Why there almost certainly is No God!!

[GruntLife51]

You're stupidity fucking baffles me.

I'm not thinking deeply enough because you don't like my answer?

Because it's not Jesus?

I'm going to say it one more time, as few words and as simply as possible.

SOCIETY NO WORK WHEN PEOPLE HURT PEOPLE. STEAL FROM PEOPLE. KILL PEOPLE.

SOCIETY BREAK DOWN.

MAKE HARD LIVE.

NO HELP FIND FOOD.

FIND SHELTER.

MAKE AND LEARN BIG MMAGIC MAKE BETTER WHEN PEEPEE BURN.

REMEMBER STORIES FROM LAST MOONS.

MAKE HARD NOT DIE.

If you're cast out into the wilderness, are you going to have an easier time surviving on your own or with a group?

If our group consists of 25 men and 25 women, and the women are being raped or beaten regularly, are they going to be productive members of the group?

Fuck no.

If two of them decide to poison or otherwise kill the men that've abused them, how many more members of your group are you losing? Two, three, fifteen?

However many, you're numbers are down. Now you've got fewer bodies to hunt, gather, farm, build shelter, etc.

You're odds of survival drop.

So you police you're community based on standards that represent the best interests of said community.

You'll still have you're rapists, murderers, and whatever else. Sure.

But you're not going to have as many.

Because loss of freedom sucks. Being scourged sucks. Being fucking executed sucks.

Not Dead > Dead

Seriously Dude, I'm not even arguing the existence of a God. But throwing out this shit about Jesus = morality is just fucking ridiculous.

Maybe you missed this so I’ll say it again. There are only 3 moral worlds in which we can exist. You pick which one we live in.

Theonomous- moral law given by God
Heteronomous- moral lwmdictated by governing body/group
Autonomous- moral law determined by individual.

Go on. Tell me which one you think is logical and in which we live in.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

How many atheists are there?

“Finally, the present results may have considerable societal implications. Preliminary research suggests that learning about how common atheists actually are reduces distrust of atheists. Thus, obtaining accurate atheist prevalence estimates may help promote trust and tolerance of atheists—potentially 80+ million people in the USA and well over a billion worldwide.”

One crucible for theories of religion is their ability to predict and explain patterns of belief and disbelief. Yet, religious nonbelief is often heavily stigmatized, potentially leading many atheists to refrain from outing themselves even in anonymous polls.

We used the unmatched count technique and Bayesian estimation to indirectly estimate atheist prevalence in two nationally representative samples of 2000 U.S. adults apiece.

Widely-cited telephone polls (e.g., Gallup, Pew) suggest USA atheist prevalence of only 3-11%. In contrast, our most credible indirect estimate is 26% (albeit with considerable estimate and method uncertainty). Our data and model predict that atheist prevalence exceeds 11% with greater than .99 probability, and exceeds 20% with roughly .8 probability. Prevalence estimates of 11% were even less credible than estimates of 40%, and all intermediate estimates were more credible.

Some popular theoretical approaches to religious cognition may require heavy revision to accommodate actual levels of religious disbelief.

Gervais WM, Najle MB. How many atheists are there? [Internet]. 2017;Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/edzda

 

[Michael Scally MD]

See if you can name this group of Americans:

· It is “one of the largest and fastest-growing demographic groups in the United States,” according to a recent Washington Post column.
· It suffers from substantial discrimination. About 40 percent of Americans say they wouldn’t vote for someone from this group to be president. By comparison, 7 percent say the same about an African-American candidate, 8 percent about a female candidate, 18 percent about a Mormon candidate and 24 percent about a gay candidate.
· Not one 2020 presidential candidate comes from this group.

The group I’m describing? Atheists. I’d encourage you to read Max Boot’s recent column in The Post — the one I quote above — about the discrimination they face. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3e0020-6c27-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html

 

[eryximachus]

If every human society in the history of mankind behaves a certain way, then that behavior is deeply genetic.

