Support NeoGAF

[TGO]

According to Supernatural.... Yes

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Unlike Energy, Eternalism is a ontological concept with no scientific basis.

Yet supposedly most philosophers seem to suggest relativity implies eternalism, if I read the wiki correctly. Also it says a recent researcher says it might also solve the blackhole information paradox.

Recently, Hrvoje Nikolić has argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox -wiki eternalism

If relativity truly implies eternalism, then evidence for relativity can be taken as evidence for eternalism.

 

[Bernkastel]

Yet supposedly most philosophers seem to suggest relativity implies eternalism, if I read the wiki correctly. Also it says a recent researcher says it might also solve the blackhole information paradox.

Recently, Hrvoje Nikolić has argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox -wiki eternalism

If relativity truly implies eternalism, then evidence for relativity can be taken as evidence for eternalism.

While, Wikipedia does quote Hrvoje Nikolić, it cites a paper that has nothing to do with Eternalism.

Resolving the black-hole information paradox by treating time on an equal footing with space

Pure states in quantum field theory can be represented by many-fingered block-time wave functions, which treat time on an equal footing with space and…

www.sciencedirect.com

When talking about block time he cites another paper by G.F.R. Ellis

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33845215032&origin=inward&txGid=c5b1b81b27ba51dcf1f67e481420211e

The Block Universe idea, representing spacetime as a fixed whole, suggests the flow of time is an illusion: the entire universe just is, with no special meaning attached to the present time. This paper points out that this view, in essence represented by usual space time diagrams, is based on time- reversible microphysical laws, which fail to capture essential features of the time-irreversible macro-physical behaviour and the development of emergent complex systems, including life, which exist in the real universe. When these are taken into account, the unchanging block universe view of spacetime is best replaced by an evolving block universe which extends as time evolves, with the potential of the future continually becoming the certainty of the past; spacetime itself evolves, as do the entities within it. However, this time evolution is not related to any preferred surfaces in spacetime; rather it is associated with the evolution of proper time along families of world lines.

Stop hijacking concepts for your philosophical ideologies.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Stop hijacking concepts for your philosophical ideologies.

The block time universe, at least the static non-evolving one is practically identical with the eternalist view

According to our best theories of physics, the universe is a fixed block where time only appears to pass. Yet a number of physicists hope to replace this "block universe" with a physical theory of time...

Einstein wrote of his friend's passing. "That signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/

The main problem is that relativity supposedly destroys absolute simultaneity, or the present, an agreed upon moment called the present.

Absolute simultaneity refers to the concurrence of events in time at different locations in space in a manner agreed upon in all frames of reference. The theory of relativity does not have a concept of absolute time because there is a relativity of simultaneity. An event that is simultaneous with another event in one frame of reference may be in the past or future of that event in a different frame of reference,[6]:59 which negates absolute simultaneity.

The static interpretation of time is a view of time which arose in the early years of the 20th century from Einstein's special relativity and Hermann Minkowski's extension of special relativity in which time and space were famously united in physicists' thinking as spacetime.

Essentially the universe is regarded as akin to a reel of film – which is a wholly static physical object – but which when played through a movie projector conjures a world of movement, color, light and change. In the static view our whole universe – our past, present, and future are fixed parts of that reel of film, and the projector is our consciousness. But the 'happenings' of our consciousness have no objective significance – the objective universe does not happen, it simply exists in its entirety, albeit perceived from within as a world of changes.-wiki

The static view is the simpler in that all that is held to exist is the physical ordering of the universe. All that there is at every time simply exists. The unfolding view requires an additional quality to the universe – that besides the physical ordering there is some quality of coming into and out of existence.

One can argue that the onus is therefore upon those who propose it, that the world unfolds, and that this additional quality they hold to (absent from special relativity) is indeed a physical feature of the world.-wiki

The static view is however commonly rejected for psychological, not scientific reasons, because it leads to a fatalistic or "fixed" conclusion about human existence – our 'past', 'present', and 'future' being what they are – there is no contingency in the world and no possibility of 'altering' or creating the future through some act of will – the future exists. It is simply that our consciousness has not yet reached it. -wiki

Perhaps it is not the case, but it seems even Einstein held up to the notion of a static block time universe. But it is true that it is debatable, and there are physicists critics of the idea.

 

[Bernkastel]

The block time universe, at least the static non-evolving one is practically identical with the eternalist view



The main problem is that relativity supposedly destroys absolute simultaneity, or the present, an agreed upon moment called the present.






Perhaps it is not the case, but it seems even Einstein held up to the notion of a static block time universe. But it is true that it is debatable, and there are physicists critics of the idea.

And the scientists you often quote like Hrvoje Nikolić and G.F.R. Ellis do not care about your philosophy. They refer to block time in a purely scientific sense without any ontological association.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

And the scientists you often quote like Hrvoje Nikolić and G.F.R. Ellis do not care about your philosophy. They refer to block time in a purely scientific sense without any ontological association.

yet it seems many do not favor a growing block time model, a static block time model is essentially the eternalist position.

In the article it clearly states some physicists do not like the static model were past and future are identical, that they prefer a model were there is becoming or change in the block time model.

 

[Bernkastel]

yet it seems many do not favor a growing block time model, a static block time model is essentially the eternalist position.

In the article it clearly states some physicists do not like the static model were past and future are identical, that they prefer a model were there is becoming or change in the block time model.

Scientist who talk about block time model are not associating it with Eternalism, they are simply sticking with the definition giving by G.F.R. Ellis .

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Scientist who talk about block time model are not associating it with Eternalism, they are simply sticking with the definition giving by G.F.R. Ellis .

The article was about scientists who argue against an evolving block time universe but view it instead as static and existing in whole at once.

He argues against a common view of a static changeless universe.

