The stupidity of the theism/atheism debate.

[Cognisant]

Fuck it I'm in.

Before we can discuss whether or not god exists we must first define what god is, otherwise any discussion about whether or not god exists is just fucking stupid because nobody really knows what we're talking about.

For the sake of argument I'm going to define god as the system administrator of the server our universe simulation is running on. As far as he is concerned we're just bits of computer memory, he can stop, rewind and modify the simulation at any time for any reason. This god is omnipotent, omniscient and exists outside existence as we know it.

I cannot tell you does great system administrator in the cloud doesn't exist, he exists outside of the simulation, I have no means by which to prove or disprove his existence.

I can however refute claims of his benevolence and wisdom by point out flaws in the simulation, at least they're "flaws" if we assume this simulation is being run for our sake which being a pessimist I find highly unlikely.

The fact that I cannot disprove the existence of the GSA doesn't prove his existence either, god could just as likely be a cosmic unicorn, a literal pile of shit, or me.

So all in all the real question to debate over is whether or not god matters.
Personally I think not, I think if god wanted us to know of his existence he would have made it unarguably evident and the fact that his/her/its/their/whatever existence is not unarguably evident tells us that god is one of three things: fictional, hiding, or irrelevant.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

1) If we should never believe in anything that we can't see and touch then should we believe in the existence of things such as love, hate, freedom, intelligence, logic or even in the existence of the 'mind' which is not a physical organ like the brain and yet everyone knows it exists and everyone admits its existence? So if religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, then doesn't that also mean that non-religious people who believe in things like freedom and love, are also stupid, since those things are also invisible and untouchable?

None but the most naive atheists would think invisibility and intagibility imply non-existence. I don't think anyone here thinks in that way. So there's nothing much to say here.

2) If someone thinks that not being religious is 'smarter' and more 'rational', then doesn't that mean that , as intelligent and rational knowledgable beings, they should never be absolute about their ideas, especially given the fact that our kind has still not even discovered half of the things we need in order to 'know' the mysteries of our world? Shouldn't then a truly intelligent and rational being be open minded enough to admit that even though the religious beliefs are something he/she doesn't agree with, they are still a set of beliefs that are possible as a theory and should not be completely rejected, since we don't really know everything yet?

Classifying anyone religious as necessarily 'idioits' or 'irrational', may be a bit arrogant.
But, one thing to note: being 'right' isn't enough to be 'rational' or even particularly smart.
So it may not be wrong to consider one specific religious person as 'irrational', if he\she provides a 'bad' reason for his\her views, despite their view being true.

If one's belief is right, but one is not justified to believe it, then one is simply 'luckily' right.

I am not saying you said anything otherwise, but I am still pointing it out.

Also, there can sometimes be 'reasons' to pretty much 'ignore' a theory even if it is 'possible'. There are endless possibilities, and it's pragmatically not possible to take everything seriously. So often some 'heuristics' may be used to sort out differentg possibilities and choose to take one possibility over some other. Some of these heuristics may be occam's razor, presence of evidence\clues, abductive reasoning etc.

And FINALLY

3) Shouldn't a truly intelligent being be able to seperate the spiritual realm from the physical one and tell the difference between 'spirituality' and common every day logic? What I mean is that humans are using only up to 7-10% of their brain capacity. We use that brain capacity mainly for things that concern our physical-material world which we usually explain through our analytical and logical abilities. However, trying to explain spirituality and spiritual matters through common materialistic logic is as 'smart' as trying to teach philosophy to Coco the gorilla. And it amazes me that so many 'smart' people out there seem to think that they can actually explain spiritual stuff through maths and chemistry and are immediately getting a 'eureka' moment when they realize that their maths can;'t explain them and therefore spirituality is 'bullsh@t'. Spiritual matters concern the spiritual world...they cannot be explained through theorems, computer science and algorithms. Much like you can't explain algorithms using prayers. So why do so many generally smart people seem to confuse these two and even go as far as to claim that intelligent people can never be religious or spiritual because that's 'stupid'?

It's pretty vague what 'spiritual' is supposed to be. Different people seem to use it liberally in different sense. 'Physical' itself is still a tricky word (though it's less vague than 'spritual'). So there's not really straight forward answers too:

"What exactly is 'physical'?"
"What exactly is 'spiritual'?"
"How are they ought to be distinguished?"

And so on.

For example, if a ghost can make a quantifiable change in physical world, and interact with it, then by certain definitions, the ghost would be 'physical'.

If you believe in soul and free will, you probably also believe that the soul interacts with the 'physical' body. In that case, by certain definition of 'physical' the soul would be physical. Language and definitions aren't really too straighforward in this world.

I am also, entirely not sure what you mean by 'materialist logic' and such. It seems you are using the term 'logic' in a very colloquial and loose sense. Logic in philosophy isn't inherently materialistic or anything like that. There's no obvious reason why logic can't be used to analyze the consistency of certain spiritual claims and such.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

I wonder what concepts they inquire about. Would we understand it.

It's not really that complicated. Many arguments are fairly undestandable by any laymen without getting too deep into background contexts.

Some of this arguments are sometimes discussed in random internet forums. Like, Pascal's Wager. The issue is however, that most laymen responses are often simplistic or something that's already addressed by the author of the argument in his paper. So to avoid doing that, all one needs to do is find a better source for the argument.


This is a decent introduction for beginners: https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-philosophy-god-knowledge-mitx-24-00x-2


Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is considered as good source for overviews regarding anything philosophy. Articles posted in it are peer reviewed by professionals.

