You don’t need external God to be a good person.
Learn biology, human psychology, do not cause harm to sentient life, eventually you will become selfless.
A selfless individual will choose the winning solution to the Platonia delemma. Will your “good person” The more selfless the population the greater the potential payoff for a cheat. This is especially true as the potential rewards for cheating climb. You assume that if we learn biology, human psychology, and try not to cause harm to sentient life, we will become selflessness. The latter does not follow from the former. To be truly selfless we must ground our identity in something other then ourselves or our posterity. We must live for something other then ourselves. The broader that choice of purpose is the better. God is the broadest possible choice and the only one that allows for the formation of true selfishness. I do not expect us to see eye to eye on this issue. However, once you understand this point you understand why acceptance and faith in God is more important to salvation then prior sins and good deeds. Being selfless means you care more about others than yourself. The change can only come from within. Study Eastern philosophies, learn more about human animals. I am afraid your Bronze Age, psychopathic maniac will not help you to achieve any form of enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Even under these conditions, you have very slim chances of winning.
I would assume more than 5% of people are greedy, even among rational thinkers there will greedy a-holes who would act against their rational thinking, and send the telegraph with their name.
Waste of time either way. You don’t enter, you lose. You enter, you almost certainly lose as there will more than one person who sent the telegraph.
Like I said, a waste of my time.
Even in the most communist societies you will find that more than 5% of the population is greedy and would take free stuff without hesitation.
If you send these letters to the very top one percenters, you might change the odds, but with the general population there is no way to win this game, so why bother playing.
Indeed your are correct no one will win the contest. But that is not because the game cannot be won but because rational action alone is insufficient to win it. Human beings have great difficulty with superrationality. We need to be selfless which is not something humans are very good at. It is rational to always try and claim the prize. The cost is near zero and the potential reward very large. You need to be something better then rational to win this particular game. Indeed in the long run for games of this nature everyone must be superrational if you want to win. As you said playing the game with traditional rational actors make cooperation impossible. You can't win. So how do we make someone superrational where there is always short term profits from defection. The only way I am aware of is to truly and totally ground oneself in the infinite. Anonymint stated it well which is why I quoted his comments on the matter. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.
Superrationality itself is just a formalization of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. The categorical imperative is in turn is a valiant but incomplete attempt to codify much older wisdom into a logical framework. Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Easy to say very difficult to live by. See: Superrationality and the Infinite for more. You want to win the game you have to change and not just yourself but eventually everyone because winning requires everyone playing to be better then simple rational actors. You don’t need external God to be a good person. Learn biology, human psychology, do not cause harm to sentient life, eventually you will become selfless. |
|
|
|
I would ignore the letter just like I ignore all the Nigerian lottery emails.
Nobody gives that kind of money. You have to be super gullible not superrational to participate in such a game.
Assume you know with certainty the contest is real the money and giveaway are real and the terms of the contest will be honored. Its been in the news and the judges are third parties. Furthermore the letter can be verified to have come from the contest. Obviously, no one would respond to a Nigerian lottery email that is not the point of this exercise. Even under these conditions, you have very slim chances of winning. I would assume more than 5% of people are greedy, even among rational thinkers there will greedy a-holes who would act against their rational thinking, and send the telegraph with their name. Waste of time either way. You don’t enter, you lose. You enter, you almost certainly lose as there will more than one person who sent the telegraph. Like I said, a waste of my time. Even in the most communist societies you will find that more than 5% of the population is greedy and would take free stuff without hesitation. If you send these letters to the very top one percenters, you might change the odds, but with the general population there is no way to win this game, so why bother playing. |
|
|
|
Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same.
IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process. You are a prime example.
With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result.
Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences.
