jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (297 posts)

Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism-The devolution of Homo Sapiens

  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago

    The common thread that weaves through Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism is the belief that reality can and must only be rationalized purely on the basis of its material or physical form.

    Atheism posits that anything that is not sensed in any physical way (seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched) do not exist in reality, specifically, the spiritual or mystical.

    Atheism found recognition in a wide variety of other concepts including Objectivism and Reductionism.

    Objectivism, alhtough humanistic in its basic axiom,  posists that human kowledge and values are objective, i.e.they are not creation of his thoughts, but are determined by the nature of the physical reality (to be discovered, but not interpreted) by his mind. Objectivism rejects all forms of spiritualism or mysticism because they are "not rational", i.e. without evidence or proof either apart from or against the evidence of his senses.

    Reductionism is the belief that reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of entities. It  occasionally goes to the extreme of proposing that all objects are reducible to a single substance, thus rejecting the notion that reality could in fact be composed of "matter" and "spirit"

    What in effect these three lexicologic concepts do is divest man with his ability to conceptualize "realities" well beyond what is simply physical or material.

    During the long evolutionary process (from Homo Robustus and our other hominid precursors) Homo Sapiens developed a brain that  allowed him  to be sensient, volitional and emotional....three qualities that separated him from all the other living objects on earth.

    Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism aim to eliminate these three qualities that give Homo Sapiens his unique perspective on reality that is not merely grounded on the material. When that ultimately happens, it would start the devolution of Homo Sapiens to Homo Roboticus.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The 3 are the basis of science

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Please explain....am a little confused as to what "three" you were referring to.

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
          prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          reductionism, atheism and objectivism -- this is what science is--

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting thought... I never  considered  Atheism as having any basis in scientific fact.....

            1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
              prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              reductionism is when for example you know the ailments because of several symptoms

              objectivism is experiential - to see is to believe?

              atheism - in my own honest opinion, you can't reconcile science with the idea of theism, share what you think ...

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You will be lucky to see an objective reply in my view. The agenda of this thread is becoming more transparent as it goes on. smile

          2. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            False claim. Science is a method for understanding the world around us and has nothing to do with atheism, objectivism or reductionism. smile

    2. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeh, I got a belly laugh out of this too! lol

        1. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Don't laugh yourself all the way to the bank... you might find your bank account totally devoid of  whatever material stuff  you were expecting to find there.

    3. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what makes you say "devolution"....people becoming more "thinking" is evolution, not devolution (did you make that word up?)

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nah, it means to go backwards in essential qualities, but you got the meaning anyway. smile

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          we're becoming more investigative & rational thinkers (well at least some of us are) and less superstitious.  People used to believe that diseases were from curses etc (some people still believe this, even after microbes were discovered).  People used to believe that those with epilepsy were possessed (hopefully that belief and associated stigma has gone).
          I don't see how superstition for example, is an "essential quality".

          1. pylos26 profile image76
            pylos26posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Rumor on the street has it that Jefferson and Paine put a damper on superstition, or attempted to.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Baileybear:  you are right... superstition is not part of the essential quality of being human.Being  sensient, volitional, emotional ... and may I say being creative because of  his sensient, volitional, and emotional nature is what separates humans from other earthly life forms.  bECOMING A ROBOTICIZED VERSION OF HIS OLD "SELF" is what I would term devolution because I think that is regressing to an inferior lfe form.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Vilarasa"
              I still don't know why you'd think that creating a "transhuman" would be regression?
              I still don't buy the word "devolution." Regression? yes.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Hello Qwark:  Thaks for dropping by. Finally a rationalist that I could have a rational discussion with. I suppose it's just a matter of semantics. You're right in that devolution might be too inaptly applied to what I was proposing.

                If you tell me that in the process of being a "transhuman"(Homo Roboticus in my lexicon), Homo Sapiens does not lose his essential, basic, core "humanity" with the ability to put  emotional value on the physical objects around him, then I would call that evolution, and not devolution(regression in your lexicon). I do remember you saying in a previous post  that  humans becoming extinct is the more probable outcome. Aren't  you  being a little bit pessimistic ?

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "[A] Homo Sapien does not lose his essential, basic, core "humanity" with the ability to put  emotional value on the physical objects around him"
                  ...am wondering if you have read Platonic Realism...

                  If yes, what is your solution to the platonic picture?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hello 21 days: Sorry but i have not read or heard about Platonic Realism. I'd be more than happy to be educated on that subject.

                    Thanks.

                2. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi villarasa:
                  I've never said that the human species will become extinct. I don't believe it will.
                  There will be a necessary, massive reduction in our numbers.
                  With the advent of "nano" technology and genetic engineering, I believe that a new species of man (transhuman) can be, will be created, IF we can last long enuf to produce it.
                  There is no problem, as I view it, in maintaining social skills and civility and there exists the possibility of deleting those genes which control predation. All of this would be considered to be man evolving according to his abilites.
                  I believe that there is no limit to the human capacity for learning. 
                  I believe that man can, eventually, control his environment and ergo his evolution.
                  In ref to the future of we human animals, I am a pessimist...lol
                  Qwark

                  1. 0
                    Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    this "necessary, massive reduction" - because of competition for resources?  A culling by war, disease or similar?

                    "social skills" are more about manipulation than genuine concern for others IMO

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Qwark: Again another thought provoking post.. see  you already have 5 replies on this alone. Thanks to an honest contribution to my original post.

            2. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              how are more and more people thinking for themselves becoming robots?  My son has asperger's syndrome (as do I, but not as obvious), and we are both independent thinkers.  Maybe AS is an evolved trait?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                why not? Asperger's syndome is one of the milder forms of Autism.. I have several kids with AS in my practice and  they are fully functional sensient, volitional, emotional and creative human beings with good social and interpersonal  skills. Independent thinking has nothing to do with being a robot. It's the lack of empathy for and emotional  ties to the objects one finds in his environment that  robots cetainly are known for  ... and that's the whole point of my post. If you become too objective, too material, too nihilistic... you lose your connectednes to your environment

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  the whole "lack of empathy" thing is not the same as the lack of empathy of a psychopath.  We still have feelings - we just aren't all gushy about displaying them.  Plus, I know that feelings are subjective and temporary.  My son and I have sensory issues which means we get overwhelmed by our environment eg smells etc.  It's not nice having a sense of smell that rivals a sniffer dog.  I am naturally very creative, and I have acquired social skills, but social interactions are very draining for me. 
                  Being not too emotionally tied can be a survival mechanism - it's how I cope with my parents never approving of me because I rejected the religion I was indoctrinated with.  It also helps me not to worry about what people think.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Baileybear:: I certainly empathize and sympathasize with your daily predicaments  occasioned by you having AS. And you expresses your feelings and emotions the way I would expect a member of Homo Sapiens would... not a member of Homo Robotibus.

    4. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In other words, that which is not of the alleged supernatural realm believers claim to exist.



      False claim. First of all, atheism is a non-acceptance of the ideals of theism and does not posit anything other than that. As well, you cannot see, smell, taste, hear or touch gravity.



      Considering no one has ever shown spiritualism and mysticism to have any relevancy or existence, there is no problem with the concept of Objectivism.



      False claim, reality is in fact composed of matter.



      "Conceptualizing" alternative realities does not mean they exist.



      False claim, dolphins exhibit all three of those characteristics, for example.



      You are fallaciously making a claim but have not made any connection therein and have not provided an explanation or evidence to support the claim other than base them on other false claims. smile

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Beelzedad:

        You of all people should know better than to use reductionist methodologies to try to deconstruct my arguments. You could use reductionistic logisms if you find that my arguments are non sequiturs.. ie the statement is not adequately prefaced by the statement before it, and not supported by the statement that follows it.

        The point of my post should never be interpreted by its component parts. It should be taken as a whole. In case you missed what I was trying to say.. here it is. In the headlong rush towards rationalism and its tendency to NOT  assign any meaning( which by definition is always subjective) to the objects that man perceives in the material world, are we not  then building a society populated by  "humanrobots"? Robots who are not capable of applying emotions to the objects they sense imemdiately in front of them.?

        If I'm not mistaken, it was Socrates who said the immortal words: "The whole is not the sum of its parts".  A robot "sees" an apple and would  realistically conclude that is has form,shape, mass, color etc. etc.. all the physical attributes that make an apple an apple , and NOTHING else. A human sees an apple, and aside from sensing its physicality will occasionally invest in that apple some individualistic/emotionalistic  interpretation of it... hhhm everytime I bite into an apple, I visualize the valley where my father used to grow apple trees, and I smell the hunger provoking odor from my mom's kithchen where she bakes her wonderful apple pies.

        I don't know about you, but I'd rather continue to be a member of that flawed specie Homo Sapiens, than be a perfect specimen of the specie Homo Roboticus.

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          who said anything about evolutions making anything perfect?  Things evolve regardless of your personal preferences.  There are things that are good and things that aren't. For example, I can't keep up with all the changes of technology; there have been more changes in the last 50-odd years than the last 100-odd years.  My guess is the ones that can keep up with the pace will survive and reproduce.  This is despite modern medicine keeping more people alive nowadays that would have died a century ago (from complications of childbirth, depression, diabetes, infections etc - people still die from these things, but not as much now).

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I fully agree with your conclusions. The human form is certainly not the apex of  anatomical and physiological perfection. There are other life forms on earth whose anatomical construct and physiologic  compositon are much better suited for survival in perpetuity, than humans, but we have the biggest brains  comparative to our size, and  our complex  brains  are  what makes us unique in all of creation.

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "The human form is certainly not the apex of  anatomical and physiological perfection"...

              Really? So, what life form on this planet exceeds the human characteristic of thought and transcending of thought into action?

              And since when does "size" matter? The human brain encompasses a space the size of a large grapefruit, yet has the ability to sense and engage the universal limitations of the universe itself...

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                A.Villarasa,

                I'll post this from another thread and see if you can solve it:

                http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56405#post1276510

              2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think you just made my point. You actually agreed that what makes humans  unique are their brains.... now the rest of human anatomy and physiology are  another matter.

