First, a truism.  If A is asserted, then people ask questions if B (Escape) is an outcome.  Those who never assert A would not ask about B.   The point or value in stating truisms in an argument is completely unclear.  It just takes up space.  

Next you state "there is no reason to assume"....   Right.  Right right right.  This seems like an extremely difficult concept here for atheist posters here to comprehend about current theology.  Christian thought has had about a century to chew on what Kant said.  There are multiple different directions Theists have taken it but folks here seem totally oblivious about it.

They agree there is no reason, no argument for assertions for the transcendent.  Kant, Lao Tzu, and so on and so forth.  Perhaps we should go through why it is ontologically invalid?  Or are you perplexed about why Theism can still stand without Thomas Acquinas' assertion that there were rational proofs for existence of god?  Origen way way before him thought it was nuts, and if you get a list of the prominent theologians of the last century you will find that all of them agree that that endeavor is fallacious simply from the point of view of the rules of logic.

Again, from the way you are coming at this, I still think you are still stuck on the idea that the entire other universe is an exact copy.  That is not necessary for Tegmark's proposition, or what I am stating here.  Did you read the Sci-Am article?  If we are clear on that point, and you still feel you have detected a flaw in what Tegmark is stating, you are to be congratulated.  At least in type II multiverses, each bubble is indeed isolated from the other.  He describes how in local areas of those other locations, exact copies of our existence would replicate given an infinite number of such bubbles.  Yet he is including those separated phenomena with some mathematics that include it.  

I am not "trying to isolate a parallel universe from this one by some boundary".  As pointed out in the article, plausible accounts state this is a very real possibility that this is the way it is (please reread the type II account if the physics of that is unclear).  So I am "trying" nothing of the kind. Tegmark, not me develops a hypothesis of multiple you's assuming any one of these accounts of an infinite universe is correct.  

If you were making a specific observation beyond what Tegmark was stating, and that was your point, I didn't catch it.  If you want to discuss the plausibility of Tegmark's article, then that's ok too.

You are 'projecting' that that is what people do. And you probably mistake it as something serious when they do. Instead of realizing that dialogue is often merely rhetorical, and just for one's own amusement.

It's called testing a hypothesis...

They do during dialogue, in order to test a hypothesis.

Is that how you feel?

I completely disagree.

Sure, if one feels the same way you do.

But, I like learning the truisms. So, I feel differently than you do, and again, I disagree with your premise.

So, did I state a truism and 'just take up space'?...

Which atheists have stated that they are having comprehension problems with theology concepts?

Please provide some evidence, otherwise, the only option is too consider what you say, a deliberate lie.

Probably because those 'directions' lack of merit.

But you'd rather attribute it to some general flaw of 'atheists'.

I'll answer your question in number of responses.

1- Your claim that theism stands, as if it's a sound, well reasoned and established fact, philosophy, theory, et al.

Which it isn't.

In context of 'assertions', it is about as robust a claim/theory as are astrology, numerology, scientology, claims of the boogey man, the tooth fairy, santa claus. That is to say, they're not.

2- I'm not perplexed at all that people give credence to theology, for the simple reason that the fallibilities of the human mind, are well documented, observed, and understood.

3- Making claims that theism 'stands on it's own' simply by appealing to the numbers of people who subscribe to it, is only an appeal to the irrational side of humans. There are lots of people who believe that magic is 'real', and that illusions are 'magic'.

Of course it doesn't mean a thing in actuality to whether or not magic is what 'magicians' would like us to believe it is, which is 'real', and something other than simply the imagination of a human who assumes it is viable and workable.

In any event, even if we look at it as parallel universes that are with a/without a boundary from this one, it really doesn't give any 'gravity' to your feeling that this is some indication of an eternal life, perpetual soul, blah, blah blah....

Thanks for the invite, but, no.

I've modeled the basic theory in my mind with a number of different scenarios, and it doesn't hold any significant appeal to me.

