I got this from a post in an archived forum, a huge debate between Boris and dumaurier: Boris, your arguements against the perspectives that i present are often contradictory to your own ideas. You contradict yourself often. Now, it can become highly frustrating talking to you at times because you do not try to understand what is said in the arguement i have presented for your examination. You seem to jump to conclusions without stopping to ponder, without truly examining the depth of what is presented before your eyes (as in my post concerning the three kinds of formations where you really didn't try to understand what was said but simply lashed out with one personal opinion after another with nothing better to propose.) In brief, i am under the impression that you are simply trying to defend your points of view and not truly willing to closely examine the perspective i present for your scrutiny. This is due to the fact, i believe, that your one aim is to prove everybody else wrong and you right. This is the root of the god problem. Both sides of the argument seem to be saying this to one another. This proves the argument moot due to irreconcilable differences. One argument says "the act of making a decision without further evidence is retarded" and the other says "done deal, why don' t you get it?". Isn't the second argument nullified because it's based on an assumption. Try this: The game is "detect the truth". I say "God is the creator of the universe and omnipresent and bla blah typical christian god. Is that true?" Okay, there are three possible intinctual answers to a logical statment "true", "false" and "no decision made". Now, think of it as a Venn Diagram, half the circle is yes, half is no and outside the circle is "no decision". Does not "no decision" encompass both yes and no, making it absolutely infallible? I'm getting a little confused by myself at the moment, trying to say too much at once. Can anyone else formalize a rational argument based in the above?
In the end the question comes down to a matter of Epistemology. I.e. what is the nature of knowledge. Until both sides can agree on the criteria for evience and what constitutes knowledge then an agrement will never be possible. Ultimately one side will be proved correct, perhaps.
That's what I'm getting at. I believe it possible to prove. I'm working on it. Now, there's a problem, what if I'm right? What if you don't know it? I'm getting at the nature of knowledge but I'm saying that if one side can be proven, then the other side can just "nuh-uh" all day and well, is it still proof if you're right beyond a shadow of a doubt yet still told you're wrong. Copernicus. How many have died in for having a superior mind? Is that not it? I think we can formlate an argument that there can be no answer to the question that is air tight. It's really not all that hard. Problem is, I say "2+2 is 4" and they say "NO, 2+2 is 5". It is a matter of sanity an ability to recognize and indulge in reason. It is a matter of emotional stability beyond that which the theist disease provides. Once the disease takes hold, I don't think there is any way for the host to see truth anymore. I honestly think that the only way to come back is through a desire from that individual to seek objectivity, and even then it is slim odds to recover from that programming. This all makes me kind of frightened, interested, in awe of, and sickened at the same time. Could this be truth? (please theists, I already ... well, don't bother unless you really can't help yourself)
wes, OK but you are basing your proof on reason and logic. Theism doesn't use reason or logic they base their claims on faith, which they claim, is just as valid as reason. You can contrive the most solid rational argument possible and the religionist can dismiss it because it doesn't follow their rules of faith. You've lost before you even begin. But you know this as you say, and it is totally frustrating. What is needed is a weight of numbers to turn the tide. Most who claim to be Christian for example do so because that is the tradition in which they were born. Most have not made the decision for themselves. These are the sheep and the majority. The easiest method to convince the sheep would be a scientific breakthrough of some kind that dramatically threatens the basics of religious faith, e.g. the creation of a living creature from basic elements in the laboratory, or the demonstration of a fully independent and self-aware AI capable of intelligence that exceeds or equals man. Once we can show that the creation of intelligence and/or life is not the sole domain of God then the whole paradigm of God the creator and souls will come under much more intense scrutiny. The support for religion then will start to crumble in a very serious manner. The die-hard fanatics are always likely to exist but this new paradigm will leave them sidelined and irrelevant, providing we ensure they do not have access to nuclear weapons. The best policy for now is to be patient. The arrival of AI is seen as inevitable (within 20 years or less) and genetic engineering plus attempts to create life in the laboratory are already well in hand. It is now just a matter of time. The next century or less is going to be very dramatic with some massive changes on the near horizon. A great time in which to be alive.