That is why the actors must be superrational and not rational. Brains can be very different but still superrational. Failure to completely understand the perspective and needs of of others does indeed create inefficiency. This can be mitigated by communication or if that is not possible by best estimates and modeling of perspectives. Your current "rational" perspective places you at risk for suboptimal outcomes trapping you in non-cooperative scenarios that can be avoided. Let me give you an example to help demonstrate this. It is called the Platonia Dilemma and was shared originally by Douglas Hofstader in Scientific American June 1983. "One fine day, out of the blue, you get a letter from S. N. Platonia, well-known Oklahoma oil trillionaire, mentioning that twenty leading rational thinkers have been selected to participate in a little game. “You are one of them!” it says. “Each of you has a chance at winning one billion dollars, put up by the Platonia Institute for the Study of Human Irrationality. Here’s how. If you wish, you may send a telegram with just your name on it to the Platonia Institute in downtown Frogville, Oklahoma (pop. 2). You may reverse the charges. If you reply within 48 hours, the billion is yours - unless there are two or more replies, in which case the prize is awarded to no one. And if no one replies, nothing will be awarded to anyone.” You have no way of knowing who the other nineteen participants are; indeed, in its letter, the Platonia Institute states that the entire offer will be rescinded if it is detected that any attempt whatsoever has been made by any participant to discover the identity of, or to establish contact with, any other participant. Moreover, it is a condition that the winner (if there is one) must agree in writing not to share the prize money with any other participant at any time in the future. This is to squelch any thoughts of cooperation, either before or after the prize is given out." The prize is real and the award judges honest and unbribable. What is the rational answer to this riddle af_newbie? What would you do? The superrational answer is quite simple and trivial. I saw it instantly and indeed later in the article Hofstader wrote the exact same solution in his article. Can you see it? I posted the superrational solution here: Solution to the Platonia DilemmaI actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment...
Yes he did and I am happy for him. You would not understand because you are lost. I would ignore the letter just like I ignore all the Nigerian lottery emails. Nobody gives that kind of money. You have to be super gullible not superrational to participate in such a game. |
|
|
|
And here is a recent communication from Anonymint. I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of ManRationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.
I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!
1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.
2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.
3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.
4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.
5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.
Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same. IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process. You are a prime example. With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result. Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences. |
|
|
|
^^^ you gonna have some 'splainin to do.
My "'splainin" is covered by the blood of Jesus. How about yours (your 'splainin)... which hasn't worked so far?  So what you're saying is that God is dead, but before he passed he wrote down the ten commandments so you'd have a little something to wipe your ass with? How thoughtful of him. Jesus is alive, having arisen from death. He controls everything. Be glad He is patient with you when you talk against Him/God. God made the earth globular, and it remains this way. Lol. Show me one verse in the Old Testament that mentions Jesus name. One verse. You cannot. then, show me any contemporary historical (from non-religious text, government records etc.) reference that he actually existed. I would just shut the fuck up about your Jesus myth if I were you. |
|
|
|
^^^ But there's the little point that people who don't think about religion at all, still hang onto that religion of not so thinking. Maybe they like the funeral of that religion so they were sticking with it.  But of course. And their death is the death of all religion for them. But the resurrection will show them the only true religion... when it is way too late to accept it for any good purpose. Then comes the judgment of the kind of religion they had in life, and the punishment or reward. Or the atoms in your body are recycled to form something else, and nothing happens. |
|
|
|
I get many mean messages, hurtful stuff but I don't know what to believe. My Nigerian brothers do look more apelike instead of the whites. They say we have intelligence like the monkey because less evolved. I do not know what to think. What you say?
Cultural and educational differences can be observed within races. All Homo Sapiens evolved the same way. We all belong to the same Ape family. I think you are confused about what evolution is. |
|
|
|
From our perspective, The Great First Cause is the cause of the universe. However, we don't even know if The Great First Cause has a perspective, to say nothing about what something like a perspective might be for TGFC. So, again I show you that I don't have an argument to destroy, one way or another. I'm just posting. You have to admit you fucked up mate, you literally destroyed your own argument. You are telling me I can't apply anything that happens in the universe outside of it and yet you are the one applying, complexity, cause and effect and other things that are IN this universe, outside of it. Admit it, you are stupid. As usual... you forgot to consider my previous post, which you quoted, above. You just make the shit up for the stuff you don’t know. Like all religious people do. You said that you don’t understand how the outside of the universe works, yet you claim that it does not operate based on the cause and effect principle, and in the same sentence you claim that something outside of the universe is the cause of this universe. Just say you don’t know and stop there. Don’t make the shit up and make logical errors at every step in your fantasy. To say that you are confused, dumb, and ignorant is an understatement. |
|
|
|
^^^ You're a massive piece of shit, you know that right? I know the Sun is small, close and in motion and you start screaming that I'm liar for trying to prove it? Just fuck off and die already.
The Sun measures 32 minuets in diameter and there's one nautical mile per measured minute. If this is wrong then fucking prove it you worthless sack of shit. Ask any mariner who knows how to use a sextant or any book on the subject and they'll tell you 1 nm = 1 min.
Show me the fucking money!
