Atheist versus former atheist debate

[Dutch Uncle]

I think hope is a powerful aspiration for most humans.

A strictly physical, reductionist, and materialistic existence with no higher purpose or ultimate meaning isn't that appealing to a considerable number of people.

Agreed on hope, but part of that is genetic; the survival instinct as seen in other animals. It's only humans who seem to have the ability to think past our own instincts. Do dogs and chimps commit suicide? The data doesn't support it even if, as the link below points out, there is anecdotal evidence of it happening.

The human mind is capable of rising above our genetics and reaching a conclusion that is contrary to our genetic propensity for survival. Notice that those on the less-thinking side of humanity mostly react by instinct and experience, not reason. JPP has several people acting on emotion, not reason. They have "hope", but what they are hoping for is not always rational.

Do Animals Commit Suicide?

Many species of non-human animals end their lives through self-destructive or accidental behaviors. But whether it’s an act of suicide is a controversial question.

www.discovermagazine.com

Still, detractors of the notion that animals can suicide dismiss the idea as anthromorphism — the attribution of human qualities to something non-human. Just because a dolphin seems depressed and doesn’t surface to breathe doesn’t mean that it has chosen to kill itself. Skeptic C.A. Soper, author of The Evolution of Suicide, thinks instances like Kathy’s death “say more about the observer than the observed.”

Those who argue for the possibility of animal suicide — most are quick to note that they are not certain it happens — call this “anthropo-denial.” That is, they think prima facie dismissal of the possibility that animals might think and act in ways perceived as uniquely human is too hasty. They maintain instead that these capabilities ought to be viewed on a spectrum. While animal grief — or depression or joy or anger — might not manifest in the same ways it does in humans doesn’t mean it isn’t real. So it is with suicide, they insist.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I really don't know anything about the etymology of the word universe to say anything intelligent about what the word strictly is supposed to mean.

Multiverse, as I understand it, is to think of our Universe as a bubble in a sea of other bubble universes. The laws of physics could be different in each of those universes. In some cases, the physics do not allow for the formation of stars, planets and life so they are dead universes. Others are stable in such a way that does allow for life even if radically different from our own.

 

[Cypress]

Multiverse, as I understand it, is to think of our Universe as a bubble in a sea of other bubble universes. The laws of physics could be different in each of those universes. In some cases, the physics do not allow for the formation of stars, planets and life so they are dead universes. Others are stable in such a way that does allow for life even if radically different from our own.

Correct. The idea is that the inflationary field that caused our little patch of space to balloon up also is acting on other little patches of space and ballooning them up.

 

[Cypress]

The human mind is capable of rising above our genetics and reaching a conclusion that is contrary to our genetic propensity for survival.

That's the conclusion I am drawn to, and the interesting question is why that is etched on our conscience in certain ways that we don't see manifested in the Darwinian scheme of things.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman.

Big fucking deal, that's totally irrelevant to the topic and to my point.

Get your facts straight before you pretend you know what you're talking about.

You should try understanding the topic well enough that you actually cite meaningful references and don't have to pivot when your non-points are batted aside.

 

[IBDaMann]

That's the conclusion I am drawn to, and the interesting question is why that is etched on our conscience in certain ways that we don't see manifested in the Darwinian scheme of things.

When you use "we" and "our," to whom do you refer?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's the conclusion I am drawn to, and the interesting question is why that is etched on our conscience in certain ways that we don't see manifested in the Darwinian scheme of things.

IIRC, George Carlin once had a bit about "saving the planet" and how the Earth allowed humans to be spawned so we'd create plastic for the Earth. LOL

As discussed previously, life is rare but, using the only example we have, it appears that evolution eventually produces intelligence AKA sentient consciousness, all within the laws of our Universe. Where we go from here is the $64 question, but I'm guessing it's upward and onward.

 

[IBDaMann]

That's the conclusion I am drawn to,

I notice that you agreed instead of calling boooooolsch't. How do you suppose that a mind "rises"?