If his theories give you some indication of a soul, or perpetual existence, or whatever, I guess that's good for you.

For me, it doesn't, but it was simply a mental exercise, which can be fun.

If you say so.

I simply don't care for you to respond.

That's nice...

I wouldn't take your word for it, over mine. That's for certain. 

You'll probably find this difficult to comprehend, but, I don't find the basic theory that you've described that intriguing at all, whether or not I've taken into account any and all details.

You're free to feel, and assert that I haven't understood it at all, if you wish. It wouldn't affect me at all. I'm not here to try and impress anyone.

Well, no.

Hypothetically, there could be completely identical copies of myself in the infinite. However, I have no conscious sensation or awareness of it, so the effect on me is null.

You disagree with me.

I understand...

But it's of no concern to me.

That's of no concern to me either.

I've read a lot of posts here from other members who mirror my thoughts almost exactly, without it creating any feelings of some 'connection', whatsoever.

But, I'd love to hear you elaborate on why my lack of feeling 'connected' to them should be deemed irrational. That would be most intriguing for me to read.

All psychological 'norms' are anecdotal, by definition, as there is no 'mean' human. Therefore it's a fallacy that you have any 'proof', and you are quite mistaken if you believe otherwise.

People are like snowflakes. No two are alike.

WTF do you think there are SO many different religion 'theories'?

Feel free, but you've not managed to interest me so far, with your understanding of psychology.

I don't think you understand the fragility of 'connections' between people, and how contingent they are on many factors other than what they share in common.

Only the one constructed in the mind, and is transient, by nature...

The answer is No, if you mean is there a linkage between it and some literal interpretation of the Bible- such as that it had predicted the existence of such a phenomena.  

The answer is Yes if the linkage is to transcendental truths that are spoken about in the Bible which I as all Christians believe is the inspired word of God.  Butterbattle characterized the linkage I asserted as an "analogy".  I think that is fair if one would use the word "analogy" to characterize the Newtonian models relationship to the way physics works.  You can't prove this or any more accurate model directly, but such models aren't arbitrary analogies because there is a strong evaluative mechanism.  With models in science, evaluation examines their predictive strength.  Evaluation of religious models relies on their effectiveness in responding to ultimate concerns regarding human values.  Using that measure, I think it is fair to conclude that the approach of religious fundamentalism and literalism is a fundamental failure and is morally bankrupt.  We are probably in violent agreement on that score.  I don't want to minimize the deep disagreements but state this in order to establish where the common ground is.

There is more to Christianity and other such religious systems though, and I think it is of mutual benefit for visitors to this forum to more accurately understand where the disagreements lay between atheism and post modern Christian thinking (WP link).  In the context of progression of post modern thought, Christian liberalism in the 19th century took a general approach that encouraged believers to think that the Bible said whatever an individual personally felt it said.  It was German theologians who revolted most violently against this movement because it failed the evaluative measure I stated above in response to German Nazism.  This formed the backbone of the so called neo-orthodox (WP link) movement that characterizes the system that I have been speaking within.   Now, regardless whether this particular school is closer to the truth than others, it would be a mistake to think that Post modern Christianity is some sort of isolated or theoretical movement that has no influence outside of theoretical discussions amoungst theologians.  Bishop John Shelby Spong (episcopal), Rev. Scotty McLennan (Unitarian), Leonardo Boff (Catholic), Michael Dowd (Pentecostal Evangelical) and William Sloane Coffin (United Church of Christ) are a sampling of the notable ministers sharing this perspective.  

With that context established, let's return to the specifics of this thread.  You stated that you don't see how the Tegmark hypothesis "is relevant to Christianity beyond pointing out a coincidence".  I think nearly every one of these ministers would disagree with you.  If Tegmark's hypothesis is correct, then this provides an account, valid from the system of science, that asserts that your character is eternal, and is manifested in an infinite number of instances.  The force of your character is eternal and is a property of the universe.  A Christian church could be formed that made constant reference to Tegmark's hypothesis as the inspired word of God speaking through him about the transcendent truth about our eternal souls.

