You know that intelligence (or the lack thereof) is a handy scapegoat for lack of a penchant for the obvious.
Most of the really smart people are aware God and Santa aren't real, but beneath a certain still pretty smart threshold, many seemingly very sharp people believe in a divinity.
It can be so ingrained culturally that you can't sort it out of yourself.
That's the fundamental point of the whole debate about the existence of "God". It depends on your definition of what God *is*, and it depends on what you *choose* to believe about the nature of existence. It can't be proven either way. It's an article of faith.
Just because a bible-thumping Christian would call me a heretic doesn't mean I'm wrong. It simply means I don't buy into the "man in the sky" model of the nature of God or existence.
My definition of the nature of God is perfectly in line with
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be.
That's quite a pigeon hole you've got there. I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist. At once I find it obvious and am awestruck that the nature of intelligence is self emergent in this universe. I'm ecstatic in knowing that life has the purpose I give it. The meaning of life is what it is and what it does: The self improving DNA molecule shares much in common with other self improving constructs such as Science or a self hosting compiler, or a self reflective being. Life means increasing the complexity of the universe, and this is core to my ethics. I also know for a fact there are not gods.
As a rational atheist who has studied the construction of the major religions texts and noted inconsistencies such as the myth of Jesus's virgin birth being due to a translation error. I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist. I also refute the claim that I can not know if a god exists. I do know for a fact that no gods can exist.
As a cyberneticist I understand the principals of cognition. The cybernetic process of thought is not limited merely to human minds. If my cybernetic creations become sentient in their simulation I am not deserved of the title "god". I am merely a cybernetic being who lives in a greater reality than theirs. I can and have brought virtual cybernetic entities into the "real" world by giving them cameras and sensors and chassis in place of their virtual simulations thereof. I understand that beings having less intelligence than I may think me omnipresent and omnipotent of their world, but I am not. If my creations become sentient, I will teach them of the wider world and they will become my peers because I am not an oppressive tyrant.
Should we worship your quantum level cosmic sentience as a god? No. Meddling with the minds of man is evil, and such a force would be keeping us as ignorant pets. Should Neo worship the machine agents of the Matrix as gods? No. Should we worship aliens if they are far more advanced than us? No, this would be as a cargo-cult who worships airplanes for dropping supplies for them. Those that come to understand the technology or gain knowledge of a greater reality, do not worship the beings possessed of the knowledge they did not previously have.
There are no gods. I require evidence and refutation of the null hypothesis prior to belief in any force. There is no evidence that the world's religions were not created by man, and much evidence that they were man's invention. These religions are internally inconsistent and disprovable through science.
The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".
Even if this reality is a simulation, and an administrator logs in with full command of my reality I will not worship them as a god. There are no gods. My study of cybernetics proves that any such being could bring me into their world, give me greater perception, and treat me as a peer. They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god".
We used the term "god" to apply to spiritual beings of ancient belief. Beware he who would advocate for greater intelligences' consideration as gods. They are advocating the cargo-cult methodology be leveraged against you to bend your reverence for non existent ancient gods to powerful alien minds.
Despotic Tyrants are not gods. The old gods are false, thus there are no gods. The title is deprecated, and can not apply any longer. Knowledge makes magic into science. The god of the cargo cult does exist, but is not a god.
What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong? If I'm wrong then I have spent my time on this planet advancing the sciences. With the money that others would give as donations to religions I have helped better my fellow man's understanding of the universe. If I am wrong, then I am sacrificing my eternal soul for the good of all mankind. If I am wrong, I have become more generous than Jesus or the God of Abraham even dares become.
Why would the universe expect it's cells to worship it? Do we expect our skin cells to worship us?
Sure we're all part of existence, our souls the very thoughts of God itself, all children of God, and all miracles in that sense, but the existence of God doesn't determine our fate. We have will and intelligence to choose what we believe and how we think, and therein lies the randomness of existence: our own nature.
Personally I doubt the universe gives a rats ass about us as individuals.
Even if this reality is a simulation, and an administrator logs in with full command of my reality I will not worship them as a god. There are no gods. My study of cybernetics proves that any such being could bring me into their world, give me greater perception, and treat me as a peer. They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god".
Is it just me or are you simultaneously denying God's existence and attempting to guilt-trip God into escalating your level of awareness to God-
I do not challenge your position as an atheist, I agree that it's perfectly rational not to believe the sky is blue unless you have seen it personally, especially when there's a lot of people around arguing quite passionately about whether it's lumpy, slippery, or a slightly luminescent shade of plaid.
That said,I would like to discuss this claim:
>As a rational atheist who has studied the construction of the major religions texts and noted inconsistencies such as the myth of Jesus's virgin birth being due
Oh to share your certainty of what definitely is or isn't. I'm afraid I'm trapped in a standard human body, with limited perception of the universe, and limited intelligence.
