The Satanic quality of the Internet

[MH]

Simplicity...that no one really can wrap a mind around to complexity that blows the mind too.
All we really know is the basic laws and theorise about the rest to make sense of it all

I think that since still leaves a lot of space for religion and will long time to come.



.............

[Skybird]

@Skybird

Indeed I don't believe that spirituality need die in association with religion. I feel that there is an inherent truth to much spritual thinking, insofar as it pertains to the concept of perception and insight. In that sense the rational self aware atheist can easily call himself spiritual without sacrificing any of his good sense.

Sounds like you wish to give a reference to Buddhist concepts of human mind, or is that by coincidence only?! Buddhism is atheistic and imo not even a religion like the others more an attitude towards life and how to live it, and nthat again has much in common with what Kant said in the Golden Rule. Now, a confessing Christian or Jew or Muslim can live in accordance with the golden Rule, yes. I never denied that. What IU deny is that the Golden Rule and the morals that give skin and flesh to it derive from any of the three desert dogma and their scriptures. Ol' jahwe, the God of the old testemant and much of the new, Allah, they all are not that pleasant and kind at all. They make humans like Stalin or Tamerlan, Hitler or Saddam look like liberal, humanistic amateurs in the business of how to terrorise mankind, or the indovodual hero in a given story as well. Fathers told to buthcer their sons, leaders being told to conmquer that forign land and wipe out every triobe living there, not saving anyone, all life on earth being exterminated due to some animosity God had for the behaviour of his creature that he had designed by his own image, and time an again the displays of extreme hostility against women, and disrespect for their existence: stories on men preferring to hand over their daughters to a mob for gang rapes over sending away foreigners under their roof who - by chance I'm sure! - all happen to be precious males... Lovely book. Puts all authors of war and crime novels to shame. If God is perfect, and created us by his image, why do we fail and get punished by him then? Is god not poerfect then? Or is he just a sadist misdesigning us intentionally so that he can have his fun with us when punishing us for being what he made us to be?

Also, I agree about the notion that our susceptibility towards this dogmatic thinking likely is a function of evolution. I however am apt to think this is all a byproduct of the evolution of the rational self aware mind and it being at odds with the pre-existing primal survival instinct, the one that tends towards conformism at the cost of the individual in favor of the group.

You say vulnerability to religious dogma/authority is a byproduct of the evolution of self-aware mind. A categorical adaptation mismatch, you mean? How does that work exactly? The argument I gave in my explanation of the term spirituality over religion (some posts above), as well as the example on the moth and how that may serve as an example of human children's behaviour serving a survival task but making them vulnerable to religious authority, would argue differently.

I think of self awareness like its some unfavorable mutation that has yet to find its equilibrium. Really it'd be so much better if we just could shut up and get on with the currents.

Why do you think so? And what do you say to the apparent trend for increasing complexity we see in evolution of life on earth, and in physical, chemical, ecological, astronomical systems as well? In the models on how matter aggregades to form solar systems, to observations of how an individual life form gets formed up after fertilzation, or the evolutionary design of the race'S characteristc features? I would say the trend from simplicty to complexity is almost omnipresent where life and existence unfolds - and it is reverse were it dies. When a life form dies, the higher and more complex functions of the body die first, the basic, vital ones late. When an eco system collapse, the more advanced lifeforms in the hierarchy are threatened first, the rudimentary, simple forms hold out the longest time.

I cannot prove it, but by how I see things in the universe moving I think evolution means a trend from simplicity to increasing complexity, and that the universe by this process in the end becomes more and more aware of itself. Developing mind (in a wide meaning of the word and surpassing the limited reference to man and his intellect) maybe is the real drive. But that is just a subjective opinion of mine.

Really though its a very curious mutation. To be self aware and capable of essentially reaching a point of defining so much of what we are is both freeing and powerful but also entirely depending on so many factors that its a much messier way to be.

You are a candidate for Wilber'S model of "holon hierarchies". It includes this basic principle, that the construction of systems of higher complexities always come at the price of forming new problems that on lower levels of complexity did not exist. The solution of problems emerging on a given complexity level leads the system to transformation where the solution gets realised, a structure of higher order and complexity forms up, where the problems of the level before can be solved and have been solved - but new problems emerged.

