Childhood is thinking that Moral Orel is profound

Childhood is thinking that Moral Orel is profound.
Adulthood is realizing that small-town atheists' feelings don't matter.

Other urls found in this thread:

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
theatlantic.com/notes/2016/06/free-will-exists-and-is-measurable/486551/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Literal who

that's a pretty atheistic point of view

Most atheists will kill themselves or become mass shooters, religion of peace. INB4 salty atheist zealot says atheism isn't a religion.

>people saying im wrong proves me right
Really salts your pretzels.

I have a hard time believing this. Most of them will probably go back to being agnostic, and then to Christianity.

>t.

Yes, that will definitely happen. The numbers of atheist people rise every year, the idea that we have any sort of actual evidence for an omnipotent being having created the earth becomes more and more of a joke, but yeah. All atheists are going to just become religious again.

i get you dog

small town people in general don't matter

childhood is thinking you'll become anything special and life isn't shit

Not really, it's just honest. In the scale of things, "you small-town Christians aren't as nice as you should be" is Sinclair Lewis-supporting-character-tier, it's the small man's grumble at the equally small man, it doesn't make for serious art - which is only a problem because the show's fans talk like it was a brilliant ethical treatise.

It's also very dependent upon the particular geography of America, where a lot of arbitrary towns came into being because of the short-term needs of business, and without a fairly overdetermined sense of theological mission, they'd have no culture to speak of at all - it would just be a bunch of people working shifts together then keeping out of each others' sight and counting their wages, like an oil rig. This isn't anything that anyone outside of their bubble needs to care about, and as the only solution any artist who gets mass media access can ever really envisage to participation in that culture is "go to art school in a major city and smoke weed like I did", it doesn't go anywhere as an exercise in empathy, which is not only what they're claiming to surpass that culture in, but is the test of any work of art.

>an omnipotent being having created the earth
That is only one form of theism, any form of belief in deities or spirits disqualifies one as atheist.

I could list a few other things we don't have evidence for either, but I mean?..

Nobody ever had any evidence for an omnipotent being having created the earth.

You know what else nobody has any evidence for? Free will. It's the impossibility of accepting its nonexistence, a fact which destroys all moral basis for humanism, which will lead people back to faith. Nobody wants to face how irrelevant their lives are. Nobody wants to face that there's no basis for claiming that murder is wrong. So yes, the return to faith will happen, even if people don't recognize that they're doing it. Devising religions is what human beings *do*.

Childhood is think South Park and the Simpsons were smart and funny in their time
Adulthood is realising Rick & Morty makes more sense

WITH NOWHERE TO GO AND NO ONE TO BE

No, adulthood is realizing that there's no point in watching animation for the dialogue, going back to Tex Avery and the Fleischer brothers for your American animation, and watching art cinema if you want a discussion of philosophical and ethical ideas in the abtract.

Adulthood is watching Steamboat Willie exclusively

What do you mean there's no basis for claiming that murder is wrong? It negatively affects the lives of other people. Isn't that basis enough? How is life "irrelevant"? Because when you die you don't get to look back it from heaven? Because meaning is a human construction? Do you think that makes it less important?

Are you in high-school still by any chance?

Like the bulk of modern physics?

>It negatively affects the lives of other people.
That all depends on who you murder.

Whether or not scientific theories can be proved beyond a doubt is irrelevant, because any provable evidence to the contrary is taken into account and mainstream science adjusts its theories and beliefs accordingly over time. Faiths do not. That's the logical difference.

You're arguing from an objective moral standpoint while attempting to argue that there's no real basis for the application of morality to human action. What's going on, user?

Vatican II disagrees.

Vatican II is just Christianity struggling to remain relevant in the modern age. Science adjusts what it believes because it's goal is to discover higher truths. Christianity believes it has discovered a higher truth already.

Of course that's not basis enough, if they don't have free will then their agency as we've understood it doesn't really exist, so there's nobody really there to hurt. Humanism doesn't hold up intellectually. Do you really thinking nobody thought of secular humanism in all the centuries when the existence of God was equally as unprovable as it is now? Of course not, they just thought through the implications.