            2. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              as a doctor, do you accept evolution as well as creation?  Humans are just animals with bigger brains who think they are superior to the other animals.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Of course I believe in Evolution... the earth's fossil record is more than enough to sway me to the evolutionary aspect of man's existence. That however, does not mean that I  believe that man is pure matter and nothing else...I believe that man's nature also includes the spiritual, the mystical and the transcendental. If that doesn't  jive with  your rationalist view that anything that is not material does not exist... well so be it.

                I can go my merry way believing "this"... and you can go your merry way believeing "that".

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  tell me more about the extent you believe in evolution - so macro and micro, but you believe a supernatural being brought it about?  Just interested, because so many christians are in denial about everything to do with evolution

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Baileybear:  Unlike the rather cartoonish picture atheist paint "believers" in this forum on HubPages, I do not subscribe to all that was taught (brainwash in your lexicon) me in catechism.. My  belief in the evolutionary process is total and complete, but it does not mean that I have to disregard my deepest perception( and thus a personal... not a religious belief) that there is more to humans than just the material, that all natural objects, animate and inanimate,  (i.e not man-made) on earth  project their own  non-physical  content that jives with man's calculation of them.

                    I  think  that the reason why I believe this way and not your way is because my neuronal connections took a different pathway from yours, thus my perecption is different from yours. It does not make your belief systems any more  "true" or  "untrue", rational or irrational,  than my belief systems.

        2. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nonsense, if the component parts are based on false claims, the whole will be invalid, regardless.



          Quite the contrary, it is religions that make robots out of humans. They all follow one program without question, never allowing any other data to break the programming, no capacity for individual thought, rationale of reason. Believers are the robots.



          The fact that you are able to visualize and imagine does not preclude that fact that anyone, including atheists are able to visualize or imagine themselves.



          As a believer, you are a robot following a program. In fact, your program dictates that Homo Sapiens are evil and corrupt, not worthy of the robotic program.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Belzeedad: I  fully agree with your first  and second  paragraph. The  second and fourth paragraphs are all jibberish...something  Einstein(your avatar) would never be caught in.

            1. Beelzedad profile image61
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure you'd like to believe atheists have no imaginations and are not able to visualize if it helps you to prop up your belief system and give you some sort of self-satisfaction of superiority. As I'm also sure you'd like to believe that the indoctrination programming believers receive does not make them anything other than robots.

              Yes, I'm sure it does help you to believe you can just blow it off as gibberish without explaining yourself.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Beelzedad: If you believe that I believe what you are ascribing to me.. then you have not really understood the point of my posts. I do not believe that Atheist have no imagination, any more than I believe that I am superior to you or any one else. I have not been indoctrinated.. I have been educated, and as such I am free to believe that what I have been taught  are not necessarily paradigmatic of all that is true... or untrue.

                1. Beelzedad profile image61
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Then, it is obvious you have not explained yourself very well. I've pointed out the obvious flaws in your OP. If you feel others are not understanding you, this could be the reason.



                  Yes, I have heard that before from believers. For some reason, they feel it necessary to make sure we are under that impression.  smile

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Beelzedad:

                    In my world, jibberish means not contributing anything  of substance to the discussion at hand. I did not mean to say that your statements are idiocies or lunacies.... although in some quarters your statements could be considered as such.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course there are flaws in my OP,,, but I don't believe they are fatal ones.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Beelzedad

                Just one small detail

                If you had no imagination you would be a part of someone’s vegetable garden, or not on line.

    5. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Villarasa:
      What is it, exactly, that you mean by "devolution?"
      This has no meaning for me. TY...:-)

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        evolve... move forward. devolve...move backward.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Villarasa:
          I wrote an "open" comment regarding "devolution."
          Pls read it and respond. Ty   :-)

        2. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Evolve" means to become more fit for the prevailing environment. So IMHO devolve would mean to become less fit for the prevailing environment.  Something can, and generally does, evolve without becoming 'better' in some absolute sense like complexity or morality.

          Also, a great many Atheists are very holistic.  Not subscribing to one kind of meta theory doesn't mean the rejection of all meta-theories.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I could not have said it better. Thanks.

        3. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          evolve is to do with small changes, not just changes you rate as "better"

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I get your point baileybear...no arguments here.

    6. thisisoli profile image67
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, there are some very simple things wrong with this post.  The first is that Atheism does not mean that something has to be sensed, Atheism is first and foremost the denial of religious and spiritual entities.  It works on the basis of scientific exploration rather than the simple belief in things which cannot be proven.

      I don't like it when it is postulated that atheism involves things such as 'the lack of emotion' since if anything, Atheism tries to make a person deal with their emotions, rather than something such as religion, which dissociates you from emotion, shifts blame and so forth.

      The next part is sensient, volitional and emotional.

      By Sensient, I assume you meant Sentient.  Sentience is something that is if anything glorified by atheism, the whole point of Atheism is about self awareness and thinking about the world around you.

      Volitional is about the power to make choices, choice is something which religion cracks down on, heavily, but something which atheism is all about, since it is about you using rational and logic, rather than following a cult.

      And Emotional, well I kind of went over this earlier.  If you are atheist you have to deal with your own emotions, you can't pass your emotions off on to an invisible being.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A different point of view but one that is well reasoned, well seasoned,  and well  positioned. Now if only all the atheist on HubPages will have the same talent for  lacerating wit and  evisecrating grit.... I'd be very happy indeed.

        And about the spelling...sorry I'm a flawed member of that flawed specie Homo Sapiens.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thisisoli:

          Having said the above I still do not  fully agree with some of your assertions. You are of course correct in saying that Atheism rejects OUTRIGHT the concept of and therefore the existence of God, without being burdened by any evidence to the contrary; other wise if they do contemplate any "evidence" then they are not being true Atheist, but rather Agnostics. Pure semantics you might say... but not to the true Atheist out there.  ASSERTION#1 "It works on the basis of scientific exploration...." To this I say,  Atheist  have never  presented any  scientific evidence that God does not exist, because by definition Atheist believe that God does not exist  irrespective of whether scientific evidence proves or disproves his existence. I have not read or seen any scientific journal (via proven scientific methodologies)  that absolutely disprove God's existence. If you have please share it with me.

          Assertion#2:"... atheism involves things such as the "lack of emotion....". My reading of Atheism, and this is more than adequately  supported by the Atheist on HubPages, is that they equate emotionalism with irrationalism, and the absolute rationalist that  Atheist pride themselves to be, they believe  that anything that smacks of emotionalism, spiritualism, mysticism are irrational... thus the belief in God is irrational, and not believing in God is rational.

          Assertion#3:"... the whole point of Atheism is is self-awareness and thinking..." .. To his I say You do not have to be an Atheist to be self-aware and thinking...you just have  to be human ( and to be  dolphin, as Belzeedad would argue).

          Assertion#4: ... volitional is the power to make choices...which Atheism is all a bout. Of course being an Atheist is a choice, in the same way that being a believer is a choice. To equate religion  solely with the belief that God exist is really being truly restricive  of  the real definition of that term. I know of a lot of people with "religious" beliefs but do not necessarily beileve in God. I also see a lot of  believers in God who who do not necessarily follow any one particular or specific religious belief.

          Assertion#5:"....you can't pass your emotions off on to an invisible being."  I say, that is one of our more endearing traits as human beings... our ability to project our emotions to almost anything.  Projection, as our Psychologist friends would say is one of  many of our more developed defense mechanism in dealing with the "real" and  "unreal"  world.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thisisoli

        Atheist have given me a grounding in many topics and areas in life.

        Thank you for your post.

  2. glendoncaba profile image80
    glendoncabaposted 6 years ago

    Interesting discussion.

  3. Haunty profile image84
    Hauntyposted 6 years ago

    What's so laughable, guys? Care to share? This thread was certainly started for the purpose of a discussion, not to be disrespectfully laughed at.

    Please don't take anyone starting a discussion about religion and spirituality for a troll without looking first.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This thread has such sweeping generalizations, implying and applying traits like this just looks like another religious apologist doing a soft sell to me, which it will soon prove up to be. lol

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Dang.... and I was not even thinking of religion when I wrote the post. Persecution complex  earnest hub?

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the insult, but time is on my side. It will show up if the thread doesn't just die. smile

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Earnestshub: Your Freudian psyche is doing a number on you again. I am not in the business of insulting people.....like your own little deity,  Mr. Knowles.

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There you go with the freudian thing again. Another insult.

              I don't do Freud any more than you do amputations with a stone axe.
              Why mention Mr. Knowles? I think I know what is showing here. smile

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Calling an "avowed" Jungian, a Freudian is,  I must admit  a terrible thing to do. Sorry.

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I can see the meaning you are trying to insinuate, but what I also see is that you know very little about either Jung or Freud. smile

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You've said that abundantly clear in other forum. We are not debating any of that here.

        2. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yet you posted under the religious topic?

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There ya go. smile
            As I said earlier, a religionist with an agenda is what I see.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Of course I would have to post it under the religious topic... otherwise I would miss earnestshub's  and bailybear's lacerating wit, and eviscerating grit.  Anytime  now,  Mr Knowles and his band of merry atheist would emerge from their labyrinthine  lair  to pronounce that I am an insane, iditioc, irrational  spritualist. Party time!!!!!!!!!!.
            Bring out the slings and arrows, the vapid insinuations, the tortured rationaliztion, the rapid-fire castigations.

            1. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              so you're a glutton for punishment then, just like we are, to visit these forums

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So true...the masochists in all of us.

            2. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              AV, I will take that as a compliment - lacerating wit & eviscerating grit - must mean my writing is effective lol

        3. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, just an observation on the human condition and how people miss their own intent. smile

    2. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      To you, you didn't find anything funny. However, I am not you and found something funny in the OP. Do you ask everyone who laughs, why they are laughing? If not, then you have no need to be asking me.

      Just a thought.

