Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 398. (Read 901520 times)
dont forget communism connected to religion a vey hatefull thing to not just hitler
Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory
Stopped reading here. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.Try again, hot shot.
Quote
em·pir·i·cism
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory
Stopped reading here. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop. Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it. In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything. Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.
It is commonly understood that the word "objective" in scientific terms translates roughly to "as objective as we can get in this life". Since no better standard is available to us, it makes sense to work with what we've got and not get too fussed about it. Civilization will progress either way.Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. that all we can possibly know is known through observational experience.
Sounds lovely, but unfortunately this is a purely philosophical assumption and is empirically unfalsifiable. In other words, Science doesn't even have the capacity to explore and conclude upon its own assumptions. However, Philosophy does, and this very assumption was logically falsified thousands of years ago. The only reason Science works is because it defers to Philosophy and an understanding of the limits of inductive reasoning in order to control for observer participation, i.e. it gains the ability to dismiss any effect an observer may have upon that which he observes, but must concede comprehensive explanation as part of the bargain.
In other words, yes, there is a better standard. It's called logic.
Because they say god said this and god said that when god said fuck all logic plain and simple logic 
Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it. In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything. Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.
It is commonly understood that the word "objective" in scientific terms translates roughly to "as objective as we can get in this life". Since no better standard is available to us, it makes sense to work with what we've got and not get too fussed about it. Human Civilization will trod along slowly toward omniscience either way. And religion will die a slow death either way.
One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.
The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.
Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.
The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.
Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.
When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.
In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level. The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.
When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence. To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it. If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].
That's why I called that entity a programmer rather than just a program. I don't know about omnipotence -- people sometimes seem eager to construct a straw man, talking about something being all-powerful but not clarifying what goes inside the "set of all powers". I'm just talking about a humble programmer whose known powers are only those that are exerted for the sake of maintaining separation from the machine.
Besides, what actual archetypes are we talking about? Not that I'm promoting a deistic world view, but an omnipotence archetype seems plausible. If it defies logic, then that's OK because it's omnipotent, it can do that sort of thing. Strangely enough, a few other candidates come to mind, which could make things really weird, like 'magic'. Magic tricks defy explanation, and if they can be explained, then they're not real magic. Magic in our minds could represent images of the ultimate 'Magic' archetype for things we don't understand. As we grow, we tend relabel everything as advanced technology and science. But it would be just be a trend, not a law of nature, and "there is no such thing as magic" is an unproven claim.
The archetype I'm talking about would be, in your scenario, isomorphic to the Programmer himself. Omnipotence corresponds to total, unbound freedom relative to something. The humble programmer, who could omnipotently introduce the creation of a 'higher self' to "maintain separation from the machine" introduces an omnipotence paradox within the systemic relationship between himself and the machine that can only be resolved at a higher level, and in the same way that metalanguages can be used to resolve paradoxes at an object-oriented level. An omnipotence 'archetype' can thus be modeled as an algebraic construct that distributes to all systems in which such paradoxes necessarily arise, and that has the absolute capacity to resolve them.
Because a comprehensive explanation capable of resolving these paradoxes once-and-for-all would seem to introduce its own paradox (i.e. the algebraic construct itself is introduced as separate from its negation, and the two can never be rationally synthesized from within a rational argumentative context which could be modeled as an object-oriented system), we must conclude, for the sake of consistency, that the archetype itself is an absolute limit of explanation. Any attempt to deny this limit would only serve to reinforce it, as the denial itself would necessarily assume the distributive characteristics of the archetype.
We simply don't believe anything that is not logical.
the funny thing is that logically, we shouldn't believe anything. the entire scope of human knowledge is tainted by subjective human perception -- meaning that we cannot obtain truth. we can only obtain what we perceive to be true. there can be no objective knowledge.
the answer? nihilism, of course.
whoa.
mind=blown. never thought about it like that, but it's sort of true -- how the hell can we really "know" anything, if our senses are not truly objective? interesting take. is that really what nihilism is?
Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it. In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything. Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.
the things that human beings have done do in the names of their religions. They are not admirable, they have often been are often utterly despicable
Fixed that for you. To be fair, plenty of despicable things have been done in the name of science, too. Think lab animals, and human experimentation torture. There are other, better arguments for abandoning religion. It can only be considered abuse if you're lying. What if your religion is the correct one and atheists are wrong?
We simply don't believe anything that is not logical.
the funny thing is that logically, we shouldn't believe anything. the entire scope of human knowledge is tainted by subjective human perception -- meaning that we cannot obtain truth. we can only obtain what we perceive to be true. there can be no objective knowledge.
the answer? nihilism, of course.
whoa.
mind=blown. never thought about it like that, but it's sort of true -- how the hell can we really "know" anything, if our senses are not truly objective? interesting take. is that really what nihilism is?
We simply don't believe anything that is not logical.
the funny thing is that logically, we shouldn't believe anything. the entire scope of human knowledge is tainted by subjective human perception -- meaning that we cannot obtain truth. we can only obtain what we perceive to be true. there can be no objective knowledge.
the answer? nihilism, of course.
Religion is not for everybody, why We know the difference between right and wrong. We don't need the fear of eternal, painful hell etc
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter?
Yeah we can speculate, that's all we can do. I guess everyone has done that, maybe even animals do?
And my take on this is that these states are actually the same state of just being unconscious. You could argue that being unconscious for a few hours is not quite the same as being unconscious for eternity, but then I will argue back that there is no such thing as subjectively experienced (or, strictly speaking, non-experienced) eternity at all. My argument is that whenever you insist on future eternal unconsciousness (for example), you should deal with the past "eternal" unconsciousness as well...
Yeah makes sense to think about before we was born as well. Is it the same state as after our death? No idea.
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter?
Yeah we can speculate, that's all we can do. I guess everyone has done that, maybe even animals do?
And my take on this is that these states are actually the same state of just being unconscious. You could argue that being unconscious for a few hours is not quite the same as being unconscious for eternity, but then I will argue back that there is no such thing as subjectively experienced (or, strictly speaking, non-experienced) eternity at all. My argument is that whenever you insist on future eternal unconsciousness (for example), you should deal with the past "eternal" unconsciousness as well...
We simply don't believe anything that is not logical.
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter?
Yeah we can speculate, that's all we can do. I guess everyone has done that, maybe even animals do?
the things that human beings have done in the names of their religions. They are not admirable, they have often been utterly despicable
as an atheist do not hate religion, but I dislike the religious preachers telling me I am living my life wrong, just because I do not believe in any gods
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter?
Do you believe every child has a basic human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Nailed it.
Just because this doesn't leave visible evidence as physical abuse does, it doesn't mean that there is no abuse.
Most of the believers do not even realize this. If a christian (example) was born in a different region and had different guardians he would most likely have a different faith.
It can only be considered abuse if you're lying.
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
Jump to: