1712 replies to this topic

[shifter]

Very well written and balanced view. Here is a quote from one of the most famous scientists, Albert Einstein

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things

I'm an agnostic.

I understand where the general perspective would be centered in such a forum as this. I understand it to a point.

However, from an objective perspective, the atheists here do realize that their arguments are so riddled with rhetorical fallacies that they are utterly unreadable to someone with a scientific mind, right?

If you want to argue against something that you beleive to be fallicious, then your arguments against must not contain fallacies, especially the quantity that they contain, and must be written within the strictest parameters of rhetorical integrity. Especially if you are trying to convince the world of your perspective, which by definition of your perspective, will approach your arguments with a very strict sense of analytical and rhetorical integrity. The irony is almost too much to bear, given the nature of this forum.

Second, for how smart that the people on this forum claim to be, they seem to not realize the limited nature of their own minds. You are taking in and processing such a minute amount of information about your environment and the universe that spawned it, over the course of your lifetime, that to be so pretentious that you state that you can understand said environment, and the nature of the origin of your existance, to the point that you can discount a 'god' force is so utterly ridiculous that you are akin to phoenician's looking up at the moon and pronouncing it god. In this case, you might be looking at the god and pronouncing it 'the big bang'. The point being, that you do not have the necessary information, nor will you likely ever have the necessary information, to arrive at an informed conclusion either way. To conclude differently is, ironically, unscientific.

Your minds are coffee filters in the Pacific Ocean of infinitely diverse information that comprises our universe. You have zero abiity to make a definate scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist. Conversely, people of faith are in the same position.

So, follow the parameters of your scientific method and admit the only thing that you can purport to know for sure, due to lack of evidence, and the thing that any man of wisdom comes to realize. That is: "All that I know is that I don't know".

Btw, pointing to religious myths as being untrue, such as the age of the earth, is a rhetorical fallacy as it avoids the central topic of the conversation and instead attacks a straw-man. The central topic is only whether or not god exists.

I find atheists just as close mided and frustrating to argue with as theists, primarily becasue it is very difficult to make the atheist see the truth of his 'lack of' belief: that he didn't give up belief at all. He just traded his belief that there is a god for a belief that there isn't a god. Atheists are still true believers. However, both perspectives are utterly unprovable, and therefore irrational, given our current knowledge. Only agnostics lack belief.

[steampoweredgod]

I find atheists just as close mided and frustrating to argue with as theists, primarily becasue it is very difficult to make the atheist see the truth of his 'lack of' belief: that he didn't give up belief at all. He just traded his belief that there is a god for a belief that there isn't a god. Atheists are still true believers. However, both perspectives are utterly unprovable, and therefore irrational, given our current knowledge. Only agnostics lack belief.

Nature the universe, the deists god spinoza's god. That is what I believe in.

I believe even the religious texts if carefully analyzed make this statement, that is the underlying buried truth behind the religions of the world. The mathematics of religion, the underlying truth, mathematics of god.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 23 April 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[gamesguru]

According to Rousseau, pantheism is no better than theism, since both are founded on reason, which is absurd. Only his "natural religion" is ideal, since it relies on the heart, which has its own reasons for being, of which reason knows nothing. The heart is the source of our conscience, which is our guide, and which is the only thing in the world which is never deceitful. Traditional religions as well as pantheistic ideologies can only survive on the basis of human testimony, which is fallible and unreliable. Thus all of these movements are absurd, and only an acceptance of the "religion of the heart" is necessary to achieve perfect harmony between nature and one's inner soul.

He makes other arguments against physics which is the result of vain curiosity, literature of ambition, geometry of greed and vanity, and so on (he even argues against ethics).

He makes other devastating arguments against civilization in general, suggesting we all become savage anarchists and return to the forests.

There is a suggestion made to the effect that his modifications of protestant Christianity are too abstract to be made the basis of a practicable religion (which needs a dogmatic tradition), and that the simpler, existing tradition will rightfully continue on its course unless its simple-minded rulers are gotten out of the way, since it is the least of all evils.

While I don't accept his arguments as they stand, they are certainly interesting, and take the words out of anyone's mouth and instill them with wonder. Apparently a lot of his ideology comes from Pascal, who was himself a somewhat original thinker.

