patrick.net

Pascal's Wager is just a preposterous as saying you wager your life by not getting the jab.

Waitup says

lot of atheists on this forum

When was that ... ever the case?

Some can believe in an ultimate source of the universe, but not label it as some old man with a bread, like the New Hampshire rock formation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_of_the_Mountain

Basically, this guy ...

I'm not an atheist, I am agnostic. I can't know if God exists. I can't know which of thousands of religions is more correct IF God exists. I can't know anything about God even if he exists.

If a follower of a particular religion thinks that his religion is correct while others are not, then he is self-centered and delusional. Who are members of the CORRECT religion, Eastern Orthodox? Catholic? Judaic? Muslim? Buddhist? Hinduist? Greco-Roman religion? Mithra followers? Zoroastrians? Mormons? Scientologists? Raelians? etc etc etc

About Pascal's wager, how many religious people stick to rules of their religion? Which religion should it be? Too many unknowns for a wager.

Waitup says

I've always wondered how an atheist resolves the dilemma presented by Pascal's wager

Pascal's wager is basically "you have nothing to risk!" - I think generally people recognize this is not true.

Consider the Christian religion in which Satan is said to be the "King of All Lies" - well, in the Bible - name the most evil thing that Satan has done? Give me chapter and verse. How do you know, that Satan isn't the God depicted in the Bible, and God is cast as Satan? How do you know the Bible isn't just one monumental lie CREATED by the King of Lies? God arranged to have his son tortured and murdered - the most powerful being in the universe, decided to have his son murdered. In the Bible, God killed every man, woman, child, fetus, kitten, and puppy in a great flood except for a handful of life forms. He tortured Job just to prove a point. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt just for taking a glance back.

Now the most evil thing Satan did, as far as I know, was to tempt Jesus to turn against what might be an insane being.

You're mistaken if you think most atheists haven't thought quite a bit about the religion. Morality is a difficult question, but it seems to be possibly answered in evolutionary psychology to me. It's rather beautiful in that morality may be a basic force of nature and it's not just limited to people, but into animal subgroups as well, and it's iterative. It's improves over time. There is something that seems divine in the nature of reality. When you really really dig down into it, you end up with marvelous simple mechanisms that do incredibly complicated things. Game theory is intensely interesting - in game theory you can arrange a system that in which two people compete they end up BOTH being hurt, but when they cooperate, they are both advantaged. I suspect that generally cooperation benefits everybody we just don't understand how it does, so we don't understand why it's better for us to all cooperate.

I have often thought that Christians are stagnant at best, and at worst, are worshiping an entity (that may or may not exist) which is dreadfully immoral. Pascal's wager is a blind bet among thousands of bets of dead religions. Maybe the Roman's were right, and the One True Religion (TM) is the mythology that died out centuries ago. Maybe that's why the Roman Empire perished. Maybe we'll all meet up in Hades at some point at the River Styx.

I view Pascal's Wager as a threat. It's as meaningful to me as a Muslim or Hindu saying "agree with my religion or you'll regret it for eternity". IF there is a god, it may be somewhat knowable, but I doubt it's within our comprehension or any man's comprehension. Maybe an animal as an innate sense of it. We have thinking, logic, and sentience - and it fucks it all up.

Waitup says

I've always wondered how an atheist resolves the dilemma presented by Pascal's wager

Pascal's Wager contains numerous assumptions and presuppositions with which I do not readily agree.

"God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives." Already problematic, for it does not DEFINE God. God as religions describe him, or God-but-something-different?

"A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up." As above, this is not a simple binary in the absence of an agreed-upon definition

"You must wager (it is not optional)" Fuck you then. Find another rube to wager on undefined outcomes!

"Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" IF.

"Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain." 1000% gain of nothing is still nothing. Again, working from an unagreed-upon definition of what God is and how He moves.

"But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe... and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves." I consider my "inability to believe" a FEATURE, not a flaw, of a scientifically trained mind.

Bottom line, Pascal's Dilemma is not even a dilemma to people who are comfortable with the case that no god exists.

