Great theological debate

Christopher Hitchens debats David Wolpe, great way to kill some time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltL-PAGV_-M&feature=related"]YouTube- David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens: The Great God Debate (1/9)

 

I only got to the 2nd video before I had to make a comment. It's about why is there anything at all, and can our minds be more than just material?

We know there is no such thing as nothing simply because we know things exist and it is logical to state that everything is something. If there is a greater consciousness than ourselves he'd be in the same surreality "Why the fuck is there anything, why am I here?". Unless this consciousness is smart enough to figure out where energy came from.

Thanks to Einstein and the nuclear age we know that matter is made up of lots and lots of energy. As was mentioned it takes the force of exploding stars, AKA "A shit load of energy", to create some of the matter that make us and our world.

What is energy? Energy is a natural intrinsic property of the universe in which balance is propagated. Energy is described as propagating in wave patters consisting of equal positive and negative amplitudes in one period or sine wave. How can seemingly nothing be something? The sum total amplitude of a sine wave period is ZERO. Energy is both something and yet "nothing". Nothing being the state of no energy because even "nothing" is something because we know there is no such thing as nothing.

Is our consciousness part of something larger? Why does the state of our mind give us the illusion of spirituality?

You have an illusion of a higher state because the billions of cells and neurons have evolved in a pattern to create something far beyond their individual sum total.

There are 1410 images in this mosaic. It is possible to arrange these images in a certain complex order that they actually convey more information than their sum total:



Our consciousness is like this mosaic in that our minds are a complex organization only with billions more parts, the arrangement of these parts is far more valuable and contains far more information than the unorganized total of these parts. It evolved this way naturally over billions of years because complexity is a product of time and energy. In the beginning of this period of energy we call a universe, during lesser complexities, before the natural propagation of balance even collected into matter, there could NOT have been consciousness.

 

How would you define spirituality?

If there cannot be a defiition how can there be an illusion of?

Experience gives the higher state, illusion or otherwise, the complexities of the brain simply allow someone to recall, distort in some cases and seek patterns in the world around us.


On an infinite scale time is irelevant.

 

to me, it is a completely unsupported arrogance to image nothing could possibly exist without our knowing about it. and an EQUALLY unsupported arrogance to imagine what ever hidden unseen unknown beings and things actually might, are under any slightest obligation to resemble what any one or any several, choose to pretend to know about them.

so what is spirituality? to me it is simply loving and accepting the love, or potential love, of whatever benign strangeness, however strange or unimaginable that might be, that might happen to exist.

this need not even take the form of sentience as we know it, or think we do.

though of course it equally could.

now i'm not saying more specific beliefs are bad or wrong, only pointing out that what i take and use the word spirituality to mean, is not by any means entirely limited to them.

 

That was the question.

So what is love?

Why compare it to the spiritual?

i'm only pointing out that what i take and use the word spirituality to mean
is not by any means entirely limited to them.

Do you believe love is supernatural or does it serve an evolutionary purpose?

Sex alone is not love or is love?

 

The last question I can't answer.

But the first subject was apt to point out that these people in the debate don't realize the extent the world is changing in the uncertainty of it's outlook over believing applied by and because of the upbringing of various social communities. The Ethos communities are what the third scientist (the argumentatively most agnostic) regarded for what one may call the basic gods of sequential momenthood developing and frustrating the thoughts of any wholistically inclined social Individual. That is really what WAS. What will be or referred to the present for most people is much frustrated by the very existence of the Nation, the nation like the United States.

Instead my view would be inclined to Gods applied to discovering new horizons for Ethos or concepts for deciding moral bases for rearing a family.
We know the Great Debate as politically incorrect. But political design will make the faith in a child depend upon the honesty and integrity of his parents more than the heart and ambition. Basically, this is all I have to say at this moment.

 

spir·it [spírrət]
n (plural spir·its)
1. life force of person: the vital force that characterizes a human being as being alive
2. will: will or sense of self
He retained an indomitable spirit.

3. enthusiasm: enthusiasm and energy
Alice responded with spirit.

4. disposition: somebody's personality or temperament
She has a generous spirit.