Romanticising a bit here, couldn'T this also be seen as a drive and motor of evolution?

Those that conform to the more dogmatic mindset obviously are the backbone of our species still, basically forming the survival-buoyancy necessary for us 'dreamers' to strive towards self improvement and expand our self awareness. What does a poet add to the human race that is substantially more valuable to survival that is not utterly eclipsed by the simple mundane product of the farmer? The insight into self in

Well, the Darwinian model would claim that no features exist for whose existence there have not been a good reason. Poetry may be a sideeffect of another evolutionary feature design, but we cannot be sure that it is this way, or any other way. Maybe it is a by-product of our intellect unfolding that enabled us instrumentally to master our environment. Maybe it serves a deeper function in itself. However, good poetry, music, arts, are a pleasurable and satisfying experiences - experiences without which life for a horse or a dog may not be different, but for us is makes a difference. Or wouldn'T you miss it? With our level or self-reflection and self-awerness, there can be more than just feeding the physical body. I would even say: there must be more.

not necessary for the farmer to buoy the human race's continued existence, but the failure of the Poet has much less impact compared to the failure of the farmer. Yet you must turn around and say if there are no poets why bother farming? Where do we go from there? Even the most mundane of thinkers fully inculcated into the dogma of narrow conformism is in some way motivated by that essential desire for more than just survival.

So it comes to me the fact that those two elements of humanity, the animal; the survivor, and the thinker; the self aware creature, don't function as a whole the way most elements of a creature's evolutionary package do. Mostly one finds a tail bone, the vestigial marker of a previous form, yet this is hardly at odds with the new evolutionary form.

As I indicatd I tend to think that mind is a higher goal of evolution than just physical life, the latter is just a necessary fundament for the first, maybe. Seen that way I cannot follow you when you differ between farmer-necessary, poet-not necessary for survival. I must admit I fail to see the conflict you describe, but that is because I think evoltution aims at something higher than just biological life. And I wonder if there is a cap, an upper limit to what evolution of the universe is going for. I don'T think so, and if there is such a limit, then we probably cannot imagine it, because it is too high above our current level. The wannabe-novelist in me just voiced his idea that maybe life/we are aiming at finally turning into god. I admit that queer thought makes me giggle.

Basically, I think neurosis is the manifestation of the essential dysfucntional nature of our bizarre evolutionary model. More than any other creature we struggle to find our equilibrium. Other creatures struggle with surviving the elements and the biosphere, we struggle with surviving the argument over our own true nature.

Wowh, and people call me a pessimist! I think our evolutionary design is like it is becasue until here it worked pretty well. Maybe it is not poerfect, yes. Maybe a shark is more perfect in being a shark, and indeed he is a marvellous design. I admire it absolutely. But a shark also is what he is, and that is a relativley low life form, that has not changed since how long it was? 7 million years? I do not remember, but it was a damn long time, I'm sure A shark cannot manipulate his environment, cannot leave his element, cannot reflect about himself, and when a new meteor hits Earth and kills all life on it, then he will suffer what he must becasue he has not the intellect to try finding ways to escape. Needless to say, sharks also do not write poetry, since we have been there two paragraphs earlier. The develoepment line of sharks gives the imporession to be somewhat the end product of that line. It will not go any further from there. We have the freedom to allow that - we have a choice,m we can chose for self-destruction, or for adaptation and adressing factors vital for our world'S future. A shark does not do that.

And the ultimate differences: we can choose to care for the interests of sharks, and other animals. while I do not know a single animal developed enough to make the same stand regarding us. And second, we can leave our environmental habitat to some degree. Technology is our way to transcend the limits of our biological design. It is a two-sided sword, I admit. We can spell disaster by abusing it, we can do marvellous things with it if we become wise enough. Anyhow, I more and more believe that technology is part of human evolution, in the meaning of enabling man to expand the limits of his biologial design. And that is what really sets us apart from any other life form on this planet.

As I said in the holon-hierarchy model, each level of complexity has cures for problems of earlier stages, but introduces new problems as well. that we can be overwhelemed by the problems of your developement stage should not make us doubt that we are on a higher complexity level than a shark nevertheless.

