Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said: 

Xadem said: 

 Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false. 

Is it not proof that every living creature has a purpose behind every underlining part that makes them, which also has a purpose ? Or are we to think all of this came to be unguided. 

The purpose has been survival, and that being lifehacked by humans is largely why we're seeing more varied/degenerate traits being passed on surviving. 

The reason why the humming birds drink the specifically shaped flowers local to their homes is not because those flowers were made especially for them, it's because the ones who couldn't consume the nectar from those flowers died before they could have babies. 

It's as guided or unguided as "Supply and Demand". 

For every living creature there is male and female. To think this is a shot in the dark by an inanimate, unconscious coincidence is absurd. 

Asexual Reproduction.

Male + Female pairing was mostly stumbled upon as a faster, more efficient way to allow for more varied offspring. It allowed immune system recombinations that could survive changing conditions, unlike most forms of asexual reproduction. 

Gender also isn't as cut and dry as "male + female" once you leave the kingdom of mammals. You ever look into how frogs handle gender? They can spontaneously shift from one to another in dire cases of the population only exhibiting one. 

If you shrink your sights down to the things within living beings which, too, are also alive, you see a lot more ways of surviving than just "male + female". 

The Almighty Science has also founded Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy for three parent children. 

The complexity of the eye happened to be made or evolve as it is, meanwhile light exists while the eye is dependant on light, while the gas that surrounds us, we're breathing right now, is conveniently invisible for the light and the eye. We're to believe these dots were connected unguided, and without any consciousness?

Have you seen how many variations there are on the senses we take for granted once you spread your search across all organisms? 

Life's found so many different ways to do things. The eye as we know and understand it is just one of so many. There's even spectrums of light we can't pick out with the naked eye, smells we can't fully comprehend that other creatures can understand with a depth and complexity that'd have taken us ages (ie: Bloodhounds), there's creatures that sweat through their mouths and tongues instead of their pores, even our pores which can absorb surrounding moisture is outclassed by this weird lizard that consumes moisture from surrounding sand through it's scales. 

If life has shown me anything, it's that this stuff can get pretty fucking random once you pass the veil of surviving your more immediate conditions and needs. A lot of what has us assume there's a designer behind similarities across species could easily be explained as rooting from a common ancestor. 

The trees/plants cannot survive without creatures, and creatures cannot survive without them either, the exchange of gasses being one reason.

If we'd never left the ocean, you'd likely be attributing how we'd not be surviving without the oxygen provided by local algae, and that that too must be attributed to the conscious choices of an intelligent designer. 

It's all relative. To another functional system our system would be the one that looks like chaos. 

Science doesn't know how bacteria could have been alive, While we have yet to bring life to anything, other than our offspring which is how we're are coded and built to begin with since out beginning. None of our technology can hold a candle to the complexity of a flea, when we modify genetics we're doing it with borrowed materials that are alive, and we're to believe we who are conscious was outdone/outclassed by an unconsciousness that did this from scratch. 

I'd argue in modern history that we're still in a transitionary stage. Things are changing rapidly all the time, and to figure how life must work from this vantage point serves to ignore where we're likely to end up. 

We're liable to find more and more answers with Science as time goes on, even related to bug complexity and bacteria (micro-organisms, controlling roaches with machines in their butt, etc), and once we've essentially created what to us would seem like a deity through technology that's liable to boom even further. 

Time is the main factor here, we just need more of it instead of giving up on how it's not "right now". 

Without the claws the cat wouldn't survive, as every creature has what it needs to have a fighting chance in the chain. Disrupting that chain can result in the extinction of other species. From what I've gathered, if the Bees were gone, human beings would be facing real problems. 

Survival of the Fittest gets around it having to be a choice, and it's illustrated right here. 

Any cats born without claws likely didn't live as long or produce as many offspring, having the fate of such clawless cats become limited. We're starting to show signs of weakening teeth and nails as our trophy for surpassing nature, and if we really worked at it we could probably produce a clawless breed of cat that could survive much like how the modern house cat does now. 

It's much wiser to be agnostic than atheist in my opinion. For the atheist it's all doubt without leaving an open channel to other possibilities while not having all the answers.

Why's everyone got to be so defeatist about Atheists? Just because they aren't sitting on a wishy washy mid-ground perspective doesn't mean that a different truth couldn't appeal to them. 

Many atheists are simply that from no faith they've encountered making enough sense to them to be accepted as reality. Imagine your typical Christian reading The Koran or The Shruti/Smriti, do you just expect them to drop their faith and pick up another one just because someone presented them with it as another possibility? 

They have to be appealed to to become converted, as otherwise most will just conform to their more nationalist ranges for faith. 

It's like a finalization of character who narrows down the creator to despicable religion while having nothing to look forward to other than a short life span and ceasing to exist.   

