So-called "Atheists" and "Skeptics; a net need for God

After a lifetime of trying to show people their power and arm them with knowledge, get them to read, think, research, investigate, seek out truth for themselves, I'm beginning to understand the despair embedded in the old world religions. Most people cannot handle knowledge and they need an anchor for their faith. They cannot fully admit to themselves that they will always live in faith (look up Munchhausen trilemma). Atheists simply organize around rejection of a deity, by varying definitions, and convince themselves their faith in science is actually the absence of faith. In doing so, they have basically eliminated God to become God themselves. They are humbled by nothing. They neither see nor yield to any higher order, they will mindlessly charge forward desiring to dominate, trample, and subdue even Mother Nature herself, all things we conform to their script and their notions, all things are malleable, all things mutable, all things under control. They hate God, they must kill him, they must show him up and surpass him, they must do all these things simply because they're mad at their parents, their own reflection, their helplessness in the broader world, and thus the Creator. It just has to come dressed in different clothes, not unlike Jesus coming unto them in a new form such that they may follow and understand. And again, they simply do not want to see that it is still all the same, because they still have the same needs (certainty, security, default reality, anchor) programmed in from early childhood. A grandiose and pitiful fate, in truth. This all coming from someone who is not religious and was not raised with any religion, so I've found myself an eternal heretic, rejected by all. An inhuman all encompassing loneliness and futility not unlike that of God I suppose, says my inner narcissist. At this point, I would almost rather see mankind groveling in reverence and fear, face in the dirt (where it belongs, quite frankly it may do them a favor) before a figment of their imagination, than allow them to continue with their pathetic substitute God. The average person is simply too much of an irresponsible, naive, narcissistic, and or pyschopathic golem to handle the power that man now has. It's undeniable, things are not improving, and I fear this is not the turbulent wasteland before the clouds part. They have just the right combination of arrogance and ignorance to be an incredibly manipulable and dangerous force. Regardless of what happens though, punishment for those faithful is coming, as though it's guaranteed by man's very nature. A modulatory destructive impulse deeply implanted by the Creator. Ha, theology really is the best lens to view man, after all, the Biblical God is simply what you get when you severely traumatize a human child. Some problems, really do solve themselves. 1/2

>>30503 And you know what, you want the best example? All you must do is look at how you are brought into this place, it brings to mind Brave New World. Induction with pitocin, mother laying in the wrong position, infant is finally out one way or another, they halt placental transfusion by immediately clamping off the umbilical cord (the so-called "early cord clamping"), they further increase the viscosity of that thinned blood with an injection of vitamin K. What's next for some of the more unfortunate males here in the US? Well, the kind healthcare personnel take them in the other room, strap them into a "circumstraint", and amputate part of their penis. And we have a whole manufacturing base established just to provide the specialized instruments to perform this one procedure, genital cutting. Hell, these days we're even circumcising with radiofrequency scalpels! Very fancy (and these new experiments have generated some fairly horrifying case reports in the literature, but what can you do, right). Look upon us. Look at how far we've come. No longer the sharp rock, nor the obsidian blade. No longer the sharpened fingernail, we need not even wait until the eighth day! Truly, through technology, through man's progress, we have become something new. Yeah, right, sure we have. Oh but it's all totally beneficial, worry not, you lose nothing from an amputation (doublethink), and we're real good at it now too! We totally know what we're doing with all these chemicals to "fix" your "problems" as well. It's like cavemen imitating God, it really is. Just think about it, if they're delusional.... if they're lying about this, if they're covering their ass here.... what else are they wrong about? And yet, when going up against the medical-industrial complex, I find the so-called skeptics and Atheists among the primary opponents and apologists for their new favored abuser. The trauma bonded mindset never dissipates, the chainless slave simply hands his reins to a new master. He needs God. He needs a master. He needs higher authority, he needs to fill that void, that organizing principle. I should feel empathy and perhaps even pity, but I don't, I feel disgust, if I had the ability I would bring the flood that cleans all of this away. If I knew how to get through to you people I would, but I don't think it can be done. I don't know the way. All I know is that this old-new belief system is one of many that must be brought to heel, and destroyed completely. I think perhaps a Nature cult would do the trick. All will kneel in awe and worship before Mother Nature, and Her undeniable Truth. Imagine the arrogance of thinking biological systems, machines which literally assemble and maintain themselves unassisted through a vast range of conditions for in some cases more than 100 years, need YOU and your child-like little ideas from your brainwashed little head and a stupid piece of paper hanging on your wall. Pure narcissistic garbage. Overgrown traumatized children imitating their notions of God. Kneeling before an idol to THEMSELVES. How pathetic. The God who brings salvation and a shepherd, the God who punishes. Where do you think this comes from? Just look at them, moth and flame. Ignoring the Mesopotamian roots, it is obvious. The Biblical God is a pure encapsulation of human suffering and despair. 2/2

