The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Agnosticism Quotient
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Kratoklastes writes:

Atheists are about 0.5σ smarter than people who find the Jeebus torture-porn cult convincing. They (atheists) test roughly in line with the actual result of secularised US Jews (i.e., a mean of ~107 – nobody worth spit still believes the nonsense claim of μ = 115 for Ashkenazi IQ).

The stereotype about atheists being pricks notwithstanding–or, to put it in psychological terms, low on the personality trait of agreeableness!–the research clearly backs his assertion regarding the correlation between religiosity and measured intelligence.

The GSS shows a similar result. Mean IQ by theistic orientation converted from Wordsum scores assuming a mean IQ of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 follow. To avoid racial confounding, results are restricted to non-Hispanic whites:

Excerpting from an abstract of a Lynn, Nyborg, and Harvey paper, Kratoklastes also notes:

Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe.

The phrase “religious belief”, rather than a phrase like “religious observance” is important. Mean IQ by frequency of religious worship attendance:

Among firm theists, as attendance frequency increases, so does intelligence. The mean IQ among firm theists who never attend worship services is 96.1. Among firm theists who attend at least weekly, it is 100.1. If God is real and He wants you to worship Him, the smart sheep will be in the pews on Sunday morning while the dumb goats sleep in.

Among non-believers, the trend tends modestly in the other direction (mean IQ of 104.5 among atheists and agnostics who never attend; mean IQ of 99.1 among those who attend at least weekly).

The highest mean IQ as measured among the categories discussed, at 108.1, is found among agnostics who attend worship services less than monthly (Christmas eggs).

GSS variables used: GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), WORDSUM, BORN(1), ATTEND(0)(1-3)(4-6)(7-8)

 
• Category: Ideology, Science 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.
     
    Intelligent people are more likely to lose their faith, I think, but especially intelligent ones are able to get it back.
    , @Nodwink
    Knowledge of the divine via "the use of natural reason" has always been something I have associated with deists, not convinced theists.

    As for Aquinas, these are the kind of arguments that impressed pre-modern philosophers, not anyone familiar with modern cosmology.
    , @Anon
    It takes a smart person to bee particularly stupid.
    , @advancedatheist
    A god doesn't necessarily solve the problems that classical theists want it to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without meaning, purpose, a moral standard to live up to, an afterlife and a guarantee of ultimate justice. Theists just came up with this wish list and imputed it to their idea of god for basically selfish reasons, when a god has no obligation to organize its creation for our convenience.
    , @MarkU
    Some people like to have a quasi-intellectual crutch to support their irrational belief systems.
    , @MBlanc46
    A lot of people are aware of them, have studied them with considerable seriousness, and find them unconvincing.
  2. @Intelligent Dasein
    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    Intelligent people are more likely to lose their faith, I think, but especially intelligent ones are able to get it back.

    • Disagree: Realist
  3. @Intelligent Dasein
    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    Knowledge of the divine via “the use of natural reason” has always been something I have associated with deists, not convinced theists.

    As for Aquinas, these are the kind of arguments that impressed pre-modern philosophers, not anyone familiar with modern cosmology.

    • Disagree: Rosie
  4. As for Aquinas, these are the kind of arguments that impressed pre-modern philosophers, not anyone familiar with modern cosmology.

    Aquinas was a religious zealot with no understanding of logic.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Perhaps you ought to change your uname to "Nominalist".
  5. @Intelligent Dasein
    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    It takes a smart person to bee particularly stupid.

  6. @Realist

    As for Aquinas, these are the kind of arguments that impressed pre-modern philosophers, not anyone familiar with modern cosmology.
     
    Aquinas was a religious zealot with no understanding of logic.

    Perhaps you ought to change your uname to “Nominalist”.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Perhaps you ought to change your uname to “Nominalist”.
     
    Ummm think not.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Alright, that goes in the "joke of the week" column. Well done.
  7. “The stereotype about atheists being pricks notwithstanding”

    Just yesterday, the mentally unstable creature made the comment posted below. That comment basically sums up his entire volume of work at Unz.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/qasem-soleimani-is-dead/#comment-3642238

    Now – after reading that, why any individual who claims to understand the dynamics of European descended peoples’ current predicament would continue to waste any time engaging in discussion with this clown is beyond me. Ask yourself, is this a mind you’re going to change? Are these the words of a human who understands reason and compromise?

    You’d have a better chance convincing the HIV virus that AIDS is bad. He’s an enemy of the West.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
  8. Re: Existence of God

    Our spiritual technology has become so advanced that it’s now possible
    for certain individuals to realize that, surrounding and permeating our
    mortal physical body, we have another body, often called subtle, that is
    made up of ecstatic eternal Light, and is therefore immortal. The vast
    majority of people are incapable of perceiving the subtle body directly,
    and only become aware of it at the point of death. To perceive this body
    now, we must attain perfect mental stillness, i.e., we must extinguish the
    mental chatter of the ego at least for awhile in order to increase the
    signal-to-noise ratio since the noise of the ego is usually overwhelming.
    That requires years of training but then nothing worthwhile can be
    accomplished by an untrained mind.

    There are two pieces of good news here:

    1. The existence of God (or, at least, of immanent Divinity) is increasingly
    becoming an empirical proposition;

    2. Death is nothing to fear.

  9. @Anon
    Perhaps you ought to change your uname to "Nominalist".

    Perhaps you ought to change your uname to “Nominalist”.

    Ummm think not.

  10. @Intelligent Dasein
    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    A god doesn’t necessarily solve the problems that classical theists want it to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without meaning, purpose, a moral standard to live up to, an afterlife and a guarantee of ultimate justice. Theists just came up with this wish list and imputed it to their idea of god for basically selfish reasons, when a god has no obligation to organize its creation for our convenience.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    A logically possible god could have created human life without meaning, purpose, a moral standard to live up to, an afterlife and a guarantee of ultimate justice.
     
    None of this has anything to do with what we're talking about. A person's perceived meaning in life, or the lack thereof, is immaterial to the question of whether or not God exists, which is even somewhat strangely implied by your own statement. But the fact you elide right over this distinction, and do not seem to recognize that the problem requires deeper examination, does not speak well of your ability to critically assess the subject.
  11. Intelligence =/= wisdom, as can be seen voting preference, membership in communist/revolutionary movements, etc.

    Think of the matrix:

    Dumb/unwise
    Dumb/wise
    Smart/unwise
    Smart/wise

    Go to any university, and you will find plenty of people with elevated IQ who are not only unwise, but are also destructive/self-destructive (and I write this as a former academic).

    The same goes for other traits, i.e. intelligence =/= virtue.

    The problem with our rulers today isn’t that they are short on intelligence – it’s that they are unwise and lack virtue (e.g. noblesse oblige).

    • Agree: Talha, dfordoom
    • Replies: @songbird
    I like Bruce Charlton's term: clever sillies.
  12. How do Christians think atheism works, any way? Does someone grow up as a Christian, then one morning he gets out of bed and perversely decides to have a “meaningless” life from then on by becoming an atheist?

    Or does he instead realize that the Christian theory of the meaning of life makes no sense, so that meaning becomes an open question for him again?

    As I’ve pointed out, nihilism is not an atheist belief; nihilism is a self-serving Christian belief about atheism. Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists Christians talk about, don’t behave according to the Christian stereotype. In fact many of them have made enormous contributions to civilization:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    • Replies: @Rosie

    How do Christians think atheism works, any way? Does someone grow up as a Christian, then one morning he gets out of bed and perversely decides to have a “meaningless” life from then on by becoming an atheist?
     
    Many of us know exactly how it works. We've been there, done that.
    , @Realist
    Agreed.
  13. @Twinkie
    Intelligence =/= wisdom, as can be seen voting preference, membership in communist/revolutionary movements, etc.

    Think of the matrix:

    Dumb/unwise
    Dumb/wise
    Smart/unwise
    Smart/wise

    Go to any university, and you will find plenty of people with elevated IQ who are not only unwise, but are also destructive/self-destructive (and I write this as a former academic).

    The same goes for other traits, i.e. intelligence =/= virtue.

    The problem with our rulers today isn’t that they are short on intelligence - it’s that they are unwise and lack virtue (e.g. noblesse oblige).

    I like Bruce Charlton’s term: clever sillies.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That takes me back.

    Navigating through the mists of time all the way back to the summer of 2008, BGC wrote in the since shuttered (I think) medical journal he edited:


    The Sailer-influenced quant bloggers include the pseudonymous Razib who hosts GNXP (Gene Expression) which includes several other quant bloggers such as the pseudonymous Agnostic and (his real name) Jason Malloy [9]. Other pseudonymous quant bloggers in this Sailer-descended group include Inductivist [10], Half-Sigma [11] and the Audacious Epigone [12].
     
  14. @Anon
    Perhaps you ought to change your uname to "Nominalist".

    Alright, that goes in the “joke of the week” column. Well done.

  15. @advancedatheist
    A god doesn't necessarily solve the problems that classical theists want it to solve. A logically possible god could have created human life without meaning, purpose, a moral standard to live up to, an afterlife and a guarantee of ultimate justice. Theists just came up with this wish list and imputed it to their idea of god for basically selfish reasons, when a god has no obligation to organize its creation for our convenience.

    A logically possible god could have created human life without meaning, purpose, a moral standard to live up to, an afterlife and a guarantee of ultimate justice.

    None of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about. A person’s perceived meaning in life, or the lack thereof, is immaterial to the question of whether or not God exists, which is even somewhat strangely implied by your own statement. But the fact you elide right over this distinction, and do not seem to recognize that the problem requires deeper examination, does not speak well of your ability to critically assess the subject.

  16. @advancedatheist
    How do Christians think atheism works, any way? Does someone grow up as a Christian, then one morning he gets out of bed and perversely decides to have a "meaningless" life from then on by becoming an atheist?

    Or does he instead realize that the Christian theory of the meaning of life makes no sense, so that meaning becomes an open question for him again?

    As I've pointed out, nihilism is not an atheist belief; nihilism is a self-serving Christian belief about atheism. Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists Christians talk about, don't behave according to the Christian stereotype. In fact many of them have made enormous contributions to civilization:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    How do Christians think atheism works, any way? Does someone grow up as a Christian, then one morning he gets out of bed and perversely decides to have a “meaningless” life from then on by becoming an atheist?

    Many of us know exactly how it works. We’ve been there, done that.

  17. Not entering into the question of whether God exists or not, but I find it ironic that “smart” atheist HBDers don’t believe in God, fetishize IQ and “Darwinian selection of the fittest”, but have a very low TFR, while the only white people whom I’ve known to have 9, 10, 12 kids recently are believing Christians. However I suppose it could make sense since smarter people usually have a lower number of children than the less smart, but it’s ironic nevertheless. In this sense, agnosticism and atheism are a bit like homosexuality, things that reduce the chance of the “survival of the species” but keep reappearing nevertheless.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    On the one hand, the religious have outbred the irreligious for as long as it has been tracked. On the other hand, religiosity continues to decline. We're now to the point where fornication and procreation have become almost completely separated. Are we finally at the point now where the pendulum startsto swing back?