5. attitude: a person's attitude or state of mind
in the spirit of compromise

6. group loyalty: the enthusiasm and loyalty that somebody feels through belonging to a group
school spirit

7. important influence: somebody or something that is a divine, inspiring, or animating influence
one of the guiding spirits of the Peace Movement

8. real meaning: the intention behind something such as a rule or decree, rather than its literal interpretation
9. shared outlook: the prevailing mood or outlook characteristic of a place or time
10. person: somebody who displays a particular quality
11. soul: in some beliefs, somebody's soul, especially that of a dead person
12. paranormal supernatural entity: a supernatural being that does not have a physical body, e.g. a ghost, angel, or demon
13. beverages alcoholic drink: a strong alcoholic liquor made by distillation (often used in the plural)
She never drank spirits.

14. chemistry distilled liquid: any liquid produced by distillation, especially a distilled solution of ethanol and water (often used in the plural)
15. chemistry alcoholic solution: a solution of an essence or volatile substance in alcohol (often used in the plural)


or spir·its, npl
mood: a particular frame of mind or mood
The group was in high spirits, talking and laughing.



vt (past and past participle spir·it·ed, present participle spir·it·ing, 3rd person present singular spir·its)
remove somebody or something secretly: to take somebody or something away quickly in a secret or mysterious way
spirited him out of the room



[13th century. Via Anglo-Norman < Latin spiritus "breath" < spirare "breathe"]

in high spirits elated and happy
in poor spirits sad or dejected

The Latin word spirare "to breathe," from which spirit is derived, is also the source ofEnglishaspire,conspire,expire,inspire,perspire,respire, andtranspire.

 

This misses the greater decision of the hisotrical times. I know. But just the same, I would feel that the world (of people and things) has errors and denials for the truth of the believing common and fooled.

 

Why did you need the dictionary, why not just use your own words?

 

Just for accuracy since I am looking for common definition. It seems that the definition explains the reason the word is used, because by definition it fits.

 

Spirit - The particular state of one's mind in any given moment as based on the evolved complex patterns of neurons and chemical interactions inside the brain. A sense of being mistaken by many to be a supernatural force. A state of being that can be severely modified of even completely suspended by changing the chemical composition. For instance when a patient is placed in deep sedation by an anesthesiologist for a surgery that takes hours, the perceived time laps for the patient is only a few minutes.

 

Ooo. Ooo. Mr. Science, I have a question. How is your string of unsupported quasi-dogmatic assertions any different from the equally confident proclamations of a religious guru taking the opposite side? All of this is sheer supposition. We don't "know" any of it. What is the evidence for this evolutionary process? Is brain specialist and atheist Sam Harris just wrong when he says, in The End of Faith (p. 208): The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it." Or: "nothing about the brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar, interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case." You present a good "just so" story, but does it have an empirical basis?

 

so many people are so worried about whether or not there is a god, does anyone ever ask themselves how much difference it would actually make, whether there was or not?

 

you just blow my mind.

 

Diversion from more pressing worldly problems.

 

For me, God is the source of core meaning for my life and the means of facing pressing world problems, not a diversion. So yes, it would make a big difference to me whether or not there was a God, or at least whether or not I believed there was one.

 

So instead of getting involved or put much weight on world problems you scapegoat the anxiety, anger or whatever would be causing your bother on the fact that you belive god was somehow involved in the reasons these things were happening?

I always wondered if the sense of relief some people have comes from that reason or that they believe the bad things in the word are in some warped way good things because god was involved?

 

Of course, I'd put it differently. Because of my interest in God, I'm very concerned about world (and domestic) problems, which I attribute partly to natural causes but also, in large part, to really messed up thinking about values and religion. Just watching a few minutes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh,Glenn Beck, or Pat Robertson, or listening to the Savage Nation, makes me break out in a cold sweat!