I fully acknowledge other interpretations.  Nietzche stated for example that this notion of the eternal recurrence was the main idea behind his opus "Thus Sprach Zarathustra".  Basically, the eternal recurrence is a litmus test for the overman.  The person who has overcome the spiritual shackles of his ego and has lived a life adhering to the highest human values can honestly say that he does not dread the repetition, but in fact embraces it.  In Christian language, such an overman eternally walks in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Tegmark's hypothesis speaks to the transcendent truth of the Christian model of that eternal soul, and so it is far from a coincidental linkage.  

Sure.  "Actual linkage" between these two different glimmers of the transcendent is about as meaningful as demonstrating an "actual linkage" between a line of Shakespeare and a line of Whitman.  You either perceive the transcendent in a grain of sand, or you don't.  The nature of the linkage aside, even if we agreed that I could or did establish such a linkage, demonstrating conceptual coherence is not the ultimate measure.  The Newtonian model is beautifully coherent.  In Science, the measurement of how well a model does relies on whether or not its predictions are verified experimentally.   

Science makes no recommendations about human values and we should not expect it to.  That is not what it does.  Science is also not incompatible with certain kinds of theistic or non theistic beliefs which do.  I really think attempts to assert that all such beliefs ought to be eradicated in the post enlightenment world on grounds that they cannot be directly proven by science is ill considered and ill informed.  Systems which do inspire people to acts of high moral value are more essential to our culture than any advance of science.  Liberal Christianity, secular humanism and Catholicism failed miserably in response to fascism.  They failed the metric, but there is movement towards better systems that make recommendations regarding human values.

For example, nearly all the ministers I mentioned were strongly motivated by those beliefs to be involved in progressive social action.  This is not a coincidence either.  Regarding the merits of neo orthodoxy in particular, it deserves mention that among the ministers strongly influenced by Tillich was Martin Luther King- In fact, he wrote his dissertation on him.  Really, I don't see any practical benefit for atheists to concern themselves with postmoderns.   Maybe you could fast forward through needless clarifications by simply asking posters if they follow any recent theologians like Barth, Bultmann, Tillich or Bonhoeffer regarding literalism.   Besides avoiding wasting time covering the same ground, I would think you could be more gentle with them.  Whether or not you agree their beliefs should be eradicated as well, at least you might agree that they are mostly harmless.

Literalism again. I don't think Blake was attempting to prove some factual validity about astrology or anything else.  Postmodern Christians aren't competing with science regarding establishing factual validity any more than poets are.   Poetry,  literature or music are likewise not based on empiricism or anything objective, but they speak to human values.  Science does not.  I note that all atheistic posters are silent on this crucial point.  Science is no substitute to achieve this basic need, nor do atheists have any answer for it which answers the criteria that it be a system whose premises are empirically verifiable.

Lastly, no claim was made that intuition is more reliable than science.  

I missed your edit.  Music isn't based on facts?  Go tell a  Julliard graduate that.  Go tell a neuro-scientist that our reaction to poetry isn't science.  Go tell the chair of Harvard's ethics or psychology departments that science can't speak to human values.  Go watch Carl Sagan and tell me science can't fill the 'void' you claim exists.

Are you just out of touch with modern science?  I mean, seriously, really?  Does this whole thing come down to, 'argument by theistic hippie'?  I can't believe this tortuous thread comes down to, "I feel awe, checkmate atheist!".  Please tell me it isn't so.

Well, this is a more interesting topic.

Science cannot address human values simply because there is no objectivity in human values. We use science to study reality, and our values don't refer to reality. They are just preferences. However, science can address what our preferences generally are and why we have those preferences. So, we can use science to understand reality, so that we do not apply our preferences under false beliefs.

Referring to the "transcendent," "supernatural," etc. to justify our values is pointless. They are misguided, albeit emotionally satisfying, attempts to find justification for the unjustifiable. The best possible reason for following our preferences is already implied in the term; they are our preferences i.e. what we want. I act on what I value simply because I value it.

