Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Militant atheists by inference. We've been having these discussions for years.
Who gets into heaven
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
It's deeper than mathematics. It's about what QM is telling us about ultimate reality. Einstein and Bohr were famously engaged in philosophical discussions about what QM meant. The Many Worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation are philosophical viewpoints on what QM is telling us at a deeper level than just math. The math is a symptom, an expression, of something deeper.
I understand that.
I'm saying there has only been a paltry and frustratingly small amount of progress in origin of life studies in the last 70 years.
On the other hand, particle physics, cosmology, genetics have advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 70 years.
It's even stranger than just something coming from nothing.
From the origin point onward, the universe was lawfully organized, intelligible, finely tuned, mathematically rational.
That's what makes these great scientific and philosophical questions.
Crepitus
Verified User
Well yes, the predator/prey relationship is a najor driver of evolution but not the only one.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Of course not. It's the driver of intelligence. Survival is the driver of evolution.
I fail to believe in any gods because no evidence has been shown for them that convinces me. Ergo believing in multiple gods is even LESS likely for me.
Agreed.
What the other poster doesn't understand is the chemistry he's talking about. If he did he wouldn't be so awe-struck by the "mystery".
And that's really all Creationists like Cypress thrive one: MYSTERY. It's why they like to point to verbs and marvel that they aren't physical objects. It's why they wave their hands about Quantum mechanics while having ZERO experience of quantum mechanics as a scientist.
Sure Quantum is weird. And that weirdness is what attracts Creationists like Cypress: it's a big hollow space they think they can shove "God" into and fill it.
May as well just say "Blorflumbolong" and pat himself on the back for insight.
Into the Night
Verified User
Jesus isn't orange, Sybil. I see you consider Man to be Satan.
Into the Night
Verified User
Trump is not an atheist, Sybil. TDS.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist', Sybil. Buzzword fallacy.
There is for people who are terrified of atheists. Atheists scare some folks because it calls into question their "faith". How could someone NOT believe as they do in magical creatures and invisible sky beings? It is obvious to them that these magical beings exist and if they find someone who DOESN'T believe in the magical beings they are disturbed. How can that be?
Your mind reading orb is better than mine.
Bret Weinstein
@BretWeinstein
Yes, you can have morality without religion. But can it last?Religious morality is a product of evolution—a narrative/incentive structure that encodes subtle truths about the interaction of game theory and wellbeing. In effect, it uses mythology to solve multipolar traps. It’s readily possible for individuals to act in accordance with these moral restrictions, without the narrative or faith. That said, a population that lacks faith in such a shared narrative is prone to being destroyed by cheaters who defect from the moral structure and individually profit by doing so. That profitable cheating behavior spreads and dooms the larger culture, if not the lineage itself.So the real question is: can a population that does not reliably maintain a robust religious framework persist?My best guess at the answer is: It is technically possible to have stable morality in an atheistic culture, but it’s practically impossible.
@BretWeinstein
Yes, you can have morality without religion. But can it last?Religious morality is a product of evolution—a narrative/incentive structure that encodes subtle truths about the interaction of game theory and wellbeing. In effect, it uses mythology to solve multipolar traps. It’s readily possible for individuals to act in accordance with these moral restrictions, without the narrative or faith. That said, a population that lacks faith in such a shared narrative is prone to being destroyed by cheaters who defect from the moral structure and individually profit by doing so. That profitable cheating behavior spreads and dooms the larger culture, if not the lineage itself.So the real question is: can a population that does not reliably maintain a robust religious framework persist?My best guess at the answer is: It is technically possible to have stable morality in an atheistic culture, but it’s practically impossible.
It's not mind reading. It's after reading huge amounts of posts from those posters. They spend all day excoriating atheists and mocking them with pejorative terms.
Cy and Doc are believers. They believe in magical things beyond space and time. Just read their posts.
That's a nice load of horseshit.
But if I am stuck on a planet full of people who can't imagine a morality without a big invisible sky daddy to tell them that punching old ladies is bad then I guess we have to tread lightly around such benighted souls.
I fear people who can't reason morality. They are automatons who would hurt the innocent if there wasn't a strict rule given to them not to do so.
That's the most appalling morality I can imagine.
Yakuda
Verified User
It's amazing how stupid you are. The ONLY reason you can pretend to think killing someone is a moral wrong is because you're the product of a society saturated in the moral law of that "invisible sky daddy". The only thing more unsightly than your stupidity is your pomposity
Well, clearly you are a person who can't reason why it is wrong to hurt an innocent person. I'm SO GLAD you have God to tell you to be a decent person so we can both survive in society.
At least one of us can tell you why it is bad to punch a nun in the face other than "God tol' me not to do that".
Yakuda
Verified User
No I want you to tell me why it's wrong to kill someone.
Le sigh. Yet again I have to explain something to a mouthbreather that I've already explained several times.
We are social animals who derive a survival advantage from strong social ties and social organization. Maintaining equitable and decent relations with each other keeps those bonds strong and keeps ALL of us safe. If there was no opprobrium to murder then the society would be less safe and the social network would cease to provide a survival advantage.
It's really fuckin' simple if you aren't brain damaged from eating lead paint chips as a child as I assume you did.
Honestly why is it so fucking hard?
Do you think that dog packs who take care of members of the pack are doing it because they know Jesus? Are you daft? Countless examples exist of social animals (NOT humans) that have this sort of structure. But apparently YOU think Wolf Jesus ministered to the wolves.
Whew....taking time to explain simple stuff to folks like you makes me feel sad that you aren't that bright.
Yakuda
Verified User
What a fucking load of horseshit. There is NOTHING in the drivel that explains why people shouldnt kill someone and it certainly doesn't address the fact that you have no fucking justification to stop someone from killing someone else. If someone decides to abandon your pussy ass social animal bullshit what could you do about it? Nothing. That what