Home › Forums › Philosophy › Atheism Quarterdeck: Aspiring Christian Apologists Welcome
This topic contains 158 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Sandals 4 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
If a god does exist we should all be nice to each other and get along. We should live long, happy lives and when we die go to the afterlife and party for eternity. Or eternal punishment for not being nice. If a god does not exist, we should still be nice to each other. We would be merely transient travelers in the night, our experiences much more valuable due to their finite nature.
Welcome to the conversation.
Ignore the bulls~~~ insults and witty banter.
I am not sure being nice would be an appropriate understanding of right or wrong. Life is the priority and to quote a movie I recently seen (and I hate quoting movies, but the quote is interesting): “A saint is not a moral exemplar, a saint is a life giver.”
As to your second point: I would have to disagree. With no supreme intelligence, their would not only be disorder but nothingness. Order requires an intelligent will in not only creating but also observing and destroying. But for the sake of argument and to continue your point, lets say the universe could exist without a Diety in some form. What would happen to morality?
There would not have to be any because morality implies a revealed value and higher potential nature to things. Morality reveals a higher potential, but is also a redpill as to the deficiencies in our own. Morality cannot be rationalized or believed in, it must be revealed on its own terms. Although we can observe the benefits it has in our lives (or the short comings it exposes) it still has to be revealed as an observation.
If we determined what was of value and potential to existence, then we would be taking the form of a Diety/Dieties and this would eliminate Athiesm. Also we cannot reveal morality to ourselves, because to due so would create a potential which would by default limit us and therefore not allow us to be a Diety/Dieties. A self limiting thing cannot be God, because that would imply it would be subject to outside rules.
I hope I was at least somewhat clear in getting my point across.
The the introspective analysis of personal beliefs and criticism thereof in a semi-rational manner is enjoyable for me, considering the millennial meadow muffins I hear on a daily basis. I enjoy rational philosophical debate, which is rare to have in person.
What would happen to morality? There would not have to be any because morality implies a revealed value and higher potential nature to things.
You’re right. There wouldn’t be any morality. Rather, the value of things (like life) would be based upon its statistical scarcity in a reference frame. Within a single planet, life may be nearly meaningless. However each life is different and unique, a product of infinite chaotic systems forming together to create an extension of the universe capable of observing itself. Within the vast cosmos, it is a rare and valuable thing. Man would become god in a sense, yet who is to say that god does not limit himself? What’s he been doing for the past centuries? Why did he do what he did? He could run under rules he saw fit not to share with his worshipers.
There was a movie that came out in the 80’s called “Oh God” with George Burns as god and John Lenon. God appears to John and tells him that he has given mankind everything they need to make the world work out. It is such a humanist aspect that is so lacking in society. The value of the human experience is devalued to the point where the most intimate of human pair-bonding rituals is carried out with complete strangers. So, all I can do is wait in horror at the inevitable collapse we’ll experience. We won’t know what it is until it has happened, and that is perhaps the only thing I have real fear of. Not death. Not gods. But the demoralization of mankind.Rather, the value of things (like life) would be based upon its statistical scarcity in a reference frame. Within a single planet, life may be nearly meaningless. However each life is different and unique, a product of infinite chaotic systems forming together to create an extension of the universe capable of observing itself. Within the vast cosmos, it is a rare and valuable thing.
That would be under the assumption a quantity equals “value”. As in the more or less of something the more valuable it is. But to quantitate it would require laws higher than the things being quantitated, making them subject to the laws of mathematics eliminating there status as a Diety/Dieties.
Man would become god in a sense, yet who is to say that god does not limit himself? What’s he been doing for the past centuries? Why did he do what he did? He could run under rules he saw fit not to share with his worshipers.
Limiting and revealing are two separate things. To reveal means one would have to accept the revelation, and in that sense it requires free will. We should not say God is limiting himself, but rather that are observations are limited. However, they are also unlimited in the expression of core concepts of infinity which exist with not rational proof. Infinity is something we acknowledge without any real understanding.
Also one has the philosophical issue of the term “knowing”. Is knowing dependent on a quantity (as in I have to know so much before I know something) or is it an accepted revelation, or is it that one can know something greater through something smaller (microcosm reflects macrocosm). So in regards to actually “knowing” there are many questions leading us to the conclusion that we cannot actually judge that God is limiting himself but rather figure where we are limited.
If that makes any sense.
The value of the human experience is devalued to the point where the most intimate of human pair-bonding rituals is carried out with complete strangers.