The Block Universe idea, representing spacetime as a fixed whole, suggests the flow of time is an illusion: the entire universe just is, with no special meaning attached to the present time. This paper points out that this view, in essence represented by usual space time diagrams, is based on time- reversible microphysical laws, which fail to capture essential features of the time-irreversible macro-physical behaviour and the development of emergent complex systems, including life, which exist in the real universe. When these are taken into account, the unchanging block universe view of spacetime is best replaced by an evolving block universe which extends as time evolves, with the potential of the future continually becoming the certainty of the past; spacetime itself evolves, as do the entities within it. However, this time evolution is not related to any preferred surfaces in spacetime; rather it is associated with the evolution of proper time along families of world lines. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-006-0332-z

edit:

The more common view seems to be the static block universe

According to the block universe theory, the universe is a giant block of all the things that ever happen at any time and at any place. On this view, the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...eory-time-past-present-future-travel/10178386

edit 2:
In the following paper we see clearly that at least some scientists take the view of timeless, or eternal, static block as being supported by the theory of relativity.

This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universeview, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensionalworld, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. Second,to argue that special relativity alone can resolve the debate on whetherthe world is three-dimensional or four-dimensional. The argument ad-vanced in the paper is that if the world were three-dimensional thekinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly theexperiments confirming them would be impossible. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9470/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

 

[Tesseract]

it's not essentially anything, has absolutely nothing to do with the machinations of the universe

our los of the universe is inadequate, wait for webb if you wanna start debating many worlds and the like

 

[Big-G]

You're misdirecting. This conversation wasn't about which religion to believe in. This thread asks the question "is God a villain"? I'm answering that if you're an atheist and you're right, that means there is no morality. No ultimate responsibility. No free will being exerted. Just one definite direction for you until the end.

You're just having a hard time accepting that and complaining about God and all the different religions. You want to lose the yoke of responsibility and service to good, yet keep your freedom of choice. It's impossible.

Nice to see you dodge just about every question I asked you. You can PM me your answers if you feel it is off topic. But here is the REAL kicker for you my friend. If there is no morality because I'm a atheist then how do you possibly explain that I am dedicating my entire life to therapy and keeping people from killing themselves? I am dedicating my life to helping people. Wouldn't you agree that is a noble and moral act? Also you can't ever possibly prove free will so your point is moot.

 

[Big-G]

Your current view of morality comes from religion. Even atheistic morality stems from religion. Take away all religious tradition and law and reset humanity to a bestial state, and you won't like what you end up with.



Could you elaborate?



If God created all 6, and 5 of those aren't doing what is asked of them, and 1 is...why not start over with the 1?



Yeah, ok. I'm sure you'd totally have that view if you were born a boy into the Sambia tribe and had to get gangbanged by your elder males in the village to become a man. Are we gonna pretend that native rituals and practices are always good? Please.



What is your GF's religious background?

Bullshit. Why? Because I think god is supremely evil for sending people to hell. My morality is based on how my parents raised me and my own internal feelings. How do you explain someone being a good person who has never even read the Bible? Also btw the Old Testament said slavery was stoning to death was OK yep that's a very moral god.

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Ornlu]

Bullshit. Why? Because I think god is supremely evil for sending people to hell. My morality is based on how my parents raised me and my own internal feelings. How do you explain someone being a good person who has never even read the Bible? Also btw the Old Testament said slavery was stoning to death was OK yep that's a very moral god.

Unless your parents dropped down from the trees and evolved from apes moments before you were conceived, then yes, their morality that was passed on to you is directly from religion.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Unless your parents dropped down from the trees and evolved from apes moments before you were conceived, then yes, their morality that was passed on to you is directly from religion.

where do you think religion got morality from? Ancient Human culture and innate moral drives.

 

[Ornlu]

where do you think religion got morality from? Ancient Human culture and innate moral drives.

That's an interesting thought experiment, definitely worth exploring; I can't say that I buy it, though, for a couple of reasons:

1. What ancient human culture(s)? I'm not aware of any ancient people who didn't have a religion. Is there some atheistic tribe somewhere that you are referring to?

2. What innate moral drives? Are you of the belief that humans, at the base animal level possess an innate morality above other animals? If all civilization, culture, etc. was stripped away, you believe that humans are innately born as moral creatures? What leads you to that belief? I haven't seen any evidence pointing to that.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

That's an interesting thought experiment, definitely worth exploring; I can't say that I buy it, though, for a couple of reasons:

1. What ancient human culture(s)? I'm not aware of any ancient people who didn't have a religion. Is there some atheistic tribe somewhere that you are referring to?

2. What innate moral drives? Are you of the belief that humans, at the base animal level possess an innate morality above other animals? If all civilization, culture, etc. was stripped away, you believe that humans are innately born as moral creatures? What leads you to that belief? I haven't seen any evidence pointing to that.

The first ancient religions are essentially lost, but humans came from animals and social animals have innate things they find right and wrong(. For example fairness in distribution of rewards,iirc.). More modern religions like judaism and christianity inherit their morality from that of the initial creators of the stories

And as I said earlier...

Even babies have innate morality, what you have written in religious texts is part of the moral repertoire evolution gave us.

Babies can see an interaction between puppets and innately know who is good and who is bad, and like more the good guys and dislike the bad guys.

 

[Chaplain]

How do you explain someone being a good person who has never even read the Bible?

Good question. You are made in the Imago Dei (i.e., the Image of God). This means that you are a free moral agent with intrinsic value and worth. Your value and worth are transcendent: i.e., meaning, culture and society do not get to decide or determine your value and worth.