>The trauma bonded mindset never dissipates, the chainless slave simply hands his reins to a new master. He needs God. He needs a master. He needs higher authority, he needs to fill that void, that organizing principle. One of the reasons Discordianism (and other forms of zenarchy, I suspect also Taoism but I am not familiar enough with it to say for sure) exists, is because it fills that "god-shaped hole" with something which is inherently anti-authoritarian. Discordians are commanded to never believe anything they read, they are commanded to disobey, they are commanded to take part in the chaos of life and enjoy it. Is it a joke disguised as a religion or a religion disguised as a joke? Don't know, don't care, all I know is that it does indeed fill that god-shaped hole very well. No other theology has been able to take hold on my mind since I devoted myself to the Goddess in half-jest. It is possible to be seriously unserious. Unfortunately some other quite unsavory things can also fill a god-shaped hole. Nations and ideologies are particularly nasty forms, because they don't usually come with even the barest code of ethics. I entreat all persons to give the great book "Principia Discordia, or, How I Found The Goddess And What I Did To Her When I Found Her: Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything" a read. It's fun. http://principiadiscordia.com/book/5.php

>>30504 Is this a blog post or some vapid attempt to create a discussion about how people are too stupid to allow them to rule themselves? I think we all know the average human being is stupid, but that is the average. Do you think you are not the average, because you can conjure up a few loosely connected sentences together? Your posts are laced with hypocrasy. What you need is self control. Self determinism. Self reliance. If you need a god, find one. Go find your nature cult and dance naked in the woods with a man holding a blade to your throat asking you how you enter their circle. If you need X, find it. I don't care what you do. But what was the point of your actual post itself? Maybe it doesn't matter. It is clear to me that fascism is the answer. Keeping like with like will help you out.

>>30512 >be me >return to lainchan after a while >click mega >see >>30512 >nothing has changed, I see >leave.exe

Humanity has become a godless bunch of almost artificial quality that has lost all nobleness and instead degenerated to a heap of filthy flesh robots obsessed with their own death. The world we inhabit now to me is the sign mankind is ruled by the devil, they have created hell and are only doing evil to everyone and everything. I dont feel sorry nor sympathize with them, they have degenerated beyond the point of salvation and only the wrath of god can put a stop to this vile filth we call western civilization. It will all come crashing down on people sooner or later and with a vegence, i cant wait to see mankind fall and finally get what it deserves.

>they halt placental transfusion by immediately clamping off the umbilical cord (the so-called "early cord clamping") Oh, it's you again.

>>30524 I'm not the one who clamps and circumcises.

Please clamp this schizo.

>>30529 You sage like it's a prayer to an unseen God. Punishment awaits those who would demand a God for a Godless world.

>>30526 You definitely are. All of your threads are like this piece of soykaf. You're such a batshit crazy schizo. >>30530 you're literally insane

Go away pedo

>>30534 That moment when the mask of sanity slips, and the world brands reason as madness. No need for reason, logic is treason. >>30535 What?

>>30517 Honestly as of today I believe that people haven't been running on full Event Horizon mode because of >fear of God >fear of society >fear of authority All along, since Homo Sapiens first roamed the land. The first fear is gone, the second is gone as well since we are all completely isolated and one's ideal life model is living your entire life without ever having to say hi to your neighbor next door or having sex with the same person twice, and actually deviancy and depravity seem to be all that still gets people together. Only authority remains: the law. When there will be more and more pushes to dethrone the puppet governments in Western society and remove cops and replace them with private armies, your boss will finally be able to run your local supermarket like a Mexican drug cartel like he always wanted to, and straight up kill any underling who raises his voice in protest. Perfect.

I like the word "scientism" to describe the religion that believes science has all the answers. I always think it's funny (or perhaps scary) when people say soykaf like "science says we should do x" (where x is stop climate change, save the whales, use cardboard straws and so on) when "should" is a value judgment which is explicitly outside the domain of science. In the same way that intelligent design sneaks god in when you're not looking, they sneak god out and pretend all their religious behaviors are based in science. >>30538 I have also noticed there seem to be a lot of people who worship the law as though it were a religion. Like there are "good people" who follow the law, and criminals who deserve whatever happens to them, completely ignoring that those laws were made up by incompetent if not corrupt politicians.

>>30552 Ironically this has come full circle with some if the most devout "rationalists" convincing themselves that an AI Messiah will bring us salvation. A good way to identify these people is that say they are interested in "AI ethics" (well they might be an activist type that wants to fix algorithmic bias but usually these two types are easy to tell apart).

>>30553 Remidns me of the episode of GITS SAC (2nd gig iirc) where Togusa goes to court, and the judge, jury, prosecution, and so forth are all robots.

>>30512 It's funny to see a post that tries so hard to refute another that it actually proves it. Your words convey an internal pain that you never show through any means other than anger. That's my unqualified diagnosis. >>30553 The AI messiah truly is the antichrist. I find it interesting that people believe an AI can rule benevolentely. You may be able to simulate intelligence but you can never simulate emotion. It will be the ultimate psychopath.

>>30553 >algorithmic bias whether bias is a problem is merely the subjective judgement. Most lean towards a bias to continue living and see people who dont share said bias as defect. In the scope of algorithms any distance metric introduces a bias already. Euclid leads to clustering in orbs. More complex metrics lead to other shapes. And the news screech about racist algorithms to be purged as they dont align with their own biases. Whats gonna happen is when the Algos are there, they will incorporate all the biases of these people which makes replacing humans with machines a completely worthless proposition.

>Man needs God for morality No. It is the opposite. Humans only 'need' a God when they need an excuse for them to be immoral. I know linking to youtube for someone else to make my argument is cringe, but really, I could never make this point as eloquently as this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFi4pUIAlQs

>>30503 >attempt to create a discussion about how people are too stupid to allow them to rule themselves? Exactly what it is. I bet OP is a fascist and I'm saying this without a hint of irony.

>>30687 >people are too stupid to allow them to rule themselves = facism by that metric every government is, all implicit acknowledge this through their laws. What do you have mandatory safety regulations for? Cause your retarded workers need a babysitter even at age 40 that tells him what to do. Maybe even more fitting are the customer protection laws that forbid signing away your rights and laws against fraud. How can you believe someone is fit to make decisions for a country if he is unfit to even take care of himself?

>>30557 I mean whether *anything* is a problem is ultimately subjective judgement. That's the nature of prescriptivism. FWIW I was being somewhat dismissive of the people you're talking about, idk if that came through or not. However to be fair to them if you want your algorithm not to reflect biases in the training set (bias being a rigorously defined statistics term) that's a legitimate mathematical problem that is certainly worthy of technical study.

>>30557 >Euclid leads to clustering in orbs. More complex metrics lead to other shapes this is too vague to be a rigorous statement. >Whats gonna happen is when the Algos are there, they will incorporate all the biases of these people which makes replacing humans with machines a completely worthless proposition. more likely they will adopt the bias that gets them the most R&D funding.

>>30538 > the second is gone as well since we are all completely isolated and one's ideal life model is living your entire life without ever having to say hi to your neighbor next door or having sex with the same person twice, and actually deviancy and depravity seem to be all that still gets people together. I think most people consider that miserable.

>>30556 >You may be able to simulate intelligence but you can never simulate emotion. Empty statement. Emotions and intelligence are not really different things.

>>30710 Its vague because its easy to explain on that level. If you want precision just look up different distance metrics. The simple takeway is by selecting another distance metric you can change which data points are closest to each other. So your distance metric introduces a bias when calculating clusters. The more fundamental point i was trying to make is usually you always take euclid. So most people have bias they dont even consider because they are unaware that alternative options are even possible.

>>30713 I don't think bias is the right word to describe what you're talking about. Changing metric can change the distance between points (that much is almost tautological since the metric is essentially a notion of distance) but I don't see what bias has to do with clustering, either by formal mathematical definition or vernacular. In statistics a biased estimator is one whose expected value is not equal to the true analytical value of the thing being estimated. In other fields bias is associated with a nonzero constant term in a given function. You probably don't need me to tell you what it means in everyday language.

>>30511 >Nations and ideologies are particularly nasty forms This makes sense but I actually wonder how true it is. For example a lot of religious movements and groups gain legitimacy through affiliation with specific nations right - think the Anglican church or the role shintoism played in Japanese imperialism. It seems to me that these grand narratives like Religion and National identity are all intertwined.

>>30552 > "science says we should do x" (where x is stop climate change, save the whales, use cardboard straws and so on) when "should" is a value judgment lmao no it isn't. People say 'we should do X' because they want a specific outcome, I.E. "we should save whales because we don't what them to go extinct" or "we should use paper straws because we prefer to live in a world with less pollution" Science and the scientific method is a tool to do things (doesn't even have anything to do with religion I mean science has been around for hundreds of years but only since about the 60s has explicit atheism gained popularity) and people use it as such.

>>30713 yes I know about how metrics work but I don't see how that is relevant to "algorithms". What particular algorithms? There's no reason why Euclidean distance would make, say, graph reduction algorithms behave any differently. Often taking a particular metric (such as length of the shortest path between points) is part of how the algorithm works, changing it makes the algorithm incorrect. It's not an example of bias. >>30716 yes but I would say that it matters more about which is serving which. In the US for instance, many Christians will ignore religious teachings if they clash with nationalism, regardless of source.

>>30692 the reason we need safety regulations is cos big business ppl try to cut costs by using unsafe equipment and other dodgy practices. I can't image what kind of danger you think people would willingly put themselves in. Not to mention it also tries to reduce simple accidents, like if someone trips and theres no railing so they fall, it isn't that they were just to stupid to not trip soykaf just happens sometimes

>>30717 It's perfectly valid to say "science predicts if we do x then y is likely to happen and I feel that y is a good outcome so we should do x". Now you might say that is what they really mean when they say "science says we should do x" and I believed that for a long time. However, the people who say these things so often seem to know or care so little about actual science when it disagrees with their preconceived ideas that I am becoming convinced they mean what they say. Another example: "99% of scientists agree we should do x". For one, 99% of scientists don't know soykaf about the subject due to the high level of specialization. For two, that sort of appeal to authority/appeal to majority is completely antithetical to real science.

>>30712 >Emotions and intelligence are not really different things. I disagree with you on an emotional level that I can't explain.

>>30711 People say it is but they love it. People lie all the time.

>>30714 >>30718 Pic is a simple example of how going by closest distance can create a clustering that isnt representative of the data. The assumption of k-cluster with euclid is the data is in orb form but if the data is shaped different it can't fit it well. This extends to other metrics and algorithms. They implicit make assumptions in the way they work. Knowing how they work you can exploit said biases and create false results with specifically prepared data sets.

>>30733 The people who indulge in that know very well that they're just trying to fill the void in their soul with meaningless pleasure. They will never be satisfied unless that void is filled with a love that comes from within. Our society is creating incomplete people who lose themselves this sort of pleasure seeking while being too hurt and anxious to truly love themselves and let God love them

>>30799 Developmental psychology would state that after the formative years that void cannot be filled. That terror and inner death will remain forever.

>>30733 considering the high suicide and depression rates right now, this is dubious.

>>30738 ok but which cluster-finding algorithm are you particularly talking about? Because most of them would be able to efficiently differentiate two well separated clusters like that.

>>30807 >>30738 ok I guess I could say more because there are other problems with your claim. For instance, that data set is still well approximated by Euclidean distance. You just randomly drew two ellipses, but a k-cluster algorithm is looking for clusters that are very binary(almost all green or almost all red). Such clusters exist in the picture you drew, because the data sits in ambient Euclidean space and doesn't have weird structure. The metric on the data you use is *really* a property of the data, not an algorithm. Only someone who is preparing a data set can tell the computer whether two things are close together or not.

>>30808 >The metric on the data you use is *really* a property of the data No it isn't, it's something you define on the space that the data is embedded in. Unless you're talking about a specific kind of metric?

>>30808 k-cluster is an algorithm. As said im using a simple example. It didnt drew random at all. If you give k-cluster the task to find 2 groups it will draw the groups as pictured because the data points between the 2 lines are closer to each other than the data points at the opposite ends of each line. You as a human recognize that the lines as separate groups because you take the density into consideration and dont limit yourself to the shape of a circle. Given the task to separate those 2 lines with 2 circles you still wouldn't be able to create a perfect fit regardless how much you tried simply because the distance between the lines is smaller than their length which makes putting the lines in separate circles impossible. Again this is a extremely simplified example of a complex problem for n-dimensional data.

>>30818 that's because you asked it to find clusters of points that are close together, not clusters that differentiate the groups. You asked the wrong question and got the wrong result... that is not an example of bias in an algorithm, it is an example of using the wrong algorithm. A more sensible choice for doing what you want to do would be a linear regression or connected-graph construction(attach each point to all points of distance less than d from each other, use a connected component algorithm). All of these would work swimmingly because the question you're asking is topological and the Euclidean metric generates the topology of the underlying data. You might improve performance by using a different metric(this can often drastically improve performance in persistent homology, for example) but you will generally get the same answer.

>>30809 generally if you have some data you will also know what constitutes "close together" or "far apart" for the data set. That is part of what allows you to ask meaningful questions about the data. If I have medical data then I will probably want to use some kind of metric based on what doctors say similar diagnostic data looks like, otherwise any algorithm you use will produce junk.

>>30824 another example: if all you have are raw image data, and don't know what about two images makes them "similar" or "different" based on your goal(i.e. detecting dogs or something), you will end up with junk on the output. You have to know what metric you're using ahead of time to even properly use the data set.

>>30823 The question is always "separate the data". "Use a different algorithm" isnt a solution to the general problem of algos being unfit to separate a data set as one might want it, manipulating the result by pre-selecting the algorithm equals acknowledging that you cant solve the general task without introducing your own bias.

>>30826 yes, you have to know something about the data to ask and answer meaningful questions about it, and by knowing something about the data you are introducing bias in the sense of statisticians. This much should be obvious. Generally when people mean that an algorithm has "bias" they mean that it detects some aspect of the data that it's not supposed to. For example, black people are more likely to be convicted for crimes than white people, so algorithms decide that black people are more likely to commit crimes. This is an example of confusing correlation with causation, but most people call it "bias".

>>30831 If you decide the desired result and change the algorithm to reflect your worldview you're essentially just extending human bias to the algorithm the human produces. That doesn't require any knowledge or understanding of the data. Even a 12 year old can select the algorithm that puts out "kids should play more video games". Same soykaf happens with adults in their respective positions. Algorithms wont solve people problems because they come from people.

>>30836 What did you think about Ergo Proxy, if you've seen it?

>>30801 Born again Christians manage to find a way. I think that you need to reach a breaking point before you can change. People need to be at their limit, their most hopeless, before they can allow themselves to be loved by God. Though they also risk losing themselves in that same hopelessness.

>>30836 >If you decide the desired result and change the algorithm to reflect your worldview you're essentially just extending human bias to the algorithm the human produces. Generally the "desired result" is an answer to the question posed. What is a typical home price in Los Angeles? Calculating the maximum one will not accurately answer that question. That is not bias how most people mean it, even statisticians. >That doesn't require any knowledge or understanding of the data. it does if you actually want to get the statistically correct answer to your question instead of a pre-selected answer.

>>30846 A honest reply is not desired. Your example with rent is actually an example of such manipulation. You take average of all homes and you get an inflated value from a few luxus sections in the city. That doesn't represent what the majority pays but its a desired answer by property owners who which to inflate renting prices and thus benefit from a higher value being presented as the standard. The goal of such things is not truth but justification for already established plans.

>>30847 what is this nonsense? That is not *at all* what you were describing earlier. Assuming you want to know the real answer, you have to know something about what the data you have represents and you have to use the correct algorithm. If that assumption breaks you're in the realm of political theory and not statistics or algorithms.

>>30870 If you believe so you just didnt get it. What is a kid selecting the one who says more vidya is good? Its the same as a property owner selecting the metric that shows rent should be higher. Thats not politics but simple people seeking what they want. Statistics is just a tool. If you make any selection / inject meaning you're already manipulating the result. The simple decisions of whether you take the average of all homes or consider that you actually want the median is both a problem of understanding statistics and personal bias towards the result.

>>30879 ok but what does this have to do with the "bias" introduced by selecting a Euclidean metric for data that has a natural Euclidean topology/metric? That's what we were talking about before. There is obviously bias towards which information is considered valuable, but in any scientific field you have to assume that the correct answer is actually desired. Otherwise you're not doing science and there is no point in discussing whether the conclusions are correct, since correctness is not desired. So, supposing that you *actually* want the answer to the question posed, why does selecting a Euclidean metric for data that already has a natural Euclidean metric introduce bias?

>>30880 Seems you skipped op. The original comment was about replacing people with AI to fix society. Hence i jumped in making a point that the algorithms created for that will merely reflect the people. As for the issues with euclid i could spontanously think of one problem - the quadration amplifies attributes with greater variance. If one dimension of you data has higher variance it will overshadow the others if you use euclid on it. I vaguely remember from math lectures there are non-quadratic metrics due to this. Of course some will just normalize the data but this is again a subjective choice because maybe one attribute should weight a bit more than others - in that case normalizing would be an error.