Humanism can be a tricky subject because you have one group that wants to elevate themselves to a God, and the other simply values humans as their place as humans.
The the introspective analysis of personal beliefs and criticism thereof in a semi-rational manner is enjoyable for me, considering the millennial meadow muffins I hear on a daily basis. I enjoy rational philosophical debate, which is rare to have in person.
And +1 for this small truth.
That would be under the assumption a quantity equals “value”. As in the more or less of something the more valuable it is. But to quantitate it would require laws higher than the things being quantitated, making them subject to the laws of mathematics eliminating there status as a Diety/Dieties.
Therein lies the human aspect. It is a paradox similar in nature to the old colloquialism “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” If an observer was unable to perceive the universe in even a basic way, it would effectively not exist, much as the twisted space time within the event horizon of a black hole. We know something is in there, but cannot perceive the space within, so any item therein does not exist from our perspective. Similarly, without an observer there would be no value to the universe, and to lives. It is the observer -humans- who bring meaning to the world. The stimuli received from the universe is constructed within the brain, and it has been proven through mental illness that these senses can cheat. Mankind has sovereignty over the universe he experiences, and is only through contract he agrees. An interesting example of conflict from this Japanese character for green is the same one for blue. For Japan green was a shade of blue before they talked with foreigners about it.
As human conciousness cannot perceive the universe without the brain acting as mediator, our perceptions are limited, describing what we cannot account for or measure as part of the infinite. By rationally reaching the conclusion of our limits and the irrationality of infinity, we have knowledge of infinity, in that we know that we do not know. And in that if there is a god, we certainly don’t know diddly about him, except what some primitive humans talked about and wrote down to pass the time before they were tired enough to sleep. There is so much irrationality and possibility, it would be healthier if one just didn’t worry, and -to paraphrase Niel Degrasse Tyson “one must be content to love the questions themselves.”Humanism can be a tricky subject because you have one group that wants to elevate themselves to a God, and the other simply values humans as their place as humans.
There is possibility of a third category, that of “unwilling gods”, the underlying concept of which I’m unfortunately very familiar with. I value my place as a common human, and would be perfectly content to live my life as such. However, others elevate me towards genius levels as a result of my unique insight and ability to analyze complex intellectual constructs on-the-fly (I’ve recently started using the mnemonic construct of a “mind palace”, with great results). This resulted in any display of human emotion of mine being met with surprise. As if I were not considered human! To many I am part of the irrational infinity, one to be idolated and possibly even deified (to an extent). That’s why I’m MGTOW.
Your writing style reminds me of Oliver Wendel Holmes “The Professor at the Breakfast Table” when discussing revealing and knowing for some odd reason. A book I’d read multiple times, were my copy not in real danger of disintegrating.
Beware wrote:
The only morals that exist are the ones that came from evolution, “mother nature” as you so annoyingly anthropomorphize is it
Human beings, negotiate conflict through socially created values and codes of conduct. If one reduces everything to its simplest form then one can find parallels between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. But this kind of philistinism does not deepen our understanding of human beings and human society or of animal behavior.
‘I would prefer to consider empathy as appearing in two different but related forms, contagious and cognitive. Contagious empathy is ‘the process in which a single bird, startled by some sudden movement, takes off in alarm and is instantly joined by the entire flock’. Cognitive empathy ‘is contagious empathy pressed through a cognitive filter: a brain or mind’. In other words, these two types of empathy are just different forms of the same thing.
But there is a world of difference between an instinctual connection between organisms – including some of our instinctual responses, such as yawning when others yawn – and human empathy involving a Theory of Mind, that is, the ability to recognize that one’s own perspectives and beliefs can be different from someone else’s. Once children are able to think about thoughts in this way, their thinking is lifted to a different level. A human level. So why not anthropomorphize it? The nature of humans..
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Human beings, unlike other animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others’ actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices.
We are not born with this ability. As the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget showed, children progress from a very limited understanding of morality to a more sophisticated understanding – involving, for instance, the consideration of the motives and intentions behind particular acts. So, for pre-school children, a child who accidentally breaks several cups, when doing what he’d been asked to do by an adult, is ‘naughtier’ than one who breaks one cup while trying to steal some sweets. Young children judge actions by their outcomes or consequences rather than by their intentions. Claiming that our morality is merely based on ‘gut instincts’ ignores the transformations children go through in their moral understanding from infancy to adolescence.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Human beings have something that no other animal has: an ability to participate in a collective cognition. Because we, as individuals, are able to draw on the collective knowledge of humanity, in a way no animal can, our individual abilities go way beyond what evolution has endowed us with. Our species is no longer constrained by our biology.
