A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[seeds]

The soul is just another label for nothingness.

I think that the word “nothingness” pretty much describes the inherent value (as in practical usefulness) that the Advaita Vedanta doctrines have to offer the average person.
_______

[seeds]

Well, two starting points. Firstly, you do realize that even the Evolutionist story (progress by genetic mutation) agrees entirely with the statement that at one time there must have been an original mating pair. The Bible may call them "Adam" and "Eve." The Evolutionist may say that they were some sort of first-pair perhaps with no names -- or their names were "Og" and "Ug," perhaps. But the agreement on the question of the existence of that original mating pair of humanoids is still there.

Where on Earth do you get your information? Can you cite a single biologist who claims there was "an original mating pair"?

uwot, that’s an interesting question isn’t it?

Was there an “original pair” of hominids who somehow simultaneously attained a “human” level of consciousness, who then begat others like themselves from that point on?

Or was it a “group awakening” that began from one alpha ape of a certain species from whom the rest gradually awakened via contact?

I discussed this in an alternate thread:

As a fanciful analogy, think of that moment in the Stanley Kubrick film - “2001: A Space Odyssey” – when the ape-like hominid was divinely inspired via the mysterious monolith (a representation of universal intelligence) to begin the process of inward reflection and the willful grasping and control of the fabric of its own personal mind.

It has been suggested that an awakening (i.e., an elevation in mental processes) may have been triggered through the ingestion of certain entheogenic (psychotropic) plants.

Come to think of it, a few intense “psychedelic trips” in the jungle could certainly explain where the idea of “talking snakes” came from.
_______

[seeds]

nothing happened at the beginning of human history that would suggest that some kind of “fall from grace” took place.

So again, your conclusion must be that whatever human beings do is "good"? Is that indeed what you suppose?

Needless to say, this is all speculation on my part...

...however, for the umpteenth time, I believe that we are functioning at a “purposely restricted” level of consciousness so that (for example) we do not sense or question how utterly strange it is that giant cities filled with humans (New York, London, Sydney, Los Angeles, etc.) are being spun around “topsy-turvy” in a 24 hour rotisserie cycle.

That is a totally bizarre phenomenon, yet humans (in general) are completely oblivious (unconscious) of it.

Unfortunately (and to address what you are alluding to), one of the consequences of our restricted level of consciousness comes in the form of what we think of as being “evilness” in humans.

But you see, even that (evilness), along with those awful images uploaded by Hobbes, are all part of what makes the “illusion” of objective reality work for us.

Why?

Because it makes us doubt God’s existence.

And as crazy as this may sound, especially coming from a theist (panentheist), that is precisely what God wants the inhabitants of the universe to do (doubt his existence).

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

No, it’s not so much of us being less than fully developed, it is more of the fact that we are not yet “fully-born.”

Why aren't we? If we are in nowise out of step with the Divine, why would it be necessary for us to be "not fully born" in the first place?

I mean you no offense, IC, and I certainly don’t expect you to believe or accept any of my speculative ideas.

However, by consistently demonstrating that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in trying to understand your opponent’s arguments, you have clearly proven (to me, anyway) that you have no business inserting yourself into a debating arena.
_______

[uwot]

Was there an “original pair” of hominids who somehow simultaneously attained a “human” level of consciousness, who then begat others like themselves from that point on?

Or was it a “group awakening” that began from one alpha ape of a certain species from whom the rest gradually awakened via contact?

Biology really isn't my field, nor is philosophy of mind, but frankly, I doubt it was either of those. Other than the sophistication of our language skills, it is not clear to me what a "human" level of consciousness means. I think intelligence has obvious evolutionary advantages in a creature that isn't particularly big, strong, fast or well armed, but even Stephen Jay Goulds punctuated equilibrium doesn't posit a eureka moment when some hominid suddenly evolved with the realisation that it was human.