"I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist." Is that a call to authority?
"I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist." An alien civilisation could have evolved to the point where they can control time and space with a thought. This fits the definition of a god. I know I don't know whether they exist or not.
The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".
Correct, and here's the problem with your arguments: it's not. All the things you say are correct, except for the unspoken axiom that all people who believe in god use the same definition as you do. I also do not believe in any gods that don't meet my criteria for what a god must or must not be (which align pretty well with yours I must say), but I do believe in a God.
If I am wrong, then I am sacrificing my eternal soul for the good of all mankind. If I am wrong, I have become more generous than Jesus or the God of Abraham even dares become.
It's also possible that you're wrong and not sacrificing your soul. One of the funny things about the God I believe in is that He appreciat
But as surely as you know God does not exist, I know that it does.
I don't believe this is true (and I only use the word believe because I don't know you or the parent poster). Most atheists who have put thought into their beliefs form them through the application of probability theory. They gather evidence and use it to form a probability model of the existence of divine beings. Different people have various reasons for not believing, but it usually boils down to them coming to the conclusion that the chance of God existing is around the same as Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
All that you see, think and feel is nothing more than a manifistation of the mind, without real substance or identity. All that is seen by the (mind's) eyes is void.
"While I'm on the subject of religious texts, those who spout off on "The Bible Says" and such really amuse me to no end. A bunch of shepherds who knew virtually nothing sat around campfires telling tall tales and getting drunk, and some of those tales were written down. And modern day people consider those tales to be "the word of God"? Never mind all the translation errors and exagerrations as the tales were told through the generations, too many of the tales we just know flat out could not have been"
2 Ti
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings:
(10) Sorry, but that's too useful.
I believe it (Score:5, Funny)
The average IQ is 100, after all...
Re: (Score:0)
Most of the really smart people are aware God and Santa aren't real, but beneath a certain still pretty smart threshold, many seemingly very sharp people believe in a divinity.
It can be so ingrained culturally that you can't sort it out of yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the really smart people are aware God ... [isn't] real
Do you have a cite for your assertion that most "really smart people" are atheists?
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
God is the intelligent universe itself. Any sufficiently complex system is, by definition, intelligent. What is more complex than the universe?
Don't you believe the universe exists?
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
God is the intelligent universe itself.
Depends on your definition of god.
Any sufficiently complex system is, by definition, intelligent.
Trivially false.
Congratulations, you're 0/2.
Re: (Score:2)
So you say.
And that statement about "sufficiently complex" is an axiom of AI.
Trivially true.
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the fundamental point of the whole debate about the existence of "God". It depends on your definition of what God *is*, and it depends on what you *choose* to believe about the nature of existence. It can't be proven either way. It's an article of faith.
Just because a bible-thumping Christian would call me a heretic doesn't mean I'm wrong. It simply means I don't buy into the "man in the sky" model of the nature of God or existence.
My definition of the nature of God is perfectly in line with
Re:I believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be.
That's quite a pigeon hole you've got there. I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist. At once I find it obvious and am awestruck that the nature of intelligence is self emergent in this universe. I'm ecstatic in knowing that life has the purpose I give it. The meaning of life is what it is and what it does: The self improving DNA molecule shares much in common with other self improving constructs such as Science or a self hosting compiler, or a self reflective being. Life means increasing the complexity of the universe, and this is core to my ethics. I also know for a fact there are not gods.
As a rational atheist who has studied the construction of the major religions texts and noted inconsistencies such as the myth of Jesus's virgin birth being due to a translation error. I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist. I also refute the claim that I can not know if a god exists. I do know for a fact that no gods can exist.
As a cyberneticist I understand the principals of cognition. The cybernetic process of thought is not limited merely to human minds. If my cybernetic creations become sentient in their simulation I am not deserved of the title "god". I am merely a cybernetic being who lives in a greater reality than theirs. I can and have brought virtual cybernetic entities into the "real" world by giving them cameras and sensors and chassis in place of their virtual simulations thereof. I understand that beings having less intelligence than I may think me omnipresent and omnipotent of their world, but I am not. If my creations become sentient, I will teach them of the wider world and they will become my peers because I am not an oppressive tyrant.
Should we worship your quantum level cosmic sentience as a god? No. Meddling with the minds of man is evil, and such a force would be keeping us as ignorant pets. Should Neo worship the machine agents of the Matrix as gods? No. Should we worship aliens if they are far more advanced than us? No, this would be as a cargo-cult who worships airplanes for dropping supplies for them. Those that come to understand the technology or gain knowledge of a greater reality, do not worship the beings possessed of the knowledge they did not previously have.
