jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (187 posts)

The A/theist Utopia?

  1. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    Aaw a post that intrigued me regarding: a heaven with no G/god.
    In short, an a/theist Utopia. Could Quantum Sciences be just such an approach, like all other religions, to the concept of Utopia. A heaven on earth? If yes, is it realistic; attainable and by what methodology; practices? Is cloning another type of Utopia, following the concept of reincarnation...

    James.

    1. 61
      nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'll answer your question with a question. Can a theist rationaly and honestly say there is such a thing as nirvana, heaven or such a thing as utopia?

      Just as there is an angle to agree with, there will always be oposition to said concept. One could even say there are no such things and no such thing could exist, in a universe of eating and survival or distruction. For every life, there is an end. For every concept, there is an equally valid alternative.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If we did not see or perhaps more importantly judge 'this' from 'that' and instead viewed these opposites just a they are. Our idea of utopia would be crushed and the concept of utopia will no longer be a concept.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Anything is possible. If we are able to see beyond the dual nature of our existence we might then realize that with or without the commonly accepted concept of God, heaven on earth is achievable. Just might take time.

      Not sure what you mean by cloning as a method to utopia?

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A method of transferring/transcending from one body to another, which is essentially what reincarnation is. Returning to a physical state, while maintaining previous knowledge/experience, until one reaches the highest level of enlightenment or jinn.

        I am aware, presently, they are working deeply on transferring information from the mind onto computer disc (silica) and have even achieved 3D replication. so, if the composite material and blueprints existed, cloning could be taken to a new level, by building humans and then uploading the saved data to their brain. sounds kind of Frankenstein-ish,yes, but they are supposedly getting closer.

        Along with this is genetic altering, with the ability to pro-vaccinate and avoid deformities, sicknesses, etc -even choose the sex and look of an individual.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image81
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If they can contain that energy perhaps that is possible.

          So in essence the cloners will do what natural selection supposedly does except it would not be be survival of the fittest but what is more useful to building a utopian society?

          Very interesting.

          1. jacharless profile image81
            jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am inclined to think that the latter is the true Atheist Utopia.
            Seem only logical, given their belief of when you're dead, you're dead.
            The only way to live forever, according to their meditations, is by this process.
            And, you said it: compiling/containing the sheer volume of energy in a single human mind, is far out of reach -even with the precisest of technology.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image81
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That could be when it becomes Frankenstein-ish. Thinking we can contain/compile and not quite get it all. We could become a whole new species.

            2. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Cloning doesn't make you live forever. A copy is not and never will be you. You are a combination of everything you are now. A copy, even with your memories copied on to it is still not you. But no one else will be able to tell.

              1. needmoretime profile image61
                needmoretimeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Developemental and socialogical influences, would dictate any and all differences.

    3. 0
      Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, but I don't find your first question explicable. Could "Quantum Sciences" be an approach to the concept of an atheist Utopia? What does that mean?

      I think I understand your second question. You are equating cloning -- coupled with the transference of "self" into the new body -- with immortality. I guess you could equate it with immortality, yes. However, during this transfer are we copying the "self," or moving the "self?" If consciousness is a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the brain, then exactly duplicating my brain would result in an another instance of me. :-)

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Chasuk,
        Right, the first query was deliberately broad-scope and open to reply/consideration. Although, many of the Quantum practices are theoretical, I cannot dismiss them for lack of provability, same as any other mythology or ideology. How they relate to Atheist Utopia, however is interesting -to me.

        The second is interesting in similarity of concepts to many Eastern philosophies/religions.

        Keeping in tune to the thread, I am reading more and more that an Atheist-like Utopia, is one of the many goals of present medicine and other scientific practices. And while I agree a technology greater than nanotechnology is required, do you, as an atheist, see such as a type of Atheist Utopia?

        James.

        1. 0
          Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I guess I don't know what you mean by "Quantum practices," or how they mighty apply to atheist utopias. I'll do a bit of googling.

          As for the second question, I don't see a connection between engineered immortality and utopia, no. A utopia is a place where everything is perfect, and a population of immortal imperfect persons isn't going to make a perfect place.

          Good question, though.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The dilemma as I see it, no matter the methods applied, would not be the method but the idea of perfect.

    4. Eugene Hardy profile image61
      Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Howdy James,

      I think I have to qualify my answer here.

      First, there can be a heaven without a G/god.  If what we are talking about is a higher plane of existence, or a place we go to after death, (call it heaven or spiritual realms), then I believe so, I know there is another plane of existence after death, (but don't ask me what it looks like, because it would be based on my flawed perceptions).

      As for the atheist Utopia, that would be harder.