 

[Cypress]

IIRC, George Carlin once had a bit about "saving the planet" and how the Earth allowed humans to be spawned so we'd create plastic for the Earth. LOL

As discussed previously, life is rare but, using the only example we have, it appears that evolution eventually produces intelligence AKA sentient consciousness, all within the laws of our Universe. Where we go from here is the $64 question, but I'm guessing it's upward and onward.

I am onboard with the idea that once life gets established, it can become more complex and even evolve higher intelligence. Dolphins, crows, and Orcas are highly intelligent.

What I don't find convincing is that technologically-capable advanced intelligence will inevitably arise.

An intelligence like that only arose once on Earth, over a timespan of four billion years. And even then, it almost went extinct before it even got started - the events surrounding the genetic bottleneck in our species about 75k years ago almost resulted in our extinction.

Wrapping up:
I see it as even odds that either technologically capable advanced intelligence is inevitable; or that it is a fluke that depended on an unlikely series of physical, environmental, and chemical events.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am onboard with the idea that once life gets established, it can become more complex and even evolve higher intelligence. Dolphins, crows, and Orcas are highly intelligent.

What I don't find convincing is that technologically-capable advanced intelligence will inevitably arise.

An intelligence like that only arose once on Earth, over a timespan of four billion years. And even then, it almost went extinct before it even got started - the events surrounding the genetic bottleneck in our species about 75k years ago almost resulted in our extinction.

Wrapping up:
I see it as even odds that either technologically capable advanced intelligence is inevitable; or that it is a fluke that depended on an unlikely series of physical, environmental, and chemical events.

Some animals are, indeed, intelligent, but none, AFAIK, possess the consciousness like human beings.

The Red Queen hypothesis makes sense to me. Animals will keep evolving until one is smart enough to dominate the others. It's a matter of survival. Isn't that the first rule of evolution? Ergo, advanced intelligence is inevitable.

Human levels of intelligence developed once....as far as we know. Let's not forget that there were other simian/human branches in our history. We killed off most of them and nature did the rest. LOL Would some species of dinosaur eventually develop minds on par with Homo sapiens sapiens if a giant space rock hadn't taken them out? IMO, humans wondering why we're the "only ones" are not only having a bit of Survivor's Guilt, but also not recognizing humanity's bloody effect on history along with circumstance. Again, survival of a species. May the best one win....if a giant space rock or nearby nova doesn't take them out first.

Wrapping up: I'd heavily weight human-level intelligence developing in many forms and far exceeding our own over time and circumstance. 99 to 1 advanced intelligence is inevitable across the Universe. It's the rules of the game.

BTW, not just intelligence on planets, but, on a different level, intelligence of galaxies or the Universe itself. On that level, we'd be amoebas trying to understand ants.

Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Subtle refinements in brain architecture, rather than large-scale alterations, make us smarter than other animals

www.scientificamerican.com

Among birds, scientists consider parrots, owls and corvids (crows and ravens) the brightest. Such a pecking order argues against the idea that intelligence evolved along a single path, culminating in human acumen. Instead intellect seems to have emerged independently in birds and mammals and also in cetaceans and primates....

...What is more, neuronal messages must travel longer distances in the relatively large brains of elephants and whales than they do in the more compact human brain. The resulting boost in information-processing speed may at least partly explain the disparity in aptitude between humans and other big-brained creatures.

Survivor Guilt

Survivor’s guilt (or survivor guilt) is the experience of psychological distress due to surviving or escaping a situation relatively unharmed or unaffected, as compared to others. When one emerges relatively unharmed from an accident, conflict, or pandemic, for example, while others have died or...

www.psychologytoday.com

Survivor’s guilt (or survivor guilt) is the experience of psychological distress due to surviving or escaping a situation relatively unharmed or unaffected, as compared to others. When one emerges relatively unharmed from an accident, conflict, or pandemic, for example, while others have died or experienced significant loss, a person may experience survivor’s guilt, despite bearing no responsibility for the outcomes that occurred.

