You ever think about how disturbing it is that the majority of the human population derives their sense of morality not from what is best for humanity, but from God?
Like, none of it is up to negotiation to these people. Their model of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is not decided by them, but dictated to them from Elsewhere and they are not at liberty to change any of it. If God told them to rape children or commit unspeakable violence, they would surely do it without hesitation. There's no logic to any of it. They're not thinking about how their actions affect others, they're not thinking about their role in upholding society or why they should even bother doing this. They're just...following orders without questioning them.

Yes it's disgusting but times are changing. I noticed your statistics are from 2010. Children are becoming more and more secular, especially in MENA countries. It's mostly sub Sahara Africa and South Asia that are more religious.

>>81962718 (OP)
>what is best for humanity
What is best for humanity?

>>81962742
Rational secularism rooted in objective truth.

>>81962718 (OP)
I suppose it is a bit alarming, that is if they don't only use it for comfort or something of the sort. Believing in god helps some people get through things. I don't believe in any traditional gods or follow any rules from a big book. I do what I think is right.

>>81962749
The famed philosopher king

>>81962749
That's not actually saying anything. To what ends?

>>81962770
What do you mean "ends?" If it is true, then it's your obligation to believe it.

>>81962742
Secular morality.
>if we all start killing and raping and stealing from each other then our lives will be shit and we will die early
>so let's not do that then
>problem solved
Human survival depends on the ability to collaborate. Collaboration takes place most effectively through the formation of complex societies. Morality then becomes informed by how one's actions affect society.
>benefits society -- moral
>harms society -- immoral
>does not affect society at all -- amoral

As opposed to religious morality:
>god says do thing
>god's will is supreme
>do thing
God says stone the homosexuals, you stone homosexuals. Homosexuals hide. People start accusing everyone of possibly being homosexual regardless of whether or not they are because the ones who are will never admit it outright. Now everyone is in some abstract danger of being stoned to death if too many people suspect them of being a homosexual. Society becomes, in itself, a source of danger and not safety, thus defeating the purpose of building a society.

>>81962778
What is best? Like objectively speaking Genghis Khan is the pinnacle of evolutionary fitness. Why wouldn't we be striving towards that?

>>81962833
>our lives will be shit and we will die early
If avoiding suffering and existential dread is what's best then the most rational position is anti-natalism.

>>81962964
Correct. I am an antinatalist. Moral frameworks are still necessary for those that are born, however.

>>81962979
Ah, me too, I'm this anon, >>81962764
We might have similar morals and philosophical beliefs, feel like its hard to find other people like this.

>>81962964
continuation of the species is necessary for the continuation of society and, by extension, and avoidance of suffering and existential dread. it is possible to create utopia and avoid unnecessary turmoil, but you need people to accomplish this.

>>81962994
Kek. This is the spirit behind the French revolution and Marxism. You'd best start believing in religions, because you're in one.

>continuation of the species is necessary for the continuation of society and, by extension, and avoidance of suffering and existential dread.
This doesn't follow. The only way to end suffering and existential dread is to end the species.

>>81962833
you're a complete pseud. we already tried "rational government" starting with the French revolution and it led to the most tyrannical and murderous regimes in history. "what's good for society" is completely subjective and will inevitably lead to evil or dumb decisions that increase the power of the rulers

>>81963181
>"what's good for society" is completely subjective
That's kind of the point. Everything in constant negation, evaluation and reevaluation. Bad shit begins to happen if morality becomes too stonelike and unmovable.

>>81963181
What's good for society is decided by the citizens that comprise it on a collective level, and their verdict may change and fluctuate with time as circumstances and conditions change. Sudden shifts in moral values may lead to cataclysmic changes in social dynamics that lead to immense suffering, but that has to do more with the minutia of how sociopolitical movements are coordinated, executed and defended. Objective morality wouldn't solve that problem. It would only create a counterproductive society.

>>81962718 (OP)
All top down moral models are inherently broken. Each human is more than equipped to choose their own actions. The best moral framework is the more permissive: All consensual acts are good, all non-consensual acts are bad unless they're done to prevent non-consensual harm (e.g., arresting a murderer). Freedom is the only correct model, everything else is as close to evil as we can get.

