Freedom From Atheism

The first thing I thought with that Brad Stine guy was like a clean Denis Leary .

I remember watching an ex-Christian turn atheist give a lecture who used to be a marketer for Christian entertainment and admitted they intentionally emulate secular culture, that Stine guy was like a clear cut example.

 

That guy's too ignorant to laugh at. Sometimes stupid people say funny shit but I'm afraid too many people actually believe his thoughtless bullshit. What if he and his nut job followers were forced to say "nation under Allah" in the pledge of allegiance? Or use money with "In Allah we trust"? All the millions of right wing hypocrite ass-holes would be out having shit fits in the streets until it changed. In lies and fantasy you trust. Your ignorance is your freedom from atheism.

The devil comes through in his voice, "you can see God in his HANDYWORK!". His eyes should be glowing red at that moment. The evil Yahweh minions clap. Oh no, we can't possibly be moral without threats of eternal hell-fire.

 

The OP posted this presumably to make a point. Perhaps he can share with us what that was. Stine's presentation was purely emotional--the emotion being anger. Stine seems to be angry at those who don't acknowledge the "obvious": that Yahweh created and designed the universe, and who are keeping that knowledge from our children. The rest follows the form of a Republican stump speech that could have been delivered by "the Donald" or some commentator on FOX: atheists are fools or worse, "they"'re keeping the truth (i.e., Intelligent Design) from being taught in schools, he's proud to be a Conservative, we need to take back our country, etc. This is mostly sloganeering that doesn't address real issues in the controversy. Major evidence presented includes the observation that the order of the universe shows obvious design that even the ex-atheist-turned deist, Anthony Flew, recognizes.


I think that the existence and integrated complexity of the universe calls for an explanation, and I find that the explanations currently offered by science--a string of improbable flukes arising from quantum vacuum fluctuations and multiple universes-- don't seem, particularly compelling to me. On the other hand, I don't think there's some kind of conspiracy to keep us from the truth. "Intelligent Design" is not a science, producing new knowledge by testing refutable hypotheses and publishing the results in refereed journals, but rather an extended critique of Darwinian evolution. And deism is removed from Christianity.

 

All that Gods are are an active use of the human imagination and soul of the Cosmos and the unconscious, which contains archetypes. It is a use of the Right Brain, which is more ancient than our left brain. Both brains do similar things, but they do them differently. Ancient peoples were more Right-Brain oriented, which can comfortably intermingle Myth, story, and Reality...something that the modern Left Brain cringes at. In this archetypal way, Gods are real.

The right brain is oriented with both/and

the left brain is oriented towards either/or

 

Truth is under no compulsion to be compelling to you It may be, and seems to in fact be the case, that the truth of the universe is wholly unintuitive, counterintuitive, and more bizarre than any simple stories of yore can approach.

the "integrated complexity" of the universe is not like an ingredient that's been sprinkled on after the fact that we must now find the source for; it is merely a description of how the universe is. It appears integrated because we studies it bit by bit and find that the bits integrate; it appears complex because of the number and nature of the bits. But deciding that your list of bits is suspiciously long or that they fit together a little too well is going about the problem backwards. They fit well because we've cut them up that way. There's so many bits because our technology and brains can only work in tiny portions.

The universe is not fine tuned for life; life is fine tuned from the universe. We didn't get put into it, we came out of it. No wonder we appear to be at home! We are like embryos questioning the suspiciously comfortable womb in which we gestate, wondering what brilliant and powerful tinkerer created this fleshy sack in which we grow, not realizing she is our mother.

 

The Universe becomes aware of your awareness of it. The integrated complexity is what is called Synchronicity, and the more you tap into it, the more it exponentially fuels itself. You become an instrument composed by the Universe to increase the experience of Synchronicity.

I would say the Universe is beckoning you to discover its mysteries, because you as a human are a way for the Universe to become aware of itself. The potential is there, but it's not guaranteed. It depends on whether you are listening to Nature or not. Nature is alive. You have the free will to either listen or not listen.

 

This was said more poetically by someone else. I'm sure you already know... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaj407ofjNE

Personally speaking, the more I learn, the more insignificant I feel in the universe.

There is already enough wonder to be enjoyed without having to make up magical nonsense (nonsense as is not detectable by the senses). I could go on about the atoms of carbon in your left hand having probably been forged in a different star than the carbon atoms in your right hand, and all of that other wonderful stuff (that actually exists)... But at the end of the day, it isn't going to make a difference... Which is why I will now abruptly end this post.