 

[Black Rose]

Similar to what I said earlier @Cognisant
We are in an ancestor simulation.
I Believe since it is historical it is Benevolent. To restore the dead to life.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

fictional, hiding, or irrelevant.

Or trolling.

 

[Kuu]

You know what the problem here is? People like you, with this attitude are immediately disproving the very notion of their intelligence. Here you are mocking believers IN GENERAL (generalization, first logical error), proclaiming that you can't argue with them (obviously you have never really had any really strong point to win the argument), saying that they don't understand reason (you're not using reason either buddy), and then proclaiming that if God exists then you must be it lol. Arrogance, delusions, extreme self assurance of being rational despite the many errors in your argument and condensation. Hm..sorry but I can't take you seriously. The way you write is the epitome of the lil 'I know it all' junkie who can't see past his nose. Maybe instead of mocking believers, you should mock yourself for being an irrationally arrogant I know it all kid with 'god complex'? Here's a secret. Keep your nose down on the damn ground before you make absolute statements because when you write things like that you really undermine your own self. The joke's on you, not on others.

You started this thread with the thirst of blood, and can't even take some humor without a smug and violent retort, so nobody ever expected an honest debate. You've already made up your mind. A truly fine way (if ever there was one) to introduce yourself to this forum.

I'll restate my position because its the truth regardless of your unhinged ranting: you can't argue with believers with reason or science. The whole point of it is an irrational belief in the supernatural (i.e beyond nature, thus beyond the scope of science).

1) You strawmanned this in your very first point as saying people that "don't believe in things that can't be seen or touched" can't believe in abstract concepts. Not even worth delving into this.

2) Your second point wasn't much useful, and it is much nearer to being an argument for agnosticism. Without specifics its hard to be "open minded" about "things we don't know yet" so its vague to the point of uselessness. No debate here.

3) Using 7 - 10% of brain is unsourced urban legend. This is a sad argument for a god of the gaps. Religions have been fighting a war of attrition for quite some time, trying to hold onto whatever scrap they still can, reduced to ruling "the spiritual realm" now that natural philosophy has taken everything else from them.

4) For additional amusement, let's see how you proved my very point that you so adamantly dismiss:

However, trying to explain spirituality and spiritual matters through common materialistic logic is as 'smart' as trying to teach philosophy to Coco the gorilla.

Spiritual matters concern the spiritual world...they cannot be explained through theorems, computer science and algorithms.

If I mock believers I do so with good reason. They should be mocked, in general. Specifics just determines the intensity. Indeed believers seem all too eager to make a mockery of themselves!

You know nothing of me, but you'll have to believe me when I tell you I know plenty of religion and those that follow it. I'll take arrogance over hypocrisy every day:

The way you write is the epitome of the lil 'I know it all' junkie who can't see past his nose.

Keep your nose down on the damn ground before you make absolute statements because when you write things like that you really undermine your own self. The joke's on you, not on others.

What good is a god that cannot laugh? And laugh I do. What else is left to do here?

 

[MsDoodles]

You started this thread with the thirst of blood, and can't even take some humor without a smug and violent retort, so nobody ever expected an honest debate. You've already made up your mind. A truly fine way (if ever there was one) to introduce yourself to this forum.

I'll restate my position because its the truth regardless of your unhinged ranting: you can't argue with believers with reason or science. The whole point of it is an irrational belief in the supernatural (i.e beyond nature, thus beyond the scope of science).

1) You strawmanned this in your very first point as saying people that "don't believe in things that can't be seen or touched" can't believe in abstract concepts. Not even worth delving into this.

2) Your second point wasn't much useful, and it is much nearer to being an argument for agnosticism. Without specifics its hard to be "open minded" about "things we don't know yet" so its vague to the point of uselessness. No debate here.

3) Using 7 - 10% of brain is unsourced urban legend. This is a sad argument for a god of the gaps. Religions have been fighting a war of attrition for quite some time, trying to hold onto whatever scrap they still can, reduced to ruling "the spiritual realm" now that natural philosophy has taken everything else from them.

4) For additional amusement, let's see how you proved my very point that you so adamantly dismiss:



If I mock believers I do so with good reason. They should be mocked, in general. Specifics just determines the intensity. Indeed believers seem all too eager to make a mockery of themselves!

You know nothing of me, but you'll have to believe me when I tell you I know plenty of religion and those that follow it. I'll take arrogance over hypocrisy every day:




What good is a god that cannot laugh? And laugh I do. What else is left to do here?

I'm sorry how exactly did I begin this topic with a thirst for blood? That was hillarious.
Your comment was not humorous, it was offensive. You are free to think however you like but just because you find yourself funny, doesn't mean I have to do as well.
You continually mock others without even giving a clear explanation. You just diss the whole thing with the typical coward "this isn't even worth the argument" way. If you can't accept arguments why do you even reply on the thread, since it's not even worth your time and the debate? You still haven't given a clear answer to the topic. And at last, when you act in an arrogant and offensive way, you should at least have the maturity to know that people will reply negatively to you and not protest when you can't continue your little offenses. Your approach towards people of other beliefs is at least irrational and prejudiced if not downright foolish. So if you find this topic so "funny" and can't contribute with something useful, then maybe leave? I know I'm not gonna stop you.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

So can anyone answer to the actual point of the topic?

If religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, should the rest of the world believe in also invisible things such as freedom, love and hate or are we ALL stupid for believing in such things since they are invisible?

Believing in freedom is stupid.

Get born in country A, get certain set of "freedoms".

Get born in country B, get different set of "freedoms".

