The problem with atheism.

[rini17]

What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?

All hail Eris Discordia!

Disclaimer: All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

[1714770162]

1714770162

[1714770162]

1714770162

[1714770162]

1714770162

[the joint]

Really?  First time?  Wow.  Anyway, it's about half correct.

Is that strange?  Maybe I've been hanging around the wrong people  Why's it only halfway correct?

It's correct that your mind is, essentially, a 'likeness' of god's mind, sort of like how if you cut 1/4 from a piece of holographic film you aren't left with 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size.

It's half correct in the sense that it doesn't explain the relationship between the likeness of god and god, nor does it describe anything about other stratified minds, nor does it acknowledge or describe the larger system of which both life and death are a part.

Most importantly, it doesn't describe the largest system, the 'set of all sets' so to speak which contains the syntax that governs all of these things.

And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".

Yes and no.  This assumption is a byproduct of a memory of a direct experience of absolute truth.  So the assumption is that my memory is valid to the extent that my recollection of the experience is accurate, but the experience itself contained no assumptions.  

Fortunately, the method by which the experience was realized is replicable, so I can always refresh my memory.

[the joint]

And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".

Some people would call that neurological quantum entanglement...

Fascinating... Now lets put tons of capital into researching technology to rewrite our minds like a computer so we can delete the word "God" from everyone's minds!

Technology is inseparable from the human mind.  Technology is one way the mind expresses itself in order to be enhanced.

[crumbs]

We have had this magic guy in the sky theory  for a few thousend years now and so far no-one have come up with a single prof. anything better.

And stop it with the guy in the sky.  Here's some fun stuff from John Creaux when he was playing with voodoo & before he turned meh

Some people think they jive me
I know they must be crazy
Don't see they misfortune
Guess they just too lazy

J'suis le Grand Zombie
Got yellow belt of choison
Ain't afraid of no tom cat
He fill my brains with poison

Think you better
Come to the killing floor
Walk on gilded splinters
Kon kon, the killy kon kon
Walk on gilded splinters

Put gri gri on your doorstep
Soon you be in the gutter
Melt your hert up like butter
A a and i can make you stutter

[the joint]

And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".

Some people would call that neurological quantum entanglement...

Fascinating... Now lets put tons of capital into researching technology to rewrite our minds like a computer so we can delete the word "God" from everyone's minds!

Technology is inseparable from the human mind.  Technology is one way the mind expresses itself in order to be enhanced.

Religion is a technology, so you are right. But the pragmatic implications of an individuals belief with the capacity to express their mind in a manner that disrupts all others is the reason why I say, stfu already. Let the mind grow without heavy debate on why our emotions ALWAYS get the better of us.

One thing everyone can agree on is we are all here breathing the same God damn air.

Lets keep this shit clean.

Lol.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean.  I think the wording is off? I'm trying to figure out how a belief has the capacity to express its mind.  I think you meant the individual has the capacity to do so, but not sure what you mean by "disrupt all others."

[User705]

What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?

Flip a coin.  If god exists he will make the coin land for the right choice.  If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter.

[Wilikon]

So I did a quick google search on Richard Dawkins today.
If I were an atheist I would start using Penn Jilette as an example instead. Just saying.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

Very cool thread so far.

[User705]

No.  Atheism is not a religion and it is not a belief.  This is a point theists seem incapable of comprehending. 

Seems like Atheism is the surrender to a substantially boring existence with absolutely no purpose or reasoning other than to isolate one's self from the narrowing perspective that all outcomes of religion have negative impacts on society.

Not all outcomes but majority of outcomes do.  God can be described as a "greater power" so like an infinite horizon point it is always beyond the current understandings.  In the past you didn't know what sun was so god was the sun.  Now you know what the sun is so god is in the quantum lattice of the suns molecules.  Etc etc ad infinitum.  You can never disprove god because by definition it is simply the rules governing the current understood rules.  The problem lies in religion.  Where discovering god is an uplifting forward motion so to speak where you go from lesser understanding to greater understanding and get empowered by it religion is the reverse.  It is how apply the "greater power" of god to rule, regulate and subjugate the mortals ei believing population.  Hard to see purpose or anything uplifting in that exercise so you get a natural rejection of evil through atheism and other anti-theism.