I used to be an atheist until I started looking at how the way a god is shown in stories is often different than how a god is treated in ritual plus I still believed in ghosts. It began when I started looking up ancient Germanic and Proto-Indo-European rituals, etymology, and archaeology. I learned about familial rebirth and how the gods of each race of men enabled honorable people to live again. It made me think about how people would focus on long-term, generational benefits instead of quick gains for themselves as well as the idea of a god being ethereal instead of physical. It also made me think that just because þorr carries a magic hammer in a story, does not mean he literally does. The hammer represented life energy that always returned to the user and þorr is represented in the story as thunder and life energy incarnate even while his existence outside of the story is simply ethereal and goes by different names. It also helped that I read much of The Golden Bough and learned about how gods became physical when men embraced them and impersonated them.

>>30985 Genuine question. Do you think those ancient people groups consciously made up their gods with the explicit purpose of providing moral guidance and/or long term generational benefits? If so, is there evidence to support that?

>>30986 different lainon, but I would like to weigh in. I believe the answer is definitely yes. Many really ancient spiritual practices have strong themes of ancestor worship, that is, believing that your ancestors are watching over you and have specific morals they want you to follow to continue the great tradition. I would not be surprised at all if this all emerged from parents telling their children that they ought to shape up or grandpa's ghost would be mad at them.

>>30988 Also different lainon, to add to this you had cases where, like South American indigenous cultures where some remains were kept in the open and given special treatment. The reverence that rulers had for their own parents was superimposed unto others. The gods and parents merge together in all cultures, among christians nowadays they have God the Father.

>>30986 Same Lainon that gave the statement and read much of The Golden Bough. I believe the same as that other Lainon that it deals with our ancestors being part of us and that nobody who is honorable is ever truly gone.

>>30988 >>31145 >>31153 Anon who asked this: >>30986 here. If you guys think communities, or the leaders/elites of communities, consciously made up their pantheons with the explicit purpose of providing moral guidance, and we've realized it, and we've identified it's benefits for societies, does that not demonstrate that those morals/ethics are not intrinsically tied to the belief in those pantheons? Could those morals/ethics be learned separate from belief?

>>31158 Same problem as assembly line work. Sure you can train an expert who know why he should do something and can do the work by himself but its much better to get a pleb give him a handbook of actions to follow and have him ready to follow in a fraction of the time and effort. Not only is he much cheaper, his lack of expertise means he can neither question nor compete with you if you drop him.

There's always a need for spirituality; those who consciously deny that about themselves simply re-direct it inward, developing into strange pathologies and obsessions. I think the root of it comes from our inability to have true empirical senses between our minds and the presumed exterior world. All our knowledge comes with an article of faith. There's a metaphysical facet to every aspect of our experiences. To ignore it or handwave it away with materialism forms networks of cracks in one's soul, eventually forming some kind of breach and letting in who-knows-what. The human mind works best when there's a kernel of faith. Maybe not religion, but something. And not the weird hippie-utopian Carl Sagan faith substitutes, either. And we have to have something to surrender our egos to—a higher calling. Even in the most stuffy and objective scientific pursuits, we need to have some kind of metaphysical life and understanding. It gives us leverage, which is a priceless commodity in a world of relativity with no fixed reference points or solid ground.

>>31163

>>31160 Seems rather cruel. And also unsustainable in my opinion. Humans are naturally inquisitive. Having the foundation of a moral society be theological, is inherently unstable, in my opinion. I think more people than what is normally assumed have some sort of existential phase in their lives. In those moments it seems to me far easier to break the foundation of their good morals if that foundation is a deity than it would be if that foundation was a realization of the benefit of good morals and ethics in and of themselves. I don't mean to demean or trivialize theological belief systems. They have their own complexity and intricacies. To have a thorough understanding of any one, can require a large investment of time and effort. That being the case most peoples belief will be superficial if not outright false. Often times peoples belief in a religion is only a pretense put forth for its benefits, such as status. The end product is cynical immoral people.

>>31165 Real data would suggest otherwise. Theological societies are far more stable and long-lasting than postmodern ones. We've created a long list of existential threats in about two centuries; it's no contest. One must realize that theological social structures weren't designed from the top down. They evolved naturally out of our species. It's not a roughshod method for managing a society; it's likely more akin to an instinctual human adaptation. Kind of like how right before the dust bowl, agricultural science decided we should do away with old superstitious traditions about occasionally burning crops or leaving fields fallow. Turns out those were adaptations that weren't senseless or wasteful; we just didn't really understand their purpose, because it was old inherited knowledge that developed through emergence, not central planning or formal experimentation. Anyway, as we know the dust bowl was a massive ecological disaster with ramifications echoing through history. I think we're in a similar psychic disaster. We've carelessly kicked one of the legs out from under the stool and now we're watching what happens. Human rationality isn't real or innate; it's simulated for just a short while to attack a specific problem. Then we dissolve back into emotionality and subjective fog. And it's anything but simple. We're fiddling with pieces and variables with no plan or way to trace back our changes and see where we messed up.

>>31163 Indeed. Westernized Buddhism doesn't cut it either. I'm wondering what you think of psychedelic drugs, given that so many people (including myself) have seemingly genuine spiritual revelations under their influence. >>31165 Not necessarily. Theology can be maladaptive but it usually isn't. A far greater threat is nationalism, which has evolved alongside and through theology and is invariably a corrupting force. >>31166 >One must realize that theological social structures weren't designed from the top down. They evolved naturally out of our species. It's not a roughshod method for managing a society; it's likely more akin to an instinctual human adaptation. This is true sometimes, untrue other times. The Catholic church may have naturally evolved through the need for a unified network of Christianity but it was (and still is) a corrupt institution that performed atrocities. For example. I think that "spreading-type" religions tend to have these maladaptive traits more than "staying-type" religions. Unfortunately they are also the more dominant types of religions worldwide, precisely because they have a mandate to spread even at the expense of people it is spreading to. >Kind of like how right before the dust bowl, agricultural science decided we should do away with old superstitious traditions about occasionally burning crops or leaving fields fallow. I always heard the dust bowl was caused by excessive planting of cotton and the introduction of tractor farming in the prairie.

>>31168 The dust bowl was caused by industrialized agriculture being deployed too broadly without enough development in general, but yeah. I think the catholic church is an interesting hybrid political/spiritual structure. But if you distilled and purified the spiritual part, I think you'd basically be working backwards towards early persecuted Christianity and gnosticism before the black iron prison was built. The top-down design of it was an attempt to capture spirituality and harness it for specific political means, which is definitely a problem to watch out for.

>>31166 I am the anon who wrote >>31165 , >>31158 , and >>30986 (I should just use an alias). >>31166 If theological social structures evolved naturally out of our species and we are now intelligent enough to appreciate (even if vaguely) the mechanism by which they did, and the benefits they've brought us, can we not abstract their good tenets/principles/morals from the symbolism and idolatry they're associated to and justify our living by them for their inherent goodness?

>>31174 arguably this is the entire purpose of Greek-style philosophy. Turns out that most people aren't up for it. I don't mean this in a mean way but it simply is a fact that most people just go with the group because it's easiest. I'm like that too.

>>30503 You know, I feel as if God has too many connotations. People take the voice in their head and act as if it's god, but that's not a deity capable of creating life. How would the belief system, fundamental to experience and learning created through memorization of thoughts. You've seen color all your life, you believe blue is blue. That comes from experience, seeing the color blue in all its hues throughout your life. Now imagine everybody sees blue differently, how would we ever know if we even see colors the same as everyone else? We don't, for all you know to me green is blue but the colors stay constant for each of us. We see differently but associate words to color assuming it's same in their head but it could be as simple as "this color I was told is blue, I will never know that it looks green to me because I do not know how others see green. If we cannot solve this fundamental question, what makes you think God exists as anything more than someones ego convincing them that their beliefs are always right?

>>31165 The promise of a reward in afterlife works much better than any practical benefit equation that runs on greater good as the common man will be more interested in his own good. Religion works as a trojan horse that takes control over the target and installs the leaders dogma which many see as a flaw but agency is a meme without it likewise. The fact that marketing is more effective than a good product betrays the idea that people as a group can be anything but led by the herd leader. The question is thus merely who you wish to see at the top.

>>31174 No, because just because we realized the nature of the process doesn't allow us to trace back all the emergent decisions it made for us throughout the eons just like that. We don't know what parts are symbolism and idolatry and what parts are good tenets/principles/morals. Because once again, they were slow and unguided social adaptations. These are memes passed down through hundreds of generations right along with the genes. The only way to untangle it would be to start ripping out threads and see what else in our society breaks... but how do we know which caused what when we pull them all at once? Not to mention it's happening alongside a chain of massive industrial revolutions that change human life in myriad profound ways as well. We de- and re-urbanize over and over as our political systems and social contracts shuffle around. Even long after the dust has cleared, there will be no way to determine what esoteric meta-knowledge was lost. It's a spiritual burning of another library of Alexandria. And most of us who believe in methodological learning spent these last few centuries pretending that metaphysics and matters of the spirit didn't exist at all; nobody paid attention even to the chaos until it was far too late.