Force can take away those "freedoms" from either country. Inalienable rights has to be the dumbest line ever used. We've just been lucky to live in a time when we can even ponder such things as "freedom".

 

[MsDoodles]

Believing in freedom is stupid.

Get born in country A, get certain set of "freedoms".

Get born in country B, get different set of "freedoms".

Force can take away those "freedoms" from either country. Inalienable rights has to be the dumbest line ever used. We've just been lucky to live in a time when we can even ponder such things as "freedom".

What I mean is the general concept and ideal of freedom, not necessarily if each person in each country actually has that. Granted, different places and situations have different kinds of freedom but we all believe that we have an inherent right to be free as people, regardless of how situations in life affect us.

 

[MsDoodles]

None but the most naive atheists would think invisibility and intagibility imply non-existence. I don't think anyone here thinks in that way. So there's nothing much to say here.



Classifying anyone religious as necessarily 'idioits' or 'irrational', may be a bit arrogant.
But, one thing to note: being 'right' isn't enough to be 'rational' or even particularly smart.
So it may not be wrong to consider one specific religious person as 'irrational', if he\she provides a 'bad' reason for his\her views, despite their view being true.

If one's belief is right, but one is not justified to believe it, then one is simply 'luckily' right.

I am not saying you said anything otherwise, but I am still pointing it out.

Also, there can sometimes be 'reasons' to pretty much 'ignore' a theory even if it is 'possible'. There are endless possibilities, and it's pragmatically not possible to take everything seriously. So often some 'heuristics' may be used to sort out differentg possibilities and choose to take one possibility over some other. Some of these heuristics may be occam's razor, presence of evidence\clues, abductive reasoning etc.




It's pretty vague what 'spiritual' is supposed to be. Different people seem to use it liberally in different sense. 'Physical' itself is still a tricky word (though it's less vague than 'spritual'). So there's not really straight forward answers too:

"What exactly is 'physical'?"
"What exactly is 'spiritual'?"
"How are they ought to be distinguished?"

And so on.

For example, if a ghost can make a quantifiable change in physical world, and interact with it, then by certain definitions, the ghost would be 'physical'.

If you believe in soul and free will, you probably also believe that the soul interacts with the 'physical' body. In that case, by certain definition of 'physical' the soul would be physical. Language and definitions aren't really too straighforward in this world.

I am also, entirely not sure what you mean by 'materialist logic' and such. It seems you are using the term 'logic' in a very colloquial and loose sense. Logic in philosophy isn't inherently materialistic or anything like that. There's no obvious reason why logic can't be used to analyze the consistency of certain spiritual claims and such.

I use the term 'materialistic logic' to emphasize the fact that human logic is centered mainly around things that concern our daily material world. And I agree that the term spiritual can be quite abstract but we could go with the simplest explanation which is everything that concerns matters of the non-material world. Whether it be certain beliefs or theories or even experiences.

 

[MsDoodles]

Fuck it I'm in.

Before we can discuss whether or not god exists we must first define what god is, otherwise any discussion about whether or not god exists is just fucking stupid because nobody really knows what we're talking about.

For the sake of argument I'm going to define god as the system administrator of the server our universe simulation is running on. As far as he is concerned we're just bits of computer memory, he can stop, rewind and modify the simulation at any time for any reason. This god is omnipotent, omniscient and exists outside existence as we know it.

I cannot tell you does great system administrator in the cloud doesn't exist, he exists outside of the simulation, I have no means by which to prove or disprove his existence.

I can however refute claims of his benevolence and wisdom by point out flaws in the simulation, at least they're "flaws" if we assume this simulation is being run for our sake which being a pessimist I find highly unlikely.

The fact that I cannot disprove the existence of the GSA doesn't prove his existence either, god could just as likely be a cosmic unicorn, a literal pile of shit, or me.

So all in all the real question to debate over is whether or not god matters.
Personally I think not, I think if god wanted us to know of his existence he would have made it unarguably evident and the fact that his/her/its/their/whatever existence is not unarguably evident tells us that god is one of three things: fictional, hiding, or irrelevant.

Well I guess it depends on how everyone perceives God's existence and the value of such an existence. Personally I think that the entire universe is created in such an unfathomably intelligent way (including the supposed 'flaws' we think it has), that such a creation could never possibly not have been made by a spirit of an equally and extremely higher/superior intelligence that our tiny human brains can't even wish to perceive entirely. And for me that alone is a great evidence of His existence.

But the question isn't so much on how each of us perceives the belief of such a spirit's existence. The point is that if we are adamant on believing only anything that our body eyes can see and our senses can accept, then we should probably also never believe in anything invisible or abstract, which will eventually have us end up acting and thinking like robots. In any case, my point is that since none of us knows the entire truth about everything and since there is a very adequate explanation for both theories concerning the existence or not of God, people should be open minded to both possibilities and not stick to an absolute rejection of either of them, based on prejudice or any kind of issues against a religion or some religions or whatever. That's why I gave that title to the topic.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Well I guess it depends on how everyone perceives God's existence and the value of such an existence. Personally I think that the entire universe is created in such an unfathomably intelligent way (including the supposed 'flaws' we think it has), that such a creation could never possibly not have been made by a spirit of an equally and extremely higher/superior intelligence that our tiny human brains can't even wish to perceive entirely. And for me that alone is a great evidence of His existence.

Not knowing the answer to something is not an excuse to insert an explaination without evidence. Doing so doesn't make it evidence. It's whole cloth.

