Jan 24 2012: Dear Md Santos, what you suggest here, and in your apparently relatively vast resarch as is evident in the links you provided is intriguing indeed. I must admit that currently, I do not feel that I am adequately equipped to grasp all the intricacies of your arguments and your presentation, yet I will try harder. I would like to applaud the fact that FAITH does not seem to be a factor in the theory you laid out. That is so refreshing.
Jan 24 2012: Thanks to all of you who participate in this exploration. Your ideas and expressions are apparent evidence that we all possess something that is greater than the sum of our physical existence. Sentience, in my opinion, is charachterized primarily by its inate "ability" to constantly surpass its own pereceived limits, to invent impossibilities, to formulate hope, to expect surprises, to dare beyond reason, to re-configure experiences into motivation, to interpret our instincts, to intrapolate and extrapolate, to progress CREATIVELY... (mind you, there are many more attributes to sentience, again: in my humble opinion, which are far less "gloriously positive" and may be labeled as "negative" such as the innate drive to possess power and control, to judge, to experience or inflict shame and guilt... to name a few.) However, this, for me, is far from becoming any proof that either 1. My sentient being (MIND) will continue to exist once my BRAIN dies. 2. That there is god, (and for that matter, that those who believe so religiously, know something that is truer and more valid...)
In fact, I am more convinced now that it would be a lot more beneficial, to say the least, to adopt the idea that if humanity is destined, wired, channelled to preceive divinity, why not than assume and apply that god is the sum of our sentience, therefore making each of us EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Indeed, a novel concept, which many may suggest is already built into existing religions. However, we, the individual entities of this sentient hive, are still plagued with ungodly imperfections. We are driven to pursue dominance, to warfare, greedy to possess that which we cannot: EXCEED our MATTER, our physical being, defy the enthropy of our bodies, live after death... or in short: become perfect gods, conquer a perfect Olympus, and have fun forever.
Not gonna happen. Nah!
We should accept our transient existence, and make the best of it. For the sake or our descendants!
Jan 22 2012: Mr. Md Santos,
this is intriguing, to say the least. I am going to study what you wrote, but I wanted to let you know that I am grateful for your contribution to my experience. You will hear from me soon enough.
Jan 15 2012: Evidently, the very thought of the existence of the god who created the universe is pretty much a mind blowing concept to believers and infidels alike... maybe that is why so many of us are simply blown away....
Jan 15 2012: Trust me, dear Linda, I rarely rejected compliments, and I will not start now. If you so spotted my delivery to exude masculinity, I guess my instincts are in good operational order... For that matter so are yours. Right?
As far as the proof of the existence of god - I like your comment at the end there - indeed it is my job within the confounds of my own being, and I have proven to me that god is but a fable. The more important proof, for me, is that being free of the constraints of this fable, is an important catalyst for improving what remains of my time down here on earth, and the lives of my descendants. You are a sensitive and sensible, Linda, that much is clear. It should be clear to you then, that I am NOT dismissing anything, let alone other people's experiences. I have got enough brain power left to marvel at our ability to theorize like we do, to raise above mere bodily functions, to see soulfulness and even divinity in our existence, and to hold dear and sacred the very concept of freedom in all its forms and expressions, including the freedom to worship an oppressor. It seems like you have been so quick to judge me as dismissive, because you were eager to establish that spirituality is so paramount to you. Hey, I agree. But I was talking about THE VERY VERY BOTTOM LINE. Whatever happens above that line is - so I contend - to OUR credit. Not god.
Be well, flourish, love and live. May you continue to find joy all around.
Jan 15 2012: Please know, mr Long, that I am very grateful for the contribution you made to this little debate here. Your brave pickup of the challenge, spawned, as you see, a stir that others are engaged in. Mind you, despite the fact that I and others too, strongly disagree with your position, and oppose what you try to represent, you are duly and proudly expressing yourself as YOU WISH, democratically, if you will. That is because here, in THIS CHURCH, no one will forbid you from having and exercising YOUR FAITH. I wonder, and please take this as gracefully as you took other assertions here, if this openness exists in YOUR CHRCH (or synagogue, or mosque) ... Most likely, I dare to believe, that this is not the case, as in your Sunday sermon today (or prayer), the pastor (Or Rabbi or Imam...) and leader of the faithful flock of your congregation will repeat yet again from the pulpit, in so many words, that arguing with god is forbidden, futile, sinful, and...punishable. Please, mr Long, I do not wish to hurt you, or your faith. I do wish, very much, to protect myself from being hurt by your faith. I hereby admitted to how powerful your faith is. Not your god, not you, and not me... Faith should not be (mis)used to submit. Am I making sense? Thanks again!
Jan 15 2012: Wow indeed, dear Linda, your femaleship! How amazing is it indeed that we males are so "male"... Honestly, your accute distinction is irrelevant in the highest possible order. Yet, your labeling did get me bolder, or "maler" if you will, and I will say that it would have been only fair to start this idea with a straight forward claim, one that is not trying to sound sophisticated, one that is purely expressive, in the most epistemologically fashion, one that was originally derived from watching the amazing Drew Berry's video and the beautiful animations of the unforseeable biology: THIS PROVES, AGAIN, THAT THERE IS NO GOD. I failed earler to connect this thread of thought to what I have observed, and felt, and theorized, and gave meaning to upon watching this video: no religious person will ever attempt to SHOW the unseeable aspects of the existence of god. Not only it is not there to begin with, but religions, more specifically, the monotheistic ones, in fact mostly forbid inquiry of the unknown. So in the spirit of your labeling me as a male for thinking in a certain way, I will do similarly, and bluntly label any attempt to make me a believer as "how ignorant is that?". Yet, I can only imagine how this debate would turn sour with hurt and blame, just as a result of choice of words... Additionally, as far as assigning meaning, and beauty, and heart and all of the other wonderful features that distinguish sentience from the instinctual, indeed we humans are very special and smart and all... Still at the bottom line, at the very basis, we are what you , Linda, failed to mention when you recalled the string theory, MATTER. Maybe this very basic matter is the evidence of god, but I seriously doubt that.
