Over the last couple of years I've gotten to know a couple of atheists in the real world out there. Mind you I don't know either of them well but we have talked some about the differing perspectives we have. From my personal experience I think it is really possible to have a frank, friendly but respectful conversation. Why is it there are no atheist's like that at "Telic Thoughts"?

I suspect that the atheists at Telic Thoughts are drawn here by the subject matter itself and that there is a linkage between their atheism and a desire to debunk ID. I have an immediate family member who is an atheist but he has no interest in evolution, intelligent design etc. Interestingly though, his perspectives on social issues align well with those expressed by most TT atheists. There is something to Petermann's blog entry on stereotying. To an extent stereotyping entails inductive reasoning and my application of that leads me to believe there are common threads (a herd instinct) running through the minds of atheists in spite of their public "cat" demeanor.

You've demonstrated an unrelenting hostility to theism and a belief in atheism. Your personal beliefs are noted. If you wish to contribute to this thread you are going to have to stick to the topic and make something more than repetetive remarks.

And I thought it was just me.

That got me to thinking why is that the atheists (and of course, our one and only non-theistic trans humanist) at "Telic Thoughts" are so hostile to theism or any kind of religion? What does that accomplish? Do you guys (& gals?) go out to bars a pick fights with people you know nothing about, or do you try to strike up reasonably friendly conversations? Making judgments about people you know nothing about; isn't that how we define prejudice?

Consider a couple of quotes from this thread:

>But we all know that arguing with theists is pointless, so if you want to believe in your fairy-tales, be my guest. Thanks god that the truly serious scientists sneer at such unwarranted foolishness.

>Religion IS the source of all evil, not Dawkins/Hitchens type of evil (except Islam), but the evil of cracking it up to be something it is not - a veridical picture of reality which is, truthfully, completely devoid of human input (i.e. religion) as a whole.

>Actually, Hitchens said it well "all religious belief is sinister and infantile", but I take it we've been arguing about something else entirely, so maybe we're not that far apart with our views as we thought.

A religious person is supposed to perceive that as friendliness? Admittedly there is some attempt in the last couple to soften the blow, but only after he has gotten in the cheap shot. But why are the cheap shots necessary at all? Does that really strengthen a non-theists argument? Is ridicule the only way to be persuasive?

Over the last couple of years I've gotten to know a couple of atheists in the real world out there. Mind you I don't know either of them well but we have talked some about the differing perspectives we have. From my personal experience I think it is really possible to have a frank, friendly but respectful conversation. Why is it there are no atheist's like that at "Telic Thoughts"?

I have put some thought into how I would behave if I were an atheist. I don't really understand how some one who believes that life is devoid of all meaning and purpose can dedicate so much time energy just trying to tear down belief in others. (Just like how much the atheists here write and write and write"¦) But maybe that is not what you are trying to do. What then are you trying to do?

Maybe that is why there are no good atheist's around here. It just wouldn't make much sense. They got other things that they could do with their lives.

Here's a theory. Maybe the atheists are like the jilted boyfriend who kills his ex girlfriend. We know why he did it: "If I can't have her nobody else will." We understand it. But I think most people would also consider it to be completely selfish.

On your part, you can argue all you want that there isn't a contradiction between science & God or that science does not lead to atheism, but the majority of the scientific community in the theoretical and experimental high-energy physics field would disagree with you and thanks god that there are still rational people left in the world.

??? Oddly enough, the proportion of self-admitted deists/theists in physics is significantly higher than in evolutionary biology. Almost as if the examination of our broader universe (and its foundational understory) is far less a challenge to notions of transcendent causation than the imposed random causality assumption inherent in matters of life.

On the Planck scale, chaos rules and the casual chain of events dictated by past, present, future breaks down, so no, I have a pretty good idea what goes on there.

You know nothing about what conditions 'rule' on the Planck scale, so boasting of knowledge no one owns is rather pointless. Theory holds that reality - time and space - is discrete at that scale ["grainy"] - IOW, nonexistent. But no one knows if that is actually so, and no one's ever going to observe anything at that scale. Not even you.