Atheists may not worship gods as you know them - the jealous god of Moses who will strike down all non-believers. But, they worship gods not very differently from polytheist people of the past. It's not like ancient Greeks really believed Zeus was standing around the corner.

Their gods were, interestingly, more part of theater than anything else. One of the things most people don't know at all is the chorus found in most plays of antiquity was the audience. They didn't have a bunch of weirdos wearing black cloaks in the side of the stage. Obviously, their theaters are everywhere and they were wide open.

Gods are ideals. Instead of Zeus and Hera, we have Trump and Brittany Spears and countless other figures on the teevee. There is no fundamental difference in the influence they have on our lives.

What is also interesting is ancient criticism of polytheism, such as St. Augustine's City of God, remains accurate - the vice consistent among them all is a kind of narcissism - unbridled egoism.

One can make the persuasive argument that systemic narcissism is one of the greatest ills of modern society.

God may be dead, but we are still grappling with these consequences.

 

[eryximachus]

View attachment 109476

Why would you believe these computer generated graphics?

You won't believe some priests, but you'll believe some nerds at NASA who can't even figure out how to build a functional space vehicle well over a half century since we supposedly landed on the moon?

How many decades have to go by before you start questioning the pretty pictures? What if another half century goes by and we're still looking at stupid pictures? Will you still believe these things exist?

 

[staynattybruh]

Why would you believe these computer generated graphics?

You won't believe some priests, but you'll believe some nerds at NASA who can't even figure out how to build a functional space vehicle well over a half century since we supposedly landed on the moon?

How many decades have to go by before you start questioning the pretty pictures? What if another half century goes by and we're still looking at stupid pictures? Will you still believe these things exist?

Lol. Yeah, "believing" in scientific information based off mathematical models/equations that are accurate enough If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand. These "stupid pictures" have exceedingly more credentials than some priest does basing his claims off a book that is the apparent word of god yet shows every sign of man made characteristics. Not to mention the fact how you could possibly believe these "words of god" have maintained any from of its orginal writings, throughout the centuries. Or that the writings of the supposed event happend between 60-150 years after it.

Such mental gymnastics are astounding to see.

 

[eryximachus]

I'm not sure what mathematical models have to do with images that look like they came from a video game. What exactly are these images "predicting" and can you describe the math that is used to predict them?

No, you probably can't. You probably aren't even aware that Isaac Newton developed Calculus in his Principia for the singular purpose of predicting orbital mechanics.

Because we can predict the motion of the stars or other stellar bodies doesn't mean they exist as these pretty pictures imply. They may very well simply be an interesting illusion created to make life more interesting.

Whatever the case, I am 41 years old. I've lived my life with science fiction and the promise of the moon landing and space shuttle. Nothing has come of it but pretty pictures like these.

And we have to ask - is it not interesting that we tie space exploration in particular with the notion of God?

There is only one tangible consequence of space exploration - the consistent science fiction message that mankind is insignificant. That we live on one of a billion planets circling hundreds of millions of stars, and that's just one galaxy of a trillion!

Is there something else space exploration has given us? If the answer is no, then should we not ask qui bono?

I see no fundamental difference between you believing these photos are not manufactured frauds or if you believed in some religious text. Both require belief - you do not have capabilities of determining the truth.

And appeals to authority don't cut it. I see no reason why I should believe some nerd at NASA versus a religious figure who has made a concrete difference of the lives of people in his community.

So we have one logical fallacy down.

If we are to use logic, what is the basis for your logical proof that space exploration has in fact occurred as it is presented to the masses?

 

[eryximachus]

Maybe you missed this so I’ll say it again. There are only 3 moral worlds in which we can exist. You pick which one we live in.

Theonomous- moral law given by God
Heteronomous- moral law dictated by governing body/group
Autonomous- moral law determined by individual.

Go on. Tell me which one you think is logical and in which we live in.

Glad to see other learned posters here.

The current regime survives by perpetuating a great many lies - but none is more insidious that morality is self-evident, or worse, fundamental to nature.

