This atheist "me" kept silent

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

He's using an argument that was made by Nick Bostrom called the simulation argument, which argues that if it is possible to create conscious simulations that are indisinguishable from the world we live in today then the likelihood of us living in one of those simulations is enormous, because future human beings would be playing such simulations just as people today play Sim City (is that old now?) or Civilization.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

"enormous" based on what? The need to have an outrageous idea with his name on it?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A common mistake. YHWH can handle iron chariots just fine. See Judges 4.

But can He fly an Apache?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

A good friend of mine and an all around good guy often helps me with my computer issues. He's very religious as is my 90 year old mother. Mother adores him.

For Christmas he gave my mother a book written by or about a little boy who says he died and went to heaven only to be sent back. He went further on by telling us that his own daughter after being in a horrible car accident died only to come back four times.

She said Jesus told her that she was needed on earth.

I stayed silent. Atheist though I am I said absolutely nothing. I don't want to argue or upset anyone.

Had he been anyone else I'm really not sure what if anything I would have said. Mother and this man are sincere in their beliefs and I feel left out if not intimidated.

As I grow older my former classmates from highschool are professing a belief in Jesus and here again I'm feeling left out.

I'm equally certain that this is the only life we have but I'm surrounded by my peers saying Heaven is a great deal better than any situation on earth.

I need a coping mechanism. For me religion didn't work.

I think most of us do this, stay silent, at least in some situations. Reality may not even be the best option for everyone, some people really seem to need the comfort that an afterlife fantasy can provide.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

If it's the truth, as he, I and other atheists believe, why does it matter if it's depressing or not? I can't imagine believing in something just because it's comforting. That's convincing yourself to believe in a lie.

Besides, from my point of view, believing that all my friends and family who don't believe and practice that belief in the correct way will be tortured for all eternity sounds a lot more depressing to me.

My stepmom made a comment the other day to the effect that if there is no God (or heaven) than what is the point(to life)? It's like she really is choosing to believe, despite what her rationality tells her. I can't imagine doing that either, but some people can.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by Marcus

My stepmom made a comment the other day to the effect that if there is no God (or heaven) than what is the point(to life)? It's like she really is choosing to believe, despite what her rationality tells her. I can't imagine doing that either, but some people can.

I had a conversation with my mum along similar lines recently. Basically, she thinks it's all a crock, but stays in the church by a combination of inertia and wishful thinking. I could probably understand that on its own, but she goes into schools and teaches them Bible stories as if they were true. Talking snakes, animals on a boat, the whole thing. I have no idea how or why she would do that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

What a depressing worldview you must have.

What a baseless assumption you've made here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

My stepmom made a comment the other day to the effect that if there is no God (or heaven) than what is the point(to life)? It's like she really is choosing to believe, despite what her rationality tells her. I can't imagine doing that either, but some people can.

If the Christian god existed, what would be the point to life? According to Christians, the point of living is to worship a misogynist god who lets children starve and burn to death, allows slavery, war, cruelty, all with the vague notion said god has a reason.

Sounds like a horrid 'point' to life.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by eight bits

Well, one bit of good news is that, being a non-believer, there is no "religious" obligation for you to "speak up" when nobody is going to thank you for your input anyway. You're not letting down the side. There is no side to let down.

It sounds as if you wish both your good friend and your mother well. Also, you seem to be searching still, albeit not in the religious devotional aisle. Of such facts are non-committal and fully true conversational mortar made, the conversational transition-markers that work so well when the subject is being tactfully changed.

There are people in my life with whom I don't discuss religion, just as there are other people in my life with whom I don't discuss politics, and others still with whom I don't discuss sexuality. It's not that religion, politics and sexuality are uninteresting or unimportant to me, but rather that none of them is the totality of my life, nor of anybody else's life whom I know personally.

Common ground probably exists, and with a lot of people, maybe even most people. Find the common ground and make your stand there. Come to JREF when you need to be "Unholier than thou." You'll do fine, I'd wager.

I like this answer. I think I'll just second it.

[poblob14]

Originally Posted by geni

The bible is crystal clear compared to the average comic book continuity.

I dunno . . . the bible retcons its origin story in the second chapter! And have you seen the mess they created in the New 666 (aka Revelation)? Still better than that fanfic called the Book of Mormon, though.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Polaris

But can He fly an Apache?

