4 ms·

> Lots of things in my life have power - government, partner, family, wall sockets. I'm not sure any of them could be considered 'highest', especially in the s

> Lots of things in my life have power - government, partner, family, wall sockets. I'm not sure any of them could be considered 'highest', especially in the sense that Christians may use that word -- whereby it's an entity (power) that created all other powers, and therefore has ultimate, unassailable power. Um, I think that was exactly my point. You don't recognize the existence of consciousness or intelligence that is either greater than or antecedent to yours. Obviously I'm speaking of "power" in the religious sense, not in a legal or political sense. You are subject, ultimately, only to your own judgment. For what reason would any other representative of the human species be fit to judge you on a moral basis, or to contemplate your use or purpose for existing, other than that you have chosen to submit to such judgment? That choice and burden is yours alone. You are your own god. Denying that much celebrated aspect of atheism is what's disingenuous. I know many atheists are greatly offended by the use of the word "faith" to describe the conviction that humans are the very apex of intelligence/consciousness, and that we and the universe that contains us can't have been designed and coded by another intelligent force. What evidence can there possibly be for or against this conviction, even if only lightly held (which would make you more of an agnostic than an atheist)? And given that, what else is there beside faith to guide either one of us?

Jedd 10y ago
> You don't recognize the existence of consciousness or intelligence that is either greater than or antecedent to yours. Well that's not true. I've met a number of people that I have determined have a greater intelligence than me -- and that number shoots up once you include people who I know only through their work. On a slightly fuzzier front, I know people with laudable ethics / morals that may indeed surpass my own working set. There's nothing supernatural about that assessment. And I don't think I'm subject exclusively to my own judgement. Speculating on the 'use or purpose for existing' pre-supposes that such a use or purpose exists, or rather, that there is a requirement that it exists (as an externality to myself or otherwise) with an implication that absent such an externally-provided use or purpose, we'd be stuck, twiddling our opposable thumbs, with nothing useful or interesting to do. > I know many atheists are greatly offended by the use of the word "faith" to describe the conviction that humans are the very apex of intelligence/consciousness ... This may be attributable to atheists tending to be well-informed on evolution -- consequently inclined to twitch at this assertion. At the least, we'd want to insert an 'as of right now' after the word 'apex'. The idea that humans are the very apex and there is no further progress / evolution to be had is very much the required position of a theist, and not how atheists tend to view the world. > ... and that we and the universe that contains us can't have been designed and coded by another intelligent force. I think most atheists (again, I really can't be speaking for them all) don't say it can't, just that it's spectacularly unlikely that it was. Just from a statistical angle, given there have been some tens of thousands of religions generated over the millennia, the chance of any given religion being the right one is low. As noted by TFA, the history of this religion (and of course it's not unique in this regard) being plagued by logical incongruities & inconsistencies, borrowing heavily from early mythologies, having minimal corroborating evidence, etc -- it doesn't increase the odds of being more right than the rest. > And given that, what else is there beside faith to guide either one of us? Heh! I think at this point I'm going to have to defer to Stephen Roberts[1] "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." [1] http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php
- nate_meurer 10y ago
  I think you're talking past me in order to avoid an argument :) "Higher consciousness" does not refer to one of your smarter friends or coworkers. Unless you're a Scientologist, I presume you don't view other humans as deities/gods of any kind. > The idea that humans are the very apex and there is no further progress / evolution to be had is very much the required position of a theist Nonsense. There is no conflict with evolution in a deliberately created world. It's no different from any other complex mechanism. Folks who say otherwise, religious or not, are manufacturing conflict. Anyway, I'm not sure why you brought evolution into this. It has nothing to do with any of my arguments. By "apex" I'm referring to humanity's place as the highest most powerful consciousness. Again, a hierarchy in the sense that does not admit your smarter friends to a higher level than you. > the history of this religion (and of course it's not unique in this regard) being plagued by logical incongruities & inconsistencies, ... Yes, quite, completely agree, and the sordid history of religion has nothing to do with my nagging suspicion that you and I are not the highest representative type of consciousness in the universe. I mean, damn man, look at yourself. Your passions, your force of will, your sense of humor. The sense of self, whatever it is, that makes you think there's a "you", which separates you from the apes that just look like us, and which compels you to discuss philosophy on Hacker News. You think that shit is accidental? Your brain and body, which provide the seat for consciousness and the machinery to navigate your environment -- those things don't demand an explanation beyond, "it just happened"? The existence of a mechanism that allows those things to have evolved from a primordial soup of small organic molecules... doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious that there is a higher intelligent creative force at work? Or are you able to just say, "hey, it's just the multiverse, it was bound to happen"? Serious question. I'm not just being snarky.
  - Jedd 10y ago
    Well I apologise if you think I'm being intentionally obtuse -- I'm not one to try to avoid an argument, especially about religion. You originally said: > Atheism is a faith that elevates Me to the status of God ... That's what I railed against. It assumes that once you've determined there's probably no gods, that you then have a gap that needs filling. I don't expect any atheists think that way. Interesting reference to scientology and humans as deities - given, again, the TFA was all about the presence of Jesus in human form, plus the confusion and splintering within the church that the rather clumsy construct of the trinity caused. I mentioned evolution because you suggested that atheists think that we (humans) are the apex. Once you understand evolution you realise there's no direction, and certainly no stable state, let alone ultimate apex. Humans have been on the planet for such a tiny amount of time, and there's nothing to suggest that we're the best thing that the evolutionary process can generate. Yes, as you say, we're the most powerful consciousness on this planet right now -- but that's like those towns that have signs attesting that they have "the longest single span bridge ... crossing an east-west river ... that has a w in its name ... in the southern hemisphere ... built before 1857". That is, it's such an exuberantly qualified assertion that, while true, it's more distracting than useful. We may well not be the most powerful consciousness in the universe, and we're almost certainly not going to be the most powerful consciousness ever to have lived once everything wraps up. And no, as above, I don't think 'it was bound to happen', as that implies an intent to achieve the current state of the universe. It did happen, and that's a sufficiently fascinating situation to keep us busy. As to your last question -- I think saying 'it just happened' is to give up on some potentially very interesting lines of enquiry. But I don't think it's necessary to invoke a 'higher intelligent creative force' to address any questions around the process. In any case, you then have to contend with the problem I mentioned in my last reply -- if you do think a higher intelligent creative force is necessary to explain whatever gaps remain today, how do you confidently pick the right one from the myriad religions available?. Wikipedia suggests there's around 4,200 religions. Also without trying to sound snarky, most religious people can't satisfactorily address this one. AFAICT most people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents, and that doesn't set off as many alarm bells for them as I would expect. EDIT: Forgot to address this bit: > Nonsense. There is no conflict with evolution in a deliberately created world. It's no different from any other complex mechanism. Folks who say otherwise, religious or not, are manufacturing conflict. My understanding is that there is a conflict, at least with some religious people / religions. First, the obvious one -- evolution denies the Adam & Eve myth, which then precludes original sin, which then renders the salvation story somewhat irrelevant. Second, in Christian scripture it's asserted that humans (well, man) was made in the image of the deity. So, if we either voluntarily architect ourselves or evolve naturally into something different, several possible implications ensue, including: we were evidently not made as good as we could/should have been, which suggests the image was not optimum, and/or the deity will be upset that we aren't happy with the image we were made in.

