Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I agree, Sy Borg. Far from revering Gaia, we're treating the earth apallingly. If it decides to spit us out we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. We have known for a very long time that climate change is real and we've understood the physics of it for even longer. And we know that global heating is causing, among much else, the death of coral reefs world-wide. But will we stop pumping GHGs into the atmosphere? It doesn't look like it. Levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere be going up faster than ever. And plastics are not going anywhere. Still, some earth scientists think we still have a little window of time to turn things around. I hope they are right. But if they are not, Gaia won't care. Life on earth will continue. It might just be without us and a lot of the species we grew up with.

I think we are treating the Earth perfectly, as every organism that every existed has done. Cyanobacteria could be said to have been terrible meanies to Gaia too:

The Great Oxidation Event and Emergence of Aerobic Metabolism. Since life was totally anaerobic 2.7 billion years ago when cyanobacteria evolved, it is believed that oxygen acted as a poison and wiped out much of anaerobic life, creating an extinction event.

No one's sure of the percentages, but it seems that cyanobacteria's oxygen farts killed off most life for a while. Like we are doing.

Not to mention those pesky volcanoes, that have likely caused at least three mass extinctions. Wicked things that are hurting Gaia or just rapid change?

There will be no turning around, obviously. That is a pipe dream. Even as China lectures the west on CO2 they are currently building approx 95% of the world's new coal fired power stations. No doubt much of it is needed to build "green" SUVs, solar panels and wind turbines for today's confused west, much of which seems intent on ceding their cultures to Islam ... in the name of justice and freedom?

It's not going to be fixed. It's a pipe dream. At no point has the world even remotely looked like meeting any benchmarks to keep CO2 at target levels. Half the world is desperately trying to catch up, usually with the aid of coal-fired power, with more than cancels out the west's modest progress.

The window is purely theoretical. We can see the current dynamics in action - there is no agreement, no cooperation on the world stage, rather there are growing divisions both between countries and within their borders due to the pressures of rapidly rising populations. That's another myth - that population growth is slowing. No, it's growing faster than ever before numerically, even if the percentage is falling.A small percentage of 8 billion is a LOT.

A quick grab a minute ago from the World Population Clock:

Current World Population
8,125,583,513
view all people on 1 page >
Today
Births today
345,405
Deaths today
156,292
Population Growth today
189,113
This year
Births this year
79,089,451
Deaths this year
35,787,140
Population Growth this year
43,302,310

The numbers drop during COVID but it's picking up again.

The point I'm labouring over is we live in "interesting times" - a period of extremely rapid change, which is always of adaptive organisms. This is not being mentioned, though, with always this dangling carrot of "hope", as politicians cynically manipulate scientists' tendency to think theoretically, selling false hope, generally to strengthen their own power, control and vested interests. It's like when you team has lost its last ten games and the pundits say they can make the semis if they win their next five. Suuuure ...

As an animal lover, these ideas used to really hurt, but I've let go of my attachment to a past that cannot be again. I accept that the world has changed and, as organisms conditioned to a somewhat different world, that's hard.

We have examined humanity's form guide. How is Gaia performing. Well, good old "merciful" Gaia has royally screwed over every organism that every lived in its endless trend towards an equilibrium that its parent star will never permit. Gaia has killed EVERYONE but the current crop, and we are doomed like them.

How can we complain? The means are hard, but you can't deny the results. In 3.8 billion years, the Sun and Earth performed a "miracle" we've observed nowhere else - progressing in complexity from the most basic possible microbes to worms to simple chordates to fish to reptiles, birds and mammals ... and currently a certain lunatic simian species is dominant. For a while.

We made apes on the verge of being outclassed by cyborgs (enhanced, more rational apes), and the difference may well be as profound as that between modern humans and chimps. Another extinction event. Ho hum. Another upgrade. Gaia forges on! I would put money on it that our cyborg controllers will find a use for a lot of that plastic too. They will solve problems that trapped us for a long time, just as humans no doubt solved many ape-related disadvantaged that still prevent chimps from being able to compete with us.