Many scientists reject any notion that human beings have abilities that are profoundly different from other animals. To do so, they fear, will give ammunition to creationists and spiritualists. But we do not need spiritual or ‘magical’ explanations to grasp that the difference between human beings and other animals is fundamental rather than one of degrees. There are some fascinating theories put forward in the last decade that go quite far in explaining the emergence, through evolution, of uniquely powerful human abilities. We don’t know how or when, but there must have been some gene mutation or set of mutations tens of thousands of years ago that endowed us with the unique ability to participate in a collective cognition. Human beings are not perfect and never will be, but we are special and unique among the animal kingdom.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
First, let me say I’m a non-believer until I find a bunch of gold plates on a hill and start my own religion for pussy & profits (Joseph Smith, Great American con-man, Mormonism), or until I turn counseling with a lie detector into a mind control cult (L. Rob Hubbard, Scientology).
Many religions have a history of ascetism (e.g. Buddhism) or some of the Christian religious orders, so I’d tend to disagree about going your own way whilst being religious.
As for me, I’ve had too much scientific training to believe in the bunk. I’ve been irreligious since the age of 12, even though I was raised Roman Catholic. And I still think the pope is the best ‘dressed’ religious leader. I went to parochial school but fortunately I was able to outrun the Priest. Even so, I consider myself agnostic.
You cannot prove there is a God, God(s), or Goddesses. My claim for the Olympian Gods carries equal weight as another’s claim for the Judeo-Christian Sky Daddy. Some of the more recent religions, are less clouded by the ages; we can say Joseph Smith was a pedophile and con man, and that there were multiple contradicting First Visions, that the Book of Abraham translation is made up, etc — but maybe Mormon God chose a charlatan as a prophet? I like studying the recent religions because there is a lot more ‘meat’ (documentation) to debunk. The question ‘Does God exist’ is already a loaded question typically posed by those wanting to prove their Monotheistic God (typically Abrahamic) exists, rather than the broader question.
You won’t reach a ‘consensus’ in this discussion as the OP suggests, because if everybody used reason to decide what religion to believe in, we wouldn’t join our parents’ religion, we’d study them and decide which one, if any, was right. Or, if we were really smart amoral con men, we’d start a new one for fun and profit. We’re Christian in the West because the Roman Emperor Constantine became Christian.
That isn’t how religion works. If people studied them and made an educated choice, I suspect most would choose none, with few choosing the vengeful Abrahamic God that predominates in the West. As people learn more about and study the various faith systems, they often quit; The internet is where religions go to die and people become Pastafarians.
Is it good for humans to believe in it? Maybe it makes some people feel good; personally I’d rather all the resources/money spent for temples, witch doctors, priests and priestesses, be allocated towards life extension and human welfare.
Religion also has a community aspect; what I would consider ‘atheists’ sometimes like to congregate in ‘humanist’ churches.
I’d argue you can’t prove that physical laws won’t change, say, with time, and in the case of free will, quantum mechanics changes determinism: Even with the most powerful computer you can’t predict what will happen in a single molecule, but you can predict, say, bulk material properties with statistical mechanics. So even if I had complete information about one state of time, I can’t perfectly predict the future.
Consciousness doesn’t collapse a wave function; measurement does, whether by man or machine. Far too many people try to impart ‘magical’ features to humans. If I could generate a sperm and egg artificially the cells would divide & eventually form a conscious child.
One feature I like about America is that, while a religious country, we aren’t dominated by a single denomination, which in my mind, leads to corruption and tyranny. In my opinion that is one reason for the relative prosperity of North America vs South America.
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” If an observer was unable to perceive the universe in even a basic way, it would effectively not exist, much as the twisted space time within the event horizon of a black hole. We know something is in there, but cannot perceive the space within, so any item therein does not exist from our perspective.
One could also make the argument, following a similar logic, if I am unaware of my actions do my actions exist? If I sleep alone in a forest, and no one is observing me nor am I aware of myself, do I cease to sleep since I am unaware of it?
Also going back to the quantitative example I posted prior, do the laws of mathematics need to be observed inorder to exist?
And skipping again back to the “tree in the forest” does sound need to be heard or does its ripple effect prove its existence. For example: Tree falls. . Flock of birds s~~~s on my car. I see s~~~ on my car.
Using that example I could come to a multitude of conclusions:
First: I did not need to hear the tree however I can see its ripple effect. So in one respect I can observe everything through acknowledge a “ripple” or mirror effect.