Jedd 10y ago

> You don't recognize the existence of consciousness or intelligence that is either greater than or antecedent to yours. Well that's not true. I've met a number of people that I have determined have a greater intelligence than me -- and that number shoots up once you include people who I know only through their work. On a slightly fuzzier front, I know people with laudable ethics / morals that may indeed surpass my own working set. There's nothing supernatural about that assessment. And I don't think I'm subject exclusively to my own judgement. Speculating on the 'use or purpose for existing' pre-supposes that such a use or purpose exists, or rather, that there is a requirement that it exists (as an externality to myself or otherwise) with an implication that absent such an externally-provided use or purpose, we'd be stuck, twiddling our opposable thumbs, with nothing useful or interesting to do. > I know many atheists are greatly offended by the use of the word "faith" to describe the conviction that humans are the very apex of intelligence/consciousness ... This may be attributable to atheists tending to be well-informed on evolution -- consequently inclined to twitch at this assertion. At the least, we'd want to insert an 'as of right now' after the word 'apex'. The idea that humans are the very apex and there is no further progress / evolution to be had is very much the required position of a theist, and not how atheists tend to view the world. > ... and that we and the universe that contains us can't have been designed and coded by another intelligent force. I think most atheists (again, I really can't be speaking for them all) don't say it can't, just that it's spectacularly unlikely that it was. Just from a statistical angle, given there have been some tens of thousands of religions generated over the millennia, the chance of any given religion being the right one is low. As noted by TFA, the history of this religion (and of course it's not unique in this regard) being plagued by logical incongruities & inconsistencies, borrowing heavily from early mythologies, having minimal corroborating evidence, etc -- it doesn't increase the odds of being more right than the rest. > And given that, what else is there beside faith to guide either one of us? Heh! I think at this point I'm going to have to defer to Stephen Roberts[1] "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." [1] http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php

