"Becoming God"

[EusebioScrib]

Man is alienated when he looses control over a crucial portion of his life. When a man cannot control his life and where he wants it to go, he becomes alienated.

We become unalienated in communist society because humanity is united and all can control where they want it to go. However communism is not the end of history, it must continue. We will be alienated from something else.

What will be the next struggle? The struggle against nature?

I believe it to be a basic nature of man to defy nature. We have thoughout history flipped our mother the bird. We refuse to accept that we can't control the sun so we invented fire and then electricity. We refused to accept that we couldn't fly so we build planes. We refused to accept that we couldn't speak to someone three thousand miles away so we create a phone. We refused to accept that we couldn't control the weather so we invented clothes, heat, and air conditioning.

Of course these were no the "direct" motives behind some these inventions, but in general we never want to "accept" the boundaries nature places on his. We use our brain and hands to create more tools to constantly defy nature to constantly push the limits.

Communism will further this struggle. When class struggle is out of the way, nature will be the final boundary against us. Of course it sounds absurd to "defy" nature, but does it really?

Whenever the odds seem negative, don't we always have wishes and hopes to overcome them and be able to control our condition? We constantly use our imagination to think of ways so that we can control our condition, not have it control us.

How do we know we will "fail" against nature? Who says we can't "overcome death"? Why must our planet be inevitably destroyed? Can't be build one? Why must we sleep? Who says we can't be awake every waking hour? We can use our minds and hands to create the means to defy nature. To create the means to control our condition.

I call this human-valorization or Becoming God.

Discuss :marx:

[barista.marxista]

Fucking transhumanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). ;)

I think it's not so much a battle against nature but an effort to enforce human rationality and empiricism with nature. We could theoretically become post-humans without destroying nature in the process, and we cannot live as biological organisms without nature, so it's coninciding while still having control over our attributes which is the goal.

I'd recommend Bruce Sterling's novel Schismatrix. Transhumanism is an awesome idea, and actually plausible, but is so far in the future that it remains simply science-fiction. Let's finish this class war before we start to conquer our genes.

[RebelDog]

We agreed nothing of what you say and did everything you said we could not do. Did anyone say communism is the end of history, that is a neo-liberal belief. Communism is the start of real history.

Nature? What are you talking about, capitalist nature or human nature? We did not refuse anything, we chose to make things better.

[EusebioScrib]

Fucking transhumanist. wink.gif

Pssh, fuck you RAANy! :lol:
/sarcasmx(6.02x10e23)


I think it's not so much a battle against nature but an effort to enforce human rationality and empiricism with nature. We could theoretically become post-humans without destroying nature in the process, and we cannot live as biological organisms without nature, so it's coninciding while still having control over our attributes which is the goal.

No, it's definitly a struggle against nature. We want to dominate nature, not be at "one" with it. Accepting nature's dominance further alienates us. Just as accepting any dominance over us does. We will never be entirely unalienated until we control our entire condition and experience.

Who says we need to be biological? Transcending could involve an up-loaded consciousness.


but is so far in the future that it remains simply science-fiction.

So we're told. It is probably quite some time in the future, but if I could live that long, I'd bet I'd witness what I'm discussing.


We agreed nothing of what you say and did everything you said we could not do. Did anyone say communism is the end of history, that is a neo-liberal belief. Communism is the start of real history.

Yes, saying communism is the end of history is a very liberal mindset, yet they see Capitalism as the end of history so wtf?

I wouldn't say Communism is the start of "real" history, as all history is "real", but it's a start of a new kind of history, a truely and fully human history.


Nature? What are you talking about, capitalist nature or human nature? We did not refuse anything, we chose to make things better.


Nature, mother nature. Yes we refused. We refuse to accept that nature controls us. Just like the working class refuses to accept capital's dominance.

[RebelDog]

Here we lie at the pinnacle of culture http://www.answers.com/the%20end%20of%20history

What a stupid arse belief. The greater part of human history lies before us.


Capitalism is here to go, that is certain.

[EusebioScrib]

Yes, we know. I don't see how this pertains to the discussion at hand though. :huh:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

God is a philosophically impossible concept - you can't become that. I know what you mean, however, and transhumanism is an interesting concept. Improving hte human nature is certainly something to be encouraged. I'd rather improve the universe itself, with a more pantheist or monist approach to viewing our world. Seperating ourselves from nature has caused dangerous results and set the movement of transhumanism back decades. Even if we dominate our environment, we will be using it to improve upon the environment itself. It depends on your frame of reference how you deal with the issue of nature and human progress. I view them as entwined, myself, but others view them as separate.