The very concept of an objective value is logically inept. It is unimaginable how you would succeed in proving that any specific preference is objectively superior to other preferences. Even if it were achieved, why should I subjugate my own preferences to those preferences? I follow reality because it is pragmatic to do so. There is simply no common reality that can be referred to with values.

ROFLMAO !

I've already read and heard some Sam Harris on this topic. I can't say that I agree with him.  

In "The End of Faith," he even makes the tired old fallacy of equivocation argument that moral subjectivism is internally inconsistent because it claims that morals are "absolutely" not "absolute." 

Well, at the most fundamental level, I am a moral subjectivist. I do enjoy subscribing to utilitarianism to judge actions and virtue ethics to judge the moral agent, but only as general guides and tools. Neither system is perfect.

Deontological ethics is stupid.  

That's correct, I think.

I would not assert that any of my values are objectively superior to anyone else's.   

I'm going to ignore most of this, because that doesn't seem to bother you.

So, you think the Bible is only valuable as an aesthetic, and it is equal to Shakespeare, no more, no less?  Just a book and you're happy it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling?  Because,

Is that the case?  If it isn't, why the heck would you say something like this?  My experience is telling me you're not going to agree though, maybe you'll drop some big names to show me how I'm not thinking about this in the proper nebulous way.

Again, you're very confusing.  Or confused?  Either you appreciate Christianity from a secular/philosophical point of view or you buy into the woo.  If you see it as great art, just say, "I see it as great art, nothing more".  You don't need to say something mysterious sounding and then pontificate about theologians for pages.  I have a hard time believing this was your message from the start.  Especially when you say in one post, "I'm a theist!" then in the next post you say, "Religion is just art!"  Fine, then everyone is a theist, but now we've diluted the word so much it is meaningless.

That's funny as hell Ktulu. Almost sprayed coffee all over my keyboard reading that.

Take it down to the basics, and it almost sounds like something out of a Marvel Comic book plot.

I am not an agnostic because from the point of view of neoorthodoxy, God's existence is a given.  This does not characterize all postmoderns- Christian atheists who follow Altizer (link) for example do not believe that God (conceived as the traditional father member of the trinity) exists. 

Fairytales make no claims about being the inspired word of God.  Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Some fairytale such as C.S. Lewis's Narnia tale come close to communicating the same spirit, and simply because some literature is written by people with no particular religious beliefs do not disqualify it from being inspired by God.

If you read back to ButterBattle's description of his perception of his wife (link), his characterization is pretty close to the epistemological model I believe is valid.  If I summarize accurately, Butter believes that his wife actually exists from a perspective of pragmatism but makes no assertion that he can logically prove she does in fact exist.  He doesn't take it as a leap of faith in the sense popularly associated with  Kierkegaard,  because Butter believes that such an act is as unnecessary as it is intellectually dishonest.  Battle and I differ on whether the answer of pragmatism or the leap is the best response.  In your language, is his belief in his wife's existence one of "egotism"?  If so, then I can go along with the statement as well, although I have strong reservations if your semantics involve the more commonly used senses of the term, because it is more a leap away from egoism rather than a leap that a self filled with egoism makes.  As for the assertion that the motivation is one of feeling "damn special", neither my nor butter's belief in an unprovable "other" is motivated particularly by the sense that we are special.  Really, this positing of an other beyond the reach of our epistemological bubble is a generic philosophical problem.  Your attempts at levity achieve little in disproving or even grappling with the issue in any sort of meaningful way.  If you want to pursue the discussion, I think you might find it not as simple as you seem to assume.