I would assume He would have Cherubim or Seraphim do that for Him.

[Halfcentaur]

My father seemed to have been made a non believer by his own near death experience he went through after hitting a tree on his motorcycle going 90 mph without a helmet. He was in a coma for 3 days and dead for something like 3 minutes on the table.

He seemed to think most of the experience was a result of random mental stimuli and memory. God seemed like a jolly male authority figure that was aloof and alien, which he said seemed a lot like Santa Claus to him as an archetype.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by poblob14

I dunno . . . the bible retcons its origin story in the second chapter!

I think people overuse the term "retcon," and this is an example. Giving significantly more details about particular parts of a story isn't a "retcon" unless you have to explicitly or implicitly deny significant aspects of the original story in order to do so. Chapter 2 is a significant "filling in" of particular details but I wouldn't call it a "retcon."

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I would assume He would have Cherubim or Seraphim do that for Him.

Please let that be a mural on a church wall somewhere, please!

[AvalonXQ]

With their four faces, one facing each direction, the Cherubim would be very well-suited as helicopter pilots. Their four wings might get in the way, though.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

My father seemed to have been made a non believer by his own near death experience he went through after hitting a tree on his motorcycle going 90 mph without a helmet. He was in a coma for 3 days and dead for something like 3 minutes on the table.

He seemed to think most of the experience was a result of random mental stimuli and memory. God seemed like a jolly male authority figure that was aloof and alien, which he said seemed a lot like Santa Claus to him as an archetype.

After my father had his first heart attack he was totally unconscious and remembered nothing. No light to walk into no dead people greeting him. Nothing. He had a friend who was an atheist and he often said. "Maybe Jack Fink is right" Maybe nothing happens afer we die".

He had two more heart attacks and the third one killed him. I hated to see him suffer so but there was nothing to be done for him.

[poblob14]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I think people overuse the term "retcon," and this is an example. Giving significantly more details about particular parts of a story isn't a "retcon" unless you have to explicitly or implicitly deny significant aspects of the original story in order to do so. Chapter 2 is a significant "filling in" of particular details but I wouldn't call it a "retcon."

I think changing "plants were created before humans" to "humans were created before plants" qualifies as a retcon. YMMV.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I would assume He would have Cherubim or Seraphim do that for Him.

I though Christianity was monotheistic? What's with all these other gods?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If the Christian god existed, what would be the point to life? According to Christians, the point of living is to worship a misogynist god who lets children starve and burn to death, allows slavery, war, cruelty, all with the vague notion said god has a reason.

Sounds like a horrid 'point' to life.

I don't think she would put it exactly like that

Seriously though, I think she is thinking that the life she has left (perhaps 10 years) would seem pointless to her if she didn't get to live forever in paradise after it was over. Or something like that.

I don't agree, of course, I find reality quite intriguing without the fantasies, even though i will only be here a tiny portion of the time.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by poblob14

I think changing "plants were created before humans" to "humans were created before plants" qualifies as a retcon.

Genesis 2 doesn't claim either of those. Unlike chapter 1, the events listed therein are markedly non-chronological.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

I though Christianity was monotheistic?

In the sense of limiting worship to one Diety (in multiple aspects), yes.

Quote:

What's with all these other gods?

Who says Cherubim and Seraphim are other gods? Particularly, who claims that Cherubim and Seraphim are worshipped in Christianity?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

In the sense of limiting worship to one Diety (in multiple aspects), yes.

Wiggle fail.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Wiggle fail.

Did you miss my question or are you just unable to answer it?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Genesis 2 doesn't claim either of those. Unlike chapter 1, the events listed therein are markedly non-chronological.

Are you sure? Genesis 2:5-7 says (NIV):

Quote:

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Seems to me that verse 5 says there were no plants yet, and then in verse 7 man is created.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by ddt

Seems to me that verse 5 says there were no plants yet, and then in verse 7 man is created.

Verse 5 says there were not yet any "shrubs" or "herbs of the field" -- that is to say, cultivated plants -- because man was not yet there to cultivate them.

Note that the words used here to refer to cultivated plants (siah hassadeh and eseb hassadeh) are different than the words used in Genesis 1 to refer to trees and fruit-bearing plants (eseb mazria zera and es peri oseh peri).

