1712 replies to this topic

[sthira]

If you treat atheism, however you define it, as a rejection of the theist position, as most people here do, then a positive proof is not needed.

I think that's an interesting distinction and one I hadn't really considered until reading this thread. I just thought atheism had to do with the rejection of god. I've never taken mainstream theism (made up stories) very seriously. But the idea of god seems "beyond" and unthinkable, but not necessarily non-existent. How would we know?

[johnross47]

If you treat atheism, however you define it, as a rejection of the theist position, as most people here do, then a positive proof is not needed.

I think that's an interesting distinction and one I hadn't really considered until reading this thread. I just thought atheism had to do with the rejection of god. I've never taken mainstream theism (made up stories) very seriously. But the idea of god seems "beyond" and unthinkable, but not necessarily non-existent. How would we know?

How would we know indeed! That's really the final point of my position on the whole theism/atheism, origins of the universe set of ideas. With the recent announcement of the detection of gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background images, there is now support for one of the multiverse theories, but it still doesn't put us any further forward. It still leaves the question of where the multiverse came from, and indeed, what it is? We don't know and can't know at the moment. So the correct position is one of questioning, not of certainty, and certainly not a presuppostion that it must be a god.

[addx]

There is evidence for atheism only if you accept that ageing is a basic form of altruism neccessary for sexual selection of eukaryotes. It evolved into advanced forms of altruism as selection mechanisms evolved.

The "gene pool" is the first evolved meta-entity to "source" altruism. Eukaryotes sacrifice their asexual reproduction for access to the gene pool. Gene pool only lets mature fit individuals access it. And eventually starts rejecting those that can reproduce asexually. After all in the gene pool have lost asexual reproduction(in favour building the multicellular body rathat than breed) they have subscribed and become hostages of the gene pool or "obligatory sociality".

The "knowledge pool"(mammals) is the second evolved meta-entity to "source" altruism. Spread of knowledge(behaviour) again requires sociality and is not spread by genes.

Subscription to and sacrifice for these two entities is what gives meaning to life of subhuman animals.

Humans evolved individuality which enables us to take knowledge from multiple knowledge pools and give it back. We are infact also motivated to do this and our motivation depends on our perception of such knowledge being useful(which infact means, reproductible, teachable, others want to know it). Useful knowledge will either motivate to teach it or use it. Either behavior will cause spread. Humans have unwittingly become pawns in evolution of knowledge.

As have multicellular bodies been pawns in evolution of form.

Subhumans have no perception of usefullness of knowledge(which is infact possession - a validated way to control something is posesion of it. The way to control is knowledge. Having such knowledge - of posesssion makes your ego big) except in the moment - they just behave and learn vicariously. Usefuless of knowledge is infact always judged against others. There is no useful knowledge on a deserted island giving rise to typical insanity(stemming meaninglessness from lack of perception of any reward).


Both evolutions (of genes and knowledge) require sacrifice to evolve. Genes need to be tested. Knowledge needs to be tested(applied and proven to work). This embedded sacrifice is the platform for observable altruism in species, even humans.

It gave rise to religion which actually recognized this process to be what it is. Be nice, share, breed, have kids, raise them well. That's it. All you need to do. And that is how mother nature programmed us to feel well and this will make most people die well and happy. Religion was built on this, they stole it from mother nature and said God did it. The nice feelings are from God.

But it's not that easy, evolution will make some of us feel pressured for more(especially in dense populations). If we survive, we evolved the knowledge pool(could also be called "posession pool" or "control method pool"), if not, we did our best. Someone else will try again. Such driven people end up wasting a lot of resources on a "dream". They may or may not make it. Some are more some less delusional, but without such people we would mostly stagnate. Religion has the idea that such people should be shot down and destroyed.

If you do not accept this line of thought you have to accept theism. The only 3rd option is Dawknins meaninglessness, but meaninglessness would result in emotionlessness and it doesnt, does it? So we can blind ourselves and say, emotions are just some obsolete thing from lower life forms, we dont need them, but infact you'd hardly be talking here if you didnt have them. The biggest problem with building an AI is in fact creating instrinsic incetive to actually do anything. Why would it talk to a person, what does it have to gain? If you just force it then it's not really an AI is it? People exhachange knowledge that they think is useful (most of you probably spent some time ignoring people talking about stuff you dont think is important). What would be useful for an AI? It can not "sense" usefulness.

Usefulness is sensed as chance of increasing control level. When applied and successful control level is increased. What is controlled? When you work it out to the end -> always people. The final end point of any control attempt is controlling people. Noone would invent anything if they didnt have anyone to show it to who would appreciate it. It can even be yourself(bettering yourself, your control of a car for example), but in the end, how you "invented yourself" is again something that you show to others and attract envy and awe as validation.

So, either we're all here playing for a gene-pool and knowledge-pools or we're playing for God. But we are players, pawns and that's it, disposable.

Edited by addx, 07 April 2014 - 04:32 PM.

[sthira]

If you treat atheism, however you define it, as a rejection of the theist position, as most people here do, then a positive proof is not needed.

I think that's an interesting distinction and one I hadn't really considered until reading this thread. I just thought atheism had to do with the rejection of god. I've never taken mainstream theism (made up stories) very seriously. But the idea of god seems "beyond" and unthinkable, but not necessarily non-existent. How would we know?

How would we know indeed!

SNIP

So the correct position is one of questioning, not of certainty, and certainly not a presuppostion that it must be a god.

Right on, and you may extend the uncertainty the other way, too. That is we don't know that god doesn't exist, either. Maybe god exists? In this way I think Shadowhawk has it right that atheism requires "faith" like theism requires faith. If one faith makes you better about yourself and your position in this crazy universe, then believe. We all believe in something, haha.. If Jesus belief makes ya feel good, if no god makes you feel good -- whatever -- but I say we don't know shit about either. Unless, of course, atheism is defined as negation of theism -- if that's how we define atheism then I'm atheist, too.