Edited by dasheenster, 23 April 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[Slahzer]

there are no sound supported theories for what preceded the bang.

As I understand it, and this is what is in my textbook as well, is that it is regarded that time originated with the big bang, thus there can be no before-the-big-bang

Nature the universe, the deists god spinoza's god. That is what I believe in.

Einstein held the view as well, though my problem with this is that it does injustice to the word god and only causes confusion.

I find atheists just as close mided and frustrating to argue with as theists, primarily becasue it is very difficult to make the atheist see the truth of his 'lack of' belief: that he didn't give up belief at all. He just traded his belief that there is a god for a belief that there isn't a god. Atheists are still true believers. However, both perspectives are utterly unprovable, and therefore irrational, given our current knowledge. Only agnostics lack belief.
Nature the universe, the deists god spinoza's god...

Atheists do not believe that there is no god 100%.
They hold the view that it is extremely improbable for a god to exist based on modern religions within the context of science. It is thus the rational view to take. There is no hard atheist that believes any type of god is absurd. Most atheists are more agnostic-atheists.

Also it is scientifically accepted that the universe was created by the Big Bang thus no god can precede that.

The most probable view of a god existing for me is some supreme being or race possessing god-like traits.

I do not believe there is a god that created the universe or life.

[shadowhawk]

SLAHZER Atheists do not believe that there is no god 100%.
They hold the view that it is extremely improbable for a god to exist based on modern religions within the context of science. It is thus the rational view to take. There is no hard atheist that believes any type of god is absurd. Most atheists are more agnostic-atheists.

Also it is scientifically accepted that the universe was created by the Big Bang thus no god can precede that.

The most probable view of a god existing for me is some supreme being or race possessing god-like traits.

I do not believe there is a god that created the universe or life.

When do you get to call someone an atheist? Where did science prove there is no God? WHERE IS THE PROOF AND EVIDENCE? WHERE IS THE SCIENCE? Isn’t what you have said philosophy not science? Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no reliably objective, rational form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. It is a key ingredient of the work of New Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, and its proponents dismiss philosophy's and theology's claims to provide distinctive but equally rational and objective avenues to truth. But the view faces a notorious problem: scientism is not itself a scientific thesis, but a metaphysical one. Hence it is either self-defeating, or implies so broad a construal of what is allowed to count as "science" that the claim that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge becomes trivial. Your claim is trivial and Scientism is not Science. You misunderstand the issue of God and the big Bang but this is not the place to discuss it. No evidence for the REAL topic.

The topic is evidence for atheism not testify there is no god. What probability do you give your statement is true, “The most probable view of a god existing for me is some supreme being or race possessing god-like traits.”? When does one become an atheist?

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 April 2012 - 02:52 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

Second, for how smart that the people on this forum claim to be, they seem to not realize the limited nature of their own minds. You are taking in and processing such a minute amount of information about your environment and the universe that spawned it, over the course of your lifetime, that to be so pretentious that you state that you can understand said environment, and the nature of the origin of your existance, to the point that you can discount a 'god' force is so utterly ridiculous that you are akin to phoenician's looking up at the moon and pronouncing it god. In this case, you might be looking at the god and pronouncing it 'the big bang'. The point being, that you do not have the necessary information, nor will you likely ever have the necessary information, to arrive at an informed conclusion either way. To conclude differently is, ironically, unscientific.

Sheldon?

I am guessing you only read one or two posts and skipped past most of the discussion. Perhaps try again before throwing around the air of superiority. Many of the 'atheists' you are talking down to are essentially saying the same thing that you were in your rambling.

[steampoweredgod]

The topic is evidence for atheism not testify there is no god. What probability do you give your statement is true, “The most probable view of a god existing for me is some supreme being or race possessing god-like traits.”? When does one become an atheist?

In a superdeterministic world, as I believe this to be there is only certainty either an event happened(s, will happen... past present future are of the same nature) 100% or it won't. I believe the probability for fellow poster's assertion is very likely 100% so long as it is viable technological path, the universe is big enough for it to have occurred(it also looks like it is occurring in our world too.).


