Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: StExo on October 06, 2012, 09:57 pm
-
<removed>
-
Faith is intellectual assent to an unproven proposition. ANY unproven proposition. It is not belief in a positively disproven proposition - that would be superstition. Everyone takes a position of faith on some things, sometimes. Many people who claim to be perfectly rational are even superstitious about some things. So it seems to me that the question ought to be when a position of faith is reasonable and when it is not. A theist would say that it is reasonable to have faith in the idea of the supernatural - that is, in something not bound to the same physical laws as the material Universe. A non-theist could be either a naturalist and say that's unreasonable (as in the Dawkins/Molyneux branch of atheism), or go so far with the theists as to postulate the logical availability of such metaphysical concepts as objective morality, and meaningful choice and purpose.
I don't really care what other people believe, so long as they don't go telling me what I am and am not "allowed" to believe according to their (usually naturalistic) presuppositions.
-
<removed>
-
I define Freethinking as a kind of religious view, one like atheism, but I'm sure it can be interpreted totally different.
Doesn't mater, I think the proves of god can be found every day, because everyone of us is the creator of this world (at least the manipulator), as quantuum physics could possibly prove. I've wondered that often, why it makes a difference, doing an experiment with 5 physicians or with 5 people without expectation on the result, my conclusion is that we can influence the outside world with our inside. Quite older discussion with quantum physics and dalai lama can be viewed for free interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjd26JSaq64 . Perhaps god is the ~95% of our brain we mostly don't have access to. Did you know that our brain reacts before even given the information. Imo 'god' is something which depends on interpretation, is it/he/she just a higher force we can't stand against like karma/faith/subconscious or something even more/less metaphoric?
I think every one is right, because he's interpreting it with his logical or emotional correct ways.
-
You may believe or not believe in what ever you want but you cant escape fate, the end is getting near. :)
There is a creator, believe it or not!
-
Whether we started from the Big Bang, or perhaps the Big Bounce, or sprang from the hole-y Multiverse, or if as Ray Kurzweil suggesting the Singularity is Near to becoming conscious with the rest of the visible Universe with communications via the variable speed of light (and possibly other sub-atomic particles), the fact remains that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are expanding our Universe exponentially faster.
What Dark Matter and Dark Energy? It's God and the CIA spying on you from other dimensions as you watch child beastiality porn on extreme drugs while deviously plotting legendarily revolting murders of kittens.
God who? Creator God? Moral God? Jealous God? Dogma God of rituals? OMG! Which God are we talking about?
I believe life is what you mean it to be. I have faith that I'll be dead soon enough.
Thanks for the Freethinking.
~ RutGroove
If only I had the energy.
-
I would like to contribute to this thread with a quote from "Leviathan" by Hobbes
"This perpetual fear, always accompanying mankind in the ignorance of causes, as it were in the dark, must needs have for object something. And therefore when there is nothing to be seen, there is nothing to accuse either of their good or evil fortune but some power or agent invisible: in which sense perhaps it was that some of the old poets said that the gods were at first created by human fear: which, spoken of the gods (that is to say, of the many gods of the Gentiles), is very true. But the acknowledging of one God eternal, infinite, and omnipotent may more easily be derived from the desire men have to know the causes of natural bodies, and their several virtues and operations, than from the fear of what was to befall them in time to come. For he that, from any effect he seeth come to pass, should reason to the next and immediate cause thereof, and from thence to the cause of that cause, and plunge himself profoundly in the pursuit of causes, shall at last come to this, that there must be (as even the heathen philosophers confessed) one First Mover; that is, a first and an eternal cause of all things; which is that which men mean by the name of God"
Hobbes provides us with a disclaimer to the effect of: "People tend to assign the name God to the world only in personification of their fears." This let's us know that he is on our level in being skeptical towards the existence of a proverbial God. He then redefines God in terms of cause and effect and the scientific method, where the name God simply represents the first cause to which every subsequent effect owes it's existence. Any attempt to reason beyond this point would be speculation and these speculations, at least in my opinion, are not worth arguing over.