      P.S.- I seem to have had this conversation with someone else just recently. And, now it seems to be occurring even more, since you have now questioned my reasons for laughing at something.

      I am curious...what made you feel the need to say that? I mean, of all the things, you looked at it from a negative perspective, as if I was laughing at the person. If I find something funny, then I find something funny. Regardless, of who said it.

      And, the fact that you took the tact you did here- is directly related to a lot of people's problems today. They don't know when to mind their business. They always have to be in to whatever someone does. I find it appalling and very offensive that people feel the "need" to know, what they really don't need to know.

      I hope I cleared up my position on this topic and your post. Either way, do enjoy. tongue

      1. Haunty profile image84
        Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil, he wrote a long post in all seriousness. What did you find funny?

        What made me say what I said? You know, it's totally anger. Anger that this forum is so stupid. That serious discussions can't live here. It's not about you. Don't tell me you're not bothered when your posts that mean something to you never really take off while silly games and stupid fights abound. I would've reacted the same if it had happened on your thread yesterday.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I figured I just settled that question. I guess if you missed the answer..um..oh well.
          You might consider doing something about that. Just a suggestion.
          What is stupid about it? Other than irrationality? lol
          That's not true. A serious discussions can live anywhere as long as you have two rational thinking people talking to one another. However, you put a rational thinker together with an irrational thinker, then you're in for a spectacle.
          I didn't think it was.
          My other thread, from yesterday was an experiment. That's all. I am forever conducting experiments, whenever I post. It is how I learn about people. It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't understand the words I use, I am used to that happening. Many times I am forced over and over to repeat myself, because people are too busy reading things INTO what I say, and not reading the words themselves. It's an emotional knee-jerk reaction brought on less consciously active people.

      2. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, Cagsil buddy, when you talk in forum, it's everybody's business.  Sometimes people are genuine when they ask a question like 'what's funny'?  They are curious not confrontational.  Just an observation.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, even in a public forum, not everything is public knowledge. Duh!

          If I found something funny, I am under no obligation to tell anyone. Therefore, no one should have the need to ask.

          On a side note- people need to know their place and what is for them to know and what is not. Ignorance is not or never justified.

          1. Haunty profile image84
            Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Then laugh your laughter and don't type it. Otherwise someone might ask what's so funny. Especially if they have a preconceived notion about what that might be.

            Anyway, I hope you do appreciate I don't give you the knee-jerk reaction. Don't take it personally. You're not the first one.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It shouldn't make any difference whether I type in a response. I am still under no obligation to reveal why, nor is there a need, even if the question arises.

              It would be better if people were more consciously active about their own life and not worry so much about others. wink

  4. Stevennix2001 profile image83
    Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago

    another long forum post that should have been turned into a hub.  that's just me.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the thought Steven...

  5. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    I just hear how pretty the intelectuality of the words sound and then loose track of what was being said.   But this is just a hilbilly saying that.  Excuse my accent.

    1. Haunty profile image84
      Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nevermind. This is just a medical doctor blabbering something about life having a higher purpose and how atheism, objectivism and reductionism work to the effect that this be concealed.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Higher purpose for life? Yes, there happens to be one.

        And You think he is referencing what? hmm

        I already know the correct answer to the question, but do you? hmm

        1. Haunty profile image84
          Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What on earth could be the higher purpose if there is no existence beyond life and beyond what's physical? That's what I can't comprehend.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Haunty,

            The highest purpose you can have for your life is the betterment of humanity and/or it's survival.

            If you set your purpose to anything other than that, such as a god, then you become selfish.

            If you set your purpose of life, for only yourself, then you are selfish.

            Therefore, it concludes that the only rational place to establish a purpose would be on the behalf of humanity's survival.

            To set your purpose for humanity's survival, it's a selfless action. wink big_smile

            1. Haunty profile image84
              Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you. I'll tell you what I believe.

              I believe that humans are non-physical beings. Souls. We have come to earth and received our body, because it is the trials and tribulations that we are exposed to in our lives that allow us to become better. In other words, we need to get physical in order to make the spiritual part of us stronger.

              I see the further corroboration of this in the fact that the best people I know are the once that have taken the most pain in life. We can't fight abstract concepts. We can't know that something is wrong until we have experienced it. At least, we wouldn't fight it as vehemently. I know, you'll not agree. But I find that most people are this way.

              You may encounter situations in life when your friend or loved one does something wrong. You have to decide which is more important, your love or your feeling of righteousness. Most people will say for instance that family comes first. He is my blood and no matter what he does I will defend him to the end. But this is not the right thing to do. This is how people get advantage over others and become corrupt and selfish.

              In a religious book that has been around and respected for thousands of years (not the Bible or the Koran), God says righteousness comes first. In fact he urges his follower to kill his family members and friends in a battle, because they became corrupt and the nation suffers from this. He says that no harm is done to them this way, because there is nothing lost only their sins. Because the soul has eternal life. Do you know why the Japanese samurai could commit seppuku after losing their dignity? Because they thought that nothing was lost. They would live for ever. Same goes for world war kamikaze pilots and present day muslim suicide bombers.

              Of course, we're not thinking in such drastic terms, but in a way religion helps you reconcile what you'd like to do and what feels right to do. It's an anchor for some to be able to stick to their values. It helps to accept the death or loss of a loved one, to face death yourself. It helps to be more 'selfless' in facing dangerous situations when it comes to having to defend what you believe in. All in all, it helps me lots of ways, and therefore whenever it strikes me that one attacks another's faith / belief in spiritual existence, call it what you will, with no grounds whatsoever in any way, shape or form - be it but a perceived mocking laughter - I will ask why. I'm not talking about those religious instigators who purposefully seek such a confrontation. I know it makes one sick to approach every situation with respect for the other person and then find that they have ulterior motives, but I think without this effort no intelligent discussion is possible. Sorry for the long reply. This was my vengeance. wink

        2. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsill... so what do you think  am I  referencing at?

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What you are referencing? Makes no difference.

            Just a thought.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image80
              A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Humor me  Cagsil  and  give me fodder to munch on.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The purpose of the post  was as you said, to initiiate debate.  Thanks for being so perceptive. If some people find the post funny or inane so be it.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami--you're excused

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Most often I find truth funnier than fiction; I must say I laugh out loud when I read this.

        Atheism posits that anything that is not sensed in any physical way (seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched) do not exist in reality, specifically, the spiritual or mystical.

        How I can tell about deep truths about my grandma is by what topics or issues she would avoid discussing. Same with many atheists in area of spiritual or mystical and often enough imagination,

        If I said love is when two people are stronger together than apart.
        Often an atheist would answer back and say, love is an emotion.

        I'm spiritual sided. Rather than religious
        Often an atheist would no your religious. (Lump me in)

        Many good details, over all its maybe a little rigid, stereotype and too serious.

        Yet who would want an MD to joke about their death.

        1. mozillalizard profile image60
          mozillalizardposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This whole discussion is extremely pointless due to your lack of  true knowledge. I think that this describes the original point quite nicely:  "temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose."

  6. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Not believing that fiction is fact or myth is reality does not require a lack of imagination or capacity to imagine, create or understand life. Quite the opposite in fact. An open mind has room for all sorts of responses to any given situation.

    No person should be labeled an atheist with all it's negative (to religionists) connotations simply because they do not believe a 2000 year old tale is the meaning of life.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I did not label all atheists, I did say often by my own experience. Some atheists do surprise me with original and sometimes unique thoughts. The proof of reality is that Religion runs the world and leads crusade. Imagination (negative or positive) leads and skepticism follows. Spiritual leads and science follows. Heart leads mind follows and so on…

      I would laugh a lot more , if religious fiction was not so much of our reality.

      I too have a stronger disagreements with ancients’ spirituality dictatorship than with Atheists. It’s not spiritual to blame its just the great lack of science and skeptical to shortly follow every step. Spiritual, I mean by the 99% of the unknown World and Universe. Spiritual and evolution are the greatest unknowns for both spirit and science. Imagine if spirit and science married, they would be much stronger together than apart

  7. pylos26 profile image76
    pylos26posted 6 years ago

    Yeah!...and can tigers laugh too?

  8. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Really ? I beg to differ. Being overly emotional and religiously deluded you are restricting yourself to social needs and the personal growth that doesn't leads to exploration of the universe. You can feel good and happy by assuming you own these  qualities but that's just one more step to delusion. Masking reality makes you go back to age when there was homo-sapien's great grand family used to burn scientists, love to preach and make chaos against skepticism.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      skyfire

      Leaving Religion out of this.

      Can you imagine Science leading and spirituality following into the near future, reality

      1. skyfire profile image73
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No. I see facts as is.

        Spirituality and fantasy world only consume your imagination cells time.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If only you could only use your ego self, mind and all you’re other senses.

          If you could get funded from 8/10 or 9/10 spiritual believer to financial physical space ship

          If you could travel in your spaceship to every part of the 99% unknown world and universe.

          If you could then check all fact checks, under every rock on every planet and every star.

          If you check every fact finding possiblity to check out if God or spiritual exist

          After all done. Then tell  me God and spirituality realty can’t possibility manifest in to your ego self or conscious

          1. skyfire profile image73
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Word Play #1



            goto #1



            and why is that added in this #1 ?



            We can check all the facts that we approve, if some people come out of laziness and take pain to search for details.



            Did you checked it before making claims ?



            After all word salad and claim for the sake of priest style preaching, have you took any pains to come up with proof ?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              A.Villarasa assuming Atheism, is Objectivism, Reductionism- is an oxymoron of words and a big conflict with the atheist on this thread.

              Science co exists with spiritual. Spirit Leads our curious into that 99% unknown World and Universe, shortly followed by science. Imagination leads our perspective of reality and logic. Knowledge has limits but your imagination does not.  Imagination is an act not of reason but of intuition, and daring.