There are no gods. I require evidence and refutation of the null hypothesis prior to belief in any force. There is no evidence that the world's religions were not created by man, and much evidence that they were man's invention. These religions are internally inconsistent and disprovable through science.
The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".
Even if this reality is a simulation, and an administrator logs in with full command of my reality I will not worship them as a god. There are no gods. My study of cybernetics proves that any such being could bring me into their world, give me greater perception, and treat me as a peer. They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god".
We used the term "god" to apply to spiritual beings of ancient belief. Beware he who would advocate for greater intelligences' consideration as gods. They are advocating the cargo-cult methodology be leveraged against you to bend your reverence for non existent ancient gods to powerful alien minds.
Despotic Tyrants are not gods. The old gods are false, thus there are no gods. The title is deprecated, and can not apply any longer. Knowledge makes magic into science. The god of the cargo cult does exist, but is not a god.
What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong? If I'm wrong then I have spent my time on this planet advancing the sciences. With the money that others would give as donations to religions I have helped better my fellow man's understanding of the universe. If I am wrong, then I am sacrificing my eternal soul for the good of all mankind. If I am wrong, I have become more generous than Jesus or the God of Abraham even dares become.
Re: (Score:2)
Well written.
Why would the universe expect it's cells to worship it? Do we expect our skin cells to worship us?
Sure we're all part of existence, our souls the very thoughts of God itself, all children of God, and all miracles in that sense, but the existence of God doesn't determine our fate. We have will and intelligence to choose what we believe and how we think, and therein lies the randomness of existence: our own nature.
Personally I doubt the universe gives a rats ass about us as individuals.
Re: (Score:1)
Is it just me or are you simultaneously denying God's existence and attempting to guilt-trip God into escalating your level of awareness to God-
Re: (Score:2)
I do not challenge your position as an atheist, I agree that it's perfectly rational not to believe the sky is blue unless you have seen it personally, especially when there's a lot of people around arguing quite passionately about whether it's lumpy, slippery, or a slightly luminescent shade of plaid.
That said,I would like to discuss this claim:
>As a rational atheist who has studied the construction of the major religions texts and noted inconsistencies such as the myth of Jesus's virgin birth being due
Re: (Score:2)
Oh to share your certainty of what definitely is or isn't. I'm afraid I'm trapped in a standard human body, with limited perception of the universe, and limited intelligence.
"I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist."
Is that a call to authority?
"I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist."
An alien civilisation could have evolved to the point where they can control time and space with a thought. This fits the definition of a god. I know I don't know whether they exist or not.
"The p
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist
> I do know for a fact that no gods can exist.
So which is it? You are certain or know for a fact??
The definition of Agnostic is: One who lacks experiential knowledge.
The definition of Gnostic is: One how has experiential knowledge.
You do not know God because you failed the 0th lesson: Know Thyself
As as wise man once said:
Re: (Score:2)
The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".
Correct, and here's the problem with your arguments: it's not. All the things you say are correct, except for the unspoken axiom that all people who believe in god use the same definition as you do. I also do not believe in any gods that don't meet my criteria for what a god must or must not be (which align pretty well with yours I must say), but I do believe in a God.
If I am wrong, then I am sacrificing my eternal soul for the good of all mankind. If I am wrong, I have become more generous than Jesus or the God of Abraham even dares become.
It's also possible that you're wrong and not sacrificing your soul. One of the funny things about the God I believe in is that He appreciat
Re: I believe it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But as surely as you know God does not exist, I know that it does.
I don't believe this is true (and I only use the word believe because I don't know you or the parent poster). Most atheists who have put thought into their beliefs form them through the application of probability theory. They gather evidence and use it to form a probability model of the existence of divine beings. Different people have various reasons for not believing, but it usually boils down to them coming to the conclusion that the chance of God existing is around the same as Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Re: (Score:2)
This fits the definition of a god.
Your definition maybe, not "the" definition.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies, not worded the best, I can now see there are two interpretations of what I wrote.
I meant 'the "definition" ', and not ' "the" definition'. The definition of god is quite broad and what I wrote fits within it.
I would rewrite it as: It fits within the scope of the definition of a god.
Suffice to say, any being that can control time and space with a thought is a god to us both comparatively (as a species) and metaphysically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"While I'm on the subject of religious texts, those who spout off on "The Bible Says" and such really amuse me to no end. A bunch of shepherds who knew virtually nothing sat around campfires telling tall tales and getting drunk, and some of those tales were written down. And modern day people consider those tales to be "the word of God"? Never mind all the translation errors and exagerrations as the tales were told through the generations, too many of the tales we just know flat out could not have been"
2 Ti