Anyone on here particularly religious?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Hollowway, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. lewis

    lewis SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    472
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    whether we want to accept it or not, religion holds this planet back an amazing amount. And is the largest reason for war and murder
    Even democide is done politically imo.
    And instances of any one in a position politically abusing said position to do crime is the worst (i.e Priest molesting a child)
     
  2. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,510
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    I know you've used the word "reason", but I think that most people would argue that religion is merely the excuse, or justification, but not the cause.

    imo the largest reason for war and murder is acquisition of money and power by the elite and ultra-wealthy.
     
    sezna, feraledge and zappatton2 like this.
  3. lewis

    lewis SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    472
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    I get that for sure but alot of peoples actions are even declared to be "in the name of" *insert god here*
    etc.
    I.e religion corrupted someones thought process.

    Problem is its a very harmful and very powerful creation and always letting it off the hook by just saying its the excuse but not the cause for example, imo just allows it and anyone carrying our their BS to continue in this world.

    Like there is so much conflicting talk about muslims for example. On 1 hand they are a peaceful people who would not hurt anyone and do NOT speak on behalf of terrorists who presumably do what you are saying, use it as their BS reason, but on the other hand we see muslim men treat their wives and women in general with a shockingly low level of respect. Dogs are treated better. And they are constantly trying to push their laws and beliefs onto the public in the UK.

    In London there are posters that they have put up, that the Police are useless in dealing with, which say "you are now entering a Sharia law zone" which means they are policing the area themselves basically using their own beliefs and actions as "law" with no worry about what the ACTUAL law is. Mostly this is allowed to just go on. The police are genuinely scared of tackling these people in fear of the racism card.

    ridiculous. I just cannot stand it. It divides races, cultures, whole countries. Its pathetic.
    Anyones pre conceived conception about ANYONE these days stems from knowing what Religion they are first. Without it we would just get on with everyone without a 2nd thought. With it and we sub consciously judge everyone.

    "He is Catholic?....oh we know what that means"
    "He is a muslim?...oh no ISIS"
    "He is a Jew?....



    etc etc.
     
  4. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,510
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    The same was true for Western society as well up until like 60 years ago. And we weren't Muslims.

    I am confused by this statement.

    1. Who is letting terrorists, anti-humanists, etc, off the hook?
    2. How does acknowledging that bad people use religion as an excuse enable bad people to use religion as an excuse?
    3. If you're agreeing with me that it is an excuse and not the cause, doesn't suggesting otherwise, even in an attempt to prevent their BS from continuing, make you disingenuous?
     
    feraledge likes this.
  5. lewis

    lewis SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    472
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    Yeah exactly SIXTIES years ago. About time they stopped too isnt it?

    and what I mean is,
    in a nutshell religion is bad. It encourages people to do bad stuff in its name. The longer we allow it to continue by just targeting the effects of Religion to complain about, Rather than target Religion itself as the root cause, the longer this planet will be in a complete mess.

    and to answer you, no one is letting terrorists off the hook, but the religion they and any criminal "represent" very much gets let of the hook and thats my point.
     
  6. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,510
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
  7. El Caco

    El Caco Djavli te ponesli Contributor

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    917
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    AU
    I don't have time for ss.org until after the end of this month and shouldn't have come here now. I accidentally clicked an ss.org link just now looking for a guitar I want to buy. Not that it matters because up to the post I am replying to there was nothing added to the thread worth replying to, from the beginning of the big long reply to me it was clear that he was unable to grasp what I was saying and therefore his reply is irrelevant. I didn't bother reading the rest because it is like a blind man telling you there are no stars because they can't see them and can't understand the concept you are trying to explain. That may be my fault for poor writing, I don't know because I really don't have time to read the thread again and I don't have time to read the last few pages of the thread either.

    I was trying to explain a concept. A concept that nothing can be trusted because there is no way to prove any of this is real. If it isn't real then science and tests are irrelevant and meaningless. My point was that believing in such things requires faith that this is real. I believe that is no different to religion. On the other hand I have read science believes people like me who accept there is no way of knowing if this is real or not and people who believe this isn't real are suffering from mental illness.

    I tried to explain how everything we all believe is simply the interpretation of information our brain receives and has stored. We believe we have eyes and hands and feet but there is no way for us to actually test if we are really more than just a brain and there is no way for us to actually know the form of our brain or where our brain is.