"According to the Bible, human beings are special: every man and woman is made in the image of God and therefore has infinite value. The importance of this teaching cannot be over-emphasized, since it lies behind and energizes the values that most of us hold to be inviolable. In particular, our Western concepts of the value of each individual human life, of human rights, and of gender equality. The eminent European lawyer Dr Ernst-Wolfgang Bockenforde was underlining this fact, when he made the following observation that has received a great deal of discussion: 'The secular state lives from normative assumptions that it cannot itself guarantee." It is for this reason that atheist intellectual Jurgen Habermas calls for secular society not to cut itself off from important resources by failing to retain a sense of the power of articulation of religious language: "Philosophy has reasons to remain open to learn from religious tradition." Habermas makes it clear that the biblical idea of human beings as created in the image of God belongs to the genealogy of human rights. History confirms this view. In his detailed discussion, historian Arnold Angenendt points out, for instance, that the early church fathers condemned slavery on the basis that no one made in the image of God should be bought with money. In the Middle Ages, Burchard von Worms said that anyone who killed a Jew or heathen person had blotted out both an image of God and the hope of future salvation. In the seventeenth century, John Milton said that "all men are free born because they are in the image of God"." (Oxford professor John Lennox)

Edit: added text.

 

[Ornlu]

The first ancient religions are essentially lost, but humans came from animals and social animals have innate things they find right and wrong(. For example fairness in distribution of rewards,iirc.). More modern religions like judaism and christianity inherit their morality from that of the initial creators of the stories

And as I said earlier...

Even babies have innate morality, what you have written in religious texts is part of the moral repertoire evolution gave us.

Babies can see an interaction between puppets and innately know who is good and who is bad, and like more the good guys and dislike the bad guys.

It sounds like you are arguing that humans are naturally social animals, which is true. However, I don't think that the behaviors of humans or other social animals points toward an innate code of morals.

By your logic presented above, all of the cultural or religious practices and rituals of every person on the planet for all time should be considered 'moral', as they would be descended from their religions or cultures, which are then descended from the morality that evolution gave to us. The fact that there are currently, and have always been sets of morality that are directly in opposition with each other leads me to believe that your argument is flawed.

 

[Handel]

If the Christian god exists, it is most definitely the villain, at the least it is a very cruel god. His Dark Materials has a great take on this, god is actually the villain in that series. Lucifer gave us consciousness, and freed us from the slavery mindset of God.

It doesn't exist though.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

It sounds like you are arguing that humans are naturally social animals, which is true. However, I don't think that the behaviors of humans or other social animals points toward an innate code of morals.

By your logic presented above, all of the cultural or religious practices and rituals of every person on the planet for all time should be considered 'moral', as they would be descended from their religions or cultures, which are then descended from the morality that evolution gave to us. The fact that there are currently, and have always been sets of morality that are directly in opposition with each other leads me to believe that your argument is flawed.

There is a root morality, fairness in distribution, viewing helping someone in need as better than harming, altruism, etc. Upon that cultures can mold and add their own twists to morality. Note that the moral codes of different cultures need not be objectively moral, slavery, animal sacrifices, human sacrifices, etc. There might not be objective morality.

But that there exists some basic moral codes upon which others build upon is basically proven.


The full video

 

[#Phonepunk#]

most atheists i feel are lying to themselves. whenever they complain about God being a villain, and they point to evil, they are only proving that deep down, they really do believe in a universal good/evil, they just cannot admit it, and have to project.

an honest pure materialist atheist would see good and evil as just morally relative, thus not concern for any such angst. there would be no need to curse God because you don't think he exists. but you hear over and over how cruel God is, which implies some morality that he does not live up to. in order to not believe in a God you have to imagine what you are not believing in in the first place. if you were a true materialist none of this would matter. yet so much angst over what God should or shouldn't do. so much whining about evil in the world from people who say they don't believe in objective evil.

ironically the atheists complaining the loudest about God seem to be super attached to the idea of good and evil, despite claiming they don't believe in either.

finally i would argue that true materialists who think the universe is infinite and random must make the allowance that under such conditions it is 100% possible that the most literal evanglical reading of the Bible could be literally true. after all, if the universe is random, it would be possible that you would end up in that particular cosmology, given an infinity of time and dice rolls. otherwise, it isn't really random, and you are just projecting your personal bias on it. yet these kind of atheists seem insistent that God does not exist in any universe, entirely deflating their entire "random combination of matter" premise.

 

[Ornlu]

There is a root morality, fairness in distribution, viewing helping someone in need as better than harming, altruism, etc. Upon that cultures can mold and add their own twists to morality. Note that the moral codes of different cultures need not be objectively moral, slavery, animal sacrifices, human sacrifices, etc. There might not be objective morality.

But that there exists some basic moral codes upon which others build upon is basically proven.


The full video

I'm aware of the testing with babies and primates; fascinating stuff, to be honest. I don't see how that reflects upon morality; rather it shows the benefits different groups of social animals have found in nature. Dolphins and whales have similar behaviors. Chimps (and humans, per my argument) are the counterpoint to this, as their behavior is incredibly violent and destructive.

Herd animals usually exhibit the opposite behaviors, allowing (or encouraging) one member of the herd to be killed in order for the rest of the herd to survive. This is true even in situations where the herd could easily turn upon their predators as a group and ensure that none of the herd are killed. That behavior would be considered immoral, to humans. Yet, it is their nature.

Per the bolded: Doesn't the idea of moral relativism undercut your argument of innate human morality? If there is no objective morality, how can you say that innate human behavior is moral?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Per the bolded: Doesn't the idea of moral relativism undercut your argument of innate human morality? If there is no objective morality, how can you say that innate human behavior is moral?

It's a type of morality. But true if there is no objective morality then there is no real morality. But we can still talk about morality in the sense of how human common sense describes the concept. Just like free will, it doesn't seem to exist but we can talk about it in regards the common sense definition of the concept.

The dictionary says

morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Clearly animals have a sense of what's right and wrong, what's good behavior and what's bad behavior. It might not be truly bad or truly wrong, nor truly right or good, but it is still a notion of what they consider bad and what they consider good. These notions they inherited genetically from what natural selection found to work for the particular species.

