“It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.” The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry

Miracles? Spirit? Science Delusion?

Who let these zealots in here?

Nonsense.

Everything I do happens for a reason

@Allamanda Which part is true and is of questionable use?

@Allamanda To be aware of their illogical assumptions arms us so that we do not fall under the spell of futility, uselessness and depression. That’s my opinion.

@WilliamFleming
What in particular is illogical?

@skado IMO it is illogical to assume that reality is the result of just random, meaningless events, that the universe fell into existence as a chance occurrence and needs no further explanation. It is no more rational than to say that God did it IMO.

For me the most logical position is one of ignorance and bewilderment. We humans simply don’t know what underlies reality, and possibly we lack the ability to comprehend existence outside our delusional sense-world.

@WilliamFleming
Here you say “We humans simply don’t know what underlies reality, and possibly we lack the ability to comprehend existence outside our delusional sense-world” which is a statement I’d have a hard time arguing with.

But earlier you said “Our existence is underlain with conscious awareness, timeless and indestructible.” which seems to put you back in company with those irrational folks who claim to know it’s random or that God did it. Because it still carries the problem of infinite regress - where did the timeless conscious awareness come from? Did it just fall into existence as a chance occurrence? If it was always here, why couldn’t the universe have always been here?

That’s an assumption of yours, is it not, that is based on personal preference (faith) rather than evidence?

@skado we don’t know what existence is and we don’t know what we are ourselves. But we know that we are consciously aware of something. Time has no meaning without awareness—it is a result of awareness. Even physicists are saying that time does not exist. For that reason I say that conscious awareness is timeless.

WE are not timeless in our bodily state obviously. We are living in a world of illusion. My existence as a body is just an illusion, and I myself as a separate individual is illusory. That seems obvious because if I lose my memory I am no longer the same person. My “self” is just an idea thing, like an acting role. Just as an actor can play different roles, sometimes various personalities are seen to occupy a single body, each unaware of the others, each as legitimate as the others.

It all comes down to the fact that we don’t know anything in a rational way but we experience this mysterious consciousness.

@WilliamFleming
Are you saying that the consciousness that inhabits every conscious being is a single entity, and that it exists independent of whether it has bodies to inhabit?

@skado I lean toward thinking that but obviously it can not be proven. I am basically flabbergasted.

@Matias Society now has to address global issues from America to now Syria, Europe to Brazil with all interests intertwined. The introspective rhetoric of this passage gives no offer of solutions only bleak impregnability!

@Allamanda I agree but they are what we utilise.

Even the concept of having children to reach immortality is a bit off. Unless one's future offspring will be like the dinosaurs' offspring: birds. And even then, once the Sun goes, so goes life in the neighborhood. We are the current dominant species, as far as we know and can prove. How long we reign is just speculation. The dinosaurs might have done better if an asteroid hadn't hit; but then we may have never gotten a chance to rise up and fuck things up. Maintaining existence is futile over millions of years. Still, wouldn't it be nice if we, as a species, would leave things as we found them before dying off?

@Beowulfsfriend We may be the dominant species, but there are more animals that are more and better adapted to their environments than us. It's our brains that allow us to survive in different regions. But I agree, our kind has messed up the planet. The sun allegedly has several million years left to it, but an asteroid or comet could take out a lot of life here.

Not all people have a goal to procreate.

@photoelectric Define dominant.

@itsmedammit Look at the comment above mine about the dominant species. Not wanting to procreate has nothing to do with how evolution designed you.

@photoelectric Yes, I see his reference to dominant now. I still wonder how it is determined. There are many creatures on this Earth that are far more successful than humans if you think of distribution and adaptability.

I have already lost track of this conversation and am too tired to look back, but it seems that the assumption has always been that there is always a drive to procreate. Humans can and sometimes do, overcome that drive.

@Matias Well that may be true. I only have this to go by.
The old 'foundations" are overrated, never did a thing for me, and are not missed, by the way.
In fact, it was only when I became convinced--at my core--of their illegitimacy I felt the full force and power of my new freedom.
Now I can investigate alternative spiritual choices without the "Jesus" anchor (and all it's attendant nonsense) around my intellectual neck.
Apologies to all my atheist friends, but I posit they are so intent on throwing out the baby with the bath water they overlook the limitless opportunities for intellectual speculation and informed scientific inquiry this freedom affords.
The loss of a few ridiculous myths is a small price to pay.

@Allamanda A "multitude of sins?!?" Sounds almost biblical! You believe in "sins?"
Some (but not all) atheists, I mean, refuse to acknowledge ANY speculation or inquiry focused on the possibility of an interconnectedness of all energy and matter. For instance, of a "collective unconscious" or an "akashic record" or anything which AT THIS TIME cannot be proven.
If scientists had always had that attitude, almost everything we know now about the universe would've remained hidden.
They say something to which we could refer to as "god," for want of a better word, cannot and will not ever be proven.
How do they know? Isn't their definition of "god" arbitrarily narrow? If god doesn't have a beard or sit in a lotus position, god does not, cannot, exist? Maybe THESE atheists are as rigid in their thinking as the theists to whom they so strenuously object to, and reject?
Then again, close-minded atheists are the only extant ones, in my mind.
Open-minded atheists are actually a separate species, a sub-branch, if you will, of agnosticism.

@Allamanda I always say English as IT is spoken.

Anthropomorphic universe? Are you certain it's not a multiverse?

I call hooey.

@BryanLV it may be a Multiverse. There's some reason to think that. But I'm not certain about it either way. Either way when I use the term universe, I mean it in the sense of all there is. So if there are multiverses just take that whole big package and apply the term universe to it, if not, whatever 'All that Is' is, is what I mean by the universe.

What's hooey? Please explain which part of you, which aspect of you is not the substance of the universe itself.

@Matias no, stopping the emotive clap trap about death being a bad thing. It just is. It’s like calling the weather miserable. I’m not discounting his life experience, I just don’t share it.

Keep the last 8 words Sorry