              My proof
              Science is too lame to lead with. People hungry to know, in which is to know the human world history and how the Universe works, it turn makes us into a blind over ego world. Without enough back up of science, it brainwashes us into following a super nature, med evil times out dated spirituality and the translations is often wrong. Regardless; it’s designed to keep us in order by the powers of control by the Religion darkness.

              Their Religion God lives in the dark.

              1. skyfire profile image73
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Before that prove the existence of spirit and spiritual medium. Anyone can claim any random utopia and claims its coexistence with science. Prove your base first.




                really ? i have never seen you backing up your claims.



                Imagination has to link up with something that exists in order to make further dissection a part of reality.



                Contradiction. Your imagination has limits as it is based on your knowledge -stored inside brain.



                Imagination for the sake of it is childish. For example, life in medium where pink invisible unicorns live happily with humans and guided by yeshua.



                If you were 1% strong enough in logic and reasoning, i could have chosen to agreed with this statement.




                *facepalm*

                people who worship science have their god in darkness and that's why they use communication equipment instead of communicating with spiritual medium, eh ? yup.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  My life is 50% about myself and 50% about everyone else, my closest thing to utopia to be able to serve myself well first to enable to serve others well. The world will change its self; I just see it slowly moving to a spiritual age.

                  My proof-I’m a Co creator with God as Science technology is indistinguishable from magic. Its by my own experience being successful in life and is my claim to reality. In the order of desire, attitude, focus and natural talent, talent being the least important of the four, to many religion talent is most important from their God.

                  Every thing major produced in my life was all onced imagined, first. Like reaching for the stars from the unlimited spiritual unknown and what ever comes down to earth, is what been achieved. Your based knowledge is the known within your ego self conscious, that 1% compared to the 99% unknown world and Universe.

                  Your imagination is the daring to explore that 99% spiritual unknown world or Universe (or what ever you want to call it) Science backs it up. I prefer ethic rather than morals; and have a high degree of disagreements with Religions ethic toward humanitarian and natural environment issues.

                  Good questions, It made me think about it deeper.

                  God, spirit and evolution live much in darkness.

                  1. skyfire profile image73
                    skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Your view towards universe and relationship with our own species has nothing to do with proof for spiritual medium or spirit.


                    Yeah sure, and Cheryl cole is my wife. it feels good when we claim something without proof isn't it ?



                    Your claim from personal experience, emotions and fantasy has nothing to do with reality and facts about universe. You have to come out from this and see it from skeptical angle.



                    Okay for a change i want to explore spiritual media in order to explore universe. what you can suggest me ?

  9. 0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    In most countries Religion does not lead anymore. Science - does! We are immortal because we live in our children, that's why we have to protect them and their children. That's why we have to save our Planet from distruction for our eternity - for life and happiness of our children and their children. A person can be an atheist and spiritual at the same time. Spirituality is not equal to religiousness.
    I think Mr.A.Villarasa is very immature and needs to learn some things and he will, I am sure, he is not stupid.
    I will protect MY FAMILY no matter what in front of the whole world whether they right or wrong till the day I die. And I think it's the only right thing to do.
    What Mark Knowles has to do with all of it?
    And I know why Cagsil laughts.
    Today somebody stepped on the toe of my temporary on this Earth entity - oh, boy, it hurts!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Science is like a branch on the tree of life. To some degree it is incorporated into everything. The most Government is science base, but the true leader in history are the people that change things by 80% consciousness.

      Who are those 80% ????

    2. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Homegirl: Sorry but try as hard as I could, I really did not get what you were saying on your post.  Roving thoughts of a disjointed mind?

  10. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    IF!!! ...man were to "succeed" as a species, there isn't a doubt in MY mind that he will also "succeed" in genetically engineering a new species of "human."
    This "human" could fit the definition of "transhumanism."
    I find no problem in this concept. It, in fact would, could be referred to as "roboticus."  Again, in fact, would just be "man" being profoundly involved in his EVOLUTION. It would be caused by "conscious necessity."
    The word "devolution" has no meaning for me.
    Evolution does not reverse.
    An inability to "adapt," has but 1 consequence i.e. "extinction." Evolution ceases for the extinct, that's an obvious conclusion.
    As we are   going, we will not reach the "tranhumanism" state of our evolution.
    Mankind will not become extinct, but there will be a massive reduction in human population and, consequently, a regression to the "stone age" level of life, where man may be mutated into unrecognizable creatures.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Qwark: I did answer your question on a post above... i certainly have no arguments with what you are proposing except the part about humans regressing into a "stone age" level of life. I think that might be too pessimistic.... it does not mean that it could not happen though.

  11. 0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Unless some kind of virus will come and sweep us out like a mold on the face of Earth, I do not see any reason in regression. We are smarter than that.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Homegirl:
      ...lol I said "IF" we exist.
      There are, obviously, so, many extant reasons why we may not make it past the next 50 yrs, that it seems to me that they should be obvious to any student of human evolution. Not one (1) of them is a "virus."
      As a species, Homegirl, we are in very great jeopardy of a very real human reduction within the next 50 yrs.   :-)
      Qwark

  12. pylos26 profile image76
    pylos26posted 6 years ago

    Qwark!!!...You're back...greetings from your fans...

    ahhhh...be more specific please...

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hahaha...Hi Pylos
      Yes! I was banned again for 3 days.
      I, evidently, am not allowed to express myself freely. I never cuss anyone out! I express my thoughts BLUNTLY and honestly. I NEVER denigrate a persons character, but, it seems that if I disagree, passionately and express myself, passionately, the "sensitive" consider this to be "insulting."
      I am seriously considering quitting the forum....although, it is entertaining.
      Should I just consider the source and continue?
      Thanks for the WB....:-)

      1. pylos26 profile image76
        pylos26posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah…consider the source and swallow hard…I looked back on you’re comments and detected the incident that got you disconnected…It was you’re use of the word “stupid” while referring to religionist or Christians, which ever.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ...really? lol...golly! That's how I feel! Stupidity is expressed by so many!
          Is the the USA? I can get banned for saying some folks express themselves "stupidly?"
          Ok! I'll "tippytoe" around from this point forward and be sure not to use the vile word "stupid."
          Ty my friend...lol
          I'll grit my teeth and continue on for a while.   :-)
          Oooops! I used the "foul" word in this response! Am I gonna get banned again?....:-)
          I'm off to the gym. If I'm not banned when I get back, I'll come back on...lol  :-O)

          1. Haunty profile image84
            Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It has to be personal, qwark. If you say "so many" or "some folks" are stupid, it's not good enough to get you banned.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Haunty:
              I just used the word as a "general" term. I never EVER, EVER,  get personal with those kinds of words.
              I can't imagine what I said to get banned and "the office" doesn't tell ya why, so I'm just guessing.
              Appreciate the info.....:-)

            2. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I get repeatedly told I'm bitter/angry/hate god etc - these are wrong and I see these as attacks on my character.  Are these enough to complain about?  I think if it's good enough to pick on earnest and quark over petty things, it may as well go both ways.  I hope those that say "all atheists are evil" and "all atheists follow satan" get banned too if that's the case.  People are much to oversensitive if someone says something they disagree with, but if they're going to gang up on people, they may as well as get a taste of their own medicine

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think I'm being targeted - haven't been banned yet, but I'm being accused of "ridiculing and mocking" for putting forth my opinions (which don't involve personal attacks).  Oh, well, take it as a compliment that your writing is effective and it scares them - all they do is attempt to "gag" those who don't agree with them

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Bailey:
          I have to keep in mind that small minds are chronically paranoid.
          I'll hang in for a while longer.
          I hope ya make it ok...:-)

          1. 0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I must seriously be a glutton for punishment.  I wrote a hub a few weeks back about what I thought of these forums.  I didn't think I'd be back, but I can't stay away!  Guess it's because the things people say on here are so funny I nearly split my sides laughing (and I'm a rather serious person!)

        2. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What concerns me is that you can be reported when there is no reason, yet report a religionist for a real personal attack and  guess what? NO ban.

          I guess it's because they claim their fairy said it not them and that's a valid excuse.
          Maybe we should start sentences with "My fairy told me" then go on to say "You are a low-life nutter who should be taken away from your children and family so that you don't indoctrinate them with a pile of old myths that make no more sense than claiming you have Jack's beanstalk in the bottom of your garden." smile

          1. 0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            do you actually get told what your "crime" is, or do they just believe the tell-tales?

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              They kindly sent me a link to the offending post. It was not abusive, and a simple response. I queried it and heard nothing.
              After my ban I saw several abusive comments, flagged 2 of them, and these angels are still here. Something smells! smile

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                maybe one of the moderators is in on their gang.  I've been told by someone here that the extremists have their own little group

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I sincerely hope not. I have real reservations now, and even considered writing elsewhere from now on. The funny thing is that those who succeed in getting others banned are often new, with one hub on the lord jeebus, write a new thread every  other day and only live for one forum. The religious forum naturally, so they can flog the fairytale again and again. Nauseating!
                  Hardly enhancing the experience for those who came here to write, or helping hubpages to make any money.

            2. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ...I have never been told why I was banned.
              Just told I couldn't post for a certain number of days,

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You need to email them and ask. smile

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you do that Earn?
                  if ya did, did they tell ya or did ya just get a run-around?

                  1. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    They answered the first email with the link to the post I was banned for, then .....nothing. smile No reply to my query as to why what I said got me banned. I still can't understand how this works. Someone suggested they get together to get us banned. If so, why can't hubpages ban them for doing that?

  13. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    This is HubPages, you get banned for breaking the terms of service.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ..."terms of service" is in the mind of the beholder...lol
      Naught but "opinion."
      I got slapped on the wrist for what?   Offending by saying what? Honestly and candidly.
      Oh well, onward and forward....:-)

  14. 0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Hey, what about that "human reduction"?

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Homegirl:
      "You talkin' to me?"   :-)

      1. 0
        Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "As a species, Homegirl, we are in very great jeopardy of a very real human reduction within the next 50 yrs.   :-)
        Qwark"

        Or am I talking to myself?

