In my younger years I was an absolute atheist and proud of it. I saw through the christian religion I was exposed to as a child from day one. The fundamental notions just seemed ridiculous to me and I have always had an inate dislike for the notions of authority and moral superiority, these are, in my opinion, the delusions of psychopaths. I looked at the various religions and thats all I saw.
My suspicions about the church were confirmed when I learned my father had been shall we say, badly treated by the jesuit preists at the school he attended, the nefarious nature of the church was never really in doubt but this only compounded it for me and I went full bore into science as an "-ism", and for all intents and purposes it answered the immediate questions I had about my surroundings quite well.
To be honest though the older I get the more I'm beginning to change my mind about atheism. Just as I have have problems with the groupthink mentality of the church, there's no doubt science is now a religion, and I can't stop myself from seeing atheism as the 'scientific' answer to god.
The problem I have with it is that I cannot lock the view into a coherent theory of the universe, I have the feeling that it's just somewhat immature, I don't mean that as an insult, it's just the only word I can use because no other seems appropriate. Whilst I understand completely the rejection of the idea that theres a man in a cloud being omnipitant over all of us and a great horned beast below, The idea that the order of the universe could simply just be there seems a total improbibility. We recognise the increasing manifestation of order as a sign of intelligence amongst our own species, so why would we not apply that to the universe. look around you and sure, you might see chaos if you look superficially, but when you get in close there is an inate order, a progression of states, atoms appear to display will. when an atom loses an electron, it will attach itself to another atom that has the number of electrons needed to make up for what was lost. Sodium and Chlorine bond together because one loses and electron and the other has the electron needed which then forms a more complex structure, NaCl, which is more commonly known as salt.
Is that not a display of a 'will' to retain order in the chaos? we can call it a law but law, or even the notion of law itself in our society is the result of intelligence, our 'laws' were created, instilled and regulated by our conscious intelligence because without them our society would act chaotically and there would be little progression. Is the same not true of the universe? And so does all logic not therefore point to the idea that there is some level of desicion in that 'law-making'. Effect implies cause, law implies lawmaking/maker(s), it doesn;t necisarilly mean a single recognisable being, but it certainly implies that at some point, the desicion of order was made over disorder by something somewhere at some point in the evolution of the universe.
If there is nothing ordering the universe then what is the reason for any order whatsoever? Why do little peices of mass tend to follow habitual processes? If scientists wish to stick to the principle then they must answer what caused the effect of the big bang, because by their own terms, "it just kind of happened" does not work.
Atheism is, I beleive what happens when mainstream scientists take their religion to the extreme.
It makes sense psychologically. All children rebel against their parents and whilst I'm not suggesting 'god' is our parent, he is presented as the ultimate authority figure, the one who has ultimate dominion over everything. Just as parents represent a suppression of independence to the teenager, so religious structures present an ultimate surpression of independence for the average human being, and as our spiritual state resembles that of a teenager, blossoming into independence, it follows that we would rebel against the very idea of an overuling structure to the universe and ergo, our lives. the difference is we can rebel totally against the idea of god, to the point at which we remove the entire notion of any outside influence the overall direction of the universe might have on our individual lives. We can see ourselves more comfortably as cogs in the machine than we can as peverse viginettes, manipulated for some overarching grand scheme.
Scientific materialism as such sees itself as the sole arbiter of truth and yet it is founded on contradiction. It revolves around the idea of cause and effect and yet it's happy to consider that there was no cause for the big bang, the event that supposedly started it all. And worse still, The mainstream of science spent centuries violently ridiculing and flat out denying the existence of the 'supernatural' or the ether, and now mainstream science's greatest achevement, quantum mechanics, says "oh yeah actually there are parallel dimensions, quantum entaglement and btw, the universe is like 97% imperceivable dark matter so yeah, it turns out there's an ether too" and the scientists dont even bat an eyelid. They just carry on pretending its somehow a new discovery that they are responsible for and it hasn't been fucking etched in stone from the earliest civilisations onwards. Try telling them the scientific method was given to Renee Descartes in a dream, gifted by an angel, and they wont even realise how this very fact alone discredits their so called 'noble' pursuit, not necisarilly because of their results, but because of their approach and the way it has coloured their perception of their results. This is why I think an open philosophical view is more important than a dogmatic beleif like Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Atheism.The fact should be constantly re-asserted that atheism is supposedly based on the scientific principle, and if this is the case, then even the most hardcore atheist would have to concede that we really have no idea. We do not even have the level of intelligence to comprehend the ideas that might form the beginning of the understanding of the variables that need to be considered when asking the questions of how the universe formed.