[Wilikon]

DOJ Declares Atheism A 'Religious Movement'; Qualifies Leaders For Same Tax Exemptions As Clergy


http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/75629-doj-declares-atheism-a-religious-movement-qualifies-leaders-for-same-tax-exemptions-as-clergy/


Barack Obama’s Department of Justice says in a legal filing that atheism is a “religious movement” whose leaders qualify for the same housing tax breaks received by priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy.

According to UPI, the ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), seeking to end the federal parsonage tax deduction granted to clergy by the U.S. government, which allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.

As one might expect, being told that atheism is, in fact, a religion, is anathema to non-believers. As a result, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the plaintiff in the suit – who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation – is upset because she must pay taxes on money that “ministers of the gospel” do not.

In response, the federal government, doing its best Keystone Cops impersonation, said that rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption, it would extend the deduction Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement — albeit one that does not believe in God.

Predictably, Gaylor was outraged by her “victory,” telling The (Nashville) Tennessean that the government missed the point of her lawsuit — not to mention the fundamental difference between her atheist group and a religious order:


    “We are not ministers. We are having to tell the government the obvious — we are not a church.”


Ah, Ms. Gaylor, but you are a “religion” – or a “faith,” as it were – like it or not. Merriam-Webster defines faith as: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (2): “complete trust.”

Without getting involved in a religious debate – which is not the purpose of this post – atheists can no more prove that God doesn’t exist than Christians can prove that he does. Therefore, both sides must have faith if they are to remain loyal to their respective beliefs.

At any rate, Gaylor’s response to winning the lawsuit reminds me of the spoiled child who not only doesn’t want a piece of candy; he doesn’t want anyone else to have one either.

As for the DOJ ruling, it makes perfect sense. Not. Unless of course, it is viewed in the context of the progressives’ fervent desire to elevate atheism in the eyes of America.

[hawkeye]

Why would a God need people to worship him?  Think about it.  If you were all-powerful, benevolent and wise and created your own little universe populated by little beings far less powerful than you, why would you worry so much about them worshipping you or worshipping false idols etc?  Doesn't that seem petty?  And petulant?  If that's the guy ruling paradise I'm not so sure I want to be there.

Of course, priests DO CARE about which God you are worshipping because it directly affects their bottom line. 

Religion.  Just another scam.  The second biggest scam in the history of the world.

[the joint]

Religion is as subjective as the words used to describe them.

This sentence doesn't do much good, and it dismisses the fact that language CAN, in fact, provide a totally accurate (though abstract) model of reality.  You might as well be saying that the interpretation of data in science is as subjective as the words used to describe them.  Everybody is looking for the same thing - truth.  And, some call that truth different things, which is OK.  What matters is if someone's definition of truth is tautologically correct and thus a mirror of absolute truth itself.  Reality, like logic, is self-contained, for if there were something real enough (or logical enough) outside of reality (or logic) to be described as such, then it would still be included within reality (or logic).  Truthful models can exist, and there can be multiple truthful models if all of the variables are analogous to those contained in another model.

But, the most important thing to note is that the mere existence of absolute truth is actually ridiculously easy to establish, because any attempts to deny its existence only reinforces its existence.  The same can be said for a totally accurate model of absolute truth - any attempts to disprove it will only reinforce it.

Suppose you say, "All truth is relative."  Then you are actually saying, "It is the absolute truth that all truth is relative."  If you say, "There is no absolute truth," then you are really saying, "It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth."  If you say, "There is more than one absolute truth," you are saying, "It is the one absolute truth that there are more than one absolute truths."

A perfect model of reality functions the same way.  Religions are attempts to construct such models.

[the joint]

Religion is as subjective as the words used to describe them.

This sentence doesn't do much good, and it dismisses the fact that language CAN, in fact, provide a totally accurate (though abstract) model of reality.  You might as well be saying that the interpretation of data in science is as subjective as the words used to describe them.  Everybody is looking for the same thing - truth.  And, some call that truth different things, which is OK.  What matters is if someone's definition of truth is tautologically correct and thus a mirror of absolute truth itself.  Reality, like logic, is self-contained, for if there were something real enough (or logical enough) outside of reality (or logic) to be described as such, then it would still be included within reality (or logic).  Truthful models can exist, and there can be multiple truthful models if all of the variables are analogous to those contained in another model.

