Atheism; Morality: Truth

[darkjepetto]

Atheism is just Team B in Team A versus B of God debate. Where as I do not understand the question, so I am smarter than them both.

 

Good is beneficence;

 

"He is a good Tennis player" - he is skilled with a Tennis Racket, where 'skilled' is what's beneficent.

 

"He is a good man" - he exists more so beneficently than maleficently.

 

(This is science, it's analysis of a real, consistent pattern where people are more or less beneficent across, per say, all sports, in the first example.)

 

Morality is thereore alignment with regard to policing, or self control of evil (malefience), or the nature of good and evil phenomenon.

 

You have to ask yourself what is the nature of good and evil, and target nature, not say 'it's obviously wiser to benefit yourself" in conversation, because that is a step out of the nature and into the realm of individual goods or evils - this nature is prevailing where people can benefit themselves, and if people want to joy over the benefits they can.

 

What's true is what is consistent with our senses, however truth does not exist beyond man's account.

 

When people say "what's the truth about life?", they are asking for a true statement, or true evidence, not a true phenomenon.

 

We can make a true statement with true evidence, but it doesn't mean the phenomenon is true.

 

It's simply the phenomenon, but there can be a true account of it.

 

Where people make a mistake is by thinking truth is material rather than immaterial.

 

Truth is associated with detection.

 

Material truth is a fabrication of the greater detail of existence.

 

Modern philosopher's continue to go wrong when determining what truth is because they think phenomena correlate to true statements, because of some truth value(pseudo), rather than true statements correlating to phenomena(accordance).

 

[Phi for All]

You sure do jump around a lot! I still don't know exactly where you stand on atheism, morality, and truth, even though you just started a thread about them.

I think you have a caricature version of atheism in your mind that doesn't align with reality. What about a weak atheist like me, who treats god(s) the same way I treat commemorative plate collecting (I don't mind those who do, but I prefer not to participate)? I call myself a Humanist, and I'm willing to accept a supernatural deity if one ever becomes observable in a scientific sense, but until then I'll focus on people and the natural world instead.

Also, I dislike it when anyone talks about "truth" or "Truth". They always say it like it's a universal truth, but it never is, it's always subjective to the person who believes it. I especially dislike it when someone talks about others being "wrong" about the "truth". And why, WHY would you trust only your senses to tell you what it "true"? Our senses are easily fooled, and that's why we have the scientific method, to help us determine what is the best, most reasoned explanation for a specific phenomenon.

I'm an atheist who isn't part of the "God Debate", because I don't think of god(s) in terms of exist/not exist. Do you think I'm immoral? Do you think I'm wrong? 

[darkjepetto]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You sure do jump around a lot! I still don't know exactly where you stand on atheism, morality, and truth, even though you just started a thread about them.

I think you have a caricature version of atheism in your mind that doesn't align with reality. What about a weak atheist like me, who treats god(s) the same way I treat commemorative plate collecting (I don't mind those who do, but I prefer not to participate)? I call myself a Humanist, and I'm willing to accept a supernatural deity if one ever becomes observable in a scientific sense, but until then I'll focus on people and the natural world instead.

Also, I dislike it when anyone talks about "truth" or "Truth". They always say it like it's a universal truth, but it never is, it's always subjective to the person who believes it. I especially dislike it when someone talks about others being "wrong" about the "truth". And why, WHY would you trust only your senses to tell you what it "true"? Our senses are easily fooled, and that's why we have the scientific method, to help us determine what is the best, most reasoned explanation for a specific phenomenon.

I'm an atheist who isn't part of the "God Debate", because I don't think of god(s) in terms of exist/not exist. Do you think I'm immoral? Do you think I'm wrong? 

I don't think you're wrong, or immoral, I think your logic isn't correct in some instances, probably, if you are Atheist and not ungrouped (with regards to the perspective I gave). I would say, it's better not to feed the trolls, and judging by the way I've read from most Atheists, they do feed the trolls.

Edited January 6, 2019 by darkjepetto

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

I think your view isn't correct in some instances, probably, if you are Atheist and not ungrouped (with regards to the perspective I gave).

Which instances? 

Which groups? Your OP made no mention of atheist groups. That's why I brought up that I'm considered a "weak atheist", since I don't say god(s) don't exist. 

11 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

I would say, it's better not to feed the trolls, and judging by the way I've read from most Atheists, they do feed the trolls.

Are you saying religious people are trolls? I don't think that's true. Are you talking about strong atheists and strong believers trolling each other ("God exists!" "No, She doesn't!")? 