No I literally argued that its subjective since some people affect other's negatively by being alive.

Christianity isn't struggling to remain relevant, especially in America, where fear of death is constant and warranted. What can you do when a Las Vegas shooting is the price of freedom, and when freedom and safety are - logically - seen as opposites? You can get on your knees and pray not to be the next to die. That's it. That's America, and it works.

>there's nobody really there to hurt

Yes, there obviously is. Jesus Christ, it's like I'm in highschool all over again, honestly. Get a grip.

Tell it to the constantly dwindling number of religious people around the world, America included.

You still seem to be saying that faith changes to stay relevant with new information?

When was the last time the steps of the scientific method changed?
That isn't the goal of science at all, the scientific method doesn't discover higher truths, it can only invalidate misconstructions.

Those other people don't exist any more than you do though, because free will is an illusion. So there's no moral weight to any action. Our morality depends on our sense of agency - that we make free choices. If we don't, then "we" as we've understood ourselves, simply don't exist. And if that's the case, you can't build communities. Socialists try to solve this with a pseudoscientific discourse that stops short of that recognition, or tries to have its cake and eat it by claiming that our lack of personhood means our purpose comes from banding together, but 0 times a billion is still 0.

>free will is an illusion
[Citation needed]

You've entirely missed the point unfortunately, but not that surprisingly.

What you consider obvious based on sensory data is not scientifically proven. It has been scientifically proven that free will is an illusion, so your perception of your selfhood and mine, and everybody's, is just that, a perception. It used to be obvious that the earth was flat. It used to be obvious that God existed.

who was an atheist in Moral Orel?

Here's an intelligent summary in layman's terms of what I'm saying, and why it matters to the social sphere.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

Yeah, knew you were going to link this. Here, have another read before you go around embarrassing yourself some more you pretentious dipshit lmfao

theatlantic.com/notes/2016/06/free-will-exists-and-is-measurable/486551/

The author.

and yes if it wasn't immediately obvious, it's the same author

>It has been scientifically proven that free will is an illusion

No, it hasn't. Fuck off faggot. Epistemological change is not evidence for that either.

Why would I be embarrassed? The hypothesis that free will doesn't exist isn't going anywhere, and nor is people's desire to disbelief that hypothesis.

*disbelieve

Right on time, check out the panic in this post.

You act as if it's more than a hypothesis. You act as if it's some unquestioned mainstream scientific belief, rather than just one of many extremely debated and stupid scientific theories. That's why you should be embarrassed. Should be, but obviously aren't. I'll put that down to being a fucking moron, which you clearly are.

Why would I care? I haven't read either of them. The argument exists, and is clearly not going away. It's the end game of scientism. People's need to believe that it's not the case has nothing to do with whether it's the case or not, because the truth is that society has never been based on the provable. Everyone wants to believe that there's a reason they shouldn't be abused and murdered, and everyone is wrong. There are no shoulds, only what's physically possible and physically impossible. It isn't physically possible for me to micro-manage my brain chemistry.

Ha. I bet you think you're really fucking cool. The detached and aloof cynic who understand what other people would be too scared to even think about. That's you right? Fucking aye, it hurts to think how insufferable you must be in real life.

If you're talking about embarrassment, look at what you're coming out with. "Stupid theories!" "You're a moron!" You seem to be panicking because I've mentioned something that a significant number of researchers in the field have been entertaining as as a strong possibility for many years. You seem to be angry at science.

Dino is an atheist? Never got that vibe from Moral Orel. And I don't think atheism is a central theme in the show.

Do you not think I've come across a pretentious douchebag before? What has convinced you that what you're saying is so groundbreaking you would actually be causing people to panic? Jesus Christ lmfao

No, I'm not interested in being cool, and I'm not aloof or cynical either, I just don't want to waste energy on pointless fear when even a child can understand what pragmatism is. It always surprises me how unpragmatic and idealistic most atheists are as soon as you touch on where the scientific understanding of human subjectivity is actually heading. The abolition of God is meaningless for people who don't believe in God anyway; its meaning for the secular world is that it's the first step in dismantling the notion of subjective free will. It's disturbing for most of us, including me. But there is a minority for whom it seems to be an attractive notion, which is also interesting.