>>81963096
>This doesn't follow.
what about it are you not understanding?
>The only way to end suffering and existential dread is to end the species.
the processes involved in ending the species would only exacerbate the problems you just mentioned.

>>81963096
>This is the spirit behind the French revolution and Marxism.
Is...is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>>81963096
>>81963181
if we all follow a set of moral values and codes that do nothing but hurt us all, of what use are those moral codes?

>>81963308
>the processes involved in ending the species would only exacerbate the problems you just mentioned.
What are you babbling about, lmao. More people = more suffering and existential dread. Zero people = zero suffering and existential dread.

>>81963329
Well, these people killed more people than all the worlds gods combined. I guess it's not a bad thing if you're an anti-natalist.

>>81963358
>What are you babbling about, lmao. More people = more suffering and existential dread.
not necessarily. as long as there are people around to solve problems, problems remain solvable.
>Zero people = zero suffering and existential dread.
not necessarily. this implies the nonexistence of an afterlife or supernatural realm is known for fact.

>>81963391
>this implies the nonexistence of an afterlife or supernatural realm is known for fact
Mature adults don't believe in magic

>>81962718 (OP)
>Their model of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'
Here's a secret Op, there isn't any concept of 'right & 'wrong'. A persons concept of it is just 'what's free to do' vs 'what I'll get punished for'
>There's no logic to any of it.
Yeah, just human impulse

>>81963358
Capitalism's death toll is far, far higher than communism's.
Also if we're assuming any god is real then from a very literal standpoint it's not possible for communism to have killed more people than the being responsible for all of humanity. God created all, which means He created all of the things that kill us, which means God killed all of us even if we're not dead yet.

>>81963411
according to OP's statistic as of 2010 most of mature adults do. the supernatural is neither proven nor disproven.

>>81962718 (OP)
You should be glad that people who lack inner morals have an external force as kind as God that tries to keep them in line. If you took away their god they would not just magically develop their own moral compass. They'd be getting their morality from the nearest charismatic Chad, or they would just lack morality all together.

>>81963419
>Capitalism's death toll is far, far higher than communism's.
Why are you assigning a death toll to a concept, a thing that only exists on paper?

>>81963181
>rational secular morality is bad because that one time we tried completely demolishing the fucking government for sustained abuses of power in the name of divine morality, chaos ensued and shit didn't go so smoothly
>therefore, authoritarianism is good actually
christcucks unironically think this way

>>81963433
>according to OP's statistic as of 2010 most of mature adults do
Most adults do, most adults are immature apparently. The supernatural has no evidence to support its existence, has never been observed, and will never be observed. We no longer believe in the Greek gods and in a thousand years or ten, we will no longer believe in the Abrahamic gods either. Believing in religion is a sign of sub-clinical mental retardation.

>>81962749
This doesn't actually mean anything, Anon. These are just words. Rational secularism based in objective truth can be interpreted any way anybody wants. It's an objective truth that all happiness is dependent on other living things suffering in some way, so how do you resolve this? Killing everyone gets rid of all suffering.

>>81963454
Concepts can exist outside of paper. They're immaterial. They can, however, have real-world impact.

>>81962718 (OP)
lack of religion is way higher than it was in 2010, basically almost all zoomers aren't believers

>>81963469
>The supernatural has no evidence to support its existence
correct.
>has never been observed,
we can't be sure of that.
>and will never be observed
we can't be sure of that either.

funny thing about science, there is no proof. only evidence.
there is no evidence of the existence of a supernatural realm, but no evidence disproving it either. "we don't know what's in the box" =/= "we haven't haven't evidence of anything being in the box, therefore the box must not contain anything at all"

you're not gonna get to know what's in the box until you open it.