[shadowhawk]

Personally I don't consider myself an Atheist either, nor a Theist, or an Agnostic. Mainly because I find too much wonder in the world to believe any of them could be right, with their constant squabbling over whether their particular bearded hero, be he Jesus or Moses or even Darwin, is the one who had all the answers.

OK. nice testimony of what you believe but that is not our topic. You wonder at the world, as evidence nothing is right. (except nothing is right, is right) Pe3ople squabble over the right one and this is proof none are right. You I assume, don't squabble and this is why you are right? OK.

[shadowhawk]

There is evidence for atheism only if you accept that ageing is a basic form of altruism neccessary for sexual selection of eukaryotes. It evolved into advanced forms of altruism as selection mechanisms evolved.

The "gene pool" is the first evolved meta-entity to "source" altruism. Eukaryotes sacrifice their asexual reproduction for access to the gene pool. Gene pool only lets mature fit individuals access it. And eventually starts rejecting those that can reproduce asexually. After all in the gene pool have lost asexual reproduction(in favour building the multicellular body rathat than breed) they have subscribed and become hostages of the gene pool or "obligatory sociality".

The "knowledge pool"(mammals) is the second evolved meta-entity to "source" altruism. Spread of knowledge(behaviour) again requires sociality and is not spread by genes.

Subscription to and sacrifice for these two entities is what gives meaning to life of subhuman animals.

Humans evolved individuality which enables us to take knowledge from multiple knowledge pools and give it back. We are infact also motivated to do this and our motivation depends on our perception of such knowledge being useful(which infact means, reproductible, teachable, others want to know it). Useful knowledge will either motivate to teach it or use it. Either behavior will cause spread. Humans have unwittingly become pawns in evolution of knowledge.

As have multicellular bodies been pawns in evolution of form.

Subhumans have no perception of usefullness of knowledge(which is infact possession - a validated way to control something is posesion of it. The way to control is knowledge. Having such knowledge - of posesssion makes your ego big) except in the moment - they just behave and learn vicariously. Usefuless of knowledge is infact always judged against others. There is no useful knowledge on a deserted island giving rise to typical insanity(stemming meaninglessness from lack of perception of any reward).


Both evolutions (of genes and knowledge) require sacrifice to evolve. Genes need to be tested. Knowledge needs to be tested(applied and proven to work). This embedded sacrifice is the platform for observable altruism in species, even humans.

It gave rise to religion which actually recognized this process to be what it is. Be nice, share, breed, have kids, raise them well. That's it. All you need to do. And that is how mother nature programmed us to feel well and this will make most people die well and happy. Religion was built on this, they stole it from mother nature and said God did it. The nice feelings are from God.

But it's not that easy, evolution will make some of us feel pressured for more(especially in dense populations). If we survive, we evolved the knowledge pool(could also be called "posession pool" or "control method pool"), if not, we did our best. Someone else will try again. Such driven people end up wasting a lot of resources on a "dream". They may or may not make it. Some are more some less delusional, but without such people we would mostly stagnate. Religion has the idea that such people should be shot down and destroyed.

If you do not accept this line of thought you have to accept theism. The only 3rd option is Dawknins meaninglessness, but meaninglessness would result in emotionlessness and it doesnt, does it? So we can blind ourselves and say, emotions are just some obsolete thing from lower life forms, we dont need them, but infact you'd hardly be talking here if you didnt have them. The biggest problem with building an AI is in fact creating instrinsic incetive to actually do anything. Why would it talk to a person, what does it have to gain? If you just force it then it's not really an AI is it? People exhachange knowledge that they think is useful (most of you probably spent some time ignoring people talking about stuff you dont think is important). What would be useful for an AI? It can not "sense" usefulness.

Usefulness is sensed as chance of increasing control level. When applied and successful control level is increased. What is controlled? When you work it out to the end -> always people. The final end point of any control attempt is controlling people. Noone would invent anything if they didnt have anyone to show it to who would appreciate it. It can even be yourself(bettering yourself, your control of a car for example), but in the end, how you "invented yourself" is again something that you show to others and attract envy and awe as validation.

So, either we're all here playing for a gene-pool and knowledge-pools or we're playing for God. But we are players, pawns and that's it, disposable.

Very interesting. On topic and reasoned. No logical fallacies. I don't have time right now to respond.

[addx]

Humans evolved individuality which enables us to take knowledge from multiple knowledge pools and give it back. We are infact also motivated to do this and our motivation depends on our perception of such knowledge being useful(which infact means, reproductible, teachable, others want to know it). Useful knowledge will either motivate to teach it or use it. Either behavior will cause spread. Humans have unwittingly become pawns in evolution of knowledge.
 

Now that I think about it, some guy actually wrote a book on how to take advantage of this by recognising a part of this pattern, Transurfing I believe.

Edited by addx, 07 April 2014 - 09:00 PM.

[johnross47]

 

 

 

If you treat atheism, however you define it, as a rejection of the theist position, as most people here do, then a positive proof is not needed.

I think that's an interesting distinction and one I hadn't really considered until reading this thread. I just thought atheism had to do with the rejection of god. I've never taken mainstream theism (made up stories) very seriously. But the idea of god seems "beyond" and unthinkable, but not necessarily non-existent. How would we know?

 

How would we know indeed!

SNIP

So the correct position is one of questioning, not of certainty, and certainly not a presuppostion that it must be a god.

 

Right on, and you may extend the uncertainty the other way, too. That is we don't know that god doesn't exist, either. Maybe god exists? In this way I think Shadowhawk has it right that atheism requires "faith" like theism requires faith. If one faith makes you better about yourself and your position in this crazy universe, then believe. We all believe in something, haha.. If Jesus belief makes ya feel good, if no god makes you feel good -- whatever -- but I say we don't know shit about either. Unless, of course, atheism is defined as negation of theism -- if that's how we define atheism then I'm atheist, too.