For thousands of years, learned men have always been curious what is good, beautiful, and true.

The regime tells you that the answers to all of those questions are "whatever you want". Of course, all of that is subject to the caveat that you do not, for example, violently seize the means of production from a predatorial and fundamentally corrupt bourgeoisie ruling class.

It's OK to say that a pile of horse shit in an art museum is beautiful. It's ok to say it's "good" to waste your life playing video games or jacking off to porn. And it's DEFINITELY ok to say truth is relative, except for what the regime dictates.

For most humans, who have degraded to something just a bit above the bovine, this inversion of values suits them just fine. It doesn't matter that they live in clown world where what is good is evil, where what is beautiful and ugly, and where lies are represented as truth.

They get to indulge their most basic instincts in a constrained and importantly autonomous fashion (so they don't form armies!). Most die never realizing their life was a waste. Too many don't realize until it is too late.

Untold numbers of men fought and died to preserve important answers to these questions and give us the civilization we have inherited. We dishonor our ancestors by not continuing to ask these questions and refine our answers.

At the end of the day, the regime cannot survive (until robotic killing machines are plentiful) as no one will ever fight and die for this world of nihilism and unbridled egoism.

 

[LeoTC]

Maybe you missed this so I’ll say it again. There are only 3 moral worlds in which we can exist. You pick which one we live in.

Theonomous- moral law given by God
Heteronomous- moral lwmdictated by governing body/group
Autonomous- moral law determined by individual.

Go on. Tell me which one you think is logical and in which we live in.

Pretty sure that I was clear in my response that it's not the the one dictated by invisible space daddy.

 

[eryximachus]

Pretty sure that I was clear in my response that it's not the the one dictated by invisible space daddy.

Fine. I will I assume you have the requisite intelligence to realize civilization is not possible if morality is decided by individual whim.

So. How do we determine who should rule and therefore determine public morality?

 

[LeoTC]

Fine. I will I assume you have the requisite intelligence to realize civilization is not possible if morality is decided by individual whim.

So. How do we determine who should rule and therefore determine public morality?

Not debating anything.

Morals are relative, but largely dictated by social contract.

Because survival.

That said, my definition of right and wrong or what's ethical is always going to differ from the next person.

I may comply with the majority of what society has dictated is 'right' as a means of avoiding incarceration. That does not mean that my morals or values reflect those of society at large.

The divine doesn't play into it.

It's not a difficult fucking concept. If you can't wrap your head around it, you've no room to question anyone's intelligence.

 

[eryximachus]

Mankind has been studying the question of what is good for 3,000 years. It is the reason we have universities. It is the reason, arguably we have books. It is a debate we still have, as this thread elucidates.

Yet, you have figured it all out. It's not a difficult fucking concept.

I've spent the better part of 20 years studying philosophy. You demonstrate a profound ignorance, which while common is still sad to see.

In a more civilized age, you would simply be tilling the field for your lord. You don't have what it takes to make any kind of decisions beyond that of an animal - eating, fucking, and so on. Leave the philosophy to the philosophers and do what you're told, slave.

 

[LeoTC]

Mankind has been studying the question of what is good for 3,000 years. It is the reason we have universities. It is the reason, arguably we have books. It is a debate we still have, as this thread elucidates.

Yet, you have figured it all out. It's not a difficult fucking concept.

I've spent the better part of 20 years studying philosophy. You demonstrate a profound ignorance, which while common is still sad to see.

In a more civilized age, you would simply be tilling the field for your lord. You don't have what it takes to make any kind of decisions beyond that of an animal - eating, fucking, and so on. Leave the philosophy to the philosophers and do what you're told, slave.

Oddly enough, I wind up running shit everywhere I go.

Isn't funny how that works?

You go ahead and keep pondering why fire comes from the sky and destroys your village.

You can offer up your a virgin and a few head of cattle every now and then maybe. Try to make nice with space daddy.

This slave'll keep working his fields, slaying dragons, and getting yoked off all the burnt offerings he places up high only on the alter of Weber.