"Whatsoever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude; nor conceive infinite swiftness, infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power. When we say anything is infinite, we signify only that we are not able to conceive the ends and bounds of the thing named, having no conception of the thing, but of our own inability. And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us conceive Him (for He is incomprehensible, and His greatness and power are unconceivable), but that we may honour Him."
God is the word we use to describe our inability to comprehend the incomprehensible. I have a problem with someone who uses the word God to describe anything outside of this narrow definition because that would be to speculate. Now when people say that they don't believe in God they are rarely referring to this kind of "God", but I believe it is important to define your terms because God has many definitions, some being mutually exclusive. Although you may not believe in the God of Isaac and Jacob, you ought to at least believe in an initial cause and the infinite liberty contained within it. That is unless modern science can provide new information regarding the conditions of early time and space that contradicts the fundamental aspects of our scientific method.
When you say you don't believe in God, which one are you referring to?
Great forum, and props goes to DPR for starting a book club! This forum is full of knowledge whether it be technical, economic, or even philosophical in nature, and I must admit that I have learned a fuck ton of shit about a fuck ton of shit. Long live the Silk Road!
-
<removed>
-
I always wondered why people mainly just believe in one god.
Things are so screwed up here that creation had to have been the work of at least two individuals. Because no one individual god could screw things up this badly!
Jokes aside, agnostic atheism is the default position for every man, woman, monkey, dog and rock.
The "a-" in atheism simply means "without". Without theism.
A rock is without theism. A new born baby is without theism. And I am without theism.
However, one can be a reasoned atheist as opposed to a default atheist. I like to think I am a "reasoned agnostic atheist". Whilst I cannot be absolutely certain there are no gods, I can be pretty comfortable saying there probably aren't any.
As for this "first causer" argument, if the god created everything, who or what created the god. And why does everyone think it has to be a "who" instead of a "what"?
IF there is some sort of intelligent designer, it is quite obvious it has nothing to do with human affairs. IF there is a god, it is most definitely NOT a personal god.
But I like to think something cool will happen when we die. So I hope and pray for better days even though its all, most likely, in vain.
-
I'll admit I haven't really read this thread yet, but I am bookmarking it to return later.
around here most people who align themselves with atheism are people who "don't believe in god"
not believing in something is easy, I personally take it one step further and say that I BELIEVE that there is no god. I don't know if that makes a difference to most people, but I see a huge difference.
that's all for now, but I will be back :)
-
<removed>
-
Reminds me a lot to Robert Anton Wilsons' texts :)
-
Things are so screwed up here that creation had to have been the work of at least two individuals. Because no one individual god could screw things up this badly!
Blame the duocracy of Republicons & Democraps? Two individual parties. If corporations are people, are individual parties Gods? But the individual Republicons are not indivisible - made up of both teabaggers and right wingnuts. Individual herds of invisible individuals divisible by divisiveness.
As for this "first causer" argument, if the god created everything, who or what created the god. And why does everyone think it has to be a "who" instead of a "what"?
IF there is some sort of intelligent designer, it is quite obvious it has nothing to do with human affairs. IF there is a god, it is most definitely NOT a personal god.
Define the "intelligence" in intelligent designer. Or artificial intelligence. There are too many ways.
February 14–16, 2011 IBM's Watson monster computer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer) ) beat both the Brad Rutter, the biggest all-time money winner on Jeopardy!, and Ken Jennings, the record holder for the longest championship streak (74 wins). It has facts, but not social intelligence, let alone being street wise. But it won nonetheless and has an "intelligence" of sorts.
