Thread: This topic is for Atheists only!(Jesus isn't my saviour,etc.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Another assumption is that our conciousness cannot be measured. I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. As for the \"it can only be experienced\" argument...how can you knowingly choose to believe something that is unfalsifiable?

Well, science hasn't found anything in the brain that would point consciousness, but we are still earlier in our knowledge of the brain. It will be interesting when we do start finding these things out.

Originally posted by bradybaker
http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.

You are a funny guy.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Here's what I actually think. If some something doesn't look like it exists, doesn't sound like it exists, doesn't smell like it exists, doesn't taste like it exists and doesn't feel like it exists....maybe, just maybe...IT DOESN'T EXIST.[/b]

My consciousness smells delicious.

Originally posted by bradybaker@

Well you probably could've saved us a lot of typing if you would've just said that from the beginning. Jeez.

Did you read my first post?

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Regardless, you're still falling back onto the age old argument, \"I can't explain it, you could never understand. You have to just believe/experience!\".

Please explain what you are experiencing right now.

Originally posted by bradybaker
So....you're saying that once humans were able to percieve the universe...it all became \"pure-being\"....but before that...it wasn't?

Nope. Always has been, always will be.

Originally posted by bradybaker
http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.

LOL brady

Originally posted by syzygy
Well, science hasn't found anything in the brain that would point consciousness

You should read a book called \"How The Mind Works\". It's real good. Basically, it presents the compelling argument that there is no such thing as 'consciousness'. The effect that we label 'consciousness', is simply a product of the numerous underlying processes happening at once in the brain.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

Did you read my first post?[/b]

Touche.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
Please explain what you are experiencing right now.

Ever hear of selective attention? You can only actually \"perceive\" or \"experience\" a very small number of things at once, otherwise your brain would be overloaded trying to interpret the huge amounts of data that it is constantly receiving. For example, until you read this sentence, you were unaware that your nose was in your line of vision, and the pressure that you shirt is exerting downward on your shoulders. But now, both of those facts are clear as day. So, to answer you're question, as I type this response I am experiencing very little. As I silently conjure up the words in my head before typing them, it is difficult to percieve any of my surroundings or interpret any of the data from my 5 senses (of course if you are directly attempting to experience many things at once it becomes substantially easier).

You have to remember one thing. It's very, very important.

The brain is not a tool that you are using. The brain is using you as a tool.

Ponder that statement for a few minutes before dismissing it, please.

Originally posted by syzygy
Nope. Always has been, always will be.

But you admitted earlier that the universe is much older than we are. So its time for you to take a firm stance here buddy and stop playing word games. Did the universe come into existence only when something was able to percieve it? Or did it once exist without consciousness?

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(OpheliaBlue)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.

LOL brady [/b]

LMAO

Originally posted by bradybaker
You should read a book called \"How The Mind Works\". It's real good. Basically, it presents the compelling argument that there is no such thing as 'consciousness'. The effect that we label 'consciousness', is simply a product of the numerous underlying processes happening at once in the brain.

Existance and our awareness of it are two things we are immediately aquainted with, everything else is secondary, including materialistic theories. And any theory is just an idea, which is mental, which is internal. Even if you deny consciousness in theory, you inevitably presuppose it in practice. Consciousness is the starting point for any theory of reality. The assumption that it comes from neural processes is arbitrary and false. Any statement, fact, or theory comes from an internal reality, so to speak of an external reality independent of the internal is meaningless. You can't think about what reality would be like without you to perceive it. The phenomena which appear to our consciousness are the only reality we can know. There is no objective proof for an external reality. How do you know its not an illusion of Consciousness? Hopefully this might also clear up what I mean by saying that you can only experience God (pure-Consciousness) for youself, no one can explain It to you.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

The brain is not a tool that you are using. The brain is using you as a tool.[/b]

Even though you have been placing me in a false category in your distorted view of religion (although I understand where you get it from, I am not in agreement with mainstream religion, but that should not be a reason to lump everything in one category and totally reject any possible gain from it), be sure that this is the exact point where we disagree.

You see yourself as your ego, where I see myself as pure-consciousness. I agree with your statement if you are talking about your ego-self, but that's not who You are. The you that has a name, a body, thoughts, feelings, and emotions was born in the physical world and will die here. But I think you would agree that on the subatomic level there is no difference between your physical body and the rest of the universe, so who are You really? Think about that.