I consider religion one of the bluest pills mankind ever invented. It's a tool that's very useful in harnessing people to work for elites' interests even against their own.

richwicks says

Pascal's wager is basically "you have nothing to risk!" - I think generally people recognize this is not being true.

Opportunity cost is HUGE with religion. I have shit to do on Sunday mornings!

Rather than Pascal’s wager, the more grave concern would be the rich man’s wager. You see he didn’t believe that he needed a savior until it was too late. And by then he even lost the opportunity to warn his brothers of their need.

Luke 16:19-31
King James Version
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

PeopleUnited says

Rather than Pascal’s wager, the more grave concern would be the rich man’s wager.

Ah, redemption from good works. That's another thing I've had a problem with in evangelical Christianity, redemption isn't found through simply good works or even any good works at all, it's only found on faith in Jesus as being the messiah.

I was raised Catholic so I was taught in my younger days that redemption was reached through good works and faith. I abandoned the idea that faith would have to be a part of it because the world was predominately non Christian. When I questioned Baptists and Evangelicals about what I thought was a paradox to me, they explained "well, everybody has heard of Jesus - everywhere on all the planet" and that chipped a long way into any remaining faith I had left. People were delusional to believe that. If it was true that redemption was only gained through faith alone, that meant a good portion of the world was condemned to Hell, through absolutely no fault of their own.

15 years ago I'd have a jolly old time testing your faith this way. Today I prefer not to do it other than to demonstrate my early thinking in my evolution or decline into what is BASICALLY atheism. It's weird, I was a strident atheist once today.. It's difficult to explain. I've said if there's a god it's unknowable to a human being and I think I have some evidence that any society must evolve to morality as well. I have some belief it does anyhow.

Religion is a s* god is another s* created by pedos to take advantage of children and women (and boys and some men as we know lately) and most importantly to gain power and loot money.

I see that a lot of comments base their concept of whether God exists or not on their understanding of Christianity. I hope that people research at least all the major religions (from their sources) before coming to a conclusion. I guess that is the least one can do.

richwicks says

Ah, redemption from good works

No, the key point is this:

PeopleUnited says

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

richwicks says

You're mistaken if you think most atheists haven't thought quite a bit about the religio

Exactly! Conflating religion with Intelligent Design.

One brief remark about the Original Post then on off-topic segue into a rant about religion.

Atheists can be as obnoxious as those who aggressively proselytize their cults or religions.

richwicks says

Morality is a difficult question, but it seems to be possibly answered in evolutionary psychology to me. It's rather beautiful in that morality may be a basic force of nature and it's not just limited to people, but into animal subgroups as well, and it's iterative. It's improves over time. There is something that seems divine in the nature of reality. When you really really dig down into it, you end up with marvelous simple mechanisms that do incredibly complicated things.

Have you ever studied neuroanatomy and neuropsychology? Brains of higher animals on Earth share fundamental primitive structures, from the autonomic nervous system at the core, to the reptilian brain that governs motivation to eat, mate, and guard territory, resources, and allies. The Old Mammalian Brain is an overlay on top of this performing higher functions of reasoning and planning, but the Reptilian version produces surprisingly complex behaviors from very old and relatively simple hardware. Pleasure, pain, affinity, jealousy, these behaviors were emergent in reptiles then proto-birds millions of years before the first mammals evolved.

The Neocortex emerged in primates, with humans endowed with one so big our women had to evolve wider hips. This is the seat of higher intellectual functions. However, people forget, we ALL still have a core kernel BIOS running two older OS's in our heads in parallel (NOT always in sync) with the doings of our neocortexes.

" Game theory is intensely interesting - in game theory you can arrange a system that in which two people compete they end up BOTH being hurt, but when they cooperate, they are both advantaged. "

Agree, game theory produces fascinating insights into the complexities of lower animal brains. It's surprising how simple of creatures will recognize and refuse to play unfair games, including zero-sum games that immediately advantage them over a companion.

@Waitup Since you asked, I took the first part of the plandemic to summarize what I think, and all the little bits of enlightenment I've had so far:

https://patrick.net/howthingsare.txt

I'm agnostic like Bd6r. I don't think it's possible to know for sure whether God exists, but I'm not even sure about that, lol.

I think God is what is. The universe is God, creating and eventually destroying you, but I'm not sure it's conscious, or that you're completely destroyed. My main sticking point is that I cannot even define consciousness. Maybe it's an inherent part of the universe. I think the Hindus believe something like that.

But for here and now, I'm sure that some form of karma is real, meaning that when you are good to others and wish them well, your own life is much better too. So that's clearly the best path.

God is the Universe, the electro magnetic life giving energy, and the particles that create all of life and life giving nourishment.

Life is slow, too slow to observe. If we could watch a sprout and turn into a plant at the speed of stop motion, and could see a baby grow into an adult over the course of a day.
It would be undisputed Devine magic at hand. The problem people have with the concept God Created the Heavens and the Earth, is it sounds like he just waved a magic wand and said Abracadabra.
It sounds too fanciful but if you sped life up, that's exactly what happened. God being everything, and not some removed entity observing from above.

When folks say God is everywhere, it's more to the truth, that saying God is in Heaven.

Automan Empire says

Have you ever studied neuroanatomy and neuropsychology? Brains of higher animals on Earth share fundamental primitive structures, from the autonomic nervous system at the core, to the reptilian brain that governs motivation to eat, mate, and guard territory, resources, and allies.

I haven't studied it, but I know something of the concepts. I kind of think it's like Sigmund's Freud's ideas - a useful first pass at a concept, but ultimately wrong.

Freud basically said everything revolved around sex. He was right, but he wrong in how it worked. The Oedipus Complex and Cassandra Complex - that's because his Victorian mind couldn't imagine parents were sexually molesting their own children so he assumed it was delusion of children who had since become adults. Evolutionary psychology just cuts through all that red tape. It id, ego, superego, eros, and thanatos they are higher level (and incorrect) concepts that simpler mechanisms can describe. He did a decent first stab at it, just as Darwin did.

Automan Empire says

Agree, game theory produces fascinating insights into the complexities of lower animal brains.

Haha - not just lower animal brains. Human beings and computer algorithms learn them as well.

richwicks says

If it was true that redemption was only gained through faith alone, that meant a good portion of the world was condemned to Hell, through absolutely no fault of their own.

Not just unintelligent animals, but a lot people are going through hell through no fault of their own (aside from lack of intelligence, and perhaps having voted in their euthanizers/murderers due to that lack of intelligence). Think about all the people taking the shots and planning on taking multiple boosters. Then think about the likes of Fauci, Wallensky, Josef Mengele, Amon Goeth . . . and their victims. Faith, and the fortitude born of faith, is what save people from the living hell.

richwicks says

15 years ago I'd have a jolly old time testing your faith this way. Today I prefer not to do it other than to demonstrate my early thinking in my evolution or decline into what is BASICALLY atheism. It's weird, I was a strident atheist once today.. It's difficult to explain. I've said if there's a god it's unknowable to a human being and I think I have some evidence that any society must evolve to morality as well. I have some belief it does anyhow.

Good. You took a bite of the apple (fruit of the Tree of Knowledge), therefore fell out of the paradise of blissful ignorance. That is a dangerous phase when man is just knowledgeable enough to do evil. It takes more growth in knowledge and character to come back to salvation. Meanwhile, a lot of people in that dangerous phase are seduced by power and greed to do evil and become disposable tools of the Devil.

richwicks says

Freud basically said everything revolved around sex. He was right, but he wrong in how it worked.

At this point, Freud is considered wrong in just about everything he wrote, but I like the "useful first pass" description. Freud did a GREAT job of advancing the science of the mind out of the primitive prevailing concepts he had to start and work with; not much past phlogiston chemistry and while bloodletting was still very over-used in mainstream medicine. His peak was during full Skinner radical Behaviorism retardation and provided a disconnected balance to that. In the 50s, the Humanist movement including Maslow helped to somewhat synthesize a more coherent whole out of externally observable behaviors (deliberately limited to fit to scientific methods and conventions), and the not-directly-observable inner workings of the mind.

richwicks says

Automan Empire says

Agree, game theory produces fascinating insights into the complexities of lower animal brains.

Haha - not just lower animal brains. Human beings and computer algorithms learn them as well.

I was highlighting the emergence of human-like behavioral patterns from the simpler minds of animals due to "bios" hardware in common. Overlaying the most complex neocortex, or the best and fastest of AI simulations, on top of this hardware and its functions scales up to supercomputer/superhuman level still defaulting to similar responses to environmental stimuli in certain contexts.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

Ah, redemption from good works

No, the key point is this:

PeopleUnited says

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe it's simply a legend, just as Lazarus is, or Hercules.

To be entirely honest, if Jesus was born in 1900 and died in 1930 (or so), and there were newsreels, newspapers, magazines, etc from the time that recorded it, I'd still suspect shenanigans.

Now, have a man that is immortal that's been alive for the last 2,000 years and literally cannot be killed - then I'd probably believe - but I would still suspect shenanigans.

When I say don't waste your time trying to convert me, I'm telling you this because it's a waste of your time. If there's a god, I have to find my own path to it. No book or person could possibly help me.

Automan Empire says

I was highlighting the emergence of human-like behavioral patterns from the simpler minds of animals due to "bios" hardware in common. Overlaying the most complex neocortex, or the best and fastest of AI simulations, on top of this hardware and its functions scales up to supercomputer/superhuman level still defaulting to similar responses to environmental stimuli in certain contexts.

That's the whole question. Can we, from simple rules and mechanisms, end up making a super intelligence?

We don't even know what consciousness is or "self awareness"is. Is it the natural result of computation, OR is it impossible to reproduce computationally?

That's THE question. We try our best to MIMIC life forms, but can we create one - not an organic one, but can we actually create a life form that thinks, feels, has motivations, creativity, thoughts? I thought we'd know by now but we don't. The thing is, if we cannot create it, I think that's strong evidence we have a fundamental understanding of what "life" is. Isn't it interesting we CAN'T do this? We have all the building blocks, we can put it through evolutionary scenarios, we can simulate what we think WE went through over eons - but we're not even close.

We can leapfrog problems, reset the simulation, change conditions to get what we want, inject scenarios to solve for the next hurdle, but we've gotten nowhere. My computer probably has more storage and computational power than my brain does. I do kind of wonder if it can't be programmed for sentience. Storage abilities are phenomenal.

richwicks says

No book or person could possibly help me.

You are right. Only God can help you.

And no, I’m not trying to convert you. It is a fact that pretty much every time I’ve posted a scripture reference or personal belief on any thread, including most of them which were in no way directed at you, you have responded with some form of bs justification of why you are immune to such matters of faith, and essentially engaged in a conversation for which you claim you have no interest in exploring. It is almost like you are trying to convince me because you can’t convince yourself.

PeopleUnited says

It is a fact that pretty much every time I’ve posted a scripture reference or personal belief on any thread, including most of them which were in no way directed at you, you have responded with some form of bs justification of why you are immune to such matters of faith, and essentially engaged in a conversation for which you claim you have no interest in exploring.

Probably, I won't dispute it. Generally I check my comments, and see if there are responses, and if there aren't, I have a tendency to respond anyhow.

I wish to only point out that I have firm reasoning for my conclusion, and that I don't think people who don't already believe in the inerrancy of the bible will consider anything it says as justification for your beliefs.

PeopleUnited says

It is almost like you are trying to convince me because you can’t convince yourself.

I like to have my opinions and conclusions challenged. It's the only way I know to discover when I'm wrong, and I really don't want to remain wrong when I am.

richwicks says

I wish to only point out that I have firm reasoning for my conclusion

Those have been, are and will continue to be famous words, of those that perish.

richwicks says

I don't think people who don't already believe in the inerrancy of the bible will consider anything it says as justification for your beliefs.

I don’t come here to have my beliefs justified, validated or vetted. My beliefs are in the hands of a force more powerful than you or I can begin to comprehend.

richwicks says

I like to have my opinions and conclusions challenged. It's the only way I know to discover when I'm wrong, and I really don't want to remain wrong when I am.

Until you are ready to embrace the Word of God as truth, you will never discover how wrong some of your opinions and conclusions have been.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

I wish to only point out that I have firm reasoning for my conclusion

Those have been, are and will continue to be famous words, of those that perish.

Again, Pascal's wager is nothing but a threat. It sounds practically spiteful. Just because I don't believe in the religion, it's right that I should be tortured for eternity? Seems crazy to worship such a petty vindictive entity.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

I don't think people who don't already believe in the inerrancy of the bible will consider anything it says as justification for your beliefs.

I don’t come here to have my beliefs justified, validated or vetted. My beliefs are in the hands of a force more powerful than you or I can begin to comprehend.

This is why 15 years ago I would have taken you to task. Can you not see the arrogance and absolute certainty you have? It's only because you were raised in a predominately Christian nation that you have it. You were almost certainly indoctrinated into the religion as a child and either never questioned it or were sharply rebuked when you did. If you were born in another nation with another religion, you'd be equally certain about that religion. Can't you see that? Muslims will commit suicide in the name of their religion. Damned few atheists will.

In both religions, it's a sin to question the dogma. I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

Abrahamic religions are also very political. In all them, martyrs are quite common and celebrated

richwicks says

Pascal's wager

Forget about Pascal’s wager. The rich man’s wager already listed above is the real concern. He ignored the law and prophets. This was his choice. He reaped the consequences. It is also a reminder that a rich person can often ignore God because they feel like they don’t need him, but the fact is even the rich will die in their sins if they ignore the law and prophets (Bible).

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

When humans are in charge they trend towards tyranny. When God is in charge there is liberty.
Liberty means the ability to make your own choices, but also the responsibility to accept the consequences. God is the originator of liberty. If some of the people God created have used religion to justify fascism, it is them who are guilty, not the God who gave them liberty. But rest assured, those who promote fascism will not escape the consequences for their choice either.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

When humans are in charge they trend towards tyranny. When God is in charge there is liberty.

The problem I see is that in a hierarchical system, men are always in charge.

PeopleUnited says

Liberty means the ability to make your own choices, but also the responsibility to accept the consequences.

Liberty means having a weak hierarchical system. It's always going to be there. Maybe the war between good and evil is directly analogous to the war between a weak decentralize government with no power - an anarchy and a strong centralized authoritarian government.

PeopleUnited says

rest assured, those who promote fascism will not escape the consequences for their choice either.

I hope there's an ultimate justice, but until I can be certain about that, we have to seek it here. I see that as a moral and civic duty. When I see obvious criminals being given free reign to be criminals by our government, I see that as not only a failure of our government, but by the people it rules over. This is because government, all governments only rule by consent. I'm rather shocked what people are willing to consent to.

If it turns out this vaccine ultimately leads to the early deaths of the recipients, we're going to have a lot more moral government at the end of it because who will be left over will be the people who refused to consent. There will be a lot less obedient sheep willing to put up with bullshit.

richwicks says

Can't you see that? Muslims will commit suicide in the name of their religion. Damned few atheists will.

Ask the 100 million people who died in the 20th century due to government policies in countries that embraced communism. BTW, the communist regimes routinely promote martyrdom ("for the cause" of promoting communism worldwide or defending "motherland"), although the majority of the 100 million deaths took place due to starvation caused by government policies (collectivist communes) that the victims heartily embraced (at least initially, before the starvation began in earnest). Even today, millions of leftists are committing suicide by embracing vaxx-worship on top of government worship. Unfortunately, the majority of a typical human population are not capable of critical independent thinking, but would prefer the certainty of being told, even if they die as a consequence of being lied to. Human history is usually decided by a determined minority.

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

Both the Egyptian Pharoh personality cult (and the bureaucratic state that grew around it) and the even earlier Mesopotamian dictatorships were fascist regimes predating the founding of Abrahamic religions.

Reality says

Unfortunately, the majority of a typical human population are not capable of critical independent thinking, but would prefer the certainty of being told, even if they die as a consequence of being lied to. Human history is usually decided by a determined minority.

I don't think most atheists are actually atheists. They just take on a new but ill defined religion of government worship.

Reality says

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

Both the Egyptian Pharoh personality cult (and the bureaucratic state that grew around it) and the even earlier Mesopotamian dictatorships were fascist regimes predating the founding of Abrahamic religions.

Yahweh is probably the Babylonian god of war. Judaism is just a descendant of those earlier religions.

It's been argued that Jesus is actually based on Hercules.

It's astounding people bet their eternal souls on the outrageous ignorance displayed in these comments. Not only ignorance of the Bible and theology: ignorance of history, the consistent nature of mankind, and a total lack of common sense.

Atheists live in a state of denial toward God. They shake their fist at the sky, proclaiming God doesn't exist. That is their answer to life's most important question. Truly bizarre.

Suggest all you Atheists stop living in denial. Confess repent and do the right thing.

richwicks says

they explained "well, everybody has heard of Jesus - everywhere on all the planet"

When I was 19 and studying German in Austria for the year, I went south to Italy on vacation. I met a Hong Kong Chinese guy in Rome and we saw some of the sights there. I said, "Let's go see the Pope, because he comes out at noon every Sunday on a balcony at the Vatican." He asked me who the Pope was and at first I couldn't believe he didn't know. But he really didn't know. I didn't ask about Jesus.

Waitup says

I hope that people research at least all the major religions (from their sources) before coming to a conclusion. I guess that is the least one can do.

I did that. Tried to read at least some of all the main holy books.

I liked Zoroastrianism. Cool and very old religion, seems pretty coherent. Not taking converts these days. They probably should because they're almost gone.

I also thought Buddhism was pretty coherent, and in its oldest form does not require any faith at all. It's more of a philosophy, seeking insight. Basic idea is that attachment to self is the cause of all our problems. On the other hand, their idea of salvation seems to be non-existence, which is depressing.

Islam is quite coherent too, but extremely violent. Somehow Muslims have no problem with Mohammed robbing caravans, raping and maybe keeping the women, and murdering his enemies, including a woman nursing a baby, and 100 year old man. Then again, Judaism has Abraham agreeing to kill his only son Isaac just because God said so. Anyone who did that these days would rightly be locked up for it.

I could not figure out Hinduism. What are the core beliefs?

Sikhism seems agreeable to me. Basically monotheistic but very tolerant of other religions in theory. I don't know the reality in India. I like the emphasis on self-defense. I think its spread is limited by the turban though. Most men are just not going to wear it.

richwicks says

If it turns out this vaccine ultimately leads to the early deaths of the recipients, we're going to have a lot more moral government at the end of it because who will be left over will be the people who refused to consent. There will be a lot less obedient sheep willing to put up with bullshit.

I think the 150,000 dead from the vaxx in the US so far is not quite enough to swing the politics. So the vaxxers who don't die from it will still refuse to admit how dangerous and unneeded the vaxx is. They will explain the obvious mass injuries from the vaxx in other ways. They are already trying to do that.

To admit they were wrong is probably impossible.

Michael Cooke says

It's astounding people bet their eternal souls on the outrageous ignorance displayed in these comments. Not only ignorance of the Bible and theology: ignorance of history, the consistent nature of mankind, and a total lack of common sense.

Right, an all knowing all powerful eternal god made a fucking Rube Goldberg machine that we rats have to figure out before we're dead, or we end up being eternally tortured if we fail it. This not only depends on our ability to access the history, and the Bible though - oh no, we have to certainly be able to read, and to read in Olde English, (if that's the right version we should be reading) - perhaps the Latin, but the original Aramaic version is lost entirely - maybe we need that.

Hopefully we don't die in infancy, or in some nation where there was no access to the Bible, or in a time where Christianity didn't exist or in an area where religion is banned.

Seems like a reasonable and good plan of the Creator of the Universe. Seems fair!

Michael Cooke says

Atheists live in a state of denial toward God. They shake their fist at the sky, proclaiming God doesn't exist. That is their answer to life's most important question. Truly bizarre.

I think it's actually people DO actually start out believing and then as they go deeper and deeper into it they are like "OK... This is bullshit - somebody is feeding me bullshit". It's like this for me with many things. My particular flavor of religion was just one. All religions are kind of like this.

To me, it's a very convoluted and hard to penetrate web of lies. It's a Gordian Knot of contradictions. My path from good Catholic to agnostic to hard atheist to maybe agnostic parallels many courses in my life - such as "The government wouldn't ever tell an outrageous lie to me (believer)" to "Well, maybe the government WOULD lie to me but when they do there's a good reason for it (agnostic)" to "The government just fucking lies to me all the goddamned time and they don't even have a good reason for it - they just want to see if I have any faith in them (atheist)". I'm at atheist right now.

Michael Cooke says

Suggest all you Atheists stop living in denial. Confess repent and do the right thing.

Augh! This is just another "you're wrong! Stop being wrong stupid wrong person!"

Yeah? HOW am I wrong? Show the error in my thinking. Explain what my logical errors are in this. Explain to me why I should assume a Bible, that literally claims women should marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is right? You tell me why I should think the God depicted in the Bible is the real God of the universe? Tell me how you know this book wasn't written by madmen or just vindictive evil people from a cult? The entire book could be nothing but a bunch of lies. Maybe the "prophecies" in it are nothing more than believers working to bring those prophecies about? Maybe someday, a really religious Christian will feel it's his God Given Duty to unleash nuclear war on the planet because he believes that's what Revelations has commanded.

It's fucking terrifying what people MIGHT do because of an absolute faith.

How do you know what you believe to be true IS true? You don't! It's just an absolute faith, which I envy - but it's envy in like a child really believes their parents when they say "everything will be OK" - I don't have that level of faith anymore, and I've LONG ago lost all my innocent in being able to trust an authority - ANY authority.

When I was 4 years old, if my father MURDERED my mother, and told me not to tell anybody, and what he did was necessary, and that what he did HAD to be done, I would have fucking believed it. I do not have that innocence anymore, and I can NEVER regain it. I need that sort of innocence to ever be a Christian again.

richwicks says

Explain to me why I should assume a Bible, that literally claims women should marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is right?

Here is the text referenced: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

If young men have all read this, they'd be red-pilled and the society would indeed be far better than what we have had for the past atheistic century (a sea of thirsty simps):

1. Marrying a woman is a form of punishment, especially if no divorce is allowed (or so prohibitively expensive that it is practically not allowed);

2. Only a virgin is worth considering marriage;

3. Only if caught . . . i.e. a lot of times young women would enjoy the escapades and then nothing happens after that. i.e. young women can self-identify as whores (under societal brainwashing) before they have even had sex, so leave them be.

Remember, the word "rape" back then meant "rapine"; i.e. taking, pillaging. Virginity was a type of property back then, and "rape" didn't necessarily mean physically forced sex but the taking of the property (from the owner, at the time would be her father; that's why "_they_ are discovered" indicating she was an accomplice in the crime against her father).

Reality says

1. Marrying a woman is a form of punishment, especially if no divorce is allowed (or so prohibitively expensive that it is practically not allowed);

If you watch some of the old movies from the 40s and 50s, there's one where a guy is alone on a Pacific Island, making his own rum and fishing and having a wonderful time.

Then a plane or boat crashes on the Island, with a woman full of kids. He looks at the woman - not the kids - and said, OH CRAP.

Reality says

richwicks says

Explain to me why I should assume a Bible, that literally claims women should marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is right?

Here is the text referenced:

I appreciate your reasoned response and the point of view from where the story was told from.

What about the story of Jephtah who sacrificed his daughter to god to abide by a promise? As a parable, I can see it as a warning not to make sloppy oaths. As literal, it's just monstrous.

I no longer want to needle and pick away at people's beliefs. Generally, Christianity is positive, but the worst of Christians, they are amplified. Just as the worst of homosexuals WERE predominate as well. Our fucking media and government always seeks out to make the most disgusting, awful people, to be made representatives of a group.

Except for groups they support. That's how they push society in a direction. They use a vile awful member of group X to be the supposed "typical" member of X, and the nicest, most benign member of group Y to represent the group they support.

Michael Cooke says

Atheists live in a state of denial toward God. They shake their fist at the sky, proclaiming God doesn't exist.

I think your fundamental misunderstanding about atheists is you imagine them as some strawman OPPOSITE of a religious person, much in the way people mistake hate as the opposite of love.

Love AND hate are both high states of emotional arousal and attention. They are similar and complementary to one another, not opposite. The opposite of BOTH love and hate is INDIFFERENCE, a condition of little to no emotional arousal or attention.

By the same principle, atheists aren't necessarily a complementary opposite of religious people in the manner they're often assumed to be vehement devil worshipers. The actual opposite of the ENTIRE pantheon from God to Devil and every other supernatural entity ever imagined, is a chill indifference toward the entire concept.

Left to my own devices, I do not HATE the concept of god, or worship/fear the devil instead, I just don't CARE. The misbehavior and intrusions of religious people, on the other hand, give plenty to become rightfully angry over. But neither is this to say I dislike people of faith just BECAUSE they believe. I actually respect people who take their faith seriously and do their honest ethical best to walk the walk. Because I KNOW that a lot of people who just talk the talk actually do whatever, rules and standards be damned, when it is expedient. I also recognize that atheists can be assholes about it, but not-believing isn't an affinity group or positive commonality like believing. Therefore, atheists can be more difficult to accurately suss out as to what they're actually like wrt morals, ethics etc. therefore are most accurately judged on their individual merits, because they are NOT a group.

Automan Empire says

I think your fundamental misunderstanding about atheists is you imagine them as some strawman OPPOSITE of a religious person, much in the way people mistake hate as the opposite of love.

Love AND hate are both high states of emotional arousal and attention. They are similar and complementary to one another, not opposite. The opposite of BOTH love and hate is INDIFFERENCE, a condition of little to no emotional arousal or attention.

To Michael Cooke: This ^^^^^^

I do not hate the concept of god, and I may come to accept a concept of god, but it's (very) unlikely to be your concept of god. The more I learn the more I am amazed. I started off in hard sciences, and now I've moved on to what is impossible to be answered by classical scientific methods but I'm not going to go off into the weeds either.

We're all an experiment of one.

I have absolute no animosity toward your religious beliefs although at one point, I confess, I certainly did. I was wrong about that. Fred Phelps railings were crazy and insane, and his nutzo predictions about the future were insane - but he was at least partially right. You no doubt ascribe that to the inerrancy of the Bible - perhaps you're correct. I ascribe it to thousands of years of people relearning the lessons of the past over and over again. Cut out all the religious stuff from the Bible, and yeah, I think it's a useful insight into history, but a very blurry history. It doesn't tell you what happened like when king X ruled over people Y - I think it instead tells you "this shit happened! Don't let this shit happen again! It will be a bad outcome!" and it's wrapped in allegory because it's actually a compilation of tales retold over and over and over again - at least for the old Testament.

I think Fred Phelps was right but kind of for the wrong reasons. He was right about ONE thing maybe more. See? I can learn. I'll listen to the most vile and disgusting people and the best and most celebrated people - everybody has their own genius, and it's incredibly rare I run into somebody who is actually stupid. I have to respect anybody that stands up to the establishment and has conviction, even when I'm certain they are entirely wrong, or even evil. Even Hitler had some good ideas. I think even Pol Pot and Stalin did. Disastrous, entirely inhumane systems can be created, but life is all about trial and error. Our responsibility is to record error. What works, that's WELL recorded. Nobody wants to talk about their fuckups. As a result, we're redoing communism in the US now. There's not enough of a record of what a disaster that was.

richwicks says

The problem I see is that in a hierarchical system, men are always in charge.

If you step back from the situation and examine it from a distance, you have already come to the conclusion that human governments will all have at least some level of corruption. Judas is the prime example, even in Jesus’ small inner circle there was a thief who sold Jesus to the even more corrupt authorities for a bag of silver which apparently he loved more than God. So every evil is evidence of a human choosing something other than God and God’s will.

Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.

richwicks says

I think Fred Phelps was right but kind of for the wrong reasons.

Fred Phelps was running a scam.

He would get towns/counties to shut him down at Military Funerals, and then sue under the 1st Amendment, and profit.