I don't think Intelligent Design is a very open movement. But I think that what you consider as an alternative (what you think of as "atheism") doesn't exist. So maybe it's okay that Intelligent Design isn't very open, because the alternative is much better anyway.
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe.
But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative.
I see. I simply concluded that we live in a warm Godless Universe.
The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings.
I do not think what you claim to be a fact is actually a fact.
In order to eliminate suffering, we simply need to deal with how sentient beings treat other sentient beings. The Universe itself does not need to become self reflective. Which is good, 'cause that might not even be possible.
Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?
I think it should be, but no... I don't think that it is. Probably because it was invented by Christianity in order to promote Christianity.
I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.
That is indeed a false dichotomy. You can have a very meaningful universe, with all that was ever available to "souls", freewill etc... and just not have a God in it. It looks very much like the universe we live in right now, even.
If anyone does something in a post, and you wonder how they formatted it, you can use the "Peek" button in the bottom right of any post while viewing a thread. This will let you see what they typed in order to produce the formatting.
You can do that to see how I make embedded-quotes like this:
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
Intelligent Design, Atheism and beyond I don't think Intelligent Design is a very open movement. But I think that what you consider as an alternative (what you think of as "atheism") doesn't exist. So maybe it's okay that Intelligent Design isn't very open, because the alternative is much better anyway.
Not sure what you mean by that. I have heard of an "Atheist" meaning lack of belief in God but an atheist of atheism? You do not believe Atheist exist? Are you an A-Atheist?
OR are you saying that I do not have a proper view of real Atheist. I was 100% Atheist up until I was 30. Ok 99% but I thought I was 100%. The problem is that the logical conclusion of Atheism if you take it all the way as far as you can go as truth is Nihilism.
I'm just saying that "Atheism" is simply a lack of belief in God. There is no such thing as "the logical conclusion of Atheism if you take it all the way is Nihilism"... there is no "logical conclusion of Atheism" at all... other than "you do not believe in God."
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
I was 100% happy with Atheism but I couldn't escape Nihilism without giving up at least 10% of my Atheism. Believe me I tried!
Lots of people call me an Atheist. I'm certainly not consumed by Nihilism. Further answering questions along this line may take away from the purpose you have for this thread? I'm not sure. If you would like to discuss any specific problems you have with Atheism, feel free to post any concerns to here:
If you reply to one of my posts, I'll get an email notification and see it. Or you can talk to anyone else there.
I was almost relieved until you said you lived in a warm Godless Universe. *L* Who provides the warmth?
I don't know. It may not even be a "whom," maybe just the way things are. Like asking "who provides the gravity?" I have never heard of anything described by a Christian or Deist or Theist or anyone that is "higher" or "warmer" or "better" in any way then the things I can obtain being an Atheist.
Again, I might be getting off-topic for what you want to talk about in this thread. If you're interested in letting me know of some feeling or pleasure or "betterness" you think is available to Theists that is not available to Atheists... feel free to post to this thread:
How can a cold Universe produce warm beings? How can matter be conscious or aware. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I see Pantheism as a possible solution but Materialism is a dead end even if I am wrong.
What do you mean by "cold Universe" or "warm Universe"? If you mean temperature... obviously there are some hot things in the Universe. If you mean feelings of warmth or coldness. Then, yes, they are produced by people. Who else would ever produce them? Who else would ever feel them? What is the difference between "God warmth" vs. "Human warmth"? Can you show me one? That's what the above thread is about... no one is ever able to actually show a difference. Without a difference you can show, then it doesn't exist... it's just in your imagination. If you simply imagine the universe to be cold if a God isn't there... well, I simply imagine the universe to be warm if a God isn't there.
If you mean something more concrete, then you need to show it.
The question is how do we deal with how sentient beings treat each other?
That's exactly what morality is. Try this thread, if you'd like to know about Atheist's morality without God:
When I become aware of your suffering the Universe IS becoming self aware. That is non-locality of QM is being activated. My consciousness is affected by your consciousness and matter is not directly involved. I guess what I am getting at is that it might actually be possible. And I have actually observed it happening.
I can believe that you have actually observed two people's consciousness' interacting. Happens all the time. Happens in the thousands and even millions all the time too. But what about that turns into the universe becoming self-aware? Where is that connection? Have you actually observed the universe becoming self-aware? What would that even look like?
I can't get there with you. If I am just a process of my brain then I have to agree with Dennett that Freewill is just a convenient illusion.
Okay, then I do not agree with Dennett. If we're going to get more into this, though, we'll have to define "freewill" so that we're talking about the same thing. Do you think the opposite of freewill is a "deterministic" universe? A universe that is not deterministic, then.. would contain some element of randomness?
If you think "randomness" is required for freewill... wouldn't that mean that all your decisions are non-deterministic... they are "random"? Does that mean it's simply random when you choose to be friends with someone? Is it random when you choose this mortgage over that one? Is it random to decide to save a child in distress? Determinism can be a good thing. Determinism (even if it did completely exist... which is not for sure anyway...) does not equal "no freewill." We need to understand what freewill actually is (a strict definition) before we can discuss whether or not we have it.
(The problem may be that we cannot actually define "freewill" in any coherent way...)
Here's another thread more focused on free will, if you'd like: