For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
90Lew90 – “I see no reason to “respect” any individual who believes that stuff just because they believe it any more than I should respect someone who believes the Iliad or the Odyssey.”
It is foolish to paint all religious people with the same brush. It indicates that the above mentioned traumas have left you unhinged.
There are certain areas where you should be mindful of your irrational bias. Perhaps taking a second look at your “fascination” with religion. It may be an intuitive understanding of it’s possible healing potential.
There has not been, as far I can tell, in this brief study of your views, any interest shown in the underlying purpose of religion; i.e. relationship/comprehension/awareness of God.
And I don’t mean the various conceptualizations, that our fellow creatures employ in their personal enquiries into the nature of that phenomena.
Why not give your politics a rest for a while? Get a little more philosophical, scientific and generally more level headed. Figure out just what this ALL is, and how you even exist. Time is short, so why waste it on these tirades.
You can remain “atheist” and still “grok” the Singularity. But not until you give up this war.
(Responding to 90Lew90 who continues haranguing Christians and by proxy all religiously inclined people.)
What you call “religion” only entails the failed and distorted expression of it.
You draw conclusions with a mere fraction of the comprehension required. Relying on rhetorical habits, and a sense of your own superiority.
This error is exactly what you rail against.
When was the last time you actually examined this passionately held belief system? Stopped reciting your opposition, and listened with new ears?
Greg G. – ” An omnipotent being could achieve any end with or without suffering, which means all suffering is gratuitous. “
This idea of omnipotence is a sophomoric conceptualization. It has probably caused a lot of confusion and heated debate.
The “Free Will” explanation seems to be an attempt to adjust for the flaw of attributing “omnipotence” as a characteristic of God. Or else, the flaw is in the understanding of “omnipotence” in the context of God.
Either way, the solution, is to consider just what an all encompassing nature would be like. What the nature of the Entirety of Singularity would be.
All polarities including “Good and Evil” resolved as one. Not different; only the nature of the relative universe. Like “Time and Space”. The essence of movement and change. The essence of infinite potential. Absolutely still.
The realm of “Free Will” is that of Self Awareness. A Self without another Self to compare to, is obviously different than that of our extrapolated versions. All of this must be taken into consideration. But rarely is.
David: Atheist Ex-Pastor – ” Oh and I do stand by the use of the Weinberg quote as in my estimation it does take religion to motivate an otherwise good person to commit evil. “
But this is a considerably less reasonable statement than:
” In other words, because Jesus loves us he gives us the freedom to make choices, including the choice to love him back. “
Assuming that you understood Jesus to be identical with God when you thought in these terms.
The former statement is political rhetoric. The latter is metaphorical, and relatively coherent in it’s context.
I would have trouble with the “he gives us” aspect of it, but other than that, it makes sense, even to a non-Christian.
Greg G. – “Or “Good and Evil” is not a property of the universe at all …”
Even if you parse it into “opinion”, it is a property of the universe. Even as “opinion”, it echoes the nature of complementary opposites, so common to our experience.
But you are on the right track in resolving it to it’s more elemental and common root. Much like I have suggested we do more of.
Though the emphasis on “insignificance” seems like a personal attitude. The dyad of relative significance deserves the same treatment as “Good and Evil”.
“A Self would be unable to fully comprehend another Self or its own Self. The best it could do is compare two models of a Selves”
Now this is very interesting. As long as there is any “Self” to comprehend, then we are talking from the “finite”. And, are indeed using mind to do it.
So, if Jesus is identical with God, then it is not through “mind” that this is True.
And, arguments using the constructs of “mind”, either for or against, are of no use. So, we are advised to leave that shore behind.
Shem the Penman – ” People may not want to admit it, but religion and scientific inquiry are both for-us-by-us constructs that we use to impose order and meaning on an absurd universe.”
Is gravity a “construct”? Does it “impose” order?
Thinking of the universe as “absurd” seems itself absurd.
“These constructs succeed as long as we keep in mind that they’re useful tools for representing reality, not reality itself.”
Not reality in an absolute sense, true, but not other than reality either.
When you refer to reality? What are you talking about?
Separating the parts for study, provides information about the parts. But the action of dissection kills the subject, and understanding of it’s living nature gets lost.
(Responding to Shem the Penman’s response.)
Thanks. Though I was hoping to make a point with the gravity analogy.
“I just mean whatever exists, regardless of our knowledge of it. I keep
talking about the difference between the finger and what it’s pointing
to; religion and scientific inquiry are what we use to conceptualize
reality, and people mistake them for reality itself.”
I also use the “finger and moon” thing. For the same reasons.
I also go on to emphasize that we can not exclude our awareness, and it’s various gyrations from a definition of reality. An understanding of Reality, like a mature understanding of God requires this.
Much of the bandwidth used to debate these issues, is due to a general lack of agreement on this. The lack of agreement is due to inexperience with the process.
Arriving at conclusions before reaching the mountain’s peak. We are blinded by it’s circumference.