Regards evidence for atheism, it is true that evidence against any specific religion and any specific miracle or miraculous event has mounted through time(just ask biblical scholars for example.). For example given the evidence it is likelier jesus used hallucinogens and suggestions than actually miraculous events, and even if he did miraculous events unlike primitive men we know that such does not mean his statements or claims of godhood are true, we know that plenty of nongod beings are likely able to do such feats.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 24 April 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[Slahzer]

When does one become an atheist ?

It is a difficult to define who is atheist and who is not. It is as difficult as determining who is christian and who is not, since the majority of people behave the same regardless of their religion.
Personally I would view someone a christian when he himself views him as such and the same goes for being a atheist.

Most christians I know do not confirm to the ideal view christianity just as such most atheists also do not confirm to the definition of an atheist.

That said I think it is important to remember that Atheism is not a belief or religion. Budhists are atheists as well.

What evidence do I have for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the multiple gods of the greeks?
Science

What evidence do I have for believing that there aren't any invisible flying unicorns that harvest our dreams ?
Science

What evidence do I have for not believing in any god whatsoever ?
Science

It is not really evidence per say, but this is the closest answer I can come up with for 'Is there any evidence for atheism?'

Where did science prove there is no God

Science never proved there isn't a god, but science never proved there isn't an omniscient flying spaghetti monster either. Just because something isn't disproved does not mean it defaults to being proved. As we know the it is almost impossible to disprove the concept of a deistic god.

Edited by Slahzer, 24 April 2012 - 03:36 PM.

[gamesguru]

Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists? If I were to doubt the existence of other people, or of ideas, or of brains, then would not the burden of proof fall upon me to prove the nonexistence of these entities, and not upon the believers to prove the existence of these entities, since other people, brains, and ideas are well-documented? You may contend the basis of the Christian god is poorly documented, but I suspect the twelve disciples would have passionately disagreed with you.

Edited by dasheenster, 24 April 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Slahzer]

Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists?

Because atheists do not assert with absolute certainty that no god exists.

The burden of proof is on the the one who postulates there is something rather then nothing, thus on the one making the definitive statement.
As theists postulate a being unsupported by evidence, a being which is not required, making the world more complex rather than simpler, the burden of proof is on the theist.

[mikeinnaples]

Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists? If I were to doubt the existence of other people, or of ideas, or of brains, then would not the burden of proof fall upon me to prove the nonexistence of these entities, and not upon the believers to prove the existence of these entities, since other people, brains, and ideas are well-documented? You may contend the basis of the Christian god is poorly documented, but I suspect the twelve disciples would have passionately disagreed with you.

I have a bit of a problem with this.

In order order for me to disprove that something does NOT exist, I would have to have the very powers of the deity in question so that I could simultaneously check every inch of the universe (or multiverse). In other words, since I am not an all powerful being, it is quite impossible for me to disprove the existence of -anything-. Can you disagree with that?


What I -can- tell you is that it is completely irrational to hedge your bets in regards to immortality on specific flavor of a 'god'. Chances are that even if a god does exist, your particular flavor of belief got it wrong and you are screwed anyways. Heh

[johnross47]

Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists? If I were to doubt the existence of other people, or of ideas, or of brains, then would not the burden of proof fall upon me to prove the nonexistence of these entities, and not upon the believers to prove the existence of these entities, since other people, brains, and ideas are well-documented? You may contend the basis of the Christian god is poorly documented, but I suspect the twelve disciples would have passionately disagreed with you.

It generally falls to the proposer of a hypothesis to prove it. This has been the convention since the earliest attempts at rational thought were recorded. The theists propose their various gods and the doubters say "prove it". The theists fail and the doubters then say "so far I see no reason to believe". That is as far as we are likely to get. All the bluster and fury that has preceded this point does not get past this basic position. The doubters, because they propose nothing, have nothing to prove.

[gamesguru]

Well can we come to the consensus that whenever a thing is supposed true for a given reason or set of reasons and we doubt the soundness of the claims of a dim-witted believer, that we only make ourselves absurd, for it is not well to tempt or taunt the foolish with lofty wisdom.

It might be that theology is false in its totality, or at any rate that belief in it is unsupported against criticisms, but this still doesn't offer an answer to how perfect authorities should indoctrinate people, given that an ideal social contract would be impractical for the person of an average mind.