The Universe is unfolding and reorganizing it's information in undulating waves of exponential growth. We are rapidly approaching the 5th Epoch:
- Epoch 1 - Physics and Chemistry - information in atomic structures
- Epoch 2 - Biology - information in DNA
- Epoch 3 - Brains - information in neural patterns
- Epoch 4 - Technology - information in hardware and software designs, eventually mastering the methods of biology (including human intelligence)
- Epoch 5 - Merger of Technology and Human Intelligence (Singularity) - the methods of biology (including human intelligence) are integrated into the (exponentially expanding) human technology base, vastly expanded intelligence (predominantly non-biological) spreads through the Universe
- Epoch 6 - The Universe Wakes Up - patterns of matter and energy in the Universe become saturated with intelligent processes and knowledge
For very fascinating and overly optimistic but a long, dry read, check out futurist Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity Is Near" when humans transcend biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near
Reading this book was one of the closest things to a "legitimate" religious experience I've had since it explained a lot to me.
My only "non-legitimate" religious experiences have been on drugs. (DMT, acid, etc.) The most embarrassing was when I'd been doing a lot of K on the job for several weeks where a white cat would frequently visit. I started wondering if the white cat was an angel because everything was going my way. I'd find things I was looking for and think the Universe put them there for me instead of "It's always the last place you look." This sense of destiny was encouraging. I thought about my friends and co-workers with biblical names, Paul, Mark, John, Peter, etc and thought because I wanted to do good, be sustainable, and preach the good Green word that I might actually be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ*. I was so excited I left work to tell my girlfriend. She was not amused. In fact she got very worried and made sure that I wasn't going to tell anyone else, and cut the fuck back on the K.
* Even though I knew very well that "Jesus Christ" is a constructed consolidated myth. Don't believe me? Have faith - see these documentaries (amongst others):
- The God Who Wasn't There (2005) - IMDb rating 6.9 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455507/
- Zeitgeist (2007) - IMDb rating 8.3 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1166827/
Despite being delusional I'd rather still be like that than rational and depressed as I am now. Ignorance is no excuse, but ignorance is bliss.
But I like to think something cool will happen when we die. So I hope and pray for better days even though its all, most likely, in vain.
I'd like to be reincarnated as someone with optimism and hope - but - I believe that when I die, that's it - no more suffering. As Buddha said, life is suffering succotash.
not believing in something is easy, I personally take it one step further and say that I BELIEVE that there is no god.
I believe believing is moot. I believe that I think therefore I am. I believe that the Earth is flat and the solar system goes around, despite my direct experiences - from a jet the Earth still looks flat and that I couldn't do the math of our Moon's orbit if my life depended on it.
Our electro-magnetic chemical brain processes developed a balancing act for survival (not the of fittest but of the adaptable). Those who are too pessimistic like myself will give up and die. Those who are too optimistic (risk takers) will also die. Studies prove that people forget negative news quicker and retain rewarding information better. People hope their lives will improve or they wouldn't bother. Living for hope is a natural tool for survival that while obfuscating truths, perpetuates the will to live. Santa is just practice brainwashing for the mad masses' master, God. Generally people want to feel secure, looked after, and hopeful for rewards for moral conduct appropriate within the social herd's restrictive code. Deviants will be dealt with accordingly, or capitalize on the weakness of others. Thus we've developed group delusions and unreasonable explanations for luck within our cultural confines reaching major consensus narratives or "truths" of what is reality. What is real, normal, acceptable, legal?
Now you know.
These things in science I believe.
Both yourself and SocialEngineer are in the same boat as me. You can't disprove there is a god, of course not, you can't disprove anything with a high degree of certainty, but to the best of your knowledge and understanding it is highly improbable of such an existence so you are confident to believe in the lack of a god or power above that of nature.
Can't prove/disprove God? I call bullshit.
There is no greater proof than the scientific method.
I can't prove that I'm typing this and not some brain in a jar hooked up to a simulator, or some self-aware process in the Matrix, or...
I can't prove that you don't eat babies, but that doesn't make it less true.
God is dead already!
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead
We are the Slinky's of the Earth - processes started at the top of the stairs - where we end up, no God cares...
