You know what would be really awesome? A person who doesn't think destruction is awesome. Destruction and people who like it are too common-place to be called awe-some.
My own view of God transcends dualistic terms like theism and atheism or benevolence and wrath. God is more akin to the Yin-Yang which presents itself in dual aspect to the human mind.
Theists may ponder whether or not God has a cause or is the first cause itself. But atheists will engage in a similar discourse using the term "Universe" and/or "Big Bang".
Indeed, it is a bit ironic that early rejections to Big Bang theory was the weight it gave to theistic intonations of a first cause. It was actually secular minds who disliked it. But now the tables have shifted and somehow it is no longer sufficient a first cause for theists, but it is for atheists.
These categories are all pretty illusory and I think it's just a big bag of babel.
Actually the take home is more and less than what God you believe in. The take home is whether or not you think you are being monitored.
Behavioral Economist Dan Ariely, who penned Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions, performed experiments with students and exams to see if they would cheat more or less when being monitored. He found that they had a tendency to cheat more when they were not being monitored.
Ariely then performed several more tests of conduct. He had participants review the University's Code of Conduct before taking the exam, and that group cheated less than the control. He also found that reminders of religious values served to mitigate cheating. In actuality, it seems, that whether or not a person cheats has more to do with whether or not they are aware of a moral order or are being monitored and whether or not there is some reproussion for immoral behavior.
How does atheism factor into that? Well atheists generally don't believe they are being monitored for their private intentions at all. If there is no monitoring in-place, reason suggests they would be more likely to cheat. So why aren't there many atheists in prison?
One way to look at the question is to remember that religion is kind of the opium of the poor. The poor and underprivledged are more likely to endorse a religion that provides them with some kind of salvation. They are also more likely to commit property crimes and crimes of passion. So it is at least plausible that there is some socioeconomic reason for the disparity in belief and crime.
Finally, although I can identify with atheism in many of its skeptical aspects, I do ascend to a belief in both a benevolent and a wrathful God. I do not actually see any problem with believing in both and still remaining atheistic in some respects. Perhaps had the question been asked if God is wrathful and not angry or mean, then the results would be different. Because I think many believe in a benevolent but wrathful God and not an angry one.
Man, it's easy to identify with all of those places. Over the last few years I've felt periods of pride over my understanding of certain issues, to despair over my absolute ignorance, and remorse for feeling proud of my understanding. It can be like a torrent of mixed quality when attempting to ascertain truth for its own sake.
Cool idea, it reminds me of the backpack idea in Up In the Air.
I aimed toward a minimalist lifestyle after reading a lot of Henry David Thoreau. I suppose Walden probably provides a lot of inspiration for minimalism. Thoreau lived in a log-cabin he constructed near Walden pond, somewhere on Ralph Waldo Emerson's property. He grew his own food in a small patch of garden and spent his days writing about Walden.
Ironically, an amusement park was later erected at Walden pond, and a whole array of tourist attractions dedicated to Henry David Thoreau. The amusement park has since been torn down, but Walden pond remains quite the tourist attraction.
But how is this going to undo the zeal of the Qutbists and is that really the best thing?
Osama Bin Laden was a follower of the ideology of Sayyid Qutb who conceived of the westernization of Islamic countries as a violation of their rights to Islamic culture, which in Islam justifies ascent to Jihad bil Saif (warfare).
There are few justifications for Jihad bil Saif but threats to the Islamic value system. Which Qutb perceived to be occuring with the growing westernization of Islamic countries and the gross interference by Russia and the United States.
Qutb and Bin Laden are dead, but Jihad bil Saif has been instigated already and that is what needs to be addressed, primarily by demonstrating to Islamic countries their autonomous right to reject western values and maintain their own.
You know when you remove experience from the equation. You have a universe which does not present itself in any aspect and has a qualitative effect on nothing. How could such a universe exist? It would all have come and gone without time or space.
Cosmologists now-a-days generally adhere to some form of the Anthropic Principle. Which dictates several conclusions; A) There is no way to study a universe in which we do not exist. B) There is no such thing as a universe in which conscious life does not exist. C) Conscious life is the primary constraint within which the universe is manifest.
