There is no God

[PlunkettsGhost]

Excellent discourse here:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXexaVsvhCM&t=167s

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

instead of posting dumb anti-atheist, conspiracy theory

When you come down off the throne of King of the dumb-dumbs, we can talk

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Sam Harris embarrasses himself... again - Vox Popoli

The White Buffalo draws our attention to this debate: Wars are still waged, crimes committed, and science undone out of deference to an invisible being who is believed to have created the entire cosmos, fine-tuned the constants of nature, blanketed the earth with 20,000 distinct species of...

voxday.net

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAYdTW1khJs

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4joaNguFWVw

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

I have little doubt by the way that Dawkins is a rather logical person (being one myself) and that Plunketts is approximately a logic Zero.

Which is why he posted that last video (supposedly critical of Dawkins).

I often feel that people really into apologetics whether they be atheist, Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Muslim or whatever are trying to convince themselves more than they are anybody else. Given that contemporary England is not a particularly Religious place at all I found Dawkins obsession with being a missionary for atheism a bit odd if not neurotic.

 

[Fishalt]

His work on biology is probably far more interesting than his iconography of obsessive hatred, lies and misrepresentations by theists.

I've read most of Dawkin's work. It's interesting but at the end of the day he's been a pop biologist for a long time now, and I'm confident that his rabid attacks on religion are commercial, not moral in nature. He's found a way to monetise a field that doesn't pay.

Extreme empiricism is not less dangerous than extreme faith, and both require investments of faith. Admittedly, the former more than the latter.

There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

I've read most of Dawkin's work. It's interesting but at the end of the day he's been a pop biologist for a long time now, and I'm confident that his rabid attacks on religion are commercial, not moral in nature. He's found a way to monetise a field that doesn't pay.

Extreme empiricism is not less dangerous than extreme faith, and both require investments of faith. Admittedly, the former more than the latter.

There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

I don't much about him but in the things I have seen from him he does seem to be a zealot with genuine concern rather than just a grifter.

Life is dangerous. Being overly obsessed with safefy could easily see you end up as neurotic as roc_.

 

[Fishalt]

I honestly don't believe you.


You're in a position to judge? What do you do for a living?


Who says that they're "moral"? Do you mean that the world would be a better place without religion? Yeah, I think that's a pretty lame argument. It doesn't mean that some of his (moral) argument against religion isn't correct.


What's "extreme empiricism"? Dawkins's main argument against (the existence of) God is lack of evidence, is that what you mean?


Where's your evidence for that?


What's "my philosophy"?

I've read the selfish gene, the god delusion, the greatest show on earth and another that I can't remember the title of. I know you're probably blown away by Richard, but he's a fairly basic writer and I wouldn't describe his work as especially challenging, which to be fair is probably by design. Even the origin of species was written in such a way that the layman could understand it. He drips with arrogance for a pop scientist however. If you want to know what humility in high, high-end science looks like, go watch an Ed Witten lecture.

Extreme empiricism, or dustbowl empiricism, cannot and does not accurately describe the human experience and denies a fundamental part of what it is that makes us human. A society based on pure rationality would be a dystopian horror beyond anything humanity has ever experienced for this reason. I used to be like you--a raging atheist. I now agree with Baudrillard and Nietzsche--, that religion provides an extremely important psychological function whether it is embedded in truth or not. I do not believe coherent, moral societies are possible without God.

The phrase there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy is a Shakespearean quote. It is from Hamlet. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that at any given time, the knowledge set of human understanding is limited, and cannot account for everything in the universe. It is a truism borne out when looking at the history of science, which is mutable and subject to change over time.

 

[Fishalt]

I'm not "blown away" by Dawkins and I'm not a "raging atheist" (whatever that means).

Empiricism could be described as - fact based on evidence. This is something that, by definition, a theist could rage against because there isn't any (for their belief).

Humans are more than just data, and facts. If you believe the opposite, or would organise society along the lines of empiricism, there would be no reason for us to exist whatsoever. Why don't we simply then hand over existence and control of the world to AI?

