Anyone on here particularly religious?

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

  1. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    3,946
    Likes Received:
    474
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I guess the counter-question would be: if something is undetectable and can't be described and interacts with nothing and has no impact, does it really meaningfully "exist"?

    It's the same as the whole simulation idea- you can't prove we're NOT in a simulation. But no rational person actually believes we live in the matrix. I know one guy in the thread said he did sort of believe this, but (sorry, not sorry) that's not rational.

    It comes down, I think, to how someone resolves not knowing something. Atheism seems to be ok with the unknown, where religion has to have an answer, even if there's no grounded basis for that answer. Is it a fear thing maybe?
     
  2. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,972
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Exactly.

    Ultimately, none of it matters.

    The only reason any of those stories matter to anyone is because of superstitions passed from generation to generation at young ages.

    Objectively, if somebody returned as a reanimated undead and wants everyone's souls after those people devote their lives to him, and this somebody is going to trigger the end of the world, with beasts with seven horns and rivers turning to blood, am I reading the Bible or the script for the next Hellraiser movie?
     
  3. cwhitey2

    cwhitey2 BlackendCrust Metalâ„¢

    Messages:
    4,602
    Likes Received:
    255
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    Personally I hate the concept of organized religion, specifically Christianity. I was raised Methodist and went to church/Sunday school for 15 years.


    Going for 15 years made me forget religion exists.

    I literally feel like the super crazy religious people are so focused on their beliefs and the beliefs others, that they totally forget to live.

    I feel so many people waste sooo much on believing in something no one can prove.

    ...at the end of the day science can back a lot of the things it claims... Religion Sally cannot imo. :2c:
     
  4. cwhitey2

    cwhitey2 BlackendCrust Metalâ„¢

    Messages:
    4,602
    Likes Received:
    255
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    Personally I hate the concept of organized religion, specifically Christianity. I was raised Methodist and went to church/Sunday school for 15 years.


    Going for 15 years made me forget religion exists.

    I literally feel like the super crazy religious people are so focused on their beliefs and the beliefs others, that they totally forget to live.

    I feel so many people waste sooo much on believing in something no one can prove.

    ...at the end of the day science can back a lot of the things it claims... Religion Sally cannot imo. :2c:
     
  5. Science_Penguin

    Science_Penguin SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    139
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Depends who you ask.

    My Dad was told flat-out by his old Bible school teacher "Don't bother making friends with any Jews, cause they're going to hell!"

    A Christian friend of mine once told me that non-believers won't necessarily burn eternally in Hell, but instead wind up in Purgatory- AKA a nice enough afterlife fitting for good people, but you'll have to go through it knowing you can never truly get closer to God (see also Dante's Inferno, first circle)

    As for how I was raised, I think my family always preferred to believe that Jesus already saved everyone and as long as you're not unforgivably evil (which only an all-seeing all-knowing deity would be able to judge- and that's the reason we never liked telling people they're going to Hell) there's a spot in Heaven for you.

    If you were to ask me today, I'd just shrug and say "I don't fuckin' know... your guess is quite literally as good as mine."
     
  6. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,353
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Hmm.

    Sorry, but the bible does make claims about observable reality, and gets them wrong.

    Here's one... "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

    Insects have six legs. The bible even acknowledges that it's counting the hopping legs in that count, as shown in the quote.

    You can claim that religion *should* keep away from reality claims, but it doesn't, and never really has. Religion has had to retreat from some reality claims due to its failures in that realm, but its adherents continually try to gain the respectability of actually having evidence for their beliefs.

    You may look nearby and see a topic regarding the Ark Park as an easy example of millions being spent to try to make reality claims, instrad of sticking to what you say religion is supposed to do.
     
  7. El Caco

    El Caco Djavli te ponesli Contributor

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    917
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    AU
    Since this one is directed at me I'll reply to it before I read through the rest of the thread.

