Do you believe in God?

[R3V]

The problem is that god is so often said to be perfect or all powerful. Such a being makes experimentation completely redundant. If god is limited or flawed, then it would make more sense for it experiment and try to learn.

He would be all powerful in the sense that he can interfere with the experiment if he wanted to, but not all-powerful in the higher dimension he presumably occupies.

I don't think the idea is crazy or absurd.

 

[Ghost Lap]

The problem is that god is so often said to be perfect or all powerful. Such a being makes experimentation completely redundant. If god is limited or flawed, then it would make more sense for it experiment and try to learn.

Perhaps your definition or perspective of being perfect and all powerful isn't quite in line with god's perspective of things? Maybe the fact that humans, as well as many other species of animal seem to experience suffering isn't of consequence to god, and as such god allows for suffering to occur. To automatically assume that god either can't be real or is a pedophile because child abuse occurs for example, from our extremely limited perspectives is the ultimate example of arrogance.

 

[UKMikey]

"Mysterious ways" writ large.

He would be all powerful in the sense that he can interfere with the experiment if he wanted to, but not all-powerful in the higher dimension he presumably occupies.

I don't think the idea is crazy or absurd.

The idea that child abuse is necessary from the perspective of an all loving god (especially when perpetrated by His representatives on earth) is crazy and absurd. Its victims don't care what you think.

 

[Famine]

To automatically assume that god either can't be real or is a pedophile because child abuse occurs for example, from our extremely limited perspectives is the ultimate example of arrogance.

Heh. Fun that you've gone for the endpoint there and ignored all of the points that lead to it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

For me, this kind of thing always goes back to the question of where we would ask God to draw the line. What should be removed by God? All abuse? Certain types of abuse? Murder? Accidental death? Accidental injury? Hardship? Discomfort? Anything physically challenging? Anything mentally challenging?

Note - I'm operating under the assumption that you would want God to the address the "child sexual abuse that is enabled under his stewardship".

To be honest, it was more a dig at the abuse of power and trust by those in the Church, than what Big G might actually allow. The casual acceptance of religion is something these sex offenders use to their own end.

FWIW, if there were a creator, I think it would create a system, not engineer specific outcomes - ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Liquid]

What kind of god is this that created the universe and needs to learn a lot more about rape?

Excuse me!
What does god need with a starship?

 

[Ghost Lap]

Heh. Fun that you've gone for the endpoint there and ignored all of the points that lead to it.

So you're still of the view point that god is a pedophile then

 

[Famine]

So you're still of the view point that god is a pedophile then

Weird. You just quoted a post pointing out you went for the endpoint and ignored all of the points that inexorably lead to it, and responded by going to the endpoint and ignoring all of the points that lead to it again.

Go back to the original post and read through it again. You'll see there's quite a clear if-then-else structure. Try looking at some of the ifs.

 

[m76]

How about you just say what you mean instead of making me read your mind and interpret your comments?

Because I tried to be concise and didn't think anybody would interpret my comment the wrong way.

If you say "religions" it's not at all clear whether that should be read as "Christianity" or "Abrahamic religions" or "all religions".

Exactly my point. I was non-specific as to not be bogged down by arguing about specific religions. If I meant "all religions" I'd have written all religions, not "religion" without quantifiers. It is you who are interpreting it to mean the wrong thing, when that is not the only interpretation as you clearly demonstrated.

Don't get your panties in a bunch with me just because you can't write clearly.

I'm sorry, I didn't anticipate that anything I left ambiguous will be interpreted so it reflects the worst possible way on me.

It is if you're claiming that all religious people think that they're the centre of the world. Some do. Some don't. The statement as you wrote it was false.

If I was claiming that all religious people think that I'd have written that. Still this is irrelevant as it doesn't affect my original point. So your whole nitpicking sidetrack is for nothing. As the most widespread religions teach that people are at the center of creation.

The points like flat earthers existing? Dealt with. I didn't claim that there aren't people who are unimaginative and stupid, just that clearing the bar that unimaginative and stupid people set shouldn't be considered a notable achievement.

And my point was that the majority are that unimaginative. Flat earthers are just an example of how unimaginative some people are. I don't know what do you mean "dealt with". Just think of how dumb the average person on the street is. And then realize that half of all people are dumber than that. To paraphrase George Carlin.

You seem to think otherwise. Interesting.

I might be too cynical but I Have very little faith left in humanity. I mean a great deal of people still can't come to grips with how facemasks work, and you think their place in the universe should be obvious to everyone?

You can give them a gold star if you want. I think we have divergent views of humanity here. I tend to think that most people are pretty self-aware, no matter how down-trodden they get. That's been my experience with the people that I've interacted with - even when getting stomped by the system we can see how that's mostly due to us individually being such tiny parts of a whole.

How successful someone is when they go through the system is more a function of luck than intelligence. As proven by all the millionaires who are dumb AF. I know that I needed luck to land where I am now, if some minor correlation didn't align as it did, I might have ended up in a much worse place where I couldn't even use my intelligence.

And we can reach out to others for help and support, and even though then we're just a small group of tiny parts it feels better to know that there's others out there that feel the same. We think about what's going on around us to better understand our place, and hopefully what we can do to make things better for ourselves and those around us.

This sounds more like a motivational speech than a point, so I have no comment on it

You seem to think that everyone is a rugged individualist ignoring everyone and everything that isn't themselves, never even stopping to think about basic properties of the world around them. I can only assume that this is due to your personal experience with the world and other people. I'm sorry that you had to go through that, but you should know that it's not a universal phenomenon.

It's not only my personal experience, it is what I see as an observer, when others do harm to 3rd parties. There are exceptions but it seems to me that the majority of people doesn't give a damn about their peers and would happily thread on them to get ahead.

If you want to define that as the baseline by which achievement should be recognised, I think that's kind of sad.

I certainly didn't say they should get a medal for it, but I can appreciate it when someone reaches even this basic level of enlightenment. As I'm fairly confident a significant percentage of people never does.

If you're living somewhere where that's the way all the people around you behave, that's pretty grim. I don't believe that to be the general case throughout humanity, and I certainly choose not to draw the baseline for self-awareness at recognising that a human is a relatively small thing.

I don't know where you live where everybody is this enlightened and selfless. I see people driven by ego all the time, even on social media, or forums like this. People go berserk because someone else slightly inconvenienced them in traffic. Our behaviour in traffic is a great societal mirror. And while I do see some improvements recently, the overall picture is still pretty grim.

Ultimately, I choose to believe that humanity is not in general a pack of selfish, greedy, ignorant arseholes, and I'm not going to laud anyone who .

I give the benefit of the doubt to every individual, but I always expect the worst. I think a significant portion of people are greedy and selfish, even the non-ignorant ones.

 

[Danoff]

I always expect the worst. I think a significant portion of people are greedy and selfish, even the non-ignorant ones.

Yup, checks out as religious.

 

[Imari]

Yup, checks out as religious.

Worse, it checks out as Abrahamic religious where all humans are innately flawed and awful.

 

[m76]

Yup, checks out as religious.

That might be the single dumbest thing I've read all week, and you had quite the competition, so congrats on beating them all to the punch.

I don't believe in god, I don't even believe in the supernatural, but because I think most people put their own interests above that of others, I'm religious. It is self preservation, which is part of human behavior, there is nothing religious about it.

Can I frame your take to put it in the hall of fame for worst takes ever?

Worse, it checks out as Abrahamic religious where all humans are innately flawed and awful.

Actually no. Self preservation insticts are what helped humanity to survive and propagate their lineage for the past 100.000 years. So I don't think it is a flaw. It is part of human nature. So agreeing with the science makes me religious, OK, whatever you say.

 

[Scaff]

Actually no. Self preservation insticts are what helped humanity to survive and propagate their lineage for the past 100.000 years. So I don't think it is a flaw. It is part of human nature. So agreeing with the science makes me religious, OK, whatever you say.

Humanity is a socially cooperative and altruistic species, traits that social biologists believe were inherent to the rise of humanity.

From an evolutionary standpoint we don't inherently distrust others within our social group, quite the opposite.

 

[Joey D]

I don't believe in god, I don't even believe in the supernatural, but because I think most people put their own interests above that of others, I'm religious.

Religion needs a belief in a supernatural power, however, a belief in a supernatural power doesn't require religion. Saying you're religious without believing in a god doesn't make any sense.

It sounds like the word you're looking for here is philosophical or maybe metaphysical.

 

[TexRex]

Saying you're religious without believing in a god doesn't make any sense.

I'm religious about washing my hands after urinating or defecating and before handling food.

 

[R3V]

Humanity is a socially cooperative and altruistic species, traits that social biologists believe were inherent to the rise of humanity.

From an evolutionary standpoint we don't inherently distrust others within our social group, quite the opposite.

I don't think this has been the case since agriculture and the introduction of hoarding wealth/resources. Which part of the global "greed is good" mentality that "successful" people have would you put under altruism?

 

[Scaff]

I don't think this has been the case since agriculture and the introduction of hoarding wealth/resources. Which part of the global "greed is good" mentality that "successful" people have would you put under altruism?

Your assigning outlier behaviour to the majority.

 

[R3V]

Your assigning outlier behaviour to the majority.

You brought up evolution. I think "nature" has been selecting for selfishness, greed and psychopathy since the beginning of civilzation. Eventually, those outliers become the majority as altruistic people die off. I'm not suggesting they are currently the majority, but they're certainly over-represented among "successful" people.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Just wondering from the Science guys point of view, how would you explain my strange and almost obsessive like interest in topics such as God and the supernatural. From a physical standpoint, is it merely explained to be something like dopamine and serotonin spikes in my brain when I look into these sorts of topics?

Basically, I would like to know your honest opinions on someone like me, with the kind of interest and faith I have in these sorts of topics, how would you explain why I have such an interest?

 

[R3V]

Just wondering from the Science guys point of view, how would you explain my strange and almost obsessive like interest in topics such as God and the supernatural. From a physical standpoint, is it merely explained to be something like dopamine and serotonin spikes in my brain when I look into these sorts of topics?

Basically, I would like to know your honest opinions on someone like me, with the kind of interest and faith I have in these sorts of topics, how would you explain why I have such an interest?

Could be a defense mechanism from the fear of death. Also the idea of a god who speaks to you isn't all that unnatural. Children have imaginary friends.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Could be a defense mechanism from the fear of death. Also the idea of a god who speaks to you isn't all that unnatural. Children have imaginary friends.

Possibly, I do have fear of death, and the thought of god being real does help put me to ease a great deal over the matter.

But purely from a physical standpoint, how can you really explain it? Is it all really just atoms and particles colliding with one another or whatever it is the quantum physicists talk about these days, or is it something beyond all of that?

 

[Scaff]

You brought up evolution. I think "nature" has been selecting for selfishness, greed and psychopathy since the beginning of civilzation. Eventually, those outliers become the majority as altruistic people die off. I'm not suggesting they are currently the majority, but they're certainly over-represented among "successful" people.

Not how evolution works at all, nothing is selected.

 

[Danoff]

That might be the single dumbest thing I've read all week, and you had quite the competition, so congrats on beating them all to the punch.

I don't believe in god, I don't even believe in the supernatural, but because I think most people put their own interests above that of others, I'm religious. It is self preservation, which is part of human behavior, there is nothing religious about it.

I think you missed my meaning. Assuming the worst about humanity has been the domain of religious dogma for centuries. "We're not worthy", "we're scum", "we were born in sin", etc. is all very religion. Assume the worst about humanity, and when they're not doing it, tell them they are anyway just in their thoughts. A big part of the way the religions raise god up is to put humanity down. Your comments just struck me as in line with that thinking.

Can I frame your take to put it in the hall of fame for worst takes ever?

Feel free.

Actually no. Self preservation insticts are what helped humanity to survive and propagate their lineage for the past 100.000 years. So I don't think it is a flaw. It is part of human nature. So agreeing with the science makes me religious, OK, whatever you say.

Actually no. And I'd suggest that you read "The Selfish Gene" to learn more about why. Most animals within a population (depending on the species) are not into pure self preservation, and display cooperative, reciprocal behavior. Ants being perhaps the absolute extreme example of this. Humans are very social animals, and will often make sacrifices for the tribe. The reason is because it's your genes that are designed to propagate, and you're hardwired to assume that your tribe shares them.

 

[R3V]

Not how evolution works at all, nothing is selected.

It's literally called natural selection but okay.

 

[Scaff]

It's literally called natural selection but okay.

Oh dear.

It's not actually nature selecting a trait as you stated, regardless of what it's called. That's literally evolution 101.

Darwin was quite, quite clear that its not intentional, as such nothing like the claim you made. He used the term to highlight that its counter to artificial selection, which is when traits are deliberately selected for inclusion, as it when hybrid plants are created via human action, which is what you were claiming nature does - it doesn't. Evolution isn't nature selecting a damn thing.

You quite literally misstated how evolution occurs!

Natural selection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Joey D]

Just wondering from the Science guys point of view, how would you explain my strange and almost obsessive like interest in topics such as God and the supernatural.

People like things. Why do some people have an obsessive interest in a sim racing game? Or football? Or politics? Or anything? Being interested in the supernatural isn't weird or unheard of.

 

[R3V]

Oh dear.

It's not actually nature selecting a trait as you stated, regardless of what it's called. That's literally evolution 101.

Darwin was quite, quite clear that its not intentional, as such nothing like the claim you made. He used the term to highlight that its counter to artificial selection, which is when traits are deliberately selected for inclusion, as it when hybrid plants are created via human action, which is what you were claiming nature does - it doesn't. Evolution isn't nature selecting a damn thing.

You quite literally misstated how evolution occurs!

Natural selection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is funny and sad. I didn't misstate anything. You've somehow read a false interpretation of how evolution works into my words. Did you really think my statement meant nature is some kind of conscience being choosing what traits to advance like you would at an ice cream shop? "Nature selecting" for a trait is the expression used when a trait that favors survival becomes dominant.

Ugh. If you have a counter argument to selfish, greedy psychopaths having an advantage to survival in today's world, please present it.

edit

Possibly, I do have fear of death, and the thought of god being real does help put me to ease a great deal over the matter.