The problem, however, is that people automatically associate movements like transhumanism with eugenics and Nazism. I hardly think the right-wing nutjobs would advocate improving on "God's work."

[EusebioScrib]

God is a philosophically impossible concept - you can't become that. I know what you mean, however, and transhumanism is an interesting concept.

Aww shucks, can't I pretend to be all bearded 19th century Philosopher for a little while? ^_^

God is certainly impossible, but I liked the term as it was used by my manager when we were discussing one day while waiting for customers. I liked the term and he had an interesting meaning behind it, quasi-liberal stuff, but it said kinda the same thing, although in a very negative way.

I only call it god because we seek to become the total masters of our condition, to a point of emulating god who supposedly controls everything and is subject to nothing. It is a totally autonomous creature, something we seek to become.


The problem, however, is that people automatically associate movements like transhumanism with eugenics and Nazism. I hardly think the right-wing nutjobs would advocate improving on "God's work."

Unfortunately, that's how it is. I've encountered many rightists whom are gung-ho for transhumanism, but also many leftists. I guess it's just one of those things!


Seperating ourselves from nature has caused dangerous results and set the movement of transhumanism back decades

Are you refering to global warming and such? I wouldn't call that seperating ourselves form nature. I'd say it's more of a neglect and affront to nature. Basically denying nature as a power, saying it doesn't exist when it most certainly does, and it lashes back at us when we treat it as such. We must treat it as an equal, but opposite. It is a formidable foe with whom we really need to study and understand before we can think of rejecting it's dominance.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 14 2006, 02:46 AM
God is a philosophically impossible concept
why do you throw around these absolutes so brashly? your stubborn callousness gives away your intellectual immaturity. Aristotle metaphysics and Aquinas' quinquae viae would disagree with you. Your bullheadedness makes me embarrassed to call people like you "comrade".

[EusebioScrib]

why do you throw around these absolutes so brashly? your stubborn callousness gives away your intellectual immaturity. Aristotle metaphysics and Aquinas' quinquae viae would disagree with you. Your bullheadedness makes me embarrassed to call people like you "comrade".

Are you refering to me?

[chimx]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:48 AM
why do you throw around these absolutes so brashly? your stubborn callousness gives away your intellectual immaturity. Aristotle metaphysics and Aquinas' quinquae viae would disagree with you. Your bullheadedness makes me embarrassed to call people like you "comrade".
Aristotle's Metaphysics? fails to prove God, it's an explanation of how the universe works from an ancient greek with very little understanding of science, completely dependant on the assumption that there is a god.

Same problem with Aquinas, and natural law.

But hey there are other philosophers who disagree with Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, take Thales for example, who predicted that everything was made of Water, and that the world was flat and floated on an infinite sea...

Why don't we believe or give credibility to Thales? because he was wrong. We can prove it scientifically. What about god? well im stil lwaiting to see a single shred of proof for his existance. There are of course pleanty of scientific facts that prove current "gods" to be impossible, See: Paradox

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:18 PM

why do you throw around these absolutes so brashly? your stubborn callousness gives away your intellectual immaturity. Aristotle metaphysics and Aquinas' quinquae viae would disagree with you. Your bullheadedness makes me embarrassed to call people like you "comrade".

Are you refering to me?
No, but he's wrong.


A collection of arguments challenging God belief and other unproven concepts.


THE PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT
1.) If God exists, then he is perfect..
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4.) If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6.) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). - Theodore M. Drange




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD'S JUSTICE AND MERCY
1.) If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2.) If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3.) An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4.) An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5.) It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6.) Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6). - A construct of one of Dan Barker's arguments. Rewritten by Theodore M. Drange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Theodore M. Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
Comments: You see, this is the problem, God cannot be jealous. Be he is. Yahweh cannot possibly exist if he has both the attributes of love and jealousy.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God’s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Jesus, God's Flesh, died at the cross.
2.) Flesh & Blood cannot enter into Heaven per (1 Cor. 15:50-56)
3.) Jesus was Flesh.
4.) Jesus no longer exists. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem. However, if Jesus “is” God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead. - IG
And for those that don't believe Paul was talking about Flesh & Blood literally (Fallen Man) please refer to the Greek meaning of Flesh.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVIL IS GOOD?
1.) God is good all of the time.
2.) Everything that God creates is good. Amen?
3.) God created evil according to Isaiah 45:7. (look it up)
4.) Evil is good. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
1.) If God exists, he is omnipresent (occupying all space).
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and future, there is nothing that is NOT God.
3.) God therefore, cannot have a sense of the independent self.
4.) Since God has no sense of the self or non-self, he cannot have a consciousness.
5.) In conclusion, God cannot have a mind and would resemble nothing more than the non-conscious Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: Of course P3 could be denied if one believes the human mind is somehow not part of Gods. This argument is more designed for those that believe that God is ALL things.(Which is the typical theist I encounter).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (This is explained and discussed more HERE.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical. - Hank & Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER ATEMPORAL ARGUMENT
1.) God is an atemporal being.
2.) God is all aware.
3.) God then would be aware of the passage of time.
4.) The passage of anything is change from one instance to another.
5.) God is not an a temporal being. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ON MAN'S FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past, present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future will be part of God's unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God's unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn't exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. - a syllogistic view of Dan Barker's F.A.N.G