Regarding your subsequent statement, show me where I make any assertion that it is the business of religion to answer any questions whatever that science does answer or theoretically could answer in the future.  Really, this has been the generic reaction of nearly every atheist poster.  Reread any of my responses regarding why I and postmoderns believe that any sort of proofs of transcendents is fallacious from both a logical and ontological perspective.  Or do you want to examine more closely what I meant when making reference to Kant or Lao Tsu?  It is a category error that biblical literalists habitually make, and it is a crucial one.  Far from any attempt to rationalize Christianity with the motivation of making it more pallitable to those who refuse to check their brains at the door,  I and many other postmoderns assert that Christians who believe otherwise are in fact worshiping false gods.  That is, the belief of so called Christians in the validity of any of these proofs turns themselves into idolators.  Theologically speaking, if these proofs are the basis of their faith, I believe it makes them un Christian.  

Am I concerned about a gap I that science doesn't fill?  You bet, but contrary to the God of Gaps that biblical literalists futily grasp at in desperation- the Gap I refer to is seen every day in the way people mistreat each other.  The teensy gap that science does not answer is the only one I have mentioned in this thread:  Science makes no recommendations regarding human values.  It has no answer, nor will it.

Ever.  That is not a God of Gaps.  On the contrary, nearly all postmoderns regard God in the manner that existentials refer to "Being" itself or "Becoming", Lao Tzu also characterizes this notion in the first poem of the Tao Te Ching.

This is why people feel like you are sending "mixed messages." You mention that it gets at "transcendent" truths without defining transcendent. Then, you mention the Jesus of the Bible, seemingly making multiple naked assertions at once.

The phrase "warm fuzzy feelings" sort of derides the value of art, but it is not incorrect. Art plays with our emotions and maybe we can learn something about human values. That's all. There is nothing transcendent about it.

For clarification, realize though, that I would not agree with you in applying this model of my wife to God because there are no sensory experiences that I can directly attribute to God. Even if I didn't believe in my wife, I still have a concept of her; I observe her with my senses. The feelings that we receive from art, praying, etc. can be explained by psychology.   

What is transcendent?  Why is it special?  As I pointed out, everything I've ever seen points to 'transcendent' being no different from any other emotional response, it is a brain reaction.  It, 'blows your mind.'  Big deal.  A serial killer feels transcendent the first time they murder someone, does that make their experience something we should respect more simply because of how they felt?

You're entire argument seems to be that your particular emotional reaction to certain stimuli is evidence of some greater truth, but all you do to show that is repeat yourself over and over.

If 'transcedency' is a legitimate path to truth then how do you sort all the various contradictory experiences?

-------------

I do agree with you though, on every point.  I just think by transcendent you mean emotionally powerful.  Same result, but without the woo-woo stuff you must rely on at some point.  Hell, if we took out the theist words and replaced transcendent with emotionally powerful, everything you wrote would make sense.

I look forward to how you justify transcendent as being special.  To date, all you've done is assert.

No it isn't.  There, what do I win?

Do you understand what you're saying?  Really?  You're admitting to pulling something out of your ass, proud of it, and willing to base your life around the principle.  Plus, by saying your beliefs cannot be logically verified you're either discounting the ability of logic to account for something real (which means your world view is based on chaos and you can't assert *anything*) or you are just admitting that your ideas are BS, but they make you happy so leave me alone.

Do you know why leaving you alone is a bad idea?  Because someone can take your reasoning, arrive at a horrific conclusion that *does* do direct damage.  Anyone can come up with *anything* by using your reasoning, because you reject all reason and logic and replace it with pure emotion.  My serial killer example is right at the top, if you felt moved by death in the same way you do by these religious ideas, well...anyway.

It hurts society because, at the root, you're pushing a philosophical foundation that is based on irrationality.  You can't build on that.  Transcendent indeed.  Assert, assert, assert.  I guess I understand *why* you're asserting though, because with your beliefs that is all a person can do.

what he said

Not really.  I listed a large number of current ministers above who are postmoderns.  Within that larger set,  Neo-orthodox christians who think along the lines of  Tillich seem to be really obscure to people here, but as I pointed out, he was so significant to Martin Luther King, he wrote his dissertation on him.  Jimmy Carter regarded him as the most profound theologian when asked about his religious beliefs which deeply motivate all his actions.  So, without postmodern Christian thought there may never have been a Jimmy Carter in the white house, no Camp David.  No Martin Luther King, no march on Washington, no Barack Obama in the White House.  Is MLK, Obama and Carter equally dangerous due to their Christian faith? Where are the evils that postmoderns have committed?  They have been around since the mid 19th century.