      Unless atheism takes over the world, such a utopia would have to be the size of a town or city, and probably a closed community, (if a community is closed, can it be called Utopian?).

    5. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't honestly believe in the concept of a Utopia. So the idea of an atheist utopia also doesn't make any sense to me.  To myself the word Utopia goes and in hand with Fascism, another concept for which I have much animosity towards.

      1. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I understand why you would have antipathy towards fascism, but I don't understand why you would have it towards utopia. The idea of a utopia is unrealistic, but there is nothing intrinsically evil about it, as far as I can see.

        1. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Basically the idea of a utopia is the same as the concept of a perfect world. What is perfect to one person is flawed to another. The concept is the same. The idea of fascism is also similar but implies forcing someone's ways of life on everyone else which is for the purpose of creating a utopia for a particular individual or set of like minded individuals.

          1. 0
            Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I see you point, and agree with part of it. However, aren't there some elements of any hypothetical utopias that are universally shared? Freedom from illness or starvation, for instance?

            1. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Of course, but just because there are elements in a utopia that are appealing doesn't make the utopia as a whole any more appealing. A world without flaws is a boring world that is unappealing.

      2. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, Fascism would certainly define the Romulus-Remus system, which many countries still implore today. A national or international state of utopia, is of course something others have attempted, without complete success, be it through assimilation, genocide, fear or premeditated revolution leading to dictatorships.

        However, since a traditional atheist is generally self-reliant/self-responsible, the utopia would be scaled according to each ones consideration of it. I believe Mr Hardy said it best, that unless the [religion] of atheism takes over the world, [like any other fascist regime], it would be scaled down to the size of a town or small city. {bracketed words are my additions}

        Still, on the larger scale, should the Agnostic pendulum swing in favor, atheism would have far more political and social standing than it currently does. Presently, it is not socially popular to be an Atheist, but highly popular to be Agnostic, more so than even a Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Pagan -and even Freemason or Law of Attraction-ist. And with that swing, comes Agnostic Utopian concepts, which would influence Atheism's fundamental practices on both the social and individual scale. Oddly, the only sect that would potentially through a monkey wrench into any Utopian concept is Gnosticism.

        One could argue that an Atheist has achieved a semi-Utopian state, based on their fundamentals, having thoroughly distanced/freed themselves from any/all theological systems/practices. The other portion would be a complete fulfillment of self-reliance/responsibility as an individual.
        James.

        1. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, what a load of nonsense! Sorry. That is my unsensored opinion. But I should explain why I think so. Atheism, especially modern atheism is based on free and critical thinking. To Mr Hardy: atheism can't be a religion since it's very definition is anti religion. We have no church, no sense of worship, no dogmatic rules of conduct, and the only concensus is that we don't believe in god and value evidence and logic as the ultimate compass towards truth. Many of us don't agree on things politically or socially. Take my closest atheist confidant, he is a socialist and I am something else entirely. I know some republican atheists, and democrat atheists and have met a couple communist atheists (not many). As far as popularity. We live in a world not yet out of it's non intellectual mindset. Education is still NOT valued above "spiritual" enlightenment (how one finds "enlightenment" from spirituality is beyond me even when I thought I was). Saying that atheists have found any sort of utopia is to myself kind of a joke. However, each and every person in the world is solely responsible for themselves even if they would like to blame a god or a cruel world for the quality of their life. This is the reason utopia can never exist, in any philosophy, because we are not dead. What I mean to say is each and everyone of us is not and never will be a mindless robot... Though some people act like they are. Each person is not a clone. Even if we appear the same we are all different and have different wants and needs and struggle will never vanish, no matter how perfect things appear. It will always be short term. Even Rome fell.

          1. needmoretime profile image61
            needmoretimeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was a christian until I went to hell, ie; northern L.A.

            1. artblack01 profile image81
              artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ha ha... I was a Christian until I realized that most Christians were not very nice people to be around.  In reference to some other conversations here, I would not want to spend eternity with other Christians.

              1. needmoretime profile image61
                needmoretimeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                For real though. I left christianity when I went to a monestary in northern L.A.. They weren't like the people I left behind, not at all. They listened to what I had to say and didn't ostracize for my lack of knowledge or my contempt for their customs. A far cry from the bigoted and negligent past.

                1. artblack01 profile image81
                  artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, some people are more accepting than others of the differences we all have. That is what I like about the area of town I live in. It's the college area. The university here has people from all over the world.

                  1. 60
                    whocares4uposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Deleted

  2. aguasilver profile image86
    aguasilverposted 4 years ago

    More to the point, if it existed, would they allow believers in?