>>81963503
>we haven't haven't evidence
we haven't seen evidence^

>>81963477
Fair, but you would need to categorise the amount of deaths caused by people under capitalism. Not by capitalism itself (as it's a word), while also distinguishing what deaths are natural. (Due to its widespread nature)

>>81963419
>Capitalism's death toll is far, far higher than communism's.
by orders of magnitude lol

>>81963562
I always feel like including conquests by imperialist governments under "capitalism" is a bit disingenuous and always makes the normal people you are talking to roll their eyes. When somebody says "King George", nobody thinks "ah yes the famous capitalist", you know? The little comment saying that the communists "removed a monarch" with regards to the civil war is also disingenuous and lets you know the person who made this is actually just a seething, coping tankie who doesn't actually care about death tolls and just wants to make a point.

That being said, capitalism and systems that are entirely focused on Number Go Up are anti-human.

>>81963562
>attribution fallacy
>lack of causality
>exaggeration of numbers
>natural disasters are listed
Can niggers just read their copypasta oml

>>81963474
It does. The truth is not subjective.

>>81963717
There is an objective reality to all things, but the interpretation of that reality and truth is out to fallible and unreliable human brains. You know, meat with electricity in it. "Rational thought" is also subjective. You basically just espoused a nonsense "philosophy" that even a teenager could conceive of without understanding the ramifications.

No that's bullshit. Eating pussy is way easier than sucking dick, but being really good at sucking dick is harder than being really good at eating pussy. The floor to sucking dick is lower, but the ceiling is higher.

>>81962718 (OP)
Christians don't really derive their morality from the bible, they just say/think they do. It says to stone adulterers, no one does that. It gives detailed instructions on how to keep and beat your slaves, no one does that. It says the homosexuality is a sin. Some people still believe this, but it is the most recent change, is a small minority, and it will eventually die out too.
Christians get their morality from the culture they live in, just like everyone else. Morality is a social consensus.

>>81963930
Social consensus, mixed with basic human empathy, of course.

>>81963930
Christians believe that the New Testament is a part of the Bible.

>>81963503
Yes yes and we have no evidence for or against ghosts being in charge of all stochastic process in the universe either, but we can dismiss it out of hand because it's retarded. Typically hypotheses are created using available evidence. If there is no evidence for something, why are we even considering it? If you remove god or religion from the universe, what changes? If you remove gravity then a significant portion of our reality ceases to make sense. No god, no change, why believe in it?

>>81962718 (OP)
>You ever think about how disturbing it is that the majority of the human population derives their sense of morality not from what is best for humanity, but from God?
Religion is a good tool for useful idiots to follow from the elites of society.
I say that as an Atheist. Religion has it's uses. Let smarter people take advantage of them.

>>81962718 (OP)
none of those retards actually read the book
theres literally zero talk of "masturbation is bad" in there

>>81962718 (OP)
>There's no logic to any of it.
You ever think it's disturbing that the human population derives their sense of logic from God?

>>81964652
>we can dismiss it out of hand because it's retarded
no, we can't. that's a staunchly anti-scientific mode of operation. plenty of things we know about reality are ridiculous. doesn't make them any less real. we cannot fully dismiss unsubstantiated claims until we have evidence that they are untrue. lack of evidence confirming their truth isn't in itself proof of the opposite.

if I tell you my house is on fire, and you ask me if I can prove it, and I say "well no," that in itself does not "prove" that it's factually impossible that my house is currently ablaze. you simply don't know if I am or am not lying to you. that's all you know for sure.
you can't tell me you know for a fact that my house is currently on fire because it just, like, sounds retarded to even think that.

this is how the burden of proof works.

anti-theists are so strange. they call theists retarded for stating the existence of God as indisputable fact, and then in the same breath turn around and do the exact same thing. THE BOX IS NOT YET OPEN.

>>81965282
>inb4 "I'm not an anti-theist, I'm an atheist"
no, you're not. an atheist merely doesnt subscribe to any particular religion for lack of evidence substantiating that religion. you claim to know for a fact that God does not exist, as if you have evidence to that end, which is a different thing. not believing and disbelieving are two different concepts.

