Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 8:28 PM
361 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, Meddle, Percy (Admin) (7 members, 354 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,116 Year: 25,722/21,208 Month: 1,349/2,338 Week: 106/364 Day: 57/49 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 61 of 82 (699249)
05-16-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AZPaul3
05-16-2013 10:42 AM


Re: Nothing Special
AZ writes:

Misogynistic SOB because he can't get a girl because he doesn't bathe and stinks real bad.

Girl? What's a "girl".....?

(***Straggler adjusts his pop bottle specs, strokes his pocket protector full of pencils and tries to surreptitiously waft away the stench of unwashed Y fronts***)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2013 10:42 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2013 11:47 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 62 of 82 (699253)
05-16-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Straggler
05-16-2013 11:23 AM


Re: Nothing Special
Girl? What's a "girl".....?

Oh ... what you don't know!

(squirms to adjust himself)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2013 11:23 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 63 of 82 (699290)
05-16-2013 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
05-16-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Nothing Special
Straggler writes:

God after all is a mathematician...

Numbers of numbers, all is numbers, saith the mathematician...(with apologies to Ecclesiastes).

I guess I'd take the Book of Job over the Book of Numbers: God is one mean bastard, and everyone thinks everyone else deserves what they get. None of us do, and that's one of the real nuggets of wisdom in the Bible.

Of course, that's Old Testament, which is Jewish.

Besides, most mathematicians I've met have been a decent sort, so that shows your slander right there.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2013 10:14 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 64 of 82 (699309)
05-17-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-15-2013 6:29 PM


Materialist Machinations
If we are to assess the hard problem of consciousness within a quantum mechanical paradigm we must first disentangle the issue of entanglement from the issue of decoherence in order to establish a coherent metaphysical response to unjustifiable physicalist assumptions. Only then can the materialistic hegemony be challenged sufficiently for the discombobulated mind of the materialist to offer itself as evidence of the separation of mind and body. After all how can one experience such a superposition of multiple mental states but wholly subjectively? In the face of such conclusivity even the most ardent materialist will be forced to confront the state-variable orthogonality of awareness as a function of consciousness rather than mere neural activity. So how do we achieve this end? The key here lies at the quantum-classical boundary and the mind-body boundary. Can a superposition of minds be expressed in terms of the phase angle of the “id” and the “ego” and if so will the collapse of the wave function equate to a rotationally symmetric disambiguation of shared awareness? The answer emphatically is – Yes. Because the internal act of subjectively observing one’s own conscious experience results in the collapse of the integrated wave function such that multiple individual minds emerge from the disentangled whole. Evidently such separation has an inherently probabilistic component as well as temporal, as opposed to instantaneous, aspect. This brief period of semi-superposition equates to what is commonly referred to as “shared experience” resulting in the metaphysical fact that objectivity is a functional representation of collectively achieved subjectivity. So now we see that the only way to maintain the materialist paradigm is to deny that the orthogonal compatibility of disentangled decoherent minds can exist. Or – In other words – The materialist finds themselves necessarily denying the existence of objectivity itself. Objectivity - The very foundation upon which the materialist call for “objective evidence” is founded. Thus the materialist holds a contradictory and logically indefensible position the very cognitive dissonance of which serves to conclusively exemplify the separation between mind and body. Cogito ergo sum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-15-2013 6:29 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 12:12 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 65 of 82 (699316)
05-17-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
05-17-2013 11:41 AM


Re: Materialist Machinations
Omnes suus bullshit. Sed bene dixit.

Confusionem inimicis nostris!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2013 11:41 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
mrnobody42
Junior Member (Idle past 1229 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-18-2013


Message 66 of 82 (699597)
05-22-2013 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-05-2013 7:58 PM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
I would like to respond to the posters original intent. OP says that

"I simply offer that there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan. "

I would like to know if there are any posters that disagree with OP?

Just to get the ball rollin', I will put forth that an alternative to theism vs atheism is non-theism. Buddhism, for example, is neither theistic (no gods or theology) nor atheistic since its takes no stance on what is not presently given in reality. It seems to me that to claim atheism as opposed to non-theism is to claim some transcendental knowledge that needs to be proven just as the theist needs to prove his theology.

Disagreements?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-05-2013 7:58 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 1:07 AM mrnobody42 has not yet responded
 Message 68 by bluegenes, posted 05-23-2013 2:54 AM mrnobody42 has responded

    
mrnobody42
Junior Member (Idle past 1229 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-18-2013


Message 67 of 82 (699672)
05-23-2013 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by mrnobody42
05-22-2013 12:11 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
OK, so since nobody disagrees that " there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan. ", I will add to that point. The word 'God' does not necessarily infer a personal or even an individual being. God simply refers to the Supreme Source of Reality. What ever it is that is the Supreme Source qualifies as being God. So, whoever said that a being or an individual is the Supreme Source of Reality.

If the Nondualists are right that the Supreme Source of Realty is Awareness than God would not be personal, an individual or anything measurable. So, it is possible that there is a God (supreme source) and that this God is not personal. If everybody agrees with this as well, then we can proceed even further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mrnobody42, posted 05-22-2013 12:11 AM mrnobody42 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by bluegenes, posted 05-23-2013 4:23 AM mrnobody42 has responded
 Message 73 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-24-2013 7:31 PM mrnobody42 has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 68 of 82 (699674)
05-23-2013 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by mrnobody42
05-22-2013 12:11 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody42 writes:

I would like to respond to the posters original intent. OP says that

"I simply offer that there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan. "

I would like to know if there are any posters that disagree with OP?