Really your criticism is generic about systems.  Let's have no groups of people with a common set of ideas because powerful leaders will take advantage of the situation.  

How does it apply to postmodernists?  You seem to think that they would be duped easily since their belief in truths that they cannot verify means that they do not apply formidable rules of rationality to our everyday world where institutions and individuals are corrupted.  We don't accept that the Pope is inerrent, that priests are above reproach or investigation as any other individual if there is any suggestion of pedophilia.  I guess you need to get a little more concrete in order for me to understand the danger you see.  

I agree Harley.  Besides, if all you want is awe, science has plenty of that.

Vastness of the universe.  100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.  We see planets aren't rare at all, and we can only detect the giants.  Holy shit.

The barrier between our minds, bodies, the air around us and everything else is arbitrary because everything runs on the same physics.  The things your brain does to generate thought are indistinguishable from the way atoms react in the heart of a sun.  Hell, parts of you might have been in a sun once.  You are star stuff.  Wow.

Our brains usually make decisions before 'we' even know what is going on.  Moral choices too.  A good chunk of the time our consciousness is just along for the ride.  Whoa.

Our bodies are made up of autonomous cell colonies.  Our consciousness is a tool used to perpetuate a symbiotic, walking coral reef.  Jesus H. Christ.

The intricacy of, well, *everything*.  What actually happens when you light a match, or scratch an itch, or the wind makes a cloud drift by?  Daaaamn.

Quantum theory.  Lol, insane.

Evolution.  The best idea anyone has ever had. - Daniel Dennett

Psychology, physics, biology, chemistry, sociology, neuroscience, genetics, on and on and on.

Seriously, I could write about stupidly amazing stuff all day long.  Every one of them an idea that just knocks my socks off and puts me in an awe induced state that my wife hates because I won't shut up.

A theist has...what?  What compares in significance or impact to a single one of those concepts?  What has equal explanatory power?  Maybe that is part of the problem, many people just don't know what they're missing.  That would explain why religion adherence declines with science education.  

We don't need God to fill out lives with awe, because we've already got more than we can handle.

Mak:  I know it sounds like some of us are trying to bust your balls, but that is because this is a debate forum and you came here with an idea I don't think is true.

If I had to choose between religious ideas, I would choose ideas like yours.  I've said many times, on this very forum even, that in the real world I don't have much of an issue with liberal theism.  I really don't.  I've even said I'd rather live in a world of functional liberal theists than a dysfunctional atheistic world (That isn't to say I think an atheistic world would be dysfunctional, it is just a general point that atheists can be just as stupid and irrational as theists).  If I lived next to you, we'd probably get along great, we'd lend each other sugar, and we'd probably be donating to the same causes, meeting with the same people and generally agreeing on lots of things.  Once I knew you, I'd probably let me kids play at your house.

My "real world" struggle is against religious fundamentalism, religious and secular extremism and general irrational and destructive concepts.  In the "Real world" I doubt I'd ever want to debate your religion because it doesn't matter much to me.

But this isn't the real world, this is a debate forum where everyone pounces on the slightest sign of weakness.  We eat out own young and most of the interesting debates aren't even against theists, they are atheists tearing each other apart.

Just wanted to get that out there.

I agree with you that getting secular people motivated en mass about a specific issue is more difficult because they don't respect an objective ultimate authority.  I would respond that memes of that nature are not necessarily good things overall.

Tough to say though.  I think (pure speculation) that part of the problem is Americans are stigmatized for being irreligious, so you have a higher than normal sample of social outliers.  That might make consensus more difficult.  As many surveys and recent studies have pointed out though, Americans probably aren't as religious as they think and if popular culture removes that stigma you might see more secular coalitions form around social issues.