Jan 15 2012: Thanks again mr Long. I may have been wrong to not emphasize enough that I speak for myself. I respectfully wish to make this clear: my observations, opinions and anything I say are products of the unique configuration which is me. I am (trying my best to remain) aware of (what I perceive to be ) the fact that my perception may not reflect the reality which exists in your perception... That may be an entire separate opera worthy of another debate. That maybe the reason for ( the appearance) confusion. I have had a previous encounter with MJ Behe's attempt to illuminate the darkness of the Black Box, which I found EXTREMELY manipulative and missionary, specifically because it wears a mantle of logical and deductive appearance. This book is hardly a proof of anything, other than (what I perceive as) the fact that like every other missionary pitch the arguments are basically Teutonic endless circles which leave me feeling that i should feel inconsequential and worthy of blame. I respectfully state here, therefore, that your attempt to answer my question is A. Welcome with respect and gratitude - I do not consider this exchange to be an opening for you to convert me, as you clearly stated above when you mentioned convictions... B. successful - as you did say that you cannot prove that the human mind is anything more than a construct of chemical and physical building blocks. Regardless of your reasoning for stressing that there is more to all this than merely science, the fact remains that what you, so I think, believe to be the validity of the Intelligent Design, is based exclusively on faith. And in that respect your responses prove my point, at least for me. I thank you again, respect your opinions, enjoy your expressions, and still think that you are not aligned with reality.
Jan 14 2012: Thanks mr Long. You are right, of course about CONVICTION. However, an important aspect of this debate is the fact that EVIDENCE is growing to support atheism and not the way around. In fact, theism is stagnant in faith, opposing ANY openness to discovery, diversity or change. While Theism sanctifies the past and promises a CERTAIN future as a consequence based on romantic view of morality - Science, despite of being seemingly subjected to the rules of physics and of universal nature, never closed itself to the possibility of discovering mistakes, paradoxes, and even conflict, embracing surprises, nurturing further inquiry and learning, welcoming change and diversity, always attempting to resolve and deduce, and always allowing for progress. I am not a scientist myself, but as a thinking being I realize that science and theism DO NOT MASH, and that atheism enhances understanding of reality. Consequently, I realize that theism does the opposite: it piles barriers to understanding reality, and provides powerful manipulative means to control. Theism and religion are social phenomenon which, when used diplomatically, provide power to those who know how to use it, like any well organized propaganda. Theism is not only inconsiderate of reality, it FIGHTS REALITY, it hinders the well being of humanity and nature itself.
HOWEVER, I, for one, will fight to protect the right of anyone to choose faith, religion, and to experience freedom, or submission. I will NEVER engage in missionary agenda, or consider attaching absolute values, or qualify a comparison between points of views. Do not mistake this with the right, or duty, to state opinions in an open debate. I choose atheism, and ultimately, I find this choice comforting and "good" for me. Consequently, I find attempts to prove me wrong in favor of religion irritating, insulting, and saddening.
TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
So... tell me bluntly: IS THERE GOD?
A comment on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
In fact, I am more convinced now that it would be a lot more beneficial, to say the least, to adopt the idea that if humanity is destined, wired, channelled to preceive divinity, why not than assume and apply that god is the sum of our sentience, therefore making each of us EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Indeed, a novel concept, which many may suggest is already built into existing religions. However, we, the individual entities of this sentient hive, are still plagued with ungodly imperfections. We are driven to pursue dominance, to warfare, greedy to possess that which we cannot: EXCEED our MATTER, our physical being, defy the enthropy of our bodies, live after death... or in short: become perfect gods, conquer a perfect Olympus, and have fun forever.
Not gonna happen. Nah!
We should accept our transient existence, and make the best of it. For the sake or our descendants!
A comment on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
this is intriguing, to say the least. I am going to study what you wrote, but I wanted to let you know that I am grateful for your contribution to my experience. You will hear from me soon enough.
A comment on Conversation: Was the universe created by God, or by the Big Bang Theory?
A reply on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
As far as the proof of the existence of god - I like your comment at the end there - indeed it is my job within the confounds of my own being, and I have proven to me that god is but a fable. The more important proof, for me, is that being free of the constraints of this fable, is an important catalyst for improving what remains of my time down here on earth, and the lives of my descendants. You are a sensitive and sensible, Linda, that much is clear. It should be clear to you then, that I am NOT dismissing anything, let alone other people's experiences. I have got enough brain power left to marvel at our ability to theorize like we do, to raise above mere bodily functions, to see soulfulness and even divinity in our existence, and to hold dear and sacred the very concept of freedom in all its forms and expressions, including the freedom to worship an oppressor. It seems like you have been so quick to judge me as dismissive, because you were eager to establish that spirituality is so paramount to you. Hey, I agree. But I was talking about THE VERY VERY BOTTOM LINE. Whatever happens above that line is - so I contend - to OUR credit. Not god.
Be well, flourish, love and live. May you continue to find joy all around.
A reply on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
A reply on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
A reply on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
A reply on Conversation: The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.
HOWEVER, I, for one, will fight to protect the right of anyone to choose faith, religion, and to experience freedom, or submission. I will NEVER engage in missionary agenda, or consider attaching absolute values, or qualify a comparison between points of views. Do not mistake this with the right, or duty, to state opinions in an open debate. I choose atheism, and ultimately, I find this choice comforting and "good" for me. Consequently, I find attempts to prove me wrong in favor of religion irritating, insulting, and saddening.