    To the response that Wokeism is the new religion, I get the sentiment, but Wokeists aren't fertile at all so it doesn't fit in this context.

    , @Realist

    Not entering into the question of whether God exists or not, but I find it ironic that “smart” atheist HBDers don’t believe in God, fetishize IQ and “Darwinian selection of the fittest”, but have a very low TFR, while the only white people whom I’ve known to have 9, 10, 12 kids recently are believing Christians.
     

    In this sense, agnosticism and atheism are a bit like homosexuality, things that reduce the chance of the “survival of the species” but keep reappearing nevertheless.
     
    You seem to be very confused. Are you talking about White survival or species survival?

    So your argument is for species or race survival...the stupider the better.
  18. Speaking as a former atheist myself, it’s curious how such a supposedly smart bunch can collectively fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation; and judging by their liberal use of the division fallacy and obsession over a literal half-sigma, they aren’t much better at understanding the concepts of averages and standard deviations, either.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    It is much easier and personally efficient to be compliant/stupid than truly smart.  Blind compliance with religious dogma is easier than true thinking, even if that compliance is ultimately detrimental to the society at large.  Look at the damage the Islamic promotion of cousin-marriage has done; whole countries literally too stupid to practice Western civilization, which they nevertheless lust after.
  19. @Intelligent Dasein
    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    Some people like to have a quasi-intellectual crutch to support their irrational belief systems.

  20. @songbird
    I like Bruce Charlton's term: clever sillies.

    That takes me back.

    Navigating through the mists of time all the way back to the summer of 2008, BGC wrote in the since shuttered (I think) medical journal he edited:

    The Sailer-influenced quant bloggers include the pseudonymous Razib who hosts GNXP (Gene Expression) which includes several other quant bloggers such as the pseudonymous Agnostic and (his real name) Jason Malloy [9]. Other pseudonymous quant bloggers in this Sailer-descended group include Inductivist [10], Half-Sigma [11] and the Audacious Epigone [12].

    • Replies: @songbird
    Wow, I wish I had discovered you guys earlier, since I was always interested in this stuff, and only got the barest glimpses of it.

    I had to look up "quant", so there is an energy barrier to its adoption, but otherwise a good term - especially for a chartsman like yourself, AE.

    BTW, I think he's right.
  21. This 2+ sigma former atheist would like to see the Gaussian distribution of atheist intelligence vs “firm theists”.

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture, but not smart enough to follow sophisticated theist arguments, or to recognize that the vast majority of atheist arguments are incoherent. Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don’t know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture, but not smart enough to follow sophisticated theist arguments, or to recognize that the vast majority of atheist arguments are incoherent. Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don’t know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.
     
    Mark the calendar. Rosie admits that someone else articulates an argument better than her own self. This is exactly what I was thinking, but couldn't quite put my finger on, in comment #2 above. Very, very well said.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The GSS makes this tough. The Wordsum vocabulary test is only ten questions, and 5% of the population aces it, so we have to contend with an artificial ceiling just under 2 SDs above the mean.
    , @Mr. Rational

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture
     
    Begs the question:  WHY does so much of Christianity (including Protestant chatechism) default to the kindergarten level and immediately (and likely permanently) alienate everyone brighter than that?  Because that is TRULY FAW KING STUPID... and precisely what I experienced.

    I do not suffer fools gladly, or at all.  Sofa king done with that.  If their goal is to drive their children away, they could scarcely be more successful.


    Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don’t know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.
     
    Scientific reasoning is the ONLY proven method of understanding what's demonstrable in this world.  Anything that cannot be repeated is not demonstrable.  Knowing what you don't know... is exactly what Christians claim they "know" because of faith, not evidence.

    Don't piss on me and tell me that it's raining.  Totally done with that.

  22. @Dumbo
    Not entering into the question of whether God exists or not, but I find it ironic that "smart" atheist HBDers don't believe in God, fetishize IQ and "Darwinian selection of the fittest", but have a very low TFR, while the only white people whom I've known to have 9, 10, 12 kids recently are believing Christians. However I suppose it could make sense since smarter people usually have a lower number of children than the less smart, but it's ironic nevertheless. In this sense, agnosticism and atheism are a bit like homosexuality, things that reduce the chance of the "survival of the species" but keep reappearing nevertheless.

    On the one hand, the religious have outbred the irreligious for as long as it has been tracked. On the other hand, religiosity continues to decline. We’re now to the point where fornication and procreation have become almost completely separated. Are we finally at the point now where the pendulum startsto swing back?

    To the response that Wokeism is the new religion, I get the sentiment, but Wokeists aren’t fertile at all so it doesn’t fit in this context.

  23. @Audacious Epigone
    That takes me back.

    Navigating through the mists of time all the way back to the summer of 2008, BGC wrote in the since shuttered (I think) medical journal he edited:


    The Sailer-influenced quant bloggers include the pseudonymous Razib who hosts GNXP (Gene Expression) which includes several other quant bloggers such as the pseudonymous Agnostic and (his real name) Jason Malloy [9]. Other pseudonymous quant bloggers in this Sailer-descended group include Inductivist [10], Half-Sigma [11] and the Audacious Epigone [12].
     

    Wow, I wish I had discovered you guys earlier, since I was always interested in this stuff, and only got the barest glimpses of it.

    I had to look up “quant”, so there is an energy barrier to its adoption, but otherwise a good term – especially for a chartsman like yourself, AE.

    BTW, I think he’s right.

  24. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe God exists.

    On the other hand, I also see people develop a lot of happiness and satisfaction from their religion, and losing it tends to turn people into SJWs, so I don’t proselytize.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed, it's hard to see what good comes of trying to argue earnest believers out of their faith.
  25. I’ve been reading a book on the neurological roots of faith that postulates a connection between autism and atheism. That author observes that people on the autistic end of the spectrum are intensely aware of the details of the physical world, to the extent that such awareness leaves them without the need for a concept of the numinous. I identify with this condition. I am far more interested with, say, how a radio works, why an 8 ohm resistor is here, a capacitor there, with five millimeters of circuitry between them, than in the emotional response I have to the sound vibrations that come out of the speaker. In the same way, attempting to see the real world as it is, its enchanting complexity and variety, leaves me with zero tolerance for fairy tales about invisible men inherited from a Levantine tribe of primitive nomadic barbarians, i.e., Judaeo-Christian-Islamist patriarchal monotheism. For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    Friends who are believers (and I have some) tell me their faith is grounded in specific personal experience they had which confirmed to them the existence of a supernatural, the “wonders of the invisible world” which they can enhance through their religious practice. I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like. To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence, intellectual sloppiness caused by irrational fear or low self-esteem, taking the easy way out by embracing magical solutions to blunt the very real trauma of the often painful realities of organic life on this planet.

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization. It is we nerds who have studied the real world as it is, not as we dream it were, and have come up with such things as indoor living, central heating, flush toilets, and agriculture, so that silly souls can bask in creature comforts while they wallow in their childish nonsense about magic talking snakes and dead guys coming back to life.

    I pity theists, I really do. You have channeled your emotional and intellectual energy into a phantasm that is just a dead end, a straight jacket from whose demanding, demeaning confines you will never be able to grasp who and what you really are, never fully perceive the majesty of the real world all around you, the random, chaotic, pointless universe and the magnificent, meaningless life you have. It is you who suffer from an ‘intellectual deficit’, not us.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Rosie

    For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.
     
    That's a very mixed bag. Yes, religious authorities have oppressed women in the past, but sages and mystics have also been the top of the spear in advancing women's rights. Steve posted about Karl Jasper's "Axial Age" recently. The sages associated with that time period were generally very pro woman: Socrates, the Buddha, Zoroaster, the Hebrew prophets. Though he had great merit in other respects, Confucius was an exception to this rule.

    It can be said that man became a philosopher in the first millennium B.C. That was also the beginning of feminism. Feminism is as old as philosophy itself.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Imagine writing this:

    To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence... [et seq.]
     
    Immediately followed by this:

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization...[et seq.]
     
    Your self-reflectance has an albedo of zero, Mr. Wizard.
    , @SFG
    Ironically I'm closer to your end of the spectrum than the religious one, but religion has had a huge effect on social cohesion, that thing us autistic-types are so bad at.

    If people lose it, they make up a new one (see: Communism, wokeness).
    , @nebulafox
    >I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like.

    Speaking as someone else diagnosed with ASD, I get where you are coming from: what you just said would have been exactly what I would have said three years ago. A contour integral or a piece of elegantly crafted code still makes my heart flutter in a way some invisible, transcendental experience can't. But since then, I've also seen the opposite side of the score. I've been close to someone who is my polar opposite in just about every way, and have seen that while I do some things better and understand things that she doesn't, she also does some things better and understands things that I don't. It is the full-ranged human experience, might as well check it out while we're here. Most people don't value intellectual consistency above everything, and the world is honestly probably better off for that. Might there be forces out there we don't understand? Possibly. We are so utterly insignificant from the perspective of the cosmos that we can't judge.

    But right now, I've decided the jury is out for me on questions like this while I get reconstruct my life from scratch in the 2020s, because I don't feel intellectually competent enough to state whether my new attitude toward the metaphysical is valid or not given that I've spent most of the past decade being a useless addict. So, we'll see what happens, whether I keep these new attitudes with me as my mental chemistry reforms itself.

    And like SFG mentioned, if you take away their religion, they'll create new, nastier ones. The history of the 20th Century should show that well enough, but even now, SJWism is nothing more than revivalist Christianity without God, for example. All those pink-hatted chicks you see out there would have been church ladies protesting this or that indecency or rock show back in the 1970s. So, as a pragmatic matter, better to let things roll as long as it doesn't interfere with scientific and technological achievement, and right now, I think that's way more at risk with the openly anti-empirical zeitgeist of today's cultural Bolsheviks than with a Religious Right currently in its death throes.

  26. @advancedatheist
    How do Christians think atheism works, any way? Does someone grow up as a Christian, then one morning he gets out of bed and perversely decides to have a "meaningless" life from then on by becoming an atheist?

    Or does he instead realize that the Christian theory of the meaning of life makes no sense, so that meaning becomes an open question for him again?

    As I've pointed out, nihilism is not an atheist belief; nihilism is a self-serving Christian belief about atheism. Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists Christians talk about, don't behave according to the Christian stereotype. In fact many of them have made enormous contributions to civilization:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    Agreed.

