My journey into atheism and theories on life

[PCXT]

The most funny myth about warming is that the air has a border control between countries and if you outsource "dirty" manufacturing to some other country it will magically not affect the environment .

 

[rygD]

Anyone that believes, or disbelieves, anything is an idiot. Hopefully they will all kill each other off.
[doublepost=1506058020,1506057591][/doublepost]

The thing I saw about Jim Jones being the best boxer because of how many people he knocked out with one punch kinda fits.

 

[FBnil]

The most funny myth about warming is that the air has a border control between countries and if you outsource "dirty" manufacturing to some other country it will magically not affect the environment .

I always thought the Fresh Prince of Beautiful (Belle) Air was about this... and that Bel-Air kept it's good air...?

Although today, the air quality today is not that bad... air quality index in Philly another air quality check in Philly

edit: What if the Unitedstates-Mexico wall was one giant HEPA filter?

Anyone that believes, or disbelieves, anything is an idiot

So... do YOU believe your own quote? Do you? Do YOU believe the Pyra will be out in 2 months, or do you disbelieve that? ... I believe I need a drink...
[doublepost=1506066670,1506065882][/doublepost]Back on to the accuracy of the Bible: https://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

If you say: It takes me half an hour to get to work... you know that it's a lie that it will take exactly 30 minutes day after day. Sometimes you have an extra red light, sometimes there has been an accident and you take another route. Sometimes you are not that fit, and take longer (assuming bicycle). So we know 30 minutes to be an approximation, while in colloquial language, we state a certainty of 30 minutes.
Even applying the scientific method, and you measure your travel time, you could end up with a bell (air) curve that has a maximum at 29.7 minutes. The 30 minutes is still a valid approximation. Other aproximations: truncate your age to integer numbers when they ask your age. Same for weight/height (last known value, or sometimes even lied about)

But religion is believing you come from God, or that you come from a rock. (reply if you want me to explain this)

 

[Klumpen]

I always thought the Fresh Prince of Beautiful (Belle) Air was about this... and that Bel-Air kept it's good air...?

Although today, the air quality today is not that bad... air quality index in Philly another air quality check in Philly

edit: What if the Unitedstates-Mexico wall was one giant HEPA filter?

 

[FBnil]

 

[PCXT]

About the topic, I think that the religion is something like an operating system for working with people and with things too hard/illegal to explain - these are definitely false, but logically sound in their own-created ecosystem ideologies to make people easier to govern and predict and make them think the proper amount of time on things they shouldn't think too much. Some people can function with one, some with another, some without. So in fact it doesn't matter is it atheism, agnosticism, believing in one God, many Gods, Great Old Ones until it works as designed and is not propagated in bad intentions.

If we talk about air quality, in large cities there is one more thing.
Until 1970-80s many cities have been designed with a "vent ducts" built in buildings structure. This naturally minimizes problems with smog-like pollution, as the air is exchanged with wind. Overall quality decreases, but there are no points that look like infamous Beijing cloud.
In 1970s (in the West) until 1990s (East of Europe) building developers became powerful enough to just bribe needed authorities to build anything they want anywhere.
So in my city, in last 15 years we successfully blocked most of these air routes and as a result we have much bigger pollution despite of wider distribution of central heating and slowly abandoning of coal fuel*. And to fight with air pollution... we close more roads and prohibit burning in home fireplaces.
To really fight with air pollution, there are some steps possible like:
- Exact city planning with no exceptions, including most frequent wind directions and leaving corridors there.
- Standardizing product packages, re-introducing reusable containers, and making packages with furnace-friendly material too. Transportation would gain from it too.
- Introducing cooperation-based transport, like "digital hitchhiker's booklet".
These, but applied in at least country-wide range, can minimize problems with city air exchange, burning waste as a furnace fuel and amount of cars on roads. But nobody wants to fight with "climate change" or any environmental problems. We happily use our "green" electric cars, shifting the burned fuel from our engines to the power plant nearby (and making a battery for such car emits chemicals much more nasty than these from combustion engine) and, what is the true reason for modern environment protection, pay for non-existing things. Modern "environment protection" is (like economy became) indeed more religion than science, purely believing, with covering and blindly negating non-confirming data and inconsistencies of it.

* The thing is a bit more complicated - we definitely have this problem, but all this "circus" with wearing masks has been introduced by a marketing company to support prohibition of coal burning, probably paid by central heating dealers with hope to expand markets.

