Richard Dawkins says maybe it is better if AGI replaces humans!
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.
I detect no relevance in your endless repetition of questions I have answered repeatedly, whilst you ignore evidence from an article that you linked and that I quoted after you requested it? Evidence showing the ability to form beliefs about the world we live in is essential to human interaction with it. It's not my claim after all, it's from multiple authors in the article you linked.
1.) Rather than ignore your remarks, I had long underlined that "non-beliefism" had already accounted for them.
2.) The article highlights that believers tend to ignore evidence. We also know that scientific thinking is possible, i.e. we can be keen on evidence, contrary to the model of belief, which generally facilitates that evidence is ignored.
3.) As such, no quote you have cited says that belief is a must or is essential.
(Nitpick: The word essential is not found in the article/!)
1) I have no idea what you mean by "underlined" but you've offered naught but assertion and repetition. Not one tangible word. Even the article you linked contradicts what you're claiming.
2) The article also contradicts your bald assertions about beliefs where multiple authors state plainly that human interaction and function in the world requires they form beliefs about it.
3) Multiple authors in that article you linked confirm that beliefs are how we interact with the world. Your tedious semantics arguing over the word essential sums up your duplicitous approach when your beliefs are questioned, and the reason why no one wants to discuss anything with you. I alone am bothering, and my patience is far from limitless.
I told everyone pages ago you'd resort to tortured semantics and there it is in your last sentence.
Forming beliefs about the world we live in are an integral part of how we interact with it. It's hard to believe anyone with any knowledge on the subject would not know this.
Did you claim to be post graduate and have a PhD? In what field of study if I may ask?
I don't think he claimed a masters or a PhD Sheldon. Just that he has communicated with them on a message board.
He claims they understand his premise where only those with Masters and PhD's (field unspecified) will correctly comprehend the nuances contained in his writing.
What qualifications does he claim to have? Has he had anything published in any worthy peer reviewed scientific journals?
He is claiming to have a degree isn't he? What field of study is his degree in if I may ask?
How can anyone go through the education system, then add on 4 years of higher education, and be so woefully unable to muster a shred of objectivity, and not be able to see it at all?
I did see a post where he claimed to have a degree in Computer Science or similar from the University of the West Indies and quoted a lecturers name as reference.
Didn't bother to check as I am totally uninterested in the advanced pseudosciences of woo. . but it has been an entertaining read!
I got one of those out of a packet of cereal.
My cereal came wrapped in one with a bonus Masters in Bullshit.
I got a master and a PhD in that free with a copy of the big issue. It smells a bit, but the guy was clearly homeless.
The real irony is I got two frames for them as a free gift with Mega Mac meal. Diet coke of course, as I'm aware of the current diabetes epidemic.
I was proud of the Phd I won through sending 6 wrappers of a Twinkie in to a Hostess competition,
Although President Trump said it was just a jumped up degree from a 'sh*t hole'.
I'll trade you! And I'll chuck in AGI sex robot!
(It's a hooker with an electrolarynx and wrapped in kitchen foil) :D
1.) Unless you called uwi to confirm my degree's status, your opinions remain fruitless.
2.) Science is not pseudoscience, as you claimed above.
He's still spewing the same bullshit Sheldon from 2 years ago...
An alleged atheist who doesn't believe in belief pmsl.
It's actually more depressing then that really,
1 - He claims to be the inventor of 'non-beliefism'
2 - Claims that "purpose is REASONABLY non-subjective"
He actually managers to deliver his own coup de grace.
"If you are capable of making mistakes, then you have beliefs rather than true"
Very true of course. I'd say for a human mind to be capable of forming any impression of the world you need to be able to form beliefs. It's a complex process and interaction.
When I typed this I believed it would appear on the screen and be coherent (At least to me). I also believe when I type in the maths solution and hit send it'll appear online for others to read. How many of us know exactly how this works? Yet we all believe it to be true because we see it work. This is a belief we've formed, and for most of us it does not require intricate knowledge only confirmation through interaction.
The idea we can stop forming beliefs about the world, because some beliefs are erroneous, is about as useful an idea as all humans stopping breathing because we're polluting the atmosphere.
1.) Your analogy is nonsensical/irrelevant.
2.) Unless belief is redefined, belief remains something that generally permits that evidence is ignored. We know we can generally be keen on evidence, instead of generally ignore evidence.
3.) Pertinently, science has allowed us to make mistakes, without generally ignoring evidence, as permitted by the concept of belief, as you cited.
1.) You are still yet to cite where the concept of belief is a must. A simple citation or quote from the article would quickly clarify your opinion.
2.) Do you recall that you cited that belief or belief-like systems may be important?
- You claim to be the inventor of 'non-beliefism', How do you know?
The same way one may come to know that somebody else invented something else. There are several tools, including the internet that may be employed.
Hahaha!!! Well that does it, Sure!
In actuality, you believe you invented it.
Perhaps you believe things can't be invented by someone or some group?
Perhaps you believe only you could have invented this and/or coined the expression.
Can you prove definitively, 100% that no human being in the history of mankind ever has?
1) citation given 6 times now by my count, and all in the article you linked.
2) I detect no relevance in this question.
1.) You are still persisting to confuse purpose wrt religion (the teleological argument) with purpose wrt science (teleonomy...)!
2.) That you confidently confuse the things above, does not suddenly warrant that your words are valid!
straw-man, that is not what I am saying in the slightest.
What is it that you're arguing about? What was the supposed significance of highlighting the word "reasonably" in your prior response?
If you don't understand that, there is no helping you.
Perhaps your grasp of English isn't as good as you believe it to be.
Unlike you, I hypothesize of the purpose of human life, objectively. Where is your hypothesis?
You offer no objectivity, To say so is a disgrace to science.
1.) Typical belief bound response of yours.
2.) Recall that you had argued, while ignoring that purpose may be objective. It was I that notified you of Wikipedia/teleonomy.