Atheists religions; a rose by another name

Sometimes it seems our thoughts are not the issue of human conflict, merely the clumsy/deficient communication...

 

Algorithm or not, lifespan is probably the key aspect. For the most part, individuals are much more concerned about personal lifespan, rather than species lifespan. In a sense, It would seem that species lifespan inherently follows from personal lifespan, and I do think there is a tautology there, however there might be a regulated capacity to that regarding circumstance, such as if we lend credibility to man-made global warming, deforestation, rampant diseases, etc. Since we have limited lifespans, amongst the dynamics of the species lifespan and the ever changing effects of such circumstances, the approach and possible solutions are ever changing as well, which I think even amongst people who generally agree about these topics in outlook, might have disagreement in approach, or disagreement in nuance, due to generational differences, geographical differences, monetary differences, technological differences, etc.

I guess the essence of that paragraph is that while abstract thought allows for an exponential amount of flexibility in the environment compared to other species, inevitably we are still in competition for resources and human's unique ability for abstraction, gives us a relationship with death that makes us realize our finite lifespans, compound that with an even narrower window of fertility and virility, this drives people towards being competitive in nature.

 

^ To address cooperation in this context. I'm not suggesting that cooperation is not beneficial, however due to circumstances, I think there reaches points where cooperation amongst groups inherently leads to hierarchical structures and/or there are formation of in-groups and out-groups. By definition there is difference between in-groups and out-groups, while hierarchical structures might be more sustainable as existing as "one", there are obviously different dynamics amongst the individuals in the hierarchy.

 

i agree with you there, conflict is superfluous. but diversity doesn't equate to conflict. or at least, if we're sapient enough to be considerate, it doesn't have to.

 

I think diversity is a slippery slope. Just like the rest of the words we are using.

You can either slip into conflict, or slip, and fall in love. It makes the path dangerous when you're walking on something slippery.....something uncertain.

A vow of silence makes a lot of sense for it's purposes, but then you must submit that the rest of humanity is doomed to suffer from false words.

Yes I am afflicted, but at least I understand how filthy it is when I attempt to transmit my experience to another human with a physical orifice.

Be back soon.

 

people are manipulated by words, if that's what you're saying. the physical universe, isn't.
and diversity in all things, is the only inhierent nature it has.
sorry but that's simply reality, how ever many gods or anything else might also exist.
a depth of diversity beyond human imagining.

if you want to talk about morality, consideration for all things is the beginning and end of it.
aggressiveness is its opposite. (though people my think i'm talking about something else then i am when i say that)

belief, same as with gender or with a lot of other things, has nothing to do, with either you're considerate or you're not, either you're logical or you're not,
and there's just no way you can count on not causing harm, without using logic.

and if there are any two things that can't dwell in the same heart, even if its the heart of a god, it is goodness, and the desire to be feared.

 

as for slippery slopes, pretending to know what is not known, and that wishing to be feared is a good thing, THOSE are the slippery slope!
as is hating logic. or that replacing honesty and consideration with the pretense that fallowing a cook book will make all well and protect it.

 

The physical universe includes you and I, people who are manipulated by words. I know I am bashing on words and rhetoric right now, but my understanding is that universe means "all existing matter and space considered as a whole". Everything as one. You and I together.

The word "diversity" really feels to me to be knocking at the door of something that is 'different in nature'. But "difference" is a derivative of observation and experience.

 

"Personal" is another slippery slope. I cant help but recognize that most of your post is uncertain.

I want you to join me in the hole that I am digging. Because there is no uncertainty in the idea that we are one.

Edit: What I meant to say was that uncertainty, and universe means the same thing as sapience. They are the same thing; The universe.

Personal lifespan is another word for selfishness. Which is another way of saying "I do not know who I am".

 

I was responding to a post of yours that started off with "Maybe... " in the context of a hypothetical that attempts to explain essential aspects of human experience. Since we are wrapped up in the human experience and it was a hypothetical after all, it is not something I could definitively say one or the other. Doesn't the "Maybe..." statement suggest there is uncertainty in the idea that we are one? If you are to quibble over my points, you should probably respond to yourself when you made that post.