I wouldn't be miserable or angry about it, unless I also spare some anger for volcanoes, asteroids and cyanobacteria. It's doesn't matter that they are brainless. We have not a whole lot more control over what we're doing en masse than they do. Again, I refer you to the Humanity Form Guide. For it to turn around in time, China, Russia, US, India and Europe would need an extended period of holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

The form guide not only says no, it says "What drugs are people on to think this fractured global polity is capable of working together towards any goal without trying to take dodgy advantage and killing of trust?".

[Sy Borg]

Oh, another 4000+ extra humans since I wrote that post.

I'll now give you a break from the joy, goodwill and sunshine I have just distributed :)

Seriously, acceptance has given me more peace. I was freaking out like any others before I stood back and looked at the games being played.

Will the FSM return to Earth to saved the chosen ones from Armageddon? Can its noodles envelop the globe in a spiritual hug that brings peace and love to all? Will the lion then lie with the lamb (until it starves)?

[Lagayascienza]

And me. They hate atheists above all else.

[Lagayascienza]

Belinda, how dare you insult the FSM or his profits! You know what this means, don't you? It's off with your head, Madam! Praise be to our lord, the most merciful FSM!

A theocratic state would I have me punished, I know

And me. They hate atheists above all else.

[Darshan]

Earthellism proves all humans have a soul. Our soul is much older than our physical bodies.
For example my body is 62 years old but my soul is likely 1000 years old.
Therefore my parents did not create my soul but only created my physical body.
The creator of my soul is my God.
Humans do not create souls only God creates souls.

[Sy Borg]

Belinda, how dare you insult the FSM or his profits! You know what this means, don't you? It's off with your head, Madam! Praise be to our lord, the most merciful FSM!

A theocratic state would I have me punished, I know

And me. They hate atheists above all else.

Hatreds are always most visceral close to home. I first noticed this as a child hearing about IRA terrorism in Ireland. Thing is, I couldn't tell northern and southern Irish from one another any more than I could tell Israelites from Palestinians or, back then, Chinese from Japanese. Two peas in a pod.

The most fierce hatreds are reserved for peers. Aliens (ie. atheists from a religious POV) are universally hated, but the hatred for them is less intense than hatred for threatening/competing peers. I remember when my sister joined the Jehovah's Witnesses, suddenly she was hostile against Catholicism. Before joining up, she had the typical secular WGAF attitude towards the various religions.

[Belinda]

If there were a religion that fitted my sort of 'spirituality' I'd join it if only for the fellowship.


The God of my religion does not exist but is existence itself.

[Lagayascienza]

Nothing makes me believe that the god of my ex-religion exists. I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child but no longer believe in it, or in any religion. What sort of omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being could allow the evils we see in the world. For example, how could such a being do nothing as millions of innocent children were starved, worked, tortured and gassed in the NAZI holocaust. How could such a god allow 250,000 people to be wiped out by a tsunami? Religions have come up with various theodicies to account for these immense evils in the world but none of them work. They are merely just-so stories without any foundation. Like their theodicies, religions and their various gods are just-so stories made up to assuage existential angst. They may serve that purpose to some extent, but that does not make them true.

[Good_Egg]

Nothing makes me believe that the god of my ex-religion exists.

Something I came across recently.

Consider the word "brother". It has a primary meaning that is clear and factual - your brother is a male person who shares the same parents. But there is a secondary meaning. A brother is a person with whom you share a brotherly relationship. If you and an unrelated friend have that sort of relationship then in that secondary sense you are brothers. Brothers-in-spirit if not technically brothers.

And which is more important to you - your brother in the secondary quality-of-relationship sense or your brother in the technical genetic sense ? Most people would say relationship is more important.

Then apply the same logic to "God". Which is more important - your God in the primary sense of the omni-something Creator of the universe you find yourself in, or your God in the secondary sense of the who or what you worship, that to which you assign ultimate worth ?

Maybe those who go around loudly protesting that they have no brother are missing the point ?

[Lagayascienza]

Where did you come across this?