 

As I see it, atheism in the modern world is a reaction to a pre-existing theistic environment, not a judgement arrived at from raw data in a neutral environment; we are born into a world where religion is very prominently evident. (though dramatically declining in most of Europe.) We are surrounded by a multitude of faiths and their proponents, and for most atheists it is simply a matter of saying I don't accept this faith or any faith. These people are without a god, and therefore atheists, but they don't make a faith-requiring statement. This is very similar to agnosticism, perhaps indistinguishable. A few will positively declare that no god exists, and their position is one of faith, since they are making a leap beyond the evidence. My main quarrel with SH in this is that he constantly tries to force everybody into the faith category. 

[shadowhawk]

There is a position for atheism and one for agnosticism.  Two different words describing two different beliefs.  You have done as much above.  But I have been saying this all along.  You cant turn atheism into agnosticism, that position is already long ago taken.

[addx]

shadowshank, I do believe I have proven ageing and emotions to be what I have said, eveything I state in my post is just a sublimation of an essential "knowing of things" that stands in my head with its full manic impact, hard to keep within.

 

Everything I said I attempted to prove here http://www.longecity...volution/page-2

 

The begining is a bit rambley but at the end of 2nd page I made a big "summarizing" post that sets the fundamentals of the idea. And now at the 3rd page it is mostly also proven by laying down some opioid studies from pubmed. It explains EVERYTHING with a fundamental ease. It predicts its proof and its easy to find.

 

So, there is evidence for atheism. There is evidence for the meaning of life. It's all there staring us in the face. It reduces us to a kind of pawns so we dont want to see it.

Edited by addx, 08 April 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[shadowhawk]

  Vardarac:  In addition, and distinct from the previous points,
1. If theism has not been proven true, it does not mean atheism is true.
2. However, it implies that atheism is true based on the precedent of experience, until valid evidence is presented in favor of theism.

ShadowHawk SH: Whose experience?  Not the majority of people in the world.  Here we are talking about valid evidence in favor of Atheism.  Atheism is not the presumption.

3. Therefore, if no valid evidence exists for theism, then this absence of evidence holds as valid evidence for atheism until such a time that evidence in favor of theism is presented and validated.

SH: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We have gone over this logical fallacy many times.

4. Therefore, my posts are on-topic.

SH: Your posts are not on topic and this one is a clear example.

If you persist in your stating that it is irrational to believe that something does not exist without evidence that completely disproves that something in every way, shape, or form, then you are basically saying that it is irrational to disbelieve in:

- Mice in your attic SH: if there is evidence of mice in your attic, believe in them.
- Aliens SH: If there is evidence if Aliens, believed in them.
- Ghosts SH: If there is evidence of Ghosts, believe in them.
- Vampires SH: If there are evidences of Vampires, believe in them.
- Leprechauns SH: If there is evidence, believe
- The Matrix SH: If there is evidence, believe
- The boogeyman SH: If there is evidence believe.
- Every conspiracy theory ever SH: there have been conspiracy’s.  Evidence, believe.
- Brain parasites and the government controlling your thoughts SH: evidence
- The existence of any conceivable threat at any conceivable time SH: evidence
- Any potential cause, real or fictional, of fear for one's life SH: Evidence
- Atheism, Is there any evidence for Atheism? If not, reject it.    

I will take any further posts following the usual formula I have come to expect from you as a concession of the debate concerning the nature of evidence for atheism. I will also take it as the acknowledgement that your argument amounts to calling the rejection of abject paranoia of things not in evidence an irrational prospect.

It must be scary living in your world.

SH: So what have you proved?  Atheism, like everything you mentioned, needs evidence.  Your assumptions are absurd.  So is your name calling.  Your list proves the opposite of your point.

[addx]

As per this more philosophical discussion, atheism thus far (my effort removed) is an attempt to logically disprove a deity which by definition does not make itself known. You can not provoke a deity.

 

Religion is a cultural phenomena and of lesser importance here.

 

Faith, as the central point of all religion, on the other hand, is the key to ending such a ridiculous discussion. 

 

The definition of faith means there must NOT be proof.

 

Or otherwise it would not be faith - it would just be "knowing facts".

 

So, it is unproveable by design.

 

Thus, proving atheism is, in fact, by design, an irrational venture.

 

Unless you did what I did

 

Stop messing about and go read my thread

Edited by addx, 08 April 2014 - 10:01 PM.

[shadowhawk]

addx: As per this more philosophical discussion, atheism thus far (my effort removed) is an attempt to logically disprove a deity which by definition does not make itself known. You can not provoke a deity.

Who made this definition?
If proving nonexistence is a logical impossibility, than how can you prove the non existence pf God?  Atheism therefore has no evidence.
Can you prove only physical matter exists?   This is a basic belief of Atheism
See the discussion of proving a negative at the citation at the end of this post.

  Religion is a cultural phenomena and of lesser importance here.

It is more than a cultural phenomena but it is not the topic.

 

Faith, as the central point of all religion, on the other hand, is the key to ending such a ridiculous discussion.

???
 

The definition of faith means there must NOT be proof.

Where did you get this definition?  I totally disagree.
 

Or otherwise it would not be faith - it would just be "knowing facts".

Do you know all the facts about anything?  You must be a person of faith.

So, it is unproveable by design.

Who designed that?  I don’t think so.

 

Thus, proving atheism is, in fact, by design, an irrational venture.

It does appear Atheism is irrational but I think there is evidence for it.  I am the only one who believes in Atheism.

http://www.longecity...-22#entry654448

[addx]

Belief or faith are either non-fact or ideals. Unproveable by design.

 

I did not claim non-existence. It's just designed to be "undetectable". Different "realms". Not non-existent. 