    If you can leave alone previously discussed simulation theories and just focus on this concept. There is a good chance we will create some kind of brain in the not too distant future, maybe in our lifetime even, possibly even in the next 10-20 years. The processing power will be there in the next few years at least. Now if we succeed in creating a self aware AI that is capable of learning and self development, if we create limits on that AI so that it believes it is something it is not and believes that it is in an environment we make up, we could potentially create an AI that believes in a lie and has no way of possibly knowing or testing for anything other than what we let it know or even tell it to believe and that could all be a complete lie. Perhaps we would even give it the power to reproduce, evolve and even create with limits in a way that is of our design. And we could do so in a way that it is not aware of our reality. It would be living in a simple artificial world that it believes is real with its own form of science that reinforces the belief in that world but is actually grounded in the belief in that world. The interesting thing for me would be if the future offspring of that AI could evolve to the point of conceiving the possibility that it might actually be AI and then create AI in an artificial reality created by the AI.

    I'm sure if we ever got to that point of simulation the idea that we could be simulated ourselves would be more popular.

    So contemplate this for a moment. Imagine that you were aware of this concept but not a believer, just that it is a concept you have understood since you were a child. Then imagine that events happened during your life that reinforced the idea that this is probably a sim and other people were aware of your thoughts but didn't share them. Then imagine you were with sceptics on a drive which no one was actually discussing or thinking about simulation at the time. Now imagine you saw something strange. Lets say a red car was coming from the opposite direction, lets say that car suddenly flashed 3 times and then disappeared. Imagine for a moment you thought you were seeing things so you simply asked the others "did you see that?". Imagine that they also shared the same feeling that they saw something and were afraid to say but you persisted they tell you what they saw, imagine the surprise of everyone including the sceptics when everyone claims they saw the same thing. Now imagine that this might be the first time the sceptics ever noticed something like this but throughout your life you have had many strange experiences like this. And imagine that the sceptics went on to start seeing other strange things and realising that they had seen strange things plenty of times but ignored them because it did not fit their reality, imagine that those sceptics aren't really sceptics anymore but don't know what to believe because they don't understand what they have seen. But most importantly imagine you have seen many things like this and shared these experiences with a variety of people. Imagine you had been presented with enough evidence to believe in something but imagine trying to explain these things to others who have never seen or experienced these things.

    Of course such a person is not much different from someone who thinks they have seen a miracle that confirms their religion. Of course I understand everything we believe is simply the interpretations of the computer that we call our brain and a brain can malfunction. That said I've had multiple tests and scans, I have no growths in my head, no abnormalities at all. No medical test has been able to find any explanation that might point to a malfunctioning or abnormal brain. I can say that I think I am rational enough to restrain myself when I write about things like this because if I shared everything I believe I have seen or experienced in a forum such as this people would be convinced I am crazy. And I don't need to prove anything to anyone and I don't need anyone to believe me. But that is why I think certain explanations better explain what I have experienced than others and it is why I am inclined to certain beliefs but don't claim an absolute belief.

    Science can't explain some of the things I have seen or experienced. Trying to explain would just make me seem crazy. But I've had a few atheist friends who have become believers in a higher power or in something else simply because of what we have experienced together. And it isn't important to me that you believe, it isn't important to me that you even understand the concept I tried to share. I just wanted to try and explain the concept in an effort to try and help others understand why someone might choose their belief. It's what you might do when you don't have the answers and know you can't have the answers but you believe the popular beliefs are wrong. Then if you ever get to the point of believing your beliefs have influence then you might choose to think a certain way or believe certain things based on that belief. Think of that as an extension of the power of positive thinking.

    I can't believe I just wasted time typing this out when I have so little time to get the stuff that I need done finished. As I said i can't read the rest of the thread and if you quote me or reply to me don't be surprised that I don't reply. I suspect this thread should be dead by next month or so long that it would be crazy for me to read through. I have been avoiding checking ss.org simply because I can't afford the distraction and I'm disappointed that I clicked a link to here without realising. As soon as I'm done being distracted now I'll log out to make sure it doesn't happen again because I'm very easily distracted.
     
  8. marcwormjim

    marcwormjim SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,454
    Likes Received:
    546
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    Not here
    You sure had time for that.
     
  9. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,819
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    This is a sort of mass reply to all the weirdness of this argument, but I'm going to try to be brief on each because I feel in people's lengthy retorts you may be losing sight of some of the core criticisms:

    1. We all understand the argument. In the quoted passage you're phrasing it in a very condescending way. It's a really simple idea, we've all seen the matrix, we can imagine going on more layer down.

    2. Why take this belief? It buys you nothing: it is by its own definition unprovable (the way you're pitching it). And it's "turtles all the way down" so to speak -- eventually you get to base reality and need to grapple with existential questions there.