Minuet is a dance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinuetI don't think you will find any 'mariner' who would want to dance the minuet. LOL. |
|
|
|
I am still surprised, how many people are religious and believe in any sort of a God that created earth and life. I do not want to judge them but I personally can just simply not fathom, how weird such a believe is.
I think by now, 21st century, we should have been over this and yet, entire nations worship a God that is according to them pulling the strings and telling them how to live. More people die each year due to religious punishment or extremism than from various other things we create laws against!
Now I am a huge Fan of Carl Sagan, probably the "best" public person to ever live in my view. He of course, is not an atheist (public people barely are. its bad for business) but he claims that if god are the alws of physics and the universe, he believes in god. Ok, I sign that too.
Assuming God exists as by the major religions: A god that makes you
- pray 5 times a day (muslim)?
- Worship him (all)?
- Stone woman that commit adultery to death (all)?
- forbids you to eat certain things based on no scientific reason (all)?
- Says the world is flat (Christianity)?
- Gives you foreskin just to then remove it again (muslim, jews)
- Tells you not to drink alcohol but heroin is ok (muslim)
- Threatens you to burn in Hell (Christianity)
(sorry if I wrote something wrong but its been a while since bible lessons!)
Is not a nice God.
How can one still functioning in this modern world while he still believes that this all is true and this GOD is in charge?
This thread is not to create any hatered or so against religious people. Live and let live.
I just wonder how you watch a space documentary and then go to church? How does ones brain handle this contradiction?
It is a psychological trick that helped us survive to this day. It was always better to think that that sound in the tall grass next to you was a tiger, not the wind. Even if it was the wind, it was better to assume it was a tiger and be afraid. Religious dogma is demonstrably an utter nonsense. I was at my son's Catholic high-school graduation ceremony yesterday, and I observed all the people during the opening and closing 'prayers'. Most pretended they were contemplating by bowing their heads, although some I presume were actually meditating, or at least they thought they were doing it. Some were not even paying attention, fixing their wardrobe, checking their phones, smiling, looking around until our eyes locked, I naturally said hi to them. They smirked back. It was a funny experience. Amateurish theatrical performance at best. Forced, peer pressured, comical act in reality. After all that was done, we all went back to our lives in the 21st century. My guess is that our brains have this amazing capability to isolate realities. Maybe that is why it is possible for some people to develop multiple personalities disorders. When you talk to God, you are 'religious'. When God talks back to you, you are insane. |
|
|
|
Gay? Where does it say that Atrazine causes a change in sexual orientation? Put down the bourbon and read it again. |
|
|
|
If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).
In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.
Science is not a religion. There is no dogma in science. If a theory doesn't fit the measurable facts, it is eventually discarded. , even though they don't fit the dogma of formal religion. Why? Because they are things that can't be changed. Do a science experiment exactly the same way every time, and you get exactly the same results every time. Science dogma is even stronger than religious dogma. There are many science theories that are popular, but haven't been proven one way or another, yet remain theories. So, it is the decision of scientists whether or not they will drop a theory from being such. So you don't like facts, what is new? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1gC8qWh2Hs |
|
|
|
You are obviously trolling because you know there is 0 evidence for anything in the bible outside the bible. Science theory is the closest to facts, a book it's not. How do you know for sure the bible wasn't written by someone else?
There are about 1.5 billion Christians in the world. The rest would be Christians if they saw the strength in Christianity. Most of the rest are simply ignorant of the Bible. You are missing a great big chunk of evidence if you say there is zero evidence. Two thousand years ago, all people on Earth believed that Earth was flat. Being wrong is not evidence you are right. It is evidence of your ignorance of science. |
|
|
|
Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed.
Show me one place in the Bible that says that they didn't exist. Show me where it says in The Lord of the Rings that Frodo Baggins does not exist. You should read other books, other than the Bible if you want to distinguish what is fiction and what is not. |
|
|
|
And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts
So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old? I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example. All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction. Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction. Show me one contemporary historical figure who actually saw Moses or Jesus for that matter. Contemporary to what? Our time or theirs? Did Plato or Archimedes or Euclid really exist? EDIT: Miriam and Aaron saw Moses. Peter, James and John saw Jesus. (Sorry, I got carried away. You asked for only one.) Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed. |
|
|
|
....
Yes, I think we did land on the moon. But I also think it is a possibility, that some of what we saw, might have been produced. But not because they didn't do it, but because they didn't want to show us everything they really saw up there, and all the things that were really going on.