Don't talk about "vibe".

"A miracle happens. A loving family. Just like that! Out of nowhere! Now how does this happen? A belief in God? A strong moral structure? Blind luck? Who knows, who cares?" - Moral Orel, pretty much the ending. This is a fudge - nobody who believes in God ever says "who cares", but plenty of atheists who don't want to get into an argument with believers do.

What made me think you're panicking that is that you called a scientific theory "stupid". It's not groundbreaking. You're now writing "lmfao", from 1998, to show how untriggered you are.

Not my fault your point was wrong, but that isn't the most pathetic way to give up an argument I have seen today.

Psychology isn't science, friend, it relies on the same assumptions in a spiritual psyche as a theists believing in gods.

Indeed, but psychology is not the source of the hypothesis, it's unclear why you'd think it was.

>The hypothesis that free will doesn't exist isn't going anywhere, and nor is people's desire to disbelief that hypothesis.
The word you are looking for is unfalsifiable and science is impotent to address those ideas.

Psychiatry is similar but at least it classifies and categorizes fucked up shit, so thanks for that

Which other (pseudo)science attempts to define the term free will?

>The numbers of atheist people rise every year

Only because the population itself overall is growing. It's the slowest growing religion

Nothing in the physical sciences in unfalsifiable, only as-yet-unfalsified. The brain isn't going to stop being studied, and how it works is only going to be better understood with time.

But having said that, this post is closer to where I'm going with this subject that most previous responses have been.

scientists do not describe anything but the numerical outputs of some tools that they bought from somebody else. Scientists do not rely on their 5 senses, they are not empiricists. Scientists claim that their imagination is a way to ''truth'' or ''objectivity'' or some other big words that somehow describe a' ''reality'' wherein humans are not, and of course to sort all their fantasies, since they think that senses are pathetic and corruptible, they build the fantasy of ''validity'' of a fantasy with respect to something that ''is not human''.
at this point, the rationalists can either go even more full stupid by clinging to a sky daddy, or can equally go full stupid like ''nature'' but of course there is no ''nature''. There is what is experiences thru the 5 senses and what is experience through the imagination [= opinions, ideas, through, concepts, inferences, whatever]. So some guy thought he was a genius because he slapped back his fantasies against ''the 5 senses'' as the validity of inferences, to check whether his ''inferences'' were valid and he got cocky because he did not ''need god as an hypothesis. Pure cringe.

but it turns out that what is experienced through the senses is just what is experiences through the senses, no matter how hard people cling to their fantasy of a validity of a ralitionalism-claiming-to-be-empirisist. Well the only good thing from this religion by the secular humanist is that it has been providing, for the last 300 years, a salary for lots of people in the liberal revival of the academia.

Psychiatry is the medical application of psychology, it is not its own science since it relies on psychology to define all the terms and conditions.

so the trick of those people is to develop ''models'' (modelling what? nobody knows) and then to make the model compete and say ''this model is more valid than this model''.
Of course a model cannot model the ''reality'' since to model the reality you must know the ''model of the reality'', plus the ''reality'' plus the comparison between the ''model of the reality'' with the ''reality''.
But if you know the ''reality'' you do not care about modelling it in the first place.

Then they develop statistics, because those people claim that statics somehow connects you to ''truth'' and the other big words that they love. Of course they have no proof of this, for people who love to claim they prove things it is disappointing from them.... THey claim that you cannot know knowledge with ''just one event'' unless you imagine a causality like Ascombe.
They claim that their fantasy of the ''repeatability of the conditions leading to an effect'' is the way to check ''a model against the reality'' (which is again stupid).
So how do you get truth from stats according to these people. You run your little model, you run an ''repeatable experiment'' several times (these people love to claim that the condition producing an event are stable across time) and you collect ''data'' which is ''the reality'' (these people love to claim that reality is just a bunch of functions or numbers,like a photon an electron a black hole whatever it is , and then those numbers are axiomatized, by those people, as some sets).
After this you read a book, where the ''convention'' for determining ''the truth'' is to have a statistical significance. So for instance people in biology or physics claim that ''the statistical significance'' for some ''repeatable experiment'' is ''3 sigma'' or some ''p value of whatever number they choose at this date of the conference''.

then they publish their articles, they are happy about what they are doing, they get their salary and a few awards if enough big names already approved have faith in their article and they die. This is their rewards.