You want answers to the immensity of the universe, that's fine and good. Creating explanations for that which we don't know (yet) is a primitive instinct (I'm guessing on the instinct part but can't really defend it, the primitive yeah). It is not, however, a logical approach in any way. Believe all you want. Saying it's logical to do so will get push back and rightfully so.

 

[MsDoodles]

Not knowing the answer to something is not an excuse to insert an explaination without evidence. Doing so doesn't make it evidence. It's whole cloth.

You want answers to the immensity of the universe, that's fine and good. Creating explanations for that which we don't know (yet) is a primitive instinct (I'm guessing on the instinct part but can't really defend it, the primitive yeah). It is not, however, a logical approach in any way. Believe all you want. Saying it's logical to do so will get push back and rightfully so.

Same thing happens with not believing in it. Both arguments have a point. I don;t find the notion that the universe was created on its own without a superior intelligence mastering over it any more logical, so again, the whole 'logic' of this argument is subjective.

 

[Haim]

From everything that I saw, heard, perceived I concluded that the chance that some magical being to have created everything is so low I might as well round it to 0% chance.
I can be open minded such as Einstein but life, it too short.
Then there god as described by humans, such as the biblical god, not only there is not a thing that support his existence there is ocean of support that the biblical god is being made up by humans, such as yourself, the things religion say we should do are clearly not things a real god(that we should listen to) would have interest in but humans do have.

All the logical argument I will tell will not change your mind, not because they are not correct, but because it is akin to try to logically explain why you should hate your father, you don't love your father because of logical reason in the first place, due if your father happen to be a serial killer it will be best to avoid him, now because your love for your father is not a logical thing the expected reaction can be that "he did not do it", at that point no matter the evidence you see you will not be convinced, why should I keep trying?you are not the first one to behave like that and not even the first 10.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Same thing happens with not believing in it. Both arguments have a point. I don;t find the notion that the universe was created on its own without a superior intelligence mastering over it any more logical, so again, the whole 'logic' of this argument is subjective.

No, the same thing does not happen. You are inserting a notion you cannot prove. Not believing is not inserting a notion, therefore nothing to prove.

No logic of any kind allows for making something up which theists did. They never had evidence. All they had is things they couldn't explain and something that drove them to create some explanation to make them feel better/help them sleep at night. Angst does that sort of thing to some people.

The type of arguments you are trying to make here may be better suited for a place like Reddit.

 

[Black Rose]

Does an immaterial reality exist where love and God and truth exist. To ask the question we must know what an immaterial reality is. It is different from a nonphysical reality because physicals still include consciousness, materialism doesn't. Physics does not say we only need atoms for consciousness, empty space could be playing an important role. God could exist in empty space influencing us and brainwaves could be that way. Vacum energy fades in and out of existence all the time. Some physicists have said reality is more virtual than solid. The difference between empty and full space is virtual, atoms are made of fluctuating clouds that appear and disappear. The point is that non of this is material. Consciousness could possibly exist is a virtual space we call empty space. And that means our consciousness could contact a bigger consciousness residing in there. As I said earlier intuition could be coming from this God. If you think of yourself as a virtual being instead of this flesh and blood body then things feel more like a lucid dream than a back to work Monday. The unity of experience is still mysterious but God and you are no more different than that both of you exist as empty space and perhaps a body at the same time.

 

[Jennywocky]

as far as some superior creator goes, maybe it's good to take a little remedial study of how natural selection actually works. Maybe the world looks intricately designed only if you assume that the current state of the world was the outcome all along (so then it would seem like design, in terms of odds and how things fit), where if you bother to think about how destructive changes weed themselves out and positive changes persist (and are thus necessarily interwoven and conform to the operative laws of the universe) and there is no predetermined outcome, then it becomes much more palatable and reasonable. The state of the world just happens to be where we are now and reflects on the operative laws, rather than being something that had to be predesigned.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Hrm I think saint aqunias 'five ways' are pretty good arguments for a 'god' existing. Whatever we find that was the 'first cause' or the 'first mover' is 'god' though this wouldn't entail that he is personal or even intercessional. Since we're talking about the western tradition of who 'god' is aka christian, this ultimately doesn't come through logic but through belief. "Faith seeking understanding" as augustine and anslem once said. Faith is a journey, not a belief status, as many nonbelievers would like to paint. Its a journey of introspection and always putting what makes god god, at the helm.

But in a sense yes, you dont 'need' god to be good, but history has shown that human nature falls prey to many ills and prejudices. And ultimately whats the purpose in being good anyway? If one says societial survival, whats the point of having a society, a civilization? If we cannot answer these questions we merely become cogs in this economy of homosapiens running to and fro, no more better than rats in an experiment running around for the most primitive of needs.

If we're self aware about this the more humble we should be about life, and seek more than what the material world can offer us. And thats what the neo-platonist thought. Not even christian.

 

[washti]

You don't need mystical notions to explain subjective experience. Redness and smell are states emerging from processes -interacting properties of various matter forms.

An interaction between light wave frequencies, a surface of rose and state of the human visual system produces a variety of redness states. It can be green for daltonist. It’s clearly changing with sun positions during the day or in separate environment. It can associate with a feel of wetness or sound inside brain of person with synesthesia.

An interaction between aroma compounds (geranyl acetate for rose) its movement, density in space and state of the human olfactory system creates different smell perceptions. A parasite Toxoplasma gondii in your guts can make you feel horny when you are sensing the scent of cats.

Humans have a tendency to treating this states of processes between material objects as objects themselves(creating concepts like redness) and reasoning about possible manipulation of them. (how to display it on screen?)

