My only statement on religion is a simple one.  I believe that all living things have the Light, a piece of the Divine, within them.  We are created in the Divine Image, as the Abrahamic Traditions of the west (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) would call this concept.  This is not a physical image, of course, but a part of Universal Love.  All of us, male, female, black, white, gay, straight, Autistic, NT, everyone.  In the East this is understood one way, and among the Abrahamic religions another way, still another way by indigenous peoples, and some modern western philosophies "grok" it also.  We are all different, but there is a Oneness in that difference.

I think that if we remember this then we will never attack ourselves again.  Who attacks the Divine Image?  Those who have self-esteem issues can always remember that.  

Finally, do not let the social context you are in determine who you are.  That is too much power for them.  In any case, this is all I have to say on the issue of religion.  By all means comment.  Personally, I try to go beyond words in these matters when I can.

Love and Peace.

I also like to think we all are connected by having a piece in us that is the same - (not phenotypes or genotypes either...something not visible to most... (not visible by micropscopes either) you can call it the light - I call it love... (aka God or peace or yahweh etc.,) it is what makes us humans different than some other species of mammal...

I was reticent to post on this thread because your statements is so perfectly stated...  Are you a writer?

Yuna Hu is that you?

I love this post Nasa, I find it quite inspirational. Also, this can be relevant to pretty much all major religions.

Thanks!  And thanks to the one who said I wrote well.

BTW, I do not read philosophical materialist literature much, not because I find it "blasphemous," but because I find it boring.  Religious conservatives seem to howl at atheist material that I frankly find boring (along with Sean Hannity).  Philosophies that don't incorporate the idea that Consciousness transcends matter are boring to me so I just ignore them.  If someone tells me I don't have the Light in me then I do not argue with them so much as yawn.

Most modern western philosophers are boring.  Among the exceptions are Darwin and Marx because they were men of passion.  I respect passion.   Calling them "atheists" is a bit of modern projection on to the nineteenth century, but they were probably both close to atheism.  They were philosophical materialists, but they came to their positions through a life struggle.

In the case of Marx, he simply saw that religions and ideologies are defined by the ruling class for power.  That is like saying that the sun comes up in the morning, it is so evident.  The Soviets were the first to radically simplify this idea because in its complex and nuanced form it was a threat to them as much as to any religion.  In actuality, Marx did not exalt matter like the Soviets did so much as exalting the personality of man.  In this way, he was not as much of a materialist as he himself thought he was.  He was a true democrat, unlike Lenin or Mao.  

In the case of Darwin, it seems to be that his inner struggle had to do with the death of his daughter.  He believed that his marriage to a close family member doomed her to genetic dysfunction.  This was a terrible thing for a parent to have to face, the idea in his mind that his own theory of natural selection called for his daughter to be put out of the gene pool.  Whether true or not scientifically, that was what he came to conclude although he could never speak such a thing.

In my theory, it was easier for Darwin to believe that the Universe was random, in accordance with materialist principles, than to believe that there was some kind of *PURPOSE* in the loss of his own daughter due to her "unfitness."  Chance and scientific law, yes, but teleology and design in such a scenario he could not accept.  In other words, believing that she died because of her unfitness to survive, he could believe that there was a scientific order to the Universe but not one that would morally obligate the Universe to be the way that it is.  

If I am right, then Darwin focused on the philosophical problem of evil that most religions try to explain away superficially, but which should be looked at squarely.  His battle within himself was not over Creationism.  That was never the point.  Within Darwin himself the real battle was over whether a Universe that seemed to be one of survival and death was actually *ordained* to be that way.  Eventually, he came to see a "certain grandeur" in the idea of selection giving rise to more complex forms, but never a purpose that makes reference to existence itself.  I think it probably was his wife who encouraged him to mentioned "the Deity" on the last page of Origins of Species, who also grieved for the child and came to her own private conclusions.

Few biologists or scientists have really researched the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinian selection.  I think that some consider such a search a threat.  However, Darwin was deeply philosophical.  He was also a product of Victorian capitalism and of the intellectual climate of his time.  Acknowledging that is important.  Evolutionary biology has moved on to incorporate more of symbiosis and mutualism.  Yet, in some strange way, those more left-leaning evolutionary biologists who do not address some of the questions Darwin meditated upon are avoiding the problem of evil in much the same ways that religious theorists have made it superficial.  

I am not a philosophical materialist, but I cite those two as interesting thinkers none the less.  Most "New Atheists" are boring and not worth reading.  So, I stick with my aforementioned position above.  

Nasa Shill, you are obviously very intelligent and thoughtful.

You say 'Most "New Atheists" are boring and not worth reading.'. I'd like to disagree with you but... seriously, I need to read a book on atheism as much as I need to read a book on how the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. I've seen the books in book stores, yet never actually been even remotely tempted to buy one.

Then again, just because an idea is dull does not mean that it lacks validity. Similarly, just because an idea has a certain poetic beauty and simplicity to it does not make it true.

btw I love reading your posts as well. You should be a writer.

lol "new atheist" like a noob

You win religion AND philosophy

This post was last modified: 03-01-2012 03:01 AM by Lang.

By "New Atheists" I was referring to Hitchens, Dawkins, Pinker and Dennett.  They are boring compared to Bertrand Russell, Marx and the earlier crew.

I am not referring to what I agree with.  I am referring to what is interesting reading.

Before you come up with a random religious view point simply to fit in with your world view please do some research you claim that this world view could help the entire planet, yet the religion with the closest world view to this is Buddhism which says you shouldn't intervene on other peoples behalf as anything that happens to them is  result of something they did in a past life so if they are being stoned to death by a bunch of murderers in a past life.


In other news congratulations this thread has motivated my first post on this forum for months!

I made no such claim... and only under the effects of prednisone did I give a collective s*** about theism. Other than that it was "NO DON'T CARE LEAVE ME LONE ALREADY"
(or words to that effect)

In other news congratulations this thread has motivated my first post on this forum for months!

This viewpoint is not simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

piePIEpie Wrote:

Before you come up with a random religious view point simply to fit in with your world view please do some research (ed note:to) you® claim that this world view could help the entire planet

I made no such claim... and only under the effects of prednisone did I give a collective s*** about theism. Other than that it was "NO DON'T CARE LEAVE ME LONE ALREADY"
(or words to that effect)

Quote:

In other news congratulations this thread has motivated my first post on this forum for months!

Nice sock puppet you got there!

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/news...4d6pdg.png

Delusions of reference, Pie. Delusions of reference.

Ez to have in my impatient and rather noisy family.