Free will has come into question due to developments in neuroscience.

I think that many if not most modern christians are only "cultural" christians, so they think they're gonna be saved by jeezus because they hand out christmas presents and don't kill people regularly. The religion itself doesn't really matter to them, you can't tell their religion by their behaviour and you'd have to start asking questions to find out what they "believe" in, they don't go to church or donate it any money, so they might as well be atheists because this kind of "religion" doesn't affect everyday life or politics

>scientists do not describe anything but the numerical outputs
No a proper science should define novel metrics.

Neuroscience has no such metric as will, that is the realm of interpretations of neurophilosophy and psychology based on breakthroughs in neuroscience.

I think that Moral Orel is appreciable for the undeniable effort that went into its visuals, the endearing cast of characters, a number of really poignant scenes, and the remarkable way the show not only took an about-face from a simple satiric comedy into a dramatic story but did so in a way that theme and tone of the earlier happy-go-lucky episodes seem to build up and accentuate the later dramatic aspects. It feels as if you get to witness 'the mask' that characterizes the first 2 seasons crumble before your eyes in a way that makes perfect sense within the context of the show.

*than most previous responses have been

This anti-scientism isn't quite where I was going either, but it's a good thing to have along the way.

Why are you restating what the post you're replying to said while pretending to correct it? "Free will has come into question due to developments in neuroscience." contains no indication that it's neuroscientists themselves discussing it.

I think effort should be expected. The characters aren't endearing, they're repulsive reflections of their author's patronizing attitudes. None of it is poignant unless you didn't know movies could have sad endings until you were 17. The dramatic story is garbage - why would a gag writer working for Adult Swim think he had the chops to write drama? He failed.

The people questioning it aren't scientists using scientific scrutiny, they are people who don't understand the science looking at it through the lens of their own unfalsifiable intrepretations of brain spirits and philosophy.

That is like saying you have scientifically disproven the existence of happiness due to developments in physiology.

There's no accounting for taste.

Because I have to go for a while, I'll just skip to where I was going with this.

Free will is the last and most difficult faith to abandon, but the indications that it is just that, and only that, are probably going to multiply as research continues on the real-time actions of the brain. All political aspirations require the maintainence of this faith - all require the assumptions of humanism. It's not going to become any less disturbing as an idea while human agency remains an attractive notion, and making human agency unattractive is an implausible scenario within any kind of forseeable timeframe. How the mind, perceiving itself as existing, could consciously hold the thought of its nonexistence and permit the functioning required for survival in the world with others, is pure speculation.

Just as the idea scotches humanism, it induces moral freefall. There is no reason not to kill anyone if nobody is really an agent, and if the person doing the killing isn't an agent either. It is all an arbitrarily taboo collection of electrical and chemical processes within some meat. There is no basis, other than our timidity about facing the logical conclusion, for anyone to accord the weight called "ethics" to any of the arbitrary actions among arbitrary phenomena.

Except faith.

Eventually, even the scientists themselves are in that position, because life involves using the data we gather to make choices and decisions, not just gathering it.

Yes there is. Experience and education shapes taste. Inexperienced people early in their education value shit like Moral Orel. If they don't move on, they're becalmed.

Sure, but opinions and decisions aren't science.
A scientists opinion is still just an opinion if it isn't backed up by their science of specialty even if you agree with it.
Its not the same to say some psychologists no longer believe in free will based on their interpretations of neuroscience as it is to say neuroscience has disproven free will.