[mikeinnaples]

Well can we come to the consensus that whenever a thing is supposed true for a given reason or set of reasons and we doubt the soundness of the claims of a dim-witted believer, that we only make ourselves absurd, for it is not well to tempt or taunt the foolish with lofty wisdom.

It might be that theology is false in its totality, or at any rate that belief in it is unsupported against criticisms, but this still doesn't offer an answer to how perfect authorities should indoctrinate people, given that an ideal social contract would be impractical for the person of an average mind.

My biggest problem with faith is in the religion that generally goes along with it. My problem with that religion is the influence it has over my lives of people that want no part of it. That influence has set back the advancement of humanity significantly due to religious beliefs affecting government policy and scientific funding. Religious beliefs causing wars and breeding hate, the influence of which lasts generations. etc etc etc I am sure you understand my point without the need for me to drone on endlessly.

If a person wants to believe in what I call fairy tales, more power to them. I have no problem with it until those superstitious beliefs begin to affect my life and/or the advancement of humanity as a whole.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 25 April 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[gamesguru]

I understand. However, it seems like you do have a problem with those beliefs, because you think such beliefs are harmful in themselves. A vast majority of my family is deeply religious, and while I disagree with them, there seems to be nothing I can do to widen their interests, as I have learned arguments tend to make fools out of both of us.

I think the bourgeoisie and the elites and the governments will similarly refuse to accept guilt for the injustices they and their families have brought about, and I think you'll agree no one is ready to hold them accountable yet. Given that you're so opposed to ideologies as soon as they become harmful in their effects, what would you suggest we do about these vast problems?

[mikeinnaples]

I understand. However, it seems like you do have a problem with those beliefs, because you think such beliefs are harmful in themselves.

Your statement is way too generalized.

I definitely have a problem with -some- of the beliefs. There is a rather large variety of religious belief systems out there in the world and to say that I don't have a problem with some of them would be silly. From a personal standpoint, the belief systems I have the biggest issues with tend to be the radical elements and the ones I have the least problem with tend to place the value of life above all else. In other words, I have a huge problem with radical islam and radical christianity, but have very little issues with buddhism.

I can say that I believe that Christianity in its pure, non-bastardized form would be a good moral compass for most practitioners as a belief system. The problem is that very very few people actually practice it in a way consistent with the teachings of Jesus. People often mistake me for hating christianity because of the things I say. Nothing could really be further from the truth. What I hate is what it has become, the complete hypocrisy, the breeding of hate, the subjugation of others, and everything else that has gone one since his time (I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, just not a divinity). Honestly, I believe if Jesus the man were to travel through time to the modern world and see what has become of his teachings and the pain, hate, horrors, and hypocrisy inflicted in his name, he would be horrified. (and if he was a divinity ...he would lay the holy smack down on most religious entities)

Edited by mikeinnaples, 25 April 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[steampoweredgod]

Well can we come to the consensus that whenever a thing is supposed true for a given reason or set of reasons and we doubt the soundness of the claims of a dim-witted believer, that we only make ourselves absurd, for it is not well to tempt or taunt the foolish with lofty wisdom.

It might be that theology is false in its totality, or at any rate that belief in it is unsupported against criticisms, but this still doesn't offer an answer to how perfect authorities should indoctrinate people, given that an ideal social contract would be impractical for the person of an average mind.

My biggest problem with faith is in the religion that generally goes along with it. My problem with that religion is the influence it has over my lives of people that want no part of it. That influence has set back the advancement of humanity significantly due to religious beliefs affecting government policy and scientific funding. Religious beliefs causing wars and breeding hate, the influence of which lasts generations. etc etc etc I am sure you understand my point without the need for me to drone on endlessly.

If a person wants to believe in what I call fairy tales, more power to them. I have no problem with it until those superstitious beliefs begin to affect my life and/or the advancement of humanity as a whole.

I agree.

but it is not just religious belief, but irrational discrimination. For example human cloning, oh the rich and powerful will use it(yeah they're likely using it, with or without your governments consent... and once a dictator starts selling nuclear backing to others, which is likely happening, the United States will simply have to accept that some people are beyond its touch.).