 

[Caine]

About the topic, I think that the religion is something like an operating system for working with people and with things too hard/illegal to explain

You are basically saying "you are too stupid; here have a religion". I am sure that does injustice to many religious people.

Illegal to explain? What do you have a mind there? In my experience, religions are the main source of making explanations and/or thoughts illegal, thus providing a religion as a solution to that does not compute in my mind.

Also, I do not understand why everything needs to be explained to everyone. There are many things I do not understand, which is great. That means there is always more to explore. I.e. trying to understand the unknown, to grasp how simple physical interactions in the world around us can bring so much complexity at a higher level. Historically, major religions have obstructed this exploration and labelled it blasphemous or worse.

these are definitely false, but logically sound in their own-created ecosystem ideologies

Sound? The mental gymnastics needed to make old-school religious claims work today indicate anything but soundness to me.

to make people easier to govern and predict and make them think the proper amount of time on things they shouldn't think too much.

If this is true then it is pure oppression. How much to think on matters should come from within, not from without.

So in fact it doesn't matter is it atheism, agnosticism, believing in one God, many Gods, Great Old Ones until it works as designed and is not propagated in bad intentions.

Personally I am more concerned with what is true instead of purely what "works" (and ideally both), but I suppose that is why I am not a theist.

 

[rygD]

So... do YOU believe your own quote? Do you? Do YOU believe the Pyra will be out in 2 months, or do you disbelieve that? ... I believe I need a drink...

I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter what I believe. Bring me a drink, too, please.
[doublepost=1506089052,1506088767][/doublepost]

About the topic, I think that the religion is something like an operating system for working with people and with things too hard/illegal to explain - these are definitely false, but logically sound in their own-created ecosystem ideologies to make people easier to govern and predict and make them think the proper amount of time on things they shouldn't think too much. Some people can function with one, some with another, some without. So in fact it doesn't matter is it atheism, agnosticism, believing in one God, many Gods, Great Old Ones until it works as designed and is not propagated in bad intentions.

I use a variety of OSs, sometimes at the same time.
[doublepost=1506090929][/doublepost]

Sound? The mental gymnastics needed to make old-school religious claims work today indicate anything but soundness to me.

You might be looking at the wrong old-school religions, then. Some of the ones I am aware of are so flexible that it would be pointless to label them "religion", and it is difficult to pin down beliefs, as they varied by individual. With some of them, sure, there was the state religion, however that was merely what was state sanctioned. They generally left you alone and let you believe what you wanted unless your practices were becoming a problem. Sometimes the beliefs of conquered and enslaved peoples, or those that there was other close interaction with, would become significantly influential, and incorporated with state religion. Different regions generally had a certain set of...folklore, I shall call it, that may or may not have been seriously believed to some degree. At least some stuff from back then, in this limited area I am looking at, would seem fresh and new to many if the origins were not divulged, and it would likely satisfy many...I guess I will call them atheists (although there are other nontheistic religions, but I think it is understood what groups I am talking about).

What I am amused by is that everything needs to be labeled and forced to fit into a nice little set to make people comfortable. I am not talking about religion, but the understanding of religion, or countless other things. Why does it matter what others believe, or don't believe (or, again, countless other things, like skin colour, or if they have dangly parts in their crotch, or where they or their ancestors originated)? Maybe we could get past these things and interact with people with these differences the same way. Too much horrible shit has been, and continues to be done because people focus on insignificant things like this. I don't put salt on my food...I wonder when they will round people like me up and stone us.

 

[PCXT]

You are basically saying "you are too stupid; here have a religion". I am sure that does injustice to many religious people.

Nope. There are some things which just cannot be explained now, cannot be easily understood at all, or can be with probability so rough that they fit into "impossible" category. Some people may live not bothering about it, some people not. The second group may choose different ways to understand these things and religions are one of many. If it's an intentional choice to explain some phenomenon with religious method, it's definitely NOT a stupidity, it's a control I was writing about.

Sound? The mental gymnastics needed to make old-school religious claims work today indicate anything but soundness to me.

Sound within boundaries of their logic. From modern perspective they may be totally illogical. By using their causality and dogmas - it's totally consistent.

If this is true then it is pure oppression. How much to think on matters should come from within, not from without.

Not governing each other, (although unfortunately it is also done), but themselves.

Personally I am more concerned with what is true instead of purely what "works" (and ideally both), but I suppose that is why I am not a theist.

What is true, what works and what is shown by religions - these are 3 different things .
The only definite truth is that religions are terribly abused to control and divide people and not much can be done with it.

I use a variety of OSs, sometimes at the same time.

Wasn't there a "religion" with quickly adapting dogmas by believer? I bet I read about some ideology using believing as another utility, changing to needs (I like this level of abstraction).

 

[rygD]

Wasn't there a "religion" with quickly adapting dogmas by believer? I bet I read about some ideology using believing as another utility, changing to needs (I like this level of abstraction).

I don't know about a religion that does it. I don't really go for dogma. Many practitioners of chaos magic change beliefs for whatever they are working on (you can probably guess how I got into my approach to this sort of thing). It is sometimes a "fake it 'til you make it" approach. I kinda mix things up overall, with a particular "religion" dominant if I am dealing with such things. Generally I just say "I don't know" and play with the toys the way I want to. I do that with other things too. Like computers. Still, I generally am opposed to the biggest OS in my part of the world, although with one it is because it is made by a corporation that is only concerned with enslaving users and taking everything it can from them, and the other is full of security and privacy issues. Seriously, though, for religion it is because of a minority of assholes in the places I lived while growing up that would attack anyone that didn't meet their standards, and because that variety of christianity was shoved down the throat of everyone that lived there (I would say I became an atheist around age 7). Had I been raised in an area with the more eastern variety I wouldn't be so aggressive toward it, plus I like some of their teachings. Still, I acknowledge that I came from this background, and that it has influenced me in various ways, so in some sense it makes it to the list of my religions (even though I try to be offensive to the truly faithful, at least those where I live that take things a bit too far).

 

[PCXT]

I don't know about a religion that does it. I don't really go for dogma. Many practitioners of chaos magic change beliefs for whatever they are working on (you can probably guess how I got into my approach to this sort of thing). It is sometimes a "fake it 'til you make it" approach.

Yes, that could be it, so not a religion.
In my case it was not caused by attacking anyone that doesn't meet standards, but anyone who doesn't fit in any standard - this goes with political ideologies - you try to mix between groups, you become enemy of all and not many people want to try combining ideas there (as well as see that in fact some combinations are used, but that's for another topic).

Like computers. Still, I generally am opposed to the biggest OS in my part of the world, although with one it is because it is made by a corporation that is only concerned with enslaving users and taking everything it can from them, and the other is full of security and privacy issues.

Generally computers are going to the state in which user has no control on the machine. The goal is to be like a cooker or washing machine, but with built-in surveillance system. The same thing was with radio, the same thing went with TV. The exceptions in computer world are fortunately present, but they are small and... how many people are concerned about it? How many people are concerned about modern x86 "additions" like Intel ME or PSP? About the fact that they can't pull some chip's leg by assembly code? Most people I asked even want no net neutrality. And they were not new Internet users after elementary school, they were scientists who know Internet since 1990s. It was only needed to ask properly: Not "Do you want net neutrality?", but "Do you want to have unlimited data transfer for one site (YT/FB/Wiki/Pyra forum/insert here) in your mobile Internet plan?" .

 

[ible]

i defer to Gödel for the full result, but any attempt to rationally/logically explain the world* with a system of rules and laws will always be either incomplete (incapable of determining the truth of certain propositions) or inconsistent (leading to contradictory results). that said, i don't believe anyone should go for a "God of the gaps" type theory, but there is something much "bigger" and "scarier" than all the truths that we can prove, as there are some/many truths we cannot prove.

*world of mathematics, to be precise, but i suspect physics follows as well, with evidence being that models of the world are typically valid only in certain regimes. i suspect Gödel incompleteness is somehow related for fully understanding quantum mechanics...

 

[rygD]

Yes, that could be it, so not a religion.
In my case it was not caused by attacking anyone that doesn't meet standards, but anyone who doesn't fit in any standard - this goes with political ideologies - you try to mix between groups, you become enemy of all and not many people want to try combining ideas there (as well as see that in fact some combinations are used, but that's for another topic).

That also sounds familiar. I quit playing their game fairly early on in life, and when it comes to political things I am very much an outsider. When I propose things that I openly admit are rather extreme to the delicate views of my countrymen, individuals get stuck on those things instead of trying to understand that I am merely offering alternatives to start discussion instead of holding on to things that are obviously not working out, or the bigger problem of adding more to the things that don't work to "fix" these deficiencies. But that is all stuff that should be discussed elsewhere. Funny thing is that, on the surface, my proposals would work out better for everyone, and we never get to the point of discussing ways in which they could fail, and trying to modify them so that they can be taken to the politicians with a chance of it being taken seriously.