My Hebrew is pretty rudimentary so Hebrew scholars should feel free to correct me.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Verse 5 says there were not yet any "shrubs" or "herbs of the field" -- that is to say, cultivated plants -- because man was not yet there to cultivate them.

Note that the words used here to refer to cultivated plants (siah hassadeh and eseb hassadeh) are different than the words used in Genesis 1 to refer to trees and fruit-bearing plants (eseb mazria zera and es peri oseh peri).

My Hebrew is pretty rudimentary so Hebrew scholars should feel free to correct me.

Mine too, but Genesis 2:5 in any case says that some plants were not there, while Genesis 1:11 says that God created all plants. So there is a contradiction, methinks.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

In the sense of limiting worship to one Diety (in multiple aspects), yes.

A supernatural being who is only concerned with what I may and may not eat?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A common mistake. YHWH can handle iron chariots just fine. See Judges 4.

Ah yes, Sisera. My favourite of all Bible stories. After Judah and the Lord are unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because of their chariots, Barak and his ten thousand men destroy Sisera's army, including his nine hundred iron chariots, and force Sisera to flee on foot.

Sisera comes to the tent of Jael, who invites him in, covers him with a blanket, gives him milk to drink, and nails his head to the ground while he sleeps.

Lovely story. Thanks for reminding me of it.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Ah yes, Sisera. My favourite of all Bible stories. After Judah and the Lord are unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because of their chariots, Barak and his ten thousand men destroy Sisera's army, including his nine hundred iron chariots, and force Sisera to flee on foot.

Sisera comes to the tent of Jael, who invites him in, covers him with a blanket, gives him milk to drink, and nails his head to the ground while he sleeps.

Lovely story. Thanks for reminding me of it.

You're welcome.

I'll admit that I've never gotten very much out of it. Then again, I found the Illiad to be incredibly boring; I just don't have any particular interest in war stories.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by ddt

Mine too, but Genesis 2:5 in any case says that some plants were not there, while Genesis 1:11 says that God created all plants.

Actually, it doesn't. The word "all" does not appear, and the account only deals with two types of plants, as I mentioned before - seed-bearing herbs and fruit-bearing trees.

I would recommend taking another look at Genesis 1:11 (in Hebrew if possible) and comparing it to Genesis 2:5. The closest you can come to a contradiction is to claim that certain seed-bearing herbs must be cultivated, and to try to imply an "all" in Genesis 1:11 that's not there.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A common mistake. YHWH can handle iron chariots just fine. See Judges 4.

Sure. Sure. Iron chariots in the hills. Just not those on the plains.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Actually, it doesn't. The word "all" does not appear, and the account only deals with two types of plants, as I mentioned before - seed-bearing herbs and fruit-bearing trees.

I would recommend taking another look at Genesis 1:11 (in Hebrew if possible) and comparing it to Genesis 2:5. The closest you can come to a contradiction is to claim that certain seed-bearing herbs must be cultivated, and to try to imply an "all" in Genesis 1:11 that's not there.

First of all, as to the "all", Genesis 1 is pretty comprehensive in listing everything that can be created, so why would some plants not be listed?

Secondly, it depends on your translation. NIV translates Genesis 1:11 as "seed-bearing plants". That is any (land) plant except for mosses and ferns.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Sure. Sure. Iron chariots in the hills. Just not those on the plains.

It's because all the cherubim are aerial-type and get a bonus against mountain units only.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by ddt

First of all, as to the "all", Genesis 1 is pretty comprehensive in listing everything that can be created, so why would some plants not be listed?

I wouldn't call the Genesis 1 list comprehensive at all.
But even if you assume that Genesis 1 essentially means plants in general, I still don't agree that it's contradictory to then turn around and give an exception for cultivated plants.

Quote:

Secondly, it depends on your translation.

Not if we evaluate the Hebrew.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

"enormous" based on what? The need to have an outrageous idea with his name on it?

I'm citing the argument, as I understand it, not necessarily that I agree with it.

Also, I don't the idea is completely outrageous.

The first premise rests on the answer to the question, "Will humans ever be able to create conscious beings within a computer programme whose experiences will be indistinguishable from our own?"

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is, "Will humans also use that technology to create simulated worlds populated by such beings qualitatively indistinguishable from our own?"

If the answer to this is yes, then the next question is, "Will there be more than one of these simulated worlds in existence?"