Or, to be coy, I believe that answer to the meaning of life is that we're just a well and truly f**ked up evolutionary mistake.

Answer rejected. Too simple.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Simplicity...that no one really can wrap a mind around to complexity that blows the mind too.
All we really know is the basic laws and theorise about the rest to make sense of it all

I think that since still leaves a lot of space for religion and will long time to come.

We have something better already. Maths. It is our means to make - by limited and finite means - precise statements about the infinite. I hate that I suck at maths. In a way it is the most noble language man has ever spoken.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We have something better already. Maths. It is our means to make - by limited and finite means - precise statements about the infinite. I hate that suck at maths. In a way it is the most noble language man has ever spoken.

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know(i don't know much on the issue) and in other cases breaks down.


That's way scientists may be still looking for particles faster than light for example?



............

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know and in other cases breaks down.

That may be because it still is not in final perfect shape (can it ever be?) but gets developed, too. That it is abstract, just lies in the nature of the matter. When you deal with infinity, don'T be surpsied that thing sbecome so cojmplex that you perceive them as being slightly complex.

There is talking in the concept of dissipative systems about self-emerging structures, a term that matches into the holon-conceot I mentiuoned as well as it is used in several other scientific branches and theories, including systemtic and chaos theories. I think that maybe all in universe, and in uman thinking, imaginationk, and model-building, includes a component of self-emerging structure, too, turning any system - physical or theoretical - into a system with the potential to always form up something new, answering some questions, while opening other, new questions, and hinting at possible ways to approach these.

Maybe maths is no exception.

Somebody once said that life is art, and living means the art of interacting with the universe via imagination, which is an art because both are infinte in time and space. Sometimes, for a split of a second, something lights up in my mind, and then it is gone again, but I had the feeling afterwards that for that split of a moment, barely visible to my awareness, I understood in full what that somebody meant by these words, and understood all. Like a snip of the finger that wakes me up - and the moment I realised it has snipped, it already is gone again.

Should that make me cry or smile now?

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

No, I am saying he pushes several conspiracies as true and espouses absolute faith in those theories no matter how ludicrous they are.
I am saying his belief in those puts him exactly on par with those he is railing against.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes math is good but still can get very abstract and trippy as far as i know(i don't know much on the issue) and in other cases breaks down.


That's way scientists may be still looking for particles faster than light for example?



............

The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.

As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.

And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.

That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.

[MH]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.
.

Was talking about particles ,neutrinos...but again the properties of neutrinos are in question so it might be bad example.

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Those are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of the few. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly dont believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do.

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

...me lazy

As for the scientifically based ugly ideologies the argument stands.
I think the few past centuries show and in particular last century.A period when religion was less relevant than earlier that the bloodshed and conquest, including killing on industrial scale had become even more intensive.
In some cases it can be attributed to advancement in weaponry in others to applying Darwinian laws about survival of the strongest races therefore making racism a science ...for example or used in the name of social engineering.Yet the fact is that the "enlightenment" did not really prevent it...sometimes led to it.

The "enlightenment" made religion merely a less effective tool in political game while other ideas replaced them.

I can agree that religion may hold us back when it comes to scientific advancements but i can hardly say that it is root of all evil.

When it comes to Judaism and local (why local is a long story that dates back to 48)orthodox i probably like them even less than you do (not sure though...)but still they don't try to convert anyone or conquer others.
They simply are closed club that is trying to preserve itself.
God dam it...most of they don't even recognise Israel.
Israel is Zionist sin till Messiah comes to sort things out.


..........

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?.

I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

Post 50

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

As for the argument, i think its hard to express a desire for freedoms and yet attack religion, regardless of its history. In fact, i believe that it is truly impossible to do so. i believe that religion is a completely ridiculous system and i loathe everything it leads to. Human beings invented religion, and by countless examples, it has proven to be just as flawed as human nature itself. It has lead to a control system, constantly being changed based on the ideas of the few to spread into the masses. Individuals have proven themselves to be, more times than not, to be more reasonable than people.

And because the idea can spread through the people so quickly, because of human nature, it often gets absorbed without individual critical thinking and reason. In this fashion, religion has been used more often than not as a tool for to control the masses for individual gain. Discrimination, crusades, hate, violence,denouncement of scientific advances and the rights of others, all have been the result of religion being used as a tool for the accomplishment of the few.