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ...beats me Homegirl, there was nuthin' in the message that would indicate you were asking me except the word "reduction."
          Now, what is it about "reduction" you'd like to know? ty ..:-)

  15. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    You claim you did not even think of religion when you started this topic!
    Then you indicate that you were hoping to bait people on what you said was a non-religious thread by placing it here.

    Mark and others are smart enough to see that you expose your intent, and others have taken you to task for the same apparent deception. Did you miss seeing your own agenda or did you lie about it?
    As I prognosticated, this thread exposed itself for what it is. smile

  16. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    It does seem that to disagree is to abuse religious zealots!

    I guess that's how they start all their wars. smile Same reasoning. No need to take in any new information once you know goddunnit. smile

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Stop it already earnestshub....As i said, your paranoia is getting tiresome.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I find your conversations inane and full of self aggrandizement myself!
        Very annoying.

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        except we aren't being paranoid - just happen to be aware of the lengths some people go to in order to "gag" others that speak sense

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yes, those silly games are very transparent.  With my Asperger's, I might not be endowed naturally with social skills, but I have a built in bull-sh!t detector

  17. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    "Finally a rationalist that I could have a rational discussion with."

    Can't help yourself eh doc? smile

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Earnestshub: The obsessive-compulsive in me I guess. You know all about that psychopathology don't you? being a Jungian and all...

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Post Jungian please! The good thing about being able to read what he wrote is that we can move forward.

        Carl Gustaf got a lot of things nailed down with empirical evidence, but as in most areas of understanding, the students outgrow the teacher.

        Even Jung was not a Jungian!

        We can all know more than Jung or even Einstein now that we have their work and that of others who have built on it. smile

  18. Jewels profile image81
    Jewelsposted 6 years ago

    I actually like the topic.  It fits well with my experience of consciousness being beyond the ordinary mind - which I have no doubt is correct.  Plus the knowledge of subtle bodies - ie separating the physical body from our life force, then life force from the layer of thoughts and emotions, and going into other states of consciousness that are beyond our 'physicalness'

    It's unfortunate that anything that is not black and which for the mind is labelled "god".  I don't give a rats tail about this 'god' with arms and legs.  This discussion does not have to lead into the topic of god just because the subject of evolution and de-evolution is brought up.  Just because you currently don't understand it, doesn't mean the default answer is god.  That is a cop out.

    Anything that is not understood by the rational mind is also labeled bullshit.  I call this closed mind syndrome.  The ability to not get out of the box (the little mind) and blindly follow science because it's supposedly has all the answers (which it does not) is laziness and a lack of knowledge.  Knowledge by the way is about experience, not just text book knowledge. 

    Having an experience that is metaphysical but not understood/comprehended by the rational mind does not by default mean the answer is God.

    The topic of materialistic reductionism is in essence a topic for the rational mind. And the rational mind is very limiting.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Right on Jewels... finally someone who understands that the post was not to expose Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism as invalid belief systems. They are not.

      The post only tries to initiate debate about man's true nature, the point being that even if one does not believe in a  God  or gods, one  must also sense that there  are  something more about humans and the objects in their sorrounding that  are purely material.

      1. Haunty profile image84
        Hauntyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Initiating debate is usually done by leaving a few questions open, or God forbid, even asking them in an overt manner. You delivered your argument and then made a conclusion condemning the above three as something that would ultimately lead to the de-evolution of humankind. You can provoke a discussion this way, but it's far better to ask a straight question that doesn't invite misunderstanding. This is my opinion and this is also how it's by convention.

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yeah, I sort of thought the question was expecting a particular response, not open to see what crops up

        2. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Haunty: I do agree, but I found out that  provocateurs  are  better at inviting passionate discussions than  questioners.(is there such a word?, I don't want to be caught inventing a word that is not in Webster's)

    2. 0
      Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Rational mind is very limiting"??? That's strange. I feel like my cat when he swallows too many hair balls...

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Do you mean a mind too rational is limited?

  19. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Well said Oli. smile

  20. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    I read all the comments.
    There is no such thing as an atheist.
    There are those who haven't thought this out to a logical conclusion and proclaim themselves to be atheists. Their conclusion is illogical and unreasoned.
    Qwark

    1. Pcunix profile image92
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's silly.

      Even if you were right about the logic - and you are not - a person who does not believe in gods is an atheist, whether you think they should be or not.

      I am an atheist and have been since birth.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Being born an atheist is that anything likes being born gay? You are born with your first fears, fear of loud sound and fear of falling, everything else is learned.

        It is not logical or reasonable to prove god dose not exist. You can not be 100% sure, so your mind will over focus on that doubt.

        On the other hand God can not be proven in physical forum, only manifest into our ego self or ego group or lead to worst, an over ego world
        .

      2. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Pcunix:
        An atheist, by definition, denies the existence of god/s...period.
        When you can define, in terms other than opinion and conjecture, whatever this "god thing" is, that you deny the existence of, I'll go along with ya. Until then all you are is an "aconcepttheist."
        There is nothing to deny the existence of, other than a concept.
        There are no "Atheists."

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe its uncommon sense due to only 3% is self proclaim atheists.

          The closest thing to an atheist is when one claims they are an atheist. Most of these long lists of great atheist’s in world history I see are less than half self proclaim atheist.

          Self proclaim atheist is as committed as hard core Christians are.

          I get along better with people some where in he middle.

        2. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, my.

          It must be thirty years since I last heard THAT nonsense.

          I am not interested in sophomoric word play.

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hey! Yo, brotha man. Pc, hows this for word play. No U-turns on this highway, you should take the next exit and get on the northbound. That's where the truth is found, good buddy.

          2. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Pcunix:
            Evidently you have no desire to accept reason when it's offered.
            Pls Tell me what this god thing you deny is. Don't offer me a dictionary definition because it offers nothing but opinion.
            I called myself a very "strong" atheist for years until I finally understood there's nothing to "deny" but the concept.
            If you wish to refer to yourself as an atheist, NP. It just relates to me that logic and reason founded upon "fact" doesn't impress ya.
            Qwark     :-)

          3. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Pc

            Please enlighten us, show which parts are nonsense.

    2. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree qwark, not believing in a god does not mean one is an atheist.
      It requires nothing more than common sense.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Common sense would make most of us agnostic.
        What about good sense?

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good sense may be better, as there is nothing common about sense, in fact it is very uncommon. What about uncommon sense?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Good sense - sound practical judgment or good sense can reach beyond. I learn and live with common sense along the way.

            Common sense is not so common like Religions has common sense due to the number of 8/10 of the people.

            Uncommon Sense provides uncommon thoughts from uncommon people to help develop conceptual thought skills sufficient to challenge common sense.

            Maybe you have uncommon sense; you do have a good sense of humor, which is important dealing with on this forum. I don’t know to what degree you have good sense.

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know how much good sense I have either, but I have been paid US$1,600 a day for my capacity to sort fact from fiction. smile

              What blows me away about religion is it's denial of it's own words, and the mass of contradictions in the NT and OT that go unchallenged, un examined and ignored by those who propagate their religious beliefs from it.

  21. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    A.Villarasa wrote:
    Beelzedad: If you believe that I believe what you are ascribing to me.. then you have not really understood the point of my posts.
    =========================================

    ascribing to ..... I've been wanting to say this to a few folks on here.  I'm bad,  and probably outta line.

      does anyone really use this and other terminology that I have seen on this and some other threads? while having a real conversation??
       Maybe its just my upbringing from up in the hills.

      No offence meant.  BUT .. Sounds like you are talking in front of the professor and down on the common folk.

       but maybe I'm too sensitive.  Goard head on wiff it!
    if ya please.

       

        From my prospective ...    If ya wanta get a point across to everyone ...    need to keep it simple.
        Talk on my level   and    I might want to talk back. And be more inclined to hear what ya got to say.

        Sorry if I am outa line and am not your target for whatcha got to say.   I be gone now!

  22. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    I reckon believing in a god is self evidently insane.

    If there were any "gods" they certainly would not be the neurotic little loser in the bible!

    Omni-everything, yet so insecure that it demands to be worshiped and threatens one and all who disagree with it!

    Does that sound like a god to you?

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      From the beginning, man has put all his faith in man. The truth of this is entirely clear. Do those who laugh at the changeling understand what a changeling is. A CHANGELING is: First. The ILLUSIONIST comes second, and last of all? Grail Knight. Is there hidden meaning here? No.
      Do I believe in some strange thing? No. Is my truth where truth begins and ends? No. Time. Time explains the changeling. Evolution explains the illusionist, because truth begins and ends with LOVE.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Clear to who?

        I hate to burst your bubble Druid Dude, but people have been putting faith in a god, much more than they have put faith in humanity.
        I'll agree with Love as a crucial element, but it's not the only factor. wink

      2. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is no love in religious tomes, only hate and "conditional love" which is not love at all! smile

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Earnest. Can you read? If you can't, I can suggest a good tutor. Obviously, you can't. TOMES. TOMES Hmmmm. You do know, of course, that the only reason a person substitutes a word for a word with the same number of letters, that person is trying to sound like he has actually read a book. Besides, your statement says that anyways. Not trying to be insulting, but I do think you are an intelligent guy. I'm just trying to be honest for your own edification.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What are you on about? I doubt you could suggest a good tutor or anything else that was good.

            I said religious tome and that is exactly what I meant to say.

            I'd suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.

            If you want to be insulting find something worthwhile.
            This is pathetic!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              In Australia being well insulted is a sign of great friendship.

              I know I live in Perth for 6 months. Mate.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I would be happy to see a decent insult, this one sucks! lol

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Ha ha ha

                  1. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    My twin sister lives in Perth, I have trouble with the number of yobbos Perth seems to attract myself! smile

      3. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Druid

        From the beginning of man, where most of us believe it was 180,000 years ago or less.

        Your partly right, love has been the most important behavior.