But, the most important thing to note is that the mere existence of absolute truth is actually ridiculously easy to establish, because any attempts to deny its existence only reinforces its existence.  The same can be said for a totally accurate model of absolute truth - any attempts to disprove it will only reinforce it.

Suppose you say, "All truth is relative."  Then you are actually saying, "It is the absolute truth that all truth is relative."  If you say, "There is no absolute truth," then you are really saying, "It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth."  If you say, "There is more than one absolute truth," you are saying, "It is the one absolute truth that there are more than one absolute truths."

A perfect model of reality functions the same way.  Religions are attempts to construct such models.

You sure used a lot of words to describe an idea that reminds me of a religion.

Think of this:
Every word you know, every experience you've earned is not through the direct result of your choice, but that choice in and of it self is the direct result of all the actions and reactions of everything else that existed before you and every choice you make.

"Absolute truth" are words that exist outside the mind, where inside is where it is necessary to comprehend it's absolute truthfulness.

A religion is a type of belief system.  Christianity, for example, is often referred to as a belief with zero evidence, aka a faith-based religion.  Buddism, for example, is often practiced as a belief system based upon evidence.  Science is similar to Buddhism to that extent.  I think you categorize religions as special because they all have a certain social flavor that's so strong you can taste it.  But still, not even all religions incorporating some belief in a deity are the same.  Polytheistic gods are significantly different from monotheistic ones and bring to the table different assumptions.  Science has its own assumptions.  Observation has zero assumptions.

[the joint]

Religion is as subjective as the words used to describe them.

This sentence doesn't do much good, and it dismisses the fact that language CAN, in fact, provide a totally accurate (though abstract) model of reality.  You might as well be saying that the interpretation of data in science is as subjective as the words used to describe them.  Everybody is looking for the same thing - truth.  And, some call that truth different things, which is OK.  What matters is if someone's definition of truth is tautologically correct and thus a mirror of absolute truth itself.  Reality, like logic, is self-contained, for if there were something real enough (or logical enough) outside of reality (or logic) to be described as such, then it would still be included within reality (or logic).  Truthful models can exist, and there can be multiple truthful models if all of the variables are analogous to those contained in another model.

But, the most important thing to note is that the mere existence of absolute truth is actually ridiculously easy to establish, because any attempts to deny its existence only reinforces its existence.  The same can be said for a totally accurate model of absolute truth - any attempts to disprove it will only reinforce it.

Suppose you say, "All truth is relative."  Then you are actually saying, "It is the absolute truth that all truth is relative."  If you say, "There is no absolute truth," then you are really saying, "It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth."  If you say, "There is more than one absolute truth," you are saying, "It is the one absolute truth that there are more than one absolute truths."

A perfect model of reality functions the same way.  Religions are attempts to construct such models.

You sure used a lot of words to describe an idea that reminds me of a religion.

Think of this:
Every word you know, every experience you've earned is not through the direct result of your choice, but that choice in and of it self is the direct result of all the actions and reactions of everything else that existed before you and every choice you make.

"Absolute truth" are words that exist outside the mind, where inside is where it is necessary to comprehend it's absolute truthfulness.

Do you believe in pure determinism, by the way?

If so, consider this:  A free entity would be free to place its own constraints.

[PrintMule]

What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?

Flip a coin.  If god exists he will make the coin land for the right choice.  If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter.

Coin has only two (three) sides

[xxjs]

Darwin invented or discovered that complexity does not always have to decay, but can evolve from simplicity through nonperfect copying and natural selection. The effect was that God is not necessary. Before Darwin, divine creation was maybe the most rational solution to the complexity problem. It must have been overwhelming at the time. His book is still readable and available on the net.