It is the most desperate and bizarre religious apologetic I’ve yet seen.

[Sy Borg]

My concern with secularism is that religions are a kind of human glue, that helps to cohere society. The messages about forgiveness, humility, charity, integrity are all basically behaviours that, when widely adopted, tend to result in more societal cohesion. The question is then how to gain the cohesive and social advantages of religion without having to also commit philosophical suicide.

[Fanman]

I no longer believe in God, but I have found a belief system that works for me, and I’m happy with it. There are some factors and alignments that have occurred which could be interpreted by believers as God working in someone’s life. Having let go of my Christianity due to applied critical thinking, I chalk those alignments up to serendipity or happenstance of rewarding outcomes due to my positive actions. I believe in the concept of a high vibration, insofar as the benefits it provides for the individual, but if we’re talking about vibrationally attracting good things, that’s where it loses me. However, there are some ‘spiritual’ experiences that I do believe in, like feeling a rejuvenating connection to nature and the positive influence of different forms of light and how we relate to them.

Many people believe what they do because their beliefs are reinforced by internal and external factors, or where they find alignment with their religious doctrines. It is natural for people to see connections and patterns, and not everyone goes to the trouble of looking into them critically; that’s why I don’t fault people for having beliefs. One thing I have learned in life is that circumstances can be completely different from how they seem. Some people are wise enough to see through such things without being shown, but many have to learn the hard way. The learning curve is different for everyone, but that doesn’t imply that correctly applied thinking leads to atheism, especially in a world where there are so many different forms of spiritual beliefs.

[Lagayascienza]

I don’t believe in the gods of religion because I don’t see how such beliefs could be true. But people quite often believe what they want to believe. And, quite often, they do so despite there being evidence to suggest that what they believe is, or may be, untrue. I couldn’t give a damn what people believe. They can believe what they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life. Religious nutters can toss around epithets such as “heathen” and “atheist”. That does not bother me in the least.

But when they want laws enacted that reflect and underwrite their religious nonsense then I have a problem with it. The public funding of religious schools is an example. I don’t agree with my tax dollars being wasted on the underwriting of beliefs which I do not share. I don't want my money spent on religious indoctrination and the inculcation of such religious belief in children. If that’s the sort of education parents want for their children then let them pay for it themselves. Laws against abortion are another example. Why should someone be prevented from having an abortion just because of religiously based laws when the person wanting an abortion does not share the religious beliefs on which anti-abortion laws are based?

Apostasy and blasphemy laws, which can result in the death penalty in some countries, are further examples of the underwriting of religious beliefs by laws that apply to all people in some countries whether they share the religion or not. If people in such countries don’t at least pretend to share the religious beliefs by acting as the religion dictates, then they can be in serious trouble. Dess laws are another example. If a woman is not a believer and doesn’t want to wear a black bag then why should she be forced to? If someone is not a believer, then why should they not be free to say so without the risk of being beheaded under blasphemy laws?

We cannot force people to not believe in nonsense. People should be free to believe what they want. But they should not be free to inflict the strictures of their beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.

[Good_Egg]

People should be free to believe what they want. But they should not be free to inflict the strictures of their beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.

I tend to agree. But be aware of what you're saying here.

Democracy, where unfettered by notions of moral rights, is a mechanism for the majority to "inflict the strictures of their beliefs on" the minority who do not share those beliefs.

So do I take it that you believe in such moral rights ? That there are laws that a duly-elected democratic government should not pass (because they infringe on individual rights of those in a minority) ? "Inalienable" rights which are prior to and indepent of the decisions of government ?

Is there a philosophical difference between belief in such invisible and unprovable rights and belief in invisible and unprovable duties ? Or between duties that theists believe in and duties that atheists believe in ?

[Lagayascienza]

I'm not going to split those hairs with you. I just say that religion, or the lack of it, should be a private matter. However, even in secular democracies religion's influence in politics is still pervasive and malignant. Religion with its bizarre and macabre rituals and pedophile priests should have been left in the dark ages. I don't want my money spent on propping it up and indoctrinating children.