nate_meurer 10y ago
I think you're talking past me in order to avoid an argument :) "Higher consciousness" does not refer to one of your smarter friends or coworkers. Unless you're a Scientologist, I presume you don't view other humans as deities/gods of any kind. > The idea that humans are the very apex and there is no further progress / evolution to be had is very much the required position of a theist Nonsense. There is no conflict with evolution in a deliberately created world. It's no different from any other complex mechanism. Folks who say otherwise, religious or not, are manufacturing conflict. Anyway, I'm not sure why you brought evolution into this. It has nothing to do with any of my arguments. By "apex" I'm referring to humanity's place as the highest most powerful consciousness. Again, a hierarchy in the sense that does not admit your smarter friends to a higher level than you. > the history of this religion (and of course it's not unique in this regard) being plagued by logical incongruities & inconsistencies, ... Yes, quite, completely agree, and the sordid history of religion has nothing to do with my nagging suspicion that you and I are not the highest representative type of consciousness in the universe. I mean, damn man, look at yourself. Your passions, your force of will, your sense of humor. The sense of self, whatever it is, that makes you think there's a "you", which separates you from the apes that just look like us, and which compels you to discuss philosophy on Hacker News. You think that shit is accidental? Your brain and body, which provide the seat for consciousness and the machinery to navigate your environment -- those things don't demand an explanation beyond, "it just happened"? The existence of a mechanism that allows those things to have evolved from a primordial soup of small organic molecules... doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious that there is a higher intelligent creative force at work? Or are you able to just say, "hey, it's just the multiverse, it was bound to happen"? Serious question. I'm not just being snarky.
- Jedd 10y ago
  Well I apologise if you think I'm being intentionally obtuse -- I'm not one to try to avoid an argument, especially about religion. You originally said: > Atheism is a faith that elevates Me to the status of God ... That's what I railed against. It assumes that once you've determined there's probably no gods, that you then have a gap that needs filling. I don't expect any atheists think that way. Interesting reference to scientology and humans as deities - given, again, the TFA was all about the presence of Jesus in human form, plus the confusion and splintering within the church that the rather clumsy construct of the trinity caused. I mentioned evolution because you suggested that atheists think that we (humans) are the apex. Once you understand evolution you realise there's no direction, and certainly no stable state, let alone ultimate apex. Humans have been on the planet for such a tiny amount of time, and there's nothing to suggest that we're the best thing that the evolutionary process can generate. Yes, as you say, we're the most powerful consciousness on this planet right now -- but that's like those towns that have signs attesting that they have "the longest single span bridge ... crossing an east-west river ... that has a w in its name ... in the southern hemisphere ... built before 1857". That is, it's such an exuberantly qualified assertion that, while true, it's more distracting than useful. We may well not be the most powerful consciousness in the universe, and we're almost certainly not going to be the most powerful consciousness ever to have lived once everything wraps up. And no, as above, I don't think 'it was bound to happen', as that implies an intent to achieve the current state of the universe. It did happen, and that's a sufficiently fascinating situation to keep us busy. As to your last question -- I think saying 'it just happened' is to give up on some potentially very interesting lines of enquiry. But I don't think it's necessary to invoke a 'higher intelligent creative force' to address any questions around the process. In any case, you then have to contend with the problem I mentioned in my last reply -- if you do think a higher intelligent creative force is necessary to explain whatever gaps remain today, how do you confidently pick the right one from the myriad religions available?. Wikipedia suggests there's around 4,200 religions. Also without trying to sound snarky, most religious people can't satisfactorily address this one. AFAICT most people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents, and that doesn't set off as many alarm bells for them as I would expect. EDIT: Forgot to address this bit: > Nonsense. There is no conflict with evolution in a deliberately created world. It's no different from any other complex mechanism. Folks who say otherwise, religious or not, are manufacturing conflict. My understanding is that there is a conflict, at least with some religious people / religions. First, the obvious one -- evolution denies the Adam & Eve myth, which then precludes original sin, which then renders the salvation story somewhat irrelevant. Second, in Christian scripture it's asserted that humans (well, man) was made in the image of the deity. So, if we either voluntarily architect ourselves or evolve naturally into something different, several possible implications ensue, including: we were evidently not made as good as we could/should have been, which suggests the image was not optimum, and/or the deity will be upset that we aren't happy with the image we were made in.