I don't know what you're looking for pal, will you have no rest until everyone agrees with you that a 10 year old stop-motion cartoon from Adult Swim that has minor cult-success is 'objectively bad' because you think its too affected with immature atheistic sentiments?

All I'm looking for is to make the posts I've made. Moral Orel was discussed in a thread that got archived a few hours ago, so I started a new one to mop up the subject and address related matters. If people reply to me, I'll reply to them.

You are once again restating things that were perfectly clear already, while missing the significance of the original statements to the broader argument. Read this for where everything was going.

Short version: the determining factor is what we want to believe, and nobody would feel safe *from other people* in a world where free will doesn't exist. If you've got free will, you're on your way back to theism already, because they're both essentially the idea that the observable can be bracketed lucidly, without self-deception by a human or anthropomorphic consciousness.

Short short version: pray.

t. I just played Cuphead and now I'm obsessed with old cartoons

It's one thing to say "this show isn't good because its use of [x] failed to achieve the intended purpose or it could have used [y] better or [z] was lacking" where x, y and z are the tools at the creators disposal, and it's another to say "its garbage" and then to claim that everyone who doesn't think so is immature or uneducated and doesn't know any better. The former comes from a discerning taste and at least fundamental grasp of understanding media and the latter is just spitting venom--the critical equivalent of diarrhea.

I've never played a video game.

Childhood is not realizing starburns created this show.
Adulthood is complete shit and I want to die.

>significance of the original statements
Its not significant to claim that all opinions of a scientist are scientific or that they can't rely on their field of science to prove or disprove every pseudoscientific or unfalsifiable claim.

>perfectly clear
If it was so perfect, you wouldn't have to use a mishmash of pseudoscience and science.

>the broader argument
Your broad argument is that science disproves free will and that is nonsensical in the science you are citing.

>the impossibility of accepting its nonexistence
ask me how i know you read no philosophy books

No, the latter is correct. Your ideas of "understanding media" are based on the idea that nothing has any innate value other than what the marketplace accords it. This has nothing to do with critical intelligence. Nor does attributing "venom" to simply seriousness. Not all things are equally worthwhile. Not all viewers are equally discerning. Some art is for those who don't know better, and Moral Orel is typical of that genre. It was literally inspired by its creator's anger as a teenager vacationing in a small town, and it's for the town atheist, town Goth mentality.

You misunderstood the post you were directed to, read it again.

*simple

>Except faith.
that's where you're wrong. faith doesn't help.

No, faith is the only thing that can help. If you don't understand that, you haven't understood the premise.

>Your ideas of "understanding media" are based on the idea that nothing has any innate value other than what the marketplace accords it
Wheresoever did you get that idea? Because I called Moral Orel a 'minor cult-success'? I'm merely pointing out how hollow critique rings when it completely ignores all the aspects of show-making, nothing you've posted addresses the show itself, but a warped personal interpretation you've formed that allows you to pigeonhole and dismiss it entirely out of antipathy. Nothing you've posted is about Moral Orel the show, everything you've posted is about your personal anathema to 'atheistic' sentiments, a label you've slapped on the show as all-encompassing and then railed against that.

i could go on about the many ways in which faith doesn't help, but to put it in simple terms, there is more to faith(specifically christianity) than cosmology. having a positive belief in any creation story or an omnipotent entity doesn't fundamentally change the nature of being in any qualitative sense.

christianity is at it's essence, romantic. mere cosmology, in and of itself, doesn't address philosophical problems, it attempts to circumvent them through distraction, through drama. the existence of god doesn't have any relevance to philosophical questions about the nature of meaning, purpose, free will, and so on. even if i were to accept the theist account of reality, that only describes what "is", not what "ought" to be done. even if god exists, and he has laid out a set of moral commandments, that does nothing to tell you that you ought to do, that it's your "duty" to do so. god doesn't help. the existence of souls doesn't help.

put another way, the problems of what you would call "the atheist worldview" (which is actually the postmodern worldview) are compatible with faith.

No, you misspoke, be more clear next time, mr. prefect.

>oh hey a moral oral thre-

This is literally the worst thread I have ever seen

you've seen nothing