 

I could claim that there are 7 universes, one is the universe of the magic unicorns, the other of a super deity that picks some special people and puts them in his castle and some others in a bad dark universe. The other universes are all also very interesting. So very interesting. But you get to see the only when you die. And depending if you went left at the crossroads or hugged a bear. I'll call this religion addxeism. And I'll have faith in it. It will be my redemption for my earthly troubles of hugging bears. 

 

There is nothing rational about theism. Trying to disprove theism is joining irrational behaviour.  

 

So, it may be amusing to play around with logical-philosphical perversions within the realms of irrationality, it's not really going to result in anything meaningful in reality. It's more of a pissing contest than anything. And its usually won by the guy who drank more beer.

 

In reality, the one who makes an assertion outside of what is witnessed needs to prove it to be true. 

 

If another person makes an assertion that something exists but it can not be proven, I do not consider it. I consider the reasons for his irrationality perhaps, or something along the lines of that.

 

In other words, I don't believe there is no deity. I rather do not consider it. My attitude towards the existence of deities is about the same as towards fiction of star trek movies. 

 

Edited by addx, 09 April 2014 - 12:06 AM.

[shadowhawk]

addx:  Belief or faith are either non-fact or ideals. Unproveable by design.

Faith is trust.  It is a belief in a person or thing with incomplete evidence.  We all live by faith because we never have complete evidence of anything.  This is not by design.

I did not claim non-existence. It's just designed to be "undetectable". Different "realms". Not non-existent.

OK different than Atheism.
 

I could claim that there are 7 universes, one is the universe of the magic unicorns, the other of a super deity that picks some special people and puts them in his castle and some others in a bad dark universe. The other universes are all also very interesting. So very interesting. But you get to see the only when you die. And depending if you went left at the crossroads or hugged a bear. I'll call this religion addxeism. And I'll have faith in it. It will be my redemption for my earthly troubles of hugging bears.

You can make up any analogy you wish.  Why stop there?  What is interesting to me is an intelligence made them up of things that are real.  We are well familiar with stories and it is important to know their purpose.  Not all stories are intended to be true.  Are yours?  Some stories are true.
 

There is nothing rational about theism. Trying to disprove theism is joining irrational behaviour. 

Are you telling me Theism can’t be based on or in accordance with reason or logic?  I can tell you have very limited exposure to Theism.  Still this is not evidence for atheism and is an empty charge

So, it may be amusing to play around with logical-philosphical perversions within the realms of irrationality, it's not really going to result in anything meaningful in reality. It's more of a pissing contest than anything. And its usually won by the guy who drank more beer.

And you say theists are not rational?

 

In reality, the one who makes an assertion outside of what is witnessed needs to prove it to be true.

Which brings us back to our topic.

 

If another person makes an assertion that something exists but it can not be proven, I do not consider it. I consider the reasons for his irrationality perhaps, or something along the lines of that.

Such as, there is no God?  What kind of evidence do you accept?  Remember everyone has incomplete knowledge.  I asked you if you understood everything about anything and you didn’t answer.  I bet the answer is no but you claim to know things.  Have you proved everything you claim to know?
 

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.In other words, I don't believe there is no deity. I rather do not consider it. My attitude towards the existence of deities is about the same as towards fiction of star trek movies.

Did you use reason and logic to come up with this?  Star trek?  Love star trek.   Well I think we left evidence.

[addx]

addx:  Belief or faith are either non-fact or ideals. Unproveable by design.

Faith is trust.  It is a belief in a person or thing with incomplete evidence.  We all live by faith because we never have complete evidence of anything.  This is not by design.

Ok then, what or where is the incomplete evidence?
 

I could claim that there are 7 universes, one is the universe of the magic unicorns, the other of a super deity that picks some special people and puts them in his castle and some others in a bad dark universe. The other universes are all also very interesting. So very interesting. But you get to see the only when you die. And depending if you went left at the crossroads or hugged a bear. I'll call this religion addxeism. And I'll have faith in it. It will be my redemption for my earthly troubles of hugging bears.

You can make up any analogy you wish.  Why stop there?  What is interesting to me is an intelligence made them up of things that are real.  We are well familiar with stories and it is important to know their purpose.  Not all stories are intended to be true.  Are yours?  Some stories are true.

I'd rather say that a lack of intelligence constructed an imaginary person to have faith in.
 

There is nothing rational about theism. Trying to disprove theism is joining irrational behaviour.

Are you telling me Theism cant be based on or in accordance with reason or logic?  I can tell you have very limited exposure to Theism.  Still this is not evidence for atheism and is an empty charge

No, I actually went to catholic church every sunday and went to "cathechism school" or whatever every sunday. I grew up going to church and thinking, what if some super intelligent alien race was watching us, what would they think of this behaviour. I also remember thinking that there was not much difference between the fictional religious ceremonies depicted in "Conan the barbarian" and what I was semi-forced(didnt really care that much, I just found it weird) to be a part of.

Theism is based on faith in an imaginary being - a deity.

Religion, by using theism, attempts to provide a guide to a "proper way of life". The "guide" itself often contains much wisdom in the sense of recognizing subjective/social situations which is not bad food for wise thought, but then attempts to control the outcome of future such situations by providing "magical incentive" that will redeem whatever hardship a person must endure to change the outcome of such future situations to proceed in accordance to the guide.

Similarly to the way I explain "subscription to a gene pool or knowledge pool" religion attempts to create a "faith pool" and "personalizes"/"inventorizes" stimulus evolved by eons of evolution to be a penance towards a greater "plan" that will reveal itself in full glory only after death.

There is also another type of religion that are more like buddhism - more like a mental discipline for emotional(integrated) rationality rather than emotionally blind rationality. Rationality is a tool of the subjective mind. And thus a lack of rational knowledge is a lack of tooling. Remember, we don't know how to build an AI, that exact part is the puzzle - subjectivity.