Second: I did not actually hear the tree, yet it still happen otherwise there would be no ripple effect.
So because of a ripple effect I can see some reflected knowledge of a “tree falling”. However because of the ripple effect that knowledge would be so distorted, I would not know it was a tree falling which caused birds to s~~~ on my car.
Third: Human observation was not required. The birds observed this and reacted, so the depth of awareness to a reality is not necessary.
Fourth: If the depth of awareness is not necessary, but rather just a form of awareness itself then how do we know the tree is not aware in a more primitive aspect? After all it grows and reacts to stimuli, such as weather, damage, etc.
And here is a second example: Tree falls in the woods. The sound waves cause a slight vibration in the local creek. The water ripples. The fish move. I catch a fish later that day.
The first two points apply from the first example. However a third point is now made:
There will always be a ripple effect. One does not have to be in the forest to observe a ripple effect from the forest.
We can be aware of a ripple effect or “mirroring” and come to know of something and at the same time not know it. So in one respect it exists, but we cannot fully perceive it.
Also a conclusion can be taken from both prior examples. Laws as a form of awareness. As in the tree can only act in a certain way, so the same laws of physics that can produce an observable sound, must act even when not observed. Otherwise these laws of physics would not be laws but rather our own self expression on the physical universe.
It is the observer -humans- who bring meaning to the world. The stimuli received from the universe is constructed within the brain, and it has been proven through mental illness that these senses can cheat.
. By rationally reaching the conclusion of our limits and the irrationality of infinity, we have knowledge of infinity, in that we know that we do not know. And in that if there is a god, we certainly don’t know diddly about him, except what some primitive humans talked about and wrote down to pass the time before they were tired enough to sleep. There is so much irrationality and possibility, it would be healthier if one just didn’t worry, and -to paraphrase Niel Degrasse Tyson “one must be content to love the questions themselves.”
Reason itself has limits, how can a limited thing acknowledge an infinity? If one was confined to reason itself, as in the ability to understand, one could not go past their own understanding. The concept of infinity is planted deep within the human heart, simply because intellect cannot observe it. Emotions sure as hell can’t observe or express it. Infinity would have to reflect its image in the will and in that sense be free.
But in regards to a diety/dieties we can know some things, not much, but some.
There is possibility of a third category, that of “unwilling gods”, the underlying concept of which I’m unfortunately very familiar with.
If they were “unwilling” and not aware, then outside laws would govern their “ripple” effect making the “gods” subject to something greater.
You cannot prove there is a God, God(s), or Goddesses.
What constitutes proof exactly? That is an important point most philosophers tend to disagree on. One can also not prove a negative. However, one can know something’s. I can see a tree in the reflection of a pond and acknowledge a tree although it may not appear clear. Or maybe it appears clear because I know the water, by its very nature, distorts all images. Even a clear mirror inverts an image.
Two small points I forgot:
so I’d tend to disagree about going your own way whilst being religious.
Can one go their “own way” while being subject to the laws of physics?
We’re Christian in the West because the Roman Emperor Constantine became Christian.
That is like saying your a scientist because of Aristotle.
John Doe: Can one go their “own way” while being subject to the laws of physics?
That’s tantamount to asking whether man has free will. I perceive that I make choices and they have consequences, and I have no way to prove otherwise (to prove my choices are illusory and have already been made), but that doesn’t mean the future is or is not pre-ordained. Classical physics is deterministic; quantum mechanics is probabilistic. In principal, if you knew the conditions of all your neurons and the external environment, the question becomes could your future actions be calculated exactly? Are quantum fluctuations random or deterministic? It all becomes very complicated; I remember studying QM in college and there wasn’t an analytical solution to anything other than for Hydrogen, everything else was FEA analysis/numerical methods.
When I say ‘pre-ordained’ I don’t mean by a Deity, I mean, do the conditions at one instant of time, completely determine what will happen in the next instant of time (causal determinism).
John Doe: ‘That is like saying your a scientist because of Aristotle.’
I didn’t mean to state the obvious, but to express that on an individual basis, we’re typically born into a religion, adopt it, and typically don’t question it. On a larger scale, nations often change religions for political reasons or as a matter of conquest (the rise of Islam throughout Arabia, introduction of Christianity into colonies across the globe, etc). Or convenience to the leaders — Henry VIII’s fall out with Roman Catholicism and adoption of Protestantism — I’ll have my divorce with Catherine, or else. Of course, there were other political considerations there too.
Part of not questioning religion is not considering its organic nature; one religion borrows from another and adds new features.