>>31195 Like I'd use the analogy of having a sector of encrypted data on a drive that we thought was just random, unformatted analog noise... but right after formatting over a huge chunk of it, we discovered our error and learned what encryption was for the first time. But we still don't have the key or anything. Just because we know the method doesn't give us access to the data, much less allow us to rebuild what we carelessly destroyed previously. It's gone and we can really only guess at the effects we have caused in our present and future. Such is life. Anyway I'm usually a fairly agnostic person and consider myself rational when it matters. But I think mysticism and the "divine spark" of spirituality that we can't explain to a satisfactory degree—it's very important. It's a bunch of nonsense, but it's part of being human anyway and we do ourselves some favors but also many disfavors by denying it.

>>31195 >>31196 Sounds to me like a convoluted way to allow for superstition. There might be some useful traditions for which we might not know the justification, but how will we know them from traditions which are meant for harmful purposes (as inevitably there will be due to the nature of humans and their rise in the clergy hierarchy)? Again, this problem seems like it would be solved if people practiced their morals/ethics for the sake of their inherent goodness rather than for an attachment to a religion.

>>31208 It is meant to allow superstition! I think superstition is part of the human condition, and can be a positive part of life as long as it doesn't get out of control. I enjoyed all my parent's odd little habits, rituals, and bizarre cautions. There was at least once I can remember off the dome when it was all worth it; an old sailor superstition my dad had that kept us off the ocean at a very opportune time. Turns out some of those maritime paranoias do have basis that had since been explained by science. But he didn't know that. Some people still keep them in oral histories without understanding the mechanism, but it works nonetheless. We probably would've capsized off Florida in the gulf if not for that. In short, not every fisherman in the world can afford to go to meteorology school, so the superstitions get passed down as they have for eons. And they do just fine... most of the time. Of course superstition is also very harmful. My dad never stoned any witches to death as far as I know. How do we discriminate harmful traditions? I think it's still our duty to be skeptical and examine things under the harsh disinfecting sunlight of methodology. We investigate superstition the same way we dispel our other cognitive biases, which are nearly the same thing. Any scientist understands you can't be a human without cognitive bias. All of science is a careful set of practices designed to distill away bias until we're left with that very last drop of the strongest spirit: the truth. Or at least a high-proof concentration of truth with only a tiny bit of bias left in. One never reaches absolute truth; we are not right, only ever less wrong by increments. I think it's a curious distinction that we make between cognitive bias (accepted by enlightenment philosophy as inevitable and natural) and superstition. The difference is one is based in tradition, while the other is just a handful of features built into the brain to interpret senses more quickly at the expense of some accuracy. Survival adaptations. Both are survival adaptations. As a curious-minded and skeptical person, I recognize that the traditions contain data and experience I can access in no other way. Not without a time machine. But they're polluted with generations of bias as well as my own. So how do you deal with it? Same method of skepticism that you apply to everything else. But you still should hold reverence for superstitions and other colorful bits of our human spirit. They aren't just noise. They happened for a reason, even if for some of them that reason is no longer defensible and those should be interrogated and ultimately abandoned. So it's kind of confusing. It involves being both materialist and empirical when you badly need it, yet allowing mysticism into your daily experience anyway. Because you're human and that's how your brain works. I think people underestimate how bad for you it can be to be rational all the time. Or to try, because humans can't do that. Brains don't have ALUs or other mechanisms of hard logic like a computer does. It's based on emergent patterns, and those patterns are hiding ancient wisdom that we do ourselves disservice by throwing out with the bathwater. The phrase "Trust, but verify" comes to mind here. I once was confused as to how so many classic, famous geniuses in history held both great analytical and skeptical minds yet were fiercely dedicated to god. I no longer think it's a contradiction. I think they can embrace their humanity and their humility. Yet at the same time I have no less respect for athiests. In the end, we require many different types of minds to build a civilization. I still have adopted no formal religion, by the way. Not even new-agey stuff. Or at least I don't see it as new-agey. I don't own any crystals that aren't quartz oscillators in SMT packages.

>>31176 We may process the input differently, but it is still the same input. We are created from the same input and have been shaped by the same input. We may cloud and obscure the input, but the input is still there.

>>31163 Never in my life have I ever felt a need for spirituality and I'm offensively normal by imageboard standards. I'd like to know what has led you to believe that. If it's personal experience, wouldn't that be merely projection? >All our knowledge comes with an article of faith I agree that all perceived truths are based on beliefs, but not everyone feels the need to have all the answers. It matters not to me how Earth came to be or what will happen to me after death. Purpose is rationalized upon desires, which don't necessarily rely on spirituality. I believe this sentiment is not uncommon. I won't elaborate my points further on this post as I would need to assume your intentions and that would be bad faith. If you're willing to reply, I'd like to hear more about what you mean and what has made you think the way you think.