        The bible of the value body of many people today is over 2000 years old. Religion, Military and more recent Politics, I have little faith and trust in as they have protected every known evil known to mankind. I do have trust in 80% of the consciousness of the people, in which are the true leader of mankind.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Castle, my MAN! Hi ya! Here, let me take me helmet off. SEE? Tis I, the King, and I have returned with the GRAIL! You do remember the Grail, do you not? I have returned, for I have it in my hand.

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I thought masturbation was a sin?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh Lord of the Grail. "Precious, precious, precious!" cried. "My Precious! O my Precious!"

              heeollluuhaaa

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Lord of the Rings?

            2. Druid Dude profile image60
              Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              For that, you take one step back. What makes you think masturbation is a sin? That statue of the three monkeys? That's what they caught the fourth monkey doing. They had never seen that trick before!smile

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The 4th monkey is called spanky.  Or a religious way could be spanking the Gollum, because they fell so guilty of spreading their precious seed.

                Taking things in to your own hand or a hand trusted by you.

            3. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              sandra rinck

              It not a sin anymore, there is website call jerk off for Jesus.
              You can do it, but you must be thinking about Jesus, it makes it OK

              Considering 98% of men do it, it just too gay for me to imagine

              1. Druid Dude profile image60
                Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Would you prefer the Ark of the covenant?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I prefer the story about immortal jellyfish that lived a 100 time longer than Genesis. The Bible has no record of the 95% of the species missing before or after the time of the Ark.

                  In known reality in my eco village community in Belize. The average age here lives three times longer than Jesus did.

                  To me, that’s proof of a higher consciousness on earth, living today.

                  1. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Where can I find out more about the jellyfish please? I would be very keen to know more about this. smile

  23. secularist10 profile image91
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    A. Villarasa:

    A very interesting topic you have started here. Your position seems to be associated with the idea that philosophical materialism or reductionism necessitate the ending of human purpose, meaning and imagination. Hence the transition from "Homo Sapiens" to "Homo Roboticus." This is a total non-sequitur, common though it is among many religious believers.

    Deepak Chopra expressed this sentiment in a debate I saw between him and atheist Michael Shermer. He could not deny the obvious correctness of scientific findings, but nevertheless expressed discomfort and dissatisfaction with an approach that sought to "make everything into graphs." The idea being, if love and imagination and creativity can be reduced to "numbers, charts and graphs" then they cease to have any deeper meaning, and thus we become robots.

    This is a non-sequitur because just because we can measure and predict something does not mean it loses its purpose. The cardinal flaw countless theists (and many non-theists) make is associating purpose/ meaning with God or the supernatural.

    You must understand, a godless universe is not a purposeless universe. Purpose/ meaning still exist but they simply have a different origin. They originate with us. In other words, it is human beings who create and identify purpose in life. We attach meaning and purpose to various things that make us happy, more fulfilled, satisfied, etc. That does not mean we cannot reduce those things. It does not mean we cannot pull back the curtain and see what's happening behind the scenes. Indeed, our purpose becomes STRONGER in the absence of God.

    Does a theater performance become any less satisfying or meaningful to you when you realize the actors and producers and lighting crew are working behind the scenes, and paid for their work in the context of an economic system? No, to the contrary, avid theater lovers become MORE impressed and enjoy the experience even more when they understand the effort, dedication and philosophies that lie behind the actors, singers, dancers, writers and patrons.

    You said:

    "What in effect these three lexicologic concepts do is divest man with his ability to conceptualize "realities" well beyond what is simply physical or material."

    How do they divest man of any such thing? Is the modern man LESS able to conceive new realities than the medieval man was? To the contrary, my friend, our imaginations are yet MORE fertile than they have ever been, thanks to our massive understanding of material reality, brought to us by the rigorous reason and skepticism of the scientific approach.

    "Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism aim to eliminate these three qualities [sensient, volitional and emotional]"

    This is a complete misreading of these ideas. They do not seek to "eliminate" any such thing. Rather, they seek to put them in their proper place. Emotions, imagination, desire, passion--these things are very important for the human experience. But their place is not in the realm of understanding the physical universe. The proper way to read a science textbook is not to recite it as poetry, any more than the proper way to read a poem is to reduce it to its literal parts!

    The scientific method, objectivism, materialism, reductionism--these things have their place in expanding our understanding of the universe and ourselves. Emotions, passions, desires--these things have THEIR place in understanding ourselves, and especially pushing our dreams and our goals to higher levels. The two groups feed off of one another, they do not contradict each other or negate each other. Atheism, objectivism and reductionism have contributed to the *evolution* of Homo Sapiens, not the devolution.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Secularist10:

      Your post is an absolutely enthralling  read. Since I need to go back to work right now and take care of those darn kids with snotty noses and pesky cough ( 11/9/10  0945hr. California time), I will have to re-read and re-read your post and come up with similarly well constructed digressions..... in the hope of trying to de-construct  your  lacerating and eviscerating debating points.

      Wish me luck.... and my  kids will be crossing their fingers too.

      1. secularist10 profile image91
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, sir! I look forward to your response.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hello Secularist10:

          I'm back, and if you must ask... my patients are doing quite well. Nothing than an excellent(  I'm allowed to toot my horn  ain't I?) pediatrician could not deal with.

          As a point of clarification...I am assuming that you have read not only my original post ( OP), but also the succeeding posts, written during my discussions with various hubbers who cared to comment about  the OP's laughability, inanity, and non sequitur-ity.

          If you have not, kindly humor me by reading all of my  more substantive posts as I don't want to be reduntant. If after doing so, you still find fatal flaws in my arguments, then do say so and I will post my counter-arguments to your post.

          Thanks.,,, and Hasta luego.

          1. secularist10 profile image91
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Glad to hear your patients are well. I rechecked the earlier posts, and after deftly avoiding the off-topic and at times hilarious digressions (ernestshub seems to have figured prominently in this area), I don't see much in the substantive posts that address my points.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image80
              A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Good Evening Secularist10:

              Allow me to be a reductionist (for a little while at least)  in answering your more substantive assertions, in their "stand alone" components.

              Point #1: "your position seems to be associated with the idea that materialism and reductionism necessitates the ending of human purpose, meaning, and imagination"
                                 What I said was that rationalism in its headlong lurch towards a materialist and reductionist construct, will,( if they do become the ONLY accepted norms  of evaluating reality)   EVENTUALLY  and  ULTIMATELY remove from humans their ability/desire/affinity (because they are sentient, volitional, emotonal, and creative)  to apply more than just the physical meaning, purpose, and formulation to the material/physical objects ( both animate and inanimate)  in their  natural  environment., thus NOT  INVESTING  on these objects his mystical and spiritual interpretation.
                                   Humans, because of their vanity and willfulness, will always find specific purpose, meaning, imagination to their daily existence, EVEN IF, Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism becomes the trifecta that FINALLY interprets/arbitrates, what is "true" or "untrue", "rational" or "
              irrational".

              Point#2: "Depak Chopra......would not deny the obvious correctedness of scientific findings..."
                                   The correctedness of scientific findings have never been and will never be  the axiomatic grounding  of these 3 belief systems. The fact is, atheists/agnostics are the major proponents of Objectivism  (Ayn Rand comes to mind) and Reductionism(Epicurus was in the forefront) because these supported the atheist's "rational" certainty that God does not exist. by: (a)  Objectifying human existence to the degree that whatever humans do not  feel objectively and physically, and that  do not "feel" them back in  any physical  way, CAN NOT EXIST in reality, and therefore, irrational.
                                     (b) Reducing human existence to its purely physical attributes, thus denying  man's spiritual and mystical bearings, as he applies them to himself and the natural objects in his environment.

              Point#3: "The cardnal flaw countless theists (and many non-theists) make is associating purpose/meaning with God or the supernatural. "Associating" is a word that I would not use in this context. The word "projecting" is more apt.
                                 Projection, as our psychologist friends would remind us, is one of the many "defense mecahnisms" that man has devised in trying to cope  with the harsh, brutal and nasty realities of his pre-historic existence.

              Point#4: "You must understand a godless universe is not (sic, necessarily) a purposeless universe. True enough, but how does the absence of God make our purpose "stronger"?
                                 The analogy to a theatre performance, I find peripheral in the context of what we are debating here. Now if you  analogized God to the Wizard of Oz, who in the end was unmasked as a doddering old  fool, and  not  the  "superbeing"controller of everything that happens in OZ, then perhaps your argument would be more lacerating and eviscerating.

              Point#5: "... how do these 3 concepts divest man of his ability to conceptualize realities well beyond what is simply physical and material.." The key words here are " what is simply  physical and material"
                                 You are right when you stated that  the scientific approach has contributed to our massive understanding of material reality. Science loses  this  utility when applied to the  emotional, spiritual and mystical. Science could neither add nor subtract from  them, anymore than atheism, objectivisn, and reductionism could add or subtract from our perception of what is rational or irrational.

              You waxed poetic in the last two paragraphs, but hit a rough spot in the last sentence. " Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism have CONTRIBUTED to the EVOLUTION of Homo Sapiens, not the DEVOLUTION".  That statement is  quite a stretch, in  the same way that my converse contention was a stretch. I should have used the word "DEVALUATION", not Devolution

              1. secularist10 profile image91
                secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                1.) Aside from the obvious problems with predicting the future, which you seem to be attempting, let me say this. Reductionism says everything can be reduced, including purpose. How does that diminish the value of purpose? Purpose is still there, it's just understood in a different way. "Value" and "purpose" are largely determined by what humans make of them, in a godless/ spiritless universe. But the assertion that therefore godless/ spiritless/ non-mystic purpose is an *inferior* purpose is a subjective opinion or normative interpretation, not a necessary outcome demanded by deduction.

                I agree that materialism is basically antithetical to mysticism or supernaturalism. That's pretty much the whole point of materialism. And yes, if true it does spell trouble for anyone who wants to cling to that supernaturalism. If that's your beef, then so be it. But rest assured it does not necessarily result in a cold, dark, nihilistic world where a human is no more valuable than a speck of dust. There's plenty of room for imagination, fantasy and meaning in a materialistic, non-supernatural reality.

