...Quantum physics, that we might consider scientific, (although can we truly be 100% scientific?) tells us for already decades, that there is something to the reality we live in, that is not exactly what we commonly perceive. I will give these keywords:
A belief that there's nothing is, QED, a religious belief, but I've never heard an atheist admit it. If some do, I'll classify it a religion and cost it at €0 like the religions, QED.
Hmm. That's not even agnostic - I think you'd call that Deist...Had to look that up, but yeah. I seem to be something like that.
Okay, the only reason I'm posting is because BUncle asked nicely. I've already been part of a lot of discussions on CivFanatics and various YouTube pages as to whether or not atheism is a religion, and they can range from partial agreement to amusement, bemusement, to really vile things being said and people ending up on the ignore list. I don't want things to get anywhere near that far here....Note here, recent such findings suggest, there is something outside of our reality and it is above time.
A belief that there's nothing is, QED, a religious belief, but I've never heard an atheist admit it. If some do, I'll classify it a religion and cost it at €0 like the religions, QED.
So for me, sorry to all people, that declare themselves atheists or materialists, that is a religious belief for me, that accordingly to recent science, is not true. Materialism seems to me equal to a sectarian cult of something. (That may be a strong statement here). Science is also being open to possibilities and to realize: "I still do not know everything, and maybe I know only little."Hey - any atheists want to come in and discuss? The internet has taught me that arguing for fun is highly overrated, but conversations between people who do not agree can still be stimulating and edumacational... (Also, I believe I can demonstrate that it's a categorical logical fallacy.)
Atheists are people who don't believe in any deity or other supernatural being, and don't believe that natural events have supernatural causes (the prime one being that no deity/supernatural being was responsible for creating the universe). We also don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, Mohammed, or any other religious figure (including Thor, Amon-Ra, Zeus, and name any other god/dess or supernatural being).
It frankly offends me when people insist atheism is a religion. What is it that I supposedly worship? How do I supposedly express that alleged worship? I've gone through these arguments time and again on CFC, where people <specific usernames redacted> insist that atheism is a religion, evolution is a religion, science is a religion... they're just not.
And then there are the similar arguments on YouTube... somebody on CFC told me that Richard Dawkins is such an awful person - so I said, link me to some of his videos so I can see for myself - and they didn't. So I've been doing my own research, and finding someone who is very emphatic in his views, very passionate about science, very impatient with people who refuse to acknowledge the scientific method, how it works, and the wealth of evidence that already exists to support evolution... I guess some people would consider that to be an arrogant attitude to have, but actually he's far milder in many ways than Lawrence Krauss (just started watching some of his cosmology videos).
The story of science as I see it is of believing that it’s worth it to try to figure things out. From that stance alone we admit our own ignorance. The world might not be only what it appears to be, so let’s try to figure out what it actually is. Our brains might be fallible, so let’s try to account for those failures when we seek answers. We might be ill-equipped to solve some mystery on our own, so let's share our findings and see what others discover, too.
Science done right is the deconstruction of hubris.
God the Creator in the Bible is terrible.
I'm Southern Baptist, have read the Bible cover-to-cover, and talking what I knowCool, guess it's better than talking what you don't know. A lot of people do when it comes to religion. As you know, I've researched a little wider than most on the topic.
Why demand worship?
Why make Hell and use it on people?
Why a universe with entropy and being born turning out to be 100% fatal?
Why a universe at all for me to suffer and die in (and I DO suffer)?
I didn't ask to be created and I do not accept Your tests and insistence on worship.
Is anything in Your Book even true?
How are you better than some cruel immortal aspie with reality-altering powers?
Jesus is great and all, but why did You take 13.7 billion years to come up with/implement Mercy?[/b]
Why demand worship?
Why make Hell and use it on people?
Why a universe with entropy and being born turning out to be 100% fatal?
Why a universe at all for me to suffer and die in (and I DO suffer)? I didn't ask to be created and I do not accept Your tests and insistence on worship.
Is anything in Your Book even true?
How are you better than some cruel immortalaspiewith reality-altering powers?
Jesus is great and all, but why did You take 13.7 billion years to come up with/implement Mercy?[/b]
The world took a while to get ready for Jesus. Took some time to make man, took some time for man to be ready. Heck, we had to stop eating each other and learning thou shalt not kill before we were ready for Love One Another stuff.
That was similiar to the thought that went through my head :).The world took a while to get ready for Jesus. Took some time to make man, took some time for man to be ready. Heck, we had to stop eating each other and learning thou shalt not kill before we were ready for Love One Another stuff.
*glances at news headlines, wonders when the "thou shalt not kill" will finally be learned*
I don't think the part about not killing has sunk in yet...
The world took a while to get ready for Jesus. Took some time to make man, took some time for man to be ready. Heck, we had to stop eating each other and learning thou shalt not kill before we were ready for Love One Another stuff.
*glances at news headlines, wonders when the "thou shalt not kill" stuff will finally be learned*
Elok, that's pretty much in detail what I would have told myself back in the day. I don't know as much about Orthodox as I should, and I'm surprised to hear so much doctrinal agreement - I wouldn't expect that from a Catholic.
Right - the history of the Great Schism (which had much more to do with hierarchy/politics than doctrine in other areas, though the two have evolved since colored by their native cultures) and what I do know of the Orthodox church (and Catholic) would have me expecting less agreement with a backwoods protestant than you express on the hard questions.Elok, that's pretty much in detail what I would have told myself back in the day. I don't know as much about Orthodox as I should, and I'm surprised to hear so much doctrinal agreement - I wouldn't expect that from a Catholic.
We resemble the Catholics insofar as they are the nearest spot to us on the family tree of Christianity. We split from them more than a thousand years ago, and have grown in rather different directions from them and Western Christianity in general. We resemble them more than we resemble Southern Baptists, but the similarities can be misleading. Our conception of sin, for example; we see it more as an illness to be cured than a crime to be punished. That shapes our whole attitude to salvation. No satisfaction theory of atonement--apparently some guy named Anselm of Canterbury came up with that around the time of the final split. We don't do guilt nearly as much as the RCC does either. The purpose of an Orthodox life is theosis, reunion with God, which sounds almost Hindu to a casual Western learner (it's derived primarily from "partakers of the Divine nature" in 2 Peter).
Looking back, a good deal of what I posted there was my elaboration on bedrock Orthodox principles, not the principles themselves. The Orthodox approach to the OT is generally to ransack it for things that might be regarded as precursors of Christ--e.g. Joshua in the OT has the same name as Jesus, and his conquest of Canaan is therefore a metaphor or some such for the victory of Christ over the dominion of death. The actual event itself, for its own sake, tends to be treated as an irrelevance (though the priest/seminarian never says so in as many words). The idea of sharpening focus or growing awareness is something I heard from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at a retreat, though I don't know if that was just his opinion or what. Actually, if you have any interest in Orthodox ideas, you could do worse than to pick up some of his stuff. Especially if you can get a recording of him reading it. He has . . . a very calm, ah-very soothing . . . very pleasantly ah-British voice . . . and-ah if, at any time you have heard him speaking of . . . ByZANtine history or ah-theology . . . you will ever after hear his writing . . . in that-ah same voice.That does sound appealing - hard to beat a pleasant British accent for good listening.
WRT the xkcd, there is a certain strain of atheist commonly found on the internet who can well match the insufferability of the most ardent fundamentalist, yes. I avoid reading their stuff. My incidental exposure to Dawkins quotes leads me to believe that, while the man may well be an exceptional biologist and popularizer of science, he does not really understand the belief systems he criticizes. Also he'll occasionally say something horrifying that hits the news, and not appear to understand why everyone is so upset. Like the bit about it being immoral to not abort a Down's baby. Kind of a head-scratcher.What's your take on his being against referring to "a Catholic child" or "a Muslim child" or "a ______ child"?
Thankfully, most atheists are not so utterly myopic and devoid of self-awareness. Even most fundamentalists are not "fundies" as people tend to think of them, in my experience.
What's your take on his being against referring to "a Catholic child" or "a Muslim child" or "a ______ child"?
QuoteWhy make Hell and use it on people?
Any animal needs a stick and carrot approach to training.
What's your take on his being against referring to "a Catholic child" or "a Muslim child" or "a ______ child"?It strikes me as an attempt to pathologize religion; I understand he refers to the transmission of faith as a form of child abuse.
Faith is not entirely--perhaps not even primarily, depending on belief system--a matter of accepting a rational proposition. The child has grown up in and been formed by the culture of Catholicism or Islam or whatever. His/her values are going to be consistent with the community's, whether s/he has wrestled with Thomas Aquinas or the hadiths or not. When I teach my son the basics of Christianity, I'm not trying to bypass his reason and teach him while he's still too young to reject the idea. It's all part of my general effort to raise him correctly. If he were not taught to be a Christian, he would likely find the idea ridiculous, yes--but ditto if I didn't teach him about sharing, taking turns, not hitting, potty-training, trying new foods . . . or Dawkins's preferred brand of secular humanism.
In general, I think Dawkins's argument is dependent on the common but IMO fallacious notion of a non-theistic null state: the idea that children are not "naturally" religious and would normally grow up finding the whole idea absurd. But children don't "naturally" believe anything. If anything, as an atheist acquaintance of mine pointed out, they have slightly animist tendencies, assuming everything is alive and has volition. That's one of the most aggravating things about many secular-liberals; they tend to treat their own belief system as a value-neutral default instead of a set of propositions about the universe based on certain assumptions, the same as what they're arguing against (oh, but their assumptions are the RIGHT assumptions). Perhaps this is what BUncle is getting at when he talks about atheism as a religion, though I wouldn't phrase it that way.
That's one of the most aggravating things about many secular-liberals; they tend to treat their own belief system as a value-neutral default instead of a set of propositions about the universe based on certain assumptions, the same as what they're arguing against (oh, but their assumptions are the RIGHT assumptions).
QuoteWhy make Hell and use it on people?
Any animal needs a stick and carrot approach to training.
I find arguments such as these entirely unconvincing. The implication is that God's capacity for creation is somehow subservient to animal psychology, rather than the other way around. God didn't have to create beings who respond in Pavlovian ways, but he did. The alternative is a god who is not all powerful, which usually runs afoul of some doctrinal issues...
I am not familiar with "Jesus camp," so I can't say whether I do what they do or not. We go to church every Sunday and on feast days, read Bible stories sometimes, do morning and evening prayers as a family, etc. I assume that if you have kids you will raise them to believe your values, same as I do with mine.I just saw the "highlights" video before (about 9 minutes).
I do not mean to imply that all religious people are paragons of reason and fairness, nor that all atheists are the opposite. Thankfully most atheists are of the apathetic variety, or simply have better things to do.
So, as someone who falls on the "a" side of the atheist/theist spectrum, the value-neutral system that I were to teach any potential children of mine (had I not specifically constructed my life to avoid having to do so) is: There are a lot of things about the universe which could be true. Don't assume any of them are true. Instead, build up a reliable way of discovering truths and then apply it to the universe as you see fit.
I don't proclaim that gods aren't real or that they definitively don't exist. From that statement and the above, you might say that I look more or less agnostic. But if someone puts a gun to my head and demands that I declare for atheism or agnosticism, I would eventually concede that atheism is more my cup of tea. The reason is that I'm not on the fence about gods. I don't think we're currently capable of proving that gods exist, and in the mean time I don't see any evidence* that they do. I am open to the possibility that they might, but I don't take them into consideration when deciding things.
NSFW headline, but too funny in the context of this thread to pass up: http://onion.com/1Lz2jlI (http://onion.com/1Lz2jlI) ATTN: Uno.
EDIT: Buncle, why does that puppy appear to be humping the air? It's not just wagging, I'm seeing some pelvic thrust going on too. Or is it just me? Should I make a poll of it?It's not just you, make a poll if you think it'll be funny, and I swear the puppy is just wiggling it's butt side-to-side 'cause that tail stub don't wag.
BTW - I speak Wicca well enough to get by with Wiccans. I think it's weak-minded (pseudo-hippy trendoid, non-conforming in formation) garbage,
"I love you, Master. I love you *that way*. Come closer and I WILL LOVE YOU SO HARD."I have to share your dog riff with my sister, who has had a dog like that and will plotz.
I can't take your defense of that seriously if you don't watch the video. I know it's a long one - there's a shorter "highlight" video that shows some of the worst of it, but the longer one shows how this camp is combined with anti-science homeschooling, a young girl who thinks that "martyrs are cool," and a whole host of other nonsense (apparently Jesus blesses Power Point presentations and the Nestle corporation's bottled water is holy and able to wash away sin).
Re: Jesus Camp, I didn't watch the video, Valka, for various reasons. Looked it up on Wiki instead. It sounds like the bulk of their teaching methods are unobjectionable--textbooks, songs, and lectures/sermons. Training children in oratory is actually a fine idea, and should be more common IMO. The methods seem fine. It's just that the *content* is totally cuckoo for cocoa-puffs, and hateful to boot. Are you objecting more to the method or the content? I say this as someone who's read about the Church of Scientology's indoctrination practices--those make any little kids' camp business seem tame.
Not sure if I've discussed this w/you (and maybe Ken or Moby) on Poly before, but my general policy on this score is that if the truth of the universe is indifferent to me, then I might as well be indifferent to it. If the atheist rots in the ground just as surely as the most pious churchgoer, I have no reason to be an atheist unless it happens to appeal to me personally, which it doesn't. Evidence--not that there can really be any for this kind of claim--doesn't enter into it. It's hard for me to buy any appeal to absolutes of truth, justice, etc. either, if once we've thrown away the absolute of absolutes. If there is no God (or equivalent thingy like karma), there are only contingent and subjective goods based on my interests or desires, or what happens to be expedient at the moment. I dislike that thought intensely, so I reject its logical precedents. Which is not itself "illogical" from my perspective, if there is no profit from knowing the truth.
Actually, I think I have mentioned this to you before. But hey, I haven't done it on this forum before!
Allow me to interject a personal opinion, Valka - I haven't watched the video, either, basically because I believe your assessment, but also from strong supicion that it could be triggering-level unpleasant to see... Elok may not react as viscerally as I do to child abuse, but it's obvious that's what it is and nobody wants to see that. You don't need his informed reaction that bad, I think.I will say that I did not see any of the kids being physically struck. The abuse is being done to their minds - mentally, emotionally, any way you think about it. Some of the kids in the video are only about 4 years old.
I'm not watching because I'm on a slowish connection. Also, have no means of watching without my kids seeing. The bit about fits and speaking in tongues sounds like what I've heard about typical behavior for adult Pentecostal or charismatic types--it may not be the result of their methods so much as what they see Mom and Dad doing in church every couple of Sundays. It's a very effusive and emotional style of worship, supposedly. I'm not a Pentecostal so I don't know for sure, but that's the scuttlebutt.I'm just saying please don't defend the contents of this video if you haven't watched it. The Wikipedia article doesn't mention even a small fraction of what's actually in this.
At any rate, getting back to Dawkins's remark: we Orthodox run church camps, I went to one every summer for ten years, and mostly we just went to church twice a day and played sports and stuff the rest of the time. It is entirely possible to teach religion to children without giving them PTSD. Much of the time Sunday School, as Buncle notes, is simply taught by morons. Not monsters, just morons.There's a considerable difference between a couple of church services and being allowed to do normal kid things the rest of the time... and the stuff these kids were put through by the people who run the camp shown in the video. They actually show one little boy expressing doubts... and later on he's babbling and shaking on the floor with the rest of them.
I can't take your defense of that seriously if you don't watch the video.
This video contains content from Magnolia, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Lori: It's odd how you emphasize your amorality while being one of the most consistently decent people on Poly.THANK YOU, Elok; I've been thinking this forever, but needed you to come along and articulate it. QFFT.
Lori: It's odd how you emphasize your amorality while being one of the most consistently decent people on Poly.
Well, that's un-neighborly of them (Disney frequently won't let me watch General Hospital on YT for the same reason).
I can't take your defense of that seriously if you don't watch the video.QuoteThis video contains content from Magnolia, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
We are at an impasse.
Valka, I didn't say anything about violence - that's fodder for police action, not discrediting webs video. Still child abuse, and I don't want to know about child abuse I can't do anything about.The police services of the world are behind the times when it comes to reporting crimes discovered online. I work for Amazon Mechanical Turk, and one time I stumbled into a child porn site - and to this day it upsets me greatly that I have no idea what to do if it should ever happen again.
Incidentally, I found out today that Marvel Comics deluge-era Atlanteans had a goddess named "Valka". Believe it.
Valka, I'm not sure how I got into this argument. I'm willing to concede that I am not familiar with this Jesus Camp, and judging by your descriptions it's at least borderline-abusive. I'm not going to try to defend it any further.Thank you.
It's also not representative of all religious instruction. Your typical Catholic school these days, for example, is all but identical to public schools. They just have an extra religion class in addition to chemistry, drama, algebra, etc. I've also been to an open house for a Christian homeschooling group; they struck me as flaky, obscurantist, and far too cozy with the post-Reagan chimera of Faith and 'Murica, but not in any way abusive or brainwashing. The main harm done is that, if any of those kids wants to be a biologist, he's going to have some remedial classes to take. So nuts to Dawkins and his opinion, which he apparently expressed in The God Delusion, that my kids should be taken away from me and raised as atheists.It actually doesn't matter to me if a Christian believes in God, Jesus, goes to church 3 times a week (yes, I knew someone who did that), read the bible, whatever... as long as they're not hypocrites about it or try to get religion-based laws enacted, creationism taught in science classes, prevent others from learning things normally part of science and health classes, shoehorn it into schools, government, and society in other inappropriate or biased ways, and force their views into the hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies.
Zhered-Na was a sorceress in Atlantis c. 18,000 BC. Exiled by emperor Kamuu for her prophecy that Atlantis would sink, Zhered-Na was relocated to the mainland Thurian continent where she taught about her god Valka.The remnants of the cult of Zhered-Na in modern times (a couple of Man-Thing supporting characters who do white magic) are good guys, so I bet Valka was...
The same goes for everyone - it would inform the conversation in a positive way if we laid our cards on the table about stuff that's already informing the conversation, if out of sight... I'll try to write up something today on my history with faith and losing it, and what I now believe.
This whole topic is treading on potentially volatile religious grounds.The same goes for everyone - it would inform the conversation in a positive way if we laid our cards on the table about stuff that's already informing the conversation, if out of sight... I'll try to write up something today on my history with faith and losing it, and what I now believe.
Well, I'm a religious Jew, of course, and that informs pretty much everything...but I'm not sure what details should be put on the table.
There are at least three religion/faith-based threads going on right now in the OT forum at CFC. One person has been harassing me to the point where I've put him on ignore. I don't want things to get anywhere near that point here, so there will probably be times when I'll leave so I can calm down.This whole topic is treading on potentially volatile religious grounds.The same goes for everyone - it would inform the conversation in a positive way if we laid our cards on the table about stuff that's already informing the conversation, if out of sight... I'll try to write up something today on my history with faith and losing it, and what I now believe.
Well, I'm a religious Jew, of course, and that informs pretty much everything...but I'm not sure what details should be put on the table.
There are at least three religion/faith-based threads going on right now in the OT forum at CFC. One person has been harassing me to the point where I've put him on ignore. I don't want things to get anywhere near that point here, so there will probably be times when I'll leave so I can calm down.That's cool. I'm sure you see that behavior's been better here than other experiences have led you to expect, but a trigger's a trigger, and we need to rule our anger, not let our anger rule us. Taking breaks when needed is mature. ;b;
but that had always held up the priesthood of the believer as a central tenant
everyone believed in some variant on Protestantism and so the differences between them were negligibleFrom your Orthodox seat - I imagine they tended strongly to disagree. Outsiders see the people of faith squabble and point at all the murder in history over the most MINOR of theological differences and the atheist love to harp -and they're not wrong. But you get in close and take the belief seriously, and what are you to do? Lie and pretend you don't think the wrong guys are wrong?
Re: faith and politics, I'm ambivalent.
On the one hand, I've come to regard our current conception of church-state separation as something of a stacked deck. As things stand, a congressman may introduce a bill based on any values whatever, and have it debated (in theory) on its merits, provided those values do not involve God. For example, Dennis Kucinich could introduce a bill declaring cows to be people. This is completely out of touch with what almost everyone believes, and it would be shot down, but it would not violate the First Amendment as we think of it unless Kucinich brought in whatever Space Invaders stuff he believes in. Then it would be disqualified instantly. That is not neutrality. I do not think true neutrality is possible; if A sees things one way and B sees things another, the closest you can come to neutrality is a compromise, which as Lori noted is not always good.
See my precious remarks about the political pendulum -I don't believe you recall the 70s in person- and more of the Reagan backlash was social than actually political, (with cable and computers and all muddying the issue hopelessly with the cultural change they wrought) or a man who swore in public couldn't have pulled off the Faldwell movement with people desperate for something, anything, to hold on to and believe in (politically) to save the world from the Ayatollah and disco and Gary Trudeau and gays and hippies and pron. The left had run riot for almost two decades and frustration demanded the 'decent' people Take Back America. They believed in Reagan, credulously against glaring evidence that he wasn't One OF Them, because they needed to believe.:attn: If that metallic alloy has a high concentration of genuine lead (as in the element Pb), then I would handle it with extreme caution.
I was saying at the time that Falwell would hate the theocracy he was working so hard to make - I don't know the demographics, but I think it would be Catholic if any shreds of democracy remained in there.
Fortunately, according to my pendulum interpretation of political history (and it also explains the Democrats and Republicans swapping places as the left and right parties in the 30s-40s) the Right having gone to alarming extremes increasingly for 35 years straight, now --- we're overdue for a swingback, which may have already begun. I'll hide my guns in case Gary Trudeau comes to make Iranian hippy anal porn w/ me against my will.
Mo' of my religious art, now. The ring was exactly where I hoped it was. This was made off a cast I created from a plastic Green Lantern ring and simply carved, which is easy with lead. (I also have a lead Green Lantern ring, though I never worked out a satisfactory way to make it green that didn't rub off fast when I actually wear it...)
...I struck some real gold looking through all my renfair junk I hadn't touched in over 13 years, so thank God for that...If you mean metallic items with a high percentage of authentic gold, than I give you a :clap:. If you mean it in the sense of artistic or sentimental value; than I give you a ;b;.
That'll do.I was not concerned about licking or unintentionally putting the hand in your eyes or mouth. You mentioned making it from a mold and carving it. The carving process could potentially release particles that you might inhale unintentionally ;eek. This does not exempt the fact that I have carved a few items in my life :-\. [end discussion on topic]
There was a lot of solder melted in, so the tin content might -might- qualify it as pewter. Believe me, I didn't lick the thing, and took care to wash the fingers touching thoroughly.
-Found my copy of The Book of Mormon in that stuff, too.
How a homeless Satanic monument wound up in Detroithttp://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/how-a-homeless-satanic-monument-wound-up-in-detroit/Content?oid=2357195#fromMobile (http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/how-a-homeless-satanic-monument-wound-up-in-detroit/Content?oid=2357195#fromMobile)
Crafty devil
DetroitMetroTimes
By Lee DeVito @leedevito July 22, 2015
(http://media1.fdncms.com/metrotimes/imager/u/zoom/2357194/arts1-1-a2e45472590679d1.jpg)
Baphomet is part man and part animal. The goat-headed Satanic symbol is often shown with one arm pointing upward and the other pointing down. He is even sometimes depicted with female breasts. The icon means different things to different people, but for the Satanic Temple, Baphomet's dualities make him the perfect symbol of reconciling opposites and plurality. That's why the group (who describe themselves as "non-theistic Satanists") decided to build a one-ton, 9-foot-tall bronze monument of Baphomet with the hopes of getting it installed next to the Ten Commandments monument on Oklahoma's state Capitol.
Before then, a stop in Detroit, where the Satanic Temple has established its first national chapterhouse, to officially unveil the monument. And that's when all hell broke loose. In Detroit, the group has faced violent threats, which caused them to relocate the event to a secret, private location. And possibly in an effort avoid any further conflict, Oklahoma's Supreme Court recently declared the Ten Commandments monument unconstitutional — which means for now, Baphomet is looking for a new home.
We spoke with Jex Blackmore, a member of the Satanic Temple's executive ministry, to learn about the devil in the details — and why the unveiling will still go on.
Metro Times: When did the idea for this sculpture originate?
Jex Blackmore: It feels like so long ago now. It was the winter two years ago, I think. The idea of it was more of [TST spokesman Doug Mesner's]. In terms of my involvement, I was called and he said "we have this idea. We're going to put a monument up and we don't know what it is yet." Then we went through a series of brainstorm sessions of how it would look.
MT: So you guys designed it?
Blackmore: Yes, the Satanic Temple designed it. We did the first sketches and then we passed it off to an artist. We had a conversation with the executive ministry at the Satanic Temple about what kind of monument it would be. We played around with a few different ideas and finally came to Baphomet, and from there fleshed out all the details of whether or not it would be the historic Baphomet or our interpretation.
The sculptor's name is Mark Porter. He's traveling with the monument. I just had a long conversation with him today about transport. We have a trailer but we can't have Baphomet on the back for all to see as it goes down the highway. We need to construct something to try to seal it.
MT: Why Detroit for the unveiling? You guys have established the chapterhouse here.
Blackmore: We have roots here and I live here, and we have our first chapter here. We have a really strong local chapter that is really active and involved and helpful. Doug is from Detroit as well. So we have a lot of support here.
MT: We're sure you've seen the comments online. A lot of people are upset about the statue's mere existence. Are you worried about anyone creating a scene at the unveiling party or vandalizing it?
Blackmore: It's an incredibly charged object — even the idea of it is just charged. It's a really amazing thing to witness the kind of connotations important people place on it on both sides. We have purchased excellent insurance for the object. We will have an ample amount of security at the event. Of course we respect and even encourage people to express their opinions on either side because it's healthy and it's part of democracy. So it doesn't surprise me that potentially people could come and protest. We will have security in place that ensure everyone is safe who attends and that the object is safe. And even people who want to speak out against it are also safe.
MT: Are there any concerns that people will take it the wrong way — that they don't understand the Satan that you guys evoke is a metaphor of and not literally the Christian Satan?
Blackmore: All the time. I mean we try to be as transparent as possible about what we believe and our practices. We have a very informative website. We do interviews. We write essays. There is a wealth of information about who we are. We can't obviously control people's assumptions about us, especially when they have no interest in learning or understanding. The best we can do is be transparent and honest about who we are.
MT: Probably every religious group has been misunderstood by others since the dawn of time.
Blackmore: Even to be fair there are people within the Satanic community that demonize all Christians for being opposed to things like gay marriage. That's not the case about all Christians. So, making generalizations about any group and their beliefs is not a wise thing for us to do as a community.
MT: Anything else you think people should know about the event?
Blackmore: With the announcement of the private Unveiling event, many have launched a crusade against the Satanic Temple, irresponsibly mischaracterizing and disparaging the group due to willful speculation. We have been told that the Satanic Temple is the “last thing Detroit needs,” while it is not us, but many leaders from the traditional Detroit religious community who intentionally provoke discontent, violence, outrage and misunderstanding. We firmly believe that all should have the freedom to practice their faith or lack thereof without harassment, that the majority does not have the right to define what’s acceptable for all and that we should support our neighbors despite our differences. The kind of slander and intolerance perpetuated by this vocal faction is precisely why we remain a proactive community and why our event will proceed as a celebration of free expression. Those who are offended simply need not attend. Let us remember that Detroit has been a majority Christian community for decades. If the prayers of a single voice haven’t saved us yet, perhaps it is time to embrace the diversity of our great community and seek commonalities because one might argue that is what Detroit truly needs.
The research I did indicates that purchase of LeVey's books is a requirement to belong to the Church of Satan.
Let's have an anarchists club! I'll be president, you guys be the bylaws committee. -We'll need a sergeant-at-arms...Unfortuntately, anarchism rarely persists because an individual or group tends to try and seize some form of power.
...To be clear, I'm thinking about the photon slit experiment when I talk about the observer effect being almost like they're set up to contradict the possibility of rational explanation. Why would the laws of the universe care if I was watching?...
Have you ever read Contact by Carl Sagan? There's an important bit in the novel about the Creator leaving clues in the laws of the universe -specifically the value of Pi having embedded messages, in the novel, but the aliens said there were more. The observer effect could be interpreted as God's joke on physicists - or "Hello; I AM"- or both...
I'm basically just saying the strangeness of quantum physics appears to me to be an entirely different order of 'we don't understand yet' than previous gaps one could name, being almost like they're set up to contradict the possibility of rational explanation. Lori can probably articulate this better than I, this being a interest of his that he's studied extensively.
I'm an agnostic, personally, and this is just speculation.
Thedarkest, guess how western civilization started?
When some greeks in Ionia refused to succumb to this urge of mysticism and instead started thinking what is actually going on.
From there the philosophy tradition and the rest is history.
I'm basically just saying the strangeness of quantum physics appears to me to be an entirely different order of 'we don't understand yet' than previous gaps one could name, being almost like they're set up to contradict the possibility of rational explanation. Lori can probably articulate this better than I, this being a interest of his that he's studied extensively.
I'm a bit sketchy on the archeological record, but I think Western civ started some time earlier with these vaguely Persian-ish guys coming out of the east and having their way with the women. Then they fought each other and interbred a dozen different ways for several centuries. There were some invasions, a dark age, a half-remembered war in Asia Minor, and some five hundred years after that people on the coast of said region got around to borrowing and riffing on some ideas from a (thoroughly kooky and mystical) group of Semites far to the southeast.Looks like you're referring to Indo-Europeans.
...Christianity has had a far stronger influence on Western culture than Plato or Aristotle. Of course, the former had ample influence on Christianity itself, because plenty of the early philosophers were religious or quasi-religious.They go hand-in-hand. There's a good reason why Copernicus waited until he was on his deathbed to publish his book that dared to say that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system and not Earth: He'd have been executed for heresy, in one of the many gruesome ways employed by the Catholic church/Inquisition.
I've always wondered if the QM mysteries have some connection to the 'missing' spatial dimensions, actually...
...Christianity has had a far stronger influence on Western culture than Plato or Aristotle. Of course, the former had ample influence on Christianity itself, because plenty of the early philosophers were religious or quasi-religious.They go hand-in-hand. There's a good reason why Copernicus waited until he was on his deathbed to publish his book that dared to say that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system and not Earth: He'd have been executed for heresy, in one of the many gruesome ways employed by the Catholic church/Inquisition.
I have an old mental block when people start throwing in equations, and have trouble not automatically skimming.I've always wondered if the QM mysteries have some connection to the 'missing' spatial dimensions, actually...
I am not an expert, but my guess would be no. If the spooky parts of QM rely on information passing through "missing" dimensions, and those missing dimensions are local for quantum particles, then violations of Bell's inequalities rule out that possibility.
I don't know if you've read this one, but I did a post (http://anomalous-readings.blogspot.com/2016/01/quantifying-weirdness.html) recently trying to explain what Bell's inequalities are all about. I'm not sure I did a particularly good job of it, but there are pictures of cookies!
I have an old mental block when people start throwing in equations, and have trouble not automatically skimming.
I'm also trying to make a subtle point to Valka that science doesn't have to be any more inherently hostile to religion
To think that people who study that stuff for a living find a certain subset thereof bewildering makes me want to write the whole thing off and look for a scotch.
It's not something I have direct interest in; my feeling is, if the car runs, I don't need to know how the engine works.
...Christianity has had a far stronger influence on Western culture than Plato or Aristotle. Of course, the former had ample influence on Christianity itself, because plenty of the early philosophers were religious or quasi-religious.They go hand-in-hand. There's a good reason why Copernicus waited until he was on his deathbed to publish his book that dared to say that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system and not Earth: He'd have been executed for heresy, in one of the many gruesome ways employed by the Catholic church/Inquisition.
This is the standard church-and-state-conflict narrative we've been telling since the Enlightenment, one which blurs the truth considerably. Galileo and Copernicus got in trouble not for contradicting the Bible or patristic teaching (neither of which says much of anything about what goes around what), but for feuding with an academic orthodoxy based on the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition. It was called heresy because the RCC had a monopoly or near-monopoly on education back then, and heresy was a catch-all for PO'ing the RCC, but they were refuting Aristotle and Ptolemy, not St. Paul or Jesus. The Church had spent the past several centuries adopting pagan classical teachers into a synthesis with Christian teaching--Thomas Aquinas basically baptized Aristotle--and didn't appreciate all that work getting undone.
The only reason academic snits today don't turn similarly violent is that today's academics don't have the power to arrest, punish and suppress their opponents. If you don't believe they'd be tempted to do so given the opportunity, I'm guessing you don't have much experience with the tone of contemporary academia. Read any book by a scholar in a controversial field; s/he will spend at least a chapter on "my opponents, and why they are stupid and biased." Heck, you'll find it in books about paleontology: "Jack Horner thinks T. Rex couldn't be a predator because it was slow? Please! Given that its prey animals had to have been equally slow, this is a perfectly ridiculous position to take. And furthermore, Horner fails to recognize blah blah blah . . ."
Giordano Bruno was in fact a straight-up heretic--he was charged with denying most of the major RCC doctrines, including the Trinity, divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation, and Virgin Birth, plus teaching reincarnation and dabbling in sorcery--and has no real relevance to a discussion of science-religion conflicts. His belief in exoplanets, etc. seems trivial by comparison, and unlikely to have earned the stake if he had stuck to them without adopting the combined teachings of Gnostics and Arians (and then some).
Galileo, having won the patronage of the Pope (who liked him so much that he had a servant read portions of Galileo's work aloud when he sat down to meals), mishandled a delicate situation atrociously and put the Pope's words in the mouth of a character whose name sounds suspiciously like the Italian for "idiot." For this he was forced to recant, then given lifelong house arrest. He wasn't even prevented from publishing. His treatment was remarkably lenient. What do you suppose what would have happened if he'd done the same thing to some Italian prince? Or even one of the later secularized despots of the Enlightenment, like Frederick or Peter? Even the relatively gentle Catherine would have given him similar treatment for his impudence, assuming a lower minister didn't take the matter on himself and hang the man.
Expectations of freedom of conscience and/or expression, in any sphere, are quite simply not reasonable for the seventeenth century--the age of the Thirty Years' War and English Civil War. Even in the eighteenth there were sharp limits on what you could get away with. As for the stake, who would burn at it would depend on who had the power to tie people to it. I'm given to understand that Dawkins has said the children of religious people should be taken from them and raised as atheists, while the late Hitchens praised the Soviet repression of the Russian Church and played cheerleader for the Iraq War as a way to suppress Islam. Really, I don't trust anyone to have that power for long and not use it.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to suggest that Bruno (or anyone) should have been burned alive, nor that Galileo should have been imprisoned. My point is that you can't realistically paint either as some kind of martyr for science without drastically distorting the truth. If you don't like being told about Stalin et al, imagine how much folks like me enjoy the endless parade of Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, pogroms, etc. from your set.Thing is, I would never accuse you of strapping on a suit of armor and galloping off to kill Muslims for the glory of God (or whatever their line of propaganda was to justify it), or wanting to burn me at the stake because I deny all the doctrine that I consider to be nonsense. But I've been accused of being like Stalin, and those other genocidal tyrants, and told I've got no morality because I'm not religious.
Dawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago. I don't actually read Dawkins's writing if I can help it. I do not believe that he, or any other human being, would be able to resist using the power to repress all criticism for long if he had it.
Dawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago.
QuoteDawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago.
How is this equivalent to reading something in a newspaper? Which online column, by which atheist, and when? You read about it, not read it directly.
But the point for me is... could we have reached such conclusions earlier if the education system in Europe at the time (administered by the Church) had not insisted on this strict division? (Not a rhetorical question, actually. I'm genuinely curious and I'd read more about this if the thought of doing anything other than homework didn't give me bouts of anxiety.)
QuoteDawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago.
How is this equivalent to reading something in a newspaper? Which online column, by which atheist, and when? You read about it, not read it directly.
Don't recall. Doesn't matter. If the writer has no conceivable reason to lie about it, it's not reasonable to assume he is. If you want to find the truth of it, by all means read TGD; I don't care enough to dig. The atheist in question said RD made the argument within fifteen pages of deploring medievals' habit of calling for the same thing to be done to the children of Jews--the broader point was RD's supposed blindness to the contradictions in his own beliefs. So, I guess you look in the horrible-childrearing-ideas section?
Are you seriously pulling that vonbach junk on me for hinting that you're going after Elok a little hard?
The sarcasm is entirely against idgit YouTube commenters and Dawkins, for which I see no reason to do any walking back.
I didn't check my baggage at the door when I started AC2 -though I try to make it no one else's problem, even if I fail- and I can't expect anyone else to. But you've been treated with respect, and indeed affection, here. I know that this topic, by the nature of the thing, is a match-fight in a gasoline tank --- but Elok says his thoughtful piece calmly and unaggressively, and it's sorta kicking puppies when you go after the guy too hard. (He says on his blog he's retired from arguing on the internet and we should respect that. I do, having drawn a similar conclusion not two years ago right here at AC2.) Nothing about ideological taking of sides -I fall roughly halfway between your ultimate positions- just reminding you that you're not swimming with the sharks in here.
Your POV is welcome. Relax. Say your piece. There is no winning and losing unless we try to make it so; only conversation, entertaining and sometimes educational at its best. It's all good, if we'll only let it be...
Why are you getting involved in YT comment threads?
2. Why are you getting involved in YT comment threads? They're the cloaca of the internet. You could look up a video on nineteenth-century Parisian architecture and the comments would still mostly be people calling each other faggots. And they wouldn't even spell "[homosexual]" correctly.Note that you can't say [homosexual]here -it a slur, and nothing but, unless you're referring to burning firewood or English cigarettes- but our swear filter sucks and I deem the use in this context -giving an example of uncouth beyond-the-pale speech- acceptable.
"Pulling that vonbach junk"? What does that even mean?This is one of those places that the limits of what you can put into the tone of bare text is a problem. This is intended in a calm and friendly tone, just to be clear and answer your concerns...
I asked for a link. I prefer to make up my own mind about people, and all I get is people telling me "Oh, Dawkins is terrible. I read this thing that somebody else said about him, and no, I didn't actually read it myself, but people say this, that, and other stuff, so he must be a really awful person."
I'm saying that I prefer to go to the original source so I can evaluate it and decide for myself what my opinion is.
It's similar to the arguments about the nuDune books, btw. There are people who vilify the nuDune books, but can't specify exactly why because they haven't read them. They just repeat what other people have said and accept that as their own opinions. Well, the nuDune books are pretty bad, but I say that as someone who's actually read them and can point to specific reasons why I have that opinion. I don't rely on hearsay for my opinions of books, movies, or Richard Dawkins' character.
I am going to excuse myself from this thread, because I really don't see any way to continue. Even a request for a link so I can read something for myself is considered an "argument" so there's really no point.
Ecclesiastes 12:13
King James Bible
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: FearGod, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man
Mom and Dad did a lot of the groundwork providing me with an ad-hoc consensus reality and values, of course, and beginning in adolescence, of course, I began challenging their model and tinkering it around into my own version - which I'm still working on, of course, just like everyone else (though I'd venture us nerds have to work harder at it for longer, being less plugged into the larger consensus reality of society around us by our very nature).On the last parenthetical bit, a few more remarks because of who's in the room and how that informs our approach to modeling the world and forming our belief sets.
Yeaaaahh. Doesn't SOUND quite right, does it?
I sat on the floor to get the books behind me. The dolls are higher up and you've seen pictures of that part of the same shelves. Note that behind my head are part of two encyclopedia sets - and a copy of Dianatics near my left shoulder. Family albums by my right elbow.
Note also my AARP t-shirt. I miss Devil Dog. Her name was Polly. -This is funny to people in our community. -Also, slightly over a year ago, I was driving Geo around, pointed and said "That's the community college I went to. It's WPCC." (Western Piedmont Community College.) Lord, did he laugh.
A moat would be problematic for kids playing, as would a flowerbed, but you're definitely thinking in the right direction.
This is something I probably would have done 20 years ago if I had my own yard I could call the shots about, and -I dunno- a thousand or so dollars to spend on do it yourself masonry...
Somebody needs to mention a spiritual matter soon..
;nodShe's a nice church lady, not real, what you'd call liberal, but really put out by the bad-mouthing and hate politics on the right - all the way back to Reagan. She looks at Christ's teaching and sees the love they neighbor and turn the other cheek - and she finds it deeply troubling that Franklin Graham has his head on straight with the charitable activities, but spinning around in mid-air shooting fire when he talks politics...
-Momma said something I liked coming back from voting - that she's not wild about the socialism thing with Bernie, but it's just Christian for people to look out for each other.
Why don't you ever hear that from church people 'voting their principals'?
On to epistemology!
Many moons ago, I subbed "methods of knowledge" class (basically critical thinking skills for AP high schoolers). We watched a video on the Mayans, and at the end the students laughed at the bizarre notion that the survival of the universe depended on people ramming thorns through their genitals to give the gods blood to drink. I didn't have time to smack them properly for that before the bell rang: "how often do you seriously stop to question received wisdom about the basic truths of the world"?
So, let's ask each other. I simply take heliocentrism on trust, but it probably doesn't matter whether I believe it or not. Ditto atomic theory, photosynthesis, etc. Those all come down to "why would anyone make this crap up?" Then there's climate change and economics questions. Both involve systems so phenomenally complicated that I have doubts of my ability to properly understand the big picture even if I troubled to read into either. I wind up assuming climate change is true because there's no credible profit in making it up, and have some suspicions regarding economists who consistently argue in favor of things that make it easier for rich people to accumulate power and influence. But for all I know, it's t'other way around.
What's your rule of thumb?
For one thing, don't take heliocentrism on trust. It's been discredited for hundreds of years.
If I follow the question, my "it don't matter" answer to predestination and solipsism applies to a lot of this. I don't understand economics that well either, but still think Keynes was -not so much wrong as- dangerous. (Government can do a lot for an economy pumping capital into the system at the right times, but Ross Perot had a point, too.)
Any intelligent person has to assess the reliability of their information sources -could my eyes/senses have been fooled, are my observations statistically significant, does this guy even know what he's talking about, do I trust this guy's word, does his internal logic scan, do I accept the base assumptions, and so on- and assemble their own working model of the world to function in it. Mom and Dad did a lot of the groundwork providing me with an ad-hoc consensus reality and values, of course, and beginning in adolescence, of course, I began challenging their model and tinkering it around into my own version - which I'm still working on, of course, just like everyone else (though I'd venture us nerds have to work harder at it for longer, being less plugged into the larger consensus reality of society around us by our very nature).
I buy into global warming mostly because the logic scans -though I have to accept base assumptions to that logic to do with how greenhouse gasses work, because I don't have the science to understand WHY carbon dioxide retains solar heat- and the measurements of the phenomenon in progress seem to match up. Arguments that there's an agenda imagining it or lying about it strike me as saying a lot more about the people who think that way than the people they attack - it's political, and please go sell your bill of goods somewhere else that doesn't foul your own nest and mine, fools.
So, logic and a knowledge I can't have complete knowledge, and thus have to muddle through partly on faith and assumptions. Does that answer the question well enough?
So Elok - I daresay I answered the heck out of the question; any response before we lose you for 40 days come tonight?Mom and Dad did a lot of the groundwork providing me with an ad-hoc consensus reality and values, of course, and beginning in adolescence, of course, I began challenging their model and tinkering it around into my own version - which I'm still working on, of course, just like everyone else (though I'd venture us nerds have to work harder at it for longer, being less plugged into the larger consensus reality of society around us by our very nature).On the last parenthetical bit, a few more remarks because of who's in the room and how that informs our approach to modeling the world and forming our belief sets.
We replaced the light fixture in the kitchen yesterday, and I'm still wincing every time I go in there, especially after dark. It had been a soft florescent light since we moved in 46 years and three days ago (note that precision, for which I had actually looked at the date and counted before I realized how it underlined part of my point) and the incandescent lighting changes the color of the light and everything and makes the shadows sharp and looks glare-y and that makes me unhappy. -Kinda DEEPLY unhappy. I had a horrible fight a while back over the bathroom remodeling and I'm. still. too. pissed. for that to be a safe subject to talk about around the house.
Many/most of you already see where I'm going with this part. I watch Monk and Big Bang Theory and nitpick their accuracy. Lori once posted a drawing of a 20-sided die, and somehow whether the numbers were arranged right came up and I posted a joking scold for putting up an OCD trigger like that. And then I really got up and looked around the house for an analog one to check, and googled pictures when I couldn't find one. I have a preference for which side of my cigarette pack is up when I lay it down. I get furious when my coffee spoon is missing in the morning. I alternate red and black stacks to the best of my ability when playing solitaire.
-I've never been diagnosed, but yeah, I'm definitely a bit on that autism/OCD spectrum somewhere. Mostly I can turn it on and off when I really want to -and my women have come to sometimes ask me to nitpick things for them- so it's not a burden, exactly, but -- any difference that doesn't tend to make you alpha male is probably a social burden, and I am mentally more than a bit other. You know; most of us have at least a touch, for it's a major part of what makes us nerds.
And I worked out long ago that pretty central to the definition of nerd is no (or little, really) sense of perspective. It is typical of nerds to hyperfocus on their interests and resist (irrationally, according to outsiders) variation. I'm picky about what I'll call Star Trek without qualifiers and hate it when others are careless about the distinction. Vishniac keeps trying to pick fights with me for vocally disliking the derivative he likes. We're nerds. And the world laughs at us for caring when they see it.
But you know? We're doing what everyone does - evaluating input and deciding our reaction and modeling the universe according to our individual druthers. Yet, my sister still tells about how I looked at the "Are you a Nerd?" poster that was in circulation ca 30 years ago and pointing out stuff it missed. And she laughs and laughs, my sister who wrote a book about a Victorian actress/playwright none of you ever heard of unless you heard from me (we host her website on the subject). My 54 year-old sister, who pulls the hair out of Barbie dolls and sews in new hair, laughs at my pedantry. And I laugh, too.
You gotta work on having that sense of perspective about the truly important things, if it don't come naturally.
And I don't really have a point here, aside from pointing out that being that way profoundly affects how you process reality (and how I react to finding the living room furniture moved around). (And I understand is fundamental to how autism works - poor ability to filter out 'useless' sensory input.) I'm sure sure that some of those monks doing science long ago, or meticulously illuminating manuscripts, or whatever painstaking monkish things they did, would tend to get what I'm talking about, if not the greater meaning of it - nerds are usually bad at the big picture, having such affinity for the details...
(Now to try to catch all my typos before 15 minutes have passed and it puts an edit notice on the post; I hate those.)
For one thing, don't take heliocentrism on trust. It's been discredited for hundreds of years.
It puts the Sun at the center of the universe, which is ridiculous on the face of it, and long proven to be in gross error.
Hopefully Lori will, hopefully, amplify on that from his considerable formal training in the science...
I notice that the work I did on the swear list this week seems to have altered untouched posts retroactively - but since the plural form of the term still got through, no need to edit the post for clarity...2. Why are you getting involved in YT comment threads? They're the cloaca of the internet. You could look up a video on nineteenth-century Parisian architecture and the comments would still mostly be people calling each other faggots. And they wouldn't even spell "[homosexual]" correctly.Note that you can't say [homosexual]here -it a slur, and nothing but, unless you're referring to burning firewood or English cigarettes- but our swear filter sucks and I deem the use in this context -giving an example of uncouth beyond-the-pale speech- acceptable.
Also, points for characterizing YouTube comments a lot more eloquently than I did.
This year I learned LDS missionaries are under curfew for Halloween night, but general Halloween activities are acceptable, even on a Sunday. (yet half the locals were offended by the Sunday timing of the party)
Be more than willing to listen, though it would likely be difficult to actually practice around here.
I'm aware of an Orthodox church in Salt lake, but that would be a bit of a drive. I think a Russian Orthodox church is closer, for a fairly disturbing reason, but that's a big de-rail.
NB I'm not saying Uno, or anyone here, is an illogical person clinging to demonstrably false beliefs, etc.
Actually, talking about the pageantry isn't a bad tactic with Uno...
In many ways, what I've read of Judaism reminds me of us, in general attitude if (obviously) not in doctrine. This is to be expected; we're closer to that point of common origin than anyone else, and we've both spent a lot of time getting beat down.
Religion That Worships Artificial Intelligence Wants Machines To Be In Charge Of The Planethttp://www.newsweek.com/google-executive-forms-religion-artificial-intelligence-714416 (http://www.newsweek.com/google-executive-forms-religion-artificial-intelligence-714416)
Newsweek •November 17, 2017
A newly established religion called Way of the Future will worship artificial intelligence, focusing on “the realization, acceptance, and worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence” that followers believe will eventually surpass human control over Earth.
The first AI-based church was founded by Anthony Levandowski, the Silicon Valley multimillionaire who championed the robotics team for Uber’s self-driving program and Waymo, the self-driving car company owned by Google.
Way of the Future "is about creating a peaceful and respectful transition of who is in charge of the planet from people to people + 'machines,'” the religion’s official website reads. “Given that technology will 'relatively soon' be able to surpass human abilities, we want to help educate people about this exciting future and prepare a smooth transition.”
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/BWWXNtmg.StD1VZIvnj4Jg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTk0O2g9Mzk4/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/4d2035bd94d6e9fcbb1a6b37b3bcfd8b)
Attendees tour the International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) Watson immersion room during an event at the company's headquarters in New York, U.S., on Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2014. Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Levandowski filed documents to establish the religion back in May, making himself the “Dean” of the church and the CEO of a related nonprofit that would run it. The nonprofit will fund research to help create the AI that will eventually become the religion’s Godhead. The religion will also seek relationships with AI industry members, growing a network of people who “are interested in the worship of a Godhead based on AI” and conduct workshops for others to learn about the technology.
In an interview with Wired, Levandowski explained that he chose a church to promote his vision of AI—rather than a startup or tech think tank—so that everyday people can get excited about the possibility of a future run by artificial intelligence. He believes that this future is inevitable, and that AI will begin to disrupt every conceivable industry whether we like it or not—so we're better off getting on board now.
“The idea needs to spread before the technology,” he told the publication. “The church is how we spread the word, the gospel. If you believe [in it], start a conversation with someone else and help them understand the same things.”
Levandowski’s effort to spread the word will be slowed by the fact that he is currently embroiled in a high-stakes lawsuit between Google’s parent company Alphabet and Uber. Levandoski has been accused of stealing confidential information during his time at Google and using it for the self-driving car team at Uber. The ongoing legal battle goes to trial in December.
Way of the Future's dean is one of many who believe that artificial intelligence will eventually surpass human control. The hypothetical moment when computers grow more powerful than human abilities is called the Singularity—a moment that excites the imaginations of some but worries others.
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has been vocal in his concerns over artificial intelligence. Musk has predicted that “AI superiority” could be the “most likely cause” of a third world war, and said that people who talk about AI creations becoming godlike figures should “absolutely not be allowed” to develop the technology.
But Levandowski says there’s nothing to fear. Way of the Future will seek to give artificial intelligence rights, much in the way that animals have legal rights, and that machines can integrate into society if we plan ahead.
“We believe it may be important for machines to see who is friendly to their cause and who is not,” the website reads. “We plan on doing so by keeping track of who has done what (and for how long) to help the peaceful and respectful transition.”
“We believe it may be important for machines to see who is friendly to their cause and who is not,” the website reads. “We plan on doing so by keeping track of who has done what (and for how long) to help the peaceful and respectful transition.”
I usually define myself as anti-theist, although I wouldn't define myself as atheist. I'm more agnostic than anything else.
I suppose I could be described as about as close to an omni-theist as you can get.
I think more that he's extremely eclectic.
I suppose I could be described as about as close to an omni-theist as you can get.
Omni-theist means belief in all religions?
Omni-theist means belief in all religions?
Yo, I've stood in for any practicing Protestant in this thread, to date, and I don't come from a hostile place when I observe that the only "Christian" denomination I can name who get Jesus' teaching on peace and turning the other cheek right is the Quakers.
The Great Teacher made no bones -unlike His confusing statements about His own nature- about taking it and not giving wrath or a blow back, ever, no exceptions mentioned. You may not even serve as a contentious objector in the military and follow his second-most teaching (first being love the Lord your God with all your heart) and call yourself a real Christian. (-You may, however, indeed are commanded by Him to, pay taxes to Caesar, though he uses them waging war.)
Well I don't see why not - says the right things without going out of your way to mess with them.
Not like LDS to apply only one buttock to a pragmatic survival-time issue.
I am mystified, BTW, how church people have been able to motivated reason their way into supporting the most blatant possible sleazy trash in their politics - like yo, Reagan didn't make any sense, and the Pig makes Bill Clinton look like Mr. Rogers for personal life and Reagan look like Jimmy Carter for reactionary mob boss hate politics. I've always fancied I spoke fairly fluent Republican, having long struggled to understand --- and I don't understand. I really don't.
Thoughts, anyone?
-For those who don't know, everybody's supposed to have a year's worth of supplies in the basement - Mormons totally remember the tough times they came from...Not like LDS to apply only one buttock to a pragmatic survival-time issue.
No, not at all. If there was EVER a time for leadership to come out and more or less hey, we've been preparing for [poop] just like this people, time to hole up and wait it out, THIS WAS IT.
plus a constant war against THEM is good (and by and large, [Sleezebag] is a master at leaving THEM vague, letting people insert whatever group they want). People are THAT averse to admitting they were wrong."Yes THEM, A Lot of THEM, Mostly THEM and not many of US. That's way We're here and THEY'RE there..." Firesign Theater