Jaxom, The Christian meme - absolutely brilliant - many thanks for that link. I hope more people follow your link.
I read that linked article, and following that same line of thought... The existence of God can never be disproven, because anything brought up as a condradiction to religion is immediately remedied by an adaption to it. For example, you could bring up arguments to expose the irrationallity of God's reasoning(ie. why would God create humans that are so prone to sinning, or why would God let good people die), and religious spin doctors will provide an immediate shielding to this scrutiny(ie. God works in mysterious ways, or God has a plan) No matter what approach is taken- scientific, logical, or whatever- all attempts will fail in the dedicated mind of one infected with this mental virus. Religion is like clay, easy to mold because it has no true form.
Or when something remains within the realm of human imagination and has no factual basis then there is no end to the possible adaptations. Another parallel is that of cartoon characters who also are not bound by fact or the laws of nature.
I should thank you, Cris, since I ran across it following one of your other links elsewhere. A very good article indeed...puts it all into perspective.
Memetics So education in critical thinking in the early years seems to be the best "cure" to all irrational memes.
Jaxom, evilpoet, And I think just being aware of the memetic process is a big part of winning the battle. The recognition of being attacked and by what will allow people to seek appropriate inoculations. When presented with a new idea or potential rumor one should first consider its origins and validity before infecting others. Training in critical thinking indeed looks like the best form of protection. I have often criticized cynical people, and I suspect I always will, but that approach is probably a powerful defense against malignant memes. But cynicism is probably an example of an over active immune system, since it can also reject benign and helpful memes. Very nice topic. It has given me reason to pause for thought.
Jaxom, Good point. I believe the adults who are deeply infected are for the most part, lost. It really saddens me but I don't think it can be denied.
Cris, I am currently reading "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins and thought you might find these two excerpts from the book interesting. I also think both excerpts are very pertinent to the discussion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind. The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'cream.' Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms and eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain" "Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent 'mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value? Remember that 'survival value' here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."
How does something that is made up out of so many elements that, when combined, fill in the circle of truth so efficiently that it seems exactly like the truth, while it is in fact only a reconstruction of it? If the placebo and the original have the same form, effect, and both have some measurable parts and some unmeasurable parts, how do you know which is the real and which is not? The one that came first or the one that came to explain and validate the first? Maybe the idea of God persisted so well because He does exist. The theories and hypotheses under which He does or doesn't exist are all true within their own field of reason. Unfortunately arguments to either side cannot be both inclusive and complete. The semblance of truth does not make the truth invalid. It's easy to describe religion as a virus of the mind, just as anything that doesn't make sense seems foreign to that which does. What if, after all the AI and genetic advances, God still exists? Nobody will believe even then, because there will always be more to prove, and more to account for. Information fills the void of uncertainty, but can only describe reality, not replace it. It's a lovely battle we're fighting, but it's a common truth we seek.
OK wesmorris, let us observe the 3 main arguments of atheists here..(Cris, frenchy, etc.).. "The nature of earth is not an order, but pure chaos (the body, heart, liver, brain, etc..carnivors, omnivors, life, death, plants, etc.)" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "To know means to control (Omniscience=all KNOWING cannot co-exist with freewill..)" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Ok ok, let us just say that intelligent designer exist, but How do I know its not a giant purple squidmonkey that created us? THEREFORE GOD IS A MYTH BECAUSE OF GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY..." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wonder how you can apply the word "STUPID" to anyone. Im serious, if thats not stupidity, THEN WHAT IS????
Richard Dawkins? LOL, hahaha, the guy is a joke. He generalizess all christians, ignorant about scriptures, and there is definitely nothing scientific about a skin turning into an eyeball, LOL< I read some of his pathetic writings... Hes quoting all the pains religion did, BUT TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THAT THOSE PAINS WERE CAUSED BY HUMAN BEINGS, THATS RIGHT, HUMAN BEINGS, WHO ARE IMPERFECT. THE BIBLE SAID WE ARE ALL SINNERS, LOL....
""Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it." -Richard Dawkins