My theory is derived from interpretation of reality that holds true when new reality is presented and needs to be interpreted. Religion can not perform this in most cases. My explanation also explains that evolutionary factors that drive us are infact factors that provide "emotions"(subjectivity) that are misinterpred as "from another realm" or "Gods tools" or "Devils tools". In that sense, my explanation is not an extreme of either side of the dualism of science and religion. My explanation follows the "middle way" in accordance to probably the only de facto "atheistic religion" - buddhism - a mental discipline. This means showing science and religion that they are the two sides of the same coin - a mere cognitive dissonance - uintegrated meaning.
 

So, it may be amusing to play around with logical-philosphical perversions within the realms of irrationality, it's not really going to result in anything meaningful in reality. It's more of a pissing contest than anything. And its usually won by the guy who drank more beer.

And you say theists are not rational?

In the sense of theism, they're not. Considering other things - they may very well make rational judgements.
 

In reality, the one who makes an assertion outside of what is witnessed needs to prove it to be true.

Which brings us back to our topic.

 
 

If another person makes an assertion that something exists but it can not be proven, I do not consider it. I consider the reasons for his irrationality perhaps, or something along the lines of that.

Such as, there is no God?  What kind of evidence do you accept?  Remember everyone has incomplete knowledge.  I asked you if you understood everything about anything and you didnt answer.  I bet the answer is no but you claim to know things.  Have you proved everything you claim to know?

I do believe there is a fundamental "knowing of things"(too early to think of a more prophetic term that will make me sound even more weird) which makes any other lack of knowledge seem like a lack of proper "tools" rather. And a lack of tools is only a problem if you're set on doing something.

What kind of tools you are trying to build here and for what purpose? This is why I have issues with this type of discussion.

The purpose seems to be validation of ones own logical instrument abilities through competition with others, a competition which requires an irrational(subjective) premise and thus is won irrationaly(subjectively) (by pissing further, or in other words, being more persuasive, being more stubborn or whatever serves the goal of in fact "proving to be more smart"). It is abuse and objectification of ones rationality for the purposes of nothing more than intellectual social status. The ability to persuade people when they should not be persuaded is abusing a subjective relation to validate objective ability to reason(as the resolution to this discussion serves no further inention other than that) and feeds into intelectual omnipotence through emotional blindness.
 

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.In other words, I don't believe there is no deity. I rather do not consider it. My attitude towards the existence of deities is about the same as towards fiction of star trek movies.

Did you use reason and logic to come up with this?  Star trek?  Love star trek.   Well I think we left evidence.

As said, I take it for what it is. Religion shows the ways the psyche rationalized the subjective/social experience at that time in history. I do not consider the rationalizations to be true, just the subjective experience of the world that can be seen in the rationalizations.

Edited by addx, 09 April 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[shadowhawk]

addx:  Ok then, what or where is the incomplete evidence?

Take the scientific method...It is rational I guess..., certain facts are known.  (Even these facts still have many questions) From these facts we hypnotize something else might be true and if we can, we test for it.  Incomplete evidence acted upon by faith.  This works itself out in life in all kinds of ways.  You cannot function without faith and incomplete evidence.  Try crossing a street only after you have complete knowledge.  You never will.

I'd rather say that a lack of intelligence constructed an imaginary person to have faith in.

Lack of Intelligence can construct nothing.  Are you telling me works of fiction do not require intelligence?  Intelligence can perceive both fiction and non fiction.  Intelligence can perceive a real person to have faith in.

You claim to having gone to a Catholic school and having been taught an imaginary being God.  I suppose this was due to a lack of intelligence as you have argued.  Try intelligence, maybe that will help do away with the alien race watching you and you can reconsider the evidence for God..

My theory is derived from interpretation of reality that holds true when new reality is presented and needs to be interpreted. Religion can not perform this in most cases. My explanation also explains that evolutionary factors that drive us are infact factors that provide "emotions"(subjectivity) that are misinterpred as "from another realm" or "Gods tools" or "Devils tools". In that sense, my explanation is not an extreme of either side of the dualism of science and religion. My explanation follows the "middle way" in accordance to probably the only de facto "atheistic religion" - buddhism - a mental discipline. This means showing science and religion that they are the two sides of the same coin - a mere cognitive dissonance - uintegrated meaning.

Kind of a syncronistic outgrowth of the bicameral mind theory.

What kind of evidence do you accept?  Remember everyone has incomplete knowledge.  I asked you if you understood everything about anything and you didn’t answer.  I bet the answer is no but you claim to know things.  Have you proved everything you claim to know?

As said, I take it for what it is. Religion shows the ways the psyche rationalized the subjective/social experience at that time in history. I do not consider the rationalizations to be true, just the subjective experience of the world that can be seen in the rationalizations.

You don’t need faith do you?  You know this as a fact.  First belief in God is not rational, now it is a rationalization.

[addx]

addx:  Ok then, what or where is the incomplete evidence?

Take the scientific method...It is rational I guess..., certain facts are known.  (Even these facts still have many questions) From these facts we hypnotize something else might be true and if we can, we test for it.  Incomplete evidence acted upon by faith.  This works itself out in life in all kinds of ways.  You cannot function without faith and incomplete evidence.  Try crossing a street only after you have complete knowledge.  You never will.

You're not getting me, before I cross the street I usually know why I want to do this.

If you're making a leap of faith - what are you leaping onto and why?

So, why do people want God to exist?

As said, religion for me depicts the psyche and sociality of the time it was induced.

I'd rather say that a lack of intelligence constructed an imaginary person to have faith in.

Lack of Intelligence can construct nothing.  Are you telling me works of fiction do not require intelligence?  Intelligence can perceive both fiction and non fiction.  Intelligence can perceive a real person to have faith in.