    I have had several atheists tell me that they would not wish to spend eternity with believers, so if they ran the place.... where would they put believers?

    Would there be an atheist 'hell' smile

    1. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      haha good point

      1. aguasilver profile image86
        aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It would be ironic if the atheists ran 'heaven' and expelled the believers to 'atheist hell' where all those of faith were delivered to, leaving all the atheists together in one place, and the believers together in another, thus achieving the same result either way!

        The big problem then (for the atheists) would be what to do with the agnostics.

        My problem then, would be to wonder if I really wanted to spend eternity with the fundies I see in the bible belt..... that may cause me to believe again in atheism. smile

        1. aka-dj profile image80
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Have them create an atheist form of purgatory, to "purge" them of any doubts, then accept them, or reject them. LOL lol

        2. artblack01 profile image81
          artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The goal of the atheist is not to separate people but to unite them in true knowledge and truth no matter who they are or what they believe and to help make our world a better place by working together.  The Goal of the believer is to unite people under a fantasy of fanatical worship of a being that has no evidence for his existence and condemning all those who will not believe or follow their rule.  If there were an "atheist heaven" atheists would not have to separate the believer from us because the believer would have to accept the ultimate reality that is their "heaven"...  but such a notional fantasy as you have concocted is one of prejudicial hatred for those of us who refuse to believe as you do and who are willing to argue with you.  We do not hate the believers we merely want to roll our eyes and keep them from hurting each other when they find someone as a heretic or "ungodly" in any way.

    2. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agua, I make this statement to you and all other believers or other people for which I have had heated and often times seemingly unfriendly arguments with... "I may hate everything you say but I will fight to my death for your right to say it."  That is pretty much all I have to say about that and this ridiculous concept of utopia, heaven and hell.

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    How would you acheive total happiness and satisfaction for every individual? You can wipe out disease, war and poverty but that isn't necessarily utopia. Everyone has different hopes and dreams. I can't see humanity finding a way to create a heaven on earth. For our physical needs, yes. Not emotionally, or spiritually.

    And cloning isn't reincarnation. It is just a physical carbon copy. I don't think we'll every be able to transfer a lifetime of experience and memory from one body to another.

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, according to a/theist beliefs, the brain is all there is, so transferring the data from one to the next could be done, which is essentially a form of reincarnation. Same person, different body -organic or silica based.

      Still, atheism, under the tutorial of science, is making major claims and supposed breakthroughs that would indeed vanquish all disease, war, poverty.

      But, I am leaning toward you regarding the emotional. The spiritual, I gather, is not applicable in the Atheist Utopia. Such a thing does not exist, to them, only logic and common sense (instinct).

      PS, good to hear your voice on this, Emile.
      James.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The transferance of consciousness is a scary thought. I doubt, if science finds a way to do that, it will result in a utopia. Not in the short run. People such as you and I would never have access to the technology.

        1. 0
          Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why is the transferance of consciousness scary, and why wouldn't you have access to it?

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You would first need to know where it resides wouldn't you? In addition you would then need to figure out how to contain it and transfer it?

            How do you suggest this can be done?

            1. 0
              Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There isn't any mystery as to where consciousness "resides," and it already comes in its own container.

              Making an exact copy would probably involve molecular nanotechnology, and is currently only theoretically possible. Maybe it will always be only theoretically possible; I have no idea.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do you mean the brain? If so, that container processes it but does it emerge from there? Just because it processes it does not necessarily mean it resides there.

                1. 0
                  Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why would I assume that it originated elsewhere?

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why would you not? If we wanted to duplicate part of a river and plonk it in the middle of a desert, water rocks and what have you included, sooner or later the water will dry up. What then?

              2. Eugene Hardy profile image61
                Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not sure if it would be worth it to copy or transfer our consciousness to a cloned body.  I would not have the confidence that they did get "everything" of my consciousness. 

                Wouldn't it be easier to extend the longevity?

                Guess I'm very attached to the body I have now.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Plus too much resides in our subconscious. The brain in organic making it impossible to make an exact copy, and even so making an exact copy is still a copy. Making an exact copy of my brain does not give consciousness in both brains. It would just awaken a copy of me. I could interact with an exact copy much like identical twins interact, but they don't share consciousness. Now if one could remove the brain and put it in another body with the same chemistry then one could retain consciousness.

                2. jacharless profile image81
                  jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

    2. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Assuming reincarnation is valid and assuming cloning is possible. Except for Sai Baba's testimony that he remembered his past life. I know of no other that can remember their whole lifetime/s before this one. So perhaps it is not important to transfer anything?