Now, if you wish to talk about the implications of QM and what we ARE able to observe of effects indirectly (and the implications of the mathematics used to make the predictions), go for it. Several participants here know a little about that stuff. The quantum realm is many, many orders of magnitude greater than Planck.

nullasalus:

The usual stupid human tricks.

Whoa! That's the best analogy I've seen in awhile! Thanks for the giggle… §;o)

To be fair, I don't discount transhumanist possibilities. I'm in no position to evaluate them and, hey, give humanity an incredible amount of time and who knows what we'll accomplish. For all I know, those promises of the bible may be provided by technology - I'm not going to dictate to God as to how promises should be kept.

And despite all the ferocious, odd hostility to religion, at least dimasok recognizes the hopeless aspect of some (many) atheists. I still contend that futurists who have endless optimism about what humanity can/will accomplish have vastly more in common with theism in general and Christianity in particular than they do with the 'man is doomed' wing of the atheism brigade. Both work towards a beautiful future and a destiny for mankind. The others are just biding their time, waiting for oblivion.

Let us discard the opium of the masses - let us instead free their minds with substances better than opium.

Let us throw away such silliness as some imaginary entity with enormous creative and transformative power - let us instead embrace the idea of a future entity with enormous creative and transformative power.

Toss the idea of a goofy Rapture into the dustbin - instead, look forward to a time when all right-thinking humans are instantaneously transformed into non-corporeal beings.

Resurrection? Such hogwash and poppycock. Stupid religionists will believe anything you tell them. When we restore the memories and virtual forms of past human beings and interact with them as if they were alive, that will show those superstitious fools!

Alas, a God who judges people and casts them into Hell to destroy them is one that either doesn't exist or is too cruel to worship. Those people who would believe in such a God will not be included in our future. They shall be cast out, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What is there to remove? First prove to me that there is an afterlife before accepting it as a given. Science shows there is no afterlife, so don't expect me to believe there is one just because religion says there is, let alone that it is ANYTHING like they make it out to be.

You do realize that 'resurrection' is an afterlife, yes? And in fact it's pretty much the core concept of the afterlife in the Christian tradition? So it stands - a transhumanist can't remove the concept, because they look to a future that may (or if you want to get strong with the claim, definitely will) provide it.

I'll take it as you have nothing to say, which is perfectly in line with what I expected.

Well, yeah. Did you see what I quoted? There's no argument there.

I don't see immediate connection between us existing and fine-tuning of life, especially since even so, it's still pointless and hopeless without the transhumanistic tools addressing the human condition.

But you believe in those transhumanistic tools. So.. it's not pointless and hopeless, even on your own terms. You're trying to reconcile two exclusive views here. You don't see the problem of railing against religion as stupid crap, while at the same time arguing that their most grandiose promises (eternal life, the end of disease and hunger, etc) are going to come true? "But science will do it, not God" isn't all that persuasive to people who believe God is behind all things anyway.

Your two options are unsatisfactory to me - the first one pits humans against a hostile universe with nothing but their belief - might as well sit on their asses and do nothing, the result is the same.

The point wasn't to provide you with a choice you really liked, it was to have you choose between two unpalatable options.

Besides, as has been pointed out again and again, religious people do not 'sit on their asses' when it comes to the world. They build hospitals, they build charities, they even - *gasp* - do research. Science isn't the exclusive territory of atheists - there's believers now, there have been believers in the past.

I guess that's an even better question. If the choice is between religious transhumanists and "death cult" style atheists, which do you choose? Well I know the answer - "I refuse to choose between those two."

me: The theistic hypothesis explains the remarkable degree of order and rational intelligibility of the physical world, its contingency, its finely tuned anthropic parameters, and the existence within it of consciousness, intentionality, meaning, as well as profound moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Materialism cannot explain why the universe is so ordered and predictable, and stumbles badly with conscious rationality and morality.

dim: The theistic hypothesis explains how people are gullible enough to accept anything as long as they come in with the DEMAND for reality to abide by their oh so rational and exclusively correct views of reality.

I've already slaughtered your 'argument'. Though admittedly, it was stillborn.

But thanks for the laugh anyway. Being called 'gullible' by a transhumanist is like being called overweight by the 800-pound baby gorilla in the room.

I've got to say, I do find your theistic picture very attractive, IF it would be true.