The more I learn from the scientific enquiry, the more I am convinced that there has to be some kind of mathematical fractal geometary based conscious intelligence behind the ordering of the universe as we perceive it. Whether or not it is aware of us or is even able to effect change on our level is another question entirely, but my intuition tells me that it is there, and so far I see no evidence, scientific or otherwise to disprove that idea. Infact it has only further cemented this initial intuition, in my head at least
But this intelligence may itself simply be a fractal of an even bigger, even more incomprehensible intelligence that orders it, and so it may be as powerless to change its course as we ultimately are.
This doesn't mean free will dissapears however. As arthur C Clarke said, quantum mechanics has also shown that chance is indelibly written into the quantum universe, cause does not always mean effect, random chance can and will interject. In terms of building an orderly progression of the evolution of humanity, we may one day find that our leap from apes to intelligence was indeed one of these chance events, as opposed to their being a missing link waiting to be found, or it being whatever version of the ancient astronauts proves to be the earliest. But is random chance really random chance, or is it, as chaos theory conjectures, merely a pattern we are not yet on an objective enough level to discern? These are the questions anyone who professes to hold an 'absolute truth' always skips over, because they'ed rather do that than say "you know what, In all honesty I don't fuckin know"
My philosophy, as it stands, is that the universe is ultimately coded information, and as biological interfaces we decode it like a computer. We only need to look at the extremes of our own planets temperature to realise that life will appear everywhere, this universe appears to be coded to evolve matter into an increasingly focused progression of conscious self awareness and thus, experience itself in an ever more concentrated way. This would make sense in terms of a human persepective, as we view our own existence as a progression towards some kind of perfection or completion, even though we are not really aware of what that completion might be. The fact that higher states of consciousness seem to lead to a greater level of intropection on the nature of the cosmos and an increasing desire to understand the surrounding environment on every level, to me lends credence to this idea, and to the idea that on some level we are individual manifestations, reflections of a greater conscious whole, just as when we smash a mirror we do not see a full cracked reflection staring back, rather many smaller peices in which the whole is visible, warped, but discernable.
So I guess boiled down the big bang, the beginning of time and the meaning of the universe represents something equatable to a conscious act of smashing a mirror into infantescimally small peices, so as to peer at the reflection and let the subject perceive itself from an infinate number of different perspectives.
But this remains just a probability, as opposed to a so called "law of physics" or universal truths. I'd rather talk about the probabilites of physics than the laws, and even though scientific materialism may put its fingers its ears and yell "lalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" the fact remains that Isaac Newton at least, would have probably agreed with me.
Fight the War, Fuck the norm....
Dedication ---------------- Tenacity --------------------------- Volition
Will respond in kind later.
Censorship debunking & disinformation, it's all in a days work.
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:31 pm
- Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!
epicfailure wrote:legalizeheroin wrote:Richard Dawkins is a piece of shit.
Evolution is fraud science.
Actually evolution has pretty much been proven, just not in Human terms, we still haven't found a missing link and I don't think we will...
a single micro organism does actually replicate and grow, so that proves that replication works, but not only that since it replicates that means that it is making a semi-stronger duplicate of itself and surviving the test of time, which essentially mean.
"survival of the fittest"
when you give birth to a baby, you are in fact evolving. replicating, but your genes are surviving and evolving. merging yes, but evolving.
There hasn't been a 'missing link' discovered for any creature man or animal. Yet we have thousands of complete dinosaurs! fossils.
Evolution is the biggest joke and bit of propaganda, and it has destroyted the human psyche. It has devalued the human view of itself. Its one of the reasons all the atheisst seek out such cheap false spirituallity, through new age crap or self-worship.
God Himself has far mor evidence that He exists then evolution.