I think that ultimately God gives me a sense of transcendent meaning that allows me to cope with evil in the world without denying it or retreating from it. My brother's example when dying of cancer had a major effect on me. He was told by his doctor that his condition was hopeless. He had graduated from college as an honor student, and was accepted to a top tier law school. He was good looking and was an outstanding athlete. He died a slow, agonizing death over several months that left him a virtual skeleton, and he was fully conscious and aware of it. The family was with him 24-7, and we never heard him complain, because he was able to find meaning in it, and seemed to treasure every minute of a remaining existence most of us would say was pretty shitty. He was able to do this because he was spiritually grounded--not strictly speaking in religion but in philosophy, especially Roman Stoicism and the logotherapy of Viktor Frankl. Frankl said we can endure almost any "what" if we have a "Why". My brother first found meaning in the beauty of nature, and we took him on outings to his favorite spots by lakes and mountains and in parks. When he couldn't go on those any longer, he found meaning in family relations and the on-going discussions of current events during the 2008 election campaign. Ultimately, he decided that the "Why" of his life was to model the dying process for others, so that we could better understand what life and death are about.

My "Why" is Jesus, which is the central concept in the belief-value system I find most meaningful in relating to reality and guiding my personal interactions in an ethical way. The Progressive Christian theolgian, Paul Tillich, distinguished between two ways of relating to the world: horizontal and vertical. The horizontal orientation is preoccupied with the transitory day-to-day events of making a living, getting ahead, pursuing success, etc. The vertical orientation or infinite concern, as Tillich also calls it, focuses on the transcedent aspects of reality which are not time-bound. I see God in every experience, especially everyday encounters with humans, who are created in God's image and likeness. I accept the possibility of alternative meanings, including atheism, which could also be effective for some people, but I think they have to be about ultimates; worldly attachments to sex, drugs, rock n' roll, materialism, status, power, and/or hedonistic sensual pleasure won't cut it for me. They're too ephemeral, undependable, and ultimately unsatisfying, and they tend to cause nasty side effects. An atheist system of spiritual meaning might focus on naturalism, humanism, or both, with a basis for ethical values and the kind of awe Einstein and Sagan exhibited toward the universe and natural laws. Existentialism might provide the basis for committing to such a system in the absence of divine revelation or command. It wouldn't be the arbitrary commitment recommended by Sartre, though, but rather a commitment based on probabilities and rational choice. I think Carl Sagan had a strong spiritual value system rooted in scientific inquiry, even though he was considered and considered himself to be, an atheist. I'm sure some readers will recognize the influence of Buddhism in my thinking about Christianity--which I acknowledge.

 

.

 

So it is not your intrest in world affairs that makes you feel empathetic towards the horrors human existence but rather your belief in god that lets you have compasion for your fellow man.

Without god do you believe you would be an uncarrying sociopath?

Of which you must emacipate god from responsabilty for.

Ok...

So with your belief in god you beleive that you actually have a deeper sense of understanding than of someone who simply would say the earthquake was caused by our planets cooling crust and the fissures that dot it's landscape, and that the people who have died did so because of the stretch of land and the buildings they inhabbited?

To me it would seem that your transcedence has much more in common with simple scapegoating than a deeper understanding of events.

Again I go back to the practice of scapegoating, It used to be when sudden woe would befall the tribe the elders would pile the sins of the community onto a goat to die in the desert thereby cleansing the village and it's inhabitance of guilt, I see a direct link between this practice and the worship of Jesus who through the teaching's of the bible attempts to convince people that as long as they accept the story which is utterly unbelievable and without a stich of evidence to solidify it's claims, you to can be saved, your guilt can be abolished and your supposed sins will no longer be yours because they rode out of exitstence on the back of an eccentric preacher in bronze aged Palestine so many years ago upon his completion of a prophecy that ended in a human sacrifice.

Again, always with the attempted easy out, two ways to relate the world seems a bit like seeing the worls in just black and white.

This sounds more like new age white noise and I couldn't imagine trying to explain to someone who had gone through a horrid tragedy like the girl who was kept as a sex slave in a basement for 18 years that the reason for her incarceration was because it is part of some quasi plan set into motion at the alpha of time.

Can you go into more detail with this, you say you see god but I'm assuming you mean this statement in a non literal way.

Does god have poorly evolved knees and a vestigial cosyx me wonders?

Ok.