Other nations don't seem to have the trouble, so I don't think it is inherent in lack of belief.  The Scandinavian countries tend to beat Americans in social action and expenditure per capita and they are highly secular.

In summary, I don't think you need 'ultimates' to unite, non-ultimate causes work just as well.  For example, Greenpeace, PETA, Doctors without Borders, etc, etc. are all highly cohesive ethical based groups based on secular principles.  I don't think they are any less motivated than any religious group, fundamentalist or not.

Honestly I think you are simplifying it far too much.  There are many reasons for why the U.S. is the way it is, but saying progressives can't be passionate and united is just B.S. because there are too many groups and *entire nations* that are very united about progressive issues with a non-religious base.  I could twist that thinking around and say the inability to ban abortion means the religious right doesn't have any political motivation but we both know that is just cherry picking.

Things like gun control are complicated and it isn't about the victory or defeat of reason, it is just about culture.  It is demonstrably true that social, liberal and progressive secular agendas can be just as politically motivating to societies as religious ideas, we can do case studies on nations and groups to prove this.  It is just culture...in America there is a strong bias towards religiosity, but that can change.  I think it is changing.  I don't have any illusions about America becoming Sweden in my lifetime, but I can see a 5-10% shift towards more secular processes and that is enough for me.

Honestly I think the main thing is to push education and focus on slowing or even reducing the income gap between rich and poor and the nation will move towards more secular political processes all by itself.  That seems to be a pattern that repeats itself in democracies.

I've heard speculation that the whole fundamentalist movement is largely the result of the cold war propaganda against Communism.  No idea if that is true, but it would explain why the U.S. is an outlier among nations of similar status.

*Edit* And not just religious thought processes, I meant to include any 'ultimate concern'.  So, I agree with you, I just think you are being too negative and too focuses on America as an example of what is possible.

Bob, I suppose you could assert I am the odd one out, so then Nietszche is too as those who have read him since the 19th century and were also convinced of the connection?  He stated that Zarathustra was based on the idea of the eternal recurrence.  Your response?  I suppose one could be equally dismissive of this large body of existentialist thought, but that would require a more careful argument than you have offered.  In any case, it is not accurate to suggest that the point of view that I have put forth is especially rare or idiosyncratic to one particular individual.  

It is my feeling that the posters here are reflecting an outlier opinion of feeling profound alienation from these other selves.  If the hypothesis is true, then your character is an emergent property of the universe like any other property such as the atomic weight of uranium.  The fact there is no passing of state from one instance may be relevant to your particular instance because our biological instinct is to associate a great deal of importance to our biological continuation.  Its individualism versus the suprapersonal character that is eternal.  One rejects connection with the other.  So what, that doesn't mean there is no relationship between the two.

Un-true.  We argue that attachment is not a reason to consider such things significant any more than other coincidences, which is all the whole idea is, really.  You happen to share thought patterns with another being, one you'll never ever meet or be impacted by.  Neat idea, but that's it.

We can see that you might consider it a relation and become attached to it, what we don't see is how you could claim it is immortality any more than claiming part of you is immortal because an idea you've had might be shared by others in the future.  To define immortality in the way you're doing is to dilute it to insignificance.  

We've been over this before:  If all you said was, "Beings in other mutliverses might be identical to us, and they might repeat forever, neat huh?" no-one would give you any crap.  The problem is when you throw language around willy-nilly like souls, immortality, theism, scripture, heaven and hell, objective morality, etc. etc.

You're making a mountain of of a mole-hill and justifying it based on your subjective attachment to a particular thought.  Great, it gives you the shivers when you think about it, but don't try to co-opt religious terminology to make your point, it is horrifically confusing because it comes with so much baggage.

-------------

I'm still confused as to how you think this can tie into morality when we don't have any direct knowledge of what another being might experience, and you've never addressed how you propose beings within this system have free will.