Also, some religions are worse than others; for instance, among Christian denominations, those with a top-down hierarchy tend to be worse (e.g. Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy), whereas those with open books, like most Protestant denominations, less prone to corruption and fraud. Those denominations built around a personality cult or single leader, also tend to be corrupt (televangelists, etc). That doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and join one of these denominations (I’m not religious), but I think it’s good to understand the differences, and understand the basics of the major global faiths because they are motivations for people’s actions and they have power.
John Doe writes: ‘What constitutes proof exactly? That is an important point most philosophers tend to disagree on. One can also not prove a negative. However, one can know something’s. I can see a tree in the reflection of a pond and acknowledge a tree although it may not appear clear. Or maybe it appears clear because I know the water, by its very nature, distorts all images. Even a clear mirror inverts an image.’
To many believers, proof lies in personal revelation. I can’t disprove their personal revelation. But I can certainly question why the sons and daughters of the many Christian evangelists I’ve known don’t seem to have a personal revelation to worship Allah. And I can question why the sons and daughters of Hasidic Jews aren’t converting to Christianity. Rather they are all indoctrinated into the religion of their parents and then become apologists for it. To a skeptic like me, proof would be seeing Lazarus resurrected (Christianity), or some other miracle. Certainly these Holy Texts don’t hold up as far as basic science (concentric domes, doors of heaven opening up to cause the Flood, other ridiculous cosmologies). And yes, I realize — that just means the texts aren’t inerrant; it doesn’t mean Sky Daddy doesn’t exist. Why isn’t Sky Daddy giving equal revelations to heathens across the globe to join the One True Religion? I can also state categorically the actions of many of these Gods are immoral; taking the Christian God as an example most Westerners can most readily relate to — is it moral to kill 70,000 people just because David performed a census? Is it moral to kill every man, woman, and child in 60 cities to provide a home for the chosen people, the Israelites? I don’t choose to worship that immoral God even if he does exist. And I’m not buying ‘God’s ways are not our ways’.
Characterizing himself…
objective concept of the scientific method is firmly ingrained.
You said in your first post that there is intelligence behind the universe! That’s your objective scientific method? To peddle theism!? LOL When are you going to resend that comment man? And I apologized to you and John too. Honestly, I’m trying to ingratiate myself with you at least (not John) but you have taken sides with the Catholic. You didn’t even read my post? And yes, it was gloating a little, just own it. A degree doesn’t prove s~~~ and hasn’t in 20 years! John claims to have a bachelors in criminal law and read the s~~~ he writes! Look at Francis Collins, brilliant geneticist, still believes in the resurrection etc. Honestly man, it’s in the past, no one is berating you personally, no need to have emotional reaction, we’re all criticizing ideas here. And to restate myself, we’re all mgtow brothers, take the joshing and ridicule with a grain of salt. We get heated at times but I dont think anyone of us would rather chat with girls. I think John is a nincumpoop but I’d give up a weekend to chill with him over a woman. I mean that.
only thing I have real fear of. Not death. Not gods. But the demoralization of mankind.
Demoralization has already been the norm pal. Since the first time one of our hominid ancestors killed a fellow because of a rainstorm or killed a little girl for having her period. The religious zealots continue torturing children and killing innocents while hiding truth everyday. Just imagine how far John Doe would go, bending ethics that come natural to even a mouse, bending them to suit his unsubstantiated and illogical world view? Would he go far enough to kill? Lets just say he would go further than any skeptic could will themselves.
You won’t reach a ‘consensus’ in this discussion as the OP suggests
Thanks FrankOne, I have to agree to that now, you’re right. Especially since people like John close their eyes, cover their ears and start humming; “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you.” But seriously, I enjoyed reading your post and agree with everything you said. I think claiming agnosticism is weak but you nailed everything else. I appreciate the support and sound thinking.
our individual abilities go way beyond what evolution has endowed us with. Our species is no longer constrained by our biology.
Harpo, Thanks for your contribution, also enjoyed it. Was loving what you wrote up until it turned this flavor above. You were really starting to understand the influence of memetics on social/moral behavior and you definitly understood my arguments. I have to disagree with the above quote; we’re nothing more than what nature has given us. (please notice the anthropomorphic way I wrote that, Im human too). You made it sound as if we’re the product of evolution with a few traits granted by the supernatural. Untrue my friend. We are poorly evolved, misdesigned and could use a lot of work. You glorify our human status. Anyways, thanks, not trying to change your mind.