 

As for the parts where you talk about nature, and detection, and "greater detail of existence", I don't understand that at all. You aren't very clear about what you mean wrt those things. Can I ask why you talk about "truth" as if it's objective?

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, darkjepetto said:

I do not understand the question, so I am smarter than them both.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, darkjepetto said:

Where as I do not understand the question, so I am smarter than them both.

I don't understand any of your post, so I must be even smarter than you!

BTW: you have a link in that text, which doesn't work. Was that deliberate?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, darkjepetto said:

Modern philosopher's continue to go wrong when determining what truth is because they think phenomena correlate to true statements, because of some truth value(pseudo), rather than true statements correlating to phenomena(accordance).

Despite what some may think of me and my position, I don't like being labelled an Atheist, simply because I accept what I believe to be the logic and sensibility of the scientific methodology. Any dispute I have had with any religious or Intelligent design individual, is nearly always when they unjustly, and ignorantly attack science, while obviously, hypocritically accepting the many benefits that science and technology has provided them and the human race in general.

Any underlying truth or reality, if it at all exists, is probably unknowable, as is any position in any belief in any deity is entirely unknowable and unevidenced. I live my life caring for my family to the best of my ability, treating my friends with respect, and also practically doing what I can in a small way for those less fortunate then myself and who do not have the many advantages and position of the lucky country of which I am a citizen of.

 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

BTW: you have a link in that text, which doesn't work. Was that deliberate?

It works, it takes you to a premium section of reddit, you have to "upgrade to a premium reddit membership to continue"
Looks like advertisement.

[darkjepetto]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't understand any of your post, so I must be even smarter than you!

BTW: you have a link in that text, which doesn't work. Was that deliberate?

No it wasn't deliberate.

@phi

Any instance where you think or say that Atheism is the smart choice with regards to deities; where you (probably) will speak up about your lack of belief - is wiser "no comment", or a scientific answer that the question "Do you believe in God?" doesn't make sense.

A intelligent designer may exist, we can't prove otherwise, but that's not a reason to start worshipping random intelligent designers, nor does it make God (or the bible where it derives from) any more credible.

Without being too insulting, I want to declare that I think religion is stupid; belief in an intelligent designer is fine, but following a holy book in regards to this intelligent designer is silly, that doesn't describe this intelligent designer in any scientific way. Other than, "I'm going to have blind faith in an intelligent designer," "Or I can prove that there was an intellgient designer" is "I know what the intelligent designer is"+Drivel-Proof.

Edited January 6, 2019 by darkjepetto

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

belief in an intelligent designer is fine,

That is just as irrational and unscientific as belief in any other deity.

I suppose a case could be made for a Stupid Designer...

 

[Moontanman]

11 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

 

Any instance where you think or say that Atheism is the smart choice with regards to deities; where you (probably) will speak up about your lack of belief - is wiser "no comment", or a scientific answer that the question "Do you believe in God?" doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense when you understand that is being asked, in the face of a lack of evidence the null hypothesis is not to accept something as true. You seem to be hung up on belief, people believe in a lot of stuff that is simply not true. Like the sunrise or moonrise, not because they are stupid but because they haven't thought out the process. 

 

11 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

A intelligent designer may exist, we can't prove otherwise, but that's not a reason to start worshipping random intelligent designers, nor does it make God (or the bible where it derives from) any more credible.

Again the null hypothesis is not to accept the existence of a god. 

11 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

Without being too insulting, I want to declare religion as stupid; belief in an intelligent designer is fine, but following a holy book in regards to this intelligent designer is silly (that doesn't describe this intelligent designer in any scientific way).

Stupid is not a word I would use, ignorant is usually more accurate term but delusional often fits well...  

[darkjepetto]

19 hours ago, Strange said:

That is just as irrational and unscientific as belief in any other deity.

I suppose a case could be made for a Stupid Designer...

 

A designer, then.

Why not? It functions that there was a designer of the big bang, but I'm not saying he/she is up in the clouds, I'm saying this might have happened (I don't say I think it did happen, only that it might have); given this is a true-statement, I don't see it as irrational or stupid to believe in designers as a concept, it's possible this designer was also intelligent, if existent.

It's just as stupid, in your view, therefore, to believe it was random, or by chance, given no evidence.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

A designer, then.

Why not?

What designed the designer? Since you're so willing to accept the "it's turtles all the way down" argument, why not at the very least avoid inserting extraneous unfounded conjectures like designers? 

I may not know who spilled the milk from the counter, but suggesting it was a ghost seems like an unnecessary derailment and distraction from finding the accurate answer.