~ RutGroove
God dang, my ampallang!
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampallang )
-
As for this "first causer" argument, if the god created everything, who or what created the god.
A supernatural being need not be subject to the same laws of origin as the material Universe.
And why does everyone think it has to be a "who" instead of a "what"?
Because "who" answers the question of "why" more satisfactorily than "what". We are beings of conscious purpose, so why would you wonder that people believe that the source of our existence was a being of conscious purpose? If we came from unconscious material by accident, then from where did our own conscious purpose come?
-
Because "who" answers the question of "why" more satisfactorily than "what". We are beings of conscious purpose, so why would you wonder that people believe that the source of our existence was a being of conscious purpose? If we came from unconscious material by accident, then from where did our own conscious purpose come?
As I said:
I believe believing is moot. I believe that I think therefore I am.
-
just a few questions:
why is it important to live a good life?
when you allude to a "higher sense of being" what are you referring to exactly?
what fault do you see in a deterministic approach? is it simply that you dont like it?
Finally, why do you believe there is no god?
would you accept that athiests take the same leap of faith that a theist does? rather, their leap of faith lies in their acceptance of "cause and effect"; rational thought; logic and generally the scientific approach.
how would you differentiate between the two?
-
<removed>
-
I believe believing is moot. I believe that I think therefore I am.
That's fine for you, then, but it doesn't put "why" off limits to other people. So don't act as if it does.
-
<removed>
-
why is it important to live a good life?
Good how? Morally good - by whose standards? Good times - screw everything? Feel good - not in a wheelchair, prison, or have mental health issues?
Finally, why do you believe there is no god?
Because it's a brainwashing mythical fiction conceived to explain the unexplainable rather than admit ignorance of the unknown, to keep society "balanced" and "moral" with rules of conduct, and to subjugate citizens to hierarchical dominance and control. Do I have to prove that you didn't eat 100 babies this morning to know it's a fact? If you think that is a stupid question, then why don't you think the God question isn't stupid?
would you accept that athiests take the same leap of faith that a theist does? rather, their leap of faith lies in their acceptance of "cause and effect"; rational thought; logic and generally the scientific approach.
Absolutely not! Atheism is not a religion! There is no faith. It is the absence of faith. It's not like +1 or -1, it's 0. Bill Maher has some terrific things to say about it. YouTube it.
"Why is it important to live a good life?" - It isn't important to everyone, it's important to me, that is my perception. To lead a good life will have me remembered if only for a short while after I am gone and I will be remembered for the right reasons. If you needed a justification to carry out an act of kindness, I believe you to be very cold hearted indeed and certainly not within your own nature.
Perhaps it's my imbalance and loss of my love with nothing to live for except a gun in my mouth, but I don't give a shit about nothing, including how people remember me. When I rarely go out, I'm still courteous and I still recycle by habit. It's no trouble and easier that way. But I don't care about a "good" life when good/bad/morality is all so grey. I'm hoping my order of ketamine will fix that soon.
"When you allude to a 'higher sense of being' what are you referring to exactly?" - Life is our perception in my beliefs as I've already pointed out. We can exist here as a mere physical object meeting the need to survive and reproduce and that is it. I however, would prefer to live a life of challenge, discovery, thrills, emotions and achievement - that would be my higher sense of being, to do something I am not forced to do nor need to do, it adds more elements to existence. Humans are one of the few species who actively do this.
I used to believe that. But I've lost my sense of meaning. (I feel like a cold killer but I haven't killed anyone yet, except I'm in constant anguish about my past, the state of the world, etc. Generally fucked up.)
at the moment there is no logical reason to believe in a god given the evidence we have today (in my opinion of course).
Grow some balls and whip out your conviction. There is no logical reason PERIOD. ("Logical" denotes that if by some scientific method or evidence arises, then any rational person would modify their view. (The Vatican is forced by reason to update their nonsense over the ages.) Humble grovelling is to easier to dismiss so I don't need to state that this is all just "in my opinion".)