 

[Fishalt]

Arguable


Don't know what that means


Can't understand your conclusion because I didn't understand the premise (see above)


Eh....

It is obviously the case that human beings are more than just data and facts. This is not debatable and to suggest otherwise would be an absurdity. A computer, for example, cannot experience loneliness, lust, gratitude, sadness, elation, and the remaining gamut of human emotions. There's no demure laptop.

Since you don't understand my point:

AI is superior to humanity intellectually. Most of this is down to a bandwidth disparity. Eventually Robots will be mechanically superior to our own physical selves. If what we consider as being human--that is the human experience--has no value at all, or doesn't exist, then why don't we all simply mass suicide right now? What practical or theoretical reason is there for us to even exist?

 

[Fishalt]

This is only half a response (to my previous post), if even.

I'm happy to discuss, but you need to be honest.

I'm not sure how more clear I can be. Answer the question.

 

[Fishalt]

Happy to.. When you tell me what - organise society along the lines of empiricism means, and to not do so - there would be no reason for us to exist whatsoever.

I don't even need to. You can see it happening in real time. Transism, things like MAID in Canada--both are consequences of purely logical, empirical solutions to humanitarian problems.You can extend this problem exponentially until the sanctity of human life, the rights of the individual, and the basic right to existence is completely eroded--until not only do none of these things hold any value, but it makes sense--and is indeed logically ethical that human beings are exterminated entirely.

Science is concerned with how. That is what it is very good at it. What it is very bad at is asking why. Or 'should'?

What is true is not always what is right. Let me explain:

Eugenics works. Oh yes, it does. It is entirely possible to breed human beings based on traits and types, or to gene edit them, to produce desired physical and psychological traits, and to weed out the undesirable. This fact is not immoral. It is amoral. However, whenever eugenics has been implemented, it has resulted in atrocities.

If we transition to a society where information processing, logic and empiricism are all that is valued--or values are assessed according to how highly any given thing, being or phenomenon scores in these categories, then human beings become utterly redundant and regarded as pathogenic. There would be no grounds for our continued existence to be justified at all. Machines will and already do outcompete us in all these capacities by a factor that is entirely insurmountable.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I've read the selfish gene, the god delusion, the greatest show on earth and another that I can't remember the title of. I know you're probably blown away by Richard, but he's a fairly basic writer and I wouldn't describe his work as especially challenging, which to be fair is probably by design. Even the origin of species was written in such a way that the layman could understand it. He drips with arrogance for a pop scientist however. If you want to know what humility in high, high-end science looks like, go watch an Ed Witten lecture. Extreme empiricism, or dustbowl empiricism, cannot and does not accurately describe the human experience and denies a fundamental part of what it is that makes us human. A society based on pure rationality would be a dystopian horror beyond anything humanity has ever experienced for this reason. I used to be like you--a raging atheist. I now agree with Baudrillard and Nietzsche--, that religion provides an extremely important psychological function whether it is embedded in truth or not. I do not believe coherent, moral societies are possible without God. The phrase there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy is a Shakespearean quote. It is from Hamlet. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that at any given time, the knowledge set of human understanding is limited, and cannot account for everything in the universe. It is a truism borne out when looking at the history of science, which is mutable and subject to change over time.

I genuinely never thought an Australian could be so erudite.

 

[Fishalt]

What does any of that have to do with atheism?

An atheist is someone who lacks faith in a deity (something for which there is no evidence), why are you getting your knickers in a twist?

You asked me about empiricism, not Atheism. I answered in that context. You have now changed the context. I will therefore oblige your question:

Atheism is does not cater to the human experience, and it does not cater to whatever psychological need exists in people that religion fills. If it did, we wouldn't have evolved to be religious. Whatever that is, is deep, embedded in us. Not all brands of atheism are predicated on empiricism--indeed, the only benign forms of it are not. Secular humanism is a valid, human-experience-based form of atheism.

 

[Fishalt]

Why? I could imagine an hypothesis in which everything is data and facts.