I mean if it turns out to be something else? Cool, I guess. 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Xadem said: 

 Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false. 

Is it not proof that every living creature has a purpose behind every underlining part that makes them, which also has a purpose ? Or are we to think all of this came to be unguided. 

The purpose has been survival, and that being lifehacked by humans is largely why we're seeing more varied/degenerate traits being passed on surviving. 

The reason why the humming birds drink the specifically shaped flowers local to their homes is not because those flowers were made especially for them, it's because the ones who couldn't consume the nectar from those flowers died before they could have babies. 

It's as guided or unguided as "Supply and Demand". 

Simply put, our design has purpose. Like the hand on the arm, and it's articulations. As for the hummingbird. Their beak so happen to be designed specifically toward how they use them while they hover around. It's important, and it's design like all things, is "intended"

For every living creature there is male and female. To think this is a shot in the dark by an inanimate, unconscious coincidence is absurd. 

Asexual Reproduction.

Male + Female pairing was mostly stumbled upon as a faster, more efficient way to allow for more varied offspring. It allowed immune system recombinations that could survive changing conditions, unlike most forms of asexual reproduction. 

Gender also isn't as cut and dry as "male + female" once you leave the kingdom of mammals. You ever look into how frogs handle gender? They can spontaneously shift from one to another in dire cases of the population only exhibiting one. 

If you shrink your sights down to the things within living beings which, too, are also alive, you see a lot more ways of surviving than just "male + female". 

Okay I never included Asexual reproduction. Still, like gender reproduction, that is a complexed method, with ( are you ready for this ?) Purpose. As we know, we never get something from nothing.

The complexity of the eye happened to be made or evolve as it is, meanwhile light exists while the eye is dependant on light, while the gas that surrounds us, we're breathing right now, is conveniently invisible for the light and the eye. We're to believe these dots were connected unguided, and without any consciousness?

Have you seen how many variations there are on the senses we take for granted once you spread your search across all organisms? 

Life's found so many different ways to do things. The eye as we know and understand it is just one of so many. There's even spectrums of light we can't pick out with the naked eye, smells we can't fully comprehend that other creatures can understand with a depth and complexity that'd have taken us ages (ie: Bloodhounds), there's creatures that sweat through their mouths and tongues instead of their pores, even our pores which can absorb surrounding moisture is outclassed by this weird lizard that consumes moisture from surrounding sand through it's scales. 

If life has shown me anything, it's that this stuff can get pretty fucking random once you pass the veil of surviving your more immediate conditions and needs. A lot of what has us assume there's a designer behind similarities across species could easily be explained as rooting from a common ancestor. 

Well yeah. Various creatures all have different abilities and functions. None of that separates them from what's necessary for them in the ecosystem though. Air, water, land, temperatures. What happens in life only happens by the conscious, while the unconscious are more of materials. A rock falling off a cliff only happens a couple of ways. It was moved, or it had something to do with the structural integrity of whatever it is resting on. Like the rock, any unconsciousness will not code DNA, and not by random accident either. 

The trees/plants cannot survive without creatures, and creatures cannot survive without them either, the exchange of gasses being one reason.

If we'd never left the ocean, you'd likely be attributing how we'd not be surviving without the oxygen provided by local algae, and that that too must be attributed to the conscious choices of an intelligent designer. 

It's all relative. To another functional system our system would be the one that looks like chaos. 

Water is also comprised of oxygen, Nate. Aquatic life that breathe underwater let off co2 gas as well, so it's the same thing.

Science doesn't know how bacteria could have been alive, While we have yet to bring life to anything, other than our offspring which is how we're are coded and built to begin with since out beginning. None of our technology can hold a candle to the complexity of a flea, when we modify genetics we're doing it with borrowed materials that are alive, and we're to believe we who are conscious was outdone/outclassed by an unconsciousness that did this from scratch. 

 

Turncoat said:

I'd argue in modern history that we're still in a transitionary stage. Things are changing rapidly all the time, and to figure how life must work from this vantage point serves to ignore where we're likely to end up. 

We're liable to find more and more answers with Science as time goes on, even related to bug complexity and bacteria (micro-organisms, controlling roaches with machines in their butt, etc), and once we've essentially created what to us would seem like a deity through technology that's liable to boom even further. 

Time is the main factor here, we just need more of it instead of giving up on how it's not "right now". 

 

Quantum physicist widely believe consciousness in an underlying factor in all things in the universe. For other scientists such claims are taboo, but no one argues it or would even want to. For now we'll just enjoy the benefits we get out of quantum mechanics and save the debates for later.