It's just a smart ass retort, you know what I meant. To complete the meaning I'd say a lack of emotional intelligence.

It's really a simple feat. Rational intelligence understands the external, irrational or subjective or emotional intelligence understand the internal.

So, I repeat, why do theist want to have faith in God.

Why do you want to have faith in no-God?

The answers to those questions lie within the scope of emotional intelligence. Lacking it causes rational intelligence to produce an invisible deity in the external.

You claim to having gone to a Catholic school and having been taught an imaginary being God.  I suppose this was due to a lack of intelligence as you have argued.  Try intelligence, maybe that will help do away with the alien race watching you and you can reconsider the evidence for God..

Hey, I was a kid. I was considering evidence for God at that time as well :p

My theory is derived from interpretation of reality that holds true when new reality is presented and needs to be interpreted. Religion can not perform this in most cases. My explanation also explains that evolutionary factors that drive us are infact factors that provide "emotions"(subjectivity) that are misinterpred as "from another realm" or "Gods tools" or "Devils tools". In that sense, my explanation is not an extreme of either side of the dualism of science and religion. My explanation follows the "middle way" in accordance to probably the only de facto "atheistic religion" - buddhism - a mental discipline. This means showing science and religion that they are the two sides of the same coin - a mere cognitive dissonance - uintegrated meaning.

Kind of a syncronistic outgrowth of the bicameral mind theory.

What kind of evidence do you accept?  Remember everyone has incomplete knowledge.  I asked you if you understood everything about anything and you didnt answer.  I bet the answer is no but you claim to know things.  Have you proved everything you claim to know?

 

As said, I take it for what it is. Religion shows the ways the psyche rationalized the subjective/social experience at that time in history. I do not consider the rationalizations to be true, just the subjective experience of the world that can be seen in the rationalizations.

You dont need faith do you?  You know this as a fact.  First belief in God is not rational, now it is a rationalization.

Yes, exactly.

Rationalization, as I use it, is a psychological construct depicting a maladaptive primitive defence mechanism against in fact an internal emotional cause/drive. Google it.

Rationalization of something irrational is not really possible in the sense of succeeding, but it is possible to attempt so. The attempts end in irrationality that presents itself to the mind as rational and effectively achieves denial. Emotional denial through abusing the rational mind(tool of the subjective mind) to, in effect, remove yourself of responsibility(and understanding) for your emotions. The better you are at this the smarter you think you are, but you're also that much more blind in knowing what exactly is your goal and where you stand. Your subjective mind is increasingly suppressed to focus on the ever increasing abilities of your prime tool - the objective mind. Soon enough you become a tool, you just don't know it.

[shadowhawk]

Based on or in accordance with reason or logic here is my rational response.

People want to know why there is something rather than nothing.  If you have a beautiful painting, it is natural to want to know who painted it.  You could say its physical existence is enough but most rational and reasonable people do not like that incomplete answer.  The cosmos is approximately 14 billion years old and people, from the first to the present have been asking the heart felt, intellectual question, why?  Despite the objection of some like johnross47 the questions are as relevant today as they ever were.

The cosmos can’t answer the question why, by itself.  You need faith.
---------------------------------------------------
GODELS INCOMPLETENESS
http://www.longecity...480#entry641947
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
http://www.longecity...480#entry642183
“I am lying.”
1.    Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
2.    All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
3.    You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
------------------------------------------------------
1.    There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
2.    The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
3.    The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
4.   Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
5.   If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.
6.    Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
7.    Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.  Is it God?  You will need faith just as in everything else.
--------------------------------------------
http://www.longecity...480#entry642801

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faith is trust.  It is a belief in a person or thing with incomplete evidence.  We all live by faith because we never have complete evidence of anything.  Faith does not mean no knowledge.  We do have knowledge but it is very limited.  You can’t even cross a street with 100% knowledge a car is not coming nor are you sure of why you are crossing it.

Godel’s incompleteness therm guarantees faith must be a rational activity.  It also guarantees the ultimate answer must come from outside the physical world.  The answer must come to us.
 

[Jeoshua]

Godel's incompleteness theorem has also been used in attempts to both prove and disprove the existence of God. Both attempts are fruitless, because what it Godel was really saying is that you can't use logic to prove something that lies outside the defined realms of that logical system. As in, you can't use anything in this reality to prove or disprove something which, by definition, lies outside of it. Meaning that you can't use that as a proof or disproof of God, since if God created the Universe, he is not contained within the universe, and therefore cannot be proven or disproved by anything which is inside the universe.

 

Fascinating theorem though, if you can wrap your head around it.

Edited by Jeoshua, 09 April 2014 - 11:07 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Godel's incompleteness theorem has also been used in attempts to both prove and disprove the existence of God. Both attempts are fruitless, because what it Godel was really saying is that you can't use logic to prove something that lies outside the defined realms of that logical system. As in, you can't use anything in this reality to prove or disprove something which, by definition, lies outside of it. Meaning that you can't use that as a proof or disproof of God, since if God created the Universe, he is not contained within the universe, and therefore cannot be proven or disproved by anything which is inside the universe.

 

Fascinating theorem though, if you can wrap your head around it.

 

I wasn't using it here to prove the existence of God, but the necessity of faith.  Materialism and atheism can't explain itself.  You missed the point.

 

[Jeoshua]

I meant "you" in general, not "you" specifically shadowhawk. I understand how it may have seemed, given previous animosity that may have been flying around this thread. That's one of the downsides of trying to talk about Atheism vs Theism. People get a little bent out of shape. Allow me to punctuate all this with an emoticon, in the hopes that this will clear up my current state of mind re: this discussion:

 

 

I still think the problem here stems from a definitional problem:

Atheism, as a declaration that God does not exist, cannot be proven, due to the problem Godel so eloquently put forth in his incompleteness theorem.