Once we got up there it seemed like everything changed. The Nation's attitude changed from, " Let's race!. The space race!.".to "Let's back off."
"Let's go back to just orbiting and make an international space station." Why?
Politics. Democrats kill space programs. Time after time. If I were Trump, I would announce re-start of the Moon (and/or Mars) program on the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing. It would be a political jackpot. He can even plagiarize Kennedy's speech, nobody will care. He will go in history as the greatest president of all time. I think he is going to do it. |
|
|
|
And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts
So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old? I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example. All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction. Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction. Show me one contemporary historical figure who actually saw Moses or Jesus for that matter. |
|
|
|
The One God over everything is reflected by all people in the universe... even though many of them don't understand that the reflection of God is in them. Bible writers were people God directed to do the writing for Him. The people He used were honest people who understood that God existed. They also believed Him. Childhood is the best time to learn Bible religion. Why? Because embedding the truth of the Bible into children keeps them faithful to God all their lives... often even when they have many doubts.You missed the top reason why the best sanity is to believe what God says. It's so that you can be saved for Heaven. You personally need to do a self-check, and ask why you are pointing yourself towards Hell. If you were a psychiatrist, you might be able to help yourself... not that you would, any more than most psychiatrists. You realize that the majority of Atheists in North America come from your cult, don't you? Indoctrinating children into your cult is child abuse. |
|
|
|
God does not want us to know him, so these books of mass control are just for control ( Bible, Quran ) made up by dogmatic old farts. If he wanted to be believed in he would be here and guide us. We should grow beyond the need of superstition and just know that he is there somewhere and be happy with that. Then just focus on the good of the Planet and the lives on this wonderful place while making it grow and protect it from Meteorites,Solar Flares ETC. I think that is our original purpose..
Firstly you should behavior yourself, you have no right to talk with any religious and use name of religious's books in this tone. If you have knowledge about these books ( Bible and Quran), then you don't need to ask us about God. You are blind man who doesn't see anything around yourself and blame to God. Where God said that God doesn't want us to know him? And you should be locked up because you are mentally sick. God did not say anything, people did. He fucking does not exist. 'Gods' are subjective emotions that people have. Gods only exist in peoples brains. That is why we have so many religions, denominations, cults, and scriptures. Ask your Allah to post here, in this fucking thread. If he cannot, just shut the fuck up about your delusion. If you know the name of God, that he is ALLAH, then call him and see the result, i wish i could see you when you will destroy. ME MENTALLY SICK ? And what's about you? you have no manners to talk about any religious in respectively, I have no words to use for you, because you are sooo BAD and your language is showing your background. At least i am better than you, i have a path, and YOU ? YOU don't know what you are Actually. I feel shame on myself, and i am asking myself that why i came in this thread, where everyone is Losers and Atheism. Clearly your IQ is below 80 or so. Why should we respect religions exactly? Im sure you dont respect the rest of the religions that you dont believe in. Sorry i forget one Word add for yours, Ignorant who already have Zero IQ lever and ask for others give the proof of God. If you have IQ lever than do you need to ask us any PROOF OF GOD? We are not asking you, You are asking us and talk about IQ LEVER ? STRANGELY If you have IQ LEVEL then proof it that there is no GOD. But in a reasonable language, don't' use abuse. Otherwise i will not reply you. Because i want to quit reply in this thread, because someone are speaking out of language. Which God, Allah? Well, that is easy, the stories about Allah were written down from oral traditions in the 7th century. Primarily based on earlier Abrahamic mythologies. How do we know they are fairy tales? Buraqs do not exist. It is impossible to fly off to space on an animal. There is no oxygen in space. We know this because we went there. An entity that created the universe and everything in it would know this. People in the 7th century did not. The stories were not divinely inspired. They are a human creation. Islam is a historical cultural artifact. All the science in the Quran is wrong. If you don't know anything then why you discuss about it? Our QURAN doesn't need your Typical SCIENCE, and tell me where Science tell you that Quran is wrong? Actually problem is in your mind, and you are using Science word. I never see any ignorant person in my whole life just like you, who doesn't know about anything and make intelligent. But i wanna tell you only one and last thing, that HELL is waiting for you. Are you serious? Salt water does not mix with fresh water, wine is made by the devil (not the yeast), evolution, creation story, flat Earth, where do I start? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQXjyuxpNdEYou are as ignorant as they come. We are done here. We have nothing to discuss. We are 1400 years apart. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