Perhaps the better statement would be: Consciousness is not a tool that your brain is using. Consciousness is using your brain as a tool.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
But you admitted earlier that the universe is much older than we are. So its time for you to take a firm stance here buddy and stop playing word games. Did the universe come into existence only when something was able to percieve it? Or did it once exist without consciousness?

Consciousness is all that exists. I am not refering to human consciousness; that is just one possibility.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

There is no objective proof for an external reality. How do you know its not an illusion of Consciousness?[/b]

Fundamentally, I agree. How could I diasgree? That's the beauty of an unfalsifiable argument. Funny how no one actually lives there life according to that principle though.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

@
The brain is not a tool that you are using. The brain is using you as a tool.

be sure that this is the exact point where we disagree.[/b]

Well, there we have it then.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
You see yourself as your ego, where I see myself as pure-consciousness.

Ego shmeego. There is no such thing as an 'ego-self' either. I am a bunch of fancy organic molecules arranged into an extremely complex structure. Is it possible that the idea of \"organic molecules\" are in no way associated with the 'external reality', if such a reality even exists? Yes. Is it possible for a '57 Chevy to be orbiting Jupiter? Yes. Is it possible that I'm actually a secret spy, hired by squirrels to help devise a plan to destroy humanity? Yes.

Originally posted by syzygy
But I think you would agree that on the subatomic level there is no difference between your physical body and the rest of the universe, so who are You really?

You are just that, the universe. But in a purely physical sense, not some \"pure-consciousness\" sense. You are a miniscule, insignificant bit of the universe.

Here's a question. If 'everything' is consciousness...does that not mean that nothing is consciousness? Just as if everything were labelled \"special\", nothing would be special. Think about that.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

Perhaps the better statement would be: Consciousness is not a tool that your brain is using. Consciousness is using your brain as a tool.[/b]

Perhaps. Or perhaps the concept of consciousness is a product of conceited human nature.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
Consciousness is all that exists. I am not refering to human consciousness; that is just one possibility.

Elaborate.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Funny how no one actually lives there life according to that principle though.[/b]

Except all those people I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by bradybaker@
Ego shmeego. There is no such thing as an 'ego-self' either. I am a bunch of fancy organic molecules arranged into an extremely complex structure.

Exactly! There is no ego-self, it is just an illusion, but alas, so are the organic molecules...

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

You are just that, the universe. But in a purely physical sense, not some \"pure-consciousness\" sense. You are a miniscule, insignificant bit of the universe.

But the physical can only exist and be known because of consciousness. You are trying to separate the external from the internal, when they are the same thing.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Here's a question. If 'everything' is consciousness...does that not mean that nothing is consciousness? Just as if everything were labelled \"special\", nothing would be special. Think about that.

You should think about it, you might actually get closer to what I'm saying.


Have you heard of the holographic paradigm? If so, what are your thoughts?

I grow tired of this discussion. I can't wait until science realizes that it is trying to prove the same thing that religion has been saying for thousands of years. Not that science has nothing to offer, I just want it to get off its high horse (we have Christianity to thank for that).

Funny how selective attention seems to apply to debates as well. Ignoring the fact that your position is impossible to disprove does not make it any more credible.

Your ass must hurt from riding that fence all day.

Let's test your theory about "pure-consciousness", if organic molecules are an illusion, try not eating for the next 6 months and see what happens.

Wait...I sense something coming....but what is it? Could it be?.....No! It couldn't!....It's another perfect explanation to get around the testing of your theory. How convenient.

Rats, I thought I had you this time.

Holographic paradigm...sounds familiar...care to give me a brief summary?

Holographic paradigm:

First you should know what a hologram is and how it is made. A hologram is made from interference patterns of a laser bouncing off an object and captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines, but when it is illuminated by another laser, you see a three dimensional image. The cool thing is when a holographic image is cut in half, both halves contain a smaller picture of the whole, and can be done endlessly.

In 1982 in Paris, Alain Aspect discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles are able to commicate instantaneously with each other regardless of distance, be it 10 feet or 10 billion miles. Of course this contradicts Einstein's theory that communication cannot travel faster than light.

Physicist David Bohm has suggested that the communication is not some mysterious signal, but that the separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level such particles are not independant entities, but extensions of the same fundamental thing. Things appear separate because we are only seeing a portion of their reality, meaning the whole universe is an illusion, a hologram. This means everything is infinitely connected, the particles that make up your body are connected to particles light years away. This also means that space and time are not fundamental, but only projections of this deeper order. The deepest level of reality is like a superhologram, where past, present, and future exist simultaneously and all configurations of matter and energy are stored. Bohm also suggests that this superhologram could possibly only be a mere stage, beyond which lies an infinity of further development.