"would you accept that athiests take the same leap of faith that a theist does? rather, their leap of faith lies in their acceptance of "cause and effect"; rational thought; logic and generally the scientific approach." - This is kind of the reason why I don't want to readily associate as an atheist. We must stress however, atheist is simply a-theism, a lack of theistic beliefs and does not automatically subscribe them to the qualities or beliefs you highlighted. However, as most do subscribe to that belief schema, I would say it is only a leap of faith for those who don't investigate it themselves and come to a conclusion based on their own understanding after thorough research and thought, anyone who proclaims to be atheist without being able to explain why is no different to ignorant religious groups either (I am not saying religious groups are ignorant in their design, but a lot of their members in particular groups seem to be).
Well told but I'm not sold. "God" is a socially transmitted disease. A child raised by wolves may grow up to have a sense of wonder about countless mysteries of existence, but I doubt that Tarzan ever even conceived of a God before he was re-assimilated. I haven't read the book, but I bet Tarzan was an atheist.
I believe believing is moot. I believe that I think therefore I am.
That's fine for you, then, but it doesn't put "why" off limits to other people. So don't act as if it does.
Agree on this. I would encourage others to share my views, but only when they understand the views through reasoned and informed debate, discussion and/or thought. Debating serves 2 purposes for me; to enlighten me to something I do not know or have not shared that perspective of, or to reinforce my current beliefs.
I wasn't making "why" off limits. I'm just sayin that perceiving is believing. I think therefore I am = I perceive and I believe I exist. Within perception comes common misconceptions in religious faiths, scientific laws and theories and fuzzy logics. People think weird shit. Including me.
So I think we can all agree that we all perceive and believe stuff - all susceptible to error. I'd like to distinguish this perception+belief from the faith+belief and put to rest that we all perceive+believe. I perceive+believe in things that exist and try to be rational and logical. The scientific method is a perceive+believe process. Why add faith+belief? I just don't understand why anyone would want to add fairytale Santa Clause delusional brainwashing mythology to their already confusing life unless they find some sort of comfort in it. The cosmos is infinitely wondrous enough to ponder without the confusing BS.
Also, I believe you mistakenly perceive my firm stance (and possibly aggressive sarcasm) as a call to end discussion. Far from it. I'm here to learn new perspectives too. But I'm gonna call BS where it's called for, and I hope you'll call me on mine.
Also, I want to immediately
Right.
"Moot" means debatable.
We're debating.
See? This is fun.
Everyone having fun? :P
FYI:
moot = "1) Subject to discussion (originally at a moot); arguable, debatable, unsolved or impossible to solve. 2) Having no practical impact or relevance. 3) Being an exercise of thought; academic." ~ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot
Mootness = "In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic. This is different from the ordinary British meaning of "moot", which means "debatable". The shift in usage was first observed in the United States. The U.S. development of this word stems from the practice of moot courts, in which hypothetical or fictional cases were argued as a part of legal education. These purely academic issues led the U.S. courts to describe cases where developing circumstances made any judgment ineffective as "moot"." ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness
(What about Canadian courts? Probly UK based.)
Moot court = "A moot court is an extracurricular activity at many law schools in which participants take part in simulated court proceedings, which usually involves drafting briefs (or memorials) and participating in oral argument. The term derives from Anglo-Saxon times, when a moot (gmot or emot) was a gathering of prominent men in a locality to discuss matters of local importance. The modern activity differs from a mock trial, as moot court usually refers to a simulated appellate court or arbitral case, while a mock trial usually refers to a simulated jury trial or bench trial. Moot court does not involve actual testimony by witnesses or the presentation of evidence, but is focused solely on the application of the law to a common set of evidentiary assumptions to which the competitors must be introduced. In most countries, the phrase "a moot court" may be shortened to simply "a moot" and the activity may be called "mooting"." ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_court
~ RutGroove = RantGrove