 

[LordKasual]

I play Final Fantasy, so yes

obviously

and we must kill him

most atheists i feel are lying to themselves. whenever they complain about God being a villain, and they point to evil, they are only proving that deep down, they really do believe in a universal good/evil, they just cannot admit it, and have to project.

an honest pure materialist atheist would see good and evil as just morally relative, thus not concern for any such angst. there would be no need to curse God because you don't think he exists. but you hear over and over how cruel God is, which implies some morality that he does not live up to. in order to not believe in a God you have to imagine what you are not believing in in the first place. if you were a true materialist none of this would matter. yet so much angst over what God should or shouldn't do. so much whining about evil in the world from people who say they don't believe in objective evil.

ironically the atheists complaining the loudest about God seem to be super attached to the idea of good and evil, despite claiming they don't believe in either.

I assure you, "most" true athiests don't really give a shit about most of this. Maybe the fanatical Athiests who make youtube videos and form whole identities around it, but they're no better than the crazy theists who do the same and smear their religious shit all up in everyone's faces.

You don't require the concept of god to believe in a universal good/evil, or to have an internal concept of morality. As far as i've observed, athiests don't complain about GOD literally. They complain about the damaging effects of the CONCEPT of god. How easily and strongly it can warp the minds and sensibilities of otherwise free-thinking humans and be used as a tool of manipulation.

But good and evil doesn't need a god to exist, and you don't need a bible to tell you to be morally good to have a biological reason to be good to those around you.

 

[thenugget]

Presumably he exists, then he comes across as someone who doesn't meddle at all, so i would consider him neither good nor evil. Just really bad at sims and shit dude in itself if he created the world and then went meh

 

[royox]

most atheists i feel are lying to themselves. whenever they complain about God being a villain, and they point to evil, they are only proving that deep down, they really do believe in a universal good/evil, they just cannot admit it, and have to project.

an honest pure materialist atheist would see good and evil as just morally relative, thus not concern for any such angst. there would be no need to curse God because you don't think he exists. but you hear over and over how cruel God is, which implies some morality that he does not live up to. in order to not believe in a God you have to imagine what you are not believing in in the first place. if you were a true materialist none of this would matter. yet so much angst over what God should or shouldn't do. so much whining about evil in the world from people who say they don't believe in objective evil.

ironically the atheists complaining the loudest about God seem to be super attached to the idea of good and evil, despite claiming they don't believe in either.

finally i would argue that true materialists who think the universe is infinite and random must make the allowance that under such conditions it is 100% possible that the most literal evanglical reading of the Bible could be literally true. after all, if the universe is random, it would be possible that you would end up in that particular cosmology, given an infinity of time and dice rolls. otherwise, it isn't really random, and you are just projecting your personal bias on it. yet these kind of atheists seem insistent that God does not exist in any universe, entirely deflating their entire "random combination of matter" premise.

Being atheist has literally NOTHING to do with morality. I'm 100% atheist and I consider myself a much better person that all the people that only "behaves good" because they fear a future punishment. There's a thing called social morallity that's biologically related with the concept of "the pack" or "herd".

That said, you can not believe in god and have an opinion of the character depicted in the books. I read about Sauron In the Lord of the rings and you get the idea that he's evil. I read about god in the bibble and I got the whole idea that he's an evil narcisistic and selfish bastard that only cares about "me me me me me". What kind of being would make 10 laws and the first of them be "you will love me over all things"? What kind of monster would kill millions of innocent babies and child just to convince the pharaon to let the jews leave (Moises Story), what kind of monster would sunk all the planet underwater killing all ground life just because he was mad?

Of course i talk from my own sense of morality and "good and evil" but it's the only sense and perspective that I, as a human being, can have. And of course the people that believes in the fairy tale will answer things like "but you can't understand" or "it's part of the plan"...all non answers. Because all their lives they have been indoctrinated not make hard questions, to believe in logic falacies and circular argumentations.

 

[Airola]

What kind of being would make 10 laws and the first of them be "you will love me over all things"? What kind of monster would kill millions of innocent babies and child just to convince the pharaon to let the jews leave (Moises Story), what kind of monster would sunk all the planet underwater killing all ground life just because he was mad?

If you were the source of love, and if being with you was the only way to be connected to love, and not being with you was a surefire way of being out of love after you're dead in this world, what kind of a monster wouldn't tell people the most important thing would be to love you?

God, knowing all possible outcomes, knew that things would be even worse if the Jews didn't get to leave and if the people of pharaoh got to do their thing for the future generations. Maybe even the fear of having to lose the whole tribe, including children, caused future generations to behave better. Who knows if that was the only way to deal with it if we want to continue living with free will.

No, he did not make the flood just because he was mad. If you read the story you can see that everyone in the planet had only evil in their hearts and only did evil things. If you choose to believe God would cause a flood to destroy humans, why wouldn't you believe the reasons that are explained right there in that same story? Why would you instead make up some "just because he was mad" reason for it?

 

[kurisu_1974]

Can you religious nutters stop defining "atheism" as something that it is not. Atheism is nothing more than 'lack of belief" just like agnosticism is "lack of knowing" and while both can be combined, there are NO additional properties to be associated with either term.

First try to define your god, then come back with asking if I think he exists

 

[royox]

If you were the source of love, and if being with you was the only way to be connected to love, and not being with you was a surefire way of being out of love after you're dead in this world, what kind of a monster wouldn't tell people the most important thing would be to love you?

That makes him even worse, the only way to good things is to love him over everything. Is a level of Narcisism that surpasses everything in the universe.

God, knowing all possible outcomes, knew that things would be even worse if the Jews didn't get to leave and if the people of pharaoh got to do their thing for the future generations. Maybe even the fear of having to lose the whole tribe, including children, caused future generations to behave better. Who knows if that was the only way to deal with it if we want to continue living with free will.