Without the claws the cat wouldn't survive, as every creature has what it needs to have a fighting chance in the chain. Disrupting that chain can result in the extinction of other species. From what I've gathered, if the Bees were gone, human beings would be facing real problems. 
Survival of the Fittest gets around it having to be a choice, and it's illustrated right here. 

 

Turncoat said:

Any cats born without claws likely didn't live as long or produce as many offspring, having the fate of such clawless cats become limited. We're starting to show signs of weakening teeth and nails as our trophy for surpassing nature, and if we really worked at it we could probably produce a clawless breed of cat that could survive much like how the modern house cat does now. 

 

You can complicate this, but simply put, the cat without claws shouldn't be alone, even in the wild this cat would benefit from hanging around cats that can catch prey. 

It's much wiser to be agnostic than atheist in my opinion. For the atheist it's all doubt without leaving an open channel to other possibilities while not having all the answers.
Why's everyone got to be so defeatist about Atheists? Just because they aren't sitting on a wishy washy mid-ground perspective doesn't mean that a different truth couldn't appeal to them. 

 

Turncoat said:

Many atheists are simply that from no faith they've encountered making enough sense to them to be accepted as reality. Imagine your typical Christian reading The Koran or The Shruti/Smriti, do you just expect them to drop their faith and pick up another one just because someone presented them with it as another possibility? 

They have to be appealed to to become converted, as otherwise most will just conform to their more nationalist ranges for faith. 

 

As I mentioned in my below quote, the Atheist always narrows down the existence of the creator to despicable religion. And above we see you resorting to that.

in order to find the creator, one must step away from religion. Otherwise you'll be stuck arguing words in a books with scientific findings. The atheist doesn't do this. This is a whole other can of worms you're unlikely to digest.

 

It's like a finalization of character who narrows down the creator to despicable religion while having nothing to look forward to other than a short life span and ceasing to exist.   

 

Turncoat said:

I mean if it turns out to be something else? Cool, I guess. 

 

 If it turns out to be something else, you'll find your life was a part of your making you're responsible for. With an increase in awareness, the atheist will carry on being a doubtful one in some way shape of form. I don't know what that would entail, something I can't imagine, maybe oblivion as Atheism is inessence a mind ordering limitations.

This was too long. Let's not do it again.

Spatial Mind said:

Simply put, our design has purpose. Like the hand on the arm, and it's articulations.

Okay I never included Asexual reproduction. Still, like gender reproduction, that is a complexed method, with ( are you ready for this ?) Purpose. As we know, we never get something from nothing.

As for the hummingbird. Their beak so happen to be designed specifically toward how they use them while they hover around. It's important, and it's design like all things, is "intended"

What makes the hummingbird an intelligently made choice, and not a random amalgam of past traits and quirks that happened to survive the tests it was put through? 

Well yeah. Various creatures all have different abilities and functions.

I'm not just listing a bunch of different ways that life exists for it's own sake, I'm talking about this to demonstrate that function does not denote purpose beyond it's capacity to survive. 

Spatial Mind said:

Turncoat said:

If we'd never left the ocean, you'd likely be attributing how we'd not be surviving without the oxygen provided by local algae, and that that too must be attributed to the conscious choices of an intelligent designer. 

It's all relative. To another functional system our system would be the one that looks like chaos. 

Water is also comprised of oxygen, Nate. Aquatic life that breathe underwater let off co2 gas as well, so it's the same thing.

You're missing the point of the analogy.

What purpose would the tree serve us if we never left the water? Again, it denotes function, not purpose. 

Quantum physicist widely believe consciousness in an underlying factor in all things in the universe. For other scientists such claims are taboo, but no one argues it or would even want to. For now we'll just enjoy the benefits we get out of quantum mechanics and save the debates for later.

You make it sound like it's more centered on their faiths than their findings when you say things like "They don't want to believe it!". 

You can complicate this, but simply put, the cat without claws shouldn't be alone, even in the wild this cat would benefit from hanging around cats that can catch prey.

In the right environment it could be what leads to a more intelligent cat. Without their claws as a crutch, it could push for different mutations within the species to thrive that'd allow it to surpass their once common ancestor, much like how we humans are less hairy with smaller teeth and claws than our evolutionary line's common ancestors. 

It's a circumstantial gamble upon a causal environment, but the work we've done with dogs and plants shows that we're more than capable of it. 

in order to find the creator, one must step away from religion.

Why should "The Creator" matter (beyond fear of punishment)? 

Otherwise you'll be stuck arguing words in a books with scientific findings.

Aren't most people stuck with referencing life through their own prior understandings? 

If it turns out to be something else, you'll find your life was a part of your making you're responsible for.

That word again, "responsible". Again, to a determinist that word's closer to "causal shackles" instead of "choices". 