 

Well enjoy feeling insignificant then. It's funny how that seems to be a dominant personality-feature and conclusion by many on this forum. It feels more "correct" to see yourself as ultimately insignificant rather than to see yourself as a Microcosmic mirror of the Universe. Do you enjoy this world-view, or do you feel stuck to it because you believe it is the only thing "real"?

The Universe is infinite, and you can view it any way that you choose, even if that means concluding that you're insignificant. Sorry that anything considered "magical" is so drilled into your head as to mean 'not-real'. Rationalism has done a good job at that brainwashing for a few good centuries.

Are you trying to argue that Synchronicity isn't detectable by the senses? Since we are referencing famous people, Carl Jung had a series of dinners with Albert Einstein discussing Synchronicity as a matter of fact.

 

Obviously Truth is compelling since it has been searched for and attempted to be cognized by Scientists, Religions, Philosophers, poets and Mystics for as long as Man has existed ...and since it's all One ultimately, it would seem that the Universe indeed is under a compulsion for you to become aware of its truths. Otherwise, we would have no evolutionary impulse to search for it.

The Ego is what is breaking up the Universe into little bits and pieces. It is possible to see the overall wholesomeness and interconnectedness of reality in spite of the infinite variety, however, as the Ego and its sense of ultimate separateness is just a shadowy illusion. Synchronicity is a practical avenue through which this interconnectedness can be experienced in the manifest world.

The Left-brain is what can only work in tiny portions. The older, Right brain can see the forest instead of just the individual trees. This is why Hieroglyphics weren't paradoxical to the Egyptians...their Mythological stories of Gods were one and the same as reality itself. It was both story AND reality, something that the Right-Brain can accept (both/and). This is something that the modern Left-Brain dominant society cringes at (either/or).

 

Are in in syncronicity with nature?
what is real and true?
with the trees?
Sky?
Moon?
Stars?
Animals?
....

or are we just talking about other people here?

 

Synchronicity can manifest a variety of ways: from people, places, scents, sounds, scenarios, to an infinite amount of other things.

 

I feel warm and fuzzy due to my insignificance.

On the contrary, most people are religious and feel that the universe has their existence in mind.

I do not enjoy or feel stuck or think about this "world-view" as you've called it, unless I choose to take part in a conversation such as this. I can tell how little you care by the fact that you chose to write about six paragraphs between my original post and this response.

 

Does a bird not have its nest in mind? Does the body not have its own well-being in mind? Does the ecosystem not have its own functioning in mind?

Yes, a bird has its nest in mind. Yes, the body has its own well-being in mind by giving you some sort of discomfort if something is wrong. Yes, the ecosystem is interdpendent upon itself layer upon layer. If life weren't constantly and intelligently taking care of itself, then life wouldn't even exist.

So I beg to differ that the Universe doesn't have humans in mind. "Nature is not mute. It is man who is deaf." -TM

 

*asks self question* ... *answers own question* (repeat three times)

*makes final conclusion without any evidence to support such a claim*

 

LOL and so what is your argument for lack of evidence?

You answer the questions then. Does a bird have its nest and kin in mind? Does the body heal itself and give you awareness of when you are hungry, tired, or hurt? Does the ecosystem depend upon itself in a multitude of levels?

 

The answer to those three questions is "yes" (Of course I could nitpick, but for the sake of convenience I won't).

What is your point? I'm not going to sift through numerous paragraphs of your thoughts to decipher what it is you're getting at; please make it quick and without the riddles this time.

 

You said that I don't have evidence that Nature is not mute and that Nature is intelligent and takes care of itself, which lead to my conclusion that the Universe has humans in mind.

 

If you had any evidence that nature were not mute (whatever "mute" means in this sense...), you'd have a Nobel prize (or whatever prize you want... a year supply of bagels, perhaps...).

Do you discount any form of alien life? Does the universe have alien life in mind as well as human life? If so, where is the line drawn between alien and human life? Who's the alien? Are there other carbon based life forms? If so, why? If not, why?

I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. Philosophy almost completely breaks down in the arena of science. It's wonderful.

 

If Alien life exists, then obviously the Universe had Alien life in mind as well. What's your point with where the line is drawn or not? The Universe can't have both in mind?

Well I just pointed out how the Universe (Uni means One) is interdependent. Of course they don't give a Nobel Prize to Mystics who have always known the interconnectedness of things. Science just can't go there, or rather refuses to go there, despite the reeking evidence.