Oh so we reached a new concept of "Free Will" right? Free Will with conditions. "You are free to do what you want....but I will destroy everything in the way of my desires". If he was going to intervene from the beginning (as he knows all the outcomes) he could have changed all the stuff so nobody had to die. Also chosing a random bunch of people as "my people" in a planet where are billions living, billions that are also supposed to be his creation. What a nice being.

No, he did not make the flood just because he was mad. If you read the story you can see that everyone in the planet had only evil in their hearts and only did evil things. If you choose to believe God would cause a flood to destroy humans, why wouldn't you believe the reasons that are explained right there in that same story? Why would you instead make up some "just because he was mad" reason for it?

So again a scenario of "You have free will but do as I say or you all will die". The tale leaves it very clear that he was very unhappy with his SimsGOD game and he decided to do a hard reset with some backups. Even if it was true that ALL millions of human were evil (as far as I can remember It's just that humanity forgot about god and OF COURSE the King of Narcisists COULDN'T LET THIS HAPPEN), this is no reason to brutally murder all the ground animal and insect life of the planet.

I was in a catholic school. We read the bible a lot of times, had the tales explained millions of times, and "omg god is super evil" was the conclusion of a LOT of us. We started to become atheist in mass when the only explanation our teachers and priests could give was "god knows better" or "it's his plan". This is "stop using your brain and follow the herd" answer.

 

[Chairman Tickles]

Is made up human concept of a greater power actually the naughty archetype in made up human narratives?

Who cares. It's all fiction.

 

[Plies]

God is an alien.

/thread

 

[Ornlu]

Being atheist has literally NOTHING to do with morality. I'm 100% atheist and I consider myself a much better person that all the people that only "behaves good" because they fear a future punishment. There's a thing called social morallity that's biologically related with the concept of "the pack" or "herd".

Except that your 'social morality' is based off of religion.

Can you religious nutters stop defining "atheism" as something that it is not. Atheism is nothing more than 'lack of belief" just like agnosticism is "lack of knowing" and while both can be combined, there are NO additional properties to be associated with either term.

Be definition, true. Maybe we need a new definition for most internet atheists, then. Most seem to be "against God/against belief", rather than "I don't believe". I think that's just as critical a difference as that between atheist and agnostic.

 

[kurisu_1974]

There is a term for that, antitheism, and honestly I can't blame people for taking that stance. "Belief" is irrational by definition.

And morals are based on religion? While the religions of the time are also based on morals of the time. Also morals are older than the Christian god, which is thet one being discussed here I guess? And religion (organized and codified) can easily exist without belief in a god (nontheistisc religion like Buddhism or Jainism).

Also we are all atheists where it concerns the Greek and Roman gods.

 

[Ornlu]

There is a term for that, antitheism, and honestly I can't blame people for taking that stance. "Belief" is irrational by definition.

And morals are based on religion? While the religions of the time are also based on morals of the time. Also morals are older than the Christian god, which is thet one being discussed here I guess? And religion (organized and codified) can easily exist without belief in a god (nontheistisc religion like Buddhism or Jainism).

Also we are all atheists where it concerns the Greek and Roman gods.

1. Cool. So you're an antitheist, then?

2. Is humanity inherently irrational? Is human nature? The vast, vast majority of all humans have believed in something higher than themselves.

3. Yes, the Abrahamic God is the one being discussed in this thread. That doesn't excuse moral relativism. All morality comes from somewhere. Handwaving your behavior and considering yourself a 'good person' is not morality.

4. How do you know who is or is not an atheist? Do you claim to know the beliefs of everyone here? I certainly can't make that claim.

 

[kurisu_1974]

1. I never said that?

2. Humans are biological creatures up and foremost. And in the olden days EVERYTHING was ascribed to deities. There even have been suggestions that the divine voices of the old days might just have been inner dialogue of something called the bicameral mind. In short: it's not because they thought lightning was made by gods that we still have to think that today. Also, have you ever wondered why (deep) religion is so intertwined with visions and hallucinations, not discernable from psychosis or schizophrenia?

3. Do you believe that nothing stops pure atheists from raping and murdering, except maybe the secular laws punishing them for it?

4. Now you are just trolling ànd being condescending. I'm sure you got my point about the Roman gods but chose not to understand... because maybe you are not clear on where to draw the line, and why this god you learned about in school or church is magically the correct one. Opens a fucking can of worms, doesn't it?

 

[RobotXTaisen]

It really is. 40k was right all along, lol

 

[Ornlu]

1. I never said that?

You did here:

There is a term for that, antitheism, and honestly I can't blame people for taking that stance. "Belief" is irrational by definition.

So which do you believe? That "belief is irrational", in agreement with those against all belief...or just neutrally not believing in a God?

2. Humans are biological creatures up and foremost. And in the olden days EVERYTHING was ascribed to deities. There even have been suggestions that the divine voices of the old days might just have been inner dialogue of something called the bicameral mind. In short: it's not because they thought lightining was made by gods that we still have to think that today. Also, have you ever wondered why (deep) religion is so intertwined with visions and hallucinations, not discernable from psychosis or schizophrenia?

It's an interesting conversation, for sure. I enjoy these kinds of discussions. Do you or do you not think that humans as creatures have displayed a need for religious or supernatural belief? Why or why not?

3. Do you believe that nothing stops pure atheists from raping and murdering, except maybe the secular laws punishing them for it?

Yes? What codified set of behaviors do "pure atheists" ascribe to? What are the societal norms which confine them to such behaviors? I don't think you'd honestly like to argue that man, absent all law and pressure, would naturally seek to behave as a paragon of virtue.

4. Now you are just trolling ànd being condescending. I'm sure you got my point about the Roman gods but chose not to understand... because maybe you are not clear on where to draw the line, and why this god you learned about in school or church is magically the correct one. Opens a fucking can of worms, doesn't it?