                2.) You said "The correctedness of scientific findings have never been and will never be  the axiomatic grounding  of these 3 belief systems." That's correct, in fact it is the other way around: modern science is grounded in materialism and objectivism. The ideas that (a) there is nothing beyond this reality, and (b) this reality exists independent of the mind. However, scientific findings do help STRONGLY to justify reductionism.

                And regarding "Reducing human existence to its purely physical attributes, thus denying  man's spiritual and mystical bearings." Again, as I said in point 1 above, of course we are tossing out the mystical and the spiritual--we are tossing out all things supernatural. There is no argument there. But if you are worried that "man becomes robot" don't be. The fact that I know my imagination can be reduced to particles (as opposed to a supernatural "life force" or whatever) does not make me less imaginative. The point is that "spirituality" and "mysticism" have their roots in human fantasy, imagination, creativity and passion. Those things don't go away with materialism or reductionism or objectivity.

                3.) My point here is that many theists assume that purpose comes from God. No God, no purpose. I'm saying that's wrong. Purpose comes from people.

                4.) "How does the absence of God make our purpose "stronger"?"
                By placing purpose within our grasp. God is a fixed quantity, and so God's purpose is fixed, it does not change with our changing culture, or our changing potential. That's why it hasn't changed in 5000 years, despite the monumental changes humanity has undergone in that time. By contrast, a human-based purpose is more flexible, more potent and more fertile with potential. The power lies within us, making us the "gods" of our destiny. If God has all the power, then we are just puppets in his performance.

                The theater: the idea I was rejecting was the notion that if emotion and passion and exuberance are not mysterious to us, or if they can be *reduced* (reductionism) to numbers and graphs, they lose their value. You can reduce the theater, and it doesn't lose value, in fact it gains value, so that's the analogy.

                5.) "Science loses  this  utility when applied to the  emotional, spiritual and mystical."
                Of course science, because of its aforementioned underpinnings, denies the existence of the supernatural, and therefore the mystical and spiritual as real objects. But the scientific approach/ method helps us understand emotions very well, whether in psychology, anthropology, neurochemistry, or others.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                  A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Secularist10:

                  A lot to digest and regurgitate... your post.

                  Let me be brief ( sometimes an oxymoron when applied to me) . I am not in the business of predicting the future, so I prefaced my statement with IF, not WHEN. But WHEN your belief system do overun mine (not fair you might say since it has a 2000 year, give or take,  leg up against yours) and toss it into the dustbin of history, what would happen has happened in the past (so many times in fact), and this is that once a particular belief system gets ensconsed or enshrined  in a power structure, be it in goverment, arts, science and all other forms of human activity, the practitioners of that prevailing  belief system would eliminate, physically, if possible any practitioner of  an opposing belief system.

                  So your assurance that I have nothing to worry about, and that  the strict and universal  implementation of your belief system will not necessarily result in a cold, dark, nihislistic world, populated by robotized humans  sounds  hollow, shallow, and fallow.

                  1. secularist10 profile image91
                    secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hmmm. I was hoping for a more rigorous challenge than that, A.Villarasa.

                    "once a particular belief system gets ensconsed or enshrined  in a power structure... the practitioners of that prevailing  belief system would eliminate... any practitioner of  an opposing belief system."

                    There are 2 possible routes your position can take: (1) whether humans are likely to or will become robots, or (2) whether objectivism/ atheism/ reductionism necessarily leads, categorically and by deduction, to robotification.

                    Previously your argument's thrust seemed to be on #2, but now you seem to be focusing on the much softer #1.

                    I fail to see why such a pessimistic outlook is warranted. I have demonstrated that the theories/ worldviews in question do not necessarily lead to such an outcome (and aside from calling my arguments "hollow, shallow and fallow" you have not proven otherwise). And moreover, modern history and the history of modern secular societies marked by religious tolerance and pluralism shows that it is possible for a dominant worldview, ideology, religion or belief system to coexist with their minority counterparts in a single society, under a single roof.

                    I think that you, as a supernatural believer, are concerned that as humans turn away from the supernatural, they will lose an essential part of themselves. This surely makes sense if we accept the existence of the supernatural from the get-go. But I do not.

                    So, we are then down to proving/ disproving the existence of the supernatural, which is another discussion altogether.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hello Secularist10:

                    Please read my post again, and you'll note that I was not referring to your arguments as hollow, shallow, and fallow. In fact I find your debating points enthralling, which was what I said when  I intially  responded to your first post.

                    I was specifically referring to your rather high-minded assurance that nothing of the sort that I was fearful of would happen  IF, in the very, very distant future, your belief system trumps mine, and it becomes the  universal belief system of those in power... people who are in a position to impose your and their congruent  belief system  by whatever means  in their disposal.
                    Human history bears this assertion as fact.  I truly believe  that atheism, objectivism, reductionism and now secularism  combined and being acted  in tandem,  are the very first steps that would lead humanity to the very slippery slope of  thought and mind control via  use of various nefarious techniques forwarded by a very supportive and complicit scientific community. Thus the robotization of homo sapeins. Paranoia you might say?  Not really.

                    As regards  the existence or non-existence of the spiritual and mysttical, let's just agree to disagree.

                    P.S. I just watched a movie directed, surprisingly by Clint Eastwood, and starring Matt Damon, titled :Hereafter" I suggest you watch the movie, but try not to throw-up. The true dyed secularist that you are, you might find the movie a little gut-wrenching.

              2. Beelzedad profile image61
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Considering that all anyone has ever been able to show are the physical attributes of our universe and none have ever shown a "spiritual or mystical" attribute, your point is entirely moot.



                Considering that no one has ever shown a god to be a doddering old fool or the omnipotent being he is claimed to be, your point is entirely moot.



                Science does in fact understand how emotions are linked to the physical, it is the spiritual and mystical that science cannot test considering not a shred of evidence exists to support the spiritual and mystical. Your point is moot.

                smile

                1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                  A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Beelzedad:  I certainly am not holding my breath that science will find evidence to support the spiritual and mystical...since by context and definition they do not have any quantifiable form. The fact  is science do not hold all the answers to what is or isn't in the universe,  and to say that my belief system is moot, because it is not verifiable by any scientific methodology , is the height of hubris and arrogance....something that again, Einstein, your avatar, would not be caught  indulging in.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    A.Villarasa

                    Ignoring me, my service is not working for you, ok.

                  2. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course, science will not find something that doesn't exist or can exist by any laws of nature.



                    Yes, they are nonexistent.



                    It is unfortunate that science has not provided all the answers you seek as yet, but given time, they will be answered.



                    I didn't say your belief system was moot, only the assumptions you were making which were based on fallacies and fabrications.



                    Attacking me personally does nothing to support your argument. smile

      2. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A.Villarasa. Much better if you spoke real english. All them thar big words gives this po' 'ol gringo a massive headache.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Druid Dude:

          Dang.. and I thought I was writing "real english". Anyway, do give my regards to Mr. Hawkings and Gravity. Cool Dudes they are , in plain simple engish. But I still think Sir Isaac should have been in, in your conversation. After all it was him that Gravity imparted his Laws.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      sensient, volitional and emotional

      Feels closer to the truth.

      1. secularist10 profile image91
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ?? Sorry, I don't quite get it.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's the wordage. If the words or concepts they convey are too mountainous, we have to stop and go get our high altitude gear to climb over. Not that we don't know the words, but the brain works a lot faster if you keep it tasty enough for the masses.

          1. secularist10 profile image91
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know, feels more like incompleteness than high-mindedness to me.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Whole intelligent is not exclusive for the high mindedness. The over pride and arrogant; may effect the balance and completeness of this study also.

              It’s called team work.

            2. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Sec:
              The English language is "alive! It evolves.
              Currently there are in excess of 500k words to work with.
              Words/language is why we human animals have progressed to the point we now "enjoy" (I use that term judiciously and with great reserve)
              Those who speak my native language i.e. English, and are not able to communicate well because they lack a desire to learn it and use it to its greatest potential, are, in my mind, dullards who constitute the majority of American citizens.
              How can one describe the intrinsic beauty, the essence of a rose without a knowledge of language.
              I judge people by their use/misuse of English.
              Fortunately, I have the ability to communicate with paupers or kings.
              I am not an atheist, agnostic, deist or a believer in mythical, supernatural divinities.
              I am but a "curious" human creature doing the best I can to make meaning of the incredible world surrounding me.
              I will spend a lifetime trying to understand it. The result will be that I will leave, still floundering in abashed ignorance!
              Qwark

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Visual Imagines came first, than words follow

                From the dawn of humanity, mankind has made unique concept: the idea of art. This phenomenon goes back to most primitive cave-dwellings of 30,000 years ago, we have evidence of artwork. HISTORY OF WRITING Most early writing systems begin with small images used as words, in about 3200 BC recorded by the priests in the dynastic tablets.

                Words have extremely short histories. The history of the English language started around 5th century AD. These cave drawings naturalistic and evolve to masterpieces of the Renaissance have evolve to the abstract images of today,

                Its most basic, art is a form of communication and the greatest persuasive tool known to mankind. because My English lacks because I speck Spanish most of the time and think in my time, words of communication will be less necessary in the future.

                I have 80,000 hour invested of my life mastering the arts and culture. I have something to offer this thread and I am no better or worst than the high minded with their words.

                For many of us here, all we ask is to simpified your words

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Castle:
                  "For many of us here, all we ask is to simpified your words."
                  Whew.
                  Your comment is filled with these kinds of language mistakes.
                  I have a broad education in the "arts" also. I consider painting a picture with "words,"...art!
                  A bad painter comes up with "mud" on the canvass.
                  A bad communicator "garbles" the language.
                  To those who can't handle English, may I suggest to them that they study the language that is responsible for man progressing from the stone age to the age of Hi-tech.
                  Qwark

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I have to simplified my words all the time from traveling around the world so many times and specking in different languages. The countries that have English as their first language are not all that civilized as a few of the other languages spoken in Europe alone.

