Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
There is something called 'science in antiquity'.
Before the rigorous beast science was today, it contained mythical components, such as aether, and gods.
For example, astronomy once included mythical components.
etc etc
I'm still trying to sort out why god needs money. Never mind anything else.
Gods don't need money. Human religions need the money.
Gods love the smell of burning human sacrifices.
I heard a rumor that god can't handle money, that he has a gambling problem and spends a lot on luxury cars and hookers. So he always needs more.
your wrong prag...... he just went broke bailing some of his people out from Egypt sometime back....... he can't pay back the bank and probably is going to be evicted soon.
God deserves to be evicted. Remember how he acted when Nimrod tried to build a tower close to god's neighborhood? He destroyed Nimrod's property and confused mankind's speech. What a crappy neighbor this god character is. I hear he invested in unwanted property in hell. I recommend he take up permanent residence there and quit convincing people to murder and subjugate people here in reality-land.
Truett; Thats because God's a Racist. He didn't want a different race to move into his neighbourhood.
Plus I always saw Gad as a Slave owner. I mean I don't think angels get payed. No where does it say he pays the angels..... Kind of an asshole
To redefine something, the first thing you need is a definition.
As far as I know, there is no good, universally or even generally accepted definition of god in the first place.
So I guess, we rather have to define a god.
There is the next problem, what observations do we use to define a god?
In the case of gravity, we have the observation that objects tend to fall in one direction.With gods, I guess we have the observation 'god' is what we use instead of an explanation.
That would imply that a good scientific definition of 'god' is Phenomenons we currently can't explain.
AKA the god of the gaps.
(1)
Modern science exists such that its concepts' names had varying descriptions before becoming modernized.
For example, 'gravity' meant different things to different cultures, before being hijacked by newton....
(2)
As such, I started with modern times.
I observed:
(a) Exponential technological change
(b) Humans have already began to make their own computable simulations of the cosmos
(Example: illustris; http://www.illustris-project.org/)
(3)
From (2.a), and (2.b), I then looked at the archaic creator styled gods.
They share a particular relation as observed in (a)-(b), that is, a creator/creation scenario.
(4)
As such, like other humble archaic mythical science that faced modern updating, god was updatable/redefinable in the like, observing (3).
Chimpanzees strip leaves off of twigs and use those twigs as tools to gather tasty termites. Therefore chimps are gods.
As long mentioned/observed, humans are merely the species that are developing sophisticated simulations of our cosmos.
Chimps are not observed to do such.
Technology is technology. If technology makes us gods then simple technology makes us simple gods.
"(1)
Modern science exists such that its concepts' names had varying descriptions before becoming modernized.
For example, 'gravity' meant different things to different cultures, before being hijacked by newton...."
Sorry if you missed it, but your premise nr 1 has a MAJOR flaw.
You have mixed up the concept and the explanation.
The concept is the existence.
The gods are the explanation.
So you should be modernise the cause of existance by a new or improved explanation.
In this case, modern science have an (however still imperfect) explanation for the existence.
So you should scrap the god explanation and redefine the cause of existence to the big bang.
Now you just try the equivalence of salvaging an ancient greek explanation of gravity and redefine the explanation to fit something other than gravity.
(A)
Explanation is a synonym for concept.
(B)
Anyway, God is redefined in terms of modern science, such as adinkra symbols and simulation hypothesis etc.
In a similar way astronomy was redefined, where mythical components were removed, but "astronomy" remained.
you state absolutely nothing, there is no god or gods so get over it, science will always come to the conclusion that there was never or ever shall be god or gods.
(1)
Modern science exists such that its concepts' names had varying descriptions before becoming modernized.
For example, 'gravity' meant different things to different cultures, before being hijacked by newton....
(2)
As such, I started with modern times.
I observed:
(a) Exponential technological change
(b) Humans have already began to make their own computable simulations of the cosmos
(Example: illustris; http://www.illustris-project.org/)
(3)
From (2.a), and (2.b), I then looked at the archaic creator styled gods.
They share a particular relation as observed in (a)-(b), that is, a creator/creation scenario.
(4)
As such, like other humble archaic mythical science that faced modern updating, god was updatable/redefinable in the like, observing (3).
@ PGJ
At least you have toned down the language to be less exaggerated, I'll give you that.
But I see no point in your contrived and awkward posts.
If you have a point, why not spell it out?
(A)
This scientific redefinition of God arose from a paradigm I invented called "non-beliefism"
This is a paradigm that maintains atheistic state, while removing theistic like blindness to data.
(B)
Many atheistic beings express that creators or unlikely.
This "non-likelihood' merely appears to occur due to emotional bias, because rather than not, we see empirically, that we are:
(1) creating sophisticated artificial intelligence (that already exceeds man in many cognitive tasks)
and
(2) creating sophisticated simulations of our cosmos.
(C)
So, rather than unlikely, creation is probable, and our intelligence is likely creatable rather than not.
So, it is silly to offset that creators are unlikely, when we ourselves are early creators of artificial human level intelligence, where we have already created cognitive machines that exceed us in some cognitive tasks.
In other words, the point of this topic is to minimize atheistic (theistic like) self-blindness where possible.
Ah, another contrived and awkward posts. Alrighty then...
@PGJ
Are you an atheist? If so why do you want science to prove there is a god(s)? Are you tired of being and atheist? You seem to have a belief, that god is real.
I have zero beliefs. (I am the inventor of a phenomenon called 'non-beliefism')
It is not that I desire that gods are proven, it is simply that god is redefinable by science, like any other humble scientific construct.
Pages