Non-literal atheism?

[stonedape]

Roads are (marginally) straight lines made of crushed rocks. Lightbulbs are just slow burning fires(new ones are nice, you know, an arc under a lens.....). I just don't think that either is all that impressive in context.

Maybe you are just hard to impress. I'm pretty impressed our mistakes. I'll just use the great planes as an example. It was originally dominated by Bison stampedes that would stretch for miles upon miles. Then we wiped them out to near extinction within a hundred years. Then our agricultural habits turned the great planes into an expanding wasteland, blowing dust all the way to the Atlantic.

Our achievements redeemed our horrific mistake. We found an ancient water source buried beneath the surface of the earth and cured the land of drought. We also preserved the bison, so today you can enjoy a delicious buffalo burger.

It's okay if you're not impressed. You think the horses we rode across the planet were garbage. That is where we throw shit we no longer need. Lets hope whatever AI program we build to be smarter than us doesn't catch on to your philosophy.

[Whateverist]

I'm pretty sure a horse would be an adequate mode of conveyance for a journey of 900 meters.

[Polaris]

Literal atheism means not believing in a god or gods. Buddhists are atheists, but there are some atheists state that atheists must be exactly like them and not get involved in spirituality at all.....it's best not to confine atheism to such a level.

[ShaMan]

We need a new word for what we mean when we discuss "god". From now on, let's call it "imagination".

[stonedape]

We need a new word for what we mean when we discuss "god". From now on, let's call it "imagination".

You and polaris are on an old chapter. I'll catch you up. 'Hope you brought your appetite, here comes a serving of word salad.
The g-word does have a negative connotation. Like some sort of imaginary slave master that demands your soul and obedience or fucking else. So it's a bit of an offensive word for those that have been victim to it.

Personally I wouldn't call god imagination. Even though I can only prove god exists in my imagination, that doesn't mean god is imagination. I do imagine god as the infinite happenstance that made existence possible.

If I were to write genesis I'd say "In the beginning there was only nothing until nothing decided to be something. Something is everything to anything. We are just one thing that gets to participate in something until we return to nothing."

[Polaris]

We need a new word for what we mean when we discuss "god". From now on, let's call it "imagination".

You and polaris are on an old chapter. I'll catch you up. 'Hope you brought your appetite, here comes a serving of word salad.
The g-word does have a negative connotation. Like some sort of imaginary slave master that demands your soul and obedience or fucking else. So it's a bit of an offensive word for those that have been victim to it.

Personally I wouldn't call god imagination. Even though I can only prove god exists in my imagination, that doesn't mean god is imagination. I do imagine god as the infinite happenstance that made existence possible.

If I were to write genesis I'd say "In the beginning there was only nothing until nothing decided to be something. Something is everything to anything. We are just one thing that gets to participate in something until we return to nothing."

So you're kind of a Deist mixed with a Buddhist, kind of.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not just talking about tactical cleverness or artistic thought. When I say creative I'm talking about roads that tie the continent together and the power grid that lights up the night. Yes, there are some very intelligent species out there. Elephants have grave yards, ants build city-like structures, bee hives are pretty sophisticated, beavers are masters of irrigation and some birds sing, dance and build colorful nests. I think if anything that only serves my point.

But none of them possess the same dynamic ability to master rapidly expanding creativity.

That's all good and well, but you know what? Well more than 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, and there's not much reason to doubt that we will escape those grim odds. All the self-congratulation on our creativity strikes me as whistling past the graveyard.

Indeed, as the global-warming issue illustrates clearly, our creativity might well be our downfall.

Also, the fact is that humans evolved from predecessors which presumably didn't have our creativity. That, in itself, illustrates the plasticity of the process of discovery, and even more the fact that while we may now be at the apex of mental creativity, our place is not assured.

Natural selection kicks ass. We would be arrogant to assume we are exempt from its demands.

---

Roads are (marginally) straight lines made of crushed rocks. Lightbulbs are just slow burning fires(new ones are nice, you know, an arc under a lens.....). I just don't think that either is all that impressive in context.

