When the conscious self becomes aware of imperfection, what determines whether awareness of the imperfection is held onto or denied? It’s identity at the ontological level. Bringing imperfection into conscious awareness and going through identity crisis is the same process as leveling up ontologically.

The conscious self doesn’t just feel, it identifies. This is very important because through identification is how higher forms of reality become actualized.

At this point, you are operating at the very edge of conscious awareness but this is where the actual battle takes place.

Oh one problem.. there is a being who doesn’t want you to level up and he is lord over you and this world. In the evolutionary story, they call it the survival instinct, but he’s a person and he is no slouch. Good luck.

I had to read this back to myself a few times to make sure I understood what you were saying. I never thought about it like this, and it kind of blew my mind.

Mulling Solms theory over a bit, and considering some of the many components of life and matter that are just there at the beginning ... one eventually comes across sensitivity. All organisms have this trait ... they are both sensing themselves and the environment. This itself is consciousness, and seems to defeat the idea that consciousness comes from brains. Any amoeba: sensitive and thus conscious.

If not what is it? Through what mechanism are we sensitive and reactive to the inner and outer realities if not consciousness? An organism feels that it needs food, and senses the food's presence in the environment. What's the framing that that isn't consciousness, i.e. being aware of the internal and external. Not to be confused with what philosophers demand of consciousness, which is self-awareness/meta-awareness ... which is a mere elaboration on this fundamental sensitivity.

Then explain it to me since craig1120 has trouble communicating his stuff clearly to literature majors. Call me skeptical about his motive for that.

The comment presupposes concepts like salvation, the afterlife, and good and evil. While you may not accept these ideas in of themselves, they're central to point he's making. I'll use an analogy explain:

Let's say there's a kid who's involved with a gang. Maybe he didn't want to be in the gang, but his hand was forced because of the neighborhood he grew up in. Maybe gang life was something he romanticized as a kid, but now he no longer enjoys it and wants out. Now, let's detail his history—Maybe he dealt heroin to someone who overdosed and died. Maybe he was involved in the murder of a rival gang member. If this kid is remorseful and decides to seek salvation/forgiveness, he may decide that he has to turn himself into the police because it's the right thing to do. But if he does turn himself in, he'll go to prison, lose his freedom, and his life will become endangered. The evolutionary "survival instinct" tells him to keep his mouth shut and stay out of prison, but if we wants to "level up," he needs to make that sacrifice.

If you identify with the promised paradise, and that is your destiny, then following the truth (and doing right) no matter what will get you there eventually.

I thought it had nothing to do with doing right and was just about believing in Jesus in your heart and confessing with your mouth. Or are you overruling the Bible?

Well, I'll read this back 3 or 4 times like you said and see if I come up with anything.

When did you first have the idea that you were channeling god's thoughts?

5% of the world are atheists and the number is going down not up. It's not nor ever has been the default position among human beings. The vast majority of those who have ever lived have believed in God or something like it. The idea that being in touch with what God wants, or knowing his thoughts or whatever, is some sort of mental disorder just illustrates how delusional western atheists are(and they are of course medicated at an extraordinarily high rate which is prima facia more expected on the hypothesis that theism is true)

Theism is declining in the US and has been for decades. Edit: Here is a link to actual research by Pew Foundation. Americans identifying with a religion has declined from 90% to 63% in the last 30 years.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...ecent-decades/

The vast majority of those who have ever lived have lived have either lived in times when superstitions were predominant because rational thought and science were only known by a tiny minority, or they live inheriting those views from their parents, neighbors and community.

None of this of course addresses whether we have any reasonable evidence to conclude God exists. Its an ad populum fallacy to say because something is popular it must be true. The muslim religion is growing faster than Christianity, so when it has more adherents does that make Allah true?

Theists always want to focus on the irrelevant because they know they lack justification for their beliefs.

It comes down to your relationship to status quo reality (SQR). I reject rooting myself in SQR and see it as unacceptable. Whatever form of the good life offered by SQR is found wanting in my determination.

The capital R Rationalists are in a constant posture of reconciliation with SQR. They are apologists for SQR. Anyone who wasn’t an apologist for SQR would cheer rather than shame those who decide to explore the unknown for better potential realities.

The Rationalists are the ones who need to justify themselves in my mind.

Why are you using U.S. specific numbers? When was that even brought up? But either way only around 10% of Americans identify as atheist. That hardly speaks to your point. Worldwide there are fewer atheists than there were 50 years ago, and many more theists than there were. This isn't up for debate.

It simply doesn't answer life's greatest questions.

Because Europe is far more secular than the US?

The use of the term “atheist” is curious. Today it’s often misused to mean people who are convinced there is no god, and “agnostic” for those who aren’t convinced there is a god. But that’s not what athirst means, anyone who isn’t convinced there is a gid is atheist, the two flavors are gnostic and agnostic.

So add the percentage of agnostics to get the real count of atheists. I suspect that percentage has been increasing, because it’s borderline absurd to have hard data on the plunging rate of theism isn’t mirrored by some significant increase in atheists.

Neither does religion if you require reasonable evidence to justify the answers. Otherwise you are left with stories written by Bronze Age and medieval goat herders as your only sources.

Questions like where did the universe come from and was it created or eternal are important enough that we should accept “I don’t know” as the answer until we have good evidence for the right Answer.

Wasn't it Jung that said “Intellectualism is a common cover-up for fear of direct experience?”

By the way, that reply wasn't directed at you but the comment itself. We have emotional and imaginative minds as well as rational ones. Don't underestimate their value when it comes to discovering truth.

Truth is that which comports with reality. Whatever emotion and imagination do, it’s not comporting with reality.

Is reality static or dynamic? If you agree reality is dynamic, is it better to be in alignment with (a) future reality, (b) present / soon-to-be-past reality, or (c) both?

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you believe emotions are an actual thing (and significant to the individuals experiencing them). Does your understanding of emotions stem from rationality? Or is your understanding more aptly attributed to having experienced them?

I don't know exactly, but probably. Every psychologist recognizes this as a common aspect of human beings.

Can't see the idea that emotion isn't part of reality. There are both internal and external realities for human beings. Certainly included in the inner reality, and crucially so, is emotions. If you are saying if someone "feels something is true," that doesn't make it true ... yes. But when someone is experiencing anger, fear, joy, sadness ... that is the most direct and intimate reality they have. In this way, emotions are way overly discounted as to their vitalness and vitality.

Which has answered more questions, science or religion? Which has answered more great questions, science or religion? Since religion has answered zero while purporting to describe the existence of the universe with fairy tales and myths by the thousands, I think we need to give the nod to science. And since an untold amount of things attributed to god also got answered and described by science, not supernatural crap, I think we further need to give a big lean to science for answers.

None of that is to say that rationality, logic, science, reason, observation, etc. have all the answers. So far, it has all the ones that aren't made up. Our feelings, intuitions, conjectures, speculations, beliefs, etc. are not to be dismissed, and they have much to offer. Interestingly, that, unsupported by anything tangible, is what has led to thousands of god propositions.

Emotions are real, they are mental states. But they aren’t a pathway to understanding reality, in fact the opposite, they impede rational thought and analysis.

I’m not saying emotions aren’t important to us, without them life might not be worth living. And it might be important to explore them in order to manage our personal happiness. But they aren’t revealing anything about reality, only obscuring it, sometimes to our benefit and sometimes to our detriment.

Why are you Rationalists acting as if collecting facts is what is most important? It’s obviously not more important than actualizing a better reality, so stop using fact collection as the standard for morality. It’s either bad faith or it shows your deep confusion.