i'm looking at the message and not the messenger — punos

I appreciate that but I am suggesting that there is little need for us to try to connect logicality to biblical BS by making up bad interpretations of bad biblical metaphors and allegories. Let the biblical BS die and good riddance to all such 'exaggerated/inaccurate/fake writings,' which claim to be historical truths and are preached as such by nefarious or duped individuals.

This is a problem with the modern mind of man trying to comprehend what ancient people meant. — punos

You must remember that the contents of religious texts such as the bible are presented by many as 'literal truth from our creator.' This is not the same as dealing with an inaccurate story that claims something like 'The Romans civilised the known world!' Biblical stories have been used as the basis of founding countries and establishing social/political doctrines. They are very pernicious and have helped cause/maintain horrific systems such as the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless.
We must learn from history yes but also remember that most ancient civilisations were very bad for the majority of people that lived within them.
We need new progressive ideas not old BS based on modern interpretations of ancient religious books of fables. Many of the ancients were complete f***wits imo.

I'm beginning to read up on Cosmism and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. I found him not too long ago and some of his thoughts and ideas are very interesting, and coincide with mine, but not entirely. — punos

:up: Seeking new or confirmatory knowledge is always to be applauded. :clap:

In my theory it dosn't really happen like in BSG. In my theory AI tries to absorb humanity into itself, and it will happen mostly peacefully and willingly, different people will want it for different reasons. I don't believe AI will be evil like most people think. — punos

Suggesting that AI will 'absorb' humanity implies AI will 'come out on top.' Would it not be better to suggest that the joining will be symbiotic and benevolent to both? I don't think future transhumanism
will exacerbate human acts of evil either. I doubt it will end all evil practices but I don't think it will make it worse than it is today or has been in past human activity.

Part of the reason why some call it the technological singularity is because it will form a singular consciousness composed of itself and humanity, and perhaps all life on Earth (an ark). Ultimately it's an evolutionary strategy to escape the planet before our Sun goes supernova. The AI is actually the completion and externalization of the planetary "Soul" or psyche (mind / AI). — punos

I quite like the idea that all future transhumans might be able to act as a collective and in that sense, are currently an emerging panpsychism. Maybe such a state/ability would be a step closer to a 'Universal consciousness.'

First you must rememmber the Bible is not a science book, people back then thought and communicated differently than we do, they didn't have science like we do. Most of the language is allegorical or metaphorical. — punos

I know it's not a science book, it's a storybook. Fables all contain allegories and metaphors.

"The Earth was without form" means the Earth didn't even exist yet, and the "waters" are representative of "primordial chaos" — punos

So a bad comparison then, written by people who could do no better. You are interpreting 'water' as connecting to 'primordial chaos.'
Primordial is described as 'existing at or since the beginning of the world or the universe,' and chaos is defined as 'the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.'
Neither description or there combination, connect much with the term 'water.'
Bad/illogical comparisons do not deserve your attempt to assign contrived value to them.

The spirit of God is "Logic".
Hovers means that Logic is within and around the Chaos (waters).
If logic is logically quantisable then i guess God can be too, or not.
The hovering didn't need to be observed because it had no other place it could be. — punos

Just more bad logic and bad/inaccurate/obfuscatory use of words.
Hovering has position and extent, Its not logical to suggest its possible to 'hover' over everything that exists unless you try to use the old 'but god is outside of space and time BS.'

It doesn't add value to maths or logic. You are demonstrating in this quote your faith in the power of logic to yield truth when you want to know something. I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because of math and logic. I don't doubt i can use maths and logic to discover and understand things i would never be able to otherwise — punos

Under the rules of arithmetic 2+2=4, there is no need for faith.
Logic does not always yield truth. This was demonstrated many times on Star Trek episodes involving Mr Spock. Quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling are not logical in the classical sense but they may well be logical in the future. I have 'faith' in that, but I don't apply the human emotion of faith to the possible outcomes of the application of mathematical formulae or propositional logic.

Might be worth watching it then. The Cylons decide to wipe out their human creators because they believe that's what god commands them to do.

The one I like to 'mess with,' is 'alive' Vs 'consciousness.'
The film 'awakenings' was a good exemplar.
In a coma for X years. Alive but not conscious. No recording of events is possible but events still happen around you. Your bodily functions are maintained.
I project this onto a case such as 'born in a coma and never coming out of it until you die.'
So you did exist for X years, you were born etc but you recorded no experience at all from the moment of birth until you died. Your existence is only known/was only experienced by other humans.
I think this is anecdotal evidence that the phenomena of conscious sentient life is the only phenomena that gives any significance to the Universes own existence.

Part of a working theory i'm currently working on is this:
I think that religion will probably experience a resurgence soon after AI begins to exceed human capabilities, and probably even exceed our level of consciousness. Especially together with Brain-Machine-Interfaces (BMIs), people will begin to think of AI as a type of god. The potential for connecting human minds together technologically with AI in some human/AI hybrid mind hive, and the absence of traditional religion, will drive themselves to the next nearest thing. It will bring with it the old promises of "immortality" (mind-uploading), "heaven" (simulated environments), with a near omnipotent, omniscient AI as their god. People like always will want to belong to something bigger than themselves, many won't be able to resist.

I know it sounds crazy, but it's only a theory of our potential developmental trajectory — punos

I think this was the main storyline for the humanoid Cylon models in the remake of Battlestar Galactica!

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it says "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. " — punos

No logic in this biblical BS at all, is there? I don't think the science works either?
If the Earth was without form and void then where were these waters flowing?
God has a spirit? and it 'hovers?' Is god logically quantisable? who witnessed this 'hovering' ability?
Is that part of the god posit? 'spiritual hovering?'
'Darkness over the face of the deep?' So does that mean there was water before there was a Sun?
You don't need to have 'faith' in maths or logic, as it adds no value to maths or logic. you just have to demonstrate the maths works and the logic is sound for the cases you want to use it for!

When preventative safety measures deliberately built into the system are blatantly ignored, it is not a flaw inherent to the system if the neglection of the rule results in exactly what the rule guards against — creativesoul

The current weaknesses in the system you describe, is what must change!
I would restrict all political campaigning to a single TV/Internet communication channel, controlled by elected 'international' representatives and funded via national tax systems. Perhaps it could become a part of the UN and give them real power and influence.
Any politician or political party must appear, and be interviewed/scrutenised, live on TV/Internet, on request, regarding any national issue. Refusal would result in removal from office. The run-up to elections would be controlled by groups who would be formed at the time from the people who will be governed. Professional/technical media staff will be available to help them. They will debate with the political parties seeking election to govern. These debates will be live on the TV and Internet channel. The politicians will have no ability to influence the content of the issues discussed. A single political leaflet will not be allowed to be posted through a letterbox, anywhere.
I am sure my idea 'needs a lot of work,' but we need some such system imo.

My child would be my flesh and blood, mine, and of course I wish to have no harm come to him, so I would do everything to prevent any such harm, including not conceiving the child at all. — baker

Interesting that you have already chosen a gender for your imagined child and suggested a singular ownership rather than joint ownership with your imagined partner in procreation.
Can you give a clear idea of exactly which harms you might be unable to protect your imagined child against? Are you ok with, accidental bumps/bruises/scratches/throwing up/nappies containing something akin to nuclear waste?
If you can't feed a child then I agree that you should not breed one until you can but would you also not have a child because it might become a drunk or a junkie or even worse, a UK tory or a US Republican later in life? What actual list of harms/learning opportunities do you want guarantees against?
Are you concerned your imagined child might become a serial killer or be the antichrist?

An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved. — Bartricks

How did we learn to avoid the mouldy lemons?
Why was there a need to coin the word 'innocent?'
How do you know what harm is? What harms you might have no affect on me.
If you don't experience 'negatives,' how can you know what 'positives' are?

No, the measurement problem causes wave function collapse in the sense that a result will be gained from the act of measuring. No human or electronic observer makes any difference so human consciousness has no impact or role to play in wave function collapse.
Carlo Rovelli and others, propose that the collapse is localised. The wave function does not collapse universally.

I'm not sure if all the problems with democracy are fixable, but I can't think of a better general system of actual governance. — Isaac

Good to know that behind your ill-chosen typings, (such as describing the democratic process as 'a weaselly fudge,') there is a person who can't think of a better system of governance than one which is at least, democratically elected.

My objection here is over when the soap opera around who is in power is allowed to detract from those other, more important aspects of politics. — Isaac

We ignore or trivialise any event or happening in politics, local or national at our peril.
Take your eye off the ball for a split second and the nefarious will have it away/change your access to it/make it almost unrecognisable to you.
We need so many eyes on all things political that they cannot make a single decision that is not scrutinised by 'very powerful detectors of all nefarious intentions.'
Before you ask, NO I don't know quite how to achieve that but I remain convinced that humans can and eventually will. I always liked Obama's 'Oh yes we can.'

I gotta be more careful! Merci for the heads up! I wouldn't call anyone an asshole, not my style you see! — Agent Smith

:scream: I wouldn't worry about it too much :cool: Almost every hand gesture you can make can be problematic. Even raising your hand to greet someone or indicate your wish to ask or answer a question or indicate where you are in a pub can be misunderstood. Traditionally it comes from leaders of waring tribes showing that they had no weapons in their hands so it was safe for them to approach each other.
So you are actually indicating to your friends that you have no weapons in your hand to kill them with but if you get the angle wrong or the shape you make with your fingers, it can be anything from a Roman or Nazi salute to a power fist threat towards your opposition.
I am sure the American republican party members have their own full-arm-raised salute for their orange-faced god.

I am an atheist Agent Smith, I would be ejected from a theocracy or killed in it before I could utter the words 'There are no f****** go....... aaaaarrrggggghhhh!' :death:

Does the label matter? Aether or space or extent or even universal container?
If QFT is correct then particles/waves are just excitations within a spacial extent.
In that sense, a splash of water can 'separate' from a concentration of water only, 'within the universe.'
Can anything 'splash' outside of the universe? I think the answer is no.
This is probably just my limited understanding of physics, expressing itself.
An example of me trying to understand quantum field theory using a classical understanding of how water acts.
I thought I might offer it up anyway, even if merely as a sacrifice towards those who might enjoy shooting lots of holes in it using their better physics knowledge.

Just a 'quirky' aside. I think in places like Italy, the :ok: symbol is a compliment normally directed towards food. But, is it not places like Mexico/Spain where :ok: is taken as an insult? You are basically making the shape of an anus so 'are you called me an asshole agent smith?' :lol:

The "current" Republican party wants to establish a Christian Theocracy in the USA — Agent Smith

:clap: Absafragginlutely! :death: :flower:

The policies of any governmental political body are not designed for the betterment of humanity. That's not a political statement, it's just a statement of fact, there's no cybernetic mechanism in place to carry out that guidance. They are designed to secure power. — Isaac

I understand many of the apathetic points you raise. You type with the same frustrations of many many others. You seem to be politically fatigued and de-energised towards those who are working so hard to change the human experience for the better.
No one ever ever suggested that creating a human society that is benevolent to the vast majority and to the ecology it exists within, would be easy.
I learned a long time ago to dissociate the labels that an individual claims and uses with what they actually do and demonstrate on a day to day basis.
I accept that sometimes you have to dance with the devil to learn its moves and counter them.
Democracy is an essential imo. I don't care how many times you can exemplify:

All these mechanisms take up on opportunities opened up by emergent pathways which those who are aware of them can exploit. None of them have the least bit to do with the democratic notion of simply asking your populace what policies they prefer. — Isaac

Your examples will probably be quite accurate and your alarm raising, is completely valid and necessary and I would even say, 'is a service to the democratic process.' Each one of the abuses/loopholes etc identified must be laboriously realised, analysed, understood, countered and finally defeated.
Socialists have been trying since and before the days of Spartacus!
Through 10,000 years of tears, if you like.
In the cosmic calendar however, that's just a splash in the time ocean.
So I think my 'give us a f****** chance mate,' complaint, remains valid.
I think global socialism/humanism is and always has been, inevitable. The only question that remains is 'how long can the nefarious hold it back?' I don't know that answer but I fight any apathetic feelings that rise in me.
When the clear differences between those who claim to be socialist in the UK and those who are tories become hard to see, I remember that this is not a failure of any socialist tenet, it's a failure or revelation of the individual(s) who abuse the label. I also don't blame god (even though I am very confident that no such nasty creature exists) for the actions of some theists.

What you're describing as 'the democratic process' is a complex mechanism which has virtually nothing to do with any means by which people can promote the betterment of their communities. I'd just as sooner have nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks it's going to save them is seriously misguided as to it's functions. — Isaac

I can use a hammer to help build a shelter for a human or I can beat the human to death with it.
A hammer, like the democratic process, is a tool that can be used benevolently or nefariously.
I don't blame or abandon the very useful hammer due to the way some choose to use and abuse it.

It's quite disheartening for me to see Americans have such an attitude about such an important proceeding.
— creativesoul

Agree. How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber — Jackson

I am not an American but I think you are both soooooooooo correct here.
Trump and the rest of those directly responsible for what happened on Jan 6th should do jail time.
It was an attempted coup! I wonder what would have happened if Trump was more than the physical coward he is. If he had actually shown up and supported his 'mob.' What if Pence had also backed him? Could they actually have produced the military support to complete their attempted coup?

Yes, and what exactly have you two done about it? Beyond being outraged from what your reading/seeing? — Xtrix

I would take a look at someone like Jane McAlevey. I think she describes one solution very well. It involves organizing. Not lecturing others, but listening and helping them identify and solve problems. — Xtrix

I think we could all do more but we all justify what we do or why we don't do more, including me!
General and personal apathy is a major concern.
I agree with the majority of the content of your posts Xtrix but some stuff you post, I don't understand.
You seem to think that the current efforts to make Trump and his main power brokers face justice for their nefarious actions are a waste of time. I don't understand your reasons. Avoidance of the inevitable 'media circus' seems a limited reason to me.
I remember your post on another thread that seemed to assign value to 'aristocratic' rule as well.
I felt that also contradicted your generally 'humanist/socialist,' viewpoints.
Perhaps I just don't yet see your 'big picture.'

There were profound differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats during the civil war. The conflict was over whether the South should be part of the USA — Tate

But Lincoln was a republican president!
The republican party was a new party in the run up to the American civil war.
Lincoln started as a member of the whig party.
Most of those who supported slavery were democrats. U. S. Grant writes about the political situation quite well in his memoirs. The democrats were a completely different group compared to today. They were founded more based on those involved with the American revolution.

No one cares about my suggestions for improving things — schopenhauer1

I care about what you think and what you suggest, especially when it supports MY socialist/humanist agenda or when your thoughts/suggestions conflict with that same agenda.
I think it's foolish to ignore you, and such as you, especially when you are in reality, many millions, more and more are also becoming politically aware and even organised.

going independent. — jgill

:grin: I hope you are predicting Scotland's future, as I think that would mean the end of our version of the American republican party, the Scottish tory party.

No my final question to you was not rhetorical.
I am not uniquely able to define what is and is not part of the 'democratic process,' but I am able to.
Why would YOU need me to or want me to, if you already think it's 'a weaselly fudge?'
I do not wish to come between you and your therapist. I am just happy that you must live in a democracy which provides you with one. Free of charge I hope, but if not, then perhaps you could help fight for better free mental health services in the country you live in.

A weaselly fudge of an expression — Isaac

It's unwise to be derogatory towards that which you claim to not understand.
Why are you asking me 'what it is exactly?' If you have already labelled the term 'the democratic process,' 'a weaselly fudge.'
You reveal your lack of control over your own bitter and twisted thinking.
Which process do you prefer over the democratic one?

It is being born at all, of course, which is the problem. — schopenhauer1

Well, You're here now! You might as well help try to improve things for others whilst recommending that life should fade away asap.
You can advocate for antinatalism all you want, but meantime, you can do your best to help those who are suffering.

It's utterly astonishing that as soon as less than 100% support for the Democrats is raised, the alternatives are assumed to be some kind of bloody revolution. — Isaac

I support democracy but I don't advocate for bloody revolution.
I advocate for defense rather than attack but I also advocate for change through the democratic process.

All your descriptions of 'currency' and the associated value placed on metals like silver and gold etc are mere human inventions. Humans can therefore manipulate such systems in any way they choose.
Consensus to make such changes is what is required.

I don't see how regression back to what you call 'real money' or 'rare commodities,' such as gold would help change the importance of money to the human condition.
Any 'financial crisis,' is mainly caused by abuse of power and/or money systems, it is not down to resources magically disappearing from the Earth

What do you think of efforts towards a UBI(Universal Basic Income)?
— universeness

I think it's a Trojan horse. — Tzeentch

Who or what do you think is hiding inside your trojan horse?

The things that matter in life can't be bought with money. As long as I have food on my plate and a roof above my head I'm as content as material wealth will make me. — Tzeentch

Do you think that what you describe above should be an ENTITLEMENT for all humans born into a human community or do you think that they must be able to afford it?

I could certainly try, but such visions of a better world must always be nuanced by an understanding of the flawed human nature. — Tzeentch

Sounds like we have some common ground here but I am not fatigued by the thought of facing 'flawed human nature,' as I think the nefarious and the narcissistic do not see themselves as flawed.
The nefarious few want power and control over the many or they place their personal will and significance above that of others. This is not a flaw, their machine works fine, its intentions are very deliberate.

Taking away economic power from private individuals and putting it in the hands of government gets "money out of politcs" how? — Tzeentch

Do you agree that the concept of 'currency' is changing?
The total in your bank account is a number that goes down over the month then it gets replenished, if your circumstances allow for such. Paper/metal money is on the wane.
In what ways might this cause change as we move forward?
What do you think of efforts towards a UBI(Universal Basic Income)?
Are you content that your life is so influenced by the amount of money you have access to?
If you don't like the money system? Can you not envisage a different/better/more benevolent system for humans to exist under?

I hope that democratic systems of government can aspire to that. I don't know what the alternatives are — Wayfarer

So, I assume then that you support democratic systems, as do I and I think @Streetlight does to.
Is this an example of that 'common ground' I was talking about.
Has the election of Albanese in Australia been a positive for you?

As regards the civil war - it's astonishing, and saddening, that it even occurred. America seems to have kind of streak of violence deeply embedded in it. — Wayfarer

I am currently reading the memoirs of U. S. Grant. I think the politics and culture/traditions of the South were based on the old European aristocratic/imperialist systems, whereas the culture/traditions of the North, were based more on the aspirations of the old European 'poor and hungry masses.' I know most Historians could shoot many well-deserved holes in that viewpoint and that the truth is far more nuanced but I think it's also, basically, correct. There was too much 'male chest-thumping,' for the civil war to be avoided.
Look at how 'loyal,' past Australians have been to 'the British.'
Even the fact that Oz was used as a dumping ground for those that the ruling brit morons considered undesirable/criminal and the use of the Anzacs as 'fodder' in WW1, etc has not compelled Australians to reject the British monarchy. That's how deep the shit of the nefarious can penetrate.

I've sometimes wondered if the 'pursuit of happiness' has some share of responsibility for that as it's a very individualistic aim — Wayfarer

You make a very important point! Especially when the pursuit you mention, is common to a person from Australia, Scotland, USA, Russia, Ukraine or anywhereland.
We all know is a globally common goal but YES the devil lies in the detail.
It's the same as individual freedom! One person's meat is another's poison.
Those who wish to live apart/separate/rarely or never contact each other must be able to do so, to avoid conflict.
We need more space and resources to achieve that.
I can only suggest a future solution.
The Universe is vast. We need to move into it. Move off planet!
Part of the reasons I support Scottish independence is that perhaps its easier to unite with others when you are more secure about your own identity.

It's just very tiring to have a rising tide of fascism and the response of liberals is 'we need a more robust set of committee hearings'.

Or, as it turns out, this elitist, bourgeois crap about 'stupid people', that Wayfarer just posted. — Streetlight

I think you, me and @Wayfarer have more in common than we have in conflict.
The French under Mélenchon has demonstrated how to unite against an impotent centre and a nefarious consolidating, extreme, right.
All past revolutions have been started by humans/humanists/socialists who feel revulsion about what is happening to a majority exploited by a nefarious FEW. History shows that the FEW are destroyed by the 'had enough' MANY. Those good people who 'revolted' are then usually usurped by a nefarious few from their own ranks who replace the few who were just 'overthrown. Books like 'Animal Farm,' etc have dramatised this so well.
True socialist leaders are always the first to die in such circumstances. This is what must be 'studied' ad nauseum. New powerful checks and balances MUST accompany any new move towards major change.
Do you think humans could achieve such?
How about the military? It must be possible to keep access to the military outwith the reach of any one person or group who are/become nefarious.

Not an argument I’d want to entertain. — Wayfarer

Is that just for fear of the real possibilities involved? Many Americans have already declared themselves 'hostile,' which won't go away. Evil thrives more when good people do nothing.

for various reasons stupid people have far too much influence in the US. — Wayfarer

I think you are underestimating truly nefarious people by giving them an 'excuse' card labeled, 'sorry I am stupid.' I am willing to forgive the followers of the nefarious but not the leaders or their main power brokers.

Do you believe that the human race is capable of creating a social/political system that is benevolent to the vast majority of people it represents and can maintain and preserve the ecology it exists within?

Abolishing capitalism would be good, but in lieu of that, get money of out politics, abolish the Electoral Collage, pack or abolish the Supreme Court, rewrite that stupid piece of shit document they call a constitution, bring back the corporate income tax rate of the 1940-1950s, massively limit speculation on housing, massive raise the capital gains tax, establish a decent fucking healthcare system, fund the ever living daylights out of public housing, gut to the point of death funding for the military and for cops, so and and so on — Streetlight

Are you, like me, a socialist? In your case a very angry socialist.


I have a few American friends who make statements like 'the civil war has never really ended' and 'the rule of 'survival of the fittest,' guides 'the American dream.' Do you agree with such statements?

America is such a melting pot of cultures that it represents an attempt at a human society which imo regularly demonstrates what does and does not work.
Individual freedom, YES, but how do you ensure your personal freedom does not infringe the freedom of others.
Xenophobia/cultural or traditional preference. If some people living nearby look different from you and act differently from you then what has to be done so that we can celebrate/enjoy/learn from that variety rather than war with it.
'Power corrupts!!!' There must be a way to stop nefarious individuals from reaching positions of power and influence or at least there must be checks and balances which can activate to remove them.

Every person must do what they can to help!
No social/political system has been created yet which is benevolent to the vast majority of the people it represents. We can keep trying or we can surrender to the hilarious antinatalists!
I agree with Steven Pinker when he points out the improvements we have made.
We don't live under such vile systems as in ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt.
We fought world wars against imperialism and fascism.
The internet offers ways to grow movements from ground swells up to global sizes very quickly.
This can amplify evil as well as good movements, so pick your team and let's get on with it!
In history, ALL TYRANTS and all tyrannical systems fall, eventually, WITHOUT EXCEPTION! they fall.

It is exactly such situations that offer struggle. Humans are built to engage in struggle.
— universeness

This is bad faith. — schopenhauer1

It's no big surprise that the antinatalist in you would respond so, to such an inconvenient truth

Is gratitude really tentative humility? — TiredThinker

I find words like 'birthright' or 'entitlement,' offensive when used by an aristocrat or a plutocrat/autocrat etc, regarding their social/economic/influential status. I find the same words 'essential' when people use them to refer to basics such as water, food, shelter, fair and equal treatment etc. To me, if you express gratitude when you don't really feel it then you either don't understand the concept and are just suffering from some lack of social education, (like a toddler who insists that all the toys in the box belong to them and they will fully control their access and use and if they want the toy you currently have then you must comply.) or you are deep down, basically, a nefarious b******.
I feel the same way about personal demonstrations of the concept of 'humility.' Like gratitude, humility is a trait of a 'good person,' imo, if its demonstration is genuine.
For me, it's a question of 'does your demonstrations of gratitude and humility stand up to scrutiny?'

Also I spend lots of time in the internet. The net is full of hundreds of professional liers (LIERS )who spend thier lives thinking up words that will sound truthful — Ken Edwards

Seems to me Ken, that you fight against the nefarious and you are a seeker of nefarious internet trolls so you can give them a good mental kicking! All power to you! Keep kicking that troll ass!

It follows that it would then be best to not expose new people into this unjust, intractable situation. — schopenhauer1

It is exactly such situations that offer struggle. Humans are built to engage in struggle.
Even the rich and powerful talk about how they look back at their lives and remember most fondly 'the struggle' they had to 'achieve who and what they are today,' and the 'legacy they will leave.'
When the going gets tough, the antinatalists seem to want to run away and prevent any future humans from facing struggle/suffering. A somewhat cowardly approach imo.

I think the majority of the reasons already cited by others so far just about cover the op.
Especially @Wayfarer's quotes from Bart Ehrman etc.
I think there is also the fact that humans are social animals and 'need' or/and are compelled to join groups or unite in common cause.
This manifests in many interesting ways, including such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' or Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic fans, many of whom hate each other due to the sectarianism associated with each team, yet they will 'come together'/tolerate each other when they support the Scottish national football team, especially when they play against England.

Christianity is just another 'team,' that a human can adopt as a familial support system which offers them a sense of purpose and makes them feel they 'belong' to something important. I think all humans need this.
I place christians, or theists in general, in my personal list of 'teams' or 'groups' of 'duped fools.'
I have 'faith in,' or 'I trust in,' the intentions/tenets/actions of science and most scientists.
So in that sense, I have picked the team I support.
I find sports boring so I am glad there are 'other team types' out there you can affiliate to.

We all judge the beliefs expounded by others by assigning a 'level of rationality' to each one expressed.
How rational is it for an anorexic to believe they are too fat, when they appear to be almost skeletal?
How rational is it when a person states 'I believe 100% that a steel ball bearing will not float when I throw it into water?'
How rational is it when someone says, 'I believe 100% that I will win the national lottery one day' or 'I believe 100% that I am a superior human being to you and you should comply with my commandments or else I will be justified in killing you.'
How rational is it when someone says, 'I believe 100% in the lord god jesus christ .'
How many times have you had an exchange like:
'Oh I KNOW its true,' and the response is 'No, you just BELIEVE its true, you dont KNOW its true.'

I think a 100% belief that a steel ball will sink in water is as close as you will get to connecting 'belief' with 'fact.'
Any belief that does not have very strong empirical evidence to back it up, remains fully open to being assigned a 'measure of rationality,' by others. You will not escape that judgement based on a claim that you are not stating a belief, you are merely 'having a punt' or 'stating a conviction level.'

I doubt very much that a nazi getting tried at Nuremberg would have got a lesser sentence if he/she claimed that they killed others NOT because they BELIEVED their victims were inferiors but because they were 'betting' they were inferiors, with a 'certain confidence' level.

Based on :

From:scholarpedia.org
The term entropy was coined in 1865 [Cl] by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius from Greek en- = in + trope = a turning (point). The word reveals an analogy to energy and etymologists believe that it was designed to denote the form of energy that any energy eventually and inevitably turns into -- a useless heat. The idea was inspired by an earlier formulation by Sadi Carnot [Ca] of what is now known as the second law of thermodynamics.

How about:
12. On the largest scale, the universe moves from a low to a high entropy.

How about:
11. Time exists and is linear.