I'm not trolling. You went for a silly gotcha, and I chose not to play ball. There probably are some worshippers of the Roman/Greek Pantheons kicking around somewhere. Probably a few Zoroaztrians that have avoided the sword of Islam, as well. Maybe some Jainists that haven't been absorbed by Islam/Hinduism, or haven't been exterminated by Maoists.

I get what you were going for. It's low-hanging fruit. Only a can of worms in the sense of requiring someone to try and prove a negative. What is there to really engage with there?

It really is. 40k was right all along, lol

Damn son, you're looking to get eaten by a beast of the warp with that logic. lol

 

[kurisu_1974]

So which do you believe? That "belief is irrational", in agreement with those against all belief...or just neutrally not believing in a God?

I'm not even sure what you mean by "god", so I guess I'm more of an ignost? I do oppose organized religion tho, but I'm very weary of every kind of authority, and authority based not on facts but on beliefs is the worst kind.

It's an interesting conversation, for sure. I enjoy these kinds of discussions. Do you or do you not think that humans as creatures have displayed a need for religious or supernatural belief? Why or why not?

It's obvious that humans have displayed a need for ANSWERS and CONTROL. Religion is a combination of the two. But the answers aren't necessarily all that correct. And religion does hardly evolve, so that's why we have science, thank the gods.

Yes? What codified set of behaviors do "pure atheists" ascribe to? What are the societal norms which confine them to such behaviors? I don't think you'd honestly like to argue that man, absent all law and pressure, would naturally seek to behave as a paragon of virtue.

This is were we get to the parts where I can't follow religious people at all. Why do you think that? Which other animal does murder or rape just for fun? But humans, because they have a higher level of consciousness, are automatically more prone to hurt others unless old laws coming directly from unproven gods hold them back? (and yes I know dolphins might rape other dolphins, but it's hardly the norm). Even rats will not hurt other rats, even if they are awarded.

I'm not trolling. You went for a silly gotcha, and I chose not to play ball. There probably are some worshippers of the Roman/Greek Pantheons kicking around somewhere. Probably a few Zoroaztrians that have avoided the sword of Islam, as well. Maybe some Jainists that haven't been absorbed by Islam/Hinduism, or haven't been exterminated by Maoists.

I get what you were going for. It's low-hanging fruit. Only a can of worms in the sense of requiring someone to try and prove a negative. What is there to really engage with there?

That was not my point. Why do you think the roman gods are false and your god is true?

 

[Airola]

That makes him even worse, the only way to good things is to love him over everything. Is a level of Narcisism that surpasses everything in the universe.

I don't think you understand the concept of god and the concept of the source of love at all.

Oh so we reached a new concept of "Free Will" right? Free Will with conditions. "You are free to do what you want....but I will destroy everything in the way of my desires". If he was going to intervene from the beginning (as he knows all the outcomes) he could have changed all the stuff so nobody had to die. Also chosing a random bunch of people as "my people" in a planet where are billions living, billions that are also supposed to be his creation. What a nice being.

What "new concept" of free will? Free will has never ever meant that the freedom of will would mean there wouldn't be any consequences to your actions. It is laid down right there in Genesis: There are fruits in the garden. You are free to eat any of them. But that one fruit there, if you eat it you will surely die, so don't eat it. But still, you can eat it if you want, but don't come to say you weren't warned. That is freedom of will.

Satan used his freedom of will to try to become higher than God, to replace God. So the option to want to do that and to try to do that is there, but it doesn't mean that will would become reality.

The way I see God is that he is like a magnet. When polarities are in balance he will attract and when polarities are out of balance he will repel. That is the absolute natural state of things. It is the nature of God. It is a physical and logical impossibility to be with the magnet if your polarity is out of balance with the magnet's polarity. It just will not happen. As soon as Satan took the action to take God's place, he lost his love to God, he went out of balance with polarities and it will be an impossibility for him to be in heaven anymore.

Random bunch of people? Where do you get they were some random group of people? Again you are not taking into account what God might know about different possibilities and potentials. People live with free will. With that property within them there will be certain potentials that will happen as long as the planet and people exist. It's not infinite amount of potentials but it's so many that for us it seems like infinite amount of potentials. From those potentials it can be seen who are the people that would lead into the best possible outcome. In this case the best possible outcome is possibly the eventual birth of Jesus in a time and a place where it will lead into future that allows the best possible amount of souls to stay with God. Maybe his appearance right then and there was the best of all possible times and places. I mean, if we look at current world with current technology, if we had Jesus to be born right now, we wouldn't probably believe in his divinity much at all. Even, and especially, with all the cameras around with this current technology we would dismiss everything he does the same way we don't believe in David Blaine's or David Copperfield's tricks. There are people now who don't even believe in the moon landing videos. There are people who don't believe in footage shot from a space station. Maybe his appearance 2000 years ago was the best possible scenario in a world of people with free will. I mean, the Bible is still the best sold book in the history of the world. The message has been able to spread around the world like no other.

So that in mind, wouldn't it only be fitting that Jews were the chosen people for God? It's not that it meant Jews were the only people for him, or the only people he loved.

So again a scenario of "You have free will but do as I say or you all will die". The tale leaves it very clear that he was very unhappy with his SimsGOD game and he decided to do a hard reset with some backups. Even if it was true that ALL millions of human were evil (as far as I can remember It's just that humanity forgot about god and OF COURSE the King of Narcisists COULDN'T LET THIS HAPPEN), this is no reason to brutally murder all the ground animal and insect life of the planet.

Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 6:11-13
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

While it could be so that this happened because humanity forgot God, it isn't found in the Bible so I don't know where you got the idea. Maybe from the many deicidal powerfantasy RPGs where the eventual main goal is to kill the creator and live happily ever after, perhaps? Those Etrian Odyssey and Xeno games, and whatever else there are. Great games, but I recall a lot of them have these types of plots. Even my favorite games of all time, La-Mulana 1 & 2, go towards that direction too.

