Quote from: FinShaggy on September 17, 2013, 06:43:37 PM

Quote from: the joint on September 17, 2013, 05:59:01 PM

Quote from: FinShaggy on September 17, 2013, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: the joint on September 17, 2013, 05:29:37 PM

Quote from: FinShaggy on September 17, 2013, 04:19:39 PM

Quote from: dancupid on September 08, 2013, 06:32:50 PM

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality. The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation.

These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.

It's deduced (not inferred) through the sameness-in-difference principle that I would share a fundamental identity with god if he exists. So, in certain contexts, I much prefer the phrase god because 1) i believe it more accurately reflects the dynamic relationship between mental and physical reality and 2) I don't equate god with the universe.

All those "why/when/how" questions are much harder to answer, though I believe it's possible to deduce some of the answers from tautologies. Regardless, they are irrelevant until the existence of god is established.

Just because you share fundamental identities does not mean there is any form of relationship between you and it. Ex: Do you have a relationship with the cells in your skin?

Sure, the universe is an organism... Which means it will have organs. And we can even see some of the structures (solar systems, galaxies, etc)
It MIGHT have consciousness, but we really don't even know what consciousness is yet, so we can't just assume other things have it.
Maybe it has to consume things to survive (gas, minerals, etc)

But I mean, other than that, you and god aren't going to have much in common.

Your concept of relationship in this discussion is different than mine. Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with it if we share fundamental identities. Yes, I absolutely share a relationship with the cells in my skin. I share a relationship with any observable, identifiable phenomena through a subject-object relationship. I (subject) perceive an event/thing (object). I (subject) perceive my cells and skin (objects).

The question "is it conscious or isn't it?" with respect to those 'structures' is, in my opinion, an inferior question when compared with, "is it consciousness dependent?" Asking whether it's conscious or not invokes a false dichotomy and totally negates the ways in which things can and cannot be in a simultaneous state depending on your particular vantage point. Specifically, it is a question posited from a lower level of logical syntax that attempts to explain something at a higher level of logical syntax. Asking whether it is consciousness dependent is positing a question from a higher level of logical syntax to attempt to explain something at a lower level of logical syntax. This is because the former question fails to assume the sameness-in-difference principle (i.e. simultaneous states) while the latter question allows this assumption.