Same with your idea of designer. Saying we don't yet know is far better than saying it was a unicorn.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

Why not?

Because there is no evidence for a designer. And, because naturalistic explanations appear to work, there is no need for a designer. As such, belief in a designer is a purely faith-based belief unsupported by evidence. And therefore unscientific.

Also, if there was a designer, they weren't very bright because they made some really bad design decisions.

On 9/24/2016 at 4:48 PM, wayne_m said:

An architect, an electrician, and a civil engineer were discussing religion.

The architect said, "God must have been an architect. Look at the human body! Such elegance of design! A structure that is strong and light, and allows mobility, coupled with an efficient and effective motive system..."
He's interrupted by the electrician: "God must have been an electrician. Look at the wiring system. Self-powered, and such intricate connections throughout the whole body..."
They both notice the civil engineer shaking his head.
He says,, "God must have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"

[Phi for All]

57 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

It's just as stupid, in your view, therefore, to believe it was random, or by chance, given no evidence.

No. As Moontanman points out, it's the null hypothesis. It's the explanation with the fewest assumptions.

If I toss some chemicals together without trying to create something, is the result designed? If the chemicals come together due to random occurrence, is that any different? 

Frankly, the stuff you've made up is guesswork piled on guesswork. Your reasoning is subjective and doesn't match with observation. It's like you used the same process early humans used to invent religion, only you're saying it isn't religion because religion is stupid. 

[darkjepetto]

Given there's a big bubble in the air above your head now, and given it symbolizes what you know that happened to cause the big bang

you add words into that bubble; randomness, chance, designer; and the words you choose are thought to fit (i.e. possibly make sense).

why is designer excluded, thought irrational, if how this comes accross in my head is it's just a possibility; i don't say, it was >definitely< a designer.

A new question regarding 'higher intelligences'

Why can't the universe be considered conscious; why can't it project an image into our mind spaces right now of any form?

I mean it, like ditto, the pokemon, who copies other pokemon and transforms; it doesn't need to give us all it's attention, it may be active in some parts of it's body.

How do you know the universe is not conscious, if you debate it is?

You may think I'm wrong, but if you look at the universe now and seriously consdier, is it conscious or anything like it?

(all it takes is a chemical reaction in our minds for it to show it's presence; it could have been guiding us all along).

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

Given there's a big bubble in the air above your head now, and given it symbolizes what you know that happened to cause the big bang

you add words into that bubble; randomness, chance, designer; and the words you choose are thought to fit (i.e. possibly make sense).

why is designer excluded, thought irrational, if how this comes accross in my head is it's just a possibility; i don't say, it was >definitely< a designer.

A new question regarding 'higher intelligences'

Why can't the universe be considered conscious; why can't it project an image into our mind spaces right now of any form?

I mean it, like ditto, the pokemon, who copies other pokemon and transforms; it doesn't need to give us all it's attention, it may be active in some parts of it's body.

How do you know the universe is not conscious, if you debate it is?

You may think I'm wrong, but if you look at the universe now and seriously consdier, is it conscious or anything like it?

(all it takes is a chemical reaction in our minds for it to show it's presence; it could have been guiding us all along).

OK, you're starting to redefine what it means to be conscious in order to force your ideas to fit. That should be a big red flag that maybe you've drifted too far from what we observe. 

I apologize, but I find myself unable to follow your meandering, hopscotchy thoughts. I have no idea what you meant with the bubbles and the Pokemon references. I understand that you think it seems like the universe has something directing it, and I'm going to leave you to pursue your wild guesses without me. I've found a great deal of meaning and knowledge in science, and what you're talking about is NOT science. It's not trustworthy, and frankly it makes me a little sad that you're wasting your time on things you can't know. 

Thanks for your time.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

you add words into that bubble; randomness, chance, designer; and the words you choose are thought to fit (i.e. possibly make sense).

why is designer excluded, thought irrational, if how this comes accross in my head is it's just a possibility; i don't say, it was >definitely< a designer.

So this is a “designer of the gaps” argument. Anything we can’t explain, you can say “designer” (or “gods”) as an “explanation”. But as that guess has no evidence or explanatory power, you might as well say unicorns or fairies. 

[darkjepetto]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

OK, you're starting to redefine what it means to be conscious in order to force your ideas to fit. That should be a big red flag that maybe you've drifted too far from what we observe. 