  27. @Observator
    I've been reading a book on the neurological roots of faith that postulates a connection between autism and atheism. That author observes that people on the autistic end of the spectrum are intensely aware of the details of the physical world, to the extent that such awareness leaves them without the need for a concept of the numinous. I identify with this condition. I am far more interested with, say, how a radio works, why an 8 ohm resistor is here, a capacitor there, with five millimeters of circuitry between them, than in the emotional response I have to the sound vibrations that come out of the speaker. In the same way, attempting to see the real world as it is, its enchanting complexity and variety, leaves me with zero tolerance for fairy tales about invisible men inherited from a Levantine tribe of primitive nomadic barbarians, i.e., Judaeo-Christian-Islamist patriarchal monotheism. For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    Friends who are believers (and I have some) tell me their faith is grounded in specific personal experience they had which confirmed to them the existence of a supernatural, the "wonders of the invisible world" which they can enhance through their religious practice. I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like. To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence, intellectual sloppiness caused by irrational fear or low self-esteem, taking the easy way out by embracing magical solutions to blunt the very real trauma of the often painful realities of organic life on this planet.

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization. It is we nerds who have studied the real world as it is, not as we dream it were, and have come up with such things as indoor living, central heating, flush toilets, and agriculture, so that silly souls can bask in creature comforts while they wallow in their childish nonsense about magic talking snakes and dead guys coming back to life.

    I pity theists, I really do. You have channeled your emotional and intellectual energy into a phantasm that is just a dead end, a straight jacket from whose demanding, demeaning confines you will never be able to grasp who and what you really are, never fully perceive the majesty of the real world all around you, the random, chaotic, pointless universe and the magnificent, meaningless life you have. It is you who suffer from an 'intellectual deficit', not us.

    For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    That’s a very mixed bag. Yes, religious authorities have oppressed women in the past, but sages and mystics have also been the top of the spear in advancing women’s rights. Steve posted about Karl Jasper’s “Axial Age” recently. The sages associated with that time period were generally very pro woman: Socrates, the Buddha, Zoroaster, the Hebrew prophets. Though he had great merit in other respects, Confucius was an exception to this rule.

    It can be said that man became a philosopher in the first millennium B.C. That was also the beginning of feminism. Feminism is as old as philosophy itself.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.
     

     
    As far as Christianity is concerned the terror of women and sexuality seems to be mostly associated with the Puritan heresy. Americans notice it so much because America is so totally dominated by Puritanism. America is a land where even radical feminists and militant atheists are awash in Puritanism. American feminism was originally an outgrowth of Puritan zealotry.

    It's been fascinating to read the recent threads on pornography and see just how thoroughly marinated so many dissident rightists are in Puritanism. Many dissident rightists seem to be absolutely horrified by the idea of sexual pleasure. That explains much of the dissident right's hostility towards women. Like the Puritans they see women as wicked temptresses. And they're enraged by the thought of women wanting sexual pleasure - women are just supposed to have babies.

    The terror of sex is more of an American thing than a Christian thing. Americans are deeply weird about sex.
  28. @Dumbo
    Not entering into the question of whether God exists or not, but I find it ironic that "smart" atheist HBDers don't believe in God, fetishize IQ and "Darwinian selection of the fittest", but have a very low TFR, while the only white people whom I've known to have 9, 10, 12 kids recently are believing Christians. However I suppose it could make sense since smarter people usually have a lower number of children than the less smart, but it's ironic nevertheless. In this sense, agnosticism and atheism are a bit like homosexuality, things that reduce the chance of the "survival of the species" but keep reappearing nevertheless.

    Not entering into the question of whether God exists or not, but I find it ironic that “smart” atheist HBDers don’t believe in God, fetishize IQ and “Darwinian selection of the fittest”, but have a very low TFR, while the only white people whom I’ve known to have 9, 10, 12 kids recently are believing Christians.

    In this sense, agnosticism and atheism are a bit like homosexuality, things that reduce the chance of the “survival of the species” but keep reappearing nevertheless.

    You seem to be very confused. Are you talking about White survival or species survival?

    So your argument is for species or race survival…the stupider the better.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    Huh?

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of "survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life" seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.

    I used the term "survival of the species" because it's the term used in Darwinian literature. I could have removed "white" in the other sentence and it would still make sense, because religious people breed more independently of race (and even of religion, as also religious Jews/Muslims have more children, I don't know about Hinduism or other Asian religions), but I singled out whites because people here including me are more concerned about white survival and/or worried about their low TFR than about other groups, and it is a real contrast with the majority of white people, who are not reproducing at high rates.
  29. @Observator
    I've been reading a book on the neurological roots of faith that postulates a connection between autism and atheism. That author observes that people on the autistic end of the spectrum are intensely aware of the details of the physical world, to the extent that such awareness leaves them without the need for a concept of the numinous. I identify with this condition. I am far more interested with, say, how a radio works, why an 8 ohm resistor is here, a capacitor there, with five millimeters of circuitry between them, than in the emotional response I have to the sound vibrations that come out of the speaker. In the same way, attempting to see the real world as it is, its enchanting complexity and variety, leaves me with zero tolerance for fairy tales about invisible men inherited from a Levantine tribe of primitive nomadic barbarians, i.e., Judaeo-Christian-Islamist patriarchal monotheism. For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    Friends who are believers (and I have some) tell me their faith is grounded in specific personal experience they had which confirmed to them the existence of a supernatural, the "wonders of the invisible world" which they can enhance through their religious practice. I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like. To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence, intellectual sloppiness caused by irrational fear or low self-esteem, taking the easy way out by embracing magical solutions to blunt the very real trauma of the often painful realities of organic life on this planet.

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization. It is we nerds who have studied the real world as it is, not as we dream it were, and have come up with such things as indoor living, central heating, flush toilets, and agriculture, so that silly souls can bask in creature comforts while they wallow in their childish nonsense about magic talking snakes and dead guys coming back to life.

    I pity theists, I really do. You have channeled your emotional and intellectual energy into a phantasm that is just a dead end, a straight jacket from whose demanding, demeaning confines you will never be able to grasp who and what you really are, never fully perceive the majesty of the real world all around you, the random, chaotic, pointless universe and the magnificent, meaningless life you have. It is you who suffer from an 'intellectual deficit', not us.

    Imagine writing this:

    To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence… [et seq.]

    Immediately followed by this:

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization…[et seq.]

    Your self-reflectance has an albedo of zero, Mr. Wizard.

  30. @Realist

    Not entering into the question of whether God exists or not, but I find it ironic that “smart” atheist HBDers don’t believe in God, fetishize IQ and “Darwinian selection of the fittest”, but have a very low TFR, while the only white people whom I’ve known to have 9, 10, 12 kids recently are believing Christians.
     

    In this sense, agnosticism and atheism are a bit like homosexuality, things that reduce the chance of the “survival of the species” but keep reappearing nevertheless.
     
    You seem to be very confused. Are you talking about White survival or species survival?

    So your argument is for species or race survival...the stupider the better.

    Huh?

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of “survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life” seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.

    I used the term “survival of the species” because it’s the term used in Darwinian literature. I could have removed “white” in the other sentence and it would still make sense, because religious people breed more independently of race (and even of religion, as also religious Jews/Muslims have more children, I don’t know about Hinduism or other Asian religions), but I singled out whites because people here including me are more concerned about white survival and/or worried about their low TFR than about other groups, and it is a real contrast with the majority of white people, who are not reproducing at high rates.

    • Replies: @Realist

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of “survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life” seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.
     
    You're making this crap up. The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.
  31. @Dumbo
    Huh?

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of "survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life" seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.

    I used the term "survival of the species" because it's the term used in Darwinian literature. I could have removed "white" in the other sentence and it would still make sense, because religious people breed more independently of race (and even of religion, as also religious Jews/Muslims have more children, I don't know about Hinduism or other Asian religions), but I singled out whites because people here including me are more concerned about white survival and/or worried about their low TFR than about other groups, and it is a real contrast with the majority of white people, who are not reproducing at high rates.

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of “survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life” seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.

    You’re making this crap up. The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    Oh, please, not this crap again. There was some troll advancing his "Christianity is a Jewish plot" and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back. Was that you? It wasn't convincing then, and it's not convincing now.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those "I don't even know where to begin" subjects. I can't be bothered to spend all the time it would take.
    , @Dumbo
    Independently of what their leadership does, religious (white, but others too) people are reproducing at a larger rate than average non-religious or not-very-religious people, and at a much larger rate than atheists/agnostics. That's a fact, and that's all I was saying. You're the one talking of other things that have nothing to do with what I said. Best.
  32. Anon[930] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    [MORE]

    but a sizzling hot take from a (self-proclaimed) Jew on isteve– paraphrased, “Hitler did nothing wrong”:

    That’s absolutely right. There really is no such thing as international law. There is only victor’s justice. The United Nations is a debating society. The only real principle in international affairs is “might makes right.” If we can put a hit on Solemaini and get away with it, then it’s right. If Iran can put a hit on Trump and not get nuked as a result, then they were right. Who is to say otherwise? Is the International Criminal Court going to come and arrest Donald Trump? You want justice on this earth? Find some other planet.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/qasem-soleimani-is-dead/#comment-3643659

  33. I wonder how much the stereotype about atheists being disagreeable is true. Being low on agreeability may make it possible to be an atheist in a religious society because of an ability to better resist the urge to conform in order to get along with people. In a society of atheists the few religious people might have disagreeable personalities because the agreeable types would tend to conform to the dominant atheist belief. In my office at work there is a religious female who has her religious beliefs made fun of by a male office atheist. I’m an atheist too but I think she is a really sweet person and would never even think of making fun of her religious beliefs. So she would probably think all atheists are like the guy who makes fun of her and not like me since she doesn’t even know I’m an atheist. I think this type of thing would give people with religious beliefs a somewhat inaccurate picture of atheists.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I wonder how much the stereotype about atheists being disagreeable is true.
     
    Here's my issue.

    I genuinely believe the objective evidence is mixed, but leans toward theism. There is enough to believe if you are so inclined. Therefore, I assume that atheists are not so inclined. And that is something that I cannot fathom.

    Enlighten me.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I'm probably guilty of conceiving of the standard atheist as an evangelist for atheism.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They'll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.
  34. o/t

    Cuckservative.txt

  35. @Realist

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of “survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life” seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.
     
    You're making this crap up. The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    Oh, please, not this crap again. There was some troll advancing his “Christianity is a Jewish plot” and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back. Was that you? It wasn’t convincing then, and it’s not convincing now.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those “I don’t even know where to begin” subjects. I can’t be bothered to spend all the time it would take.

    • Replies: @Realist

    There was some troll advancing his “Christianity is a Jewish plot” and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back.
     
    Calling someone a troll because you disagree with their opinion shows a lack of self confidence. Whoever you are talking about it wasn't me.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those “I don’t even know where to begin” subjects.
     
    Many Christians are so enraptured with Jews...evangelicals for example...that they give their allegiance to Jews to the detriment of their own race.

    I can’t be bothered to spend all the time it would take.
     
    So you got nothing.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites

    I might have been able to make that argument 1,700 years ago, but I agree it's a little late now!
  36. @Murray
    This 2+ sigma former atheist would like to see the Gaussian distribution of atheist intelligence vs "firm theists".

