Night FM

I don't find this argument palatable, since all axioms are accepted on "faith" and can be supported with reason. For example, the axiom that "science is good" has to be accepted, and while most people would accept this on the basis of "common sense" alone, there are individuals such as anarcho-primitivists like John Zerzon who reject this axiom and believe science and technology to be a "bad thing". Okay... my argument is that this isn't the case, and most popular depictions (such as of the Biblical God) don't have any relation to the source text. (e.x. The Bible states that God created male and female in His own image, so while God is referred to as He, and often depicted in the likeness of a human, God is beyond any physical sex or gender as per the Bible). And this still doesn't define what makes a leprechaun a leprechaun, it just dismisses a belief in leprechauns based on "common sense" (and presumes that the same "common sense" can be applied to dismissing the existence of a God).

We're not talking about the number of people. This argument seems to be assuming that the characteristics of a God would be identical to those portrayed in some cultural myth about the God (e.x. such as pop cultural depictions of the Biblical god as a "bearded man in the sky" despite this depiction not deriving from how God is depicted as an immaterial being in the text of Bible.) So, to me, this is essentially a strawman and would be the akin to saying that a person who believes in alien life is the equivalent of believing that Marvin the Martian actually exists in real life, or that aliens, when discovered, will look like Marvin the Martian.

That's similar to the "Santa Claus" argument, and is meaningless, since it doesn't describe what even makes a leprechaun a leprechaun, or why believing in a God is the equivalent of believing in a leprechaun. One could say that "believing in aliens" is the same as "believing that Marvin the Martian actually exists", but that wouldn't be an accurate description of what it is like to believe in aliens, or what aliens would look like if they actually existed. This is conflating "mythology about gods" with the attributes that make a god a god to begin with, and presumes that everything which has been referred to as a "god" (e.x. polytheistic deities versus monotheistic deities) is the same merely because it is referred to by the word "god". It's been argued that the belief in a Supreme Being is culturally universal regardless of any specific mythology. Again, there is "mythology about aliens", such as the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. But I wouldn't argue that the existence of "myths about aliens" rules out the possibility of alien life. The rather tired "no evidence" argument just falls back either on a materialistic paradigm or pop-Scientism (e.x. that anything not currently considered "established science" cannot be true or should not be believed), which is epistemologically absurd - as per my thread in the philosophy subform about how the truth value of something isn't determined by whether or not it is currently accepted as scientific fact, and how believing in something because "one was taught" it is scientific fact isn't the same as believing in something on the basis of evidence or rational investigation. (e.x. By this poor logic, there would have been "no reason" for Newton to believe in his hypothesis about gravity simply because it wasn't considered established science during his day and age and wasn't taught in schools, and there would therefore be no scientific progress). This isn't evangelism, because I'm not making an affirmative argument for the existence of a specific God. I'm merely arguing that some people (e.x. of the "strong atheist" variety may disbelieve in a God for irrational reasons rather than "rational" ones).

This is not arguing for the existence of a God. I'm merely making the argument that, since people are emotional beings, many people may likely disbelieve in God for irrational reasons than rational ones. Examples might include: *Fear of the afterlife or not wanting to have to existentially challenge themselves by speculating about life after death *Negative experiences with religion or a specific religion (e.x. wanting there to not be a God simply out of spite against followers of a God) *Not wanting to be morally accountable to anyone other than themselves *Not wanting to have to think outside of a specific paradigm (e.x. a materialistic paradigm) due to it being intellectually difficult to them or foreign to them (And yes, while you can argue that the burden shouldn't be on individuals to believe in something by default, this argument presumes that the person would absolutely disbelieve in a God regardless of what facts or arguments were presented to them).

This will probably run into debates about the problem of evil then, and what it means that "God created evil" and all that.

You're talking about polytheistic deities which were conceived in the likeness of "powerful mortals". To my understanding, a monotheistic deity is immaterial, and therefore would not have a physical sex or gender or physical offspring (e.x. despite being described as a "He", the Biblical God is said to have created male and female in His own image, so naturally God is beyond any physical sex or gender). Polytheistic deities were not viewed as completely moral or immoral, simply "powerful", while a monotheistic deity is viewed as perfect (e.x. Socrates, though he has been incorrectly described as an atheist for denouncing the Greek gods as immoral believed in a Supreme Being). This is, to my understand, how the God in the Bible is described, and why crafting of Idols depicting God in some physical likeness was forbidden. This also drew accusations of idolatry against the Catholic Church during the reformation for its physical depictions of God (e.x. the depictions of God in the likeness of a human in works such as The Creation of Adam were derived from classical depictions of polytheistic gods such as Zeus or Jupiter). So unless there is some consistent attempt to define what makes a God (or a specific god) are to begin with, then I don't find generalized claims about "gods" productive. Given that the attributes that make up one "god" could be completely different from those that make up another, with the only thing they have in common being that they are both referred to as a "god").