I wouldn't be entirely responsible for it, for I wouldn't have known in advance for what code I ought to be adhering to for selling myself towards a proper end game afterlife. Without proof it's a mystery sacrifice based on next-to-nothing beyond the human realm for the gamble, so it's hard to see someone as responsible for their afterlife when the afterlife itself remains this unknown. 

Imagine for instance if the best afterlife required being the biggest shithead possible, and no one knew? You'd be "responsible" for having spent so much time trying to not be a bad person, and subsequently punished for it. Maybe the best afterlife only accepts brunettes, and has nothing to do with how we behave in life at all? Those would actually be less selective than the typical religion that insists that you not put any other faith before itself. 

Through ignorance, people are that much less responsible for themselves than they otherwise would be with knowledge of what everything they're doing means beyond the physical reality. 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is "nothing" because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life.

I'd say every perspective yields that, just replace "nothing" with whatever their bender is about. 

It sounds more like you dislike Atheism because you think it's arrogant enough to think it knows something at all (spoiler alert: that's most if not arguably all faiths).

You do a spoiler alert, just to rephrase my own words. I've addressed the implied arrogance of faith already. And yes it strikes me as very arrogant to think you have even an accurate opinion on the creation of existence itself.

There are Atheists who are essentially waiting for that moment when something can prove it wrong, who instead of presuming "to know", they'd presume "to guess" until shown otherwise as their understanding of an Occam's Razor perspective. 

You will always have members of every group that are tiptoeing onto another. I see no reason why this is important, this could easily be applied to people with faiths as well as agnostics, am I not to label them with their core beliefs because of it? I am addressing the points the title they identify with represents.

 

Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well.

Should something not be believed simply because it's "depressing and nihilistic" to them? Who's to say them being depressing and nihilistic wasn't how they found atheism instead of the other way around? If it's the actual case as well, since to one it certainly feels real anyway, what kind of person would then turn away from the truth as they know it simply because it's too painful to handle? 

Also while Atheism is a gateway to Nihilism, the two handle pretty different areas (religion and philosophy respectively). A Nihilist for instance could still believe in God and simply recognize no value or purpose in Him. While a happy nihilist is rarer and generally less authentic, happy atheists aren't as difficult to come by. 

Nihilism is largely regarded as poisonous for it having no real drive or zeal behind it, but Atheism can be quite motivated and think life has purpose without it having to come from something external (Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, etc), and the ego arrogance I'd say has equal room to be present in all walks of life, demotivating or not. 

While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives

This is a very large generalization, and I'd say it really has more to do with how much they let faith itself be a part of their lives. 

How much of an upstanding citizen they are is by and large an independent factor. You'll find lazy non-achievers within most walks of life, and atheist achievers if we're being honest are TONS more annoying about it than the lazier ones (if you ask me though, if they are only productive because "God", there's something inherently wrong with the person). 

There's also a rather large group that through either not thinking on it at all or thinking on it far too much eventually got "over it" instead of fixating on faith as being a backbone to perspective and their personality. There's many who walk life believing in nothing without having to tell everyone about it every five minutes. 

you people seem to think that god is only necessitated by virtue of an organized religion

You've registered what I wrote incorrectly TC, and as usual you claim I said things i didn't, and you say things like "You make it sound as if" while going in a direction that forces irrelevant words in my mouth while cutting paragraphs.

Not trying to offend but you're unable to understand, that's why I don't get into it with you.

TPG said: 

you people seem to think that god is only necessitated by virtue of an organized religion

It's what the vast majority of people who do believe in a god push for though.

Spatial Mind said: 

You've registered what I wrote incorrectly TC, and as usual you claim I said things i didn't, and you say things like "You make it sound as if" while going in a direction that forces irrelevant words in my mouth while cutting paragraphs.

Okay, since you can't seem to follow what's being said and need the help, lets shrink it down to just the main questions: 

1) How does Function denote Purpose? (asked this one three times) 

2) Why should "The Creator" matter (beyond fear of punishment)? 

3) Aren't most people stuck with referencing life through their own prior understandings? 

Not trying to offend but you're unable to understand, that's why I don't get into it with you.

You don't get into it with me (anymore) because you're lazy and feel as if I'm not an easy person to convert. 

You don't have the same fire that you used to. 

TPG said: 

you people seem to think that god is only necessitated by virtue of an organized religion

"God" specifically? Yes, as only a few faiths are by nature monotheistic, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Pastafarianism. Deities meanwhile are another can of worms entirely. 

Most people who are referred to as "Atheists" are usually closer to being "Achristian" as a result of US culture. While they tend to make blanket statements about how all religions don't make sense, the backbone of their arguments tend to always tangent to being about how much The Bible makes no sense. 

I argue with all who walk a spiritual path how much their paths make no sense, but in this topic it seems to be hitting on more culturally classical notes that one'd expect from The West.