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have a theory on that, which explains why there are some who remember some parts of past lives. That theory would also mean you are right and it is of little importance. I think their memories might play an important role, simply as a means to help point us in the direction of accepting that we are connected to more than this physical world.

        I believe the consciousness of the individual is achieved by a group effort of the energy involved in it. I think the energy of the universe works together to create the illusion of life.

        If it is a random coupling, It would be possible that some manifestations of consciousness would carry enough memories to provide a cohesive recollection of a past life. If it is by design then, maybe, as we grow in our understanding of the fabric of the world we live in, more will be able to pull up recollections.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image81
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your theory makes sense to me.

        2. Recently Awakened profile image61
          Recently Awakenedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Very well said, Emile R

      2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
        EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I actually just watched a documentary last night about a kid who held memories from being reincarnated from the time he was a baby. Apparently his parents were able to actually track it back to an air force pilot from WW2. Kinda interesting really.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image81
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow I find it truly interesting. Thanks will go google.

      3. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Except for Sai Baba's testimony? Why would Sai Baba's testimony be relevant?

        1. pennyofheaven profile image81
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's the only one I read about until I googled the WW2 child and it surprised me just how many testimonies there are. Interesting stuff.

          1. 0
            Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Google Sai Baba a little longer. He was a known fraud, who preyed on the gullible. This is true of all of India's "God men." Sai Baba was just the most famous.

            http://saibabaexposed.blogspot.kr/
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_Zw4rTsxo

            1. pennyofheaven profile image81
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What I did study on him and his faith never sat well with me. I found his reincarnation story more interesting. Thanks for the links. The youtube link didnt even look like him. Must have had a wig.

              1. 0
                Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The YouTube video wasn't of Sai Baba. It was debunking "God men" generally, of which Sai Baba was a notorious example.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                  pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh.

    3. Eugene Hardy profile image61
      Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      True that.

      Atheism would have to fill the void left open without spirituality, and I do not see that as fulfilling.

      1. artblack01 profile image81
        artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        From the atheist perspective there is no void left without spirituality. The problem with spirituality are the long term belief in any non-realistic idea is that you have believed in it do long you can't quite figure out what to do if you were truly convinced that it was false. Once you find something else to believe in that feeling vanishes, no matter what it is, reality or some other fantasy.

    4. artblack01 profile image81
      artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The one time I would agree with you... Except on the spiritual part.

  4. pennyofheaven profile image81
    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago

    Wow, consciousness in a coma fascinating!

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thought so too. Here's a similar article. Not the same I read and it's a different patient, but basically the same thing... http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 … n-patterns

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very interesting article, but it states very clearly that these are patients previously thought to be in a coma.

        'But despite some trepidation, Bell remains encouraged. "The discovery that it is possible to communicate, even in a simple terms, with a patient previously thought to be in a coma is huge news."'

        '"However", Gill says, "brain scans alone cannot translate those initial signs of awareness into a meaningful ability to communicate'

        Clearly this is a patient that is coming out of a coma or showing the initial signs of awareness. Plus this is just one patient, no others could answer question so they may not be aware of their brain function and simply responding to words.

        The vast majority of times a patient is given anesthesia they completely loose consciousness.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But here again we get all tripped up on what the definition of 'consciousness' even is. According to you, it's awareness and responsiveness to one's surroundings. That coma patient, who definitely isn't the only one as I ran across quite a few looking for the original article I read, was unconscious by every definition of the word for 5 years. Only through an MRI machine could he communicate.

          By that same definition, split-brained patients apparently have more than one conscious awareness because each side showed to be aware and able to respond to their surroundings, independently.

          Besides, how do you know patients under anesthesia lose consciousness? I'm not being dense here, just playing devil's advocate to make a point. Say you were given a drug that inhibited your nervous system. You were unable to see/hear/taste/smell/feel. And you were unable at that time to retain any memory of what you're experiencing. Afterwards there'd be no way of knowing whether or not you truly lost all consciousness. Again, it's important to differentiate consciousness and observable functionality.

          We can only really tell through what's observable. Normal uninhibited brain functionality gives us observable functionality. In the coma case above, only through an MRI machine do you have observable functionality. This definition, and this view in general, is too dependent on observation of activity. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. It's only when you take that limited understanding and try to reach concrete conclusions about things not observable that it gets into muddy waters.

      2. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very encouraging as the article says.

        I wonder, if the brain has the ability to reorganize itself (according to brain plasticity) to compensate for damage (in some cases)with these coma cases that seem to have awareness?

        Because if someone has lost the function of the right hemisphere and it reorganizes itself to compensate for that loss in the left hemisphere then it makes sense that perhaps a comatose person's brain could do that to?

 
working