Again, it seems you don't understand the concept of God and eternity. You seem to see God more like a human, instead of the being of eternal existence. Earth, or even this whole universe, is only a passing thing. It will not be eternal. It will never ever be as important as what the eternal existence beyond this physical world is. When you are God and you know the reality of things, of course the most important thing what happens on earth is what it would mean for the eternity beyond earth. What comes to dead animals, that shows how severe being always evil is. Being evil is so bad for the eternity of souls that it doesn't even matter if all physical life ends right here and right now. We don't know what happened to the souls of men and the spirits of the animals. Who knows if the spirits of the animals went straight back to heaven.

I was in a catholic school. We read the bible a lot of times, had the tales explained millions of times, and "omg god is super evil" was the conclusion of a LOT of us. We started to become atheist in mass when the only explanation our teachers and priests could give was "god knows better" or "it's his plan". This is "stop using your brain and follow the herd" answer.

I believe this is the cause of both stubborn students and lousy teachers and priests.

I think the Bible is great in that its concepts can be told and are both told in a manner a little child could understand and in a manner that can be understood by a person who might want to think about it through more complex philosophies. If all your teachers were able to teach was "god knows better" and "it's his plan", then they never went further than what a child could understand with the teachings.

Really understanding the Bible requires people understanding the limits of their own potential goodness and the magnitude of their own potential badness. It is very easy for people to accuse God of the crimes they themselves do while at the same time being under an illusion that they would be better than that if they had the power of god. That's where being stubborn comes into play.

The combination of those can be devastating to faith, especially if it happens in a place that is devotional like a catholic school would be.

We don't want to be with God. We want to be God.
I seem to want to be that daily, but I notice that only weekly, or even less often. And sometimes when I've again noticed that, I'll revert back wanting that just hours later. So I'm not here to scold people for being stubborn. I'm just telling like it is.

 

[Ornlu]

I'm not even sure what you mean by "god", so I guess I'm more of an ignost? I do oppose organized religion tho, but I'm very weary of every kind of authority, and authority based not on facts but on beliefs is the worst kind.

That's fair; however I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone on planet Earth who has authority based on facts rather than belief. This includes the scientific community, if that's where you were headed.

It's obvious that humans have displayed a need for ANSWERS and CONTROL. Religion is a combination of the two. But the answers aren't necessarily all that correct. And religion does hardly evolve, so that's why we have science, thank the gods.

Maybe? I'd counter and say that the need for 'religion' is inherent to humans. In lieu of God(s) humans will create new religious beliefs to fill that void. They come to worship Party and Cause, and pretend they are not religious.

Think of the most passionate activist that you know. Are they not religious in their beliefs? There are even religious atheists (as crazy as that is).

This is were we get to the parts where I can't follow religious people at all. Why do you think that? Which other animal does murder or rape just for fun? But humans, because they have a higher level of consciousness, are automatically more prone to hurt others unless old laws coming directly from unproven gods hold them back? (and yes I know dolphins might rape other dolphins, but it's hardly the norm). Even rats will not hurt other rats, even if they are awarded.

Per the bolded...every species of cat, ever, for one. They love to play with their prey for fun. There are also tons of creatures that rape. There are even creatures meant to disguise themselves as the young of other creatures, murder their young, and then trick them into raising the creature. Nature is not some utopia that is only sullied by the presence of man. Nature is a savage, wild thing.

That was not my point. Why do you think the roman gods are false and your god is true?

Well, for one, I didn't volunteer my beliefs in this thread, to my knowledge. I certainly can, but that's not really what we were arguing here. If a person from another religion wants to debate me about our difference of belief, I'm fine with that. Unless you're looking to debate from the perspective of somehow proving the superiority of Atheism (as a religion, lol) over my beliefs. For clarity's sake, I will say that I am a Christian, but I'm not beholden to a specific denomination (though it's not really relevant to the thread, at all).

 

[kurisu_1974]

You can't explain the existence of your god or the value of your religion with quotes from the Bible.

 

[kurisu_1974]

That's fair; however I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone on planet Earth who has authority based on facts rather than belief. This includes the scientific community, if that's where you were headed.

What? That's just wrong. Science is based on theories, and theories need to be proven and repeatable. No belief needed. I can't believe you honestly think science is based on belief as it is the exact opposite.

Maybe? I'd counter and say that the need for 'religion' is inherent to humans. In lieu of God(s) humans will create new religious beliefs to fill that void. They come to worship Party and Cause, and pretend they are not religious.

Think of the most passionate activist that you know. Are they not religious in their beliefs? There are even religious atheists (as crazy as that is).

Now you're just redefining the word religion to mean whatever you want. And if you mean gnostic atheists, they are just "sure" about there not being a god, but I'm not sure where they base that one as we can't prove a negative indeed. On the other hand, if god was proven, there would be no need for beliefs, and atheists would easily accept its existance.

Per the bolded...every species of cat, ever, for one. They love to play with their prey for fun. There are also tons of creatures that rape. There are even creatures meant to disguise themselves as the young of other creatures, murder their young, and then trick them into raising the creature. Nature is not some utopia that is only sullied by the presence of man. Nature is a savage, wild thing.

But cats and their prey are not the same species? So that's kinda besides the point as we also still kill and torture animals.

Also kinda unrelated, I myself, as an atheist but I'm also vegetarian (semi-vegan). Didn't need a scripture or a god to come to that decision.

Well, for one, I didn't volunteer my beliefs in this thread, to my knowledge. I certainly can, but that's not really what we were arguing here. If a person from another religion wants to debate me about our difference of belief, I'm fine with that. Unless you're looking to debate from the perspective of somehow proving the superiority of Atheism (as a religion, lol) over my beliefs. For clarity's sake, I will say that I am a Christian, but I'm not beholden to a specific denomination (though it's not really relevant to the thread, at all).