I tried to save us some time here by circumnavigating a lot of fluff in religious/atheist debates. Why go on endlessly about the immorality made possible by religious certainty? It’s obviously true. No need to write 6 paragraphs trying to refute that John, we know you disagree; that you think morality is divinely authored and that atheist dictators are worse than Muslims and Crustians. Whatever.
I tried to get down to the basic idea of belief, the objective proof that the keystone of faith is flawed. If you can show the premise to be logically flawed, then monotheism comes crashing down. No need to lobby against circumcision or explain how stem cells have no souls. No need to speak about something coming from nothing, about evolution, Darwin and 16 philosophers since Descartes.
The Janga block that when pulled, sinks Battleship Monotheism, is accounting for our anthropomorphic tendency; its also Evolution. When you try to philosophize, you have to attain objective thinking by divorcing your human perspective temporarily. Evolution, both cosmic and biological, is proof that complex things with patterns and order DO NOT require a designer. To think that things do need a designer is to fail to think objectively. To think that things do need a designer is to think anthropomorphically. My sincere advice to all Men here, my brothers, who love philosophy, either side of this debate. Do not be run off the track by petty emotions or rude remarks, have thick skin, we’re mgtow first and foremost, harboring no ill will. But read clearheaded, with no distractions, on a full stomach, sober. Read and account for partial anthropomorphic thinking.
John Doe thinks I’m beating a dead horse; broken record here but that’s because he has hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of dumb thinking. We live in godless universe. Determinism is truth as well as evolution. Freewill is not real. These are the facts people, verified by dozens of scientists and neurologists. I trust the men in lab coats over scripture written by psychopathic desert dwellers millenniums ago, sorry.
If you don’t think evolution (the proof that complex s~~~ needs no designer) and that anthropomorphic tendency in hominid psychology aren’t the best attack here, going straight to the core, then I’d love to know what would be better. There certainly is no Abrahamic god per Evolution being proven true. Revealing our anthropomorphic flaw in human reasoning, disposes of any notion of any god, period. Requires no fossil digging or heavy thinking, just honesty about bias assumptions. There’s nothing left but to worship asteroids and electromagnetic force, have fun, that’s retarded.
You said in your first post that there is intelligence behind the universe! That’s your objective scientific method? To peddle theism!? LOL When are you going to resend that comment man?
Yes, there is intelligence behind the universe, it’s painfully obvious and not in the “I know I’m right.” mostly baseless manner.
You can open your basic chemistry book… go to Stoichiometry… and work out problems to correct answers without ever actually touching the stuff.
How did you solve the problem? With intelligence. Therefore, the universe responds and reacts consistently with a type of order, that not only gave RISE to intelligence, but also responds to it. (As viewable anytime ANY chemical plant manipulates reactants into products for the market.)
THIS IS WITNESSABLE. THIS IS ACTUALLY VIEWABLE. THIS CAN BE MEASURED.
Even if we have a hard time quantifying intelligence within it’s own domain. (IQ)
I’m not going to even touch biology, because that makes it too easy.
Intelligence doesn’t mean a creator. Separate that from your mind quickly. It is the ORDER of the universe that gives science any credibility, if the universe didn’t adhere to order you couldn’t even setup a simple control and variable experiment.
Well how can there be intelligence without a creator? That one’s easy.
God doesn’t seem to intervene for s~~~, some stupid bitch whines about her husband cheating on her, then they go to marriage counseling and the poor sap sticks with it. Meanwhile, some third world s~~~ hole, some poor kid prays for his sibling to not die of any number of waterborne illnesses, then watches them die anyway.
However, intelligence and how the universe responds to intelligence is certainly the reason we can even HAVE this f~~~ing conversation. (Technology based on science.)
That is why my point stands, as both highly statistically probable as well as everyday visible.
——————————————————————————————————————————
As to it just being a coincidence that intelligence can relate to the universe through comprehension… well..
I don’t buy coincidences on that scale, statistically the odds are too great.
There is MOST definitely intelligence behind the universe.
Beware the Lamiae: Lamia is hawt, as long as I keep her away from the kids, haha. I like Greek mythology. I’m agnostic because I can’t prove negatives — you can call that weak if you will — it most CERTAINLY doesn’t mean I believe one of the world’s major or minor religions is true — as you can probably tell from my postings, I find them more entertaining than anything and am uber skeptical of their Truth claims. Even so, I can’t prove they are false. Now, I can prove that many of their Gods are immoral based upon their canonized Holy Books indicating the God’s actions (see my previous commentary). I can prove some of their texts can’t be literally true due to internal contradictions or incorrect facts (e.g. ancient cosmologies such as sky being held up by pillars or the ‘sun’ stopping or doors in Heaven opening to flood the Earth — basic knowledge such as geocentricity, etc). For recent religions, where there is more documentation, I can even prove the founder was a con man (e.g. Joseph Smith and Mormonism).