    I understand why you think this way. Your response to me is distorted by your beliefs and bias as is mine. I already said I have a belief, I subscribe to Simulation Hypothesis. The thing about the idea of this being a simulation (which I'm a strong believer of) is as far as beliefs go the idea of simulation is pretty much the most twisted rabbit hole you can jump down. The possibilities are unlimited and you simply can't know what is real and what is not. Our reality is nothing more than perception and the things we perceive can be deliberately made to deceive us. What I do know is it doesn't matter if this is a simulation or not, everything we perceive is simply an interpretation of electrical signals. If you believe in the reality that we perceive then you still believe that your brain interprets signals, those signals tell you your eyes are seeing something or your ears are hearing something but your brain doesn't need to be in an organic body, you believe it because that is what your brain tells you to believe. So simulation theory or Christianity or some other religion, we all believe in an interpretation of electrical signals or more simply code. Another thing our brain tells us is what we remember and it turns out that our brain is really bad at it, we make convictions on eye witness statements when there is science to suggest eye witness accounts are very unreliable, peoples memories can't be trusted when compared to recorded evidence. So we already know that our brains lie. But there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that the way we interpret stuff is a lie. That said if this is a simulation there is no way to know if anything is true. Like I said, twisted rabbit hole.

    But lets imagine for a second that this perceived reality that we are stuck in for now is somewhat reliable. By saying I believe in simulation theory I am admitting I believe in creation, at least that the simulation is created, we are created. That also means whoever created us are pretty much God/s to us. Maybe they want to be known, maybe they do not. Maybe they have died, maybe they are alive and care, maybe they don't care, maybe this is all just an experiment to test the ideas about their own origins. Perhaps they created us in their own image to do just that.

    Believing in Simulation does not mean that all human religion is false, it actually means that religions could have been given to us, it also presents the option of multiple outcomes. It can also mean every religion can be "true" and you are judged by your beliefs. It also means that your life may simply be a small part of a larger test and no one cares about you, when you die you die.

    As a student of religion I know that even the Bible teaches that there were many Gods and even presents them as in Battle with each other with nations belonging to each God. I also know that modern religions are a load of crap, at least that's what I believe. Religions may or may not be real but I like the idea of origins and as far as religions go Neopaganism especially Slavic Neopaganism is about as good as it gets and as in line with my beliefs as any can be. It isn't a religion that dictates a bull shit man made and corrupt moral code that one must follow for either a reward or penalty. It is simply a belief system that explains the things man observes. The season and so on. Slavic Neopaganism is built on the idea of believing in the combination of science, magic and faith. The Faith simply provides an explanation for things that are observed by men. The science part doesn't need explaining but historically revolved around nature and how to live. The magic refers to the idea that our thoughts are powerful, man can influence others to his will for example and this is thought of as magic. Magic basically means being strong of mind and will and thinking positive thoughts but it could be extended to believing in the power of prayer. Just think of it as the power of positive thought.

    Compared to these ideas modern religions suck. And here's the thing, I already believe in the power of positive thought, I already believe in science and in my opinion choosing to adopt traditions based on ancestry and potentially pass on some of the myths that were told to me as a child is far less ridiculous than adopting some type of corrupt moral code because of a religion that any rational thinking person should know is false and evil.

    I can't begin to tell you how hard it is to talk to people, to go on facebook or social media. It seems most of the world is very weak minded. People think and believe what they are told to believe. The worlds morals are ridiculously diverse and constantly changing. I've even seen comments on here in the last few days and I just have to bite my tongue when terrible horrible judgements being made based on current social principles that are very different to those that were popular just a short time ago. And being familiar with the numbers and both sides of the debate I can't begin to express how disturbing it is to see people vilify other humans so easily based on ignorance.

    I'm half German and half Croatian but I was born and raised in Australia and I have never left this country. I can not believe in Christianity largely because I have read and studied the Bible. I know the Bible speaks of multiple Gods and I know that the Old Testament is primarily concerned with Israel and the God of Israel. It is pretty clear that those are his people and he is their God. The other nations had their own Gods. And if I think the Bible supports the mythology that came before, I think it is my right to pick a side. I'm not sure if I can pick both, Germanic Gods and Slavic Gods are very similar anyway and it would seem that they really did have a common root. But if I think the mythology is cool and offers a cool explanation for things I'm not hurting anyone and they are good beliefs to have, they do not tell me to do evil, they do not dictate a man made moral code to me that a child can perceive as wrong. They allow me to do what I know and believe is right, they allow me to walk my path without guilt. They allow me to be stronger.

    Choosing a belief is far more powerful than the faith most people have. It means some type of consideration is involved, some type of logical thought process. My wife tells me that humans once had 8 limbs and Zeus split them into man and woman and they spend their lives looking for their other half. That right there actually makes sense, if I want to believe it what is wrong with that? It explains some things to me. It explains why my wife and I are perfect. Why we compliment each other so well. Why we are both so fucked up in the same way and why we can accept that. Why we have common thoughts, why we think the world is so wrong and messed up. And guess what? I can believe in Zeus because the Bible talks about other Gods. Hey if people who claim to believe in the Bible don't want to accept that it is their choice, at least I'm not denying something anyone can read for themselves just because it isn't popular to believe now.

    So I believe we are living in a simulation. That means I believe we are created. I don't know if our creator/s has/have been revealed for all I know they could be walking among us as avatars, again religious texts seem to say this happens. I know each of us has the freedom to choose what to believe and although my beliefs at this point are limited I think my process is more sound than the process of most other religious people.

    Finally knowing that religion has been used for a long time to control people and that people like to be told what to do and think, I think there is something in that. Unfortunately the religion of greed and capitalism rules at the moment. Perhaps if a religion opposed most of what I think is wrong with the world I could get behind it in a hope of making the world a better place. For now i just want to be nomadic, travel, experience, learn and believe whatever I want to believe, live and let live if possible.
     
  8. El Caco

    El Caco Djavli te ponesli Contributor

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    917
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    AU
    This could turn into me multiposting for a bit as I read and reply to various posts.

    Science is as much of a religion as any other. It is based on the idea that observable events are reliable, that scientific process is reliable. But if we are living in a simulation anything can be a lie. Science needs this reality to be consistent. But if this is a simulation then it can be changed and updated at any time just like the games and programs and simulations we deal with now. Also anything can be a lie and presented to us to cause a reaction or belief.

    So as much as I believe in science it's just another faith that is capable of being completely unreliable and we have no idea if it is reliable or not. We can simply choose to have faith.
     
    KnightBrolaire likes this.
  9. El Caco

    El Caco Djavli te ponesli Contributor

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    917
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    AU
    As pointed out religion often tried to explain otherwise unexplained things. How do you think a person who perceives an out of body experience might explain it? Considering a lot of religions seem to condemn such an experience it's more common for non religious people to discuss things like this. Of course it isn't limited to this. Perhaps nothing strange has ever happened to you, perhaps you have never had a vision that accurately predicts the future. Perhaps you have never had a warning that has either helped you if you accepted it or you realised after the fact you should have acted on. Perhaps you never had an unspoken shared thought or conversation with someone. For people who believe they have experienced these things explanations are often attempted and you have the forming of religious concepts by people who don't identify with world religions.

    Why isn't it rational? Really?

    Provide other options for consideration please.
    Either
    1. Humans give up on creating simulated life or human life ends before the creation of simulated life.
    or
    2. Humans succeed at creating simulated life.
    2A. Humans create simulated life different to their own.
    2B. Humans reach a point where they create a simulation of their own existence.

    Here's the thing. If humans ever reach the point where they are capable of recreating their own existence then it is irrational to imagine that this is the first time it has happened, it is far more likely that we are actually inside of a simulation and potentially multiple simulations deep. If we can do it, it stands to reason that it could have been done already. If it could have been done already then it is irrational to think we were the first. But even if we are only able to create some other kind of existence, a universe unlike our own but still with evolving lifeforms either similar or different to ours, the same process of thought still exists that if we can do it then perhaps it has already been done and we are created, a kind of simulation.

    Perhaps you should research the subject a bit more and see what science thinks about it before writing it off. I'm sure any rational person will understand the idea is not irrational at all. The problem lies with the implications. If we are living in a simulation we can only test for it if is is a simple simulation. In an advanced simulation we can't be sure any evidence we find is accurate. So maybe science can find evidence that we are in a simulation and some think science may have done this but perhaps science can't help us due to the type of simulation.

    Here's some more food for thought. Religious beliefs support the idea. If you think the Matrix is a modern concept you are mistaken. The idea of this world being a lie, a corrupt creation created by a created entity is not new. You'll find it predates Christianity.

    Everything you perceive is simply the interpretation of electrical signals and that is if you accept this reality. Your brain tells you what to believe, you believe it is in your head, you believe you have eyes that see things in this world you perceive but your entire reality is based on what your brains says is real and your brain does not need to be in your organic body for you to believe that, you could just as well be on a server or somewhere else.

    Now if you believe in science and are rational you would know that human perception is extremely limited. We are dumb, too dumb to be able to comprehend all there is. We can only sense a small part of the reality we believe in and even with science there is so much beyond our knowing. Science has for a long time tried to study and understand our environment using what we think are reliable processes based on our understanding at the time and today we believe science is better than ever and a lot of previous beliefs have been changed. I'm sure you are familiar with the half life of knowledge or half life of fact. You can be sure we we learn more that again changes many of the things we believe now. What will those things be?

    How about some fun? Read the original text for John (Bible). Now just imagine the author had some type of revealed truth or understanding about this being a simulation and the underlying code. Now try and imagine how such a person might write it in the language of the day to people who are living almost 2000 years before PC's. I know that one is a stretch but it's fun.
     
  10. HeavyMetal4Ever

    HeavyMetal4Ever SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Location:
    Newcastle, Australia
    If you try hard enough, you can believe anything.
     
    cwhitey2 likes this.
  11. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    3,946
    Likes Received:
    474
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I find it really funny that you keep comparing this simulation thing to video games, cause that's what I do for a living: I'm a game programmer. As in, I create simulations of "people".

    And I can't possibly disagree more with everything you've said.

    There is currently no reason to believe we can simulate actual life on that level. We care barely define what the word "life" means, or what grants anything that property, let alone being anywhere close to simulating it. And even if we could, it doesn't "stand to reason" that just because something is possible (which, again, it's probably not) then that means it is currently happening.

    I think you missed the point of my comment that you quoted. When a person takes on something as their religion, my point is that they should do so because they believe it to be the truth, not because "it's possible" or "it's aesthetically pleasing" or "that's what I was told so, meh". If you don't believe something to be actually, literally, true, then it shouldn't be described as "your beliefs".

    Take this line:
    I'm talking about the difference between true and "true"-with-the-quotes-on-it. The whole "believing something makes it true in some form" idea is not new to me. I fully understand the idea that something can be "true" for one person and "false" for another, but on some level there is an objective reality- and that's the only one that meaningfully counts. If you carry a belief that you don't actually think reflects objective reality, then you don't reaaaally believe it, do you?
     
  12. Edika

    Edika SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,350
    Likes Received:
    370
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Londonderry, N.Ireland, UK
    I hear that a lot, that science is another religion, that our observation and interpretation filtered through our minds are being biased and incorrect. There is some truth to that but it is the outlook of someone that never have seriously been involved in scientific research or even studied the history and evolution of science or, to be blunt and a bit contrarian, people who never even bothered with science in school and erased all traces of it from their minds.

    Early on scientists have understood the limitation of our senses and personal biases. This is the reason why we're using instruments, to capture that which escapes our senses. Be it from wavelengths our senses can't process, time intervals too short for our perception, particles too small to observe with the naked eye etc etc etc. This in combination to conferences, peer reviewed journals and repetition/replication of experiments are there to ensure that the final outcome of research is objective as possible with the least amount of bias. Of course imagination is required to form the initial hypothesis but rigorous testing and experiments will classify something as a plausible theory. Which can be thrown out the window or enriched with the introduction of new hypothesis, experiments and data.

    So it is far from a religions outlook as anything can be and it is the most of objective way if we want to get answers and provide solutions. That doesn't mean mistakes do not happen or that some people jump to bandwagons without reading research and seeing the data. Some times data is misinterpreted on purpose or again due to human error. Continuous questioning of the information provided will eventually sort this out but the scale of time and the level of restructuring is on a whole other level than whatever religions tend to preach.

    If you want to treat the current reality as a simulation as a though experiment then of course you can. Having absolutely no tangible data that this happens and that there is no indication that of the existence of a spontaneous change in conditions or the laws of physics then I'd guess the probability of that specific mindset is rather flawed.

    In short I disagree with that specific notion of your arguments.
     
  13. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,972
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I already brought up the four legged insect thing.

    I mean, we are really saying pretty much the same thing. My point is that not every religion holds the Bible to be literally true.

    Coming back to dogma versus religious values thing, keep in mind that Christians are supposed to follow Christ's teachings, yet the Bible is only ~3% Jesus' words. [24674 red letter words in the "Red Letter Edition" of the KJV, versus 783137 total words in that same edition]

    That means that even in the most sacred of the most sacred texts, ~90% of the content is historical background and annotated discussion about the core of the religion.

    Next, you have every weird little quirk that has nothing to do with the Bible, like condemning dancing, playing poker, or being a democrat, none of which are mentioned in negative light in the Bible. So, I'd say some Christian denominations are probably only 1% Christian religion, and 99% added dogma from preachers.

    But.. that's just Christianity. What about Judaism, which has about the same amount of Moses' teachings, and the rest is rules and regulations set in place by Rabbis? What about Islam, which has the Quran, and then 10x as much literature in Fatwas and so forth, imposed by Imams?

    But I guess you're right, the religion itself is not just the core values, but the core values plus all of the other nonsense added.
     
  14. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    3,946
    Likes Received:
    474
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I feel as though anyone who is actually religious is probably going to avoid posting anything in this thread, given the clear atheist leaning the discussion has taken. So, probably not going to get the perspective the OP seemed to want in the first place.
     
    bostjan likes this.
  15. marcwormjim

    marcwormjim SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    551
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    Not here
    OP has appointed me to interpret his will via biweekly sermons - How DARE you presume to know the unknowable! Don't bother digging yourself deeper into nis by asking me how I know what's unknowable - It's beyond all but a few special people, of which I am included. No; we're not special in that special olympics way.
     
  16. El Caco

    El Caco Djavli te ponesli Contributor

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    917
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    AU
    That's not researching what science thinks of simulation theory. Comparing current game simulation is ridiculous, you are no where near the forefront of AI and we all know the technology does not yet exist but again experts are predicting we are not that far away from being able to simulate the human mind.

    If you disagree with every thing I said then you are simply an unreasonable person. Because some of the things I have said are simply irrefutable fact.

    Well you should let all the people heavily invested in advancing towards that end know that they are wasting a lot of money and resources. Clearly a lot of people think you are wrong. Of course at this point we are no where near understanding the technology involved in accomplishing such a task but you don't get there by saying it is impossible and giving up. You work in steps. AI and creating an artificial brain are the first steps.

    You don't seem to understand what those quotes represent. The true in this case would mean that everyone gets a result based on their belief, it would therefore be true only for those that believe, those that believe something else would receive their truth. That could be heaven or hell or anything. I don't believe that but it's possible, if it's all just code it can be inserted into any simulation.

    I'm getting the impression you're just not capable of understanding this thought progression and too narrow minded to accept that very intelligent people both accept the possibility of this and are invested in trying to find evidence. Like I said, look it up, people are actually investing in research based on this concept.

    Now I might have adopted it like some kind of religious belief but generally speaking the idea that we are living in a simulation is a hypothesis and people are interested in investigating it further. I simply believe that it is the best explanation we have for our existence and the best fit for so many things I have encountered. And like I said there is nothing new about the idea that we are living in a type of Matrix that was created by a created being. That religious belief predates Christianity. Then you have the bible itself that says humans were created in Gods image. The varying explanations I have heard over the years for that belief have been interesting but what if its true? What if humans created a simulation with simulated humans? Of course the other religion I mentioned believes this creation is a corrupt creation (a lie and not real but a prison of sorts) that was created by a created being against the will of the original creator. That belief has many branches like most religions do but there is a belief that the real creator has provided us a way to ascend from this "matrix" or whatever you want to call it.

    So if you want to believe that anyone who has ever believed such a concept is irrational that is your right but it doesn't change the possibility that if we are living in something like a simulation then science is just as much a matter of faith as any other religion.

    Nope. My reply was accurate. You have preconceptions and bias. Everyone does.

    The difference is I understand what you said. You have not understood what I have said. Some people believe for no good reason at all, they simply have faith. It might be the faith of their parents, it might be popular faith. It might be a church they went to that just felt right. It might be brainwashing, in a lot of cases it is brainwashing. Some of us choose our beliefs. We know we don't have all the answers and we already have set beliefs, from there we make assumptions based on evidence and until proven otherwise we suspect that is true.

    You're wrong. From the first paragraph you have misunderstood the concept. It means everything that follows is pointless.

    Lets back up. You can't prove that you, me and all history wasn't created just a short time ago. Here's the problem with simulations, gods, creation. There is no way of knowing if things are not being altered, there is no way of knowing what is real or not. Do you realise that religious people believe in omnipotent beings? A god that can create at a thought or word, or destroy. How much easier is change? And the scientist simply discounts these things as fairy tales and simply trusts all the evidence all the while the religious person is saying "the deceiver who has power over the Earth planted that stuff for you to find and believe that". There is no way science can prove them wrong, if there is such a powerful deceiver he can give you evidence to believe whatever he wants to believe.

    Of course I don't believe in the Bible like that. I mean there is a whole book about the omniscient God who makes a bet with that deceiver and loses the bet but in the process he allows the deceiver to torture his servant and kill a whole bunch of innocent people (his family). Of course God made it up to him by giving him a new family and new stuff, yay! A muslim explained to me that their purpose (those who died) was simply so Job could learn a lesson, WTF? Yeah I don't believe that.

    But it doesn't change the possibility of a reality where the rules that you need for your beliefs to work are wrong. And maybe we are created and maybe our creators sometimes walk among us, maybe they can change whatever they want. And if it is some type of code maybe they can change it as they will. They could have you believe whatever they want just like in a game of sims but so much more advanced. And if they chose you might never be aware of any change. History could be changed and you would believe whatever you have been programmed to believe. A creation can be started at any point and created as if it has a history even if it is brand new. Of course those in it would believe they had always been there.

    I mean people don't have an issue with believing in the concept of parallel universes. The idea of up to an infinite number of realities with every possible event. Is the idea that at some point humans create a complex simulation containing evolving life a possibility in any of those realities? If that is possible is it possible that they can create many simulations running different scenarios? if that is possible is it possible that those who write it can reset it or change the experiments according to their needs?

    If we are created for a purpose your needs or feelings might be irrelevant except for being an important part of the simulation, experiment or whatever purpose we were created for.

    In regards to the concept of our false perceptions and the limitations of our brains you have misunderstood why I brought that up. I understand good science and I understand why our limitations are not a factor for consideration in regards to good scientific practice. I wasn't making any connection there. That had more to do with evidence of false perception. But it really comes back to the fact that all we are is electrical signals we believe the interpretation of those signals but you can't really test anything or know anything. If you believe in science you believe in how our brains work. If you believe in how our brains work you must accept that the reality you perceive is just that, perception based on the electrical signals you believe. From there you must accept the possibility that none of this is real. That is why it is important to understand we already know our brains make mistakes in perception. So once again science relies on a belief system. Absolutely nothing is provable. Ultimately we all have beliefs and act based on those.
     
  17. marcwormjim

    marcwormjim SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    551
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    Not here
    Edit: forgot Holloway made this thread. Hope he's getting more than morbid entertainment out of it.
     
  18. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    3,946
    Likes Received:
    474
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    Thank you for basically just calling me stupid for disagreeing with you. You don't have to be an expert "at the forefront of AI" to know that we're nowhere close to having software that simulates life. I have enough of an understanding of how software works to know that the tools at our disposal are not up to that task. If you're one of those experts saying we're close to a model of life, then this would be a great opportunity to share that wisdom with us. Otherwise, I think you've put too much faith in the experts (see what I did there?).

    And again, I think you still miss my point. There is a huge difference between acknowledging something as a possibility and accepting it as an objective fact. Is it possible that the whole observable universe is just a simulation? Sure, it's just as possible as that we were created by the Gods described by religion. And I don't think either is the case, for the same reasons. A large point of atheism (for me, anyway), or lack of faith in whatever, is that if something can't be proven or unproven, then you can't accept it as a reflection of any objective truth, even if it's possible or likely. As in, there's a big difference between "I think we MIGHT be in a simulation" compared to "I think we ARE in a simulation", or to go a step farther "We ARE in a simulation".

    Absolutely. 99.9% of what anyone ever does is a waste of time, resources, etc. if you approach it from the right point of view. I'm all for people pursuing knowledge for whatever reason. I'm not religious but that doesn't mean I don't think there's value in studying religion, or religious texts, or whatever associated history goes with it. Learn all the things. But wait until you've ACTUALLY learned something before stating it as true, that's all I would ask.
     
  19. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,972
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    There is no such thing as wasted time, only regretted choices.

    The idea that all things end up destroyed at the end of the universe or that everything you learned in life is gone when you die or even passed onto some intangible representation of yourself on a spiritual plane places simply too much importance on the final moments of the universe or the final moments of your life. Each moment is equally important, except this moment now, which is far more important than the rest of eternity because it is in play. The thought that the existence of the universe is some sort of game or something where there is a score at the end is laughable.

    First, we need to acknowledge that no matter who you are, your existence came into being at some arbitrary point in time and that your existence ends at some arbitrary point not long after. Second, you need to understand and internalize that that first fact is okay. Third, no matter what you do in life, it will impact other people, but probably not leave any impact on future cultures once this culture is outdated. Fourth, you need to understand and internalize that that fact is also okay. If you want to fight against any of these, you can feel free to come up with whatever religion makes you feel best about it. That's okay, too, unless you make it not okay by being an asshole to everyone else over your religion.
     
  20. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,819
    Likes Received:
    1,182
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Uh...no. That's laughable really -- I don't know what you meant by "not that far", but in other words, we are nowhere close.
     

Share This Page