>>81965282
>if I tell you my house is on fire, and you ask me if I can prove it, and I say "well no,"
But there is a clear way to determine the veracity. I simply travel to your house and see the smoldering ruins. There is no way to do this with religion. There is no possible experimental design that could conclusively disprove religion to the adherents. What evidence would YOU accept that god isn't real? The things attributed to god have shrunk over time. The big bang replacing the 6 days of creation, evolution replacing humans being made as is in the Garden of Eden, and so on.
>anti-theists are so strange
Even if god was real, we should combat him as much as possible. We should not allow tyrants to reign supreme over us. Either humanity is at the top, or the top must die.
>THE BOX IS NOT YET OPEN.
Personally I think unicorns live in the center of the sun. You don't agree? You are an apostate and must be jailed for the rest of your life ye spawn of Satan. It's just make believe nonsense. If people would believe in private that would be fine, but I shouldn't have to suffer from their delusions.

>>81965312
Atheists don't believe in any god or religion. I AM an anti-theist. I think all religion should be abolished and if any religion is "true" we should absolutely wage a war of annihilation against that deity. You're conflating agnostics with atheists for some reason.

>>81965322
>I simply travel to your house and see the smoldering ruins.
and what if I can't take you to my house right now, for whatever reason? what if I know my house is on fire but I just can't provide evidence of it? is that proof that my house is not on fire?
what if you reject whatever evidence I DO provide to you? I take you to my house and you see that it is in flames, then I have to prove to you that it is in fact my house using documents. and then I'd have to prove that those documents aren't forged. etc, etc. where does your disbelief end?
>There is no possible experimental design that could conclusively disprove religion to the adherents.
which is why science cannot always supply definitive answers. unsatisfying, I know, but there are things that lie outside the bounds of human knowledge. this is where we get into metaphysics and epistemology.
>What evidence would YOU accept that god isn't real?
you just said that's impossible to prove.
>The things attributed to god have shrunk over time.
this doesn't prove God's non existence. it may demonstrate the inaccuracy of religious doctrine, but that's a different goalpost entirely.
>The big bang replacing the 6 days of creation,
the Big Bang is still a theory. it is not accepted as fact (yet.) and how does the Big Bang disprove God's existence?
>evolution replacing humans being made as is in the Garden of Eden, and so on.
again, this does not disprove the existence of God or some sort of creator. only the events mentioned in the Bible.
>Even if god was real, we should combat him as much as possible.
why? you speak with such objectivity, it's sickening.

>>81965322
>>81965416
>We should not allow tyrants to reign supreme over us.
why not? you keep doing this thing where you view an image that isn't yet finished being painted. it feels like you're incapable of grappling with the idea of simply not knowing.
>Either humanity is at the top, or the top must die.
why????
what if killing God brings consequences you didn't anticipate? what if God is a solipsist? what if our actions are predetermined and we don't actually get the option to even try? there are so many possibilities here and you keep operating as if you know for a fact what the answer is. that is the OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE.
>Personally I think unicorns live in the center of the sun. You don't agree? You are an apostate and must be jailed for the rest of your life ye spawn of Satan.
all I said was that you do not know for a fact that there is no God. we do not know for a fact that there is one, but we also aren't sure if the opposite either. it's a big question mark.
>It's just make believe nonsense.
[citation needed]
>If people would believe in private that would be fine, but I shouldn't have to suffer from their delusions.
who said anything about imposing religious beliefs as fact? how many times do I have to reiterate the ambiguity of this informational void?

>>81965341
anon, no offense but you are incredibly retarded. you're making the reddit atheists look like PhD students.

you have yet to prove that no God exists, yet you claim all religion should be forcibly abolished (as if nebulous ideas can be extinguished) even though you also claim what you dictate as fact is also impossible to prove...
you're essentially just saying "all religion is inherently evil and nonsensical because I say so, end of story."

you are plugging your ears and going "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" the way a young child would.

>>81965416
>and what if I can't take you to my house right now, for whatever reason?
The point is that I *could* go to your house and see it, not that I *have* to go to your house. There is a method of verification even if not possible at this exact moment.
>I take you to my house and you see that it is in flames, then I have to prove to you that it is in fact my house using documents
And that's all strictly within the real of possibility
>you just said that's impossible to prove
And is that your answer?
>this doesn't prove God's non existence. it may demonstrate the inaccuracy of religious doctrine
The Bible is purportedly God's word. Did God lie?
>the Big Bang is still a theory
A well supported one
>how does the Big Bang disprove God's existence
It disproves the 6 days of creation which the Bible purports is how reality came to be
> this does not disprove the existence of God
Please reread my argument. I said the things attributed to God constantly shrink and gave these as examples.
>why? you speak with such objectivity, it's sickening
Because freedom is more important than some tyrant's desire to rule over creation. Humanity alone should be in charge of our future.

>>81965416
>>81965423
the worst part: I'm not even religious! I'm literally a fucking atheist! I just happen to acknowledge that although I see no concrete evidence for God's existence, God is not an impossibility. fuck you for making me defend mysticism from your flagrant retardation.

>>81962718 (OP)
>>81962749

>secularism is best for humanity

Morality can not be gathered from "objective truth" or empirical processes. But even more important , secular systems seem to fail at every attempt to create a promised "rational" moral utopia. In any case I suggest secularism is from a Darwinian perspective a maladaptive human trait. Secular societies don't seem to survive or produce a healthy society. Secular nations have, without exception, plumetting birthrates etc.

>>81965423
>why not?
Because freedom is more important.
>why????
You trust some god to reign over us? Or some aliens? I certainly don't.
>what if killing God brings consequences you didn't anticipate?
Freedom is worth whatever consequences come.
>what if our actions are predetermined and we don't actually get the option to even try?
Then we can't try and we just exist as slaves forever.
>that is the OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE
Science isn't an ideology. I am interested in freedom and only freedom. God precludes freedom.
>it's a big question mark
And assuming that god does not exist requires no change in our understanding of the world ergo god functionally does not exist
>who said anything about imposing religious beliefs as fact?
Are you new on this planet?
>>81965450
I don't have to prove it, people positing god exists need to prove it and they cannot. Religion is evil because it's a means of control. People need to be free. Religion precludes freedom.

>>81965487
>Freedom is worth whatever consequences come.

Secular societies don't produce freedom, only deeper enslavement.

>>81965514
>Secular societies don't produce freedom, only deeper enslavement.
You have causation wrong. Religious society produces slaves by default, secular society is capable of not doing so but is not guaranteed to be free. You can not have freedom of expression under religion because it is a threat to the brainwashing and religion breaks without the brainwashing.

>>81965459
>The point is that I *could* go to your house and see it,
not if I don't tell you where my house is. not if you physically cannot get to my house. the point is that there may be a scenario where I cannot prove something that is certainly true is true. the lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.
>not that I *have* to go to your house.
that was never the point.
>There is a method of verification even if not possible at this exact moment.
...if there is no possible method of verification, then there is no possible method of verification. that's the whole point of the scenario.
>And is that your answer?
it's the only answer you allow. I'm adhering to the standard you just set.
>The Bible is purportedly God's word. Did God lie?
1.) God lying is not impossible
2.) it is possible that all religions are wrong but God still exists. get your head out of the abrahamic religions.
>A well supported one
but still not quite fact. and still not contradictory to the possibility of a creator.
>It disproves the 6 days of creation
that's not what I asked you. again, get your head out of Christianity in specific. how do we know the Big Bang theory was not set in motion by some sort of creator?
>which the Bible purports is how reality came to be
what if the Bible is wrong but some God that no man made religion has managed to articulate still exists? what if God is out there but we haven't found it yet?
>Please reread my argument. I said the things attributed to God constantly shrink and gave these as examples.
you are misunderstanding MY argument.
>Because freedom is more important than some tyrant's desire to rule over creation.
why? you literally don't even know what God is or wants. you're attacking something you've made up in your mind.
>Humanity alone should be in charge of our future.
why?

>>81965459
>>81965576
>81965487
>Because freedom is more important.
there's that arrogant objectivity again.
>You trust some god to reign over us? Or some aliens? I certainly don't.
it's not about trust. it's about the nature of reality, which is indifferent to what you want or what you trust. how do you intend to fight God when you don't even know where He is? how do you wage war with the immaterial? how will you battle the fabric of reality itself?
>Freedom is worth whatever consequences come.
you don't know that. you don't even know what the consequences may be.
>Then we can't try and we just exist as slaves forever.
possibly.
>Science isn't an ideology.
you don't seem to know that. it's a methodology, and you're fucking doing it wrong.
claim: x is true.
x has no evidence.
conclusion: x is false.
are you seeing the logical leap there? I'll give you a hint, there's a reason we distinguish between "not true" and "false."
>I am interested in freedom and only freedom.
so interested in freedom, in fact, that you've lost interest in logic itself.
>And assuming that god does not exist requires no change in our understanding of the world ergo god functionally does not exist
and if you're wrong?
this is why I brought it up in the first place. your antinatalism stance implies choosing to disbelieve in God makes it so.
>Are you new on this planet?
I'm not The World. I'm not trying to impose any religious law on you. I'm simply saying that you do not know for a fact that there exists no supernatural realm.
>I don't have to prove it, people positing god exists need to prove it and they cannot
yes but again, you don't fully seem to understand how the burden of proof works. if these people make a claim and that claim remains unsubstantiated, the unsubstantiation of that claim cannot in itself be counted as evidence that the claim is objectively false. the claim merely remains UNSUBSTANTIATED. it remains an unknown until it is concretely proven or disproven, which it is neither.

>>81965576
>not if I don't tell you where my house is
Again, the point is that it's possible. The evidence exists and we all know how to get to the evidence and verify it. With religion, there is no evidence, no one knows where the evidence is, how to evaluate it, etc.
>that's the whole point of the scenario
Your scenario was easily verifiable though
>it's the only answer you allow. I'm adhering to the standard you just set
You can't think for yourself?
>get your head out of the abrahamic religions
I'm going with what I know. I don't know much about Hinduism or Buddhism or any other religion.
>but still not quite fact
Well then nothing is a fact even gravity could just be some quirk of spacetime instead of an actual force, right? But there's evidence that gravity, or something that appears to be gravity, exists. The same for the Big Bang. But nothing for any god.
>how do we know the Big Bang theory was not set in motion by some sort of creator?
How do we know the universe wasn't made yesterday and we all just have fake memories?
>what if God is out there but we haven't found it yet?
I worry about this. We need to develop better weapons just in case.
>you literally don't even know what God is or wants
God could be benevolent hyper tech aliens and I would answer the same way. Unless humanity is on top (we can share the top even!), we need to fight. We can not allow ourselves to be number 2. No human god, to my knowledge, allows humans to just become fellow gods universally. If god is willing to completely and universally share the top spot, fine we can be friends. Otherwise, annihilation.
>why?
Personally I don't want to be a slave or servant. I would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven so to speak. If we aren't in charge of our future, then someone or something else is and that thing is the enemy.

>>81965585
>there's that arrogant objectivity again.
Freedom is the ultimate prize though. Freedom allows each of us to choose our future. Honestly, if some people choose to be slaves, so be it. But we can not be forced into slavery.
>it's about the nature of reality
Which we must strive to gain control over
>how do you intend to fight God when you don't even know where He is
If we find God, we study him, and we destroy him. No earth religion is going to reveal anything about this supposed god though.
>how do you wage war with the immaterial?
I would be excited to find out!
>you don't know that. you don't even know what the consequences may be
I don't care what they are, anything is worth it.
>are you seeing the logical leap there?
Not true is not what we go with. We go with "cannot reject the null hypothesis" which is not "not true". Not true is literally false, this is basic logic, like the first thing you learn in logic.
>so interested in freedom, in fact, that you've lost interest in logic itself
I never said I was interested in logic. I'm a hedonist not a scientist.
>and if you're wrong?
Then nothing, even if I'm wrong I wouldn't change my stance. God is a concept I cannot accept. If god exists, it must be destroyed.
>your antinatalism stance
???
>you do not know for a fact that there exists no supernatural realm
Nothing about our understanding of reality allows for it to exist. There's more evidence for aliens than the supernatural.
>it remains an unknown until it is concretely proven or disproven, which it is neither
Jesus, you must live in such a horrifyingly uncertain reality. I find it quite easy to just reject retarded claims out of hand. No evidence, no belief; quite easy.

>>81965657
>I never said I was interested in logic.
well then there's no logical reason for me to continue this conversation with you. I just deleted the full response I was constructing as soon as I saw you say this. goodbye.

>>81965713
Haha why are you a little piss baby? I took logic in uni and it's whatever. I don't build my identity around it. Whatever, have a good night m80.

>>81965733
>I took logic in uni
did...did you not pay attention? there is a distinction between "not true" and "false."
you know what, it's not worth it. my thumbs hurt from typing and I'm done. gnite anon.

>>81965774
>there is a distinction between "not true" and "false."
The negation of true is false what are you talking about?

>>81965786
there exists space between them. there's a secret third option.
"not true" means "not confirmed," or "not proven to be true." "false" is "directly contrary to what the truth is."

if you make a statement that is unsubstantiated or impossible to verify, it is not true, but not yet proven false either. it becomes false when the truth is discovered to be in direct contradiction to the statement made.

>>81962718 (OP)
The highest level of enlightenment is realizing that there exists no logical contradiction between a scientific model of the universe and a belief in a panzoistic god. The universe is alive. Just like the multitude of life itself, morphing, bending. From hydrogen to stars to planets to water to amino acids to DNA acids to cells to multicellular organisms to protists to animals to mammals to monkeys to homo erectus to homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens to language and agriculture to the printing press to radio...and currently, the internet. The universe has a will, open your eyes to the multitude of wonders...listen carefully, and you will see it.

But speaking more practically yes, connection with the divine (at least for me wasn't raised religious) is a highly personal thing...I personally dislike dogma believing in something because someone told you to. Everyone needs their own connection to the divine, but once you see it, you can't unsee it.

And a degree of "belief in the unseen" and "faith" in my humble opinion are necessary tenets for a true scholar in my opinion. Logic is flawed. The universe is not a string of axioms into propositions into propositions, it's not a graph. Yes, it does show everything is connected, but just the "skeleton". But the "connectedness" is what truly matters and is the essence of reality.

But yes, it is important to distinguish science and faith. The separation is necessary.

>>81965813
However, as a physicist I cannot truly trust a fellow scientist as my comrade in progress even if you have the greatest conscience. There is a dangerous price we pay for our materialist thinking. We aren't flesh automatons animated by neurotransmitters, its a horrible detached way of looking at the world...and we can't play god.

The original sin. When Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil...she gained something precious, but also dangerous. A choice. But we can't truly judge right from wrong, it led too many horrors. Don't take the story literally, think of what the story is trying to say, metaphorically. Judgment isn't for men, it's for gods. God. When we pass judgment onto others, in the end we invite nothing but misery. We all do it mind you...but someone who has reached true enlightenment knows when and how to defer a judgment to god. We are humans. Not gods...or God.

Atomic bombs. Eugenics. Scientific racism. Lobotomies being a good example of the price of our collective hubris. When we play god we create poison to fight poison, a never-ending chain of misery. We can't sit idle, but we need faith in the divine. Believing that our limited models account to a true a complete model of the universe is hubris. There is wisdom in the divine, and you rely on "faith" without realizing it anyways...after all, who decides if an axiom is true? They're just obviously true...right? Wink wink.

Anyways I was lucky to find the greater will on my own (inb4 schizo) but I can also give you a step by step process on how to find god even for psychically deaf people like the Jews figured it out literally millennia ago and kept it as secret because they wanted it for myself but I'm leaking it.

Behold...Kabbalah...a flowchart on how to have a spiritual experience for dummies...

>>81965811
The issue with falsey values is that they turn everything into a falsey value, there's no usefulness in them in constructing a worldview and you typically try to remove them safely when encountered.
>>81965813
You'd get a kick out of How to Build Conscious Machines

>>81962749
>objective truth
ah... such as? which objective truths do you propose to derive morality from?

>>81962847
We should be striving towards that. Are you telling me you do not, every day, wake up and try to be more like genghis than the day before?

>>81965880
Morality is a spook you can just ignore it

>>81965841
falsey values are actually quite critical. they don't "turn everything into falsey values," logic flows from context. they're useful in building worldviews precisely because they express absence. zero stays.
but srsly I'm tired as fuck you wore me out so I'm gonna stop there. byebye anon