But purely from a physical standpoint, how can you really explain it? Is it all really just atoms and particles colliding with one another or whatever it is the quantum physicists talk about these days, or is it something beyond all of that?

You mean why the first human who developed that defense mechanism developed it? Probably random. I'm not aware of scientists who were able to pinpoint where and how it started.

People like things. Why do some people have an obsessive interest in a sim racing game? Or football? Or politics? Or anything? Being interested in the supernatural isn't weird or unheard of.

I think he's asking if there's a scientific explanation of why someone would like something but not another.

 

[Scaff]

This is funny and sad. I didn't misstate anything. You've somehow read a false interpretation of how evolution works into my words. Did you really think my statement meant nature is some kind of conscience being choosing what traits to advance like you would at an ice cream shop? "Nature selecting" for a trait is the expression used when a trait that favors survival becomes dominant.

It's neither funny nor sad, but your trend of personal digs at other members ends here.

Your wording is the issue, be clear it what you are saying and maybe you will avoid miss communication.

As...

"I think "nature" has been selecting for selfishness, greed and psychopathy since the beginning of civilzation"

... reads one way.

Ugh. If you have a counter argument to selfish, greedy psychopaths having an advantage to survival in today's world, please present it.

Not how it works, your claim, you support it.

 

[R3V]

It's neither funny nor sad, but your trend of personal digs at other members ends here.

You're right about it not being funny anymore. What digs? Reacting to posts with the poop emoji? I've been on the receiving end of those since I started posting in this section, in case you didn't notice. You could've warned me any time you thought I'd crossed a line instead of making threats here.

As...

"I think "nature" has been selecting for selfishness, greed and psychopathy since the beginning of civilzation"

... reads one way.

No, it does not. Your reading of it is literal. You've assigned a childish interpretation of my words, instead of the common and accepted one among actual biologists. See here:

Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection

www2.palomar.edu

For natural selection to cause evolution, it must select for or against one or more of the genotypes for a trait. In the simple case of a trait that is determined by a single gene with two alleles, there are five combinations of genotypes that nature can select

^ Among the other instances.

Take a look at this article as well:

Why “Natural Selection” Became Darwin’s Fittest Metaphor

Some metaphors end up forgotten by all but the most dedicated historians, while others lead long, productive lives. It’s only a select few, though, that become so entwined with how we understand the world that we barely even recognize them as metaphors, seeing them instead as something real. Of...

nautil.us

Much like the pigeon breeder, Darwin suggested, nature selects traits. If a certain pattern of plumage aids survival, the trait will spread as though nature were playing favorites

Oh and this part below is lovely, because it's literally what I said in my previous post.

Of course, nature doesn’t really select anything. It doesn’t have agency of its own. But Darwin suspected the suggestion of agency would be valuable. Thus, “natural selection” was born.

I wish I could search videos with ctrl+F. Would net several instances of Richard Dawkins and others uttering the same metaphor/expression.

You made a mistake and thought I didn't understand how evolution worked, or thought my English wasn't good because it's not my native language. Own it.

Your assigning outlier behaviour to the majority.

By the way, it's you're*. See? I can be picky too and blame your language. Is it difficult to just have a cordial discussion? I don't understand why some of you take this in such a personal way, and you're a mod. I expect better. If you don't like what I have to say and don't want me to post here, just say so.

 

[Scaff]

You're right about it not being funny anymore. What digs? Reacting to posts with the poop emoji? I've been on the receiving end of those since I started posting in this section, in case you didn't notice. You could've warned me any time you thought I'd crossed a line instead of making threats here.


No, it does not. Your reading of it is literal. You've assigned a childish interpretation of my words, instead of the common and accepted one among actual biologists. See here:

Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection

www2.palomar.edu

^ Among the other instances.

Take a look at this article as well:

Why “Natural Selection” Became Darwin’s Fittest Metaphor

Some metaphors end up forgotten by all but the most dedicated historians, while others lead long, productive lives. It’s only a select few, though, that become so entwined with how we understand the world that we barely even recognize them as metaphors, seeing them instead as something real. Of...

nautil.us

Oh and this part below is lovely, because it's literally what I said in my previous post.

I wish I could search videos with ctrl+F. Would net several instances of Richard Dawkins and others uttering the same metaphor/expression.

You made a mistake and thought I didn't understand how evolution worked, or thought my English wasn't good because it's not my native language. Own it.

Own what?

Your continued poor choice of words and repeated personal digs are the issue here.

By the way, it's you're*. See? I can be picky too and blame your language. Is it difficult to just have a cordial discussion? I don't understand why some of you take this in such a personal way, and you're a mod. I expect better. If you don't like what I have to say and don't want me to post here, just say so.

If I didn't want you to post here this conversation wouldn't be happening.

I do however note the attempt at distraction and the failure to provide evidence that supports your claim.