 

[Cypress]

Some animals are, indeed, intelligent, but none, AFAIK, possess the consciousness like human beings.

The Red Queen hypothesis makes sense to me. Animals will keep evolving until one is smart enough to dominate the others. It's a matter of survival. Isn't that the first rule of evolution? Ergo, advanced intelligence is inevitable.

Human levels of intelligence developed once....as far as we know. Let's not forget that there were other simian/human branches in our history. We killed off most of them and nature did the rest. LOL Would some species of dinosaur eventually develop minds on par with Homo sapiens sapiens if a giant space rock hadn't taken them out? IMO, humans wondering why we're the "only ones" are not only having a bit of Survivor's Guilt, but also not recognizing humanity's bloody effect on history along with circumstance. Again, survival of a species. May the best one win....if a giant space rock or nearby nova doesn't take them out first.

Wrapping up: I'd heavily weight human-level intelligence developing in many forms and far exceeding our own over time and circumstance. 99 to 1 advanced intelligence is inevitable across the Universe. It's the rules of the game.

BTW, not just intelligence on planets, but, on a different level, intelligence of galaxies or the Universe itself. On that level, we'd be amoebas trying to understand ants.

Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Subtle refinements in brain architecture, rather than large-scale alterations, make us smarter than other animals

www.scientificamerican.com

Among birds, scientists consider parrots, owls and corvids (crows and ravens) the brightest. Such a pecking order argues against the idea that intelligence evolved along a single path, culminating in human acumen. Instead intellect seems to have emerged independently in birds and mammals and also in cetaceans and primates....

...What is more, neuronal messages must travel longer distances in the relatively large brains of elephants and whales than they do in the more compact human brain. The resulting boost in information-processing speed may at least partly explain the disparity in aptitude between humans and other big-brained creatures.

Survivor Guilt

Survivor’s guilt (or survivor guilt) is the experience of psychological distress due to surviving or escaping a situation relatively unharmed or unaffected, as compared to others. When one emerges relatively unharmed from an accident, conflict, or pandemic, for example, while others have died or...

www.psychologytoday.com

Survivor’s guilt (or survivor guilt) is the experience of psychological distress due to surviving or escaping a situation relatively unharmed or unaffected, as compared to others. When one emerges relatively unharmed from an accident, conflict, or pandemic, for example, while others have died or experienced significant loss, a person may experience survivor’s guilt, despite bearing no responsibility for the outcomes that occurred.

Outside of Homo Sapiens, the entire Hominid genus was basically an evolutionary failure. And our species itself came close to being wiped out 85k years ago, during the events of the genetic bottleneck. None of the other hominid species survived more that a few hundred thousand years. Maybe Homo Erectus lasted over one million years. Sharks, dragonflies, and centipedes have been around for 400 million years

But, you might be right, and I wouldn't be totally shocked to be wrong, and that advanced technologically capable intelligence is ubiquitous wherever life gets a toe hold. We just don't have enough data to say.

 

[Litmus]

One of the questions discussed is whether we need Christianity, whether or not there is an afterlife.

Richard Dawkins himself although atheist, claims to be a cultural Christian because his ethos, his values, his cultural milieu originates from the immersion of western civilization into Christianity for 2000 years, and that the west itself would be unrecognizable without the Christian tradition.

but he trashes it all on the altar of Nazi nihilism.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

If our existence is fun, then of course we should stick around. For those suffering, such as those retired people who lost everything in Helene and face a painful, uncertain existence, why not just take a handful of fentanyl and take the Big Sleep?

In fact, should we have Suicide Centers to assist in both easing their pain and paid for by turning them into fertilizer or Soylent Green crackers for those poor kids starving in Africa?

My only issue with assisted suicide is that sometimes events in our lives make continuing on unbearable. You feel nothing is worth living for anymore. But then over time we heal and life is good again. Certainly for those with a terminal diagnosis though they could be spared a lot of suffering.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

My only issue with assisted suicide is that sometimes events in our lives make continuing on unbearable. You feel nothing is worth living for anymore. But then over time we heal and life is good again. Certainly for those with a terminal diagnosis though they could be spared a lot of suffering.