Come to think of it, a few intense “psychedelic trips” in the jungle could certainly explain where the idea of “talking snakes” came from.
_______

Makes sense to me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is imperative that humans believe in the integrity of objective realty so that everything always makes sense to us as we participate in the process of creation that produces new souls (God’s literal “offspring”) as witnessed in the picture below...

Or this soul created by god.
[grotesque image]

Or this other baby
[grotesque image]

How about this one?
[grotesque image]

All miracles.

Hobbes, you always have such an upbeat and positive message for us.

Have you ever considered going into the greeting card business?

It is becoming more and more obvious that in direct proportion to the intensity with which you defend your hardcore materialistic views, you are in turn demonstrating the depth of your somnambulism within the context of this “dream-like” illusion we call a universe.

In other words, the more eloquent and heartfelt your arguments are in defense of materialism, the more asleep you prove yourself to be.

And just so you know that you are in good company, I ascribe the same to Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, just to name a few.
_______

These images are a problem for you. Not me.
Face the truth!

[Immanuel Can]

Was there an “original pair” of hominids who somehow simultaneously attained a “human” level of consciousness, who then begat others like themselves from that point on? Or was it a “group awakening” that began from one alpha ape of a certain species from whom the rest gradually awakened via contact?

If the theory is as simple as that genetic mutation produces evolutionary improvement, then it has to be a single mating pair. That's conventional Neo-Darwinism: natural selection plus time = species improvement. That would certainly imply that a male with a genetic potential would have to meet with a female of the same genetic potential, and off the theory goes from there. Thus, a single mating pair is inescapable for that particular theory.

The alternative is much more difficult to explain in any (pseudo-)scientific way: namely that all of our progenitors experienced a sudden and unexplained "bursting forth" of a genetic trait, and the story went forward from there. The problem with this is that there is no mechanism to describe why, on a merely chance basis, multiple ancestors would suddenly acquire a trait that has not pre-existed in any form. What magical force makes that happen repeatedly, and in a genetically "targeted" or "improving" way? It is no longer plausible to think of something so improbably as mere "chance" at all; rather, we need an additional "force" or "law" of some kind to account for it, but we lack this. So it opens a hole in Darwinism: natural selection plus time is no longer a plausible explanation for genetic improvement. It needs some kind of mysterious "help" we can't give it. It needs more than a mere "awakening" to produce such a new trait: it needs a sort of genetic "miracle."

Thus, I think you'll agree, the more plausible theory is the idea of a single mating pair, at least so long as no mechanism for spontaneous and widespread, coordinated genetic advancement is even available. For so far as I have been able to find, no one even has a reasonable proposal for such a mechanism, and thus the "magic monster" theory is considered extraordinarily speculative, to put it kindly.

I'm assuming you're probably more attracted to Darwinism, no?

[Immanuel Can]

“purposely restricted” level of consciousness

By whose "purposing" and for what reason would you say our "level of consciousness" became "restricted"?

That is a totally bizarre phenomenon, yet humans (in general) are completely oblivious (unconscious) of it.

Well, we haven't established that you have the right explanation yet. Nothing's unusual about at theory starting to look "bizarre" if it should turn out to be unsupportable on the evidence. We'll have to see if you can make it cogent, and that's why I'm inquiring further.

Unfortunately (and to address what you are alluding to), one of the consequences of our restricted level of consciousness comes in the form of what we think of as being “evilness” in humans.

So it's not "bad" in any durable sense. It's just the way things work. So, for example, the Holocaust is "just the way things work"? Is that how you would see it? That would seem a debatable moral judgment, to say the least. Maybe you can clear that up for me.

Because it makes us doubt God’s existence.

And as crazy as this may sound, especially coming from a theist (panentheist), that is precisely what God wants the inhabitants of the universe to do (doubt his existence).

In a sense, this shocks me not at all. I think something like it is plausibly the case, but perhaps for different reasons than you would posit. "Doubt," I think, is the right word -- not "disbelieve," but "doubt."

[Immanuel Can]

I mean you no offense, IC, and I certainly don’t expect you to believe or accept any of my speculative ideas.