In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
- Posts: 2556
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:23 pm
- Location: 'Happiness is the angle at which the wise are gathered'
legalizeheroin wrote:Yup. Evolution is a popular belief too. I don't buy it for one second. It has major holes and flaws - it's a novelty at best. And Richard Dawkins, as the Evolution poster boy, is a piece of shit for knowing that and continually decieving people because he's too wrapped up in his belief system to admit that both he and it are wrong.
Science is bullshit. Scientists are some of the most small-minded and ignorant people in existence and nobody knows it. Especially not Evolutionary Biologists. They are intentionally conditioned to be that way and always will. Every new theory goes through the same cycle: you're crazy if you believe it - you get harassed for believing it - then you're crazy if you believe anything else. It's great for controlling thoughts and ideas.
Don't confuse Intelligent Design with Right-wing White Anglo Saxon six-day Creationism. Now walk with me.
Check out that documentary, first of all. It explains many things better than I, who's been awake for 70 + hours now and getting a little loopy. In fact, fuck it. You get the short version.
They found T-Rex bones that still have marrow in them. They've found species thought to be extinct for millions and millions of years completely unchanged from the fossile record. Nobody's really sure how DNA protiens magically mutate to the appropriate and desired changes. EVERY species came from a common single-cell ancestor? Don't think so. Sorry, boss. Plus, Intelligent Design is virulently opposed from all angles - there must be something to it.
Carbon dating is useless, volcanic eruptions cause millions of years worth of deposit build up in minutes... Yeah, not into religion and Intelligent Design isn't the whole story but I think the sooner we get over ourselves and move on to the next level of science the better.
interesting, but can you answer the question on how life began originally then?
and, evolution does seem to occur, after/around every cataclysm...
The idea of evidence-based or at least evidence-enriched spirituality is audacious, preposterous, inspiring --- and absolutely needed! Better answers need to be discovered, they aren't in, and there is real resistance to even thinking about this, but if we don't get some answers that are effective, there may not be much life left to mankind after the 21st century, we may have destroyed our planet by greed and stupidity if we don't get a practical spirituality that makes us really care about each other and the world. Professor Tart will share some ideas to get us started thinking about this direction of evolution, and then draw us out to give us even more possibilities….."
"The Heaven's Lights are fed by the energy generated inside the furnaces of Hell; I AM One Conductive Wire! "
You and I are one. You and I have the same awareness, exactly the same, yet your awareness is aware of a different ego, without the ego there would be no "experience", without the judging there would be no difference. Yet you survive on the ego and you seek happiness trough spirituality, or unity. There cannot be a true harmony if you do not see the all that is you, the harmony does not come from seeing something as different or not I. That is the nurturing of the ego. This ego has its roots in the oppression of man on itself, of seeing itself as apart from the environment and blaming the cold on the outside. Yet look at so many things that do no fear cold and still survive. There is more harmony everywhere else than in the ego and the mind. When the blame on the outside stops for you see that there is only one, then you can come to peace with the true nature of you, or love. The question of the unobserved and spirituality is the seeking the source. Do not focus on the question, but question why there is a question, and who or what asked the question. And when you come to only one answer, that of awareness, then you are all as awareness, and the answers will be right in front of you.
this is a good resource for the understanding of the theory of ONE http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness, you might see as not I, but the problem lies when you stop seeing.
And the thread... the defending of this unseen "spirituality" will continue just as the dominating of the ego will continue to see and do, and therefore prove that there is no spirituality.
There is no shortcut to enlightenment, but we all see the light, and when you do not see you should do yourself a favor and question why. Trough constant inquiry you will see in the self the truth, but know who is asking just as much as who is answering.
Darwin used plants and animals to prove evolution but more or less man's evolution was based on assumption that if plants and animals evolved then humans do to.
I believe that is to far an assumption to make with something as important as where we come from' and we know he spent more time studying and writing about plants and animals than he did humans, so it would be fair to say that he maybe correct about animals and plants but to extend this research to explain man is stretching it a bit far.
There is evidence that our DNA has been tampered with in the past and it Darwin were alive today his finding might be quite different.
- Related topics
- Last post