I have no issue with assisted suicide or requested euthanasia.

It all falls back on my belief that life has qualitative, not absolute, value.

When the rewards don't adequately compensate the travails,
then life becomes a net-negative experience and may, at that point, be devoid of value.

There are other factors, of course.

Keeping commitments made to others even when one's own life is pretty worthless
can be an incentive to keep going.

A strong animal survival instinct which predates evolution to humanity can deter suicide.

Finally, while being dead amounts to the perfect peace than comes only with the cessation of existence,
something that one should never fear,
the process of dying can bring extreme discomfort and possibly a measure of ignominy.

So there are definitely factors that come into it.

I still think, however, that suffering pets are treated more humanely than humans.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The New Testament and the teachings of authentic Christianity have permeated western civilization for 2000 years, even when we don't live up to them.

Even the great atheist Donald Trump cynically created a fake charity because he was aware there is a longstanding social expectation to be charitable with your wealth and to help those less fortunate.

that doesn't change the fact that much, if not most of Western civilization is antithetical to the Christian religion.....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My only issue with assisted suicide is that sometimes events in our lives make continuing on unbearable. You feel nothing is worth living for anymore. But then over time we heal and life is good again. Certainly for those with a terminal diagnosis though they could be spared a lot of suffering.

Again, why not take the easy exit if none of it matters? A terminal illness certainly gives an incentive, but what about elderly people like those who have lost everything in Helene? Why send them help instead of Fentanyl? Why send them help at all if none of it matters?

I'm not religious but have studied the similarities of different religions. The theory being that thousands of human beings considering these questions over thousands of years would know more about it than lil' ol' me.

My conclusion is that there's more to existence than meets the eye. The reason why we're here remains elusive, so I stick with Occam's Razor; just live one's life to the fullest.

Occam’s razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

Occam’s razor, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that ‘plurality should not be posited without necessity.’ The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred.

www.britannica.com

"The simplest explanation is usually the best one."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

that doesn't change the fact that much, if not most of Western civilization is antithetical to the Christian religion.....

I'd ask you "how so", but since you are a Satanist, a worshiper of the Dark Lord, so I won't bother.

Keep enjoying sucking on Satan's cock, Pmp. May you choke on it in your sleep and burn in Hell.

 

[Cypress]

most of Western civilization is antithetical to the Christian religion.....

I didn't say anything about the religion, the commitment to church attendance, or the practice of the sacraments.

I said the values. The values expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, the Decalogue, the parable of the Good Samaritan are ingrained in almost everyone's consciousness in western civilization. It's part of our language and our ethos. It has permeated and infused western civilization for 2000 years. It sets an aspirational standard most people instinctively know we are supposed to shoot for, even though most people fall far short.

Even atheists and agnostics have bought into the core ethical values of the New Testament - either without realizing it, or by just stripping away the religious language and context.

 

[Hume]

OK.
And?

^^Every post: Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Hume]

Debate between Richard Dawkins, high priest of the New Atheism, versus an erstwhile New Atheist colleague Ayann Hirsi Ali who converted to Christianity


Summary:

"Richard Dawkins claim is that we have rational humanism to offer as an antidote to not just Islam but all forms of religious delusion. Dawkins asks is faith merely a comforting fantasy for those not brave enough to face the 'blind, pitiless indifference' that lies, in Dawkins’ view, at the foundations of reality? Dawkins, it seems, believes that this is the choice on offer: truth or comfort. And he has chosen truth."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes (radical Islamisism, etc.). I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life? Of course, I still have a great deal to learn about Christianity. But I have recognized, in my own long journey through a wilderness of fear and self-doubt, that there is a better way to manage the challenges of existence than either Islam or unbelief had to offer.”

https://www.premierunbelievable.com...irsi-ali-the-clash-of-our-times/17772.article

Why are you obsessed with Dawkins?