I feel none.

Of course.

However, by consistently demonstrating that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in trying to understand your opponent’s arguments, you have clearly proven (to me, anyway) that you have no business inserting yourself into a debating arena.

An interesting jump in logic: because you are questioning, you have "no business inserting yourself into a debating arena"? But how am I, or anyone else, to "understand" an "opponent's" arguments without resorting to any sort of rigorous questioning?

I think it would be more advantageous to your view if you took a less adversarial view, and perhaps saw questioning as an opportunity to justify -- or even to refine -- your position. After all, what else is a "debating arena" for?

You can resort to summary personal judgments instead, of course; but I'm pretty sure they won't advance your cause as well as debate would. And I think you've perhaps misunderstood what a "debating arena" is for. I'm thinking it's for "debate": did you have something different in mind?

[uwot]

If the theory is as simple as that genetic mutation produces evolutionary improvement, then it has to be a single mating pair. That's conventional Neo-Darwinism: natural selection plus time = species improvement.

Is that a fact? Well Mr Can, you should have no trouble citing a conventional Neo-Darwinist who says as much.

[seeds]

These images are a problem for you.

How are the images a problem for me?

Face the truth!

And what, exactly, might that “truth” be?
_______

[seeds]

Was there an “original pair” of hominids who somehow simultaneously attained a “human” level of consciousness, who then begat others like themselves from that point on?

Or was it a “group awakening” that began from one alpha ape of a certain species from whom the rest gradually awakened via contact?

Biology really isn't my field, nor is philosophy of mind, but frankly, I doubt it was either of those. Other than the sophistication of our language skills, it is not clear to me what a "human" level of consciousness means.

I suggest that the “human level of consciousness” is defined, not only by our unmistakable “self-awareness” (as in being fully aware that we are aware), but also in our ability to willfully grasp the fabric of our minds and shape it into literally anything we wish.

Although some other animals do seem to have a hint of self-awareness and the ability to reason their way through certain situations, I believe that the divide between us and them is stark and obvious.

The point is that at some moment in the past, a division between humans and the lower animals has taken place.

And even though I rail against Biblical mythology, it is a division that is allegorically represented in the Eden myth when some “apes” suddenly (or perhaps gradually) became aware of their own “nakedness” (i.e., self-reflective awareness).

And that is a state of awareness that the lower animals are not burdened with.

Furthermore, if we really want to delve deeper into more of what the Eden myth implies, then I suggest that the “awakening” we are discussing represents the moment when the Creator of this universe established humans as being his literal “progeny/offspring.” Or, in other words, beings created “in his own image.”

And that is a truth that will not (cannot) be fully realized until we have undergone the process of our second and final birth...

...(as is portrayed in a fanciful illustration I created to help visualize the concept, here: http://theultimateseeds.com/Images/18%2 ... ge%207.jpg)
_______

[Dontaskme]

The point is that at some moment in the past, a division between humans and the lower animals has taken place.

And even though I rail against Biblical mythology, it is a division that is allegorically represented in the Eden myth when some “apes” suddenly (or perhaps gradually) became aware of their own “nakedness” (i.e., self-reflective awareness).

And that is a state of awareness that the lower animals are not burdened with.

_______

Hello seeds.

Can there really be a diving line between the awareness of humans and lower animals that was made in the past ? who would make that dividing line? and who was it that told the human ape in the garden of Eden myth albeit the Garden of Eden was just an allegorically story/representation? whose voice was that? was it a voice, or was it a thought? what happened, how did the division happen?

In other words who told you you were naked ie: aware of yourself?

I already know the answer seeds, but I'm interested in knowing if you too have the same answer as me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

These images are a problem for you.

How are the images a problem for me?

Face the truth!

And what, exactly, might that “truth” be?
_______

If you claim that god is the creator, then you have to accept all his creation.

[Reflex]

DAM:

When I see an ape create something like a Shakespearean play, them I will take seriously your notion of no dividing line.