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture, but not smart enough to follow sophisticated theist arguments, or to recognize that the vast majority of atheist arguments are incoherent. Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don't know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture, but not smart enough to follow sophisticated theist arguments, or to recognize that the vast majority of atheist arguments are incoherent. Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don’t know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.

    Mark the calendar. Rosie admits that someone else articulates an argument better than her own self. This is exactly what I was thinking, but couldn’t quite put my finger on, in comment #2 above. Very, very well said.

  37. @Cloudbuster
    The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    Oh, please, not this crap again. There was some troll advancing his "Christianity is a Jewish plot" and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back. Was that you? It wasn't convincing then, and it's not convincing now.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those "I don't even know where to begin" subjects. I can't be bothered to spend all the time it would take.

    There was some troll advancing his “Christianity is a Jewish plot” and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back.

    Calling someone a troll because you disagree with their opinion shows a lack of self confidence. Whoever you are talking about it wasn’t me.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those “I don’t even know where to begin” subjects.

    Many Christians are so enraptured with Jews…evangelicals for example…that they give their allegiance to Jews to the detriment of their own race.

    I can’t be bothered to spend all the time it would take.

    So you got nothing.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Many Christians are so enraptured with Jews…evangelicals for example…that they give their allegiance to Jews to the detriment of their own race.
     
    That is not a function of Christianity as such, but rather subversion of Christian institutions. You could say that their vulnerability to subversion proves your point, but then even the most secular institutions the academy, for one) have hardly fared any better.
  38. @Realist

    There was some troll advancing his “Christianity is a Jewish plot” and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back.
     
    Calling someone a troll because you disagree with their opinion shows a lack of self confidence. Whoever you are talking about it wasn't me.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those “I don’t even know where to begin” subjects.
     
    Many Christians are so enraptured with Jews...evangelicals for example...that they give their allegiance to Jews to the detriment of their own race.

    I can’t be bothered to spend all the time it would take.
     
    So you got nothing.

    Many Christians are so enraptured with Jews…evangelicals for example…that they give their allegiance to Jews to the detriment of their own race.

    That is not a function of Christianity as such, but rather subversion of Christian institutions. You could say that their vulnerability to subversion proves your point, but then even the most secular institutions the academy, for one) have hardly fared any better.

    • Replies: @Realist

    That is not a function of Christianity as such,...
     
    But many self described Christians think it is. The purpose of all religion is control.
  39. @Rosie

    For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.
     
    That's a very mixed bag. Yes, religious authorities have oppressed women in the past, but sages and mystics have also been the top of the spear in advancing women's rights. Steve posted about Karl Jasper's "Axial Age" recently. The sages associated with that time period were generally very pro woman: Socrates, the Buddha, Zoroaster, the Hebrew prophets. Though he had great merit in other respects, Confucius was an exception to this rule.

    It can be said that man became a philosopher in the first millennium B.C. That was also the beginning of feminism. Feminism is as old as philosophy itself.

    For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    As far as Christianity is concerned the terror of women and sexuality seems to be mostly associated with the Puritan heresy. Americans notice it so much because America is so totally dominated by Puritanism. America is a land where even radical feminists and militant atheists are awash in Puritanism. American feminism was originally an outgrowth of Puritan zealotry.

    It’s been fascinating to read the recent threads on pornography and see just how thoroughly marinated so many dissident rightists are in Puritanism. Many dissident rightists seem to be absolutely horrified by the idea of sexual pleasure. That explains much of the dissident right’s hostility towards women. Like the Puritans they see women as wicked temptresses. And they’re enraged by the thought of women wanting sexual pleasure – women are just supposed to have babies.

    The terror of sex is more of an American thing than a Christian thing. Americans are deeply weird about sex.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The terror of sex is more of an American thing than a Christian thing. Americans are deeply weird about sex.
     
    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it. It's not that I think there's anything sinful about it. It's just that when you're in the act, you have surrendered your humanity. You're no different from an animal during those brief moments. Even as a drunk college student, I remained somewhat capable of forming and expressing a coherent thought, albeit not anywhere near as profound as I thought when under the influence.

    Since consciousness = life, the loss thereof = death, and death = sin.

    Orgasm = the little death.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_petite_mort

    Of course, I'm not claiming any of this makes any sense. It's just the reality how some of us feel about it.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.
  40. @Murray
    This 2+ sigma former atheist would like to see the Gaussian distribution of atheist intelligence vs "firm theists".

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture, but not smart enough to follow sophisticated theist arguments, or to recognize that the vast majority of atheist arguments are incoherent. Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don't know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.

    The GSS makes this tough. The Wordsum vocabulary test is only ten questions, and 5% of the population aces it, so we have to contend with an artificial ceiling just under 2 SDs above the mean.

  41. @Mark G.
    I wonder how much the stereotype about atheists being disagreeable is true. Being low on agreeability may make it possible to be an atheist in a religious society because of an ability to better resist the urge to conform in order to get along with people. In a society of atheists the few religious people might have disagreeable personalities because the agreeable types would tend to conform to the dominant atheist belief. In my office at work there is a religious female who has her religious beliefs made fun of by a male office atheist. I'm an atheist too but I think she is a really sweet person and would never even think of making fun of her religious beliefs. So she would probably think all atheists are like the guy who makes fun of her and not like me since she doesn't even know I'm an atheist. I think this type of thing would give people with religious beliefs a somewhat inaccurate picture of atheists.

    I wonder how much the stereotype about atheists being disagreeable is true.

    Here’s my issue.

    I genuinely believe the objective evidence is mixed, but leans toward theism. There is enough to believe if you are so inclined. Therefore, I assume that atheists are not so inclined. And that is something that I cannot fathom.

    Enlighten me.

  42. @SFG
    I'm an atheist. I don't believe God exists.

    On the other hand, I also see people develop a lot of happiness and satisfaction from their religion, and losing it tends to turn people into SJWs, so I don't proselytize.

    Indeed, it’s hard to see what good comes of trying to argue earnest believers out of their faith.

  43. @Mark G.
    I wonder how much the stereotype about atheists being disagreeable is true. Being low on agreeability may make it possible to be an atheist in a religious society because of an ability to better resist the urge to conform in order to get along with people. In a society of atheists the few religious people might have disagreeable personalities because the agreeable types would tend to conform to the dominant atheist belief. In my office at work there is a religious female who has her religious beliefs made fun of by a male office atheist. I'm an atheist too but I think she is a really sweet person and would never even think of making fun of her religious beliefs. So she would probably think all atheists are like the guy who makes fun of her and not like me since she doesn't even know I'm an atheist. I think this type of thing would give people with religious beliefs a somewhat inaccurate picture of atheists.

    I’m probably guilty of conceiving of the standard atheist as an evangelist for atheism.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They’ll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They’ll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.
     
    I dare say that less than 1% of people I've met know that I'm an atheist.

    That may rise to 2% among those who've seen me wearing my "Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog" T-shirt.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which?
     
    Trick question. They're all the same person.
    , @iffen
    You forgot WNs, libertarians, Jew-haters, and moderates.
  44. @Cloudbuster
    The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    Oh, please, not this crap again. There was some troll advancing his "Christianity is a Jewish plot" and anti altruism and sacrifice a number of months back. Was that you? It wasn't convincing then, and it's not convincing now.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites is one of those "I don't even know where to begin" subjects. I can't be bothered to spend all the time it would take.

    The idea that Christianity is detrimental to Whites

    I might have been able to make that argument 1,700 years ago, but I agree it’s a little late now!

  45. @Michael S
    Speaking as a former atheist myself, it's curious how such a supposedly smart bunch can collectively fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation; and judging by their liberal use of the division fallacy and obsession over a literal half-sigma, they aren't much better at understanding the concepts of averages and standard deviations, either.

    It is much easier and personally efficient to be compliant/stupid than truly smart.  Blind compliance with religious dogma is easier than true thinking, even if that compliance is ultimately detrimental to the society at large.  Look at the damage the Islamic promotion of cousin-marriage has done; whole countries literally too stupid to practice Western civilization, which they nevertheless lust after.

    • Replies: @216
    A lot of people neither need nor want complexity. They just want to get on with their humble lives.

    Most people were not meant to be a philosopher king. The Old Testament features two philosopher kings, neither of which ended up doing all that well.

    The hunger for knowledge that I have is also a pit of despair. It's not for everyone.
  46. @Murray
    This 2+ sigma former atheist would like to see the Gaussian distribution of atheist intelligence vs "firm theists".

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture, but not smart enough to follow sophisticated theist arguments, or to recognize that the vast majority of atheist arguments are incoherent. Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don't know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture

    Begs the question:  WHY does so much of Christianity (including Protestant chatechism) default to the kindergarten level and immediately (and likely permanently) alienate everyone brighter than that?  Because that is TRULY FAW KING STUPID… and precisely what I experienced.

    I do not suffer fools gladly, or at all.  Sofa king done with that.  If their goal is to drive their children away, they could scarcely be more successful.

    Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don’t know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.

    Scientific reasoning is the ONLY proven method of understanding what’s demonstrable in this world.  Anything that cannot be repeated is not demonstrable.  Knowing what you don’t know… is exactly what Christians claim they “know” because of faith, not evidence.

    Don’t piss on me and tell me that it’s raining.  Totally done with that.

    • Replies: @Murray

    Begs the question: WHY does so much of Christianity (including Protestant chatechism) default to the kindergarten level and immediately (and likely permanently) alienate everyone brighter than that? Because that is TRULY FAW KING STUPID… and precisely what I experienced.
     
    It's what I experienced, too, and it was the secondary reason I rejected Christianity as an adolescent (the primary one being that atheism gave me infinite moral license). I expect the answer to your question is that a supermajority of people cluster in the sub-110 range, and it's tailored to them, pretty much like everything else you see on TV, etc. Get a bit smarter than this, and you realize it's all bunk. Get even smarter than that, and if you pay attention, you realize that theists actually have the more coherent arguments. The general quality of atheist argumentation makes me embarrassed to have ever claimed the label.

    Scientific reasoning is the ONLY proven method of understanding what’s demonstrable in this world.
     
    Agreed, if you're looking solely to understand material phenomena. The assertion that material phenomena comprise the entirety of existence is just that, and it cannot be confirmed by scientific reasoning.
  47. @dfordoom


    For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.
     

     
    As far as Christianity is concerned the terror of women and sexuality seems to be mostly associated with the Puritan heresy. Americans notice it so much because America is so totally dominated by Puritanism. America is a land where even radical feminists and militant atheists are awash in Puritanism. American feminism was originally an outgrowth of Puritan zealotry.

    It's been fascinating to read the recent threads on pornography and see just how thoroughly marinated so many dissident rightists are in Puritanism. Many dissident rightists seem to be absolutely horrified by the idea of sexual pleasure. That explains much of the dissident right's hostility towards women. Like the Puritans they see women as wicked temptresses. And they're enraged by the thought of women wanting sexual pleasure - women are just supposed to have babies.