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INFALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE / FREEWILL ARGUMENT
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PRAYER
1.) Prayer is sometimes used to ask God to change a situation in one's life or anothers.
2.) God has a divine plan that cannot be changed.
3.) Prayer cannot be used to change any situation. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MORAL-KNOWLEGDE ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM
1.) If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
2.) If God exists, it would be in God's interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3.) All human beings do not know God's ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
4.) Probably, God does not exist. - Niclas Berggren
(If one disagrees with P2, why would God NOT realize this option? "We could imagine two scenarios. First, a God which shows favoritism in the sense that he reveals his ethics only to some, or in the sense that he reveals it to a higher extent to some than to others. But this would be inconsistent with our assumption of benevolence, since such favoritism would imply that God cares more about some than about others (where knowledge of God's ethics must be considered a good, from the point of view of a benevolent God). (And in the Christian case, it is explicitly stated in Acts 10:34: "Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism'." (NIV)) Second, we could imagine God spreading a limited knowledge of his ethics in equal proportions to all of humanity. But (i) what could possibly be the point in such a self-imposed limitation of spreading something which, from the point of view of the benevolent God, must be considered a good? and (ii) this can hardly be the case, since not all people agree normatively on any issue of ethics (and if my point (ii) is disputed, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is such agreement - and this has not been shown)." - Niclas Berggren


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL IGNORANCE
1.) If God exists, it is probably the case that all sentient beings whose behavior God considers morally significant have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
2.) If God exists, he considers humans' behavior morally significant.
3.) Humans are sentient beings.
4.) If God exists, it is probably the case that humans have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
5.) Humans do not have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
6.) Probably, God does not exist.- Cole Mitchell: Adapted from Niclas Berggren's "On the Nature of Morality".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL PARITY
1.) If God exists, rational theists are probably noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
2.) Rational theists are not noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
3.) Probably, God does not exist. - Paul Draper


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR NON-BELIEF ASSUMING THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS
1.) The Christian God wants all men to know he exists so that they can be saved and go to Heaven.
2.) The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent.
3.) The Christian God knows what sufficient evidences he can provide to convince all men of his existence.
4.) Not all men are convinced of God's existence.
5.) The Christian God chooses to not provide sufficient evidence to convince all men that he exists.
6.) Therefore, The Christian God wants non-believers to exist.
NOTE: Atheists are non-Christians so this argument can be used to argue for atheism as well. [1] can be argued against on the outset, however, if one argues against this position, this would mean that God creates people just to go to hell. Doesn't sound like an all-good God to me. Most Calvinists will not have a problem with this or JW's, however, many Christians will find this disturbing. A typical rebuttle would be that God wishes for you to choose him freely. So he wants you to believe, but providing incontrovertible evidence would negate faith. Which God requires. The problem with this argument of course is that all religions have faith. So faith alone cannot lead people to the "right" God. Surely a God would know this. If so, he wants atheists to exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM ASSUMING GOD EXISTS
1.) If the Christian God exists, everything that exists is part of his perfect, divine plan.
2.) Atheists exist.
3.) So, atheists are a part of God's perfect plan.
4.) Therefore, God wants atheists to exist. - Moloth