Atheism, as a rejection of the existence of God, does not really need to be proven, as it is a rejection of evidence as inconsistent and not truly reliant on evidence of its own to achieve this.

[shadowhawk]

I meant "you" in general, not "you" specifically shadowhawk. I understand how it may have seemed, given previous animosity that may have been flying around this thread. That's one of the downsides of trying to talk about Atheism vs Theism. People get a little bent out of shape. Allow me to punctuate all this with an emoticon, in the hopes that this will clear up my current state of mind re: this discussion:

 

 

I still think the problem here stems from a definitional problem:

Atheism, as a declaration that God does not exist, cannot be proven, due to the problem Godel so eloquently put forth in his incompleteness theorem.

Atheism, as a rejection of the existence of God, does not really need to be proven, as it is a rejection of evidence as inconsistent and not truly reliant on evidence of its own to achieve this.

Thanks for the change in tone. Sounds good to me.

 

The same may be said of God who is outside the evidence.  However, in a Christian model God is also inside and thus is at least as far as it goes subject to the possibility of evidence.  So is there any evidence, pro or con that God is in our cosmos.  I think, what ever view you take, you do with faith as I have described it. 

 

[Jeoshua]

Well how could God create the Universe, and yet be contained within its borders? That itself is a logical inconsistency. As I understood it, in my examination of the topic some time ago, God is Eternal, Unchanging, Everlasting, and definitely dwells outside His Creation, in a different plane often referred to as either Heaven or The Light Everlasting. Those qualities point to this plane of existence being disconnected in both space and time from our own. And thus, this falls squarely into the problem of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, as well as a few more problems. If God is Everlasting, Eternal, and Unchanging, then even if he did exist within our realm, how would any conceivable experiment ever hope to affect Him in such a way as to prove, or disprove, His existence?

However, if one takes the Hebrew word for "Heaven", Shamayim, the exact translation points to something different. Sha Mayim is the visible sky, the domain of the stars, "The Heavens Above". This points to the Elohim being something not of this world, but definitely of this universe. That means that the Hebrew God is not some extra-dimensional being, but rather a being of great power that exists in this reality. A kind of super-alien. But if this is the case, how can he also be the creator of the universe in which he must necessarily already be existing in?

I realize that this is all about Theism, and a rather specific one at that, but you're the one who got my mind started on this track, and thus you can blame no one but yourself

[shadowhawk]

How could God be boundless and not also within the physical borders?  It is not about theism.  Atheism would say there is no God within the borders.  Theists do not accept this.  That is why I asked elsewhere, "Is there evidence for God?"

 

Christians and Jews have the same views here.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 April 2014 - 02:13 AM.

[Jeoshua]

My rejection of standard theism, however, stems very highly on both those problems.

A God who exists outside the borders of spacetime cannot be directly examined scientifically, and thus how can one do anything but reject this model?
A God who exists within the borders of spacetime would require us to have complete knowledge of everything in this universe to find or not find. Thus, how can we do anything but say that we do not know enough of the universe as a whole to say anything about the subject?

Bringing it around full circle: No, there is no evidence that God does not exist, as to have such evidence we would need to have information from another reality (thus, not this reality, thus, not "real"), in addition to knowing everything there is to know about every last thing in this reality we do exist in (making us omniscient, and therefore, Gods ourselves).

But that's only the one kind of Atheism, the declaration that God does not exist. And that cannot be supported by facts and evidence. The other kind of Atheism, a rejection of presupposed "evidence" that God does exist as inadequate, is completely justified and does not require evidence as it is, by definition, the rejection of evidence.

[shadowhawk]

My rejection of standard theism, however, stems very highly on both those problems.

A God who exists outside the borders of spacetime cannot be directly examined scientifically, and thus how can one do anything but reject this model?
A God who exists within the borders of spacetime would require us to have complete knowledge of everything in this universe to find or not find. Thus, how can we do anything but say that we do not know enough of the universe as a whole to say anything about the subject?

Bringing it around full circle: No, there is no evidence that God does not exist, as to have such evidence we would need to have information from another reality (thus, not this reality, thus, not "real"), in addition to knowing everything there is to know about every last thing in this reality we do exist in (making us omniscient, and therefore, Gods ourselves).

But that's only the one kind of Atheism, the declaration that God does not exist. And that cannot be supported by facts and evidence. The other kind of Atheism, a rejection of presupposed "evidence" that God does exist as inadequate, is completely justified and does not require evidence as it is, by definition, the rejection of evidence.

I would have problems with a nature that could be examined scientifically.  That would mean God was created and material.  Science has its limitations.  No, God is omnipresent and there is no place that he is not. |This means God created the Big Bang, not the other way around.

As to evidence God does not exist.  This is not the only reality, it is kataphotic.  You are right, we need information from another reality.  Why do you think I am a Christian and not a Jew?

 

[addx]

As said logical-philosphical perversion.
 

1.    Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.

No, all reasoning comes from an perceived opportunity to satisfy a subjective demand.

As said, reason is a tool of the subjective mind.

The below is an improper use of the tool
 

2.    All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
3.    You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
------------------------------------------------------
1.    There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

An axiom stemming from denied subjectivity.
 

2.    The universe as we know it is finite finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
3.    The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

Another axiom stemming from denied subjectivity. A function of explaining existence is only a demand of the subjective mind which can comprehend existence.
 

4.   Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

Logical error. Point 1. says "1. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle."
 

5.   If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödels theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. Its immaterial.
6.    Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
7.    Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.  Is it God?  You will need faith just as in everything else.
--------------------------------------------

Whatever it is, once you find out you can insert it into point 5. and again have the same dillema. So it's just a distorted recursive argument showing denied subjective intent distorting the objective mind into an irrational(and wrong) conclusion.

...
 