Not yet

Of course, the material universe and its functional explication relies on data and facts. This isn't the issue of contention. Material understanding of the world is important and science is responsible for the quality of life we all live.

AI is already superior to the human brain. You are in fact already a cyborg. Whenever you use a mobile phone, or a PC, you are extending the capacity of your own innate intellectual ability to make calculations and access and retain information you otherwise would not.

 

[Fishalt]

Fishalt is a good sort, you know.. As long as you don't make him angry

Let us try something more simple:

Right now, wherever you live, there is an old woman somewhere. She's probably a lovely person, but she's poor. Her husband died some or many years ago, because men tend to die before women, and she lives alone. She struggles to get by, and barely has a pot to piss in. She has a television, a bunch of photographs, and is watering a pet plant with a Christian name. Maybe she has kids, who rarely if ever have anything to do with her, and most of the time she experiences loneliness so intensely that she can feel it in the slow-moving hands of the clock on the wall.

She is a devout catholic. Believes in God, and the afterlife, the way you and I believe in dogs and cars. Her faith makes her charitable. It provides her a community through church, and here, she gets to be social and engage with others. It gives her identity. Her belief in heaven gives her something to hope for--indeed to look forward to. It's a reason to not simply lie face-down against the pillow one night. More importantly, it provides her something more important: Psychological solace. A sense of order, direction, and stability--an ontological framework for existence.

Would you really want to take that away from her? For what? For a brief, self-righteous, sanctimonious, ego-driven dopamine rush?

This goes back to what I said to Miles at the beginning of this thread.
The question isn't whether god does or does not exist. The question is whether eroding people's faith is a useful, or productive pastime.

There's a poem I like by an Australian ( Les Murray) I like. Think about it.

The Last Hellos


Don’t die, Dad –
but they die.

This last year he was wandery:
took off a new chainsaw blade
and cobbled a spare from bits.
Perhaps if I lay down
my head’ll come better again.
His left shoulder kept rising
higher in his cardigan.

He could see death in a face.
Family used to call him in
to look at sick ones and say.
At his own time, he was told.

The knob found in his head
was duck-egg size. Never hurt.
Two to six months, Cecil.

I’ll be right, he boomed
to his poor sister on the phone
I’ll do that when I finish dyin.

*

Don’t die, Cecil.
But they do.

Going for last drives
in the bush, odd massive
board-slotted stumps bony white
in whipstick second growth.
I could chop all day.

I could always cash
a cheque, in Sydney or anywhere.
Any of the shops.

Eating, still at the head
of the table, he now missed
food on his knife side.

Sorry, Dad, but like
have you forgiven your enemies?
Your father and all them?
All his lifetime of hurt.

I must have (grin). I don’t
think about that now.

*

People can’t say goodbye
any more. They say last hellos.

Going fast, over Christmas,
he’d still stumble out
of his room, where his photos
hang over the other furniture,
and play host to his mourners.

The courage of his bluster
firm big voice of his confusion.

Two last days in the hospital:
his long forearms were still
red mahogany. His hands
gripped steel frame. I’m dyin.

On the second day:
You’re bustin to talk but
I’m too busy dyin.

*

Grief ended when he died,
the widower like soldiers who
won’t live life their mates missed.

Good boy Cecil! No more Bluey dog.
No more cowtime. No more stories.
We’re still using your imagination,
it was stronger than all ours.

Your grave’s got littler
somehow, in the three months.
More pointy as the clay’s shrivelled,
like a stuck zip in a coat.

Your cricket boots are in
the State museum! Odd letters
still come. Two more’s died since you:
Annie, and Stewart. Old Stewart.

On your day there was a good crowd,
family, and people from away.
But of course a lot had gone
to their own funerals first.

Snobs mind us off religion
nowadays, if they can.
Fuck them. I wish you God.

 

[Wolf]

In fairness atheism is as much of a religion as any other....
In fact devout atheists are far worse than the rest

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

It's a reason to not simply lie face-down against the pillow one night.

How would that work? Its impossible to commit suicide in this manner.