Also, I neglected to mention my favorite religion of all time, Pastafarianism. That is one I am seriously considering converting to.
I still think that a better approach is to ask people, ‘Why are you Christian’? or ‘Why are you Muslim’? That gets them thinking. Few people will change their religious beliefs because that requires going out of the comfort zone.
Of course almost all religions are anthropomorphic since Man invented them — e.g. God has a gender. I also find the Olympian Gods and Goddesses entertaining because they had human foibles (e.g. Zeus’s womanizing). If personal revelation were real, then why wouldn’t one religion predominate relatively quickly in human history?
As for evolution, religion has either had to co-opt it (abandoning literalism), or just ignore it. I’ve actually known and worked with numerous ‘Young Earth Creationists’. These are a subset of Evangelical Christians, that believe the Earth is ~6,000 years old. I regard their arguments as weak, but I can’t ‘prove’ radioactive decay rates haven’t changed over time or that Sky Daddy didn’t just create an earth that appears to be several billion years old (guess the Devil that God created is trying to trick us there). Occam’s razor doesn’t work on these people. I can ask why God wasn’t more upfront and just encoded his ten commandments into our DNA to save us all the Bible Study classes or maybe put His top ten rules (the ones that don’t apply to him, such as thou shalt not kill) on our chests. I’m then told I need to have Faith. I’ve even known SCIENTISTS that believed in young earth creationism. They compartmentalize their personal religious beliefs. And I’m talking, even research scientists with PhD’s.
Whether we have free will or not, we have to ACT like we do. For instance, if someone shoots somebody, we put them in jail; since they’re more likely to do it a second time that’s probably a good idea. Even if causal determinism is true, having laws supposing we have free will makes sense to me. Otherwise, society breaks down/no one is responsible for their actions. Of course, the flip side is: if our actions are predetermined, we have no choice, and we can’t be responsible for them, so punishing us for them may be considered unjust. I’ll agree to disagree on whether we can prove causal determinism or not with our present knowledge (I don’t think we can), but I believe our consciousness is entirely physical and explained by our brains/no magical trascendent ‘soul’ required. As far as I’m concerned consciousness isn’t anything special; causal determinism applies to the entire universe including us, or it is false. Ask someone who believes in the timeless ‘soul’, what they were up to before they were born?
Exsliventxs: Order does not necessary imply intelligence. Yes, I can balance a chemical reaction using the principle of conservation of mass with the same number of atoms of each element on both sides, but it’s a stretch from that to Deism. Deism = a belief system popular in the 18th century, God created the universe, set it in motion, and was hands-off afterwards — Thomas Jefferson is a famous Deist. I can also create order from random interactions; I could write a Shakespeare play or Microsoft Office using random numbers if given enough time. If there is positive feedback, as in evolution, the time required, will be greatly reduced. If we are engineered beings, why are we so prone to disease? Why do we have so much noncoding DNA (98%). What if all the forces weren’t balanced? What is the strong force were weak? Then we’d have no nuclei above, say, Hydrogen. So yes, all the forces are in balance, but that doesn’t really PROVE anything. Other than, if they weren’t, we wouldn’t be here nor would the Universe as we know it.
I think when pondering Deism we should ask a few other questions: Why did God create planets other than the Earth & Moon? Why not a static creation (i.e. why is everything moving away from a central point)? If we’re a special creation, why is the Universe so large with so many stars and galaxies?
Frank, can you unf~~~ Exsliven’s rationale? I had my doubts earlier but now I’m certain, we have another know-it-all with some college credits. Another fence-sitter who won’t denounce the lie told to him on fathers knee.
This one is screaming at me that the “Universe definitely has intelligence behind it.” It’s my opinion that Exsliven drank some coffee, did some chemical arithmetic, and now he’s totally twerked on arrogance and superstition and new found knowledge. It’s the same 20 something year old pretension. Same as John Doe. You both come off as Crystal Meth Addicts! Especially when you idiots say s~~~ like, “Order! Order in all things, it’s Intelligent!” and John, “Illusions can’t exist without freewill!”
Frank is right, can’t unf~~~ stupid and find consensus here. Normally I’d call out John and Exsliven for lying about having a degree but I believe them. Unfortunately, higher education became a used car lot, people made a fortune selling a useless product.
