Atheists dont know how to pray. A connection takes time and afford to build. God is patient. Are you?

Garden

Science will never account for these 5 things. EVER!

im...not really much into this style of debating. ive seen the same with jordan peterson, sam harris and such. if you have a very high verbal iq along with midwit level g factor, the debate turns into verbiage and demagoguery and imo isnt that interesting to follow (remember that JP vs SH debate that was a snoozefest so hard that their subscribers were like "oh pls stop this is boring as shit"). also if the opposite happens and you have an outlier high g but with high autism traits that go with it (roger penrose, sabine hossenfelder etc), you have someone that replies to most of the questions with "yeah you might be correct. but since we cant use this information in any way, its not important to the debate", which also isnt that interesting to follow. unless you pair the two of the groups i mentioned, in which case the entire debate devolves so hard that it might actually become interesting to watch in much the same way as a car crash

science can actually explain morals, its pretty much a system of rules that allows a group to function, and the higher the iq and social cohesion of an animal group, the tighter the moral rules will be. beauty is also mathematically based on what works best in general (multiple situations), although it cant be fully explained. rules (of beauty among others) appear again and again in nature in places that shouldnt have any relation to each other. you can find golden ratio to be beautiful on a womans face, but also on a plants flower or on a mountains peak we find those similarities in nature all the time, for example the insanely precise similarity between neural cell groups and galaxy clusters etc, so the scientific explanation is that we intuitively know those same rules work everywhere and consider them beautiful, although there is no explanation as to WHY they work everywhere

...which is actually related to what i wanted to offer as a kinda weird argument of something provable that science can see, but cant explain. im actually amazed no one has mentioned it before. ive talked about the fine tuning argument a lot, you all know what it is and the entire scientific community agrees the universal sets of rules that support life (ANY life) are extremely uncommon compared to sets of rules that dont. so uncommon in fact that we can safely say that this universe was either created, or we had an infinite number of "rolls" and this one just got it right. anyways, outlier high iq physicists like bohr, schroedinger, and such were like "you know what, fuck this shit, we arent supposed to know this, so just shut the fuck up and do the math because it works". you can actually use feynman's equation to show the entire rules of the universe in a single line, which is explained in a nice way by neil turok. and while turok did ask the question "why", he didnt ask it for the right thing. the question shouldnt be "why is everything this simple", the question should be "why is everything this simple if we are indeed in just one of the universes". it should be random. yet it isnt. the entire universe can be written with a single mathematical equation which doesnt get any simpler. if there were multiple universes, we should have a random set of rules, not the shortest possible set of rules. so if you assume this universe appeared by random chance, this would mean that there is not just *some* combinations of forces/constants that work, it would mean there is only ONE combination. i hope i managed to explain it at least a little, but this question really bugs me

i would like to respond later and put some arguments but for now I am just going to say "HAHA I LIKE IT WHEN QUESTIONS REALLY BUG PEOPLE"

!

sure! i like it too kinda it seems the more we uncover, the more mysteries appear !1

i was going to re view the peterson/harris debate and find it specifically but got bored with the idea
there is a part in the "debate" (memory) were peterson was trying to have some sort of intelectial dialog with harris. harris interrupted him and said something to this affect "let me couch it like this god doesnt exist" I thought that amusing the expression on petersons face when at that moment he realized he was talking to a doofus. harris is stuck on "god doest exist" like broken record. later peterson was asked and peterson said he wont be meeting with harris again.

did you ever see the total take down david wood / sam harris?
https://archive.org/details/davidwoodfactcheckingsamharris2didjesuscommandchristianstokillinluke1927

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jan 13 2023 12:47am

i remember that video ! david wood is awesome, very smart and a massive troll to add

also (((harris))) has a very untrustworthy face, he looks very shifty so i basically discard his opinions by default

and trust me, you missed nothing by skipping that debate. there were zero arguments for anything really, it was mostly philosophical verbiage. watch it only if you have sleeping issues

they never were on the same page. harris thought it was another God debate.

i read something one that sam harris practices a eye manipulation thing he learned from some guru hindo/ or something i dont remember and its his eyes or eye that are weird. like one has "awareness" while the other looks dejected.

check this out. in the future I will try to remember to test this but for now start the video and pause it at 0:41 and just look at his eyes. the eyebrow all raised up and really giving you the eye ball while the other one just kina ...........?

he looks very shifty and not really well intentioned !

this is why i dont watch debates anymore. i probably wont see any new arguments for anything and im kinda oldschool on this, if they arent introducing anything new, its a waste of my time watching it. also i dont think debates are a place for free interaction with the audience as it can distract and even lead the debaters into...less useful behavior so to say pretty much any debate with freely interacting audience loses on its value

also i got a pretty good intuition so i can see easily how much full of shit someone is. harris is shifty as fuck, he has an agenda in this. peterson is highly neurotic so he might not have an agenda but actually believe everything he says, including the idiotic shit like his opinions on group preference and internet anonymity. could have an agenda though now look at someone like roger penrose. completely honest, sticks to evidence and only evidence, doesnt try to demean but actively understand the view of the person hes talking to, and the best thing, has an insanely high iq so dont expect to pull any demagoguery bullshit like in the pseudodebate mentioned above also even though hes an atheist, his opinion agrees with the current research, that consciousness seems fundamental and cant be explained by the theories we have right now. funnily enough, his view also agrees with many religions out there, that we are basically put here in a world with certain rules, to learn something. and he isnt really alone. some great minds back at the start of 20th century (and people had a higher iq back then) thought the same, although back then the religion of scientism didnt exist so it was easier to be honest about personal beliefs

i have to note that there is an established relationship between atheism and societal collapse. now its not that easy to establish which is the cause and which is the consequence, perhaps they are even interconnected. but it does mean that if (((someone))) wanted to get rich, he would push atheism in the science circles in order to get it spread through the population. so there is a motive the only thing you need to do is push something in the most prominent circles, and the midwits will follow the trend as they always do