That's an epistemological argument, and doesn't explain what it would mean to "know there is (or isn't a God). How do you know what everyone is capable of honestly knowing? If this merely falls back on a materialistic paradigm (e.x. that the existence of a God isn't currently knowable by natural science), then it's flawed and assumes that everyone follows that materialistic paradigm or is obligated to.

That would be one, arbitrarily defined path based on materialist axioms (which are as old as Epicurus and just as debatable today as they were then). Just as there are many things which are outside them realm of science to "make sense" of, or at best would merely provide a specific materialistic description which is not mutually-exclusive to other potential descriptions. (For example, merely reading a textbook explaining the physical laws by which a car operates wouldn't provide a workable explanation of how to become a race car driver). I'm also not sure what a "mystical being" even is, if a consistent definition isn't used. That sounds like a term which is easy to abuse and use in inconsistent and meaningless ways, similar to how the term "supernatural" is arbitarily used, despite it being predicated on contemporary understandings of the natural world to begin with. (e.x. If people 1,000 of years ago had encountered a supercomputer, they likely would've chalked it up to "magic" or "sorcery" due to being well-outside of contemporary understandings of the natural world, even if, in theory, it could eventually be explained). So that, to me, harkens the quote that "any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". That would beg the question why one would need to "find science" at all, as opposed to electing to be willfully ignorant of the world or arbitrarily inventing their own way of making sense of it for them. Even presuming on the basis of common sense alone that "finding science" is better than not would be predicated on axioms which are outside the realm of science itself. The idea of there being one Supreme Being goes beyond any specific religion, or any specific religion's conception of that Supreme Being. (As an example from a Christian source, John Calvin acknowledged this to be true across cultures in his Institutes of the Christian Religion). I would distinguish this from polytheistic conceptions of "gods", which, to my understanding, weren't viewed as having supreme sovereignty over the entire cosmos or being mutually-exclusive to the existence of other polytheistic deities.

That will run into debates on the subject of free will. Why should people not be created with the ability to choose?

What are your thoughts on this? I was thinking of reading some books about transhumanism and sharing my thoughts. I'm personally interested in meditation and expanding the limits of the human mind and consciousness. Some transhumanist ideas, though, strike me as controversial - such as the concept of "uploading one's mind" to a computer or finding ways to "cheat death" with technology. (These would naturally run into debates about consciousness and the problem of associating human consciousness solely with the rational mind, which I believe is an outdated concept per evolutionary biology to begin with, since the human brain contains parts which govern sub-rational behaviors, such as those in humans and animals which govern instinct). One of the books I was interested in reading mentioned that these ideas originated in occult beliefs such as those of Rosicrucianism and have essentially adapted their ideas to modern or future technology.

I searched and didn't see a video games thread, so I decided to start one. I'm currently playing Death Stranding. It's very immersive, though the constant walking gets tedious. I tend to prefer shorter, sweeter games in general (the last game I was playing a lot was BlazBlue Entropy Effect).

This argument is simple. If someone argues that Hell (or some non-Abrahamic equivalent) doesn't exist, or takes a purely materialist perspective (e.x. and argues that, upon death, everyone ceases to exist), this is essentially leads to an absurdism, and justifies any form of antisocial behavior (including acts such as rape and murder) that a person wishes to engage in. The argument that I hear against this most frequently is that it is a non-issue, because "most people", whether they are atheist or otherwise, would not want to engage in such behaviors. But regardless, if someone was determined to do so, they could do so and there would be no ultimate reason not to other than to avoid possible earthly consequences for such behaviors. (And psychopaths do exist, so if a psychopath wanted to do such things, there would be no convincing reason for them not to, or only weakly convincing reasons, such as legal or other consequences which do not always immediately happen in the real world).

While violence in the the Bible is often used as a point of criticism (and has been even historically, with the Gnostics having criticized the violence in the Old Testament), I think it should at least be put into some historical context. The violence and draconian laws in the Old Testament originated in the Iron Age where similar laws would have been a norm across cultures. (These would have included laws proscribing capital punishment for various crimes, and acts of war). These were simply the laws and practices of a particular place and time (just as how laws in the 19th century US which permitted slavery would be considered barbaric by modern standards), and there is no Biblical requirement to perpetuate such practices in modern times, such as how Christians do not typically believe that they have to follow the dietary laws of the ancient Israelites (or how Paul, in the New Testament, specifically stated that Gentiles should not be expected to practice circumcision).