                    Looking at your hubpage

                    William Ernest Henley also written in Napoleon Hill's book to Master of my Fate. A little second handed, yet interesting

                    You are in the broad of education in the "arts I don’t know if that master you in the arts compared to mastering it with 80,000 hours invested of actually doing the art.

                    You said Spirituality is nonsense, as for you mastering spirit compare to many other human beings, that is out.

                    What area have you mastered?

                    You say you are misfit. because of people who understand any part of the philosophies, maybe you think most people are living like in the Stone Age. I understand much of philosophies just coming from a different angle. Over all, I’m no better or worst as a whole person than you. I hope I have not insulted you. 

                    I have as much the ability to handle this thread as you do. I’m very good at math. Yet do need more work on my out of practice, English,

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          These two words Objectivism and Reductionism are an oxymoron  describing an atheist

          Sensient, volitional and emotional feels closer

          1. secularist10 profile image91
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Not sure I quite understand you. But if I interpret it correctly, I don't see how an "objectivist atheist" is an oxymoron or a "reductionist atheist" is an oxymoron.

            "Sensient, volitional and emotional feels closer"

            Closer to what?

            I still don't quite get it.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Objectivity and subjectivity is much in the centre of debates and conflicts in philosophy, morality, media, and science.

              I can see One World Order or New World Order threat coming from the objectivity of a few different religions. But not from atheists of today, being only 3% of the world population. Its not realistic to have and an objective to rule the world. Atheist over all, are more subjective to being humanitarian, science and literature following role.

              I will not see in my day, when science will lead over spirituality. My feeling about atheist is they want (deserving so) more respect of their service of shorting following spirituality with greater skepticism and science.

              Objective Reduction is a theory of consciousness, which is the joint work of theoretical physicist.

              Reduction closer to the root word is the act or process of reducing, the state of being reduced, something made by reducing, the amount by which something is reduced.

              Reduction coincides much more with subjectivity than objectivity

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Castlepaloma for someone who has English as a second language, may I say you are sensationally good with using it. smile

              2. secularist10 profile image91
                secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Castlepaloma:

                "But not from atheists of today, being only 3% of the world population."

                The size of the atheist population is hardly relevant. Truth is not a popularity contest. Moreover, there are over 1 billion non-religious/ atheist/ agnostic people in the world. They are the 3rd largest group, after Christians and Muslims.

                "I will not see in my day, when science will lead over spirituality."

                It is already happening. In fact, it has been happening for many decades now. Have you ever been to a doctor? Ever use a computer? Ever ride in a car or an airplane? Ever drink water from a city water supply? Ever eat food grown on a modern farm? Ever purchase a product made from plastic, rubber or metal?

                If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," then you, my friend, have benefited from secular, objective science. Chances are, you have done all of these things. Thus almost all of your life has been SIGNIFICANTLY affected by modern science.

                "Reduction coincides much more with subjectivity than objectivity"

                No. Reductionism is the idea that all things can be reduced to some basic parts. It stems from the idea that there is an objective reality. It has little or nothing to do with subjectivity.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, atheist is very strong in the area of science.

                  Yes, ancient spirituality of religion will shrink; one good reason is a lack of science.

                  There is a certain degree of science in everything subjectivity Still as a whole, science is like one branch on the tree of life.

                  Size dose matter, when the population of the world is 80% religious and 80% are the consciousness of the people, who rule and lead. Being only 3% atheists population dose make these facts relevant, on this tread, and also compared to Religion objective .

                  Most out of that 1 billion people, 11% are spiritual non religious; agnostic can go either way with spiritual or science? What we are talking about is that relevant of the 3% atheist objective vs. subjectivity.

                  You don’t think politic is a popularity contest, do you see any USA Atheist voted in anywhere, kind of lost their objective there.

                  I often get bore at long list of great atheists in history that atheists send me; most of them are not self proclaim atheists. I think even gay parades will catch much more action than a boring atheist parade, not to mention the Christmas parade. Give me a list of all the self proclaim atheists who invented most of these computer, airplane, cars, drink water, food, plastic, doctors, modern farm, rubber or metal and compare them to the non atheist list.

                  Atheist as scientist, YES, now thats a lists

                  I have been affected by spirituality (99% UNKNOWNS) far greater, than the subjective science, that follows. Most fine Artist are subjective, it’s OK if most often scientist don’t get paid the big bucks like us as well.

                  Reductionism everything about the fruit fly and thats maybe one man’s objective reality, most likely it will end up subjectivity meaning to much of the World.

                  Everything I have done major in my life, was all imagined and inspired, first, science followed subjectively. A far as atheist objective leading and ruling with science  the world in my lifetime,

                  NOT a FAT chance

                  1. secularist10 profile image91
                    secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Believe what you will, Castlepaloma.

                    But the facts are facts.

                    Secular science and the scientific method have created the modern world. You may realize it or not, you may like it or not, but that is the fact.

                    1 billion people do not accept traditional/ established religions, and they lead largely secular lives. That should give an indication of where we are going.

                    In the words of the Borg, "resistance is futile!" smile

                    There are many possible beliefs and ideas--objective and subjective--accommodated by the secular worldviews, agnosticism and atheism. It's not as scary as you think.

  24. 0
    klarawieckposted 6 years ago

    Qwark, me no peaka englay y tu no te acaba de enterar MIJITO!!!

    Love,

    Klara wink

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nice to see you back Klara. smile

      1. 0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Earnest! I've been busy, but hanging in there. Assembling IKEA furniture! WHAT A NIGHTMARE!!!

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Give the job to a small child!

          Adults do not have the mental capacity to assemble Ikea furniture.
          If I want to open a child-proof bottle or container I get a little kid to do it. I can't open the darn things myself! lol

          1. 0
            klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I have the hard job - project manager! My husband drills, hammers, and every once in a while breaks something! How have you been?

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I have a dumb assed virus! Well actually to be honest a very clever and well educated virus. smile It is obviously smarter than my T cells! lol
              If your husband is legal marriage age, he's not in the race with Ikea assembly! lol

              1. 0
                klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Try Windex! It worked for Mr. Portokalos.

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol I may as well give it a try then. This virus make king kong look like a pygmy marmoset! lol

    2. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Klara:
      Man oh man...ya leave for a while and come back edycated! Yer speakin' a brand new langidge.
      Ah sertinly do rispkt branes
      Ahm gladjer back!
      Wilcum homb!
      Ah had ta poot muh banjo down ta tipe thes!
      Ahm smylin and thuh snuff joos is dripin on muh keebord....dangit!!!!

      1. 0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        snof yus! Que pasa contigo Qwark?!

  25. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    I'm sitting her having brkfast and a cuppa coffee.
    I'm reading responses to: Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism-The devolution of Homo Sapiens."
    I try to think in terms of "concepts," not trivia. Concepts are conceived by gathering trivia and fitting each bit into it's proper place. Like a jigsaw puzzle, placing all the pieces properly, engenders a big picture or in this case, a concept.
    Those of us who have studied all  facets of  science and metaphysics, have developed concepts related to "reality." Wrong or right? Who knows?
    Personally? I side with science.
    We humans, having gained a uniqueness i.e. "consciousness," amongst all extant life,  attempt to conjure up "meaning" for our existence, when there is none!
    A characteristic of our genetic programming is "curiosity."  That characteristic is responsible for what we have become.
    Regardless of the culture, within which one is sired and nurtured, the fact remains that once maturity has been attained, survival becomes a very individual/personal thing.
    All men were not born equal! Each is unique and must adapt to the environment he chooses to exist within. Each has his own talent and aptitude. How he utilizes them in life, will determine his quality of life and his survival.
    "Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism," who gives a "flying f**k?" It's interesting to intellectually, contemplate and chat about, but in reality, those who live in poverty (the majority of human life) and are eking out a living with no chance of improving their lot, don't think about anything but surviving!
    I understand our plight, but I, as one of 6+ billion human animals, am responsible for my (singular) survival. Selfish? you bet!
    Human evolution will be determined by those who think like me. Those with individual survival first in mind, and 2ndly the survival of the species.
    Even then, IF we do not escape from this doomed planet, we will cease  to exist in about 1 billion yrs.
    In geological perspective, 1 billion yrs is a very short length  of  time.
    Get over it! Live for the joy of living!  You'll never get another chance to do it.
    Qwark

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Qwark:

      Your points are well taken..... and I do appreciate your constructive contribution to the discussion.

  26. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    A higher purpose doesn't have to come from a higher being.  It can be based on a higher concept (justice) a higher motivation (compassion) or a profound experience (motherhood) etc.  It is about existing for reasons other than immediate hedonism and personal gain.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi "Doc" Psyche:
      A higher purpose?
      A higher purpose with what in mind?
      You listed justice, compassion, motherhood, hedonism and personal gain.
      Being a genetically programmed animal, motherhood is, to most animal life, instinctive.
      Being programmed as this planets prime and most successful predator, justice, compassion, hedonism and personal gain, as I see them, are all cultural.
      The highest goal of all life is survival. Anything contrary to that goal has a short life span.
      To me, the highest "purpose" mankind can work for, is: "synergy."
      At this point in the evolution of "man," that goal is an impossibility.
      He is headed for catastrophe.

  27. 0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I know I know! You like your men to be STRONG! smile

      1. 0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4047863_f248.jpg

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Is that you and me chattin away? smile

  28. 0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    I have never seen longer p...........

    In my life

    can we keep them short, I can't read that much lol

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OK! OK! I'm workin on it.......... geeze your worse than the kids!!!!

  29. 0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    I love monkey bums, monkey bums, monkey bums !

    big_smile

  30. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    It's simple. No ism or system of believe is required not to believe farcical self evident myths and then build your life on them.
    Religion is a very lazy way to avoid real thought or to take charge and full responsibility for ones own behavior and outcomes. The "devil in the corner" is no longer deemed a sane process since psychology tore it a new ashole 70 or so years ago.
    It's a bloody joke mate! lol lol lol
    It's just words.

 
working