The most common attempt to reject materialism is treating these concepts as immaterial entities when they serve as reality foundation(e.g physics laws). Materialist stance is then accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency. “How you can say only matter exists when you explain all its complexity using immaterial entities?”
They are not immaterial entities. They are states of interacting matter. They are bound to it.

Recognizing the patterns of properties and relationships in a matter you internalize them forming concepts using brain then externalize those concepts bounding them in physical form (number, equation, pixel light transmission) - they are not immaterial entities.

 

[Black Rose]

They are not immaterial entities. They are states of interacting matter. They are bound to it.

The brain is wash of cell membranes bathed in negative an positive ion clouds. These clouds have different electrical conductivity patterns. So all qualia can be reduced apparently to positive an negative states in a cloud. Ones and Zeros. how does that translate to the color red or the taste of blueberry? how do you get rainbows from a binary cloud? Rember ions are only positive and negative yet we can see colors? how is this possible? Another thing is that each ion is separated from the others, following this reasoning computers with separate transistors can be conscious by interaction of information in them. This I think is less hard to grasp as unity in a computer would yes indeed be following the same principle as unity in humans. The binary ions resulting in colors problem is much harder.

 

[onesteptwostep]

You don't need mystical notions to explain subjective experience. Redness and smell are states emerging from processes -interacting properties of various matter forms.

An interaction between light wave frequencies, a surface of rose and state of the human visual system produces a variety of redness states. It can be green for daltonist. It’s clearly changing with sun positions during the day or in separate environment. It can associate with a feel of wetness or sound inside brain of person with synesthesia.

An interaction between aroma compounds (geranyl acetate for rose) its movement, density in space and state of the human olfactory system creates different smell perceptions. A parasite Toxoplasma gondii in your guts can make you feel horny when you are sensing the scent of cats.

Humans have a tendency to treating this states of processes between material objects as objects themselves(creating concepts like redness) and reasoning about possible manipulation of them. (how to display it on screen?)

The most common attempt to reject materialism is treating these concepts as immaterial entities when they serve as reality foundation(e.g physics laws). Materialist stance is then accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency. “How you can say only matter exists when you explain all its complexity using immaterial entities?”
They are not immaterial entities. They are states of interacting matter. They are bound to it.

Recognizing the patterns of properties and relationships in a matter you internalize them forming concepts using brain then externalize those concepts bounding them in physical form (number, equation, pixel light transmission) - they are not immaterial entities.

Are concepts like 'humanity' 'beauty' and moral concepts such as 'justice' and good and evil also bound to material objects? How about belongingness? What determines citizenship to a country or allegiance to a certain ideological group or creed? Is it 'bound' to us materialistically?

 

[Pyropyro]

My take on the debate on any belief systems is that to not follow the system with bigger douchebags. In my IRL experience, the atheists were the bigger ones so guess I'll go with theists. Philosophy, ideologies and debates be damned, I want to see how you act.

If your experience is the opposite then more power to you. Go and prosper in your atheistic way of life.

 

[redbaron]

i agree with jenny she's the best at stuff

remedial studies for all

 

[Hadoblado]

My take on the debate on any belief systems is that to not follow the system with bigger douchebags. In my IRL experience, the atheists were the bigger ones so guess I'll go with theists. Philosophy, ideologies and debates be damned, I want to see how you act.

If your experience is the opposite then more power to you. Go and prosper in your atheistic way of life.

Umm... that sounds like post-hoc rationalisation.

You base your belief of the truth on which group has the biggest asshole?

Hitler is a pretty big asshole, and he was a vegan, so all other arguments aside, you eat meat because Hitler didn't?

Also the church is rife with pedophiles! Surely this isn't something you genuinely live by?

 

[Pyropyro]

Umm... that sounds like post-hoc rationalisation.

You base your belief of the truth on which group has the biggest asshole?

Hitler is a pretty big asshole, and he was a vegan, so all other arguments aside, you eat meat because Hitler didn't?

Also the church is rife with pedophiles! Surely this isn't something you genuinely live by?

No, its the normies. I obviously dont have access to the highest echelons of any movement IRL. It's your average members which i judge movements on.

For example, the left and the right have good points. However, leftists kill researchers and burn down telecom lines which is really a bother so yeah the left lost some points for me.

So one may say, not all lefties are like that. Too bad, the left suck at policing extremists like the right does in my country.

Let's look at the church pedos. Do they harm me or my group? No. Do they benefit me and my group. A slice of it does. So they have a plus point for me.

How about atheists? Are they useful to me and my group? No. Are they bothersome people? Yes. Especially if you just want peace and quiet and they like debate me bro. BTW, Richard Dawkins is totes okay with mild pedophilla so whats the problem?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Umm... that sounds like post-hoc rationalisation.

You base your belief of the truth on which group has the biggest asshole?

Hitler is a pretty big asshole, and he was a vegan, so all other arguments aside, you eat meat because Hitler didn't?

Also the church is rife with pedophiles! Surely this isn't something you genuinely live by?

To be fair sexual misconduct in church, any church, is a meme now and not something thats actually pervasive. I mean out of the millions of priests what percentage do you think theyve actually done something? My guess is probably not a lot, though its certainly alarming that people youre supposed to trust would abuse you. But still, i would say it leans more towards a meme rather than a statistically established reality.

 

[kora]

Let's look at the church pedos. Do they harm me or my group? No. Do they benefit me and my group. A slice of it does. So they have a plus point for me.

I take it you do not have children ?


@Pyropyro so as long as the paedos benefit ur group u like them huh? HUH ? That’s what some white ppl say about nazis huh? That they benefit their group so they like them, are you a NAZI Pyro ? Huh ? HUH? And if some white people are Nazis do we dislike all white people HUH ? Are u tired of my godwinning ? THATS WHAT UR REASONING ENTAILS AS A CONCLUSION THO. NAZI APPROVING PYRO. UR A NAZI APPROVER.

Okay in seriousness I’m pushing your argument to absurd lengths to highlight that it’s faulty I know you don’t actually approve of pedophilia within the church. At least if I interpret you charitably anyway.

Most people here are atheists I'd wager and you talk with them on a regular basis when you log on so clearly you’re not finding them too bothersome. Also why is pedophilia okay in the Catholic Church if extremists in political groups discredit their general organization in your eyes? That's not too consistent. Also personally, I’d rather be in a group where extreme people burn down telephone lines than where they touch kids and scar them psychologically for life.

Yet you separate the priests who you like from the pedophiles and say #notallpriests but you don't do the same for the leftists with their respective extremists? Also are you gonna say you’ve never benefitted from classically leftist policies ? Extension of the vote to all citizens? Healthcare coverage? Free education? Social mobility? I dunno if you use any of these but I’ve grown up with them and their existence is just fantastic.

You’re being arbitrarily selective, it’s not rational. Which is fine I guess anyway, but don't present it like it is then

 

[redbaron]

Let's look at the church pedos. Do they harm me or my group? No. Do they benefit me and my group. A slice of it does. So they have a plus point for me.

remedial studies for you

 

[redbaron]

It's your average members which i judge movements on.

For example, the left and the right have good points. However, leftists kill researchers and burn down telecom lines which is really a bother so yeah the left lost some points for me.

So one may say, not all lefties are like that. Too bad, the left suck at policing extremists like the right does in my country.

wait what

"it's the average members i judge movements on"

immediately followed up by:

"the extremists did this"

and then proceeded to judge the entire leftist movement based on what the extremists did

~

 

[Jennywocky]

... yeah, and if you want to bitch about extremists, the rights in USA are great at shutting down lines of scientific inquiry based on their political/religious views, so... whatever, let's at least pick on extremists on both sides if you want to go that route. (aside from it seems a lot of the shooters in our country lean right, not left.)

meh, ship 'em all out.

 

[Black Rose]

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Puffy]

It's a pretty tired debate. The problem as I see it is that a spiritual modality does not primarily understand the world from an intellectual modality.

There's life experience, intuition, social, family, emotional & developmental reasons. But chances are it's not a position you 'reasoned' yourself into in an intellectual vacuum. The intellectual aspect of that world-picture likely evolved in support of your other underlying motivations and isn't as important compared to them. Therefore, you're unlikely to invest as much time into intellectuality except as part of becoming a well rounded person.

People arguing from an atheistic position have none of these motivations and default to trying to understand primarily from an intellectual modality which they've often invested more of their time into. With none of the other factors, they're unlikely to be persuaded. So you generally just have these groups with very different priorities and means of understanding the world that can't get into an honest exchange.

For me on a personal level, spirituality was originally rooted in intuition and I used to try and write about it from the intellectualised perspective of my academic training. The more I've let go to it, to me it's primarily a process of transformation. Like the archetypal image of chrysalis/butterfly, it's transforming from one physical state to another. Trying to share that is like trying to share a sixth sense that's obvious to you but invisible to another. One side thinks it doesn't exist and that the other is naive or deluded, and the other side thinks they don't see it because they're not invested in cultivating it.

An intellectual mode is one way of initiating an exchange and talking about it but it's partial as it doesn't feel like the essence of what it's about.

 

[onesteptwostep]

http://www.lewisconnolly.com/blog/2018/5/14/reflecting-on-william-james

Here's an excellent article discussing what you're grasping with, Puffy.

 

[Black Rose]

https://jackfisherbooks.com/2018/05/16/will-advanced-artificial-intelligence-create-a-new-god/

For centuries, there has been a debate raging between believers and non-believers. The believers claim that God created man in his/her/its/their image. The non-believers claim it’s the other way around and man created God in whatever image they imagined. Society, cultures, and politics may change the rhetoric, but the debate remains unresolved.

There are just too many barriers that are insurmountable for either side. One believes that the faith they have in whatever higher power they worship is as real as gravity, sunlight, and migraine headaches. The other does not accept that there is sufficient, verifiable evidence to accept the premise of a deity. The two sides can argue with the utmost passion. It’s rare that such discourse changes any minds.

However, there come a time when a new complication enters that debate, one that will fundamentally change some peoples’ understanding of theology, religion, and God. It may not effect everyone the same way, but the impact could end up being as profound as any religious experience.

That complication is advanced artificial intelligence, a topic I’m fond of discussing when I can tie it into my favorite video games and our sex lives. I understand that mixing anything with religion tends to get contentious, to say the least. However, I believe that when artificial intelligence becomes advanced enough, the human race will have re-evaluate a lot of things and that includes religion.

Creating an artificial intelligence that is as intelligent as an average human will be groundbreaking enough and not just from a theological standpoint. A part of what makes any deity powerful and worthy of worship is the ability to create an intelligent, self-aware being through non-biological means. Once humans start doing that, then the line between mortal and immortal will start to blur.

However, it’ll gain a much greater complication once that artificial intelligence advances beyond that of the average human. As anyone who regularly upgrades their smartphone knows, digital intelligence evolves much faster than biological intelligence. It took the human race centuries to figure out indoor plumbing. Once artificial intelligence is on par with humans, it won’t take long for it to exceed them.