I observe C, and all these other constraints like the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing is itself and cannot be some contradictory thing, are really necessary for the conscious experience of them. Perhaps in a state of quantum superposition a square-circle could exist, but then we'd never be able to experience such a thing. Experience does not allow the existence of self-contradictory phenomena.
So, I maintain that Self-consciousness provides these constraints. Whereby, if quantum decoherence does occur, it occurs with respect to self-consciousness. But again, this does not put the individual ego or self, who also appears as phenomena within consciousness, any determination over that which is external to it. The constraint is a constraint and not a process or ability someone could weild, and it is this constraint which gives us apparent existence to begin with. So it acts over and above all other phenomena including the notions of "existence" and "universe".
No, I think that the necessity of self-consciousness is the primary constraint from which all other constraints are derived. This doesn't exclude the possibility of self-conscious life existing elsewhere, but it does exclude the possibility of a universe which is not self-conscious.
Here I should state that self-consciousness as a constraint does not elevated self-conscious entities to the role of creator, it simply means that in any real universe there will be entities which are self-conscious. It is similar to Wheeler's Anticipatory Anthropic Principle.
It basically puts self-conscious entities near the center of the universe, as all apparently existing things appear so only in reference to the self-conscious entity. Apart from such an entity nothing appears to exist or has apparent existence. Nothing could be said to exist. Furthermore with the perception of space-time being relative to the position of the observer, in an observerless universe there would be no space-time.
Which accords nicely with the etymological root of the word "Exist" which comes from Latin "existere" meaning; to present an appearance [to an observer].
They got the use of 'power' wrong. See, the more power you have in that world, the less power you have in the real world.
The real world, I submit, consists of conscious awareness, an awareness which is qualitatively, but not quantitatively different in each human being.
Psychological processes feedback on themselves to alter future states of consciousness. When a person descends to these sociopathic thought patterns, their mind becomes tainted by them and their conscious experience evolves accordingly.
The feedback of any particular activity is generally appropriate to that activity. If one engages in lies, then one loses confidence in one's fellow man. If one engages in deception, one has to be on-guard against deception. Not only because what goes around comes around but because acting in such a way sets up an environmental pressure that ensures anyone wanting to compete must descend to the same kind of behavior.
Its like playing a board game with someone, and partway through the game they dispute the way a rule is enforced. Whatever decision comes out then will apply to all future enforecement of that rule. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a player attempts to gain an advantage by disputing a rule's enforcement, they may regret it later on.
This dynamic will allow an entire social system to descend into the lowest of all human behavior. As each wants to succeed and can only do so by use of those tactics which prove successful, and as we continuously witness, those tactics are generally self-centered and sociopathic.
Theists may ponder whether or not God has a cause or is the first cause itself. But atheists will engage in a similar discourse using the term "Universe" and/or "Big Bang".
Indeed, it is a bit ironic that early rejections to Big Bang theory was the weight it gave to theistic intonations of a first cause. It was actually secular minds who disliked it. But now the tables have shifted and somehow it is no longer sufficient a first cause for theists, but it is for atheists.
These categories are all pretty illusory and I think it's just a big bag of babel.
Behavioral Economist Dan Ariely, who penned Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions, performed experiments with students and exams to see if they would cheat more or less when being monitored. He found that they had a tendency to cheat more when they were not being monitored.
Ariely then performed several more tests of conduct. He had participants review the University's Code of Conduct before taking the exam, and that group cheated less than the control. He also found that reminders of religious values served to mitigate cheating. In actuality, it seems, that whether or not a person cheats has more to do with whether or not they are aware of a moral order or are being monitored and whether or not there is some reproussion for immoral behavior.
How does atheism factor into that? Well atheists generally don't believe they are being monitored for their private intentions at all. If there is no monitoring in-place, reason suggests they would be more likely to cheat. So why aren't there many atheists in prison?
One way to look at the question is to remember that religion is kind of the opium of the poor. The poor and underprivledged are more likely to endorse a religion that provides them with some kind of salvation. They are also more likely to commit property crimes and crimes of passion. So it is at least plausible that there is some socioeconomic reason for the disparity in belief and crime.