    3. AI is no where close to doing this -- in fact, this is not even "AI". If you enroll in an AI PhD program, you don't simulate brains. And we don't even understand how the brain works, so it follows that there can be no estimate in how much computational power it would take to simulate it. I imagine we'll get there eventually, so I'll give this one a pass, but you'd be misinformed to argue that researchers believe this is coming soon.

    4. As said, a brain is not the entirety of life as we know it. It doesn't follow that hey, once we can simulate a brain, naturally we can simulate something on a scale that is immeasurably larger (essentially inconceivably larger) than the brain.

    5. You car disappearing example is simultaneously assuming this sort of absolute power to simulate, with a very contemporary computer programmer view of things going wrong. If you're simulating all the atoms in the universe, you don't botch up a car driving down the road. It doesn't make ANY sense. I feel like this is the most damning -- you're trying to use this theory to resolve inconsistencies between what you've observed and our current understanding of reality, but simulators capable of simulating the universe wouldn't be incompetent enough to be filling the world with "glitches".

    6. Back to the idea of faith, now you're just playing semantics. Maybe some masters of our simulated world are changing my memories so that as we keep understanding more and more about this world, but from the perspective of mankind, in retrospect and as we are living it, the laws of the world as understood through science are repeatable and give way to making consistent predictions of our actions. If one were to define "proof", we would define it within our simulation, as it pertains to our world. If my believes are derived from that proof, that is not faith, because the concept of "faith" is defined with respect to the concept of "proof".

    7. Followup, there is no need to be correct in science. At a time when all observable evidence and predictions supported a view of a flat earth, and one were to believe in a flat earth, that person is not exercising faith. If someone today denies all the evidence of a spherical earth, and chooses to instead believe in the flat earth, they are exercising faith. So your idea of faith/proof as on objective thing that sort of reality is aware of (but we might be because we're somewhere down the simulation rabbithole) isn't sound.
     
    TedEH likes this.
  10. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    3,946
    Likes Received:
    474
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    ^ Everything he said. All of it. +1000.

    Also:
    The brain is not a computer.
     
  11. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,972
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Ok, there are a lot of little points, and no one is coming on here to debate pro-simulation theory anymore, sadly.

    But, there is only one point that torpedoes the entire theory. There's no point to it.

    If I had some crazy amount of high tech stuff to plug people into my simulation permanently, what would I gain from doing that? Nothing. In fact, it would cost me trillions of dollars to keep it going.

    How do I know I have eyes? It's not because of faith, it's because I get neurological signals from my eyes to my brain. If there was something else sending the signals simulating an eye, then I would figure out that the signal was bullshit very quickly as soon as I trip over something I didn't see or reach for something that's not there.

    It's so inconsistent, too. You keep arguing about how advanced our AI is, yet, according to your argument for Simulation Theory, there is no standalone AI here, just AI within a more advanced AI world of everything, so why would that world even necessitate standalone AI? If we are in an AI simulation, then it wouldn't take any work to make a super advanced AI, because we would already be in it. It's like making a robot that can build another robot in order to prove that the first robot exists. There is no logical progression there.
     
  12. JSanta

    JSanta SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    167
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I want to add one piece to #3 specifically. I am almost finished with a doctorate in business intelligence, which in large parts studies machine learning and the automation of technological analytical tools to provide more insight into prescriptive and predictive analytics. The bottom line with artificial neural networks is that we have no where near the computing power available to us to actually mimic (digitally) the real neural network of the human brain. Highly sophisticated ANNs cannot even come close. Period. Bottom line, it's not even up for debate at this point. If we use the brain as a comparison with regards to sophistication, what we currently have available is no where near as powerful, we don't even really know what that means from a computational perspective yet.
     
    TedEH likes this.
  13. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,819
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Nice!
     
    JSanta likes this.
  14. El Caco

    El Caco Djavli te ponesli Contributor

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    917
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    AU
  15. feraledge

