-->
@keithprosser
You assert that god is identical with truth or reality.You are, i suggest, confused between figurative and literal meaning.
Well said. The question to ask is if he was asserting that out of malice or from zealotry?
Atheist to atheist
Posts
Total:
77
-->
@Mopac
And rather than call the atheist stupid, I say they are fundamentally misinformed about God. My God is The Truth. Are you going to say it is true that there is no truth? Are you going to say it is reality that there is no reality?
Still repeating the same deceptions in order to call atheists stupid?
It's funny how you keep ignoring the fact that your word games have no effect, but that's irrelevant, who cares what futile deceptions you wish to conjure, just keep braying them, over and over.
-->
@Goldtop
@disgusted
I don't think you two are misinformed, I think you two don't care.
Nihilists. True blue atheists you two are. Complete and utter fools. That is why my engagement with you two is kept to a minimum. You had your chances. Kind of blew it.
I don't take either of you seriously, I think you're idiots. Losers.
-->
@Mopac
Destroying you is blowing it Black Knight. It's only a flesh wound. hahahahahahahahaha
-->
@Mopac
I don't take either of you seriously, I think you're idiots. Losers.
Still can't make a point without resorting to insults and personal attacks I see. If I were your god(s) I'd be very disappointed in this sort of behavior (assuming your god(s) is/are real and that they can feel disappointment).
-->
@secularmerlin
You may feign civility, Merlin but your heart is full of abomination, and your denial of The Truth is far more insulting than any rude things I might say to these two here, especially since you, being just as wicked in your nihilism feign rationality.
There is nothing reasonable about your denial of Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
My heart is full.of abomination. What does that mean exactly? No let me guess it means that I do not agree with or take your claims about a reality that you admit is unknowable seriously.
-->
@Mopac
Before merriam webster published that particular definition your god did not exist, aren't you lucky that a majority of lexicographers decided to publish that definition instead of the thousands of others available to them. In what year was your god brought into existence by merriam webster?
-->
@keithprosser
Being a non believer in one worldview (theism) does not mean an individual has no worldview or a worldview against what theism appeals to (ie. Something beyond the self).
I think a better question is 'what makes people find value in something greater than themselves'? I think this question is answered by our shared evolutionary heritage. Appealing to something larger than ourselves gives us a sense of control (maybe illusory) that actually can motivate us to do things that directly or indirectly benefits the individual beyond what purely selfish motivations allow.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Black box time!
black box 1 generates the ideas for options of what to do in a given situation.
black box 2 estiates the benefit/harm of an option idea to 'self'.
black box 3 estiates the benefit/arm of an option idea to others.
bb2 and bb3 output takes the form of secreting either dopamine (which makes you feel happy) for beneficial things or seratonin (which makes you sad) for harm. The quantity of hormone is proportional to the amount harm/benefit anticipated and bb2 is stronger signal than bb3.
What is not explained by that mechanism, given that is delibertely over-simplified?
-->
@keithprosser
I dont know. I don't understand your mechanism.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not surprised you didn't get it - i didn't make it as clear as I thought.
Ok, suppose you find yourself in a situation were you have various options what to do net.
Option 1 is evaluated by bb3 for its harm/benrfit to others and output a small amount of hormone accordingly.
The same option is also evaluated bty bb2 for its harm/benefit to yourself, also outputting hormone.
the outout of bb2 (self) signal may reinforce the bb3(others) signal, or it may be opposite in which case the stronger signal will 'win'. Hence an option very good for others and not very bad for self is felt as positive and vice versa.
by evaluating each option in turn and chosing the one that makes you happiest (ie produces the biggest 'dopamine minus seratonin' value) the decision what to do gets made.
the take-away is that you don't choose the platonic 'best' or 'most moral' option - you choose the one your brain's black boxes produces most 'dop minus ser' for. Natural selection hones that system to produce beneficial outcomes very much more often than not.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think it is contingent upon man's propensity for pattern recognition even when no pattern exists, we see the existence of hierarchy in the world around us and project that into our situation and determine that there must be a figure higher than us in existence in order to maintain the pattern we think we see.
-->
@disgusted
I'd say it not pattern recognition per se. It's more that we humans tend to think in terms of cause and effect.. That is if we see something like a pile of droppings or a broken twig we automaically start thinking about what caused it because it is useful to know.
If a primitive ape man ever wondered what caused the whole world, what could he imagine except a god? Man created the gods that control the world and then invented religion to control the gods.
-->
@keithprosser
Couldn't have put it better.Man created the gods that control the world and then invented religion to control the gods.
-->
@disgusted
i think it would be better with 'invented' instead of 'created'...
Feel free to re-use it. ;)
The amount of time traveling/mind reading atheist is starting to seem fake. So much for evidence.