Derpybunneh, you made the confusingly illusory assumption that I was speaking of human potential, when in fact the term I used was divinity
. Human potential has nothing to do with it. We are not above all of nature and you provided no reasoning that suggested otherwise, so I reassert my premise: We are no different from the other nameless matter forged in the superheated, hyper-pressurized hearths of supernovae. The advent of the Copernican principle in scientific achievement affirms our cosmic insignificance and infinitesimality.
Why do you think we are divine anyway? Why are we hierarchically above other mammals? You gave no evidence to back up your opinion, of course, but I assume you think we are divine for our intelligence. Intelligence and willingness to cooperate and form societies (allowed by our empathetic natures) have been our greatest assets as a species in the natural history of the earth--ninety nine percent of all of the species ever birthed by our planet have fallen into extinction, and we just happened to come out on top. The meaning of the latin binomial nomenclature we assigned to our species truly reveals how much we pride our intellect. Homo sapien
: wise man. Our pattern-searching and -finding natures make us predisposed to the illusion that they’re special. All (relatively) “intelligent” organisms are human, but not all humans are intelligent; that latter is very patent if you ask me.
Nothing else about the human is special. Our physiologies are poorly constructed and weak and frail just like all other animals.
Wait… are we legitimately debating evolution right now? I thought we were smarter than this as lucid dreamers. All the information is easily accessible for you to read, but I can educate you if you like. I’m not quite as forgiving as Hagart of you all’s poignant and myopic rejection of facts.
Not to get too confessional here, but here’s something interesting:
Even when I was devoutly religious and superstitious (I only accepted reality a few months ago; so the whole “You’re just a closed-minded and ignorant skeptic” argument is nonsensical) I embraced science and evolution and the Big Bang because they are our best determinations of reality. And through a series of twisted and convoluted leaps and denial-based casuistry, I thought I could reconcile science with God. But what I found interesting was the people who didn’t even attempt to make reconciliation between evolution and intelligent design, but rather blatantly rejected observational facts. That fascinated me as an ignorant religious person and it fascinates me equally as a realist (or “an atheist,” as the dogmatic would have it).
At this point you’ve dismissed yourselves by demonstrating sophistry through gross misinformation--but I’m willing to educate you.
DesertExplorer, in reference to your “X-Y” piece, I’m not sure why you couldn’t have simply said, “Experiences vary.” Which is an argument that seems to denote the validity of insanity and detachment from reality, commonly known as psychosis. I suppose if we encountered a primal tribe living in an uncharted part of Africa that was gouging out the eyes of every third-born child because they believed a polycephalous daemon would assail the village if they did not, this would be legitimate? By your view, their perspective should be respected and given solace from the light of science and reason.
Those “I went to heaven and came back” testimonies are quite the laughing stock among proficients and pupils alike of the medical academia. Fun fact: to date we have never revived a brain dead person. Death, I’m sorry to report, means the irretrievable deoxygenation of the brain and subsequent cellular apoptosis (although it’s important to note that men and women of medicine often debate over when exactly we should withdraw intravenous and artificial breathing life support on brain dead patients, a process that requires the careful examination and signature from a doctor of neurology; and indeed the vitrification of neural tissue in cryonic preservation might soon become a reality for brain dead patients). That does not
include cardiac arrest, in which the brain is quickly failing but still largely functional--and cardiac arrest, incidentally, is the source of most of these stories. In the neuroscientific community it has been theorized that on the threshold of death the brain secretes a series of desperate, last-minute chemicals to induce a hallucinogenic state in which time itself is warped. For all we know, the afterlife does exist subjectively in the sense that at death those final two or three hours in which the brain still has oxidation are exploded into years or even eternities. Time is merely what we perceive it to be, of course, both in the sense of Einsteinian relativity and human psychology. As oneironauts, let us not question the brain’s potency. Illusory afterlives, whose contents are perhaps dictated by the quasi-deceased individual’s expectations
of the afterlife, are certainly a possibility in our current deficient understanding of medical neurology.
It’s amusing to me how those who still succumb to superstition (a dying breed, thankfully) are constantly making such obscure, highly dubious position-statements as, “There are records.” In the realm of science, information is universal and all theories and concepts are readily available to anyone willing to learn in peer-edited magazines and articles and books. How variegating and capricious are the queer viewpoints and vastly unsupported claims of the superstitious!