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM JUDGEMENT
1.) If the Christian God exists, he will judge all men one day.
2.) At judgement, atheists will learn the truth, that there is a God.
3.) It follows then that God has the power to reveal himself to atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence.
4.) It follows from that, that God hasn't revealed himself to current atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence, yet.
5.) Atheism is a tenable position. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(A counter argument is to state that God requires that we have faith. One would think that surely God would be intelligent enough to know that faith would not be a viable option to the atheist or even the non-christian to believe in him (Yahweh). He would therefore have to provide evidence if he wants us to accept him as a reality. If he doesn't, then it's on God, right?)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SATAN FOOLING US - Evidence of Evolution
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing).
2.) God knew that before Creating Satan, that Satan would trick people with fossils and other evidence for evolution.
3.) God created Satan anyway.
4.) God wants, at least some, people to be tricked into believing in the evidences for evolution.
5.) It's logical to not believe in "divine creation". - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(This is a response to those that seriously believe Satan created fossils and that all of the sciences that support evolution are twisted by Satan. In regards to Divine Creation I am responding to the story of Adam and Eve.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMNISCIENCE-HUMAN EXPERIENCE INCOMPATIBILITY ARGUMENT
1.) Fear is a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger. (The American Heritage® Dictionary: 2000)
2.) If God exists, God cannot feel agitated, anxious or feel endangered.
3.) Since God cannot experience fear, he cannot know what it's like to fear, therefore not all-knowing. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Some would claim that it is against God's nature to be afraid. Exactly, then he cannot be omniscient. There are at least some things for which he is completely ignorant of. Stating that it's against his nature is a cop-out and a concession simultaneously.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr
(Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, 'Through faith one can know God.')

[elmo sez]

Living forever is a matamathical impossibilty ....it would be impossible to avoid fatal accidents for such along period of time. The longest amount of time that someone could avoid an accident like this is only about 1,500 years , after that your chances of survival are reduced to 0 .

By fatal accident i mean one where the brain is turned into goo and theres not chance of a transplant to another host body. Theoretically the rain could live forever , it is only the body that gives out.

And why the hell would you want to be awake for ever hour of the day? Do you not enjoy sleep? I really like it, but thats a personal thing i suppose . Fuck stay awake for ever if you want

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by chimx+Jun 18 2006, 07:48 AM--> (chimx @ Jun 18 2006, 07:48 AM)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 14 2006, 02:46 AM
God is a philosophically impossible concept
why do you throw around these absolutes so brashly? your stubborn callousness gives away your intellectual immaturity. Aristotle metaphysics and Aquinas' quinquae viae would disagree with you. Your bullheadedness makes me embarrassed to call people like you "comrade". [/b]
Depending on what perspective you are disagreeing with me from, I may be interested in discussing the matter. If you are religious, I could care less about your criticism. If you are a hardline agnostic, you may be misinterpreting what I meant. To some degree, everyone is philosophically agnostic, but, from a practical perspective, we are all atheists. I would also argue strongly for atheism from moral and political grounds - hence my strongly worded "impossible concept." We must recognize the importance of destroying faith - bluntly and swiftly - rather than convincing people of the philosophical realities. The average person wants to know what the truth is from a practical vantage point. They could care less about the philosophical grounds for denying even the existance of truth itself.

[elmo sez]

We must recognize the importance of destroying faith - bluntly and swiftly -

This is impossible you cant just openly destroy faith, and religion just like that , if you attack it so strongly people will not listen to you they will merely fight against you even harder, regardless of logic or truth. You must be gentle with people otherwise they will not listen to you do not fight them merely inform them , sow the seed, make them question. Then and only then will religion die off .

Besides, it would be rash to try and get rid of religion without having first replaced to with something else that will give meaning to peoples lives. Weither you like it or not , a vast amount of people depend on religion to give them hope, after all it is the opium of the people , and you must recognise it as such.

PS great post MonicaTTmed , some really interesting stuff

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'd be inclined to disagree with you there. I've changed people's minds on religion through blunt and inconsiderate verbal attacks. Nicely explaining to people how they are wrong has never worked for me. If anything, it makes them think you are giving them a level playing field - one by which they can convince you of the truths of religion.

I don't think religion will be a primary opposition when capitalism is destroyed. I would say the educational foundation by which revolutionary fervor emerges comes with the disbanding of religious belief, and, consequently, the church will be little opposition at such as time as a revolutionary were to occur.

I did not mean to imply that we would destroy religion in a day. I simply believe the way to remove religion from the minds of the people is to bluntly and repeatedly expose them (whether they want to be exposed or not) to rational thinking.