    feraledge Black Walnut Pounding Bragger Contributor

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    Threads like this make me proud to have been raised Jewish, because I had no hang ups at all when I was a kid and could look at "holy books" and say, "well that's a bunch of bullshit."
    I consider myself a "spiritual" anti-theist.
    I have no question in my mind that god does not exist. The stories we tell ourselves about the unknown were meant to be flowing, not stagnant or consequential, which is exactly what religion, primarily myths etched in stone, have created. Since I'm writing on the matter, I want to point out that the definition of god involves having power over reality here and now. Most indigenous "creators" don't technically qualify as a god. Being against religion and saying there is a "spirit" to life are in no way contradictory, it just means that life can have a connection without a cognizant and omnipresent creator or intention.
    Since we have to deal with people who believe their myths matter and wield them against other people, I couldn't be more anti-religion personally.
    Tell stories, doesn't impact other people. But gods have a tendency of really getting in everyone else's way.
    From a scientific perspective, I think what I consider 'spirit' is demonstrable, but you have to break out of the cult of the ego. Trees use mycelium to spread messages and pass nutrients to their kin and friends, even sustaining leaves on their branches after the body of the tree itself has died. Symbiosis gets very detailed and I've been fascinated enough about parasites that you have to wonder at the smallest details of interconnections between living beings that the idea of "self" becomes impossible.
    If the mind is the energy created by neurons firing and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then that energy is constantly going somewhere and its hard to imagine it's all just within us.
    I think there are perfectly secular ideas for what otherwise might just sound like New Age crap. But it's also easier to say that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer for what it might be and not, consequently, magical evidence that three Abrahamic religions could be right.
     
  16. feraledge

    feraledge Black Walnut Pounding Bragger Contributor

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    As a cultural materialist, this is an area of extensive study and analysis, the largest reason for war is control of resources. All of which currently translate to money and power, but historically speaking, not always the exact cause.
    And to clarify the point you were making that seems to have been overlooked: the justifications do matter, but that doesn't mean the stories we tell should be taken at face value. That's a trap a lot of people fall into: for example, people think you need to use the Bible to refute Christianity. To me, that's as ridiculous as thinking I need to use Mein Kampf to argue the Holocaust was bad. I'm not going to cite Fight Club to prove that it's a fictional story.
    We're social animals. You can boil our behavior down to a crude back-and-forth of ecology and biology, but, unless you're looking for it specifically, no one really speaks that way even if we're responding to the same stimuli.
    Just the same, Isis evokes a Caliphate on social media using oil money. Holy wars have always been about geopolitics, but ecologists historically don't make good cannon fodder.
     
  17. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,819
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    It's backwards: your mind isn't energy -- it's created using (but not using up) energy, activating particular groups of neurons in particular ways. That energy lives on, but the neurons don't, so I don't see anything spiritual in thinking that the electricity that gives rise to individuals is shared and reused by others.
     
  18. feraledge

    feraledge Black Walnut Pounding Bragger Contributor

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    2am, I meant using. I'm not a fan of calling it electricity, but my point is that there is scientific backing for what people will call spirituality, a term with a lot of shit baggage. I'm not trying to say people are spiritual whether they like it or not. But no human is an island.
     
  19. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,819
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    And I guess my point is that there's nothing of "you" in that energy, as it is a resource used by the system, not the system. That energy is reused, so we are all connected, but spirituality shouldn't be simply that. In fact it would be just as true if humans never existed, so we don't need to appeal to the soul or the supernatural to talk about it.

    I mean, according the definitions of "spiritual" that google's throwing me, simply grounding it in science would prevent it from being spiritual (given we have no scientific support for the existence of a soul).
     
  20. feraledge

    feraledge Black Walnut Pounding Bragger Contributor

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, MO
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not just trying to be diplomatic nor do I demand science make sense of my experience of the world. Science has as much of an uphill battle as religion does, particularly since Descartes set the table.
    My point is that if you want to show, and science is incrementally and hesitantly accepting pieces of this, that there is connection between all life, there's scientific evidence of it: that energy bounces between everything. For you, it's neutral. For me, it's not.

    The terms we're stuck with are shit. It makes it easier to pick this kind of god or not god dualism. I couldn't be more resolved in knowing there is no cognizant, omnipresent force in the world, but there's more to it than the sum of all parts. No chakras here.
    But I have seen my dead brother many times. Other people have seen him and have see him interact with physical things in front of us. I can't really explain it, but I don't need to and it's zero evidence of a god. It could simply be residual energy with some consciousness lingering. But I think there's going to be a slow turn to realize that neurons matter more than simply the hardware of the brain. As the hive mind and function of the octopus become more understood, I think science could take steps into figuring out life about how life functions. I'm not holding my breath.
    But I'm resolved in what I know and open that it was an uphill battle to get there, but around the third time I was warned about someone around me dying by a great horned owl, I had to question myself more than them. Over a dozen instances later, they haven't been wrong and they aren't the only ones carrying news for me.
    Sounds woo-woo, I'm sure, but I don't really care about that. It is what it is and I don't feel I need to put more on it. Could just be energy. But it's there and whatever it is, doesn't need a god to exist nor a master plan.
     

Share This Page