For example say I was asexual, why should I be forced into sexual reproduction of one form or another? i see no reason why. Regards cloning obviously the technology would be perfected in animals before it was used in humans. Though human embryo destruction via tech development is of no consequence to me.

[gamesguru]

What I'm getting at is that I doubt we can control hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. As I see it, there is no way to ensure people find innocent outlets to their savage instincts, and until this is solved, people will be either dangerous or discontent. So no moral system can guarantee its maxims constitute virtue, and no moral system can claim that all of its members follow its maxims with perfect integrity. There's just no way to control people. There will always be deviants, especially amongst the upper classes.

Edited by dasheenster, 25 April 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[steampoweredgod]

What I'm getting at is that I doubt we can control hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. As I see it, there is no way to ensure people find innocent outlets to their savage instincts, and until this is solved, people will be either dangerous or discontent. So no moral system can guarantee its maxims constitute virtue, and no moral system can claim that all of its members follow its maxims with perfect integrity. There's just no way to control people. There will always be deviants, especially amongst the upper classes.

there is a way in the future, engineer morality into our genes, and restrict all reproduction such that nonethical humans are no longer bred, such that the existing immoral human population slowly fades through time and is replaced by a moral population.

[shadowhawk]

Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists?

Because atheists do not assert with absolute certainty that no god exists.

The burden of proof is on the the one who postulates there is something rather then nothing, thus on the one making the definitive statement.
As theists postulate a being unsupported by evidence, a being which is not required, making the world more complex rather than simpler, the burden of proof is on the theist.

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls only on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?

You can see Atheists play the why game most of us learned as children. All you have to do is ask a version of “why,” any time any theist makes a statement about God. Does the Atheist also get to play? No because Atheists clame they don’t believe anything and have no burden of proof.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.

It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).

The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here in this post, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism. Where is the evidence?

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 April 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists? If I were to doubt the existence of other people, or of ideas, or of brains, then would not the burden of proof fall upon me to prove the nonexistence of these entities, and not upon the believers to prove the existence of these entities, since other people, brains, and ideas are well-documented? You may contend the basis of the Christian god is poorly documented, but I suspect the twelve disciples would have passionately disagreed with you.

Yes

[shadowhawk]

steampoweredgod Regards evidence for atheism, it is true that evidence against any specific religion and any specific miracle or miraculous event has mounted through time(just ask biblical scholars for example.). For example given the evidence it is likelier jesus used hallucinogens and suggestions than actually miraculous events, and even if he did miraculous events unlike primitive men we know that such does not mean his statements or claims of godhood are true, we know that plenty of nongod beings are likely able to do such feats.

Evidence for Atheism is not evidence against any specific religion. Where is your evidence Jesus used drugs? None. This is not evidence against miracles. None. I don’t want to get off topic so I will stop here.

[mikeinnaples]

So how do you propose that an Atheist disproves the existence of a god when the very capability required to do so would require the very divinity in question?

[Slahzer]

Still, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim"
Atheists never made a claim that no god exists, they only refute the claims made by theists that a god does indeed exist.

A healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking skills is important in today's society.

[steampoweredgod]

steampoweredgod Regards evidence for atheism, it is true that evidence against any specific religion and any specific miracle or miraculous event has mounted through time(just ask biblical scholars for example.). For example given the evidence it is likelier jesus used hallucinogens and suggestions than actually miraculous events, and even if he did miraculous events unlike primitive men we know that such does not mean his statements or claims of godhood are true, we know that plenty of nongod beings are likely able to do such feats.

Evidence for Atheism is not evidence against any specific religion. Where is your evidence Jesus used drugs? None. This is not evidence against miracles. None. I don’t want to get off topic so I will stop here.

evidence against miracles? specific miracles, again I'm no bible historian, but bible scholars have basically debunked the occurring of most if any of the miraculous events mentioned there.

Regards Jesus and drugs, well let's have it that either a miraculous event occurred(violation of physical law, keep in mind that god does not violate physical law even to ease human suffering, in fact human suffering could be said to be a byproduct of such laws.) or a more reasonable explanation occurred. Maybe he didn't do it intentionally, maybe there was hallucinogens in the food or water supply. Much more reasonable explanation by any nonbiased observer, a godlike being appeared in the middle of the desert or a more mundane schizo with drugs? one is much more likelier, and you know it.