Finally, although I can identify with atheism in many of its skeptical aspects, I do ascend to a belief in both a benevolent and a wrathful God. I do not actually see any problem with believing in both and still remaining atheistic in some respects. Perhaps had the question been asked if God is wrathful and not angry or mean, then the results would be different. Because I think many believe in a benevolent but wrathful God and not an angry one.
I aimed toward a minimalist lifestyle after reading a lot of Henry David Thoreau. I suppose Walden probably provides a lot of inspiration for minimalism. Thoreau lived in a log-cabin he constructed near Walden pond, somewhere on Ralph Waldo Emerson's property. He grew his own food in a small patch of garden and spent his days writing about Walden.
Ironically, an amusement park was later erected at Walden pond, and a whole array of tourist attractions dedicated to Henry David Thoreau. The amusement park has since been torn down, but Walden pond remains quite the tourist attraction.
Osama Bin Laden was a follower of the ideology of Sayyid Qutb who conceived of the westernization of Islamic countries as a violation of their rights to Islamic culture, which in Islam justifies ascent to Jihad bil Saif (warfare).
There are few justifications for Jihad bil Saif but threats to the Islamic value system. Which Qutb perceived to be occuring with the growing westernization of Islamic countries and the gross interference by Russia and the United States.
Qutb and Bin Laden are dead, but Jihad bil Saif has been instigated already and that is what needs to be addressed, primarily by demonstrating to Islamic countries their autonomous right to reject western values and maintain their own.
Cosmologists now-a-days generally adhere to some form of the Anthropic Principle. Which dictates several conclusions; A) There is no way to study a universe in which we do not exist. B) There is no such thing as a universe in which conscious life does not exist. C) Conscious life is the primary constraint within which the universe is manifest.
I observe C, and all these other constraints like the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing is itself and cannot be some contradictory thing, are really necessary for the conscious experience of them. Perhaps in a state of quantum superposition a square-circle could exist, but then we'd never be able to experience such a thing. Experience does not allow the existence of self-contradictory phenomena.
So, I maintain that Self-consciousness provides these constraints. Whereby, if quantum decoherence does occur, it occurs with respect to self-consciousness. But again, this does not put the individual ego or self, who also appears as phenomena within consciousness, any determination over that which is external to it. The constraint is a constraint and not a process or ability someone could weild, and it is this constraint which gives us apparent existence to begin with. So it acts over and above all other phenomena including the notions of "existence" and "universe".
Here I should state that self-consciousness as a constraint does not elevated self-conscious entities to the role of creator, it simply means that in any real universe there will be entities which are self-conscious. It is similar to Wheeler's Anticipatory Anthropic Principle.
It basically puts self-conscious entities near the center of the universe, as all apparently existing things appear so only in reference to the self-conscious entity. Apart from such an entity nothing appears to exist or has apparent existence. Nothing could be said to exist. Furthermore with the perception of space-time being relative to the position of the observer, in an observerless universe there would be no space-time.
Which accords nicely with the etymological root of the word "Exist" which comes from Latin "existere" meaning; to present an appearance [to an observer].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBO8c7v7guI
The real world, I submit, consists of conscious awareness, an awareness which is qualitatively, but not quantitatively different in each human being.
Psychological processes feedback on themselves to alter future states of consciousness. When a person descends to these sociopathic thought patterns, their mind becomes tainted by them and their conscious experience evolves accordingly.
The feedback of any particular activity is generally appropriate to that activity. If one engages in lies, then one loses confidence in one's fellow man. If one engages in deception, one has to be on-guard against deception. Not only because what goes around comes around but because acting in such a way sets up an environmental pressure that ensures anyone wanting to compete must descend to the same kind of behavior.
Its like playing a board game with someone, and partway through the game they dispute the way a rule is enforced. Whatever decision comes out then will apply to all future enforecement of that rule. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a player attempts to gain an advantage by disputing a rule's enforcement, they may regret it later on.
This dynamic will allow an entire social system to descend into the lowest of all human behavior. As each wants to succeed and can only do so by use of those tactics which prove successful, and as we continuously witness, those tactics are generally self-centered and sociopathic.
Part of the excitement of sex, is the knowledge that you could be over-powered. - Camille Paglia