I'm not entirely sure. It could be various factors, such as: *The fact that "far-left" politics might be associated with Communism, which is hostile to religion. *The fact that many of the beliefs that Christians have don't actually originate from the Bible or historical Christian texts. (For example, some who claim to be Christians support views espoused Ayn Rand, despite her possibly having been part of the inspiration behind the Satanic Bible. Just as how most Christians in the US support the Enlightenment era politics of the US Constitution, such as the 1st Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion). Supposed views that all "poor are lazy" are usually just popular political talking points which "some Christians" might espouse, but likely have more basis in popular culture. (Though I'm not of the opinion that laziness or apathy isn't a factor at all in some people's lifestyle choices). The reality is that many popular religious views simply don't originate with any of their source texts, and simply arose from whatever cultural elements were existent at the time they became popular. (For example, many of the stricter Christian views on sex may simply be holdovers from the Victorian era, and have little to no basis in the text of the Bible; for that matter the Bible itself contains several explicit references to sex and nudity, such as in the Song of Solomon, so any excessively sex-negative view which is conflated with "Christianity" wouldn't be an authentically Christian or Biblical perspective).

That, in my view, isn't totally accurate if one adds more context to the text. For one, "heaven" isn't mentioned. What is mentioned is the "Kingdom of God". "Heaven" is mentioned in a variety of different ways in the Bible. (In the Genesis, for example, when God created the "heavens", this is usually taken to refer to the celestial bodies in outer space, while in Revelation, it is mentioned that there will be a "New Heaven" and a "New Earth"). There are other issues as well, such as the fact that the individual who Christ said this to was a prince, who presumably inherited his wealth. (Christ didn't seem to have issue with individuals such as vineyard owners whose professions would have made them wealthier than the average person). And given that Christ recruited a minority of disciples, he seemed to have stricter requirements for them than the layperson, such as requiring them to leave their father and mother and lead what seems to be a somewhat materially-renounced life. Likewise, if we take modernity into context, there would be issues with trying to put a specific "hard limit" on the amount of wealth a person can possess. As the average, middle class person in a 1st world country like America would be very wealthy compared to the average person in a country like India (and would likewise be very wealthy compared to the average person in Jesus' time). So this would degenerate into purely "comparative" wealth, in which one only views others as "wealthy" in comparison to them (while being ignorant, willfully or otherwise of the reality that they are indeed wealthy compared to many people in the world and throughout history). And this is often based on a superficial understanding of "wealth" which boils down to gawking at the material possessions of others. (e.x. If a person earned $1 billion dollars a year, but donated 99% to charity, would they still be "wealthy"? And how would these charities be able to function if there were not people with large amounts of money to donate to them?) Hence the problems with taking this verse out of context simply to make a political point. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

If I were to define it, I'd define it as a malevolent paranormal entity, or malevolent entity which can't be explained by contemporary understandings of the natural world. There is a book called "Demonic Foes" by psychiatrist Richard Gallagher which argues in favor of the existence of demons from a secular perspective, and that causes of possession tend to be associated with involvement in the occult. I'm not arguing in favor of this view, per se, just putting it out there as food for thought. It would be debatable then, that this is an "illness" as opposed to a type of creative genius, and not limited specifically to "religions". If this "gift" allowed them to successfully rally a multitude of people to a common cause, then I would see it as having social benefits, not just in religion, but in politics or other social movements. (If the "cause" itself was destructive, such as Hitler's charismatic ability to rally multitudes of people in support of fascism, then I would see that as the problem). As a historical example, I believe that Sitting Bull credited "visions" to his victory at Little Bighorn. I'm a bit skeptical of reductionism of the success of historical religious and political leaders to a mental disorder. Likewise, my perception is that individuals who meet the criteria of having a mental disorder rarely have the success that such historical figures do. (For example, many of them were well-educated and socially functional, while a homeless man raving on a street corner isn't likely to garner a successful following, at least in my view). I do believe that some of the behaviors associated with demonic possession in the Bible are related to mental illness.

Right, I was just using a scenario in which, if we accept that "the theory of gravity is true", then it would have been true regardless of whether rigor had currently been applied or been appliable to it. I'm aware that contemporary theories of gravity are subject to change, in practice.

This is my perception only, but art is part of human creativity. And creativity has intrinsic value. I believe that science is likewise an avenue for human creativity, and we naturally assume that science has intrinsic value. (Though art and science do have more practical uses as well, such as using science to invent technologies, or using art to promote political causes). If we go by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, then creativity is a part of self-actualization, which sits at the top of the hierarchy.