Around the same time, neurophysiologist Karl Pribram was also interested in holography to understand the brain. Memory storage in the brain is not located in one place, but seems to contain the whole in every part. Pribram believes that memory is not contained in neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain much like laser light interference crisscross on holographic film. Seeing the brain as a hologram also explains how the brain can store so much information in such a small space. Holograms can store a lot of information by just changing the angle at which the lasers strike the film. This also helps explain how the brain can decode and encode all the information it is receiving from the senses. This is exactly what a hologram does, takes meaningless blurs of frequencies and turns them into a coherent reality.

The interesting part is when you put Pribram's holographic model of the brain and Bohm's theory together to get the holographic paradigm. If the concreteness of the world is secondary to the actually reality of holographic blurs of frequencies, and the brain is just a hologram that selectes a limited amout of these frequencies and converts them into sensory perceptions, what happens to objective reality? The physical world just an illusion, just like the eastern religions have been saying all along. We are actually 'receivers' floating around a sea of frequencies and what we extract from the sea and transform into physical reality is just one of many many possibilities extracted from the superhologram. If the concreteness of reality is just a holographic illusion, then you can no longer say that the brain produces consciousness. Consciousness creates the appearance of the brain, along with all of physical reality.

The holographic paradigm may also help explain some areas previously unaccessable by science such as telepathy (access to superholographic reality), drug-induced hallucinations (there have been studies where people can describe in detail information they would have no way of knowing), synchronicity, out of body experiences, etc. It can also help in areas such as medicine, where if we know that the physical body is a holographic image created by consciousness we find out that we are much more responsible for our health than western science now tells us. Miraculous recoveries of diseases may just be an alteration of the holographic body.

(credit: "The Universe as a Hologram", Talbot)

I just found this today: http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/NewParadigm.html

I know it is a bit long, but since you seem to have an interest in understanding these things I think you will find it interesting. It also wonderfully clears up some of the ideas I have not-so-eloquently been trying to communicate. I have just recently heard about Ken Wilber (this is the first thing I've read of his), but he definitely knows what he's talking about and his output is quite impressive.

There has been a recent movie called What the bleep do we know?
I think eveyone associated with this topic would get something from this and enjoy it.
It discusses illusions, the conscious etc., etc.

Ah yes, I do remember reading an article on the holographic paradigm a few years ago. Extremely interesting concept.

And here I thought you were just talking out of your ass the whole time.

There are still some looming questions however, for example, where do such "frequencies" come from? Are they seperate from consciousness?

More obviously, if the physical world is nothing more than "an illusion" as they claim, how could any observations of it hope to support this theory?

Very intriguing though, good article.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

And here I thought you were just talking out of your ass the whole time. [/b]

I know. That's because you come to conclusions too quickly, that and I can't properly explain myself.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
There are still some looming questions however, for example, where do such \"frequencies\" come from? Are they seperate from consciousness?

I would say nothing is separate from consciousness. The other article (chapter actually) that I made a link to might help clear some of this up.

Originally posted by bradybaker
More obviously, if the physical world is nothing more than \"an illusion\" as they claim, how could any observations of it hope to support this theory?

Duality is illusion. Non-duality is Reality. We usually think of consciousness as subjective. We think we are a subjective self that is conscious of an objective world that exists separate from us, outside of us. This is dualistic thinking. We can also become aware of ourselves being conscious of the world, such as you are now aware of yourself reading this. Your subjective self has just become an object to something else. What is the something else? It cannot be another self because you could go into infinitely trying to find it. It is known as Absolute Subjectivity (or pure-consciousness, Tao, Godhead, etc.) It is above the duality of object/subject, but embraces both. It is only refered to as Subjectivity because it give the impression of the direction we call inwards, but it is not ego subjectivity in the dualistic sense, it is Absolute Subjectivity. It points inwards to the center of our being, but once the center is reached you realize there is no such thing as subject/object. The "illusion" of separateness only arises when we think about Reality instead of BEING Reality. For as soon as you speak about Reality you have created a dualism, and thus any idea about Reality (any symbol of It) is just an illusion.