If the answer to this is yes, then the probability of being in one of the simulated worlds, as opposed to the real world, will be much higher depending upon how large a number of simulations exist. Presumably, these simulated worlds would also create their own simulated worlds also.

Now, it is possible that there are physical constraints to this and such technology could never exist denying the first premise. There may eventually be social constraints on this, whereby no advanced human or other society would ever allow it to be used denying the second premise.

But usually the "argument" against it is "That just sounds silly; I don't believe it."

[CriticalSock]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I wouldn't call the Genesis 1 list comprehensive at all.
But even if you assume that Genesis 1 essentially means plants in general, I still don't agree that it's contradictory to then turn around and give an exception for cultivated plants.



Not if we evaluate the Hebrew.

Except that for your argument to work, the creation account in Genesis 2 would have to have the creation of all the *other* uncultivated plants after the creation of man as well. Otherwise the second account, according to you, would end up with a world which only has cultivated plants on it.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

There is a church in the village that rings its bells every damn Sunday!

Ah, a fellow sufferer. Here in deepest darkest Suffolk there are very few christians but lots of bell worship (the church is only 50 ft from my house). The new religion in rural Britain seems to be campanology.

Quote:

But I was raised a JW, so I had a lot of similiar social aspects with religion when growing up (JW's are an American import).

I remember years ago welcoming an innocent couple of JW followers into my house. After about an hour they got worried and felt they had to escape.

[CriticalSock]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Ah, a fellow sufferer. Here in deepest darkest Suffolk there are very few christians but lots of bell worship (the church is only 50 ft from my house). The new religion in rural Britain seems to be campanology.

There's a short story in the Little World of Don Camillo where the communist mayor ties firecrackers to the clappers of the church bells. I'm tempted every Sunday morning.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I remember years ago welcoming an innocent couple of JW followers into my house. After about an hour they got worried and felt they had to escape.

Was that hour spent just staring at them without blinking?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by CriticalSock

Except that for your argument to work, the creation account in Genesis 2 would have to have the creation of all the *other* uncultivated plants after the creation of man as well. Otherwise the second account, according to you, would end up with a world which only has cultivated plants on it.

Genesis 2 is not a "second account;" it's a focus and expansion on particular elements of the account in Genesis 1. Particularly, it gives details about YHWH's interaction with humans on Day Six.
So I don't agree that any particular elements in Genesis 1 have to be repeated in Genesis 2. Genesis 1 starts with the formless earth and takes us through the creation week. Genesis 2 starts with the condition of earth before the creation of man and takes us through man's time in Eden.

[Susheel]

LOL...the story of the bells in Suffolk reminds me of my childhood growing up in Bahrain. House surrounded by four mosques with the call to prayer blaring through loudspeakers five times a day with a slight lag between each mosque so it took quite some time for it all to end. I used to know the entire azaan and also noticed the slight difference between the shiite and the sunni version.

Got so used to it that when we finally left and settled elsewhere, missed it and would actually catch myself reciting it some times...shia version, since the mosque was right next door.

[CriticalSock]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Genesis 2 is not a "second account;" it's a focus and expansion on particular elements of the account in Genesis 1. Particularly, it gives details about YHWH's interaction with humans on Day Six.

Sounds like it's the whole creation again to me.

Originally Posted by Genesis 2v4

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens,

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

So I don't agree that any particular elements in Genesis 1 have to be repeated in Genesis 2. Genesis 1 starts with the formless earth and takes us through the creation week. Genesis 2 starts with the condition of earth before the creation of man and takes us through man's time in Eden.

But do you agree, if we accept Genesis 2 is a focussed in close up for a moment, that the elements should be in the same order?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I wouldn't call the Genesis 1 list comprehensive at all.

What then is missing from the list of things created in Genesis 1? And then I don't mean bacteria or viruses or other things that people in 500-1000BC did not know about?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

But even if you assume that Genesis 1 essentially means plants in general, I still don't agree that it's contradictory to then turn around and give an exception for cultivated plants.

Sorry, I'm not following. If one assumes that Genesis 1 means plants in general, there is no exception.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Not if we evaluate the Hebrew.

The Hebrew apparently leaves some leeway in what the word meant. Just like the nowadays English word "American" can pertain to the US or the whole continent, and the context must give clarification which was meant.