The reality is that the laws of physics that lead to evolution lead to aging and disease, parasites and natural disasters. They also congratulate and promulgate the genetics that foster cheating, lying, murdering and adultery, as such lead to success in the genetics of the next generation.

[Billybear185]

I think we should let this thread die...

[Hologram]

Unsubscribing, too many posts.

[gamesguru]

there is a way in the future, engineer morality into our genes, and restrict all reproduction such that nonethical humans are no longer bred, such that the existing immoral human population slowly fades through time and is replaced by a moral population.

I agree that there is a possible way, but who will discover it and make it happen? I predict no one. At the rate we're going, humanity will extinct itself before philosophers have the leisure to discover utopia, and even before scientists have the leisure to perfect eugenic techniques.

All of your conclusions can only be adduced by assuming future humans will have a profound ability to manipulate themselves according to eugenic principles. This assumption, as I believe, is an error. As for one possible candidate, take a look at a university and you will see with great clarity that it cannot possibly give birth to a superior race. The reasons? The conservatism, the religion, the stupidity, the complacency, and so on. If it happens at all, let me say and be one of the first to say, that I will not be the man to do it, for I have not the courage or stupidity to take such matters into my hands, and let me say and also let me be one of the first to say, that it will happen out of someone's basement; someone extremely clever and deceitful, who avoids the detection of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Once they create the first two specimen, the superhumans will reproduce ad infinitum and, if they so wish, destroy whatever remains of the human race to establish their own regime.

Such a thing, if humanity is really as pitiful as it seems, might not be so bad, since it would make way for the greater race. That does not mean it would come painlessly to the humans present at the time. Indeed, I would be horrified if this were to happen in my lifetime, and I would wish every bit for a more peaceful era. Hopefully we don't have too many nutcases trying to make this thing happen...

Edited by dasheenster, 26 April 2012 - 02:11 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Read the summary section to get an overview of Scientology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

What Christians need to realize is that their mythical, primitive religion sounds JUST AS SILLY to atheists, as Scientology does to Christians.

Wake up silly believers. Wake up, please.

[steampoweredgod]

there is a way in the future, engineer morality into our genes, and restrict all reproduction such that nonethical humans are no longer bred, such that the existing immoral human population slowly fades through time and is replaced by a moral population.

I agree that there is a possible way, but who will discover it and make it happen? I predict no one. At the rate we're going, humanity will extinct itself before philosophers have the leisure to discover utopia, and even before scientists have the leisure to perfect eugenic techniques.

All of your conclusions can only be adduced by assuming future humans will have a profound ability to manipulate themselves according to eugenic principles. This assumption, as I believe, is an error. As for one possible candidate, take a look at a university and you will see with great clarity that it cannot possibly give birth to a superior race. The reasons? The conservatism, the religion, the stupidity, the complacency, and so on. If it happens at all, let me say and be one of the first to say, that I will not be the man to do it, for I have not the courage or stupidity to take such matters into my hands, and let me say and also let me be one of the first to say, that it will happen out of someone's basement; someone extremely clever and deceitful, who avoids the detection of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Once they create the first two specimen, the superhumans will reproduce ad infinitum and, if they so wish, destroy whatever remains of the human race to establish their own regime.

Such a thing, if humanity is really as pitiful as it seems, might not be so bad, since it would make way for the greater race. That does not mean it would come painlessly to the humans present at the time. Indeed, I would be horrified if this were to happen in my lifetime, and I would wish every bit for a more peaceful era. Hopefully we don't have too many nutcases trying to make this thing happen...

The key is superhuman intelligence. Fiber optics rather than axons, solidstate rather than chemical synapses, a brain 2+Million times faster than human tissue. I believe intelligence combined with knowledge the ability to download and recheck data, validation at high speed of knowledge base, will yield a race able to understand able to grasp, founded in science, the products of science. I cannot believe the outcome of a superintelligent superwise race of being would be insane or capricious but rather logical and compassionate. The PERFECT homo sapiens RACE, a master race to guide the less wise homo sapiens races.

When people postulate an imaginary god is compassionate and good, even in human form, one presumes it is the wisdom and intellect that guide him to such a state.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 26 April 2012 - 03:05 PM.