I've got to say, I do find your transhumanism to be quackery of the most pathetic kind.

But since it's a load of crap, why bother?

That's what I love about delusional people. They're so funny to watch being delusional.

It's aesthetically pleasing, but it explains as much as astrology does - nothing,

It explains why explaining is even possible.

so did it help you now that you wrote it?

If it's help you're looking for, there are better places than TT to find it. Such as psychiatrists' offices.

Did it remove a heavy burden from you?

No, it didn't. But then again, I wasn't carrying a heavy burden. You were. The heavy burden of proving that you have a clue.

Universe keeps on being the way it is, whether you find it "transcendently conscious" or not.

Er, are you sitting down? Yes? Good.

Now, I know this may come as a tremendous shock to you, but only one of the two of us may be a closet panpsychist.

And it's not me.

Even for someone like me, who likes the idea of "panpsychism" (or milder forms of it) which converges, by the way, with Paula Ziza's conjecture of primordial consciousness (which was mentioned on this blog already), the Big Wow

Paula Ziza? The Big Wow?

Holy Primordiality!

Does Batman know? You must get word to him as soon as you can.

You know Batman, surely—he's the guy who wears his shorts on the outside.

the idea of a supreme creator still isn't required or necessary!

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but only God exists of metaphysical necessity.

Everything else is contingent. Even you.

Even Batman.

Anyway, I have a good idea who i'm dealing with here - reminds me of the people in Dawkins latest "Enemies of reason" 3-part documentary

I take it he had a starring role, and you were a walk-on 'extra'. No?

Hey Batman! Hey Robin! Eat your hearts out, fellas! You're both ex-heroes now.

Dimsock and Duhkins are Gotham's new reason-fighting cartoon characters.

But who's going to remove the afterlife? You?

What is there to remove? First prove to me that there is an afterlife before accepting it as a given. Science shows there is no afterlife, so don't expect me to believe there is one just because religion says there is, let alone that it is ANYTHING like they make it out to be.

And with that, I sleep. By the way, it's Cthulhu. Don't upset Lovecraft, he'll be cross with you when science resurrects him.

I'll take it as you have nothing to say, which is perfectly in line with what I expected.

Because it's along the lines of telling a child he's a worthless, meaningless mistake with no hope or purpose, and that child ends up becoming an immortal god-equivalent. The two don't wash. In our universe, the mere existence of our life presents an interesting puzzle of fine-tuning. If we don't merely exist, but become what you believe we will, what will the explanation be? We got really^googleplex lucky? Intelligent life just happens to be destined for such ends? Teleology is a tricky debate now - in the terms you're imagining, it'd be near undeniable.

The existence of life presents an interesting puzzle only insofar as it shows that we're a mistake with no purpose and no hope beyond the ones we set for ourselves and if we manage to reach the singularity with the AI taking over from that point on, we should be grateful we were alive in the first place to allow something like that to happen. I don't see immediate connection between us existing and fine-tuning of life, especially since even so, it's still pointless and hopeless without the transhumanistic tools addressing the human condition.

Actually, that's a good question for you. If you had to choose, which would you rather - theists chugging away, believing there's purposefulness, hope, and destiny in the universe? Or the more 'death cult' like atheists, who not only think there's no such thing, but are ambivalent to actively resentful of human progress and existence?

I would choose atheists who turned transhumanists chugging away, believing there's purposefulness, hope and destiny, all self-made in order to remove the obstacles to a happy, eternal existence. Your two options are unsatisfactory to me - the first one pits humans against a hostile universe with nothing but their belief - might as well sit on their asses and do nothing, the result is the same. The second one are the usual atheists, those who do not oppose science or progress (where did you take this from?), but do not believe there is any hope for humans or that the universe has any meaning - they accepted their dire fate, and that I find unacceptable and self-defeating too. If you're an atheist, you should also be a transhumanist. Otherwise, sitting on your ass all day believing there is no afterlife and no god or sitting on your ass old day believing there is afterlife and god is the same thing which leaves atheist theists in the same pickle.

Pretty much. What's contradictory about that?