Also make sure any daughters you might have don't have to worry about being chosen to receive the honor of giving themselves so the village may prosper.

 

[eryximachus]

Oddly enough, I wind up running shit everywhere I go.

Isn't funny how that works?

You go ahead and keep pondering why fire comes from the sky and destroys your village.

You can offer up your a virgin and a few head of cattle every now and then maybe. Try to make nice with space daddy.

This slave'll keep working his fields, slaying dragons, and getting yoked off all the burnt offerings he places up high only on the alter of Weber.

Also make sure any daughters you might have don't have to worry about being chosen to receive the honor of giving themselves so the village may prosper.

Pray tell, what kind of "shit" do you run? And why would running such "shit" preclude study?

I am a partner in a reasonably successful real estate investment fund. I still find an hour every day to read something of importance, whether it is philosophy, economics, psychology, genetics, or literature. It's just like going to the gym, except instead of exercising your body, you exercise your mind.

Maybe you run a garbage depot, or a gang of miscreants. I don't know - but whatever you are, learned is not it. You would not relate or function well with the upper echelons of society as they would rightly consider you to be well, not very bright. Sadly, you reinforce the negative, public perception of bodybuilders.

 

[LeoTC]

Pray tell, what kind of "shit" do you run? And why would running such "shit" preclude study?

I am a partner in a reasonably successful real estate investment fund. I still find an hour every day to read something of importance, whether it is philosophy, economics, psychology, genetics, or literature. It's just like going to the gym, except instead of exercising your body, you exercise your mind.

Maybe you run a garbage depot, or a gang of miscreants. I don't know - but whatever you are, learned is not it. You would not relate or function well with the upper echelons of society as they would rightly consider you to be well, not very bright. Sadly, you reinforce the negative, public perception of bodybuilders.

Not a bodybuilder, but I am an avid reader. Always have been, and a pretty quick study.

Assuming that I'm unintelligent because I'm not going to engage in debating the existence of a god that I don't believe exists is a pretty massive logical fallacy.

Assuming that I don't actively study anything is also a pretty big leap based on...what exactly?

Good catch on the Emerson reference by the way, Mr. Philosophy.

As far as how I associate with the 'Upper Echelons society? I've got friends in places so high at this point in my life, you'd break your neck craining your head to glimpse them.

But you're correct in stating that you know absolutely nothing about myself or anyone else here.

So you go chill with your realtor clique and imagine yourself superior to anyone you like.

No skin off my nose.

 

[T-Bagger]

Pray tell, what kind of "shit" do you run? And why would running such "shit" preclude study?

I am a partner in a reasonably successful real estate investment fund. I still find an hour every day to read something of importance, whether it is philosophy, economics, psychology, genetics, or literature. It's just like going to the gym, except instead of exercising your body, you exercise your mind.

Maybe you run a garbage depot, or a gang of miscreants. I don't know - but whatever you are, learned is not it. You would not relate or function well with the upper echelons of society as they would rightly consider you to be well, not very bright. Sadly, you reinforce the negative, public perception of bodybuilders.

Not a bodybuilder, but I am an avid reader. Always have been, and a pretty quick study.

Assuming that I'm unintelligent because I'm not going to engage in debating the existence of a god that I don't believe exists is a pretty massive logical fallacy.

Assuming that I don't actively study anything is also a pretty big leap based on...what exactly?

Good catch on the Emerson reference by the way, Mr. Philosophy.

As far as how I associate with the 'Upper Echelons society? I've got friends in places so high at this point in my life, you'd break your neck craining your head to glimpse them.

But you're correct in stating that you know absolutely nothing about myself or anyone else here.

So you go chill with your realtor clique and imagine yourself superior to anyone you like.

No skin off my nose.

Unless any of us are the elite billionaires, we’re all slaves

 

[LeoTC]

Unless any of us are the elite billionaires, we’re all slaves

Oh, but we're the unlearned and unwashed slaves.