    The terror of sex is more of an American thing than a Christian thing. Americans are deeply weird about sex.

    The terror of sex is more of an American thing than a Christian thing. Americans are deeply weird about sex.

    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it. It’s not that I think there’s anything sinful about it. It’s just that when you’re in the act, you have surrendered your humanity. You’re no different from an animal during those brief moments. Even as a drunk college student, I remained somewhat capable of forming and expressing a coherent thought, albeit not anywhere near as profound as I thought when under the influence.

    Since consciousness = life, the loss thereof = death, and death = sin.

    Orgasm = the little death.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_petite_mort

    Of course, I’m not claiming any of this makes any sense. It’s just the reality how some of us feel about it.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it.
     
    As Lord Chesterfield put it, the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.
     
    Truly intellectual/spiritual companionships are nice if you can find them.

    As Woody Allen said, sex without love is an empty experience. But as empty experiences go it's pretty good.

    It’s just that when you’re in the act, you have surrendered your humanity.
     
    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness. You're cut off from the world. Which maybe we need to do occasionally. At least it doesn't leave you with a hangover!
  48. High IQ people are aggressively funneled into modern higher education – the seminary of the regnant judaic religion of secular liberalism. Of course this is going to peel a lot of bright but conformist types off their own religious and cultural inheritance and leave them adrift and nihilistic. The fish rots from the head, and wow does it ever stink nowadays.

    • Replies: @anon
    Agreed - higher IQ people are also more likely to be indoctrined at a univerity with idiot ideas.
    Don't all the IQ people today believe that penises and vaginas are social constructs?
  49. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm probably guilty of conceiving of the standard atheist as an evangelist for atheism.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They'll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They’ll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.

    I dare say that less than 1% of people I’ve met know that I’m an atheist.

    That may rise to 2% among those who’ve seen me wearing my “Untied Dyslexic Church of Dog” T-shirt.

  50. 216 says: • Website

    Neo Victorian Feminism

    The temperance movement linked booze to domestic violence. Did it have a point?
    Moira Donegan

    They actually changed the headline, it originally stated “Drunk Men are a danger to women, So should feminists fight booze culture”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/03/women-alcohol-drink-culture-prohibition-temperance

    This is yet another sign of the coming fracture between intersectonal feminists and this new fifth wave that I call the Neo-Victorians. Whether we like it or not, this could one day see Woke cracking up, and a realignment of these women to the right.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Lol as though it's an open question whether or not there is a link between alcohol consumption and violence.
  51. 216 says: • Website
    @Mr. Rational
    It is much easier and personally efficient to be compliant/stupid than truly smart.  Blind compliance with religious dogma is easier than true thinking, even if that compliance is ultimately detrimental to the society at large.  Look at the damage the Islamic promotion of cousin-marriage has done; whole countries literally too stupid to practice Western civilization, which they nevertheless lust after.

    A lot of people neither need nor want complexity. They just want to get on with their humble lives.

    Most people were not meant to be a philosopher king. The Old Testament features two philosopher kings, neither of which ended up doing all that well.

    The hunger for knowledge that I have is also a pit of despair. It’s not for everyone.

  52. @Intelligent Dasein
    The reality of God is knowable through the use of natural reason. Being unaware of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, or not understanding them, does not seem very intelligent to me.

    A lot of people are aware of them, have studied them with considerable seriousness, and find them unconvincing.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    A lot of people are aware of them, have studied them with considerable seriousness, and find them unconvincing.
     
    Would that be the same "considerable seriousness" with which you study AE posts which you then proceed to comment upon like a total ignoramus?

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/pro-life-ladies-pro-choice-gentlemen/#comment-3610228

    If you find these arguments unconvincing, it's because you are an idiot who does not know how to think, who is biased by attachment to vice, and whose mental activity, if can be referred to as such, is an unexamined organic process that is no more worthy of respect than the peristalsis taking place in your own shit-pipe.

    You need to remove yourself from this forum before you get truly embarrassed. Trite atheists are the stupidest, most dimwitted, most useless individuals ever hatched in the flesh. The monotony of your shallow arguments would make lichen die of boredom.

    Such error has no right to be heard, but it's understable that an age which tolerates the homeless dunging in the streets would likewise tolerate the mindless dunging in the comments. Understandable, but no less wrong and disgusting. There is a fire hose prepared for the one as for the other. Enjoy it while you can.
  53. @Anonymousse
    High IQ people are aggressively funneled into modern higher education - the seminary of the regnant judaic religion of secular liberalism. Of course this is going to peel a lot of bright but conformist types off their own religious and cultural inheritance and leave them adrift and nihilistic. The fish rots from the head, and wow does it ever stink nowadays.

    Agreed – higher IQ people are also more likely to be indoctrined at a univerity with idiot ideas.
    Don’t all the IQ people today believe that penises and vaginas are social constructs?

  54. anon[138] • Disclaimer says:

    People need beliefs of some kind to hold themselves together and make sense of life, especially in the hard times such as death in the family, etc.
    Intelligent people can question and reject those beliefs and live from one rational argument to the next. Heroic though that life may be, it is tough going, results in despair, and is a full time job. It is not for everybody.
    The only thing that bothers me about atheists is that they are bothered by everyone else being theists. It is within normal parameters for homo sapiens to believe in God. Get over it.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  55. @Realist

    I was not making any specific argument, just observing that those who most value Darwinian logic of “survival of the fittest and of reproduction of their selfish genes as the only meaning of life” seem to be the ones who reproduce less, while those who believe the opposite (a creator God, the value of altruism/sacrifice) reproduce more.
     
    You're making this crap up. The ones that believe in a creator god and the value of altruism/sacrifice are the ones that are subservient to Jews and are doing the most to destroy the White race.

    Independently of what their leadership does, religious (white, but others too) people are reproducing at a larger rate than average non-religious or not-very-religious people, and at a much larger rate than atheists/agnostics. That’s a fact, and that’s all I was saying. You’re the one talking of other things that have nothing to do with what I said. Best.

  56. @Rosie

    Many Christians are so enraptured with Jews…evangelicals for example…that they give their allegiance to Jews to the detriment of their own race.
     
    That is not a function of Christianity as such, but rather subversion of Christian institutions. You could say that their vulnerability to subversion proves your point, but then even the most secular institutions the academy, for one) have hardly fared any better.

    That is not a function of Christianity as such,…

    But many self described Christians think it is. The purpose of all religion is control.

  57. @Rosie

    The terror of sex is more of an American thing than a Christian thing. Americans are deeply weird about sex.
     
    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it. It's not that I think there's anything sinful about it. It's just that when you're in the act, you have surrendered your humanity. You're no different from an animal during those brief moments. Even as a drunk college student, I remained somewhat capable of forming and expressing a coherent thought, albeit not anywhere near as profound as I thought when under the influence.

    Since consciousness = life, the loss thereof = death, and death = sin.

    Orgasm = the little death.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_petite_mort

    Of course, I'm not claiming any of this makes any sense. It's just the reality how some of us feel about it.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.

    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it.

    As Lord Chesterfield put it, the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.

    Truly intellectual/spiritual companionships are nice if you can find them.

    As Woody Allen said, sex without love is an empty experience. But as empty experiences go it’s pretty good.

    It’s just that when you’re in the act, you have surrendered your humanity.

    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness. You’re cut off from the world. Which maybe we need to do occasionally. At least it doesn’t leave you with a hangover!

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Sex has been compared to the mystical ecstasy of the extinction of ego.

    Part of the reason - some - religions are so hostile to it is because it is a competitor to genuine mystical experience.

    Tantric Buddhism seeks to use it as a spiritual aid.
    , @Rosie

    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness.
     
    No accounting for taste I suppose.

    Part of the reason – some – religions are so hostile to it is because it is a competitor to genuine mystical experience.
     
    Wow. I see it differently. Religious ecstasy is a kind of hyper consciousness, hence the terms "awake" and "vision" that signify clarity and awareness.
  58. @dfordoom

    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it.
     
    As Lord Chesterfield put it, the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.
     
    Truly intellectual/spiritual companionships are nice if you can find them.

    As Woody Allen said, sex without love is an empty experience. But as empty experiences go it's pretty good.

    It’s just that when you’re in the act, you have surrendered your humanity.
     
    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness. You're cut off from the world. Which maybe we need to do occasionally. At least it doesn't leave you with a hangover!

    Sex has been compared to the mystical ecstasy of the extinction of ego.

    Part of the reason – some – religions are so hostile to it is because it is a competitor to genuine mystical experience.

    Tantric Buddhism seeks to use it as a spiritual aid.

  59. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm probably guilty of conceiving of the standard atheist as an evangelist for atheism.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They'll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which?

    Trick question. They’re all the same person.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Vegans disdain meat.
  60. @MBlanc46
    A lot of people are aware of them, have studied them with considerable seriousness, and find them unconvincing.

    A lot of people are aware of them, have studied them with considerable seriousness, and find them unconvincing.

    Would that be the same “considerable seriousness” with which you study AE posts which you then proceed to comment upon like a total ignoramus?

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/pro-life-ladies-pro-choice-gentlemen/#comment-3610228

    If you find these arguments unconvincing, it’s because you are an idiot who does not know how to think, who is biased by attachment to vice, and whose mental activity, if can be referred to as such, is an unexamined organic process that is no more worthy of respect than the peristalsis taking place in your own shit-pipe.

    You need to remove yourself from this forum before you get truly embarrassed. Trite atheists are the stupidest, most dimwitted, most useless individuals ever hatched in the flesh. The monotony of your shallow arguments would make lichen die of boredom.

    Such error has no right to be heard, but it’s understable that an age which tolerates the homeless dunging in the streets would likewise tolerate the mindless dunging in the comments. Understandable, but no less wrong and disgusting. There is a fire hose prepared for the one as for the other. Enjoy it while you can.

  61. @dfordoom

    I must admit to being kind of creeped out by it.
     
    As Lord Chesterfield put it, the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable.

    A truly intellectual/spiritual companionship takes the edge off.
     
    Truly intellectual/spiritual companionships are nice if you can find them.

    As Woody Allen said, sex without love is an empty experience. But as empty experiences go it's pretty good.

    It’s just that when you’re in the act, you have surrendered your humanity.
     
    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness. You're cut off from the world. Which maybe we need to do occasionally. At least it doesn't leave you with a hangover!

    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness.

    No accounting for taste I suppose.

    Part of the reason – some – religions are so hostile to it is because it is a competitor to genuine mystical experience.

    Wow. I see it differently. Religious ecstasy is a kind of hyper consciousness, hence the terms “awake” and “vision” that signify clarity and awareness.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Religious ecstasy is a kind of hyper consciousness

    You have obviously never seen Holy Rollers at church.

    And stop trying to suck up to AaronB.

  62. @Rosie

    In some ways the best thing about sex is that for a brief moment you do surrender your consciousness.
     
