Modern theism and its utter insufficiency

There aren't any gods.
EonEcho
The entire modern project confirms that.
Joel
barabbas` i do know that Jesus stood up to the pharisees and he was right to do so
Joel
modern project? that sounds interesting
Joel
barabbas` nope, i revere the words of Christ
TrollT
Eon, Can you elaborate on that modern project?
EonEcho
Joel: The last few centuries of thought, culture, and technology in the West and beyond.
Bad_bunnY has left IRC (Client closed connection)
brad70 has left IRC (Quit: )
PrzemekF has joined ([email protected])
Profound has changed mode: +v PrzemekF
Joel
Sayorj the romans didn't believe in Jesus' Father, why would he concern himself with them? his job was to establish a worldwide religion in worship of the Father, he knew that the "pagans" of his time would eventually come to know God by christianity
Joel
barabbas` why are you making up things i never said?
EonEcho
TrollT: The notion that the universe is intelligible to human reason, that all claims of reality need to be validated, that tradition is a poor method of establishing truth.
EonEcho
That humans should have control over their own affairs rather than military leaders or powerful families.
icequeen81 has left IRC (Ping timeout)
TrollT
Eon, And why is it you maintain that there are no gods, rather than they are at a remove, in another dimension approachable interior in mind and experience, that they are greatly reduced in tehir power, and that there are evidently millions of them?
QST has changed mode: +l 53
EonEcho
TrollT: Because science determines what is true in modernity, and science hasn't found any evidence in support of the theism hypotheses, while finding substantial evidence about human development and human psychological nature that deconstructs the historical impetus for the theistic paradigm.
Joel
barabbas` you're really not making sense, i didn't say i didn't know about the pharisees, i said i didn't know about your assertion that they claimed to know better than God.. which makes no sense when they were the ones accusing Jesus of blasphemy, claiming to know better than God would *be* blasphemy
Joel
ok barabbas` you're admitting that you were trolling, i will accept that concession
TrollT
Eon, For 'the theistic paradigm', agreed that it is insubstantial, built on poor foundations, and anti-empirical.
EonEcho
In the view of Michel Foucault (1975) (classified as a proponent of postmodernism though he himself rejected the "postmodernism" label, considering his work as "a critical history of modernity"—see, e.g., Call 2002, 65), "modernity" as a historical category is marked by developments such as a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevita
EonEcho
ble social, scientific and technological progress, rationalization and professionalization, a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy, industrialization, urbanization and secularisation, the development of the nation-state, representative democracy, public education (etc.) (Foucault 1977, 170–77).
TrollT
Eon, But as regards to Gods and what they are, how they might be studied, this is only just beginning to be examined by scientifically-minded folks.
EonEcho
TrollT: Theism is not emphasized by any of those elements of modernity, while being pressured and deconstructed and de-emphasized by many of them.
TrollT
Indeed, the ism portion of it betrays its aggrandizement and targetted status.
Joel
barabbas` my awareness of and connection to the Trinity is unique, profound, solid and permanent.. i hope that one day you will be on my level
TrollT
A system-idea set which brings with it too many axioms, faith-based assertions not to be questioned.
EonEcho
TrollT: So, since science determines what is true, and, in your view, science has only started studying theism (I dispute), then current theism should not be believed, yes?
TrollT
Eon, I think i said that it has only started examining the phenomenon of people and their God experiences. Theism is a belief-set which is held onto by the weak and impressionable. Those who are out adventuring in the wild suspend such crutches.
EonEcho
(Science, in this argument, hasn't had sufficient time to generate evidence for theism.)
09:46 Joel
barabbas` that's provably false since you have said you didn't believe in the Trinity until you became a christian, you're stuck at that churchgoer level, i'm not
TrollT
Eon, Oh but it has, in anthropology, and sociology of religion and psychology of consciousness.
EonEcho
TrollT: I am aware of now forms of theism that are currently testable or make meaningful declarations about the nature of reality that haven't been tested. Are you?
TrollT
Granted, weak sciences.
TrollT
now/no
EonEcho
TrollT: You're saying those fields of science have generated evidence for theism?
EonEcho
I find that strange, as anthropology is an explicitly atheistic field.
TrollT
Eon, No, evidence for the reality of Gods.
EonEcho
While sociology is an explicitly atheistic field.
EonEcho
And psychology of consciousness is an explicitly atheistic field.
EonEcho
TrollT: And by "Gods", you mean more than cognitive constructs in the human experience, yes?
EonEcho
You mean measure entities outside the human experience that are, perhaps, being perceived by the human mind.
TrollT
I'm not aware that any of those claims are accurate (as to their atheism). That they don't require either contentions in allegiance to or against gods was, i thought, the premise of their practice.
EonEcho
measurable*
EonEcho
You're not sure if those fields are atheistic?
EonEcho
That is...surprising.
TrollT
Eon, By Gods i mean whatever it is that is being engaged in God experiences.
EonEcho
TrollT: That is extremely broad.
EonEcho
Mere mental experience, then, by that definition can be "Gods".
EonEcho
By that definition, I agree "Gods" exist.
EonEcho
As there exist theists.
EonEcho
Who are not lying.
TrollT
"not sure if those fields are" - I am not aware that they are atheistic in their base. That they study the periphery and expression of the experiences of Gods.
Joel
barabbas` that's great spin but not accurate, i have the ability to learn directly from God, he confirms to me that Paul got it wrong about women and homosexuality
EonEcho
TrollT: Atheism, sociology, and psychology of consciousness explicitly model "gods" as only mental constructs.
TrollT
I think studying those experiences is the link to finding out what Gods are.
EonEcho
There are currently no lines of evidence in any of those fields supporting any notions of "gods" outside the human experience.
TrollT
That they are experienced there is plain (in the mind, interior to experience). Whether that is the extent of their existence remains to be seen.
TrollT
And what they are can be suspended for the duration of the studies.
Joel
the irony of all this is that i'm making God more appealing to people living in today's world who don't understand (with good reason) why women and gays are excluded from some or all functions in church.. and that's not to say that i'm deliberately trying to pretty it up, it really is that God wants reform among conservative churches.. the liberal churches are doing God's will
EonEcho
There's currently no evidence supporting there's anything beyond the human experience those mental experiences point to, yes?
TrollT
Starting with "They created the universe." would be ridiculous.
TrollT
Evidence supporting ... beyond human experience: I think the best which may be mustered is insight into the real at various states; testing it is of course the challenge. So many promote their predictions as accurate in retrospect.
EonEcho
Can you expound?
Joel
barabbas` aha! you go to a somewhat liberal church and yet you claim Paul was right.. isn't that having it both ways? you obviously don't completely agree with Paul's teaching if a woman can preach
EonEcho
"insight into the real at various states"
TrollT
Hm. Additional information not obtainable through empiricism so much as by consult with the God.
TrollT
If they can produce this, it may provide support for something beyond human experience being involved, but even that isn't conclusive.
EonEcho
TrollT: Okay, I understanding what you're referencing. What are some of the best examples of that?
TrollT
I think the best empirical study of it is in the deposed parapsychology exploratins and in the psychology of consciousness field.
Banquo has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
EonEcho
That is an area of science is extreme disrepute.
TrollT
They examine how people are situated in mind and what is associated with it which may be observed.
TrollT
Parapsychology? Agreed.
TrollT
I have mostly put it down as fraud.
TrollT
Or divination.
EonEcho
So how is this evidence we should consider deeply at all?
EonEcho
TrollT: Do you agree that essentially all lines of evidence from physics, organismal biology, and the theory of evolution point to the human mind and its various sensors as being necessarily local?
EonEcho
I don't think there's ever been presented any evidence of any non-local perception by humans.
TrollT
As i said, i think it hasn't been examined as a phenomenon very extensively. And yes, much of it is weak, especially in comparison to physical sciences and what does tend toward atheism.
EonEcho
Or any organism.
Joel
barabbas` what are you talking about? Paul said very clearly that women were not to preach.. your church allows that, so it disagrees with Paul's teaching that you claim is inspired by God.. you are trying to have it both ways blatantly
EonEcho
It is considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists, in part because, in addition to a lack of replicable empirical evidence, parapsychological claims simply cannot be true "unless the rest of science isn't."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
EonEcho
Parapsychology is inconsistent with almost all other science.
TrollT
Non-local perception: nope, agreed. I'm talking about connections with interior intelligences. The effect of it must be demonstrated sound, but information isn't all that is valuable there; some of it is personal.
Joel
barabbas` well you self-pwned really well there, i'll give you that
TrollT
Humility in the face of arrogance is always better; explain how one's reasoning proceeded.
TrollT
They are. Let's tend to them kindly.
Joel
TrollT it's simple, he wants Paul's writing to be God's inspired word for all time, then he talks about how it only applies to one church in one culture
Joel
i mean if he wants to make that argument, then i could say the same thing about homosexuality, maybe it only applied to the first century roman church, not modern churches
Joel
but of course he has said clearly that homosexuality is a sin for all time
Joel
so here we are with this ludicrous debate that i won
S|mp|yChrIstIan has joined ([email protected])
Profound has changed mode: +v S|mp|yChrIstIan
EonEcho
TrollT: Science has been investigating the historical claims and nature of theism since at the 1700s (depending on what you define as science) and has no found evidence in support of those claims. Concurrently, and partially cased by those investigations, some theists -- such as yourself -- have posited that wasn't True Theism, as theism should be understood as being more abstract, ephemeral or rooted in human psy
EonEcho
chology. Science then investigated those models of theism, disjoint as they are from all other branches of science, e.g. cosmology and the areas of historical providence for original theism, and largely confirms they're not granting access to insight into reality that isn't better achieved through other, more defensible methodology. None of this, however, appears to move theists much at all. Is this not distinguis
EonEcho
hable from the reality in which theism is just an evolved cognitive orientation in Homo sapiens that was adaptive in things like coalition building, dread mitigation, etc.?
Joel
barabbas` wrong, i'm only interested in one woman, no men
Joel
barabbas` i could repent of my past homosexual experience today and if they were sins in the first place they'd be forgiven, but of course i won't bother to repent of a non-sin
Joel
experiences*
Joel
barabbas` i think people should pursue happiness with whomever they love and find attractive, and God agrees
EonEcho
I agree with the possibility humans can have insight that they don't have insight into, e.g. you know how a system works without knowing how you know how that system works.
EonEcho
There is evidence for this, e.g. superpredictors.
EonEcho
Science can use tools like this, as they can just be modeled as black boxes. That is, we can validate that such machinery exists independent of how it works by applying it various cognitive tasks.
Joel
barabbas` whatever, i wasn't talking about with a sibling although personally it's their business if they want to be weird like that
EonEcho
Science has done this. None of the investigations have supported theism leads to such insights. Theism, in fact, correlates with lower intelligence.
EonEcho
The smartest philosophers in our species are extremely disproportionately atheistic, for example.
EonEcho
The only thing that theism has been shown to possibly be useful for is maintenance of the cohesion of the organism's mental apparatus itself, i.e. happiness and its related manifestations.
Joel
it's not God's decision
Joel
if they want to be weird and be with a sibling God can't stop them
EonEcho
So, there's a reasonable argument that organisms, as they evolve, become theistic in order to maintain goal-directed behavior in light of awareness of their own mortality.
EonEcho
This is the only theistic claim I've ever encountered that is not essentially fully refuted.
EonEcho
However, again, there is compelling evidence against.
EonEcho
There are Buddhist sects that are atheistic and embrace the contingent nature of all existence and are the most emotionally stable people our species has..
EonEcho
There are very happy atheists, even if on average they're possibly less happy overall.
Joel
and if the involvement of multiple partners is consensual and in the open among all individuals involved, i don't see anything wrong with it
EonEcho
So, the evidence, AT BEST, supports the notion that maintenance of mental organization in light of awareness of mortality is multi-modal.
EonEcho
So, theism might be *a way* to live your life and not be overcome with suffering.
EonEcho
But, we already know such people also pay an important cost.
EonEcho
That is, their IQs are lower on average and they don't see as intellectually equipped to deal with complex systems.
EonEcho
And we see all of intellectual culture on Earth is essentially, atheistic at this point in time.
diz_lurking has joined ([email protected])
Profound has changed mode: +v diz_lurking
Joel
barabbas` no one is going to hell for any of this, that's the mistake you're making here.. you think God would condemn someone for such a trivial reason
EonEcho
And, we've already discovered, in Buddhism, at least, a way that demonstrates even *higher* mental stability than theism-based methods.
EonEcho
Also, much of theism's emotional efficacy, it appears, is predicated on lack of awareness of the above.
dizzy_ has left IRC (SVSKilled: Ghost command used by [email protected])
diz_lurking is now known as dizzy_
EonEcho
So, if you can construct the above analysis, or be persuaded by it, you probably already have sufficient mental structures that will limit any emotional benefit you'll get from suspending judgment about theism's truth value.
dizzy_ has left ()
dizzy_ has joined ([email protected])
ChanServ has changed mode: +o dizzy_
BibleBot has changed mode: +v dizzy_
EonEcho
And so you've already 'left the garden' of this mode.
Melchizedek has joined ([email protected])
Profound has changed mode: +v Melchizedek
10:14 EonEcho
For example, I am not capable of experiencing emotional benefit from theism.
10:14 EonEcho
I only experience shame when I engage my theistic structures, to the extent they exist.
Joel
invoking "satan" doesn't really make the case
EonEcho
As I have learned and trained myself that when my mind runs to theism it is admitting it doesn't what to do and is scared.