Atheism is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a coded set of beliefs. It is nothing but the ABSENCE of belief. So why are you Christian? Are muslims wrong? I mean, they wrote an updated Bible, you could almost call it Part 3. Why is Part 2 (the New Testament) the only correct one?

 

[Ornlu]

What? That's just wrong. Science is based on theories, and theories need to be proven and repeatable. No belief needed. I can't believe you honestly think science is based on belief as it is the exact opposite.

C'mon. You're telling me you actually believe that everything that's pushed as science is proven and repeatable? Don't be naïve (whether intentionally or not). That hard science exists, but is vastly overshadowed by the sea of 'science' based solely on securing funding, tenure, and accolades. When you engineer a study to confirm to your pre-held theories and squash any dissent, that is not proven and repeatable science. That is instead a 'belief'.

Now you're just redefining the word religion to mean whatever you want. And if you mean gnostic atheists, they are just "sure" about there not being a god, but I'm not sure where they base that one as we can't prove a negative indeed. On the other hand, if god was proven, there would be no need for beliefs, and atheists would easily accept its existance.

If you say so. I've personally witnessed activism pursued with all the zeal and fervor of a 'religious' zealot. If you don't think that such zeal is based on belief rather than facts and logic, I don't know what to tell you.

But cats and their prey are not the same species? So that's kinda besides the point as we also still kill and torture animals.

Also kinda unrelated, I myself, as an atheist but I'm also vegetarian (semi-vegan). Didn't need a scripture or a god to come to that decision.

You asked what animal kills or rapes for fun; I gave you an answer: a lot of them do.

Atheism is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a coded set of beliefs. It is nothing but the ABSENCE of belief. So why are you Christian? Are muslims wrong? I mean, they wrote an updated Bible, you could almost call it Part 3. Why is Part 2 (the New Testament) the only correct one?

See, I knew that this is what you were going for, and why I didn't pick that low-hanging fruit in the first place. It's a really common tactic, and boring to have to engage in as nauseam.

You cite your absence of belief, which means you have nothing to defend. Then, you seek to tear down the belief of others based on what they profess to be their beliefs. Thus you get to force them to be on the defensive, with no opportunity for you to critically examine your own beliefs (which you have, as every human being does). It's why it's so popular with the internet atheist crowd.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Now you're just being obtuse. Of course I meant the same species, wouldn't be much of an argument, but yeah keep on avoiding actually answering that.

Also you're just factually wrong about what science is. Or what you BELIEF science is at least.

And I never said I have anything to defend. I have another one that you might have heard: the burden of proof is on the person making extra-ordinary claims. In this discussion it's you. You chose to belief, not me. People are born atheist, y'know?

Let's just agree to disagree, I don't feel we can continue this in a meaningful way, since your beliefs are set in stone it seems, more than mine for sure.

 

[Ornlu]

Now you're just being obtuse. Of course I meant the same species, wouldn't be much of an argument, but yeah keep on avoiding actually answering that.

Also your just factually wrong about what science is. Or what you BELIEF science is at least.

And I never said I have anything to defend. I have another one that you might have heard: the burden of proof is on the person making extra-ordinary claims. In this discussion it's you. You chose to belief, not me. People are born atheist, y'know?

Let's just agree to disagree, I don't feel we can continue this in a meaningful way, since your beliefs are set in stone it seems, more than mine for sure.

We can be done, sure. I was only getting into it with you a bit because you came in here gunz blazin 25/8 ride till ya die with:

Can you religious nutters stop defining "atheism" as something that it is not. Atheism is nothing more than 'lack of belief" just like agnosticism is "lack of knowing" and while both can be combined, there are NO additional properties to be associated with either term.

First try to define your god, then come back with asking if I think he exists

So I thought we could stir the pot a bit.

 

[nkarafo]

If he exists he is definitely the baddie.

 

[royox]

If all your teachers were able to teach was "god knows better" and "it's his plan", then they never went further than what a child could understand with the teachings.

And yet, all your previous post is just "god knows better" and "it's his plan" but with much more words.

if we had Jesus to be born right now, we wouldn't probably believe in his divinity much at all. Even, and especially, with all the cameras around with this current technology we would dismiss everything he does the same way we don't believe in David Blaine's or David Copperfield's tricks.

And yet the only source we have of the Jesus Tale is an ancient book made of pieces of texts written by ancient men and put together by a bunch of other men centuries after in the way that they decided it was the most convenient for them and a big bunch of people believes in it just because they can't scape the circular argumentation.

If he wanted he could appear now and cause all the firestorms, divide seas, fire tornados, etc and people would believe in that...but guess that all that scenography was left only for thousand of years ago when men couldn't record or take photos of it. What a shame.

You cite your absence of belief, which means you have nothing to defend. Then, you seek to tear down the belief of others based on what they profess to be their beliefs. Thus you get to force them to be on the defensive, with no opportunity for you to critically examine your own beliefs (which you have, as every human being does). It's why it's so popular with the internet atheist crowd.

If I have a ball I have to prove I have it for you to believe I have it.
If I don't have a ball I don't have to prove you I have a no-ball or a "i don't have" a ball.

 

[Vicetrailia]

If he exists then he's just neutral. Lots of good, lots of bad.

I prefer to think that he doesn't exist.

 

[kurisu_1974]

We can be done, sure. I was only getting into it with you a bit because you came in here gunz blazin 25/8 ride till ya die with:

Yep, and you kept misusing those words, and never defined what you call god.

 

[Armorian]

Also chosing a random bunch of people as "my people" in a planet where are billions living, billions that are also supposed to be his creation. What a nice being.

God is the ultimate racist.

If he exists then he's just neutral. Lots of good, lots of bad.

I prefer to think that he doesn't exist.

I prefer that too and If god exist only the "initiate big bang and see what happens" type is the one I could possibly belive and this one clearly doesn't give a fuck.