Not All Atheists Are Rational

Originally posted by pajoly

Hmm. It's possible I suppose, though I don't know if they ALL are. I would definitely say that I believe their premise to be irrational.

Exactly, and because they BELIEVE that premise, they are irrational.

Well, I'm not sure. Chicken Little had an irrational belief that the sky was falling. But his behavior of trying to warn everyone probably was rational even though his premise was totally incorrect. It raises the question of whether it's possible to display rational behavior even if one's belief or premise is irrational...

Not All Atheists Are Rational

Not all Athiests are rational.
Not all Christians are rational.
Not all Buddhists are rational.
Not all Hindus are rational.
Not all Wiccans are rational.
Not all Pagans are rational.
Not all Diests are rational.

People will throw the baby out with the bathwater sometimes.
Happens to everyone. Especially when it comes to religious discussions.

I think as others have noted, a person being a member of many of those religions you listed would not be an atheist. This is not to say that many are not rational, but claiming any religion that holds different beliefs are atheist is simply ignoring the definition of atheism. While atheists may target Christianity due to it's omni presence in western society, the Christian God is not the only higher power in which they lack belief of it's existence.

This is not to say atheist aren't rational. Nobody is completely rational. Life would be very boring if everyone was rational.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_ Can you tell me what the opposite of Love is?

...your behavior on this thread... ...heres a theme song for ya...

The opposite of Love is Atheism. That is Nothing.
God is Love.
Atheists are just too stupid to let themselves be liberated by it. So they troll life instead.

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_

The opposite of Love is Atheism. That is Nothing.
God is Love.
Atheists are just to stupid to let themselves be liberated by it.

I sure see a lot of hatred from you though you claim to be a devotee of love.

Atheism is not "nothing". It's simply the lack of belief in deities. And atheists are indeed practitioners of love.

Originally posted by Kaploink
I think as others have noted, a person being a member of many of those religions you listed would not be an atheist. This is not to say that many are not rational, but claiming any religion that holds different beliefs are atheist is simply ignoring the definition of atheism.

The definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
People such as the Raelians are most certainly atheists.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

I sure see a lot of hatred from you though you claim to be a devotee of love. Atheism is not "nothing". It's simply the lack of belief in deities. And atheists are indeed practitioners of love.

Evolution is here, whether you like it or not. And so is natural selection. So your not immune to any criticism. And everytime I have an opportunity I will say what I have to say. So you can adapt and resolve your problem of semantics or be screwed. Join the rest of us on the other side.
Atheism is not real.

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_

Evolution is here, whether you like it or not. And so is natural selection. So your not immune to any criticism. And everytime I have an opportunity I will say what I have to say. So you can adapt or be screwed.

I encourage you to say whatever is on your mind.
However, I don't understand pretty much anything about your above post.

I don't understand what you mean. If you are attempting to be cute then I'm not sure about either... a superintelligent machine that can simulate a human level intellect within it or many may decide to run "bible simulation" or anything it cares to do and quite frankly if got is not a superintellect then what else would it be.... the universe itself is a giant computer that computes hydrogen, helium etc... finally it has produced computers within itself- our brain... so....
???

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
reply to post by miragezero

 

I find this more andeore often. Really there is another class of athiest called antitheist I think... an athiesm is just a lack of belief about anything... which really isn't anyting and you can't really be a member of... it'd be like making a group for toothfairy athiests... antitheists are actively against any belief in the supernatural... although this is becoming more skewed with technology... Most atheists are quite all right with the concept of artificial intelligence. Once this is explained as a simulation of human level intelligence then it is likely that this machine, just like us, will be able to improve itself in a process known as recursive self improvement. This concept obviously works because it evolved us... fortunately for the machine it can use simulation whereas the universe must retain the last best copy in case the new one has a fatal flaw.. In any case, this machine will eventually (or quite quickly) become a superintellect... that will be able to simulate a human level intelligence- or many of them and even the environment they will perceive... quite frankly this superintelligent machine may as well be god. Atheism is obsolete. :-)

Can you tell me what the opposite of Love is?

Originally posted by miragezero
I don't understand what you mean. If you are attempting to be cute then I'm not sure about either... a superintelligent machine that can simulate a human level intellect within it or many may decide to run "bible simulation" or anything it cares to do and quite frankly if got is not a superintellect then what else would it be....

There's no particular guarantee that any software or machine will develop human-like awareness and intellect. Also, if there is a god I don't see any evidence that "superintellect" is a quality it has.

the universe itself is a giant computer that computes hydrogen, helium etc... finally it has produced computers within itself- our brain... so....

I'm not sure I understand how the universe could be a computer that computes the atomic elements. The brain is not actually a computer either. However, we can draw analogies between some of its functions and the functions of a computer.

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
The opposite of Love is Atheism. That is Nothing.

...there are many definitions of love... the opposite of emotional love is hate, which many people believe is the outward expression of fear...

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
God is Love.

...your behavior on this thread indicates that your idea of god is all about hate...

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
Atheists are just too stupid to let themselves be liberated by it.

...liberated by fantasy = escape from reality... theres nothing wrong with escaping the harshness of reality from time to time... in fact, its quite healthy to give yourself a break... i do that via painting or playing my mandolin or rough-housing with my dog or going down to the river and watching my bobber float or hanging out on ats... however, i cant do that all time because i have responsibilities and ignoring them in lieu of indulging a need to escape is indicative of mental unwellness...

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
So they troll life instead.

...i think its very likely that you're playing a game because you're lonely and the only way you know how to get attention is by being hateful... i hope you will love yourself enough to seek the help of a mental health professional or, at the very least, the counsel of your pastor / preacher / priest...

Well there pretty good chance that a machine will be developed that will simulte human level intelligence. This is usually less of a problem for athiests to accept because they do not subscribe that we came from an intelligence in the first place, yet here we are computing and creating tools for computation such as the one you are reading this on. I have never encountered a person who did not consider the human brain a computer though. That is pretty strange to me... the standard for the brain is usually calculated out to 2 calculations per second per cubic millimeter of mass although I don't think that that is accurate myself due to the fact that we are not state machines like a traditional computer... although some scientists contend that we are that also. It really makes little difference becasue work is being done on computers taht are not state machines... and also some that are all states ie quantum computers- although there are structures in the brain that are also thought to possibly be quantum level "devices"... In any case there is a plethora of reasons to believe that the human brain is a computer even if it is not totally like the one you are using... you can look up the blue brain project and similar things on your own, what is important is that if you contend that we arose from nothingness and that our arrival is purely chance... now things are no longer purely chance and the intellignece we would simuate will be in intellect.... what kind it would develop into no one knows. This is largely why we call this event a technological singularity... this being would require no sleep and could devote its entire being (probably quite faster thanw e could) towards learning to make itself more intelligent in an intelligence explosion. It will then be a completely alien intelligence to say the least... but it it wanted to it could certainly simulate, again, human level intelligence...

Insofar as the universe being a computer, I guess I should have said a quantum computer in stead of an elemental one although that is accurate also. The electrical pattern (or energy) in your brain is really all that makes up what is you and your intellect. Although this is a fallout from the matter within it, matter is also a version energy (ie you cannot create or destroy energy but merely change its forms). So really, intelligence is just an arrangement of energy. The universe itself has computed (your dna for example is code no less but arranged matter!) an intellgence.... the observable universe to us is the fourth dimension, but already look at our simulations placing graphics in 3d space. These are just points of information... the real universe in string theory is kind of the same thing...

www.newscientist.com...
www.nybooks.com...
focus.aps.org...

Sooooo.... now assume we have a superintelligence that exists... it has matter coverting it into ordered energy for its real intelligence... then it has some left over for just information that could be used to simulate another intelligence and the world in which it or they would inhabit... ;-) This is a large subject however we are either the first beings in the universe (any universe) to develop intellect and superintelligence or it is likely that this universe began via some sort of simulation or quite frankly is one... athough if the previous superintellect had used all the first universe's matter to increase its intelligence (which frankly is one of the reasons techological singularity may mean our extinction- at least in the form that we think of ourselves) there would be no telling if this universe is large or small in comparison. What I mean is the position of all total data in ours (all quantum matter "points" that make up everything you see including you) may be far less than what makes up the superintelligence... for all intents, this could be just a superintellects very detailed dream. :-)

www.simulation-argument.com...