Generally computers are going to the state in which user has no control on the machine. The goal is to be like a cooker or washing machine, but with built-in surveillance system. The same thing was with radio, the same thing went with TV. The exceptions in computer world are fortunately present, but they are small and... how many people are concerned about it? How many people are concerned about modern x86 "additions" like Intel ME or PSP? About the fact that they can't pull some chip's leg by assembly code? Most people I asked even want no net neutrality. And they were not new Internet users after elementary school, they were scientists who know Internet since 1990s. It was only needed to ask properly: Not "Do you want net neutrality?", but "Do you want to have unlimited data transfer for one site (YT/FB/Wiki/Pyra forum/insert here) in your mobile Internet plan?" .

See, that won't work for my use since most of what I do isn't online, and much of it isn't on connected computers. Sure, I could, for example, put all the variations of the stuff I type up online, but at this point that would require digging through all the things I have it stored on (sometimes I start from scratch with the same project to see where that goes, and maybe combine it all), plus a pile of notebooks that I have no interest in typing up. With those things the notebooks contain the more important stuff, and when I discuss it online, or have a more permanent form that I would share, it is very condensed, and would require lots of research on the part of others, or my notebooks. With some of that I know that the people I discuss it with have read, or are aware, of many of the sources for some ideas (in case anyone is wondering, some of what I am talking about here are things that might fit into the religious or spiritual category, either from an academic view of better understanding the evolution and development of different strands of certain beliefs or ideas, or from a more practical approach). For the rest, if I need to show where I am seeing things, I can go back to my notes and usually tell precisely where to look (although variations in translations man that my interpretations could be off, not that I have seen that as a major issue so far, however I have found others come up with completely different understandings of things that they, as native English speakers, have read from one of the same English translations I use, and I and others, including non-native English types, don't see where confusion comes from...maybe we read more carefully or are all peaking at the sources used for the translations since that info was provided). Of course we also make use of or own experiences, so eventually, with this particular set of topics, books and writings only get you part of the way there. And despite our different discoveries we accept that what others find or use are probably just as valid, at least for them, rather than tell them they are wrong, or argue about these differences. Kinda like what you find in Discordianism. It's a shame the big religions can't be like that, and instead need to make everyone believe the "right way", and would sometimes prefer then dead than to believe the wrong thing...


So, enough of that tangent. I am a computer enthusiast, I guess, and in the modern world internet use is a big part of that. I have been absorbing everything of interest I could get my eyes or mouse cursor on. I still rely heavily on books, and would be willing to return to using letters, 'zines, libraries and museums, even if that would drastically slow things down. Our we could just meet in person. I have been anticipating the way things seem to be going since the late 90s. As with so much else, it is sad that people just let it happen, or ask for it. There were a couple things that I would have expected the reaction to be the opposite of what it was. I guess people didn't learn from 1984. Or history.

 

[ZXDunny]

Wow, 11 pages of religious discussion and things are still civil? I love this community. I've not read much of the thread but for myself I'm one of those that doesn't really give a toss what others believe. I'm fine attributing a deity (I do call it God) that's responsible for the things I don't currently understand - but I'm more than happy to accept explanations for phenomena that become uncovered by the scientific process.

As an example, creation. I'm absolutely fine with something (God) setting it all going in the first place, but after that initial spark I'm also happy that things progressed via the various laws of physics etc, which eventually produced us and other life/interesting stuff in our universe using processes that are well documented and understood by the scientific community. As soon as the initial mechanism that started creation is well understood and proven, I'll happily remove God from that role in my mind.

What's more difficult is the concept of a God that is constantly watching over us and judging. And interfering, if texts are to be believed. This kind of behaviour isn't covered by my beliefs as described above - so I've kinda formed my own theories. I don't think that such a deity would be all that bothered given the size of the problem. I don't think it listens to prayers, I don't think it judges things that die. That would be like Notch personally reviewing each rabbit you kill in Minecraft. But then, that would be ascribing my own human limitations onto something that could potentially have created everything, which I certainly can't do... So that's a problem.

But then, the concept of morality is a social construct anyway and varies greatly from person to person so being judged when you die is probably grossly unfair. I think I'm pretty safe in my original assessment that although God might have started all this off, it doesn't really give a crap about us.