Because it's along the lines of telling a child he's a worthless, meaningless mistake with no hope or purpose, and that child ends up becoming an immortal god-equivalent. The two don't wash. In our universe, the mere existence of our life presents an interesting puzzle of fine-tuning. If we don't merely exist, but become what you believe we will, what will the explanation be? We got really^googleplex lucky? Intelligent life just happens to be destined for such ends? Teleology is a tricky debate now - in the terms you're imagining, it'd be near undeniable.

Really? Religion is a opium for the masses against the inevitabilities of death, old age and the meaningless universe. In fact, if you remove the afterlife and leave only God with no promises of postmortem survival, theists will become atheists

But who's going to remove the afterlife? You? It'd be tantamount to saying resurrection is impossible for science, and transhumanists aren't really in the business of giving up a scientific challenge.

Even going with the idea, the declaration is far from clear. Anthony Flew comes to mind first and foremost - an atheist who went deist and actively hopes (or at least thinks he does) that there's no everlasting life. Pantheists, some deists, some of the eastern faiths..

Actually, that's a good question for you. If you had to choose, which would you rather - theists chugging away, believing there's purposefulness, hope, and destiny in the universe? Or the more 'death cult' like atheists, who not only think there's no such thing, but are ambivalent to actively resentful of human progress and existence?

I mean what it sounds I mean. Religion has nothing to do with us being moral, and if it does, then I hope that people like Jerry Falwell burn in hell for all eternity.

In fact, just for amusements sake, if it turned out indeed that God chose Christ or what have you as the spectacular event to occur in the distant past over Cathulu, I would then say that God has a bad taste and is an idiot

And with that, I sleep. By the way, it's Cthulhu. Don't upset Lovecraft, he'll be cross with you when science resurrects him.

Humans are insignificant specks who exist in a hostile universe with no purpose or point or hope and also they're going to master one natural law after the other, spread to the stars, and achieve every desire religion ever dreamed up and then some.

If the latter part is fulfilled, don't be surprised if some serious form of theism or strong deism (and, of course, teleology) is taken for granted by the newly omnipotent.

Pretty much. What's contradictory about that? They can call it theism as much as they want, I don't believe in religious crap (whether it's theistic or anti-theistic) but transhumanism is rooted in science in which I do trust, so whether you want to compare it to the religious ideas is up to you - it doesn't alter my main contention that if that goal of spreading our intelligence across the entire universe is met within the next couple of centuries, it wouldn't be thanks to religion or their preposterous beliefs, but due to science and only science. Theists can be a part of it or can stay away - it will happen either way.

Frustrated? If there's one thing theists tend not to be (especially when compared to atheists), it's that. There's even statistics floating around out there showing as much, though I think such things tend not to tell the whole story.

Really? Religion is a opium for the masses against the inevitabilities of death, old age and the meaningless universe. In fact, if you remove the afterlife and leave only God with no promises of postmortem survival, theists will become atheists

Asimov's work, when dealing with the concept of God, typically approached the concept from the western idea anyway - more mootness, even if he was an atheist and largely apathetic or otherwise to religion. As for the other bolded parts, when you have to fling feces at an idol whenever you pass it by, you're pretty much on the same wavelength as the people who have to utter a prayer whenever they do the same.

What I meant to say here is that anyone can come up any story they like, whether it's Anissimov's science-fiction, the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, or what have you. You can choose to believe in any one of them, although I would take Anissimov's book over the other bunkum any day since at least it's interesting to read and doesn't sound like a collection fo moronic essays by 8-year olds.

Morality is not derived from religion? Depends on what you mean.

I mean what it sounds I mean. Religion has nothing to do with us being moral, and if it does, then I hope that people like Jerry Falwell burn in hell for all eternity.

Something may have happened in the past that was pretty amazing and we can't explain how it went down if it's true? Somehow, I can cope with the idea.

A Cathulu monster might have created the universe and then retreated together with the ancients back into their world, never to reappear again, and I can't disprove that it didn't happen. But I have reasonable grounds to believe that it didn't, and same goes for Christ, Muhamad or any other run-of-the-mill ridicule figure. Did I get my point across? And it's certainly easier for me to cope with the idea of the Cathulu monster than with the religious characters. In fact, just for amusements sake, if it turned out indeed that God chose Christ or what have you as the spectacular event to occur in the distant past over Cathulu, I would then say that God has a bad taste and is an idiot