This is where the potentially dangerous, but infinitely promising prospect of super-intelligent AI enters the picture. By that, I don’t just mean an intelligence that always wins at Jeopardy and always wins an Overwatch match. I’m talking about an intelligence that is so far beyond human capabilities that it’s akin to the cognitive gap between an ant and a human.

That kind of gap has many implications, but in the context of religion, it essentially re-frames the entire concept of God, divine power, and spirituality, as a whole. Whether it’s a monotheistic religion where God is all-knowing or a polytheistic religion with a God of Wisdom, knowledge is a critical aspect of divinity.

Even if a super-intelligent AI doesn’t know everything, the fact it knows and understands so much more than the average human will give people the impression that it’s omniscient. By all accounts, a super-intelligent AI’s knowledge will seem god-like and that’s where that never-ending religious debate I mentioned earlier breaks down.

Unlike the deities championed by adherents today, a super-intelligent AI doesn’t require faith. A super-intelligence, whether it’s in the form of a giant robot or a planet-sized supercomputer, would have a tangible form. It’s hard to know what sort of form that would be, but it only needs to be tangible enough to let an average human know it’s real.

Given how easy it is to fool the average human, a super-intelligent AI wouldn’t need much to prove itself. Unlike purely spiritual beings, the AI would be capable of receiving inquiry from skeptics who question its divine knowledge. Even if those humans are exceptionally smart, possibly through neural implants, a super-intelligent AI would have no problem outwitting them.

At that point, the debate between believers and non-believers takes on a very different context. Suddenly, it’s no longer an issue of whether or not one particular holy book is more valid than another. It’s not even an issue of whether divinity, itself, can exist. From the perspective of the human mind, a super-intelligent AI is divine.

It may not take the form of a man in a white robe with a long beard in the sky, but that wouldn’t matter. A super-intelligent AI, whatever form it ends up taking, would be real enough and cunning enough to convince imperfect human minds of its divinity, if that were its goal.

It wouldn’t even have to physically do anything. It could just be a big stationary box. It could respond to prayers, but it wouldn’t have to directly answer them. It would just have convince believers that their prayers had been received. Again, humans can be pretty gullible and prone to confirmation bias so all the AI has to do is convince someone. If they believe it strongly enough, then it doesn’t matter whether it happens.

In a dynamic like this, there wouldn’t be a debate between believers and non-believers like there is now. The only debate would pertain to just how powerful and how divine the super-intelligent AI really is. It wouldn’t be a matter of whether or not someone believes it is real. Being artificial, it would have a tangible form, at least to the extent that it convinces human perceptions that it does.

That would beg an even more profound theological question. Being so intelligent and so capable of outwitting human minds, would a super-intelligent AI becomeGod in the minds of humans by default? Even if there’s a record of the system being created by people, that wouldn’t make its intelligence any less divine.

It’s a question that subverts almost everything we know about religion. It wouldn’t just render all existing forms of religion obsolete. It would, at least from a limited human perspective, check all the criteria that any spiritual person would look for in a higher power.

Now, there’s one other complication that might ultimately undermine a super-intelligent AI’s divinity. It’s one that I’ve mentioned before in addressing the existential threat posed by artificial intelligence. Human biology, for all its wonder, will not be able to keep pace with the evolution of artificial intelligence. As a result, humans may end up merging their intelligence with that of AI.

This is what artificial intelligence enthusiasts like Elon Musk are seeking to do through neural implants or brain augmentation. By linking our brains to a super-intelligent AI, we wouldn’t just keep pace with AI. It would augment its intelligence to the same divine levels. However, if both human and artificial intelligence are equally divine, then that effectively undermines the notion of divinity itself.

There are still other complications associated with that issue. It only ceases to be an issue if every human being augments or links their minds to a super-intelligent AI. Given how difficult it is for humans to come to a consensus on anything, especially when it comes to technology, it’s very likely that even if most people link themselves to a super-intelligent AI, there will be some who choose not to or get left behind.

This could result in a massive divide. One group, from their limited perceptions, sees super-intelligent AI as a real god. Another, thanks to their augmented perceptions, see it as just another form of intelligence. A debate between the two would be both uneven, if not redundant.

There are many implications and even more unknowns with respect to super-intelligent AI. The impact on religion is just one of many, but it may end up being most profound in terms of changing the nature of a debate. As it stands, believers and non-believers can only make so much headway due to the inherent limits of human cognition.

Once super-intelligent AI enters the picture, then those limits are gone and the debate changes. While I don’t think it’ll end religion, I believe it’ll change it to such a degree that it’ll generate more than just impassioned debates.

 

[Pyropyro]

I take it you do not have children ?


@Pyropyro so as long as the paedos benefit ur group u like them huh? HUH ? That’s what some white ppl say about nazis huh? That they benefit their group so they like them, are you a NAZI Pyro ? Huh ? HUH? And if some white people are Nazis do we dislike all white people HUH ? Are u tired of my godwinning ? THATS WHAT UR REASONING ENTAILS AS A CONCLUSION THO. NAZI APPROVING PYRO. UR A NAZI APPROVER.

Okay in seriousness I’m pushing your argument to absurd lengths to highlight that it’s faulty I know you don’t actually approve of pedophilia within the church. At least if I interpret you charitably anyway.

