a short blip of activity by a lump of neurons, because that can make life feel really dark and lonely and futile sometimes... which runs at odds with how amazing and awesome life otherwise seems. I really liked when a friend of mine likened the brain to a "radio receiver, but for consciousness" in his spirituality.

I also don't like to rule out that sort of Animist consciousness thing because, if Pele, or any sentient volcanoes are reading this, they probably can't type to prove their existence, and I'd like to stay on good terms. Mostly though, they're much bigger than I am, and I'd like not to be buried under a heap of ash and molten rock.

[Lysabild]

I think it's pretty amazing that I'm basically just electrically charged flesh and I've gotta say I agree a lot more with Dawkins, the real world is far more awesome than any fairytale I ever heard.

[Dutchling]

Richard Dawkins, though his enthusiasm is wonderful, really bothers me for reasons I haven't explored. I think it's that he's a dogmatic, callous, proselytizing ass- many of the things he decries about organized religion. Spirituality or religion, in my experience, aren't the universal forces for ignorance and suffering he makes them out to be. Even if there is nothing like God out there, a spirituality can help heal and provide direction for people who are lost and hurt, and gives us training wheels for moral behavior.

Heh. I follow the guy on Twitter, and I agree that he doesn't try his very best to avoid hurting anyone's feelings . Honestly, if most of the religious right didn't respond to every one of his Tweet, I would probably stop following him, as he's not particularly interesting.

On one hand, I can understand how frustrating the mere existence of religion (or rather, well educated religious people) could annoy a scientist like Dawkins, but on the other hand, he is a bit of an asshole. Some of his 'New Atheist' friends are even worse though.

Spoiler: do those Tweets makes you think 'neuroscientist!' or 'random forum argument, lock incoming!' (click to show/hide)

[Loud Whispers]

"Movement Atheists," huh? I never had those words until now, so thank you! The reason I started using the term Agnostic instead of Atheist to describe my beliefs is because I wanted to distance myself from that sort of behavior. Richard Dawkins, though his enthusiasm is wonderful, really bothers me for reasons I haven't explored. I think it's that he's a dogmatic, callous, proselytizing ass- many of the things he decries about organized religion. Spirituality or religion, in my experience, aren't the universal forces for ignorance and suffering he makes them out to be. Even if there is nothing like God out there, a spirituality can help heal and provide direction for people who are lost and hurt, and gives us training wheels for moral behavior.

Yeah I used  to think that sort of behaviour wasn't necessary until my family started talking about Illuminati and the devil. It is not a good base for people to learn their morals from. It's material to reflect on not follow. In any case I'd still prefer a world of scientific dogmatists who are laconic beyond minuscule measure. People would actually listen to each other.

[Mr Space Cat]

The weekend's over. Again. My soul hurts at the thought of more weeks of school with such few breaks.

[Frumple]

Just a kind of generic thing to the last spat of discussion... Vec, there's folks out there that straddle the same area in regards to spiritual belief that you do. They're kinda' rare, but... I'm one, I've met a few others -- few of my professors, some fellow students... one or two folks in my general life (amusingly, at least three of them were ordained Christian priests >_>). Folks with an actual thorough-going understanding of faith and an appreciation of both "sides", so to speak, of the argument, even if they lean one way or another. Not to say you shouldn't give what's available a try and see what happens (for good or ill, I guess.), but just a sort of... don't lose hope kind of thing. They're out there, if that's a primary issue.

As a general thing, you might try hunting down some Buddhists or some of the related belief systems. From what I've seen (limited sample size, etc., etc.) they (the "eastern" spiritual beliefs in general) seem to be a bit more open on that front than the abrahamic inspired systems.

[Graknorke]

There is no way for humanity to reach its maximum potential in terms of scientific and engineering achievements while still having freedom for individuals that I can think of.
This makes me sad.

[pisskop]

Margret Thatcher died.

This ensadens me.

[Skyrunner]

Of Billy Elliot fame to me. o_O

[SalmonGod]

I relate almost completely to your side of things as well, Vector, and to Reelya's bit on the nature of consciousness.

While I've never heard the term "movement athiest", it makes perfect sense to me.  I know exactly what you're talking about, and I've been annoyed with these people for years.  I know people who literally believe that religion is the source of all humanity's problems, and like to repeat the words "logic" and "reason" constantly as if only people who function the same as they do have a monopoly on those things and it makes them infallible.  The arrogance drives me crazy.

But they're just doing the same thing as religious dogma.  The only difference is their reasoning can be objectively evaluated, and that's a good thing.  It just doesn't mean that it's the ONLY useful or valid way to experience the world.

And I don't understand why organized religion has to be structured like it is, either, except for the obvious "human beings are tribal by nature" hand-waves.  I do see it as being all about control.  There are just way too many contradictions to the very idea of spiritual belief being such a strictly monopolized and regulated thing, and it drives me crazy that people buy into it.

And it really is awkward being in the middle.  Like Pnx sort of pointed out, it seems like the majority of people can't grasp non-absolutist styles of thinking.  Like it's somehow existentially crippling to them if they can't latch on to a single idea and cry out "This is the one and only correct answer!!!"  And they get upset with anyone else who doesn't have the same need to do that.  Like it makes them insecure to be around someone who doesn't share their insecurities.

I also think the bit about anthropomorphization is really relevant.  As much as I'm all about this non-absolutist take on reality perception and respecting people's beliefs and such... I personally rule out completely any religious belief that describes higher order beings as having consciousness and personality directly relatable to our own. 

The way I like to understand it these days is something like this.

We are essentially a particle system.  The cellular make-up of our body is a particle system.  The molecular make-up of our cells is a particle system.  The atomic make-up of those molecules is a particle system.  Somehow our consciousness is a result of this particle system that manages to not only be something more than, but completely different from the sum of its parts.  The process of our consciousness may or may not be entirely material, but the product is something immaterial and abstract.

So why don't we look at other particle systems as being potentially the same way?  What about the particle systems we participate in every day?  Are we a part of a thing that is greater than the sum of its parts, just like the cells in our bodies?  I know many people will think "gaia theory" as soon as they read that, but that's just our planet, right?  What about the universe?  We could be something to the universe as a single atom is to our own bodies.

This is sort of how I view any potential spiritual nature to the universe.  And also why I find most existing religions quite silly.  Do you ever communicate with your blood cells?  Could you if you wanted to?

[ChairmanPoo]

Do you ever communicate with your blood cells?  Could you if you wanted to?

Yes

[RedKing]

Weather is absolutely freakin' GORGEOUS outside. Like, *perfect*.

And I'm stuck inside at a desk.