Frank, you totally “get” it. You’re right, causal determinism doesn’t mean we can’t lock up killers, also you’re right, we have to make the best of ourselves and strive for knowledge and progress even if we’re automated. You completely understand, have you been reading Sam Harris? hehehe I love that guy!
I have most often heard the ‘Intelligent Design’ argument from Evangelists but also the ‘Intelligent universe’ argument. I haven’t met too many Deists. I wouldn’t attack the poster, let’s have a civil discussion. My last post largely addressed this — order does not require a designer. I can add toxins slowly to a bacteria culture and they may evolve to withstand it. If I add heat to a chemical reactor, I can make more complex molecules from simpler ones. Entropy always increases overall. Mostly people regurgitate the same apologetic answers that have been made in the past. Just because the Universe follows laws, doesn’t mean there is a law-maker. What created the law maker who is presumably more complex than the Laws? Certainly something to ponder if you subscribe to this belief. Another question to pose is, if there were no physical laws, e.g. if Newton’s laws didn’t apply here, then life as we know it couldn’t exist, the earth wouldn’t have a stable orbit around the Sun and everything would be changing likely leading to chaos and the impossibility of complex life.
As for degrees, I don’t hold them in particularly high esteem; I have an engineering degree and work in that field (in a chemical plant no less) but most of what I learned/know, I did NOT learn in college — what little I know, is mostly from self-study. And I’ve known people with a LOT more scientific training than I’ve got (research scientists) who believe in various religions. I will say, though, the concentration of skeptics in my field is MUCH higher than the general population, probably 50%.
our individual abilities go way beyond what evolution has endowed us with. Our species is no longer constrained by our biology.
Harpo, Thanks for your contribution, also enjoyed it. Was loving what you wrote up until it turned this flavor above. You were really starting to understand the influence of memetics on social/moral behavior and you definitly understood my arguments. I have to disagree with the above quote; we’re nothing more than what nature has given us. (please notice the anthropomorphic way I wrote that, Im human too). You made it sound as if we’re the product of evolution with a few traits granted by the supernatural. Untrue my friend. We are poorly evolved, misdesigned and could use a lot of work. You glorify our human status. Anyways, thanks, not trying to change your mind.
Not sure I agree that I glorified our human status when my last sentence admitted that we are not perfect…I will go further and say we are no more important than other animals….You say we are misdesigned but deny any intelligent designer…evolution could be acted upon and hurried along through human interaction… In 1959, Dmitri Belyaev began breeding silver foxes for tameness and docility. The results of his efforts would change how we view the process of domestication.Evolution combined with human cognitive interaction can and does cause evolution to happen in leaps and bounds not seen in nature left to its own slow pace.. I am not saying we had any supernatural help from deities more important or of higher order than our human selves, but we must surely appear godlike to the domesticated canines that devote themselves to pleasing us…It took only ten generations to not only change the way silver foxes behaved towards us but also to change their appearance drastically….Somewhere along our evolutionary path with help or with no help, It seems obvious that we made some faster paced leap or we would just be another primitive ape….http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b30_1372049732
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Unintelligent ‘Designs’ etc…
Eat and breathe out of the same hole, causes children by the 1000’s to die every year
We sleep 1/3 of our life away.
We require food and water daily and have to pee/poop daily. It gets old after about 20 years.
Hearing and Vision is limited to extremely narrow slice of what is actually there. Smell, touch and taste could all be better to say least. We could actually use a few more senses to be honest.
Anthropomorphic tendency (vanity) Used to be evolutionary advantageous (promoted civility), now it prevents progress in every science. Its become yet another out grown limb.
Our teeth decay, get infected, fall out and generally fail to help us digest food. This would kill us off at a young age, before we invented Denistry.
Our knees also suck because they were evolved for being on all fours, not bipedal locomotion.
A lot could be said about hormones, neural transmitters, parts of the brain and their % of influence. It’s a zoo to be frank. It gave rise to consciousness which is peculiar (coming biasedly from one who has one) but in general, it’s a work in progress, hopefully.
We seem to be incredibly prone to pride, shame and hate which make no sense in a causal framework absent of freewill. This has more to do with societies failure to educate people properly about the human condition instead of capitalizing on it. We could probably cut violence in half if this was taught in school. It should be since it’s published fact by doctors.
We pretty much live long enough to f~~~ and think only of that. Once that mission is accomplished, its down hill. Being a celibate mgtow, I can say it’s over rated. I live for artistic expression and amusement. That’s the meaning IN my life, there is no meaning TO life.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