I apologize, but I find myself unable to follow your meandering, hopscotchy thoughts. I have no idea what you meant with the bubbles and the Pokemon references. I understand that you think it seems like the universe has something directing it, and I'm going to leave you to pursue your wild guesses without me. I've found a great deal of meaning and knowledge in science, and what you're talking about is NOT science. It's not trustworthy, and frankly it makes me a little sad that you're wasting your time on things you can't know. 

Thanks for your time.

That's fine. I understand you take life quite seriously, but I would loosen up a bit on your stance as to what species there could be.

If there was a designer - he doesn't have to be a deity - all I'm suggesting is existence created existence(you can still ask how did the first arise), rather than randomness created existence; and if there was a designer, surely it would have a hand in this universe - what the desinger desired from it/profit.

So it's still a reasonable suggestion; we create lot's of things, sights, sounds, etc. Sometimes in high definition (genetics) and this data isn't used for it's product? Maybe in art or dreams, who knows? (zooming in on some of our sights may be good art).

Perhaps not science though, I see that you're quite serious, but I seen you had a philosophy section, so that's why I posted.

 

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

Why can't the universe be considered conscious; why can't it project an image into our mind spaces right now of any form?

Because there is no evidence or mechanism for such a thing. 

Why cant the universe be considered the dream of an invisible pink unicorn?

This is a science site and I would expect rational arguments. 

23 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

How do you know the universe is not conscious, if you debate it is?

This is shifting the burden of proof. Your claim, up to you to support it. 

1 minute ago, darkjepetto said:

If there was a designer - he doesn't have to be a deity - all I'm suggesting is existence created existence(you can still ask how did the first arise), rather than randomness created existence; and if there was a designer, surely it would have a hand in this universe - what the desinger desired from it/profit.

Evidence?

[darkjepetto]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

So this is a “designer of the gaps” argument. Anything we can’t explain, you can say “designer” (or “gods”) as an “explanation”. But as that guess has no evidence or explanatory power, you might as well say unicorns or fairies. 

exactly this. i might as well say unicorn, but i chose designer cause it's more fitting for what I know.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

exactly this. i might as well say unicorn, but i chose designer cause it's more fitting for what I know.

But you don’t “know” anything. You are just inventing a designer because you like the idea, not because there is any evidence for it. 

[darkjepetto]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because there is no evidence or mechanism for such a thing 

Why cant the universe be considered the dream of an invisible pink unicorn?

This is a science site and I would expect rational arguments. 

This is shifting the burden of proof. Your claim, up to you to support it. 

Evidence?

 

Dreams are evidence, there can be simulate bodies so the universe can obvious project a fake body in our minds.

Ok then, so rather than is the universe conscious, what I want to know is, does a designer/creator of our universe (maybe a species in control of dreams in a simpler, previous universe), somehow profit the universe?

We create solar panels to feed off of the sun, what I'm suggesting is can there be a species that feeds from the universe; again, maybe it exists in mindspace.

Evidence is that's it's logical to say I don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore it may have been a designer/randomness/chance/luck no matter how stupid it sounds, as long as it's grouped with the others.

I'm quite infatuated by the idea that there could be parasites that feed from our energy; such as the true quality of sensory data.

I will not subtract designer, nor add it, or vice versa.

Edited January 7, 2019 by darkjepetto

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

Dreams are evidence

Of what? That we dream. Not that "the universe is projecting into our minds". That is just fantasy.

8 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

We create solar panels to feed off of the sun, what I'm suggesting is can there be a species that feeds from the universe; again, maybe it exists in mindspace.

You can suggest that there are hyper dimensional white mice that feed off the the rhythms of pulsars. But it is all just made-up delusion without any evidence.

9 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

Evidence is that's it's logical to say I don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore it may have been a designer/randomness/chance/luck no matter how stupid it sounds, as long as it's grouped with the others.

No, that is not what evidence means.

If we have no evidence, then it is logical to say "I don't know" not make up intelligent space platypuses that inject dreams into our heads.

10 minutes ago, darkjepetto said:

I'm quite infatuated by the idea that there could be parasites that feed from our energy; such as the true quality of sensory data

Obviously. But that doesn't make it real. Or even plausible. Stick to science fiction.

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, darkjepetto said:

exactly this. i might as well say unicorn, but i chose designer cause it's more fitting for what I know.

 I could direct you to a series of long videos that hash this out with Alan Guth, Hawking, Penrose, and many other leading cosmologists. It describes a cyclic universe with no singularity. I'm watching the series and trying to keep my head from exploding... I'm not sure if it would be allowed but it has my attention big time... It is extremely interesting and requires my absolute attention to even follow the bare basics. But it does explain how the universe creates itself... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbHBBtsrU1g&amp;list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Moontanman