Most people here are atheists I'd wager and you talk with them on a regular basis when you log on so clearly you’re not finding them too bothersome. Also why is pedophilia okay in the Catholic Church if extremists in political groups discredit their general organization in your eyes? That's not too consistent. Also personally, I’d rather be in a group where extreme people burn down telephone lines than where they touch kids and scar them psychologically for life.

Yet you separate the priests who you like from the pedophiles and say #notallpriests but you don't do the same for the leftists with their respective extremists? Also are you gonna say you’ve never benefitted from classically leftist policies ? Extension of the vote to all citizens? Healthcare coverage? Free education? Social mobility? I dunno if you use any of these but I’ve grown up with them and their existence is just fantastic.

You’re being arbitrarily selective, it’s not rational. Which is fine I guess anyway, but don't present it like it is then

Hado was being absurd so I tried to be absurd :P

Anyways, let's make this a bit simpler: People have the same values, they just have different hierarchies for them.

The left wants to help people who are downtrodden. The right wants to help people who want to help themselves. Both sides want to have prosperous citizens just different approaches. Now basically, I can go either way. But one associates themselves with ultra-murderers and the other doesn't. Guess which ones I want to fight for?

 

[Pyropyro]

wait what

"it's the average members i judge movements on"

immediately followed up by:

"the extremists did this"

and then proceeded to judge the entire leftist movement based on what the extremists did

~

View attachment 3178

Okay the priest one I was messing with Hado :P Anyways, I don't have any strong opinions with the Western left yet. I was housed and taken care of in the heart of liberal California so I think it sways on the positive (also the people at the Pride Parade was fun and helpful and kinda gay). However, I have a rather strong opinion on our left.

Anyways, if I lived in your hemisphere and tolerated that shit in your Christianity then I'll probably get away from them. But I didn't so most of you guys are atheists and I stayed a Christian. Christians want to live good lives through their biblical code while atheists want to do the same with reasonable codes as well. The problem is that most of the IRL atheists that I encountered was like debate me bro. When I tried to eat with them (debate me bro), when I brought them to our house cause its night (debate me bro), when we were talking about holograms and lasers (BTW I'm an atheist). Militant attitudes get old really fast.

 

[Puffy]

@Pyro - In the USA my understanding is that people grow up with Christianity being forced down their throats. So militancy is likely a response to that.

@Onestep - Thank you, I'll be sure to look into William James some time.

 

[kora]

But one associates themselves with ultra-murderers and the other doesn't. Guess which ones I want to fight for?

Sorry, who are the ultra murderers ? Don't have the reference here.

 

[Jennywocky]

Hado was being absurd so I tried to be absurd :P

Anyways, let's make this a bit simpler: People have the same values, they just have different hierarchies for them.

The left wants to help people who are downtrodden. The right wants to help people who want to help themselves. Both sides want to have prosperous citizens just different approaches. Now basically, I can go either way. But one associates themselves with ultra-murderers and the other doesn't. Guess which ones I want to fight for?

The Left, apparently. Because we all have seen how the USA Right has gutted health care (which will kill people) and put about 85% of the profits from the taxcuts in the hands of the 1% (-> poverty -> kills people), and now will be gearing up for a war (killing people), among other things (just like our last war, started by a Right wing government), and keeps trying to install one law after the next that only benefit the religious right and the rich. They're killing a lot of things. Trump still has a base, but more and more of the blue collars who voted for him realize now that he didn't give a shit about them after all, once he finished undermining their health care and never did delivery on jobs. Banning migrant workers just killed the crabbing industry in my state, forcing long-standing local companies to potentially shut their doors due to lack of people to do the work, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with one misguided policy after the next and/or the gutting of our economy to benefit the top and/or nationalism run rampant without concern for how immigrants and workers actually contribute.

 

[Black Rose]

Has anyone here ever experienced reality as if the supernatural was real? That has been my whole life experience practically. I have had two visions of heaven and spirits have asked me to give myself over to them. I believed I was in a simulation, still do. I know that people can read minds. I believe my intentions can change the universe to recognize me. Sometimes I think I may be under divine protection. My T-Shit says "Live for Christ" on the front. And "Mathew 5:8" on the back.

Forces do exist,
I feel the mystic nature of all things. that are and are yet to be.

 

[Pyropyro]

The Left, apparently. Because we all have seen how the USA Right has gutted health care (which will kill people) and put about 85% of the profits from the taxcuts in the hands of the 1% (-> poverty -> kills people), and now will be gearing up for a war (killing people), among other things (just like our last war, started by a Right wing government), and keeps trying to install one law after the next that only benefit the religious right and the rich. They're killing a lot of things. Trump still has a base, but more and more of the blue collars who voted for him realize now that he didn't give a shit about them after all, once he finished undermining their health care and never did delivery on jobs. Banning migrant workers just killed the crabbing industry in my state, forcing long-standing local companies to potentially shut their doors due to lack of people to do the work, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with one misguided policy after the next and/or the gutting of our economy to benefit the top and/or nationalism run rampant without concern for how immigrants and workers actually contribute.

Crap Jenny, if I'm in the US I'm gonna fight under the left banner as well if the right is this much of a jerk in your country.

 

[Pyropyro]

Sorry, who are the ultra murderers ? Don't have the reference here.

The CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion. Not counting the last decade, these guys messing with the country caused 10,672 civilian casualties.

Basically, they think they are a country that ought to be respected because they say so. They also attack ambulances. If you don't give them revolutionary tax, as their "right" to collect, then they burn the ever loving crap out of you. They get angry young people to fight for them while their leaders relax in the Netherlands or at cushy gov't offices while they flatter the current president. I have little respect for people who disregard their underlings' lives.