Erecting gods

[fncceo]

Grown ups? So you are saying man does not need government?

A certain amount of government is inevitable.

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Why do we need government? Is it not to "protect" us?

And what does intelligence have to do with it do you think?

Really, the issue is morality and freedom. A free person must exercise moral constraint so as not to violate the freedom of others, otherwise, the society must impose it on them in the form of such things as prison or fines.

In other words, monitor your own actions in a moral fashion or the state will be forced to do it for you.

There is an old saying. My right to swing my fist ends at someone else's face.

There is a huge difference between making laws against harming others and making laws against possibly harming oneself.

Laws that regulate how much palm oil we have in our snack foods, what books we can read, who we marry, or even how we choose to die.

Once a person reaches maturity, it should not be up to others to tell him or her how to live their lives.

 

[Votto]

Grown ups? So you are saying man does not need government?

A certain amount of government is inevitable.

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Why do we need government? Is it not to "protect" us?

And what does intelligence have to do with it do you think?

Really, the issue is morality and freedom. A free person must exercise moral constraint so as not to violate the freedom of others, otherwise, the society must impose it on them in the form of such things as prison or fines.

In other words, monitor your own actions in a moral fashion or the state will be forced to do it for you.

There is an old saying. My right to swing my fist ends at someone else's face.

There is a huge difference between making laws against harming others and making laws against possibly harming oneself.

Laws that regulate how much palm oil we have in our snack foods, what books we can read, who we marry, or even how we choose to die.

Once a person reaches maturity, it should not be up to others to tell him or her how to live their lives.

But we all know that the more powerful the state becomes, the more power they have over you.

One of my favorite quotes covers this by C. S. Lewis. He was a prophet.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Since the dawn of time, man has been erecting gods to worship.

And in the assumed vacancy of a physical god, man has stepped in to assume the role with disastrous results. First man claimed to be a god, then he claimed to speak for God, and today he tells us that there is no god, thus making himself the ultimate power once again. This atheistic position then helps deify the man ruler as a god like man as we see men like Lenin and Mao being preserved under glass, as if their immortal body will never leave us to protect us somehow.

So what of the future? Will the new god be a combination of robotics and AI? Will this be the anti-Christ?

I think man has essentially conceded that mankind needs a ruler/God/higher power to guide and direct them. This I think we all can agree upon. The only question becomes, who is the best candidate?

Interesting, but i doubt any new gods or religions come along. The age of modern, scientific enlightenment has eliminated the need for them. All we have now are either people walking back the scope of their goofy, magical religions, or strident people doubling down on their goofy, magical religions in the face of a modern world that makes no intellectual space for them, and in which their magical nonsense is both useless and pushed aside in favor of better ideas. In neither case will people be compelled to invent new religions or gods.

Which is why I conjecture man creating a god with his new technology.

AI, along with robotics, could create their god with more knowledge and power than all before it.

After all, don't people seek the most enlightened and intelligent to vote for.................Mwhahaha!

No, seriously.

Think of it, a being with the most knowledge of anyone that has ever existed!!

And as we all know, knowledge is power.

Think of that power! It will make politicians today look like chimps..............er............um..............yea, they already do, but you know what I'm getting at, right?

Ha, yes, I get it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

 

[fncceo]

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

I've already covered the difference between the right to live as you like and the duty not to harm the lives of others.

 

[Votto]

Since the dawn of time, man has been erecting gods to worship.

And in the assumed vacancy of a physical god, man has stepped in to assume the role with disastrous results. First man claimed to be a god, then he claimed to speak for God, and today he tells us that there is no god, thus making himself the ultimate power once again. This atheistic position then helps deify the man ruler as a god like man as we see men like Lenin and Mao being preserved under glass, as if their immortal body will never leave us to protect us somehow.

So what of the future? Will the new god be a combination of robotics and AI? Will this be the anti-Christ?

I think man has essentially conceded that mankind needs a ruler/God/higher power to guide and direct them. This I think we all can agree upon. The only question becomes, who is the best candidate?

Interesting, but i doubt any new gods or religions come along. The age of modern, scientific enlightenment has eliminated the need for them. All we have now are either people walking back the scope of their goofy, magical religions, or strident people doubling down on their goofy, magical religions in the face of a modern world that makes no intellectual space for them, and in which their magical nonsense is both useless and pushed aside in favor of better ideas. In neither case will people be compelled to invent new religions or gods.

Which is why I conjecture man creating a god with his new technology.

AI, along with robotics, could create their god with more knowledge and power than all before it.

After all, don't people seek the most enlightened and intelligent to vote for.................Mwhahaha!

No, seriously.

Think of it, a being with the most knowledge of anyone that has ever existed!!

And as we all know, knowledge is power.

Think of that power! It will make politicians today look like chimps..............er............um..............yea, they already do, but you know what I'm getting at, right?

Ha, yes, I get it.

So would the AI bot have your vote?

More than likely, it will weird out people voting for an android. More than likely politicians will use them behind the scenes, so you will probably unwittingly be voting for one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

I've already covered the difference between the right to live as you like and the duty not to harm the lives of others.

But you did not cover who would enforce those rights.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So would the AI bot have your vote?

No.

 

[fncceo]

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

I've already covered the difference between the right to live as you like and the duty not to harm the lives of others.

But you did not cover who would enforce those rights.

I don't advocate the elimination of law. I advocate the reduction or removal of laws intended to limit personal freedoms that have no negative impacts on the lives of others.

 

[Votto]

So would the AI bot have your vote?

No.

Why not?

 

[Votto]

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

I've already covered the difference between the right to live as you like and the duty not to harm the lives of others.

But you did not cover who would enforce those rights.

I don't advocate the elimination of law. I advocate the reduction or removal of laws intended to limit personal freedoms that have no negative impacts on the lives of others.

Well the US government passes like 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

Are we really that "bad"?

 

[fncceo]

The question is, do intelligent men and women need to be governed?

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

I've already covered the difference between the right to live as you like and the duty not to harm the lives of others.

But you did not cover who would enforce those rights.

I don't advocate the elimination of law. I advocate the reduction or removal of laws intended to limit personal freedoms that have no negative impacts on the lives of others.

Well the US government passes like 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

Are we really that "bad"?

I believe you're making my point for me.

 

[Votto]

Ted Bundy was pretty intelligent.

I've already covered the difference between the right to live as you like and the duty not to harm the lives of others.

But you did not cover who would enforce those rights.

I don't advocate the elimination of law. I advocate the reduction or removal of laws intended to limit personal freedoms that have no negative impacts on the lives of others.

Well the US government passes like 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

Are we really that "bad"?

I believe you're making my point for me.

Damn it! I thought you were making my point for me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't advocate the elimination of law. I advocate the reduction or removal of laws intended to limit personal freedoms that have no negative impacts on the lives of others.

Okay, cool, but we agree that what is left is still governance, no?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So would the AI bot have your vote?

No.

Why not?

Because I think people will always understand people better than AI will. I also think people will do a better job of checking AI in the interest of humans than AI will do for itself.

 

[fncceo]

I don't advocate the elimination of law. I advocate the reduction or removal of laws intended to limit personal freedoms that have no negative impacts on the lives of others.

Okay, cool, but we agree that what is left is still governance, no?

The difference is between keeping public order and enforcing morality.

I don't care if you dance, even on Sunday

I don't care who you kiss, as long as it's consensual

I don't care what you read, as long as it's not my emails

We need to draw a very clear line between government and governing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why all the questions about God now? Arthur Brown has been there since 1968 .

 

[presonorek]

hahhahah--no we don't all agree to that
I don't need a god to direct me
..anyone that needs a god/etc to direct them is:

That's what Yahweh said.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

~Isaiah 53:6

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The difference is between keeping public order and enforcing morality

And enforcing ethics. And sometimes these things are interchangeable.

 

[james bond]

And enforcing ethics. And sometimes these things are interchangeable.

The Christians learned that religion, ethics, and morality only works for so long in a fallen world. When everybody turned evil and the weak were made their prey, then the world had to be destroyed. Everyone and everything had to be destroyed. That is incredulous. It is prophecised this will happen again for one final time. It's kill them all, then let Jesus sort it out.

I know you find this prophecy hard to believe, but where's the evolution? In his time, Darwin knew that his explanation of ToE would contradict Christianity and Biblical creation. It set off a firestorm of a battle between creation vs evolution, and evolution systematically eliminated creation scientists and secular and atheist scientists took control.

However, the Bible and creationists believe that instead of everyone turning good through evolution, everyone becomes evil. Thus, where is this enforcing religion, ethics, and morality that is the next evolution of humankind?

I believe this is where BioLogos steps in. This is what I think of when humans are erecting gods. There is the Satanic Temple, but they are not scientific. They are more a poltical group. I think in the future, a younger Francis Collins-type will promote theistic evolution and undermine the Bible. Collins is probably acting like Darwin today.