Independent objects do not exist because they are dependent on everything else around them. So you can say that this computer is an object, but you are only separating it in your mind from the rest of your visual-field. Can you find where you end and the objective world starts? There is no separation, there is no SPACE. You create space by separating subject from object, organism from environmnet. As soon as you make this duality that you are an independent organism, you realize that you are going to die. You have just created another duality, TIME. Instead of living in the eternal NOW you have separated the moment into past and future. Now you are living in the past (which is in the moment in the form of a memory). Of course you will not find happiness in the past because it doesn't exist! So you project yourself into the future (which is in the moment in the form of a thought). If you are not happy in the moment, you will surely be happy some time in the future, right? Well that is just an illusion too because it is always the moment. So by living in the past and not finding happiness, you strive for the future that never comes. So you see, space-time is an illusion. The infinite-eternal is all that exists.

You are going backwards. Instead of asking "how can you prove it to be an illusion?", you should ask "how can you prove it to be Reality?" And of course to that question, you cannot prove it. For as soon as you think about Reality you have created an illusory image of Reality. You cannot prove Consciousness, you can only experience it. It is Absolute Subjectivity, Pure-Consciousness, God. It is You.

So there is no reason to give up science, but there is also no reason to think it will ever explain Reality. Same goes with religion. They should both only be used as ways to get to Reality (of course you are getting somewhere you already are, but don't realize), but never replace the experience, that is impossible. Science is more logical, religion is more metaphorical. Both are explaining the same experience from different angles, that is all. As the Buddhist saying goes: You can point to the moon with your finger, but don't confuse your figure with the moon.

I debated if I should reply to this thread, it's allready been talked to death I think. I just wanted to say, syzygy I think you got it.

As far as scientific proof that God exists, I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove God exists. I don't think that there is any kind of science that can explain why we (human beings) exist either. The natural order of the universe is chaos. Everything in the universe left to it's natural order will break down into it's simplest components. The universe will eventually revert back into a singularity. So, how did everything start in the first place? Everything can be theorised and proven scientifically up to that point, but then? A complicated system such as the human organizm is an unnatural occurance. Nature will allways follow the path of least resistance, so how did we come to be? Theorists propose (and mind you it's still just a theory), that a chance combination of molecules created the first simple amino acid that eventually led to RNA. Now, yes this has been proven in labs (spontainiously creating simple ameno acids), but no one has ever spontainiously created new life forms in a dish. Even if we did one could argue that there was a conscious creative force behind it (the scientist). So the question remains, how did evolution and eventually us arise out of the natural order of chaos? I'm sorry but, the scientific explaination that it happen through a possible probability (If you call that proof), just dosn't do it for me.

There is a saying I came across once, syzygy I thought you might like this.

A tibeten monk see's a flag flapping in the wind. He tells the monk next to him, "Look at the flag flapping." The other monk replies, "It's not the flag flapping, it's the wind flapping." They debated this for a while and decided to ask the master. The master told them, "You are both wrong. It's your mind flapping."

syzygy:

I've been putting a lot of thought into the ideas that you've presented here, and I've come to realize that we hold almost the exact opposite view. You beleive in absolute subjectivity, while I believing in absolute objectivity. You say everything is connected, I say nothing is connected.

Have you seen the movie I Heart Huckabees?

Originally posted by willthepathfinder
no one has ever spontainiously created new life forms in a dish.

1) That depends on your definition of life.
2) Not yet. You'd be surprised at how close we're coming.

willthepathfinder: I like that saying very much, I once came to a very similar realization when meditating (only it was a tree instead of a flag).

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

I've been putting a lot of thought into the ideas that you've presented here, [/b]

I'm glad to hear it, at least we are both on the side of questioning and thinking, something I feel few people are willing to do.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
and I've come to realize that we hold almost the exact opposite view. You beleive in absolute subjectivity, while I believing in absolute objectivity. You say everything is connected, I say nothing is connected.

I don't necessarily agree here (haha). I don't know exactly what you mean by \"absolute objectivity\". Using the term \"absolute subjectivity\" might be misleading because it actually refers to non-duality, which has no opposite. Even \"non-duality\" is misleading because it includes duality, it doesn't oppose it. It allows for all possibilities without attaching itself to any.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Have you seen the movie I Heart Huckabees?

Great movie. Are you saying that I would be something like the detectives and you would be the French woman? Because I would be something more like what Albert comes up with at the end when he puts the two together, a "syzygy" if you will.

I hate to jump so far back in the thread, but someone said they were going to let their kids figure it out for themselves. I would be willing to bet a healthy sum that if(when) you have kids you will be trying to teach them something almost from the start and eventually they will ask you why and you will have to say "I don't know why."

I can accept a world in which we dont know why, but then I think I am obligated to raise an army and topple the evil governments of the world, because after all if no road is better than any other then asserting that I am to be ruler of the world is not wrong either. I will at least care for all the people. Well, except the really screwed up ones who will be summarily euthanized (child molesters and such). Someone will win and someone will lose and it wont matter at all.

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt true atheism an assertion that there is no God. It is not simply saying, "I dont know what happens when we die", it is saying literally nothing happens, we die and turn to dust and thats it. In that light I have heard that many atheists live happier lives because they value their time more. But then again some do very heinous things because after all if there is no God or afterlife there is nothing to be good for, kindness is just something that people made up and is no more to be sought out than hatred.

I am agnostic leaning towards atheism if only because I see no evidence for God. But I will always insist that love is better than hate, to build better than to tear down, and that any belief which teaches a person to love is far better than one which does not.

EJ

Originally posted by ElijahJones
But then again some do very heinous things because after all if there is no God or afterlife there is nothing to be good for

Morality is 100% independent of religion/spirituality, etc.

"Morality and Religion are 100% separate"

A convenient distinction. And of course it has to be, if we are doing away with divine proclamation about sin and the like. So then why do we do good at all? Is it completely empirical, that we enjoy being liked better than hated, so we give to every person the opportunity to be liked? But what if humans are born who find hatred to be more true than love?

I agree morality can be separate, we do not need a God to make a decision for us about right and wrong. But if there is no ultimate judge then good and evil are only subjective definitions. So that our societies are then only held together by the fact that most humans agree on something like an objective standard of what is good or they are scared as hell of the people in power.

Would you say that this arises from the will to survive? That is we feel a better chance of survival if we generally leave each other alone.

Do you see the question I am getting at? Why should I do right by you if right is only something I decide for myself? Perhaps my right is your wrong.

But what about laws then? Well, if I get more people on my side than you have on yours I can change the laws.

The fact is vast numbers of human beings do good because they believe there is an objective standard of right and wrong and that there is someone (I dont care who) who will punish them for violating that standard.

This makes sense to them because if they were to look deep inside there are times that they really want to sleep with their neighbors wife and that they really want to tell that little lie so they can get a raise at work.

The question is very subtle and I think that it is attached to the notion of whether God exists.

For me, I have chosen a way of peace and I dont care if there is a God or not. But this is not how most people are, oddly I think the ethic that would allow most people to become atheist is the golden rule. Which if you think about it does not require a God to make it pretty damn wise as a foundation for human societies. Treat others just as you would wish to be treated.

At any rate I am not attempting to start an argument but I would enjoy it if you feel compelled to write further on this. Having a healthy debate is something that I relish. Seeing some of your other posts, I suspect you also enjoy it as well.

Eventually in any discussion about philosophy or religion we seem to hit a wall beyond which the question "why?" can no longer be answered. This can be very hard to accept, but it should not be surprising because we are most likely finite beings of finite ability.

EJ

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-ElijahJones

But then again some do very heinous things because after all if there is no God or afterlife there is nothing to be good for

Morality is 100% independent of religion/spirituality, etc.[/b]

A-fucking-men Brady Backer

FINALLY someone else gets it.

If ANYTHING should be preached over and over and OVER again, it should be that human morality and quality and in general "being good" is "independent of religion/spirituality, etc".

A pilsner of mutually exclusiveness anyone?!?!?!

Neither of you is facing the question though. You can be good but itis a good that you define or at most that alot of people agree upon. But ultimately why do claim it is any better than what others do. And what if what they do is considered wrong by you? One of the reasons that I left the church circle is that I met more well adjusted people outside the church than inside. I got tired of having to worry about how such and so was living their life, or if it would compromise my walk with Christ if I hung around with them. Anyways, Blue I agree with you and Brady that a person can be "good" with know knowledge of any religion whatsoever, but again you come back to the question of "good". Because if "good" is only what every person defines it then what happens when enough people start disagreeing on what that means. What if that disagreement leads to war, If my good is your evil and your good my evil?

Its not that easy of a question when you think about it.

Originally posted by ElijahJones
Neither of you is facing the question though.

Whoa, give me a chance to respond will you?

It's pretty simple really.

Natural Selection.

Since the beginning of life on Earth, it makes sense that genes promoting cooperation and general helpfulness would be passed on and exaggerated, while genes promoting 'destructive' behaviour would be de-emphasized.

In essence, our sense of 'right and wrong' has been etched into our genetic makeup. "Right" is defined as anything that promotes the survival of the organims and speciesm "wrong" is defined as anything harmful to the organism or species.

You might now be asking, "Well then why do people do 'wrong' at all?". Well I would say that you aren't grasping the full complexity of the situation (see the 'Why Do People Desire Simple Explanations?" thread). Human behaviour is controlled by more than just genetics, cultural pressures and the psychology of the individual obviously come into play. And of course those concepts also have complex explanations, difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs. So I hope you can fill in the gaps with some critical thinking.

Questions?

Well,

I should have known that your theorem operandi would be evolution. But I will go with it as an axiomatic foundation and just see what happens. I tend to believe in evolution to a point (that being the point where the science starts turning into religion and extrapolations influenced by who your graduate committee was). There are some things that are still a littel sketchy and mayn healthy debates about the how among evolutionary scientists. But even if we accept evolution, it is not an argument for or against God unless we make it so, and so doesnt really validate atheism. Evolution could well be true in all its glory and God or a god, or aliens have set it in motion. This is an undecidable question given current knowledge (ala Godel). As you mentioned Greene suggests the possiblity of universes far more diverse then we currently imagine.

But cooperation as a genetic trait (accepting the social psychology influences) is an interesting idea, and we could draw analogy from bees and other social insects and animals. It is interesting because we are getting to a point on the planet where allowing everyone to have children as we see fit is going to being hurting everyone, in fact it already has, the environment is in shambles. This is a question that I have had before. What traits will evolution select for in this generation, in this century?

As odd as this may seem ( I suspect you have heard of this) there are many concepts coming out of the theory of dynamical systems and the biological sciences that suggest that there are certain emergent properties about human thought that allow humans to sort of circumvent the forces of evolution and kind of make a choice about our own broad destiny. Just the fact that most people can be conditioned to be generally good or generally malevolent suggests that there is quite a bit of give and take. I have heard it said that socialization is a way of transferring surival information that cannot be fixed in the genome.

I was hoping that you were going to invoke something more purely logical than evolution as a justification for atheism. But I would have to concede that unless some creator person starts doing some rather spectacular miracles, evolution as an explanation of how life as we know it got here is probably the best we have. And yet I hope you can also conceed that it does not disprove the existence of a Creator. On that note we are left simply to flip a coin. And if a person does good to me because they believe in a god (or God) I will not then repay the favor by telling them there is'nt one.

Regards,

EJ

Originally posted by ElijahJones+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElijahJones)</div>

But even if we accept evolution, it is not an argument for or against God unless we make it so, and so doesnt really validate atheism.[/b]

I wasn't attempting to validate atheism, only showing that there is no connection between a supreme being and morality. I agree that proof of evolution is not disproof of God.

Originally posted by ElijahJones+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElijahJones)</div>

It is interesting because we are getting to a point on the planet where allowing everyone to have children as we see fit is going to being hurting everyone, in fact it already has, the environment is in shambles[/b]

I've had that thought a few times as well, it seems to be the conflict of preservation of self vs. preservation of species. Which will win? I predict a tie.

<!--QuoteBegin-ElijahJones@
What traits will evolution select for in this generation, in this century?

That's a good question...

<!--QuoteBegin-ElijahJones
As odd as this may seem ( I suspect you have heard of this) there are many concepts coming out of the theory of dynamical systems and the biological sciences that suggest that there are certain emergent properties about human thought that allow humans to sort of circumvent the forces of evolution and kind of make a choice about our own broad destiny. Just the fact that most people can be conditioned to be generally good or generally malevolent suggests that there is quite a bit of give and take. I have heard it said that socialization is a way of transferring surival information that cannot be fixed in the genome.

Well...I'm a determinist...so I don't really know about the whole \"choice\" thing...but it seems like an interesting concept. I had this thought recently:

If our behaviour is a product of our genetics, then isn't any outside influence that we are exposed to (ie. Bob punches me in the face and tells me to give him my lunch money) really just an outside set of genetics acting upon our own?

I didn't word that very articulately...but hopefully you get the gist of it. Our bodies are nothing more than a vehicle for our DNA to travel through time and space.

Originally posted by ElijahJones+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElijahJones)</div>

I was hoping that you were going to invoke something more purely logical than evolution as a justification for atheism.[/b]

Again, I wasn't justifying athiesm. Only pointing out how weak the link is between spirituality and morality.

<!--QuoteBegin-ElijahJones
On that note we are left simply to flip a coin.

An extremely lopsided coin if you ask me.