As science advanced, it became clear that it was not the individual that was the subject of copying, it was the genes. (Darwin did not know about DNA) Dawkins summed up the status of the genetic science with his "The selfish gene", also cutting short some erroneus partial theories like group selection and some political variants. Based on current science, he concluded that the mind, supported by the brain, did not have to be controlled by evolution directly, leading to free will. In his own work, in "The extended phenotype", he expanded on that, and also showed that the environment of the genes was not only the cell, or the individual, but the nature at large, including the great universe, and the inverse, that the genes are also able to affect the nature outside the individual, including the universe. Which takes the puff out of the environmentalist balloon, if you ask me.

Dawkins also tries to explain the fact that religion seems to exist everywhere, with natural selection. He tried to invent meme copying and selection as another form of life, maybe not too successfully. In "The God delution" he tries another variant, that listening to your parents without questioning can be lifesaving for small kids, and this instinct erroneously (in natural selection sense) is kept when the child grows up, including when the time comes to raise its own kids.

That's my understanding of Dawkins anyway.

[zeroday]

Religion is just a wonderful tool to encourage people doing everything you want them to do for free.
Isn't it amazing when someone craves to kill as much as possible around them and then die just because of promises to appear in illusive world where they can fuck 72 virgins(boys/goats) forever with permanent erection?

[xxjs]

Religion is just a wonderful tool to encourage people doing everything you want them to do for free.
Isn't it amazing when someone craves to kill as much as possible around them and then die just because of promises to appear in illusive world where they can fuck 72 virgins(boys/goats) forever with permanent erection?

Confirmed.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

[PrintMule]

Religion is just a wonderful tool to encourage people doing everything you want them to do for free.
Isn't it amazing when someone craves to kill as much as possible around them and then die just because of promises to appear in illusive world where they can fuck 72 virgins(boys/goats) forever with permanent erection?

Confirmed.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

wow - at the descriptions part!

Transparent to the marrow of their bones
Companions of equal age
White skinned
Appetizing vaginas
Non-menstruating / non-urinating/ non-defecating and childfree
Never dissatisfied

and etc

that's fucked up.

[crumbs]

Why would a God need people to worship him?  Think about it.  If you were all-powerful, benevolent and wise and created your own little universe populated by little beings far less powerful than you, why would you worry so much about them worshipping you or worshipping false idols etc?  Doesn't that seem petty?  And petulant?  If that's the guy ruling paradise I'm not so sure I want to be there.

Of course, priests DO CARE about which God you are worshipping because it directly affects their bottom line. 

Religion.  Just another scam.  The second biggest scam in the history of the world.

Your problem is not with religion (i assume you are talking about Christianity), but with the Church & the Christendom.  Read Matthew 23 -- Jesus shares your ideas about priests.

As far as idolatry & graven images, that's O.T., Exodus stuff.  Think of it as your parents teaching you not to stick your hand into the fire -- you burning yourself doesn't hurt them, the reason they pwn you for playing with matches is to *teach* you, not because they're petty.

[hawkeye]

Why would a God need people to worship him?  Think about it.  If you were all-powerful, benevolent and wise and created your own little universe populated by little beings far less powerful than you, why would you worry so much about them worshipping you or worshipping false idols etc?  Doesn't that seem petty?  And petulant?  If that's the guy ruling paradise I'm not so sure I want to be there.

Of course, priests DO CARE about which God you are worshipping because it directly affects their bottom line.  

Religion.  Just another scam.  The second biggest scam in the history of the world.

Your problem is not with religion (i assume you are talking about Christianity), but with the Church & the Christendom.  Read Matthew 23 -- Jesus shares your ideas about priests.

As far as idolatry & graven images, that's O.T., Exodus stuff.  Think of it as your parents teaching you not to stick your hand into the fire -- you burning yourself doesn't hurt them, the reason they pwn you for playing with matches is to *teach* you, not because they're petty.

I actually don't have a problem with religion.  It's obviously false but then people are allowed to believe false things if they want.  As long as I don't have to have anything to do with it, people can kneel and pray and "amen" to whatever imaginary friends they like.

As for the rest, I'm aware of the bible cherry-picking.     Your analogy about the children isn't a good one.  That's a real danger.  Let's assume that this God nonsense is true for a second.  The god would know that they were the only God.  What harm would it do to him or the beings he had created if they worship a false god or gods?  No-one's being hurt.