My argument is simple. Testing or rigor is a method of ensuring accuracy. However the truth value of something remains the same regardless of whether it is testable or not. As an example, if we accept that the modern theory of gravity is true, it still would have been true hundreds of years ago, even if a formal method of verifying it was not currently available. Newton's hypothesis would have been correct even prior to it being verified. (How he correctly arrived at his hypothesis prior to it having become pre-existing knowledge is a mystery, but it still would have been correct). This is not an attempt to say that testing or rigor has no worth. I'm merely pointing out that the truth value of something remains the same irrespective of the testing or rigor. Likewise, if a person, for example, solely believed that the modern theory of gravity is true because it had been priorly tested, this would run into absurdisms - such as, if one had been born in the day and age of Newton, they would have believed that his hypothesis was wrong if it hadn't been priorly tested or couldn't be tested at the time (meaning there would be no new discoveries or advancement of scientific knowledge at all, since no new hypotheses would be testable or have been tested at the time they were first arrived at).

I don't believe that psychopathy is entirely genetic. Some of it is learned behavior from one's environment or culture (e.x. a child who's father is a member of a drug cartel is probably more likely to engage in criminal behavior). "Gene-editing" people without their consent would potentially violate people's rights under the law, and I believe a good amount of society would oppose it, for similar reasons that population control is often opposed (even though, theoretically, I do believe we would be better off if certain abusive or negligent individuals were not allowed to have children of their own. However suggesting this in practice, in my experience, tends to be derided as "fascist" or "eugenical" even if factors such as race are excluded from the equation). I'd argue that dangerous or risky activities can still be useful, such as people who serve in military combat or law enforcement, or activities which require taking necessary risks. Even science requires risk-taking. So this may be why the traits themselves haven't disappeared. It's when they are used in destructive ways that it is considered psychopathic. (e.x. "Violence" itself still has positive uses, such as in the scenarios I mentioned regarding military and law enforcement. Taking risks is somewhat unavoidable in daily life, since even driving to the grocery store runs the risk of dying in a car accident, and advancing new scientific theories or starting a successful business requires risk-taking. An OCD extreme where a person is afraid to leave their room due to fear of being struck by a lightning bolt every time they venture outside wouldn't be socially healthy).

1. There are many free dating services, as well as places where you can meet people in person. You may have an issue with managing your money. 2. Occupations provide plenty of "free time". A person who works 40 hours a week and sleeps 8 hours a day still has 72 hours of time to devote to other things. You may have an issue with time managment. 3. I have no clue what you mean by "gender segregation". Or why you assume warfare and the other things you mentioned are all about "sex". If we use Maslow's hierarchy of needs as an example, purely physical needs such as "sexual intercourse" are fairly low on the hierarchy, and, taken on their own, can be entirely separate from higher needs such as love. 4. The way I see the term "incel" used today is primarily an insult and implies misogyny and a sense of entitlement to sex, often coupled with racist or far-right sentiments for some reason. (The irony is that most stereotypical incels likely suffer from mental illness and would have been branded as "defective" by far-right regimes such as that of Nazi Germany. I think an older term used to describe people who are "single and unhappy about it" was "loveshys", and you may want to go back to using that term, since "incel" pretty much exclusively has negative connotations.

That's inaccurate. "Fittest" in the context of natural selection doesn't have to do with "strength" or "weakness", but merely the most able to adapt to one's environment. Just as reproduction is primarily about the continuation of the collective, not the individual. (It would generally be more in the individual's immediate self-interest not to reproduce, rather than having to devote time and resources away from its self toward the offspring it produces, or endure the other forms of self-sacrifice that come from having offspring, such as the risk of dying in childbirth). Your description of it likely has more in common with Nazi German "social Darwinism" than actual biological evolution. And if it was as you say it is, then there would be no reason to believe in evolution to begin with, since there would be nothing beneficial to gain from doing so. Just as how society doesn't value people who "produce the most children" as it does people who provide higher forms of social benefit, such as people who have fewer children, but have accomplishments in sciences and arts. Issac Newton, who never married or had any children would be an example. We value him much more than we would a deadbeat who has 10 children with 10 different partners and is delinquent on their child support. Likewise, from a biological perspective, the survival of the collective supersedes that of the individual components. Such as how, in the human body, the survival of the human is dependent on the functioning of organs and systems (which are collectives of cells). While individual cells regularly die off and are replaced, and have little utility unless they aid the survival of the organ or system which they comprise. "Your" chance at reproduction doesn't matter as far as your own immediate self-interest is concerned. Reproduction is primarily about the collective interest, namely the continuation of the species. Many species don't even have a notion of paternity, for example. (Such as matriarchal societies like ant colonies, where the male ants are simply left to die off after mating with the queen). It would be far more in the individual's self-interest to avoid reproduction and simply extend its own life for as long as possible, even if the species as a whole goes extinct.