    No accounting for taste I suppose.

    Part of the reason – some – religions are so hostile to it is because it is a competitor to genuine mystical experience.
     
    Wow. I see it differently. Religious ecstasy is a kind of hyper consciousness, hence the terms "awake" and "vision" that signify clarity and awareness.

    Religious ecstasy is a kind of hyper consciousness

    You have obviously never seen Holy Rollers at church.

    And stop trying to suck up to AaronB.

  63. @Intelligent Dasein

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which?
     
    Trick question. They're all the same person.

    Vegans disdain meat.

  64. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm probably guilty of conceiving of the standard atheist as an evangelist for atheism.

    An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar. How do you tell which is which? They'll all tell you within 30 seconds of conversation.

    You forgot WNs, libertarians, Jew-haters, and moderates.

  65. @Observator
    I've been reading a book on the neurological roots of faith that postulates a connection between autism and atheism. That author observes that people on the autistic end of the spectrum are intensely aware of the details of the physical world, to the extent that such awareness leaves them without the need for a concept of the numinous. I identify with this condition. I am far more interested with, say, how a radio works, why an 8 ohm resistor is here, a capacitor there, with five millimeters of circuitry between them, than in the emotional response I have to the sound vibrations that come out of the speaker. In the same way, attempting to see the real world as it is, its enchanting complexity and variety, leaves me with zero tolerance for fairy tales about invisible men inherited from a Levantine tribe of primitive nomadic barbarians, i.e., Judaeo-Christian-Islamist patriarchal monotheism. For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    Friends who are believers (and I have some) tell me their faith is grounded in specific personal experience they had which confirmed to them the existence of a supernatural, the "wonders of the invisible world" which they can enhance through their religious practice. I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like. To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence, intellectual sloppiness caused by irrational fear or low self-esteem, taking the easy way out by embracing magical solutions to blunt the very real trauma of the often painful realities of organic life on this planet.

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization. It is we nerds who have studied the real world as it is, not as we dream it were, and have come up with such things as indoor living, central heating, flush toilets, and agriculture, so that silly souls can bask in creature comforts while they wallow in their childish nonsense about magic talking snakes and dead guys coming back to life.

    I pity theists, I really do. You have channeled your emotional and intellectual energy into a phantasm that is just a dead end, a straight jacket from whose demanding, demeaning confines you will never be able to grasp who and what you really are, never fully perceive the majesty of the real world all around you, the random, chaotic, pointless universe and the magnificent, meaningless life you have. It is you who suffer from an 'intellectual deficit', not us.

    Ironically I’m closer to your end of the spectrum than the religious one, but religion has had a huge effect on social cohesion, that thing us autistic-types are so bad at.

    If people lose it, they make up a new one (see: Communism, wokeness).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  66. @Observator
    I've been reading a book on the neurological roots of faith that postulates a connection between autism and atheism. That author observes that people on the autistic end of the spectrum are intensely aware of the details of the physical world, to the extent that such awareness leaves them without the need for a concept of the numinous. I identify with this condition. I am far more interested with, say, how a radio works, why an 8 ohm resistor is here, a capacitor there, with five millimeters of circuitry between them, than in the emotional response I have to the sound vibrations that come out of the speaker. In the same way, attempting to see the real world as it is, its enchanting complexity and variety, leaves me with zero tolerance for fairy tales about invisible men inherited from a Levantine tribe of primitive nomadic barbarians, i.e., Judaeo-Christian-Islamist patriarchal monotheism. For me, religion is a sort of institutionalized OCD, but this one with its vicious zealotry, its hatred of strangers, its terror of women and sexuality, its obsessive need to root out and punish difference, is particularly repellent.

    Friends who are believers (and I have some) tell me their faith is grounded in specific personal experience they had which confirmed to them the existence of a supernatural, the "wonders of the invisible world" which they can enhance through their religious practice. I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like. To me, these are whopping great cases of self-indulgence, intellectual sloppiness caused by irrational fear or low self-esteem, taking the easy way out by embracing magical solutions to blunt the very real trauma of the often painful realities of organic life on this planet.

    It is we on the autistic end of the spectrum who have built civilization. It is we nerds who have studied the real world as it is, not as we dream it were, and have come up with such things as indoor living, central heating, flush toilets, and agriculture, so that silly souls can bask in creature comforts while they wallow in their childish nonsense about magic talking snakes and dead guys coming back to life.

    I pity theists, I really do. You have channeled your emotional and intellectual energy into a phantasm that is just a dead end, a straight jacket from whose demanding, demeaning confines you will never be able to grasp who and what you really are, never fully perceive the majesty of the real world all around you, the random, chaotic, pointless universe and the magnificent, meaningless life you have. It is you who suffer from an 'intellectual deficit', not us.

    >I have never had such an experience and cannot even remotely conceive of what one must be like.

    Speaking as someone else diagnosed with ASD, I get where you are coming from: what you just said would have been exactly what I would have said three years ago. A contour integral or a piece of elegantly crafted code still makes my heart flutter in a way some invisible, transcendental experience can’t. But since then, I’ve also seen the opposite side of the score. I’ve been close to someone who is my polar opposite in just about every way, and have seen that while I do some things better and understand things that she doesn’t, she also does some things better and understands things that I don’t. It is the full-ranged human experience, might as well check it out while we’re here. Most people don’t value intellectual consistency above everything, and the world is honestly probably better off for that. Might there be forces out there we don’t understand? Possibly. We are so utterly insignificant from the perspective of the cosmos that we can’t judge.

    But right now, I’ve decided the jury is out for me on questions like this while I get reconstruct my life from scratch in the 2020s, because I don’t feel intellectually competent enough to state whether my new attitude toward the metaphysical is valid or not given that I’ve spent most of the past decade being a useless addict. So, we’ll see what happens, whether I keep these new attitudes with me as my mental chemistry reforms itself.

    And like SFG mentioned, if you take away their religion, they’ll create new, nastier ones. The history of the 20th Century should show that well enough, but even now, SJWism is nothing more than revivalist Christianity without God, for example. All those pink-hatted chicks you see out there would have been church ladies protesting this or that indecency or rock show back in the 1970s. So, as a pragmatic matter, better to let things roll as long as it doesn’t interfere with scientific and technological achievement, and right now, I think that’s way more at risk with the openly anti-empirical zeitgeist of today’s cultural Bolsheviks than with a Religious Right currently in its death throes.

  67. All those pink-hatted chicks you see out there would have been church ladies protesting this or that indecency or rock show back in the 1970s.

    Truth bomb.

    Prayers for you in your recovery from atheism as well as whatever substance you have fallen prey to.

    If I may, I found this when poking around the internet.

    The subtitle really caught my eye:

    A Philosopher’s Bridge to Faith.

    It caught my eye because I have also conceived of a “bridge to faith.” When the thought occurred to me, I had something like this in mind:


    If you notice, the bridge is not one whole thing. It is made up of numerous individual planks. Faith is kind of like that. There is no one smoking gun that will settle the matter in dramatic fashion, but rather a number of things, taken together, that add up to a good case for God. For example, some pieces of music even die hard atheists will admit make them wonder.

    This is one of the planks in my bridge.

    I have not read this book, as it is quite new. I think something like this would have been very helpful to me at one point. Now I’m inclined to read it just out of curiosity. The reviews are excellent.

    How about an AE book review and discussion?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Watching now:

    https://youtu.be/R8LfwMqFImc

    The smirking heathen claims there is "no evidence" for God, and for any proffered evidence, one must "rule out the alternatives" to have a warranted belief in God. (11:00) An extreme standard of certainty! That has always been my suspicion about atheists.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Read it, write one, and we'll run it as a guest post. Make the recommendation convincing if it is good!
  68. @Mr. Rational

    My hunch is that the atheist population is predominantly of the midwit variety: people who are smart enough to reject the kindergarten version of Christianity that predominates in popular culture
     
    Begs the question:  WHY does so much of Christianity (including Protestant chatechism) default to the kindergarten level and immediately (and likely permanently) alienate everyone brighter than that?  Because that is TRULY FAW KING STUPID... and precisely what I experienced.

    I do not suffer fools gladly, or at all.  Sofa king done with that.  If their goal is to drive their children away, they could scarcely be more successful.


    Above average intelligence, certainly, but not smart enough to know what they don’t know, or to recognize the limits of scientific reasoning.
     
    Scientific reasoning is the ONLY proven method of understanding what's demonstrable in this world.  Anything that cannot be repeated is not demonstrable.  Knowing what you don't know... is exactly what Christians claim they "know" because of faith, not evidence.

    Don't piss on me and tell me that it's raining.  Totally done with that.

    Begs the question: WHY does so much of Christianity (including Protestant chatechism) default to the kindergarten level and immediately (and likely permanently) alienate everyone brighter than that? Because that is TRULY FAW KING STUPID… and precisely what I experienced.

    It’s what I experienced, too, and it was the secondary reason I rejected Christianity as an adolescent (the primary one being that atheism gave me infinite moral license). I expect the answer to your question is that a supermajority of people cluster in the sub-110 range, and it’s tailored to them, pretty much like everything else you see on TV, etc. Get a bit smarter than this, and you realize it’s all bunk. Get even smarter than that, and if you pay attention, you realize that theists actually have the more coherent arguments. The general quality of atheist argumentation makes me embarrassed to have ever claimed the label.

    Scientific reasoning is the ONLY proven method of understanding what’s demonstrable in this world.

    Agreed, if you’re looking solely to understand material phenomena. The assertion that material phenomena comprise the entirety of existence is just that, and it cannot be confirmed by scientific reasoning.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena

    if you’re looking solely to understand material phenomena. The assertion that material phenomena comprise the entirety of existence is just that, and it cannot be confirmed by scientific reasoning.
     
    I generally agree but I would take it a step further. The issue is material phenomena do not provide a method for creating material phenomena. The universe can't be created within the universe according to the laws of the universe. 1st law of thermodynamics is that matter is never created or destroyed. So how the hell does it exist to begin with? The creation of time requires a before time which can't exist without time (nor with it). The laws of physics exclude the creation of physical laws.

    Material phenomena can't comprise the entirety of existence but anything postulated to exist that can expands existence in a way that still can't comprise itself. The only solution that could exist would have to be something that manages to exist outside of existence. It's an eternal paradox.

    It's not confirmable but it is deducible that physical phenomena can't explain it's own existence as a phenomenon.
  69. @216
    Neo Victorian Feminism

    The temperance movement linked booze to domestic violence. Did it have a point?
    Moira Donegan
     
    They actually changed the headline, it originally stated "Drunk Men are a danger to women, So should feminists fight booze culture"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/03/women-alcohol-drink-culture-prohibition-temperance

    This is yet another sign of the coming fracture between intersectonal feminists and this new fifth wave that I call the Neo-Victorians. Whether we like it or not, this could one day see Woke cracking up, and a realignment of these women to the right.

    Lol as though it’s an open question whether or not there is a link between alcohol consumption and violence.

    • Replies: @216
    "Teach men not to rape"
  70. @Audacious Epigone
    Lol as though it's an open question whether or not there is a link between alcohol consumption and violence.

    “Teach men not to rape”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  71. @Rosie

    All those pink-hatted chicks you see out there would have been church ladies protesting this or that indecency or rock show back in the 1970s.
     
    Truth bomb.

    Prayers for you in your recovery from atheism as well as whatever substance you have fallen prey to.

    If I may, I found this when poking around the internet.

    https://www.amazon.com/How-Reason-Can-Lead-God/dp/0830852522

    The subtitle really caught my eye:

    A Philosopher's Bridge to Faith.

    It caught my eye because I have also conceived of a "bridge to faith." When the thought occurred to me, I had something like this in mind:


    https://files.structurae.net/files/photos/1833/image8.jpg

    If you notice, the bridge is not one whole thing. It is made up of numerous individual planks. Faith is kind of like that. There is no one smoking gun that will settle the matter in dramatic fashion, but rather a number of things, taken together, that add up to a good case for God. For example, some pieces of music even die hard atheists will admit make them wonder.

    https://youtu.be/36Y_ztEW1NE

    This is one of the planks in my bridge.

    I have not read this book, as it is quite new. I think something like this would have been very helpful to me at one point. Now I'm inclined to read it just out of curiosity. The reviews are excellent.

    How about an AE book review and discussion?

    Watching now:

    The smirking heathen claims there is “no evidence” for God, and for any proffered evidence, one must “rule out the alternatives” to have a warranted belief in God. (11:00) An extreme standard of certainty! That has always been my suspicion about atheists.

  72. @Murray

    Begs the question: WHY does so much of Christianity (including Protestant chatechism) default to the kindergarten level and immediately (and likely permanently) alienate everyone brighter than that? Because that is TRULY FAW KING STUPID… and precisely what I experienced.
     
    It's what I experienced, too, and it was the secondary reason I rejected Christianity as an adolescent (the primary one being that atheism gave me infinite moral license). I expect the answer to your question is that a supermajority of people cluster in the sub-110 range, and it's tailored to them, pretty much like everything else you see on TV, etc. Get a bit smarter than this, and you realize it's all bunk. Get even smarter than that, and if you pay attention, you realize that theists actually have the more coherent arguments. The general quality of atheist argumentation makes me embarrassed to have ever claimed the label.

    Scientific reasoning is the ONLY proven method of understanding what’s demonstrable in this world.
     
    Agreed, if you're looking solely to understand material phenomena. The assertion that material phenomena comprise the entirety of existence is just that, and it cannot be confirmed by scientific reasoning.

    if you’re looking solely to understand material phenomena. The assertion that material phenomena comprise the entirety of existence is just that, and it cannot be confirmed by scientific reasoning.

    I generally agree but I would take it a step further. The issue is material phenomena do not provide a method for creating material phenomena. The universe can’t be created within the universe according to the laws of the universe. 1st law of thermodynamics is that matter is never created or destroyed. So how the hell does it exist to begin with? The creation of time requires a before time which can’t exist without time (nor with it). The laws of physics exclude the creation of physical laws.

    Material phenomena can’t comprise the entirety of existence but anything postulated to exist that can expands existence in a way that still can’t comprise itself. The only solution that could exist would have to be something that manages to exist outside of existence. It’s an eternal paradox.

    It’s not confirmable but it is deducible that physical phenomena can’t explain it’s own existence as a phenomenon.

    • Agree: Dissident
  73. 1st law of thermodynamics is that matter is never created or destroyed. So how the hell does it exist to begin with?

    The Lyman-alpha photons emitted when the Big Bang fireball cooled enough to allow atomic hydrogen to form are now down in the microwave range at 2.7 K.  Where did their energy go?

    This question has an answer in known physics, but if you don’t understand it, the question you posed is completely over your head.  The argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything. I am aware of E=MC2. Energy can change into matter. It doesn't matter. You ought to know as well as I do that the 1st law does not only apply to matter. You still have to explain the energy to start with.

    Your response seems cheesy to me, taking "matter" so literally. You obviously know better.
  74. @Mr. Rational

    1st law of thermodynamics is that matter is never created or destroyed. So how the hell does it exist to begin with?
     
    The Lyman-alpha photons emitted when the Big Bang fireball cooled enough to allow atomic hydrogen to form are now down in the microwave range at 2.7 K.  Where did their energy go?

    This question has an answer in known physics, but if you don't understand it, the question you posed is completely over your head.  The argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything. I am aware of E=MC2. Energy can change into matter. It doesn’t matter. You ought to know as well as I do that the 1st law does not only apply to matter. You still have to explain the energy to start with.

    Your response seems cheesy to me, taking “matter” so literally. You obviously know better.

    • Replies: @Wency
    There is a fact about the universe that should be self-evident to all, theists and atheists, who are prepared to think about it:

    In the creation of the universe was involved a Power, great and powerful beyond the grasp of human cognition. A Power that made it so there even was a universe, with natural laws such as they are. That there are such things as matter and energy.

    No scientific observation of the universe can tell us much of anything about this Power. We cannot even begin to grasp or explain how this Power came to be, to the point that we have to doubt that "How did it come to be?" is even a coherent question. It belongs in a category outside of everything else that we have ever observed or contemplated.

    The only tenable position of the true atheist is that this Power is a blind idiot force without will or intent. I intuit that it is foolish and arrogant to so limit this Power, and this is one reason I am a theist. But if your intuition tells you otherwise, then that's as far as this line of argumentation can go.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.
     
    The recession of galaxies, the cosmic background radiation, the cosmic abundance of deuterium... these things make no sense WITHOUT the Big Bang.  It's tight with high-energy physics too.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything.
     
    One thing you don't know about is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:  the product of the error in energy and the duration of the uncertainty is less than or equal to Planck's constant.  This is why very short-lived particles like exotic quarks are observed to have a bell-curve of energies, not a monochromatic spike; they are gone so fast their mass-uncertainty is a substantial fraction of their total mass.

    Uncertainty also applies to "virtual particles".  The "vacuum" is not empty; it is full of particle-antiparticle pairs which pop into existence and then annihilate each other to pay back the "energy debt" they incurred in being born.  The heavier the particles, the shorter their maximum lifetime.

    Virtual particles are very, very real.  You see this in things like heavy-ion colliders which can strip most of the electrons off of a highly-charged nucleus when it hits a target.  The intensity of the electric field around a nucleus without its shielding screen of electrons literally rips virtual electron-positron pairs apart, capturing the electrons and throwing off the positrons at considerable speed.  The energy to turn the virtual particles to real ones comes from reducing the electric field around the nucleus.  The same is true of Hawking radiation from black holes; each particle radiated comes from weakening the gravitational field of the BH (reducing its mass).

    So how do you get a whole lot of mass-energy from "nothing"?  Create an equal and opposite amount of anti mass-energy.  If the negatives exactly equal the positives, then the energy term of the energy-time product is zero and the time can extend to infinity:  something and anti-something from nothing.

    This does beg the question of where the vacuum came from, but given the simple-mindedness of the laws of physics it seems unlikely that a conscious, omnipotent and capricious deity was involved.
  75. @Lars Porsena
    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything. I am aware of E=MC2. Energy can change into matter. It doesn't matter. You ought to know as well as I do that the 1st law does not only apply to matter. You still have to explain the energy to start with.

    Your response seems cheesy to me, taking "matter" so literally. You obviously know better.

    There is a fact about the universe that should be self-evident to all, theists and atheists, who are prepared to think about it:

    In the creation of the universe was involved a Power, great and powerful beyond the grasp of human cognition. A Power that made it so there even was a universe, with natural laws such as they are. That there are such things as matter and energy.

    No scientific observation of the universe can tell us much of anything about this Power. We cannot even begin to grasp or explain how this Power came to be, to the point that we have to doubt that “How did it come to be?” is even a coherent question. It belongs in a category outside of everything else that we have ever observed or contemplated.

    The only tenable position of the true atheist is that this Power is a blind idiot force without will or intent. I intuit that it is foolish and arrogant to so limit this Power, and this is one reason I am a theist. But if your intuition tells you otherwise, then that’s as far as this line of argumentation can go.

    • Agree: Lars Porsena
  76. @Lars Porsena
    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything. I am aware of E=MC2. Energy can change into matter. It doesn't matter. You ought to know as well as I do that the 1st law does not only apply to matter. You still have to explain the energy to start with.

    Your response seems cheesy to me, taking "matter" so literally. You obviously know better.

    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.

    The recession of galaxies, the cosmic background radiation, the cosmic abundance of deuterium… these things make no sense WITHOUT the Big Bang.  It’s tight with high-energy physics too.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything.

    One thing you don’t know about is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:  the product of the error in energy and the duration of the uncertainty is less than or equal to Planck’s constant.  This is why very short-lived particles like exotic quarks are observed to have a bell-curve of energies, not a monochromatic spike; they are gone so fast their mass-uncertainty is a substantial fraction of their total mass.

    Uncertainty also applies to “virtual particles”.  The “vacuum” is not empty; it is full of particle-antiparticle pairs which pop into existence and then annihilate each other to pay back the “energy debt” they incurred in being born.  The heavier the particles, the shorter their maximum lifetime.

    Virtual particles are very, very real.  You see this in things like heavy-ion colliders which can strip most of the electrons off of a highly-charged nucleus when it hits a target.  The intensity of the electric field around a nucleus without its shielding screen of electrons literally rips virtual electron-positron pairs apart, capturing the electrons and throwing off the positrons at considerable speed.  The energy to turn the virtual particles to real ones comes from reducing the electric field around the nucleus.  The same is true of Hawking radiation from black holes; each particle radiated comes from weakening the gravitational field of the BH (reducing its mass).

    So how do you get a whole lot of mass-energy from “nothing”?  Create an equal and opposite amount of anti mass-energy.  If the negatives exactly equal the positives, then the energy term of the energy-time product is zero and the time can extend to infinity:  something and anti-something from nothing.

    This does beg the question of where the vacuum came from, but given the simple-mindedness of the laws of physics it seems unlikely that a conscious, omnipotent and capricious deity was involved.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    There is no escaping the problem of infinite recursion (except eternal recurrence which declares it to not be a problem).

    Beyond that point it is practically aesthetics whether you want to see a god or not. An answer beyond that point would defy human comprehension, like Wency says, to such an extent the question over whether such sources are 'conscious' may not even make sense. Likewise, being unfathomable, I don't think we're in a place to judge whether it's capricious if it was conscious. It may not also be necessarily be omnipotent. Dumb force or God either way my point is the origins of the physical universe are beyond the physical universe and what is observable in it, assuming it has any origin, and if it doesn't have any origin it's just as incomprehensible.