 

[Wolf]

I mean, does Wolf get down on his knees and pray to God beside his bed before going to sleep every night, worship God every Sunday in church.. I actually find that hard to picture

Hardly, but in my experience atheists are far more venomous and filled with hatred than 'God botherer's' as I've heard people with religious beliefs called.
Perhaps atheism isn't so much a religion as a cult in much the same way the trans cult and the LGBTQ++--== cults are.

 

[Fishalt]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSEVCs8o0H8

 

[Wolf]

Okay, so, do you believe in God?

You're not one to bullshit Wolf, yes or no, do you believe in God?

Yes.

Do I go to mass and do all that stuff? No.

Do I go about my day attacking people who don't believe in anything? No.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Hardly, but in my experience atheists are far more venomous and filled with hatred than 'God botherer's' .

To be fair they don't chop folks' heads off for a God like Muzzies do.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Don't get me wrong, those types can be a right pain in the Áras. But I'd rather have a pain in me Áras than no head

 

[Wolf]

An atheist doesn't "not believe in anything", dumbass

That might explain the anger and abuse alright..

 

[Wolf]

Atheists are cool in the gang

The spittle comes from the theists, of which you are a rather poor example, don't even bother your hole worshipping

Thanks for proving my point.
Goodnight.

 

[Wolf]

Self hatred is such a sad thing.
One must pity 'atheists' and the anger they hold towards themselves and others.
If one doesn't confirm with their views one gets attacked and vilified.
It's actually very similar, if not the exact same as the CoVidian Cult.
Self awareness isn't one of their strong points.
Sad but true.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

An atheist doesn't "not believe in anything", dumbass

Hmm double negative.

Cancelling each other out that would read 'An atheist does believe in anything.'

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Okay: "An atheist does 'believe in anything' "

 

[Professor]

There is good god, that is to say in 'God-all-of-us' we pray to the 'all mighty' for in that which is perfectly good, delightful, approving and rewarding to the devoted of the good - God, there is!
It's something many philosophies appreciate - It exists!

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

My reading of that Sparky is that he's an old man who's just not interested in those topics and wasn't bothered answering them.

After all why would an 82 year old give a phukk, he's going to die soon anyway.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

My take on the Piers Morgan and Dawkins interview.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I should have used the phrase "take on that".

My mistake Sir

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Okay, what are "those topics" (that he's not interested in because he's old) as a matter of curiosity?

Shamima Begum

 

[Fishalt]

There is no reason for this thread to exist.

Change my mind.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Shamima Begum

Why do you see her as a big deal?

 

[clarke-connolly]

I read Dawkins and respect him. It all boil down to quantum mechanics and we will never unlock its secrets.

More than likely = = We are in a Simulation.

 

[scolairebocht]

When you say: "Its impossible to reason them out of their mindset", I think the real point is that its impossible if you don't know what their mind set is.

A lot of these arguments are circular that way, when you argue back against a point that Dawkins said, for example, the reply is often "I never said I believed that, you are putting words in my mouth" etc etc.

So for atheists out there, if you really want a genuine debate, you would have to start with a reasonably long and detailed account of what it is you actually believe about this, so people can then argue about it. So for example you probably all know the proofs of God's existence, so what is the flaw in those arguments in your opinion? And what was it, genuinely, that caused you to lose your faith if you originally had it?

On the 'proofs' maybe you could start with the Bible, obviously its an account of God and His sayings and doings so what is your take on it exactly, if you think its a work of fiction then when do you think it was written and by and for whom?

 

[clarke-connolly]

I don't think so, if you leave dirty dishes at night they will still be there in the morning.

If they were clean that would be a glitch in the simulation.

Only the present micro micro micro second exists = = The past is gone = = The future does Not yet exist ( certainly for us )

We are in a simulation producing Data for = = God / A Computer God / An Alien Kids Toy / that kind of thing.

Be Happy, Be Good = = Be Happy Good Simulators.

 

[scolairebocht]

Well if you mean what are my views on it, my views are the same as in the traditional Catholic Church, so in that sense my opinions on this are an open book?