I'm confident you won't agree but, IME, as a passion, or existential commitment, "hope" (i.e. magical / wishful / group thinking ~ make believe) is so much easier than courage (i.e. defiantly joyful living) in the face of adversity (facticity). Disbelief is, and has always been, defiant and never easy conformity like "belief in gods/God". After all, it's the crutch of religion that, in the medium-to- long-term, cripples "the human spirit" (i.e. catastrophizes our histories), even as its homilies pacify our near-term anxieties. To put away childish things for good once childhood ends, Gregory, takes (metaphysical) courage — 180 Proof

:clap: Soooooooooooo true!

and we have Hitchens:
"What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.

Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.

And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent, greedy for uncritical praise, from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom, there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties."

You will also know Hitchens razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Lawrence Krauss however said he would rather not exist if God were real. — Gregory

:clap: Well said Lawrence, for what would we truly be?
A mere entertainment. A purpose for a purposeless, ineffable omnipotent whose existence is completely contradictory

I never said we weren't part of it. I correctly said we are only a part of it and an infinitesimal part of it with barely a trillionth of a speck of influence on it — Lambert Strether

The universe is vast and complex but what does that matter without a creature such as us that can feel 'awe' and 'wonder' when we ponder it? We are also compelled to strive to figure out what, how and why it is. We are the only lifeform (we currently know of) that demonstrates such a tendency.
The significance of that may be 'primo' in the entire universe.
I have always ascribed significant value to Carl Sagan's great demotions and I will continue to do so but I also strongly disagree with your generalised significance rating for humankind.
We influence the universe more than any other lifeform does at present.
No extraterrestial lifeform or god society has been in contact with us yet, to prove that wrong.

I've answered all your questions already. That's enough — Gregory

One day, I hope you will run into the arms of atheism and we will be your man.
Free at last Gregory! Hallelujah! Free at last!

Consider the rise in fundamentalist Islam that has been well documented in the naughties and perhaps the key role of white Christian evangelicals in the crass and lamentable Trump phenomenon? — Tom Storm

:clap: Also look at how religious groups (especially the evanhellicals) target third world countries.
Science tries to bring education to those who need it. Theists offer the uneducated and extremely poor, god solutions. Promises of paradise are thrown in, but only after you die and only if you comply with the requirements of the religious sales department, whilst you are alive.
Remember the claim by many native peoples:
"When the outsiders arrived, we had the land and they had their god, now they have our land and we have their god."
What a horrific deal that turned out to be!

I see you continue to refuse to answer the questions posed by Tom and now me, regarding your personal experiences that brought you to your faith in your god. I wont follow Tom's very respectable attempts at repeating the questions to you. I am left to assume that you are not confident that your answers are strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. I employ pragmatism when I deem that it is wise to do so but I employ many other epistemologies such as skepticism, and the logic inherent in the scientific method. I am sure you do to, but in my opinion, you have allowed your primal fears to compel you into requiring/desiring, a supernatural protector.
I suggest that the next time life overwhelms you, you look to fellow humans to help you, and don't bother praying to your god for its help. It seems to be too busy to help humans. I think that's because it doesn't exist. How much do you rely on prayer to help you in your life?

I enjoy this stuff, yeah! However, there's always a however, eh? — Agent Smith

You can flip that however, you need the however for a comparator.
Intense thirst is so wonderfully relieved!

Sure, I get it. I like to attend the mad hatters tea party sometimes.
How can you appreciate sense if you cant play with nonsense.

He cuts through the noise to get at the signal — Agent Smith

:grin: Wheras, I think Bar tricks helps make most of the noise! But I am glad he has some fans!

:lol: Finally, something! — Agent Smith

Yeah, Well done! You made Bar tricks say something nice about you!

And so will the priests. Amen. — Olivier5

Absolutely, and long may their musings continue, as it means more and more of them stop being priests.
Many of the most ardent atheists who now have growing, public, online platforms are ex-theists.
They are causing a domino affect. Theism is not the future, it is the past.

Seems to me, you are very much enjoying thinking such thoughts!
Your head may hurt at times but you have to be alive to feel the pain and you also get to continue to 'wonder' what the correct answers are. WooHoo!

The human race has had science since before it was human. It has been using science from the very beginning; for about 5 million years. Somewhere in there, they learned to use fire, altered bones, skins, stones, logs and reeds for their purposes and established settled communities. — Vera Mont

But the Earth is close to 5 BILLION years old and the first hominid species had to start with inventing rudimentary stone and wood tools and as you suggested, gain some controls over fire. The technical and scientific infancy and childhood of our species has taken the vast majority of that 5 million years.
The first homo sapiens (humans) was a mere 315,000 years ago.

What will happen in the 50 years that could have happened, and didn't, in the past 6000? — Vera Mont

The rate of technical advancement is increasing at a far bigger rate than it did in the majority of the 300,000+ years of the existence of the human race.

We are not on the cosmic calendar; we are on the doomsday clock. I'll be out of you way soon enough. — Vera Mont

:grin: Don't worry, that doomsday clock will tick for another billion trillion years of human existence.
I hope you are here for many years yet Vera! and if you are not, I personally, will miss your posts and your persona.

Our distant ancestors lived on a far more hospitable and generous planet than our descendants will have. — Vera Mont

I would choose to live now if offered to live in any past era. In fact, I would choose to be born in the distant future if I could make such a choice. Our future is not restricted to this planet.

I'm really only interested in what we do to each other here and now. :wink: — Tom Storm

Yeah, I saw that wink Tom! You are a seeker! You are incapable of ignoring the possible futures for our species imo. You will ruminate on such at times, whether you choose to fight the urge or not.
It's important to stay sane, but life can become a bit boring, if you always resist dancing with the unknown.

1) religious people believe that the world comes from a spiritual source. They all agree on that. Whether they agree or not on religious manifestations (religions) they are not atheists because they believe in the spiritual source. Obviously! So bad argument 1 answered — Gregory

In what sense do you employ the word 'spiritual' here?
What convinced you that the supernatural/transcendent/outside of spacetime existed?
What evidence was presented to you or presented itself to you?
These are the types of questions Tom was asking you that you ran away from and you are still running.
If you answer them, you might compel atheists such as myself to change the number of gods they 'have faith in' from 0 to the 1 you favour. Are you afraid that your detailed personal reasons for your theism are too weak and will sound delusional? Are they just based on human primal fears? How can anyone judge if you only offer theistic generalisations, using words like 'spiritual.'

2) you say faith cannot accomplish a miracle. Well prayer is not perfect most of the time and if faith is not strong enough for a specific miracle God still grants more than what is asked for. You can't always see God's work Simple. — Gregory

Give me an actual example, from your personal experiences, that you have or do label 'god's work.'
Surely, others will then be able to assign a personal credence level to your claim, in a rational way.
You seem very reluctant to offer actual exemplifications, you only offer theistic generalisations. You need to do a lot better than your personal general needs and wishes for supernatural superhero's to exist, as it allays your fears of what's happening outside our caves

Any other concerns?

:lol: How much of your personal time are you offering me?

the Universe would have no care about earthling(s) — Lambert Strether

@180 Proof, @Agent Smith, @Tom Storm, @Vera Mont

I agree, in principle with Lamberts recent typing's in this thread BUT we are not separable from the universe, we are OF the universe, so there is a 'frame of reference,' within which the universe does care. We are that frame of reference. WE CARE and we are part of it!
I know the hard problem of consciousness, currently remains a 'hard problem,' but do you not ruminate sometimes about our role in giving purpose to the universe in all it's 'hard to perceive' vastness?
We need no god to humble ourselves before. We may be quite an important happening in the universe. We might be emergent. Do you assign any credence to this kind of viewpoint?
Btw, I am not advocating the current definitions of panpsychism or cosmopsychism but perhaps there is a case for some kind of future collectivisation/networking of knowledge/consciousness.
I agree that 'progress' is ultimately interpretive but 'change,' is empirically observed in all of our lives, every day and it is also very clearly demonstrated historically, from the days of the Proterozoic.
Entropy is increasing on the largest scale of the universe, there is no doubt about that, but locally, phenomena like the human race has the potential to continue to spread, grow in numbers, ability and lifespan. Surely if this potential is realised, and we eventually gain at least, an interstellar influence, then, this points to an emergence. That emergence must have some kind of collective/networked consciousness to it? Do you agree?

Don't worship idols, is one of the best advices in all scripture — Olivier5

Don't worship anything is better advice. Worship is an extreme, irrational, dangerous activity.
I suspect most rational people avoid it based on observation of those who practice it.
All gods are idolised by some imo, including yaweh and allah, a statute is not really needed.

As soon as we act, we are indeed forced to chose a side, to make a leap of faith. You are correct on this, but we can act without idolizing our intent. We can make money without becoming its slave; we can fight without demonizing our opponent; and we can love science without giving it the final say, always and on every topic. Science is only human. It can fail. — Olivier5

I broadly agree, but would suggest that attempting to regularly consider the consequences of the actions you do eventually decide to take, is also very important. I need to make money under the current economic system I live under to survive, but I can still work as much as I can towards removing money as the main driver of human lives and I can also work hard against those who promote capitalism as a good way to power a human society. The good thing about science is that it can fail many many times but the scientists will try try again.

Perhaps you are being over-sensitive. My response to you was not angry, it was merely accurate.
You did not answer Tom's questions and your attempt at refuting the Wiki article was spurious hand waving at best. Either defend theism or don't. If you wish to just pose as a theist then fine, be honest about it.
I am having a very nice day and It's vey easy to recognise your boring passive aggressive insult with:

or don't have a higher philosophical mindset and aren't interested in truth — Gregory

:smile: Is that all you got?

I am sure elitist vernacular has its place amongst those who regularly employ the same, but it will not do much to help lay people understand what the hell you are typing about.
It's humans that assign omni abilities to god. Every claim about god or gods is sourced from humans.
Every manuscript or chisled clay tablet of glyphs and every decorated/painted/sculpted image was created by humans. No recorded memoria is signed 'Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah or even Jesus Christ.'
The musings of old conmen were simply recorded as a means of gaining nefarious control over a mass of people. Omnigod simply contradicts itself and results in paradox such as, 'can an omnipotent god create something more more powerful than itself?' If it can't then its not omnipotent, if it can then it was never omnipotent as something more powerful was always possible.
An omnigod is a logical contradiction. Is that your main point?

I don't think females are asking to be valued equally to males, I think they are exclaiming that there will be continuous hell to pay, if they are not.

Science is also failing here. Don't let your anti-religion push you into worshiping or idolizing science. — Olivier5

So, your advice is, don't make the same mistakes theists make all the time. Probably good advice, but we are all forced to plant our flag in one camp or the other. The middle ground is a powerless place, all you can do there, is remain ineffective but you can use it to 'rest and think,' until you decide to move into a camp or else you can remain in limbo and be ineffective, as long as you live.

Humans use these inventions. There is a clear track record of how humans have so far used these inventions.
To believe that next week or next year humans will all come together in a single, benevolent "We" and start using their inventions wisely for the betterment of all is a great leap of faith. — Vera Mont

I don't follow the value of the path you are trying to trace out here, in the sense that you seem so unnecessarily negative.
I know you have already confirmed that you have somewhat 'given up,' on your own species, but you continue to demonstrate a strong command of reason, so, I cannot believe you have no confidence left at all, that the human race can create and exist within a very good society that would make the 'human condition,' a very positive experience, for almost all who live it and for 'anything,' that encounters its constituent members. Humans have used that which they invented, yes, and there are many examples where some humans have used human inventions for selfish or nefarious purposes. But, there are also as many examples where humans have used human inventions for very good purposes. It seems to me Vera, that you are merely complaining about the examples you can cite about some nasty humans making nasty uses of human inventions. Like those humans who use food in cans, water in bottles, and land which they claim THEY OWN! to make profit. I think you agree, that the purpose of food is to feed, water to drink, land to live on and from. Using such to make profit is a 'horrible contrivance.' So, humans must continue to strive to correct such errors.
Humans should unite globally, in benevolent common cause, because it would be very wise to do so. You agree with that, yes?

Believing - contrary to all evidence - that something humans created will solve the human condition. — Vera Mont

Well, what else do you suggest can correct the current shortfalls in the human condition?
You have already made it clear, that in your opinion, religion will never do it.
Science is the only methodology I can see, that can provide the technology, to comfortably provide, the basic needs of every human on this planet, in a sustainable way. The economic and political systems that can and I hope will follow this, are only feasible, if the tech is available in support. Until that point is reached, we will continue to fight over resources and the nefarious rich will remain a problem.
We will not be able to successfully explore and develop extraterrestrial space, until we have tidied up and secured our own home nest. The planned Artemis moon missions and the establishment of a permanent moon base, has not even been achieved yet, and when it has, it will be no more than the tiniest step forward. It will take a lot more time to get it right Vera, as I have typed before, on the timescale of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a f****** chance!'

God demonstrates his presence to those with faith. — Gregory

Prove it! and if you can't, then It's just as feasible for me to say that pixies live in the cupboard of my hallway. YOU wont ever see them as you don't have the faith required! Is this really the mechanism you are trying to peddle?

YOU are an atheist in every sense except in the christian sense. You believe in one more god than I do.
You only have to take one more step, using the same rationale that makes you reject Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus etc.

How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this? — Tom Storm

How is your embodied or experienced certainty distinguished from the similar certainties of a QAnon believer or a Scientologist or a Hindu? — Tom Storm

So my question asked earlier remains: -
How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this? — Tom Storm

You know all this from experience? — Tom Storm

What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false? — Tom Storm

My question was:
Why should we accept this experiential knowledge as opposed to similar claims from other theists who, let's say, know from experience that god wants 'fags to burn in hell' and that women are inferior to men?
What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false? — Tom Storm

How do we determine that the sincere personal experience of one believer is right, while the experience of another is wrong. Is there a process? — Tom Storm

A superb effort from Tom, but of course, when you are asked to explain yourself, you run and hide behind sophistic responses, as all theism does. Tom eventually let you run away, with:

Ok, sounds reasonable, but it also tells us that personal experience of god is no pathway to reliable knowledge. We need to use reason and judgement to determine what views we will accept. — Tom Storm

Why don't you actually answer his questions and explain how your rationale arrives at god and why you favour the christian god over zeus or odin.

back to the un-observable - pure potential energy — Benj96

I don't know what you mean by 'un-observable' in the context you use it above.
PE=mgh, I also don't know what 'pure potential energy' is.
If you mean 'undetectable then are you suggesting a point in the future where the only energy form left in the universe is so called 'dark energy?'

I tend to take my 'heat death' descriptions from what is suggested by Roger Penrose.
But in general, from wiki, we have:
The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze) is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy, and will therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. The Heat Death theory has become the leading theory in the modern age with the fewest unpredictable factors.

Penrose postulates a time when:
At the end of the universe all matter is eventually contained within black holes which subsequently evaporate via Hawking radiation. At this point, everything contained within the universe consists of photons which "experience" neither time nor space. There is essentially no difference between an infinitely large universe consisting only of photons and an infinitely small universe consisting only of photons. Therefore, a singularity for a Big Bang and an infinitely expanded universe are equivalent.

Studies can't tell if prayer works — Gregory

Of course they can. Get every member of any evanhellical church, to enter any hospital or even better, any palliative care based hospice, and pray constantly over every terminal patient in that hospice. Then see how many patients become no longer terminal! We could even restrict it to terminal patients of a fixed age range, so that the theists cant use the excuse that the patients were just 'too old to save.'
On the other hand, a decent god should be able to save any human it want's to. Surely if it existed it should feel some responsibility to act to at least save some of these patients based on the previous fundamentalist dedication and worship demonstrated by such groups as evanhellicals. 15,000 children dying of preventable causes everyday, despite the 'claimed power of prayer.'
God seems completely unable to demonstrate its presence in any testable way whatsoever.
Perhaps that's because it does not exist.

What about languages such as binary?

Believing - contrary to all evidence - that something humans created will solve the human condition. — Vera Mont

What do you mean by 'contrary to all evidence,' in the context you use it above?
I 'believe' the 'human created' Asprin, will cure my headache(a human 'condition').
Such belief is based on empirical evidence, is it not?
I also believe that praying for my headache to go away, will empirically fail!
Efficacy of prayer.

Entropy always increases in a closed system. Life is not a closed system - it is interacting with the other parts of the universe all the time. — PhilosophyRunner

:clap: and the universe itself, is currently considered a closed system, as there is no evidence of anything entering or leaving this universe. So, heat death is the most likely ultimate fate but maybe something like Roger Penrose's CCC, will mean eternal 'aeons.'

I enjoyed reading through this thread, as it confirmed to me that the two most difficult and vital questions to self-reflect on are:
1. Who are you?
2. What do you want?

Worst case? Truly horrendous. One guy's delusion is that the Jews conspired to thwart his artistic ambition and his nation's aspiration to greatness, so he drags a nation into a disastrous war and genocide... with the resultant creation of a truly problematic new state where all the great global powers are locked in a fifty-year standoff, which eventually explodes in sporadic violence in a number of far-away countries, and a series of small but destructive local wars - all because a nation went went along with, shared in, the delusion.
Another guy's delusion convinced many generations of otherwise decent people that their beloved deity would sentence them to eternal torment for breaking his nonsensical rules.
Most of the time, it's harmless fantasy, with no ramifications. — Vera Mont

I think any problems associated with personal identity or the identifications exclaimed by others, comes from the fact that we don't know where we came from or why we are here.
Even the true history of the situation that Vera refers to above remains unconfirmed.
After reading books like Caesars Messiah by Joseph Atwill and Creating Christ by James S. Valliant, Warren Fahy and looking at some of the stuff offered by Dr Richard Carrier and mythicist groups such as Derek Lamberts Mythvision podcasts. I find much of their evidence quite compelling, that there was no historical Jesus and the vast majority of all religious characters, are based on satire and parodies of real humans, who lived and fought against such rising empires as the Romans.
The trouble has always been that 'the victors write the history.' They also destroy any evidence they come across, that contradicts their story.
So for now, our quests for truths continue, and we will continue to be forced to be suspicious about each other. This will NEVER change, until we find many more truths that we can PROVE, are as close to an objective truth as we are ever going to get. Praying for such truths is pointless, so we only have Science and the musings of philosophy to progress us.

The 1986 remake as the classic?

I grieve for my people. — Banno

I am sure your people respect the advice of their beloved king/god/malevolent controller, when it is exclaimed/heralded :rofl:
But seriously you preferred big Vincent's 1958 original?

Democracy itself is more about how rulers are picked than about what they do, though, and so they sort of become representatives empowered by a majority (at least in theory), which is also due to practical matters (some sort of temporary hierarchy if you will). — jorndoe

Democracy does not elect 'rulers!' It elects, as you more accurately suggest, 'representatives.'
A measure of 'true democracy,' is how easy it is to remove individuals from authority, when they have demonstrated nefarious acts or actions that contradict the 'contract' or 'manifesto' they established between themselves and those who elected them.

pmno
— Benj96

Is this a mnemonic? — universeness

I see you edited, :up:
So in any monotheistic god posit, there is no middle ground, no start point, no end point, nothing linear.
God is not a creature who could be democratic as 'there can be only one.' In your dualist viewpoint, can democracy exist? Wherever you perceive the disembodied part of your individual consciousness exists. Do you perceive that they can communicate with each other or can each only communicate with its own related brain? When you think about the credence you give to the dualist aspects of each of us, do you perceive such as having an ability to inter-relate or are they completely restricted to the physical brain each is connected to and it cannot be affected by any external force or phenomena?
In dualism, how is the democratic imperative communicated?
I am merely interested in how you perceive the methodology involved in how this disembodied aspect of human consciousness functions, as related to such concepts as democracy.

I believe I'm a fly. — Agent Smith

Look what happened to this guy!

pmno — Benj96

Is this a mnemonic?

Well if humanity is represented as chess pieces I would argue God is the chess board/game Itself — Benj96

Would that not make god, Gaia, Earth, a planet based transcendent?
That would be too small a god for most theists.

But such power renders the game useless. — Benj96

True but we could ask ChatGPT to come up with rules for our god chess. What happens when omnigods clash. To quote a line from the film 'Highlander,' 'There can be only one!' Perhaps we can feed the rules of democracy into ChatGPT to help it come up with rules for deciding the outcome of a clash between Zeus and Odin! OR Yaweh and Allah!

HeyI surely someone created a chess set of 'Olympus' Vs 'Asgard!' But it would be boring unless the 'Thor' piece could throw his hammer at an Olympian! How about a Christian V Muslim chess set? Inappropriate?

Even the human bishop reps have no supernatural style moves they can make, they just move diagonally as their human equivalents rarely move 'straight.' :lol:

Why do you think there is no god piece in chess?
Human reps fight human reps in chess, no god influences.
Why do you think the creators of chess were not compelled to include supernatural reps?

:wink: Life is like a game of chess eh?

So not by those who occupied the middle ground then.
Josephus worked for the Romans!