That is my take on religion, andThose are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of people. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do. i may hate religion, and i may hate many people who bible thump and try to save, for example, homosexuals from "eternal damnation", but i cant deny them the right to believe whatever they want and to express that feeling verbally. All i can do is to stop him from infringing on other's rights and hope, imo, that he comes to his senses.

The red part is the point, and I often have said that I do not care for what is going on in other peoples porivate cabinet or bedroom as long as they do nto rub it down other people's nose and do not try to enforce it into the public sphere, legislation, education, state politics and law-giving. The red part also illustrates partz of the answer why atheists use the internet to communicate and organsie themselves, becaseu u_crfank asked why there is so much of that on the internet. It is a reaction to relgion prssing more and more openly into society and law-making again, mainly pushed by Catholicism and fundamentalists in the US demonising secularism, and Islam demonising criticism as Islamophobia.

Freedom is not to be defended when it has been taken away, because then it is too late: it is gone. Freedom is to be used for defence as long as it is still there.

Where tolerance even tolerates intolerance or those putting their ideology above mutual tolerance (which basically is one and the same thing), the intolerant will overrun the tolerant and destroy them, and tolerance with them. What remains is the ruling of the intolerant.

The record of the three desert dogmas stands as it is, and it is not a positive one, by far not. The evil and wickedness comign from them is beyond doubt, the evidence reaches back from the present 1000 years, 2000 years, even 3000 years. And its alwaxyd the same damn darkness following in their wake. At court, the ben fit of doiubt is rcongised as long as their is no evidence given proving guilt. But the evidence in this case is present since a long time, in amyn forms and variations, in many stories and details. The issue is beyond all doubt, and is so since centuries and millenia. That'S why I do not grant them the benfit of doubt anymore, and call for the destuctio0n of the intolerant - before they can destroy tolerance. And it is this what the intolerant aim for, and what the church aims atr, and what the orthodox Jews waim at, and what Muhammedanism aims at: destruction of tolerance, and freedom. Or in more archaic language: EXTERMINATION OF THE FOREIGN TRIBES, and taking their land. That is the archetype behind it. And so I say: destroy the churches and mosques and synagogues, save the chidlren from being intoxinated with this brain poison, burn these damn things called bible, quran and Thora.

Note that I do not say: bring down hinduism, destroy buddhist centres. I m not really a fan of hinduism, and the caste system they have is an offence to all what is humane and ciuvilised, but what makes me tolerating Hinduism is that they do not mess up the world beyond their borders, and do not try for active subjugation or convertation of others - and that is a big plus for me, after all the religious aggressive violence we have seen being done in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Also, Buddhas teaching does not aid in seeking conquest, hate, intolerance and subjugation of others, and they leave you alone and do not missionise all around the globe, only open a centrte her eor there where they are welcomed, and even then they stay inside their compound and do not mess up society, do not seek to manipulate education sysetems, laws, and try not to gain a special status for themselves that make them special amongst all others. So yes: no problem to tolerate them as well.

And there are many other opinion traditions and schools of thinking and other religious cults towards which I feel no need to confront them - even when I disagree, even when I find them hilarious.

But the churches, Jewish and christian funda,mentlaism, Islam I explicitly exclude from this tolerance, since they show no tolerance towards others.

U_crank,

I called you an idiot above, and that was an unneeded call.
I apologize for that.
I still find your way of running your part of the debate absurd and contradicting in itself, I still do not accept the way you were weazeling. But the name calling was unneeded, and should considered to be unneeded in any other debate as well. So: sorry for that one, and I mean it.

But sorry only for that one.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

U_crank,
I apologize for that.

Noted. Accepted. Peace.

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said

The beauty of it is that people don't need to distort what you say, you just cannot see what you are saying(or what other people are saying).

Its brilliant, even when you try to exclude little things like saffronization or the rising of the lotus from your own intolerance to make you seem more reasonable you manage to get facts so wrong its laughable

Really...now why don't you...

MH don't be silly.
you know he already did that perfectly, Sky won't answer that and you can see his attempt at skirting round his contradiction leads him straight into another self contradictory position.