You're unlikely to get any disagreement on that quote, because we can all think of alternatives.

mrnobody writes:

It seems to me that to claim atheism as opposed to non-theism is to claim some transcendental knowledge that needs to be proven just as the theist needs to prove his theology.

What definitions of atheism and non-theism are you using here? Atheists aren't theists, so surely they are all non-theists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mrnobody42, posted 05-22-2013 12:11 AM mrnobody42 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 4:04 AM bluegenes has responded
 Message 80 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-31-2013 12:09 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
mrnobody42
Junior Member (Idle past 1229 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-18-2013


Message 69 of 82 (699679)
05-23-2013 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by bluegenes
05-23-2013 2:54 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
The difference between an atheist and a nontheist is that atheism is an assertion that there is no God while a nontheistic path such as buddhism makes no such assertions because it deals with reality only.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by bluegenes, posted 05-23-2013 2:54 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by bluegenes, posted 05-23-2013 4:34 AM mrnobody42 has not yet responded
 Message 72 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-23-2013 5:52 PM mrnobody42 has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 70 of 82 (699680)
05-23-2013 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 1:07 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody42 writes:

OK, so since nobody disagrees that " there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan. ", I will add to that point. The word 'God' does not necessarily infer a personal or even an individual being. God simply refers to the Supreme Source of Reality.

Do you mean that "God" is not a part of reality, and therefore necessarily unreal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 1:07 AM mrnobody42 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mrnobody42, posted 05-29-2013 11:41 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 71 of 82 (699681)
05-23-2013 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 4:04 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody writes:

The difference between an atheist and a nontheist is that atheism is an assertion that there is no God while a nontheistic path such as buddhism makes no such assertions because it deals with reality only.

Again, you seem to be using the word "God" to denote something necessarily unreal.

And "non-theist" encompasses anyone who isn't a theist, just as "non-communist" encompasses all those who aren't communists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 4:04 AM mrnobody42 has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1754
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 72 of 82 (699714)
05-23-2013 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 4:04 AM


Buddhism
...a nontheistic path such as buddhism makes no such assertions because it deals with reality only.

There is that part in buddhism that talks about rebirth and reincarnation and different planes of existence which are not observable. Everything else about it seems pretty sensible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 4:04 AM mrnobody42 has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1110 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 73 of 82 (699757)
05-24-2013 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 1:07 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
If the Nondualists are right that the Supreme Source of Realty is Awareness than God would not be personal, an individual or anything measurable. So, it is possible that there is a God (supreme source) and that this God is not personal. If everybody agrees with this as well, then we can proceed even further.

Ok it seems as if you have worded my own views without bringing QM Consciousness into it. And it seems that the people here are a little bit more open to the idea of a Supreme Source then Souls?

Interesting.

The consensus here seems to be that Pantheism is ok as long as it is impersonal and souls are off the table as a possibility. This explains why Pantheism org seems to be run by mostly Atheist and most Atheist see Einstein as one of their own.

So it is ok for God to exist but not ok for me to exist except as some sort of programed meat puppet?

In other words Atheist are fighting more for the right to die then to say God is dead?

Curiouser and curiouser.

As a Buddhist myself it seems to me that many Buddhist especially the Nondual seem to be very good a compartmentalizing. In one box you have the Supreme Source which is taught as a real point of enlightenment or realization.

In another box you have reincarnation and teachings on the soul which sound more like teachings on genetics then spirituality.

Or to be more precise there is no self to reincarnate.
This brings us to Sartre on choice because it is simply ethics based on humanism.

"Humans as Responsibility: "And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men."

"When we way that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all."

In other words when I die the patterns I create while living continue without me like a ripple in a pond.

"The Buddha taught that what we think of as our "self" -- our ego, self-consciousness and personality -- is a creation of the skandhas. Very simply, our bodies, physical and emotional sensations,conceptualizations, ideas and beliefs, and consciousness work together to create the illusion of a permanent, distinctive "me."

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next."

Sounds like Nihilism.

Yet Buddha did not teach nihilism.

So my question to mrnobody42
is this. How does the Nondual teachings resolve the what appears to be Nihilistic teachings?

So to clarify my question I will word it differently.

How is the Supreme Source different from Pantheism? Also why is the Universe allowed to be aware as a possibility only on the contingency that I am not allowed to be aware... but only "conscious"?

In other words the Universe can have a soul but it is quite preposterous that I would even speculate on the possibility of having a soul of my own.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 1:07 AM mrnobody42 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2013 7:17 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 76 by mrnobody42, posted 05-29-2013 11:31 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 82 (699906)
05-28-2013 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-24-2013 7:31 PM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
Whether it be "supreme source" or "souls" the objections to your assertions will be basically the same. But it looks like nobody can be bothered anymore.

Frankly I thought that mrnobody and yourself were the same person. It certainly looks like you are now having a conversation with yourself.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-24-2013 7:31 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-29-2013 11:05 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1110 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 75 of 82 (700074)
05-29-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
05-28-2013 7:17 AM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
That is because nobody is posting here. I can not reply if nobody post. I hope it is because it was Memorial Day Weekend. I know it doesn't matter what I say on here. the objections are the same. It is obvious to me that this is a science board that all posters are use to simply debating what and what isn't science.

I never claimed that Pantheism was an established science. What I was claiming was that Science without Metaphysics is nothing more than an accumulation of observations and facts. If our sole purpose here on Earth is to advance technology in order to become more comfortable then I guess science can advance at a snails pace.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
Einstein

But not all scientist agree with the Atheist on here. Even Richard Dawkins understands the need for Science revolutions advanced by Thomas Kuhn . And of course Einstein not only understood that Pantheism but understood how close minded people can be ...

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2013 7:17 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017