I'm not sure how you reconcile uncertainty, universe and sapience in that way. I don't ascribe to philosophical idealism let alone Solipsism but I do think personal awareness is essential in understanding ones self... Perhaps I could mull this one over but my initial inclination is that I think denying a personal lifespan is actually more selfish, this is demonstrated frequently in teenagers and young adults who speak and act with a sense of invincibility.

 

the only experience i'm wrapped up in is existence. human or any other species on earth or any other world has nothing what so ever to do with it.

what is not known is not known
what is known works the way it does
anything can exist
nothing has to exist

there is however, a universal wonder of strangeness that can be observed to.

not even morality depends upon what might or might not exist,
but only upon how what exists works,

consideration is not because some one or some book says its the nice thing to do,
but because the lack of it is what screws up the kind of world you have to live in.

at any rate, the existence of whatever god-like beings might or might not choose to,
is not up to us,
and has nothing to do, with anything anyone might imagine themselves to know about it.

 

Uncertainty, the universe, and sapience are the same thing. We have no other way of communicating than through uncertainty because that is what we are made of. It's not a coincidence that uncertainty resonates through our experience. That's what makes oneness so important.

We have "alternative" explanations for everything but....they aren't really alternatives. They are the same thing, but we think they are unlike in nature and form due to not understanding ourselves.

 

I think determining the function of a statement like this one very hard.

What did you hope to accomplish by saying this?

Saying things like "might" or "might not" is superfluous when our bodies consist of material that is inaccessible to scientific inquiry.

 

Well, levels of scientific inquiry relevant to our discussion anyways

 

I only have a vague sense of what you're suggesting, it seems like you're making some abstract musing on anthropic principles considering some aspects of quantum mechanics.

The paradox then is that we are also made of laws governing physics, so how does this uncertainty then become precision? Are you suggesting this is the same thing as well?

 

in what way is this not self explanatory?

there are NO physical materials (within the human body, nor within reach of existing available means of travel) "inaccessible to scientific inquiry".
where on earth or elsewhere did you come up with that one?

it is only the nonphysical, and only the nonphysical that cannot be inferred from the behavior of the physical,
that is in any sense "inaccessible" to honest and impersonal inquiry.

 

Yes that's right.

When laws exist in your abstract thought, yes you are made of them. You see the world as you are. That's where laws come from in the first place.

When hate resides there, that's what you are made of. When conflict exists there, it is inside of you and it is what you are. It's what you consist of, and law is a perfect example of how the "abstract" resonates through reality. Slavery, womens rights, manifest destiny....those are all real things, but racism, prejudice, and theft are all "abstract" concepts.

The quantum mechanics was just an attempt to unhinge the idea that any of this is relevant to rationality. Indont feel like writing a paragraph about cognitive dissonance right now.

All I'm asking is that you stop disagreeing.

You can say anything, any quote, any phrase.

But what is the difference between someone who agrees and someone who disagrees?

Sympathy; comprehension; harmony; consistency.

Discussion has become an arena.....because conflict is within us?

I want to get rid of stupid words like conflict.

 

Physical, and nonphysical is an unnecessary division.

The way I understand all this is that we are speaking different languages. You have two words that mean the same thing in your language.

I don't have the experience to describe or understand the difference between physical and non-physical with my vernacular.

I am forced to resolve that this is a misunderstanding.

 

Atheists (such as Dawkins) seem to be quite dogmatic. However, there's simply not enough information available to declaim the absence of God which, to me, makes it more practical to be an agnostic. It DOES make sense to me that atheists reject all the trappings of most or all religions, theosophies and sacred texts. It also makes sense that they reject the anthopomorphic paternalism of the gods described by various theologies. Remember that they were preaching to illiterate peasants who understood mysteries in terms of drama, rather than on any intellectual basis.

I believe there's an intelligent force in the universe simply because it appears too complex to have arisen spontaneously. While it's claimed that a room full of monkeys and typewriters will eventually produce a Shakespeare play (statistically), it's never been observed empirically (in practice, that is)

Atheism is a stern taskmaster which brooks no deviation from its narrow script

 

I've always questioned the "MUST make a leap of faith" argument. Who says so and by what authority do they speak. Having faith is a purely voluntary proposition or else results spontaneously from an epiphany. I know there's a 'religious' are of the brain perhaps in the neocortex and it appears to impel people to develop some sort of faith in a force, or foces, beyond their immediate ken. However, I don't see that making a leap of faith is a moral duty