[elmo sez]

Perhaps people will loose interest in religion when they become more politically active, but i really dont think that being agressive and talking down to people is going to get you anywhere , form my own experience you need to be calm collected and rational

[chimx]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Jun 18 2006, 08:30 PM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Jun 18 2006, 08:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:48 AM

Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 14 2006, 02:46 AM
God is a philosophically impossible concept
why do you throw around these absolutes so brashly? your stubborn callousness gives away your intellectual immaturity. Aristotle metaphysics and Aquinas' quinquae viae would disagree with you. Your bullheadedness makes me embarrassed to call people like you "comrade".
Depending on what perspective you are disagreeing with me from, I may be interested in discussing the matter. If you are religious, I could care less about your criticism. If you are a hardline agnostic, you may be misinterpreting what I meant. To some degree, everyone is philosophically agnostic, but, from a practical perspective, we are all atheists. I would also argue strongly for atheism from moral and political grounds - hence my strongly worded "impossible concept." We must recognize the importance of destroying faith - bluntly and swiftly - rather than convincing people of the philosophical realities. The average person wants to know what the truth is from a practical vantage point. They could care less about the philosophical grounds for denying even the existance of truth itself. [/b]
i'm neither a theist nor agnostic. my point was it is absurd to talk of absolutes in these philosophical realms. aquinas' "proofs" for god are as illegitimate as yours against god. its fine to have your opinion, but acknowledge them as being such.

but all this is inconsequential. more than anything i am a pragmatist. the reality of god is irrelavent to the reality of the belief in god. trampling on people's mores, traditions, and beliefs is hardly a practical way to winning any person to communism. unwavering absolutes and dogmatic moralisms will be the final nail in marx's coffin.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:43 PM

We must recognize the importance of destroying faith - bluntly and swiftly -

This is impossible you cant just openly destroy faith, and religion just like that , if you attack it so strongly people will not listen to you they will merely fight against you even harder, regardless of logic or truth. You must be gentle with people otherwise they will not listen to you do not fight them merely inform them , sow the seed, make them question. Then and only then will religion die off .

Besides, it would be rash to try and get rid of religion without having first replaced to with something else that will give meaning to peoples lives. Weither you like it or not , a vast amount of people depend on religion to give them hope, after all it is the opium of the people , and you must recognise it as such.

PS great post MonicaTTmed , some really interesting stuff
Thanks. I have InfidelGuy to thank for that. http://infidelguy.com/

[drain.you]

I guess I agree. every creature has to adapt to life but the highest point you could be is to make life adapt to you. once we get to this point life will end kinda, as we will be able to do anything, anyone could have any life

[EusebioScrib]

Living forever is a matamathical impossibilty ....it would be impossible to avoid fatal accidents for such along period of time. The longest amount of time that someone could avoid an accident like this is only about 1,500 years , after that your chances of survival are reduced to 0 .


Impossible? No. However it is probable that we will not live forever as something will happen to everyone eventually. 1,500 yrs? Where did you get that number?


By fatal accident i mean one where the brain is turned into goo and theres not chance of a transplant to another host body. Theoretically the brain could live forever , it is only the body that gives out.

Well in a uploaded consciousness, a physical brain isn't necessarily needed. At first such an "uploaded" consciousness could be simply transplanting the brain into a robotic body, however it could eventually be an electrical consciousness. Such things are very possible with proper techonology.


And why the hell would you want to be awake for ever hour of the day? Do you not enjoy sleep? I really like it, but thats a personal thing i suppose . Fuck stay awake for ever if you want

I do enjoy sleep. I'm speaking from a practical perspective. For me, I'm unable to do everything I want to do in my period of being awake. However if can surpass death, why does it matter? But would we "sleep" with an uploaded consciousness? Irrelevant questions. My thought was based mostly on how nature controls us and how we seek to overcome it.


To all:

This conversation is getting rather off-topic. The question of God's existance is irrelevant in this discussion. By "god" I am using him as a metaphor to explain how we wish to become the total master of our condition, being subject to nothing. Not other humans, not nature, not physics etc.

[EusebioScrib]

I guess I agree. every creature has to adapt to life but the highest point you could be is to make life adapt to you. once we get to this point life will end kinda, as we will be able to do anything, anyone could have any life

Interesting point.

So a general question: Is man's nature self-destructive being that once we control out entire condition and become subject to nothing that we destroy ourselves because we have no point to exist any longer?

[elmo sez]

Living forever is a matamathical impossibilty ....it would be impossible to avoid fatal accidents for such along period of time. The longest amount of time that someone could avoid an accident like this is only about 1,500 years , after that your chances of survival are reduced to 0 .



Impossible? No. However it is probable that we will not live forever as something will happen to everyone eventually. 1,500 yrs? Where did you get that number?

Its just a rough number the actual one was like 1438 or something like that , I found it in a report by the Sunday Times on people who wished to have their brains preserved etc in the hope of being revived at some future time. Ill try find the source and post it up .