Maybe you are just hard to impress. I'm pretty impressed our mistakes. I'll just use the great planes as an example. It was originally dominated by Bison stampedes that would stretch for miles upon miles. Then we wiped them out to near extinction within a hundred years. Then our agricultural habits turned the great planes into an expanding wasteland, blowing dust all the way to the Atlantic.

Our achievements redeemed our horrific mistake. We found an ancient water source buried beneath the surface of the earth and cured the land of drought. We also preserved the bison, so today you can enjoy a delicious buffalo burger.

It's okay if you're not impressed. You think the horses we rode across the planet were garbage. That is where we throw shit we no longer need. Lets hope whatever AI program we build to be smarter than us doesn't catch on to your philosophy.

However, the bison are still about 99% reduced from historic levels, the aquifer under the Plains is being depleted faster than it is being replenished, and if you think the land is being "cured" of drought, go to California or central Texas and run some numbers.

[stonedape]

That's all good and well, but you know what? Well more than 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, and there's not much reason to doubt that we will escape those grim odds. All the self-congratulation on our creativity strikes me as whistling past the graveyard.

Indeed, as the global-warming issue illustrates clearly, our creativity might well be our downfall.

Also, the fact is that humans evolved from predecessors which presumably didn't have our creativity. That, in itself, illustrates the plasticity of the process of discovery, and even more the fact that while we may now be at the apex of mental creativity, our place is not assured.

Natural selection kicks ass. We would be arrogant to assume we are exempt from its demands.

However, the bison are still about 99% reduced from historic levels, the aquifer under the Plains is being depleted faster than it is being replenished, and if you think the land is being "cured" of drought, go to California or central Texas and run some numbers.

"With great power comes great responsibility"
-Uncle Ben
This is why I asked if infinite expansion of creativity was sustainable without moral objectivity. Morality is another imaginary construct we have to inform with the facts, just like science and technology. It's supposed to evolve and adapt with us.

Selfishness, irresponsible and oppressive nihilism is too beneficial to short term gains. It creates an unsustainable condition. Morality is contagious. This is why I am disgusted by the concept of moral relativity. It creates a vortex of monkey see+monkey do=monkey approved. It's too vulnerable to depravity.

The frustrating part about religion is it's a natural adaptation we developed to combat nihilism with fiction. Unfortunately this fiction has been used as a powerful weapon of nihilism to stunt our moral development.

Right now our moral adaptation to the environment is being repressed by nihilism. The creationist movement is a hit job against scientific literacy, bankrolled by privileged scientifically literate polluters.

The false promise of eternal salvation is all that stands in the way of our eternal salvation. The truth is we are born into the result of mankind's moral efforts. It's important to leave this world better than we found it. The real afterlife is what you teach others throughout your lifetime. That moral foundation is passed on generation, after generation and contributes to our survival.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think moral "objectivity" is even possible, myself, given morality's inherently subjective, and relative, nature. I also think that your critique of the dangers of moral relativity misplace the problem. The problem is not making morality relative; after all, it already is. The danger lies in men placing moral imperatives above the well-being of others. I also think that the idea that moral relativism and subjectivity automatically results in conformity and depravity wouldn't bear much close scrutiny. It has only been in the last century that moral relativism has been a common outlook, but humans as a species have acted selfishly in environmental terms throughout their own history.

I'm not sure what you mean by "moral adaptation" to the environment.

I've no argument with your point about leaving the world better-off than we found it, and inculcating that into our children.

[Confused Ape]

Well more than 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, and there's not much reason to doubt that we will escape those grim odds. All the self-congratulation on our creativity strikes me as whistling past the graveyard.

I agree here. If we become extinct while cockroaches flourish it will mean that cockroaches are a more successful life form.

Have to admit that I have a lot of fondness for the Stoned Ape theory. Discovering hallucinogenic mushrooms is likely to be one of the reasons why humans developed shamanism. When it comes to the mushrooms being alien intelligences, though, I think it indicates that McKenna had been over indulging.