Faith is trust.  It is a belief in a person or thing with incomplete evidence.  We all live by faith because we never have complete evidence of anything.  Faith does not mean no knowledge.  We do have knowledge but it is very limited.  You cant even cross a street with 100% knowledge a car is not coming nor are you sure of why you are crossing it.

Godels incompleteness therm guarantees faith must be a rational activity.  It also guarantees the ultimate answer must come from outside the physical world.  The answer must come to us.

The fact that a logical perversion has a name does not impress me. Infact it makes me feel digusted to read it.



The true explanation for what has been distorted above goes as follows:


There is a master perspective and a pawn perspective.

The pawns experience the world around them which is provided by a "master" and observe causality.

"Faith"(as you call it, but infact opportunity for realising subjective demand) is sparked by observation of a repeating pattern of causality in reality. This results in "unvalidated knowledge"(from my knowledge pools) or a theory/beleif/hunch/whatever.

Knowledge is validated by intentionaliy invoking the same pattern of causality and producing the predicted outcome. This is proven then, a validated method of control of reality or simply - knowledge is realised. The more accurate the prediction of the outcome - the more accurate the method of control or knowledge. Less accurate means more "faith"(or hoping).

(this is actually how the brain neurologically works. perceived control level(serotonin) inhibits or disinhibits behavior to execute it(dopamine). opioids induce repetition of execution in order to increase control level by repeated success. each success of execution increases control and is rewarded by mu-opioids until 100% control is achieved. at that point you can only fear loss of control. this fear is also modulated, by kappa opioids. this process is conscious learning of control, the child begins learning to control his limbs and grows to learn to control his wife(infatuation is learning of control and once it is learnt motivation/infatuation is lost))

That which can be controlled/predicted is KNOWN by the pawns. This is your "inside of circle" per the above theorem.

That which can NOT be controlled/predicted and yet is observed is given "subjective character" in order to transfer the "lack of control" into to the irrational/subjective realm by imagining a master controller(a subject). This is "outside of circle as per the above theorem.

The master controller subjectivity is (ab)used to explain phenomena beyond our control. "The master wanted it so". Religion is as attempts to please the subjective master and delude a sense of control.

------

Now, civilization has uncovered most of the knowledge about the external world. It is not precise knowledge but it is precise enough for us to understand that our reality is tightly bound by physics rules governing matter etc etc. There is nothing that we can observe that impresses us in the sense that we introject a master subject into it.

But there is still something that we can not explain or predict - our own subjectivity. Fears, desires such as fear of death, sense of doom, love of life etc. These things we consider to be our "irrational subjectivity". This is the only thing currently that we fundamentally do not understand.

Now, if we reject the introjection of subjectivity into that which is not known we can resume to uncover it using objectivity.

The pawns can deduct the "objective master". While doing so the pawns must consider themselves as objects within the master perspective or in other words, allow their subjectivity to be observed as an object objectively and try to determine the rules that govern such an object.

In that sense, my evolutionary theory explains our functioning as objects within the schemas of life that are explained somewhat on my thread to which I have given an url.

Explaining our subjectivity with objective rationality is the pinnacle of self-awareness and breaks down the last "drawn circle" by explaining what was once perceived as irrational(as the sun coming up and going down every day has also been explained without irrationality).


Explaining our subjectivity with objective rationality simultaneously completely denies any "incomplete evidence" or in other words completely denies the irrational platform on which theism and religion were incepted.


Also, on the subject of "incomplete evidence". There is no incomplete evidence to theism. There is NO evidence by definition. The introjection of subjectivity into that which is not understood caused people to invent theism to attempt control of rain/wind/sun but in the end the only irrational thing left to control was the "idea of afterlife" causing religion to exist to this day. There has never been any incomplete evidence to afterlife. And yet there is a great subjective demand for immortality as seen on this forum. So, it's just a distortion as explained.

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[addx]

Here, try, read and comprehend as much as you can from this URL:

http://www.thenewyog...g/use&abuse.htm

In order to understand object and subject abilities of your mind.

As pointed out above, awareness of existence(of self and other) if a function of the subjective mind. As such, a need to prolong this existence, by means such as immortality is a result of subjective demand. From such a subjective demand stem all the delusions of afterlife and theism (and also the objective move to invent immortality as seen on this forum). There is not one shred of objective evidence to any theistic phenomena. There is no incomplete evidence towards theism.

As such, atheism is simply rejection of theism as a subjective distortion of reality.

Rejection is not the same thing as disproving. I do not consider claims of theism, but rather reject them. I do not attempt to disprove them as that would imply that someone has proven them in the first place.

If you want to prove atheism, rather than reject theism, then you must prove it by revealing theism as untrue. This means that you would have to find a pattern and use it to predict an outcome using the theory of theism. It means you have been drawn into an irrational battlefield while at the same time being confined by rational thought. You will lose no matter what as irrational battlefields have the notorious habit of deux-ex-machina whenever they fail to predict or explain. It's a ridiculous discussion. "Mysterious are the ways of God". Attempting to disprove that is just as irrational as claiming it.

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[addx]

In fact, now that I think about it, that entire "bigger circle", "bigger circle" idea is simply ignorance of ones own mind.

If you read that link I posted above you will see the "awareness" defined and in the definition you will ultimately understand what it is. Hopefully.

Awareness is an extra evolved part of the brain that allows you to see yourself from the outside(in order to asses the situation with you as an object in it - this allows you to "judge" the situation from outside of it - this allows humans individuality). It is explained in the URL.

It seems that the person writing about the bigger and bigger circles is not aware of his own awareness and the fact that he always has the ability to THINK outside of his position(a human in the known universe) due to the tool he has, not due to the fact that there is something outside the circle. The ability to "THINK THERE" does not imply in any way that "THERE" exists. It is a feautre of the brain, not of reality.


"You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle." (yes, your awareness will be outside of it if you want it to)

The confusion is obvious in other points I gave, like expecting things to explain their existence etc.

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 01:34 PM.