    At any rate, separately to that discussion, I don't know how anyone can look at particle physics, the behavior of light in general (Doppler effect and space/time curvature), or any of quantum physics and conclude it's simple minded or straight forward. If one were to set about building a universe (say a virtual one) you can certainly find ways to approximate most phenomena with far simpler mechanics. For one, light could just be a particle and particles could always act like particles. Space/time could be Cartesian (non-curved) and constant.

    Beyond "where did the vacuum come from?" you can ask why didn't the particles and anti-particles simply annihilate? That is what they do in a vacuum. They don't spin off in separate directions and create new matter from vacuum as a matter of course. They are supposed to attract one another and annihilate back where they came from. In a heavy ion collider you start with something, the electron stripped nucleus, to cause that effect. In a straight vacuum before anything existed you don't have that to explain why the electron and positron wouldn't just annihilate like they're supposed to.
  77. @Rosie

    All those pink-hatted chicks you see out there would have been church ladies protesting this or that indecency or rock show back in the 1970s.
     
    Truth bomb.

    Prayers for you in your recovery from atheism as well as whatever substance you have fallen prey to.

    If I may, I found this when poking around the internet.

    https://www.amazon.com/How-Reason-Can-Lead-God/dp/0830852522

    The subtitle really caught my eye:

    A Philosopher's Bridge to Faith.

    It caught my eye because I have also conceived of a "bridge to faith." When the thought occurred to me, I had something like this in mind:


    https://files.structurae.net/files/photos/1833/image8.jpg

    If you notice, the bridge is not one whole thing. It is made up of numerous individual planks. Faith is kind of like that. There is no one smoking gun that will settle the matter in dramatic fashion, but rather a number of things, taken together, that add up to a good case for God. For example, some pieces of music even die hard atheists will admit make them wonder.

    https://youtu.be/36Y_ztEW1NE

    This is one of the planks in my bridge.

    I have not read this book, as it is quite new. I think something like this would have been very helpful to me at one point. Now I'm inclined to read it just out of curiosity. The reviews are excellent.

    How about an AE book review and discussion?

    Read it, write one, and we’ll run it as a guest post. Make the recommendation convincing if it is good!

    • Thanks: Rosie
  78. @Mr. Rational

    The big bang can make sense so long as you start with it.
     
    The recession of galaxies, the cosmic background radiation, the cosmic abundance of deuterium... these things make no sense WITHOUT the Big Bang.  It's tight with high-energy physics too.

    Where do you get it? How does it make sense to say that everything started when nothing blew up into things? That violates everything.
     
    One thing you don't know about is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:  the product of the error in energy and the duration of the uncertainty is less than or equal to Planck's constant.  This is why very short-lived particles like exotic quarks are observed to have a bell-curve of energies, not a monochromatic spike; they are gone so fast their mass-uncertainty is a substantial fraction of their total mass.

    Uncertainty also applies to "virtual particles".  The "vacuum" is not empty; it is full of particle-antiparticle pairs which pop into existence and then annihilate each other to pay back the "energy debt" they incurred in being born.  The heavier the particles, the shorter their maximum lifetime.

    Virtual particles are very, very real.  You see this in things like heavy-ion colliders which can strip most of the electrons off of a highly-charged nucleus when it hits a target.  The intensity of the electric field around a nucleus without its shielding screen of electrons literally rips virtual electron-positron pairs apart, capturing the electrons and throwing off the positrons at considerable speed.  The energy to turn the virtual particles to real ones comes from reducing the electric field around the nucleus.  The same is true of Hawking radiation from black holes; each particle radiated comes from weakening the gravitational field of the BH (reducing its mass).

    So how do you get a whole lot of mass-energy from "nothing"?  Create an equal and opposite amount of anti mass-energy.  If the negatives exactly equal the positives, then the energy term of the energy-time product is zero and the time can extend to infinity:  something and anti-something from nothing.

    This does beg the question of where the vacuum came from, but given the simple-mindedness of the laws of physics it seems unlikely that a conscious, omnipotent and capricious deity was involved.

    There is no escaping the problem of infinite recursion (except eternal recurrence which declares it to not be a problem).

    Beyond that point it is practically aesthetics whether you want to see a god or not. An answer beyond that point would defy human comprehension, like Wency says, to such an extent the question over whether such sources are ‘conscious’ may not even make sense. Likewise, being unfathomable, I don’t think we’re in a place to judge whether it’s capricious if it was conscious. It may not also be necessarily be omnipotent. Dumb force or God either way my point is the origins of the physical universe are beyond the physical universe and what is observable in it, assuming it has any origin, and if it doesn’t have any origin it’s just as incomprehensible.

    At any rate, separately to that discussion, I don’t know how anyone can look at particle physics, the behavior of light in general (Doppler effect and space/time curvature), or any of quantum physics and conclude it’s simple minded or straight forward. If one were to set about building a universe (say a virtual one) you can certainly find ways to approximate most phenomena with far simpler mechanics. For one, light could just be a particle and particles could always act like particles. Space/time could be Cartesian (non-curved) and constant.

    Beyond “where did the vacuum come from?” you can ask why didn’t the particles and anti-particles simply annihilate? That is what they do in a vacuum. They don’t spin off in separate directions and create new matter from vacuum as a matter of course. They are supposed to attract one another and annihilate back where they came from. In a heavy ion collider you start with something, the electron stripped nucleus, to cause that effect. In a straight vacuum before anything existed you don’t have that to explain why the electron and positron wouldn’t just annihilate like they’re supposed to.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    There is no escaping the problem of infinite recursion
     
    You can always say "we don't know".

    Beyond that point it is practically aesthetics whether you want to see a god or not.
     
    Funny, I keep seeing claims by theists that [gG]od is a logical necessity.  Which is it?

    I don’t know how anyone can look at particle physics, the behavior of light in general (Doppler effect and space/time curvature), or any of quantum physics and conclude it’s simple minded or straight forward.
     
    You're assuming the primacy of human concepts over the universe.  Why SHOULD space-time and quantum physics conform to our initial, ape-derived thinking?  The notion is ridiculous once placed in perspective.

    If one were to set about building a universe (say a virtual one) you can certainly find ways to approximate most phenomena with far simpler mechanics.
     
    Ape-derived thinking again.

    For one, light could just be a particle and particles could always act like particles. Space/time could be Cartesian (non-curved) and constant.
     
    "Waves" and "particles" are human concepts.  Nature does not make a distinction; every moving particle of matter has a de Broglie wavelength.  Electrons behave as waves if they are not observed in motion; you can make a two-slit electron interferometer which will produce the expected interference pattern despite only one electron being in the apparatus at a time.  The implication is that every electron takes both paths through the slits and interferes with itself to produce the observed interference pattern.

    That's reality.  Why does reality have to be "simple" in ape-thinking terms?  It only has to be simple in its own terms.  Everything being a wavicle has simplicity even if we, living at the macro level where quantum states are below our ability to perceive and collapsed relentlessly by "observation" (interaction), are unsuited by evolution to grasp that simplicity.

    Just because "the mind of God" isn't what you want it to be, doesn't change it.  Something you can describe in a couple lines of math is most definitely not a being you can wrestle with, a la the Old Testament.  It's one more case of the world not being what you want it to be.  Deal with it.

    Beyond “where did the vacuum come from?” you can ask why didn’t the particles and anti-particles simply annihilate?
     
    That has something to do with charge-parity symmetry violation, but the exact details of that are way beyond anything I have studied or can explain so I cannot go further into it.  All I can say is that it has been unequivocally observed to exist.
  79. @Lars Porsena
    There is no escaping the problem of infinite recursion (except eternal recurrence which declares it to not be a problem).

    Beyond that point it is practically aesthetics whether you want to see a god or not. An answer beyond that point would defy human comprehension, like Wency says, to such an extent the question over whether such sources are 'conscious' may not even make sense. Likewise, being unfathomable, I don't think we're in a place to judge whether it's capricious if it was conscious. It may not also be necessarily be omnipotent. Dumb force or God either way my point is the origins of the physical universe are beyond the physical universe and what is observable in it, assuming it has any origin, and if it doesn't have any origin it's just as incomprehensible.

    At any rate, separately to that discussion, I don't know how anyone can look at particle physics, the behavior of light in general (Doppler effect and space/time curvature), or any of quantum physics and conclude it's simple minded or straight forward. If one were to set about building a universe (say a virtual one) you can certainly find ways to approximate most phenomena with far simpler mechanics. For one, light could just be a particle and particles could always act like particles. Space/time could be Cartesian (non-curved) and constant.

    Beyond "where did the vacuum come from?" you can ask why didn't the particles and anti-particles simply annihilate? That is what they do in a vacuum. They don't spin off in separate directions and create new matter from vacuum as a matter of course. They are supposed to attract one another and annihilate back where they came from. In a heavy ion collider you start with something, the electron stripped nucleus, to cause that effect. In a straight vacuum before anything existed you don't have that to explain why the electron and positron wouldn't just annihilate like they're supposed to.

    There is no escaping the problem of infinite recursion

    You can always say “we don’t know”.

    Beyond that point it is practically aesthetics whether you want to see a god or not.

    Funny, I keep seeing claims by theists that [gG]od is a logical necessity.  Which is it?

    I don’t know how anyone can look at particle physics, the behavior of light in general (Doppler effect and space/time curvature), or any of quantum physics and conclude it’s simple minded or straight forward.

    You’re assuming the primacy of human concepts over the universe.  Why SHOULD space-time and quantum physics conform to our initial, ape-derived thinking?  The notion is ridiculous once placed in perspective.

    If one were to set about building a universe (say a virtual one) you can certainly find ways to approximate most phenomena with far simpler mechanics.

    Ape-derived thinking again.

    For one, light could just be a particle and particles could always act like particles. Space/time could be Cartesian (non-curved) and constant.

    “Waves” and “particles” are human concepts.  Nature does not make a distinction; every moving particle of matter has a de Broglie wavelength.  Electrons behave as waves if they are not observed in motion; you can make a two-slit electron interferometer which will produce the expected interference pattern despite only one electron being in the apparatus at a time.  The implication is that every electron takes both paths through the slits and interferes with itself to produce the observed interference pattern.

    That’s reality.  Why does reality have to be “simple” in ape-thinking terms?  It only has to be simple in its own terms.  Everything being a wavicle has simplicity even if we, living at the macro level where quantum states are below our ability to perceive and collapsed relentlessly by “observation” (interaction), are unsuited by evolution to grasp that simplicity.

    Just because “the mind of God” isn’t what you want it to be, doesn’t change it.  Something you can describe in a couple lines of math is most definitely not a being you can wrestle with, a la the Old Testament.  It’s one more case of the world not being what you want it to be.  Deal with it.

    Beyond “where did the vacuum come from?” you can ask why didn’t the particles and anti-particles simply annihilate?

    That has something to do with charge-parity symmetry violation, but the exact details of that are way beyond anything I have studied or can explain so I cannot go further into it.  All I can say is that it has been unequivocally observed to exist.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS