329 replies to this topic

[yose]

I long for physical immortality because I believe that if I die, that's it, there is nothing afterwards. [blush]

Santiago, good enough. But what other kinds of immortality are you thinking besides "physical" immortality?

Why think "physical" at all? Why not go beyond, into the immaterial world?

La vie est belle!

Yosé

[John Doe]

My thoughts on religion are not unlike those of Freud and Russell.

[truth_believer2003]

I put Christian just because I find it to possess the most convincing and accurate information out of every other religious belief on the planet.

[AdamLink]

I had mad this point before in another forum: "The word Religion comes from the Greek word Rey'Lig'ee'oh, it means: Link back to the self."

I'm one to give every,"Religion" a fair shake! But I did pick Judaism. I embrace it because it's makes us ask question, about everything. Like math, science, philosophy, language barriers and of course the no brainer: the moral questions of life.

[Albiorix]

I chose other, because I would like to think that I'm a nihilist, and for those of you who didn't take latin classes, nihil means nothing in latin. I do not believe in having set beliefs, therefore I am a nihilist, I believe in nothing. I am here to learn all that I can, and try to make changes where they are needed. The only thing that I'm interested in is the truth, for that reason, I no longer like to get in religious debates. However, I do like to watch and listen to hear others views.

[Casanova]

Hey Klein. you forgot one category namely; Gnostic, without the A at the beginning.

I have always been fascinated by both science, and religion. I am both scientific, and religious.
I can understand the revulsion against dogmatic, pig-headed, religious fanatics, and herd-followers, but not all religious persons are idiots, or misguided fools.

What I see, many times, on websites such as these, is a hypocritical stance on the part of dogmatic atheists, who, pardon me, prop up science, and the scientific method, as their own personal saviour, and God. The ultimate computer God, and the infinitely extended human mind, are all disguised religious longings; for the all knowable God, and for angels.
Why don't you just say, "my religion is scientism, or technologicalism"

In the largest sense, we are all religious in one way, or another. The religious quest is built in; the quest and longing for meaning, and order, harmony, and union with a supreme intelligence.

On another website I had an arguement with an British atheist about proof of God's, or the Godhead's, existence. He said that there is no proof, and I said that there is.
So, rather than go on for pages, I will recommned one author, and a book by him. This author is not a New Age kook, and he wouldn't be happy being labeled in their camp.

His name is Ken Wilber, and the book is, "Quantum Questions"
He has written many books in the field of "consciouness studies" as related to religion, and psychology. He has credible references in his books, for further study.

As for me; I searched for a religion that fits the realistic, existential, facts of human, and animal, existence.
I am a Westerner, so the only Western religious tradition that I could find that looks reality straight on, without flinching and retreating into denial, is Gnosticism. What I really admire about this tradition is it's view on human, and animal, suffering, and it's explanation for why suffering exists in the first place.
And for those of you, reading this, who are rich, and have lived in well-to-do areas, all your life, with housekeepers, and plenty of money for travel, and expensive educations; remember that most of the people who have lived on this planet, have lived in miserable conditions.

This is one reason I appreciate science, and technology so much. They have been our tools against the tyranny of nature; against disease, natural disasters, harse weather, dangerous animals, famine, excrutiaiting labor, etc.
Read Robert Freitas's article titled, "Death is an Outrage".
Why is there death in the first place, and what kind of a universe would create such a hell of death and suffering?

Being a Gnostic, I see science, and technology, as useful tools in our struggle to make the universal hell, a bit easier to live in, while we are here.
But hell the universe was, is, and always will be, so I don't buy the golden age scenarios, that say we can redeem the universe by using technology; to recreate the universe into a digital heaven.

We can make human life somewhat happier, and healthier, with technology, but that's it.

The Gnostic tradition says that we, humans, are souls trapped in matter. So, the longer you extend your life, the longer you stay in the prison of matter.

By now some of you think I'm a loon, so I'll will keep quite on religious issues, and stick to the science topics, from now on. I just wanted to let you know where I stand on the God debate.

Here is the best Gnostic website on the Internet, and Dr. Stephen Hoeller, is the best modern scholar on this topic.
Gnostic Archives

Edited by Casanova, 09 June 2003 - 04:45 AM.

[Utnapishtim]

Casanova

I share your concern for the temptation to secularise transcendental longings. This is one of the reasons I view the supposedly imminent AI singularity with extreme skepticism.

I also believe that the militant atheism surrounding the 'immortalist' movement is a major barrier to its wider acceptance in and very counterproductive to its eventual success. I have commented on this in a number of other threads

Edited by Utnapishtim, 09 June 2003 - 12:16 PM.

[DJS]

The Gnostic tradition says that we, humans, are souls trapped in matter. So, the longer you extend your life, the longer you stay in the prison of matter.

Then why don't you kill yourself, escape your prison, and put your beliefs to the test? [huh]

[myworldline]

I voted "other" because athiesm is only a small facet of my opinions. I also incorperate a few views of Buddhism and Secular humanism. But I do not share much in common with the Judeo-Chistian beliefs.
If it was a checkbox multi-choice format I would of ticked Buddhism, Atheism and Secular Humanism largely due to their skeptism of supernatural afterlives.

[DJS]

I am having a hard time comprehending how Atheism and Buddism are compatible. This is not to say that there isn't a connection. I am just not really all that "down with the Budda".

To me, atheism represents a hard line stance that the physical world is the extent of reality. Doesn't Buddism deal with stuff like Karma and Zen?

[curious]

Casanova, Gnosticism is more fable-based than Christianity. In fact, the Judeo-Christian bible borrowed some stories from Gnosticism. Read more here: http://www.sullivan-.../gnosticism.htm

I find deism more believable. There IS a god. It is the same god of all "bibles" and religions. God created all and values all. God does not intervene; there are no special favors for "believers". God expects nothing of humans. God is the reason we know right from wrong (not the arbitrary rules, but the absolutes we all know to be true, for example: murder is wrong). There is no hell and damnation. There may or may not be heaven.

Live your life and be happy. Enjoy what this world has to offer. That is what God expects.

[myworldline]

I am having a hard time comprehending how Atheism and Buddism are compatible.  This is not to say that there isn't a connection.  I am just not really all that "down with the Budda".

To me, atheism represents a hard line stance that the physical world is the extent of reality.  Doesn't Buddism deal with stuff like Karma and Zen?

Don't have to look very far see where SOB Xtian fundies are
hitting out at Buddhists all the time and panning them as atheists.
I have never read up of any Buddhist doctrine that supports the concept of a supreme creator of the Universe, which is a good thing. However I do not believe in any of their twaddle about Karma.

other links
Do Buddhists Believe in God?
Atheism and nihilism
Bd.athe

A quote from the last link:

Still, the third-largest religion in the world, Buddhism, is not at all monotheistic, and not even theistic. Many Buddhists are atheists, and it's even possible to be a naturalist and subscribe to Buddhism. Other large systems of belief, like Confucianism and Taoism, are not theistic either. Hindusism, the world's 4th largest religion (or, set of religions) has elements ranging from monotheism to animism in a synchretism of ideas.

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 09:25 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Now I suspect even the blind see the appeal with this form of worship )
Pagans [!]
Ya jus can't live wit'em and you can't live without dem, so just what the hell you gonna do?
Join em [?]
[g:)]

http://www.news.scot...2452003&tid=609


The popularity of Edinburgh's annual Beltane Festival reveals an increasing interest in the occult
Picture: Paul Chappels

Exorcist calls for crusade against occult
TOBY MCDONALD

AN EXORCIST yesterday called for a ‘crusade from the pulpits’ against the growing power of the occult.

Father Jim McManus said paganism and witchcraft were intertwined with evil and needed to be stamped out.

The 62-year-old priest - the only Catholic clergyman to perform the service of "deliverance" regularly - said devil worship could only lead to tragedy.

The profile of paganism will get a boost next month with two festivals and an academic conference on the subject are held north of the Border.

On Saturday, Scotland’s largest ever festival to celebrate followers of Wicca will be held in Glasgow, and next week Glasgow University is hosting a two-day conference to discuss the significance of the film The Wicker Man and the rise of the occult.

It coincides with the Wicker Man Festival in Galloway, which will culminate with the burning of a giant pagan wicker man, as in the film.

The Pagan Federation alone claims over 2,000 devotees in Scotland - rising by 20 per cent in the past six months.

Fr McManus said: "Witchcraft has as its basis an evil source - devil worship. In the end it only cons its devotees, it does them no good at all.

"People just stumble into this by accident. They are fascinated by it, it hooks them and then ruins their lives."

Fr McManus, who is a monk in the monastery of St Mary’s in Perthshire, added: "If people are looking for a sense of purpose and fulfilment in life, they are not going to find it at the end of that road."
In the west of Scotland alone, membership of the Pagan Federation has boomed by a fifth to around 500 this year. About half its members are witches.

The 1973 film The Wicker Man - starring Edward Woodward as a god-fearing police sergeant who is burned to death by pagans, shot in Galloway - has built up a cult following.

Now Glasgow University has launched the first academic conference, under the title Rituals, Readings and Reactions.

Dr Benjamin Franks, a philosophy lecturer who is organising the conference, said: "The organisers are not promoting one theological view over another. We are no more encouraging paganism than a conference on Steven Spielberg’s Amistad would be promoting slavery."

Promoters of the Wicker Man Festival, at Dundrennan near Kirkcudbright, last night denied they were promoting paganism. This year it expects to sell 8,000 tickets over three days. It promises an alternative festival with attractions including extra-terrestrial artwork and a standing stone pyramid.

[micah]

I chose christianity because I believe the world is non-mystical, rational, and coprehensible. Further, I beelieve that the only ethical requirement is to "love"...altruism, in other words. Further, I believe that racism, sexism, etc, are wrong, and that religion (institutional, that is) is wrong. Jesus said all those things 2000 years agom

[Adorondi]

A monarch said to a hermit, "Come with me and I will give you power."
"I have all the power that I know how to use," replied the hermit.
"Come," said the king, "I will give you wealth."
"I have no wants that money can supply." said the hermit.
"I will give you honor," said the monarch.
"Ah, honor cannot be given, it must he earned," was the hermit's answer.
"Come," said the king, making a last appeal, "and I will give you happiness." "No,"
said the man of solitude,
"there is no happiness without liberty, and those who follow cannot be free."
"You shall have liberty too," said the king.
"Then I will stay where I am," said the old man.
And all the king's courtiers thought the hermit a fool.

[tbeal]

I choose atheist but Im as I have said in previou posts I am a weak atheits because I beleive it is entitely posible that there is a god- I just have no expeirence that links me to a god

[Bookcase]

In reply to Kissinger, Sophianic and others who have hotly debated here...... I don't think the question was ever about whether God (in the christian sense) or other gods existed/do exist. Such religions where allegiance to "greater powers and entities" are the basis of their mission exist solely to delude people and give them faith that they are doing "the right thing" or to give them the feeling of being watched over. All religion is nothing more than ellaborately concieved ways of 'mind control'. How does the existence of greater powers and entities follow on that we should worship or have faith in them? Humanity would do better if it were free of the grips of religion.

(For Kissinger and sophianic) Might I add that being a scientist myself, nothing can be proven, but only disproven. Any data, correlation or relationship observed in experiments and research can only be said to be "consistent with a hypothesis". Thus it stands that anything that hasn't been disproven is possible. All religion in use today is "designed" so that it cannot be scientifically/logically attacked and thrown over.

*religion is the root of all evil* - perhaps ironically more people have suffered than have benefited from the invention of religion as a result of religiously rivalry and conflict.

Christians would lead you to think that God created mankind and earth, that God is the ultimate and eternal blablabla... Well, regardless of whether this is true or not (it cannot be proved as Kissinger and Sophianic have shown), it still stands that humanity as a race should not stoop so low as to bow down and obey the wishes of such a God. Perhaps Jesus and the writers of the bible were great men once, but times have changed, greater men with approaches consistent with the continuosly changing society will replace those of before.

Buddhism is not quite like other religions. It is more of a way of life... Of all those listed, this is the one that stands out the most. One of the few where you can be atheist at the same time.

I suppose it's possibly to argue that religion could be man's best creation yet at an attempt to heal the mentally wounded and give eternal mental support to humans. Whether the gods in question exist or not is out of the question in that case... a placebo effect. But for man to advance, surely we will need to be free of the age old traditions that is religion, before a new (at the moment inconcievable) order is brought about. Perhaps we don't need a new one? Perhaps ridding this world of religion in itself is just a matter of time and will ultimately bring about a new leap for mankind. .....psychological engineering.... ? Religion used to be thought of as something fundamentally different from everything else ever... but with new ways of thinking and philosophy we can finally encompass it as nothing more than one of the many tools that man has devised over the centuries..... a psychological one. Whether gods exist is irrelevant in such a case. (and of course.... i challenge you to PROVE me otherwise, but I know you cannot!).

*what can be imagined can be achieved* - we cannot achieve what we cannot imagine.

[tgillies]

I'm a unitarian

[bacopa]

I choose agnostic/Unitarian because to me it serves my purposes well. But I do disagree with alot of what organized religion says and has said. And I think religion can cause harm under many circumstances, particularly when it obstructs the wheels of scientific progress. And yes Bush is a tool

[Sophianic]

Might I add that being a scientist myself, nothing can be proven, but only disproven. Any data, correlation or relationship observed in experiments and research can only be said to be "consistent with a hypothesis". Thus it stands that anything that hasn't been disproven is possible.

I would suggest that you read up on the objectivity of knowledge and the contextual nature of truth. Yes, we can prove something to be true (contextually), and yes, we can know, with certainty, that something is true (absolutely, within context). Your skepticism may be fashionable, but it's false. The onus of proof is on those who assert the positive.

[Bookcase]

Might I add that being a scientist myself, nothing can be proven, but only disproven. Any data, correlation or relationship observed in experiments and research can only be said to be "consistent with a hypothesis". Thus it stands that anything that hasn't been disproven is possible.

I would suggest that you read up on the objectivity of knowledge and the contextual nature of truth. Yes, we can prove something to be true (contextually), and yes, we can know, with certainty, that something is true (absolutely, within context). Your skepticism may be fashionable, but it's false. The onus of proof is on those who assert the positive.

In reply to Sophianic:

Your argument, I have heard before, but taken directly analagous to a scientific hypothesis, I must say I disagree with the line of argument it takes.

You say it is Fashionable? For all things that cannot be mathematically proven (for all practical purposes), it should be deemed that the views of the majority are taken to be true... since what is true to one person could just well be false from another's perspective.

It's just the age old argument of whether something should be correct until proven wrong or wrong until proven correct (an endless debate in my opinion). That is not important. What is important is the point I am trying to make.. simply that anything is possible.

[Sophianic]

You say it is Fashionable? For all things that cannot be mathematically proven (for all practical purposes), it should be deemed that the views of the majority are taken to be true... since what is true to one person could just well be false from another's perspective.

No, I said that skepticism may be fashionable, but it's false. And I'm not talking about healthy skepticism. I refer to a skepticism that denies the objectivity of knowledge. I don't think many scientists are even aware of this as an issue. Hence, my use of the word "fashionable."

In your quote immediately above, you presume a typical Kantian dichotomy between the analytic (necessarily true by definition) and the synthetic (true by observation, but not necessarily true) ~ a dichotomy that has been refuted elsewhere (Ref: The Objectivist Epistemology).

It's just the age old argument of whether something should be correct until proven wrong or wrong until proven correct (an endless debate in my opinion).  That is not important.

Actually, it is important. I can accept the objective truth of a claim, regardless of how I feel, and then adjust the claim with additional facts, thereby qualifying my initial claim without contradiction. The new claim becomes contextually true, and yet, another fact may render it incomplete, requiring additional qualification and a new claim based on that fact ~ a claim that is not merely hypothetical.

What is important is the point I am trying to make.. simply that anything is possible.

Anything is not possible in a universe where A is A. In other words, your feelings are wholly irrelevant to what is contextually true or false. In your imagination, however, anything is possible. That's what I love about the imagination. But I don't dare confuse it with reality. And neither should you.

[Thomas]

In your imagination, however, anything is possible.  That's what I love about the imagination.  But I don't dare confuse it with reality.  And neither should you.

Not a microscope, which would enlarge angles, for example.

[Sophianic]

Not a microscope, which would enlarge angles, for example.

Under a microscope, crystals captivate as much as living cells fascinate.

[Bookcase]

Your contextually true argument.. i agree.

But think of this: we as a species have developed the english language and concepts such as consciousness, amongst other things which have led us to be able to participate in discussions like this...

Take another intelligent species, would they percieve the things you say to be equally logical or unrefutably correct? In another universe A may indeed not be A, and hence things can only be reasonably taken to be true if they are so in the context of which they refer to. But when taken out of the context, this may not be the case... which leads onto the question of what are the bounds of a context? and where we obtain these bounds from? One solution is that it is all in our minds.. the minds of the human race. Another such intelligent species may indeed not have such boundaries, or different boundaries, or perhaps a different view entirely.

We may only have come up with such concepts (ref, quote:The Objectivist Epistemology) because of the way the english language and society has defined the way we think. Ignoring speculations of other intelligent species.. even a simple change in society, which changes with time, will change this..

[Jace Tropic]

iank73: Another such intelligent species may indeed not have such boundaries, or different boundaries, or perhaps a different view entirely.

I’d say plausible. Taken as a whole and with more weight on the side of a realist perspective, knowledge seems to bring us closer to absolute truth. That's what we're working toward for after all, isn't it? Denying God a premise for the moment, it seems there can be only one such coherent truth, however complex. This kind of truth would be knowledge that accounts for everything, including all possible abstractions that ever could, should, and would manifest from having all the facts.

If there were, in fact, no boundaries, what would seem to follow as the end of all means is a Superintelligence with an eternal possession of absolute truth. And if decrypted reductionism is ever able to charm her with the capability to calculate all that ever was and all that ever will be, your implicit ontology would be rather intractable and wholly unwelcome.

Jace

[Sophianic]

Take another intelligent species, would they percieve the things you say to be equally logical or unrefutably correct?

They would be living in the same universe as you and I. In my view, the universe encompasses all that exists, including extra dimensions (if they exist). There is no parallel universe and no multiverse if we have no evidence for their existence. And even if we did, why could we not lump it all together under the umbrella term 'universe'?

In another universe A may indeed not be A, and hence things can only be reasonably taken to be true if they are so in the context of which they refer to.

In another part of the universe, A may indeed not be A, but we have no evidence of that. You cannot assume that is true. You can, however, imagine a world that we create where A is not A, a world where we are safe to experience things that contradict our perception of them.

But when taken out of the context, this may not be the case... which leads onto the question of what are the bounds of a context? and where we obtain these bounds from?

The bounds of any given perceptual and conceptual context are axiomatic: (1) existence is identity, and (2) consciousness is identification. You would need a systematic understanding of naturalistic metaphysics and epistemology to fully appreciate these postulates.

One solution is that it is all in our minds.. the minds of the human race.

That is not a solution; it solves nothing. It's mere speculation that relies on feel-good feelings. Ontologically, there are many things we cannot change with a mere thought.

Another such intelligent species may indeed not have such boundaries, or different boundaries, or perhaps a different view entirely.

Again, mere speculation. Unless you have evidence to back this up, it's virtually worthless. I don't mean to discourage your speculation ~ only to make you aware that speculation does not a claim make. Naturalistic ontology demands that extraordinary claims possess extraordinary evidence.

We may only have come up with such concepts (ref, quote:The Objectivist Epistemology) because of the way the english language and society has defined the way we think.

This is the social subjectivist view of knowledge, one that has been thoroughly refuted by the Objectivist philosophy (Ref: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Peikoff).

Ignoring speculations of other intelligent species.. even a simple change in society, which changes with time, will change this..

But there is nothing to ignore. There are no extraterrestial intelligent species that we are aware of. Here, you seem to confuse speculation with fact. And even if they were, what if they were a lot like us? Same ontology, same relationship of consciousness to existence, because that is all that this universe can support? Think about it.

I sense you feel restricted by the absolutism of reality and reason. Remember, absolutism is not intrinicism. It still permits contextual knowledge; there is no omniscient standard of knowledge.

[Jace Tropic]

Sophianic: Remember, absolutism is not intrinicism. It still permits contextual knowledge; there is no omniscient standard of knowledge.

Isn't this just as easily speculative? If not, why?

Jace

[Sophianic]

Isn't this just as easily speculative? If not, why?

Good questions, Jace.

I said, and I quote, "... there is no omniscient standard of knowledge." This mere assertion is not a (positive) claim. The 'onus of proof' principle (i.e., "the onus of proof is on s/he who asserts the positive") would come into play if I were to say "there is an omniscient standard of knowledge." That's one answer, but not a very satisfying one. Let me go further. If knowledge is not intrinsic (i.e., does not belong to a conscious entity whose nature and purpose we know nothing about, and whose influence invisibly and subtly guides us in the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge and value), then knowledge and value must then either be subjective (i.e., "this is true or good because I feel that it is true or good," or "because I have faith that it is true or good," or "because my intuition tells me that it is true or good", or "because I imagine that it is true or good") or it must be objective (it arises purposefully and contextually from a specific, identifiable relationship between a volitional human consciousness and existence). Subjective assertions reduce to mere belief in the absence of any standards of proof or validation. Objective assertions are absolute when the full context of knowledge is taken into account, but not necessarily fixed forever ~ i.e., they remain contextual, pending further investigation and observation (including axioms whose truth values are assumed to be forever fixed). You may ask: but how do you know that knowledge is not intrinsic? How do you know there isn't "a conscious entity whose nature and purpose we know nothing about, and whose influence invisibly and subtly guides us in the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge and value?" Again, the 'onus of proof' principle applies. Show me the evidence. But could we not create such a conscious entity? And are we not in the process of creating such an entity? Ah, but the answer to those questions may or may not be forthcoming. Mere speculation for now. Perhaps forever ...

[Bookcase]

I must admit, my command of the english language and philosophy is insufficient to debate with you on the matter further. But my initial reference to "nothing can be proved, it can only be disproved", is a statement that in my awareness, a large majority of scientists will agree with (from all fields), and with all due respect I encourage you to ask around. I am sure someone will be able to put forward a better argument than that which I can present.

Alas... if you take your arguments too far by exploiting every concept and way of thinking on the subject then I think you will conclude that everything ever forever can boil down to speculation (no such thing as absolute truth or omniscient standard of knowledge). In other words speculation is a never ending way of forward thinking... and in my opinion the basis of what drives us. The word 'speculation' is very much similar to 'hypotheses', the very things which drives our scientific research. Hence I do not believe that specultion is as "MERE" as you say it is. It is one of the fundamental ways by which we have formulated our ways of thinking.... including all Your arguments. Without initial speculation, we as a race would not have come up with the ideas such as yours(amongst others). Not true in the absolute sense of course, But.... : "what if/could" = imagination => concepts/ideas => possible speculation => research/investigation/look for evidence => proven/disproven => knowledge => progress. (amongst other possible routes).

If the speculation stage was cut out... *dot dot dot* And so in closing.. I do not see a speculation to be made irrelevant as a result of there being no evidence. We cannot look for evidence of things that we do not speculate of. Data is renamed "evidence" as soon as we have found a corresponding speculation or hypothesis with which it goes.