Now go have a drink. :-)
Anyway this is a large subject and atheism being obsolete is hard for some to accept lol... kind of like a religion or something haha...

Ins

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by miragezero
I don't understand what you mean. If you are attempting to be cute then I'm not sure about either... a superintelligent machine that can simulate a human level intellect within it or many may decide to run "bible simulation" or anything it cares to do and quite frankly if got is not a superintellect then what else would it be....

There's no particular guarantee that any software or machine will develop human-like awareness and intellect. Also, if there is a god I don't see any evidence that "superintellect" is a quality it has.

the universe itself is a giant computer that computes hydrogen, helium etc... finally it has produced computers within itself- our brain... so....

I'm not sure I understand how the universe could be a computer that computes the atomic elements. The brain is not actually a computer either. However, we can draw analogies between some of its functions and the functions of a computer.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sinohptik
Really, i never much made the mistake that all atheists were rational

I always just wanted to have a discussion, but it seems such a thing is impossible.

It's certainly possible. It seems you have a fair amount of preconceptions about the nature of atheists and this could be discoloring your experiences. There are some irrational atheists on this board and yet others who are a bit more level-headed.

Do note that much of that post was written with great levity! well, all of it really

I only have preconceptions about the nature of atheists on ATS

Really though, the only discussions where the label even should come up is in discussions about God. But for some, it seems to be waved around as some "non-banner" declaring their "non-stance" on.. whatever. Interestingly (to me), i have a scientific mindset to the point of a fault (i nourished it entirely, abandoning creativity for some time). There are simply things i have found to be undeniable and yet untestable and unquantifiable. Such things are the basis of nonsense for most atheists on this board (see, i used a qualifier! ) so from the get go, it can not be much of a productive discussion. the time is spent discrediting and arguing semantics, and usually devolves into insults of some kind. Just not my thing, you know? i consider it a waste of time for everyone involved.

On a side note, on some thread, somewhere (precise, innit?) i left a response for you, TD, about how to set up an experiment to further the testing platform focused on relating the subjective experience consistently, attempting to cross the perspective barrier objectively.

originally posted by Wyn Hawks

 

...there are many definitions of love... the opposite of emotional love is hate, which many people believe is the outward expression of fear...

There seems to be a significant experiential difference between the typical directed emotion of love, and a state of Love. not quantifiable though, as yet (if ever), so obviously completely meaningless to an atheist



Please note, the first thing i said in this thread is "Some of the best, deepest, and most amazing discussions this one has ever had was with atheists. Simply different quantifications and conceptualizations for the exact same universe anyway." I have nothing against any viewpoint, and i was an atheist for quite a few years and feel it is a valid perspective. i also like to joke around though. it seems that humor though, is just as repulsive as God to atheists.. its like freaking kryptonite! my levity is my downfall

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


There is no opposite to Love.
For Love is all that is.
It's okay to be wrong.
It's OKAYYYY.

Join us on the other side.
Just reclaim your soul back and be freeeee. weeeeeeeeee.

(now atheism must be exterminated. muhahahah--->insane maniacal laughter)

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


Do realize that the quote "that which we speak most fervently tends to be directed towards ourselves" is not exclusive to atheists.

Its not a bad thing. What we say, and how we say them, and their overall context, gives a deep and possibly otherwise unattainable, view into our own sociological and psychological constructs. Its not a bad thing to look at ones written words as if they were written by another individual. Sometimes a time gap brings greater clarity.

reply to post by sinohptik

Do realize that the quote "that which we speak most fervently tends to be directed towards ourselves" is not exclusive to atheists. Its not a bad thing. What we say, and how we say them, and their overall context, gives a deep and possibly otherwise unattainable, view into our own sociological and psychological constructs. Its not a bad thing to look at ones written words as if they were written by another individual. Sometimes a time gap brings greater clarity.

Sometimes people don't tell you what you want to hear but what you have to.
The progression of our species in jeopardy. That's how it is.

Originally posted by sinohptik
You really shouldnt have

...shouldnt have what?... given you what you asked for - a discussion with an atheist?... okay, well, jeepers - not sure what to say to that except maybe next time you should be more careful about what you ask for...

Originally posted by sinohptik
Thanks for the video though!

...yw - i LOVE tom russell... usually call him "tom i wish i could lick him all over russell"...

Previously posted by Wyn Hawks
...imo, theres no such thing as both sides - and - "no one understands in its totality" is arrogant...

Originally posted by sinohptik
Sides are created in perspectives, most certainly. A single coin in others.

...thats a good example of me not understanding your syntax cuz i dont know what thats supposed to mean in correlation to your previous statement which i was responding to...

...my point was in reference to the term "both sides", which indicates there are only two sides and there are certainly more than that in every topic i can think of...

...since you brought up coins - not even a coin consists of just two sides... it has two sides and an edge... the edge is just as important as the sides but it rarely gets mentioned, perhaps because its not as heavily decorated - shrug...

Originally posted by sinohptik
How is "no one understands in its totality" arrogant? I view it as the exact opposite.

...if you're just talking about yourself and your own limited knowledge of a topic - its not arrogant... if you're talking about other folks, it is arrogant to presume you understand all that they know or dont know - but - thats jmo...

Originally posted by sinohptik
i suppose i am rather elitist when it comes to what constitutes a discussion, instead of an argument.

...been there, done that myself, many times, lol - especially when my kids were growing up...

...they would get in these moods where they would argue about shades of gray (oooh, makes me think of another fav song)... by the time they were in their teens, i had this little lecture that i frequently threatened to put on a recorder so i could just press a button when needed...

...went like this... you're entitled to perceive as you wish... your sibling's differing views are not infringing on your entitlement... what you perceive as them arguing with you is really just them feeling as entitled to state their opinion as you feel entitled to an unquestioning audience...

Originally posted by miragezero
what is important is that if you contend that we arose from nothingness and that our arrival is purely chance... now things are no longer purely chance and the intellignece we would simuate will be in intellect....

I certainly don't contend such a thing, nor do I know of any scientist that does. The notion of arising from nothingness is usually the proposal of theists. I also know of nobody that believes our arrival is "purely chance".

The universe itself has computed (your dna for example is code no less but arranged matter!) an intellgence....

How so? Intelligence is a function of brains, not an operation of the universe. The universe did not compute an intelligence.

Sooooo.... now assume we have a superintelligence that exists...

How did we get to this point and why should we assume such a thing? If intelligence is a function of a brain how then could a "superintelligence" exist without one?

Originally posted by sinohptik
There are simply things i have found to be undeniable and yet untestable and unquantifiable.

That's a rather fascinating statement.
Could you give an example of something?

I do not understand you. You are the strangest atheist I have ever met... I'm beginning to think you're a troll. the universe began when all matter was compressed into a point of no space or time.

en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism generally assumes there is no God at work. If there is no guiding hand then the only alternative once you accept the fact that you exist and think has happened by chance through the course of evolution. The fact that your brain performs computation is then either by chance or it isn't. Either the universe computed the computer or it is by design (Unless you are going ot get into quantum determinism) Then creative thought (ie organized energy or the electrical activity) produced the mechanism you are reading this on which consists of "computed" matter in the first place as described in the links and elsewhere you can search in google.

I'm going ot sum it up again in another way... if the universe has human brains... and there is no superinelligence (a greater intelligence that is a master of the design and constructing of them or at the very least a universe in which they evolve) the the universe simply computed the computer. That is how you have your computer that you are reading this from. The computation in people's brain computed information that led to the construction of the computer. Likewise albeit over a long time in which the universe had to use itself as a laboratory (ie evolution alone does not have the luxury of simulation) or trial an error to wind up with a computer. Your code is your dna which computes a brain.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by miragezero
what is important is that if you contend that we arose from nothingness and that our arrival is purely chance... now things are no longer purely chance and the intellignece we would simuate will be in intellect....

I certainly don't contend such a thing, nor do I know of any scientist that does. The notion of arising from nothingness is usually the proposal of theists. I also know of nobody that believes our arrival is "purely chance".

The universe itself has computed (your dna for example is code no less but arranged matter!) an intellgence....

How so? Intelligence is a function of brains, not an operation of the universe. The universe did not compute an intelligence.

Sooooo.... now assume we have a superintelligence that exists...

How did we get to this point and why should we assume such a thing? If intelligence is a function of a brain how then could a "superintelligence" exist without one?