 

[PCXT]

I still rely heavily on books, and would be willing to return to using letters, 'zines, libraries and museums, even if that would drastically slow things down.

And now You entered a nice paradox. This will slow things down only if we talk about blind transfer of data. The "knowledge density" of such media is relatively high, comparing to modern Internet.
OK, let's stop the offtopic

 

[Stainy]

I think Richard Dawkins is on the money!

 

[Klumpen]

I think Richard Dawkins is on the money!

Quite literally. Isn't he making way more money by bashing religions than with actual science?

 

[Stainy]

Not bashing at all..

 

[rygD]

@ZXDunny, there has LONG been thought and discussion on exactly the types of things you mentioned, obviously. Along with that come various terms, philosophies, groups, and so on just trying to make it so they can understand what the others are talking about. Looking at that can be fun. For example, take the most basic understanding of the demiurge, then look at what physics has shown us.

Although you have the attitude of a judgemental figure pushed in much of the Abrahamic world (which I feel is rather oppressive and destructive, and was most likely started as a way to keep the herd self-policing, starting at the individual level, because "you are always being watched, so you better bit do anything bad" and that combined with the quantity of suffering inflicted and the rewarding of those that do those terrible things is what led me at an early age to the conclusion that those teachings were untrue...now whenever I hear of the judgemental god thing "The Devil Beneath My Feet" pops into my head), even the perspective, which I have forgotten the name of even though it its closely related to some of how I look at things, where the whole of existence (and nonexistence in my take on it) can be understood to be "God" hints at it. The benefit of the latter is that it isn't a judgement from the outside, but from within, on at last a couple levels (the individual judging themself, and the whole system seeking balance, for lack of a better term). So the same teaching overlayed on a different map changes the whole attitude. Not to mention the "you are God" thing that many would probably love, and misuse/abuse.

My contemplation of eschatology is rather limited since I haven't been dead before, or don't remember it (make sure to drink from the right water ). My best guess is that consciousness will end and my physical body will break down, or be eaten by other animals if I have my way, and be returned to, ahem, the circle of life, until our spec of dust becomes sterile, and is shattered or consumed by the Sun, or something like that. If I have belief in an afterlife it shares similarities with some Eastern views, as well as some ancient Greek understanding of it, and maybe we are reincarnated or something, or continue to develop in some way until eventually once again becoming part of the greater whole of the universe, or whatever it is a part of. But, yeah, my view is also that whatever kicked off all this stuff doesn't care about us individually, or even collectively, not that I think it operates in the same way our minds do, so I doubt it cares about anything.

 

[SNESFAN]

Wow, I completely forgot I wrote all that several years ago, it was pretty deep stuff.

As an update, if anyone cares, my current beliefs, as crazy as it may sound, is in simulation theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

what really got me was this argument;

1)future humanity (or other form of life) doesn't make it to the point where they can create a simulation of the entire universe.
2)future humanity (or other form of life) does make it to the point where they can create a simulation of the entire universe but decides not to for some reason.
3)future humanity (or other form of life) does make it to the point where they can create a simulation of the entire universe and decides to.

I believe 1 and 2 negates the theory it's a simulation and everything is real, and we're living in reality, 3 allows a simulation, those appear to be the only options.

If 3 is what happen(ed/s) we're either the ones in it, or will eventually be the ones who do it. And considering we're focusing a lot of our technology on creating artificial intelligence and simulations, it's probably not far off timescale wise.

We live in a very interesting time for our species, one of which would probably one of the most interesting for an observer running a large scale simulation. Lots of things can go very wrong for our civilization, life as we know it, lots of advancement etc. Objectively just a really interesting time.

Lots of things, like the beginning of the universe (simulation starting) and inexpiable, spooky behavior of the big and small scale (dark matter, dark energy, "spooky action at a distance" {things behaving differently depending on if being observed} etc), things that don't appear to be following the 'rules' as we observe, and are able to make other accurate predictions on. Our predictions are either wrong, (accepted legitimate probability) or if it's a simulation and there are limitations to that simulation.

In what is almost an irony from my original post, the simulation theory relies on a there being a creator, and further questions where did the creator come from.

Either way, that's where my current flag is planted until something better comes around as far as belief systems are concerned.

EDIT: and just to be clear, not quite like the matrix, as I don't think there's a way to 'escape', or a physical entity for you to escape to, my thinking is we completely exist within the system as part of it.