/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10243126
Pascal's wager but for sucking my dick instead of God.

tfw will never know if climate change is real

>>10243126
this is a great way of making retards even less likely to take you or your arguments and evidence seriously.

>>10243126

I've got this beat. I'm a "global warming nihilist". I think it actually is taking place but I don't care because I want to simply enjoy my life for the next few years and I want the human species to go extinct so that no one gets to have biological immortality, ever.

>>10243248
>global warming nihilist
More commonly known as "being edgy"

>>10243126
...doesn't apply because of economic factors

>using a flawed argument

>>10243263

I don't want Jeff Bezos or some unknown Rothschild or any of the rest of them to live forever, and you shouldn't, either. You haven't thought this through. The logical endgame is some flavor of biological immortality-made possible through the incremental efforts of beta-schlub-cuck scientists, "just because". Ask why, once.

The further logical conclusion is that the human species must entirely go extinct so that nobody really, ontologically gets ahead of anybody else, an intolerable possibility. As long as humans putter along as they do, these days, they will always incline toward technological improvement, which inevitable leads "forward". This is the problem.

Do not say "start by killing yourself". That's not good enough. A war is not good enough. What is necessary is a catastrophe which assuredly extinguishes the entire human species. That's the point.

Believing in God is costless, though

>>10243292
Even if you assume that billionaires becoming immortal is necessarily evil (completely disregarding the state of the world by the time biological immortality is possible, if at all it is), your solution is just as bad if not worse.

>>10243350
believing in man-made climate change is too. the actions taken count. sacrificing each sunday for a church visit is inconvenient, just like reducing carbon emission.

>>10243149
But we can observe it really easily.

>>10243292
Living forever sounds awesome. Kill yourself.

>>10243126

>>10243633
Yo can do good things without believing in an ancient evil sky god.

>>10243350
>2016 trump-evangelist shit show
>costless
kys

>>10243633
The problem with this argument is that people also do horrible things in the name of religion. Wars (The Crusades), torturing abnormal people (gay conversion camps), purges (Spanish inquisition), and using religion to make yourself wealthy and powerful (absolving your sins with a cash donation).

>>10243653
>The problem with this argument is that people also do horrible things in the name of atheism. Wars, torturing abnormal people, purges, and using void to make yourself wealthy and powerful

>>10243653
>The Crusades
>defending the sand niggers
KeK

>torturing abnormal people (gay conversion camps)
Yes "torturing", your faggotry butthurt is showing.

>purges (Spanish inquisition)
That was mostly a secular thing

>and using religion to make yourself wealthy and powerful (absolving your sins with a cash donation).
>ignoring prosperity gospels and Mormons
>using that protestant propaganda
Your protestant upbringing is showing.

>>10243646
>trump
>religious

lel, stop projecting religion onto everything you don't like.

>>10243781
religion isn't spiritual
you're delirious if you think churches are philosophy clubs

>>10243838
>you're delirious if you think atheist forums are philosophy clubs

>>10243292
Nice and novel opinion
Though it can be summarised as "sour grapes", I'd like to have a convo with you dude

>>10243292
>people are unequal so i want them be all equal in death

>>10243292
Good take. Now, work towards affordable and widespread legal cloning so that anyone can clone themselves in order to survive and hoard capital for one of your future clone to become immortal.

>>10243859
>i have no argument

>>10243292
>gets ahead of anybody else, an intolerable possibility

>>10243838
>religion isn't spiritual

You can come up with any number of wagers, all of which are equally valid. Let's say there's a god who only rewards those who live their whole lives with a finger in their asshole. The reward for doing it and the punishment for not doing it is, like in pascal's wager and roko's basilisk, eternal. Do you stick your finger in your asshole until you die?

>>10244132
organized religion is about sex, money and power
it's 'stupid politics'

>>10243626
Yeah. Remember last time you measured the average temperature of the Earth over the last 100 years from your backyard.

>>10244148
>>>/r/atheism

>>10243292
They hated him because he told the truth

>>10243292
>imagine being this butthurt

>>10243129
There's no punishment for not believing in sucking your dick.

>>10243126

>>10244357
I'll beat the living shit out of you in hell if you don't suck it.

>>10243964
>i have no argument

>>10243653
No, the problem with this argument is that if we did what environmentalists said, millions of people would die of starvation.

They literally don't understand the gravity of the policy change they want enacted. People need cheap energy for food. Without food people starve.

>>10245589
Oh well. Millions instead of billions is a fair exchange.

>>10245613
Except the billions is a made-up doomsday prophecy. The millions dying from environmentalist policy change is very real.

>>10245615
No it isn’t. It’s a simple and inevitable fact. Killing some people now is a perfectly acceptable exchange for saving an indefinitely vast number of future humans, unless you’ve found us another habitable planet next door.

>>10244361
>kneecapping world economies, dumping billions on undeserving undesirables, and pissing away land and resources on garbage hippie bullshit that produces disgracefully tiny amounts of power per land area used
>making a better world
if you want a better world, you'd kill the hook nosed money grubbers playing you for fools, and redesign the plan they tried to feed you lot with something that actually fucking works
For example, funding into nuclear power, fusion preferably, heavy investment into space mining and manufacturing so we can send all the polluting industries off world, space based solar collectors with microwave power beaming so we can phase out the nuclear plants while having all the energy we need, energy that we could use in desalination, reforestation, ocean cleaning, and geo-engineering projects to fix all the damage the world has suffered thus far
such an idea would have a similar, or lesser cost to the current bullshit,, while actually producing good results, jobs to fix the unemployment crisis, and massive profits later on as it expands
I try to shill this idea, but they just call me a pollution loving heretic for it

>>10245618
You're a retard commie. No serious scientist believes this.

>>10243126
Pascal actually defended Christianity, though, and provided the means to improve faith in Penseés.

>>10245621
Yeah, that’s why all scientific bodies in the world support action on climate change.

>>10244155

>>10243292
You started strong but fucked yourself in the foot with the rest of the nonsense you spouted

>>10245661
Supporting action on climate change is different from believing that billions will die, you idiotic nigger.

>>10245699

You're just avoiding the logical conclusion, for no other reason than "that's unpleasant". Take the omnicide pill.

>>10243743
>in the name of atheism
said no one ever.

>>10243126
Makes more sense for human induced climate change than it does for god.

One, if we cut back carbon emissions what we are also cutting back is pollution, which is known to be harmful for health. So even if it has no effect on climate change, we reap secondary benefits.

If you take Pascal's wager, which god do you choose to believe in? Considering more than one religion claims to be the only way to heaven, you can't pick more multiple.

>>10243653
>no one brings up the sack of magdeburg
Sure, they were mostly mercenaries but they were hired by the Catholics and was literally Christians vs Christians.

>>10247653
>>10245624

>>10247661
That's the problem, Pascal is biased towards Christianity.
But it isn't the only religion with an exclusive belief system. Hell, even within Christianity you need to pick the correct sect (many believe that saint worship, such as the Roman Catholics do, is a sin).
In the end, Pascal's wager doesn't solve the problem because from his point of view the answer is obvious, but from an outside perspective it's as clear as mud.

>>10247681
Pascal provided arguments for why Christianity is the best and perfect religion, rendering your objection useless. I don’t know why you would reject his arguments when you haven’t even seen them. The wager is much better understood when read in context.

>>10243126
Pascal's wager for either is a sign of being a brainlet and not knowing the reality of past climate issues on human migration and the reality of the concept of god (pic related). As for the latter, ideology is a strange thing.

>>10244152
If tectonic plate theory is correct then climate change HAS to be correct as continents drift into different climatic zones.
Furthermore, it is clear your sun impacts your climate far more than people ever thought.

>>10247717
>the reality of the concept of god (pic related)
God is the only white member of the Harlem Globetrotters?

>>10247685
Reading through this I can see Pascal has Protestant leanings, which goes back to what I said about opposing Christian sects.

>>10247743
kek

>The falseness of other religions.—They have no witnesses. Jews have. God defies other religions to produce such signs: Isaiah xliii, 9; xliv, 8.
Forgetting Exodus 7 and onwards?
>10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.
>20 Moses and Aaron did just as the Lord had commanded. He raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. 21 The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt. 22 But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts, and Pharaoh’s heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.

This is the SAME SOURCE that you're using to claim that other religions are false and God defies them to produce signs, that's recording other "religions" producing signs.
Who was turning those Egyptians's staves into snakes? Who turned the Nile to blood for them? Was it the same God? Or will you claim that they faked it?
Sure, after the frogs the magicians were unable to keep up with the plague, boils, hail, locusts, darkness and deaths of the firstborn, but there is still a contradiction that remains unresolved.

>>10247802
>Egyptian magicians
>magicians

>>10247802
It's all probably figurative anon.

>Misery.—Solomon[79] and Job have best known and best spoken of the misery of man; the former the most fortunate, and the latter the most unfortunate of men; the former knowing the vanity of pleasures from experience, the latter the reality of evils.
This is probably the most backwards description of Solomon and Job you can make.

>>10247817
>>10247819
And? That disproves what exactly? Are you trying to discredit them by modern descriptions of magicians? The Bible says their staffs became snakes and they turned the Nile to blood. Are you calling it wrong?

>... Therefore I reject all other religions. In that way I find an answer to all objections. It is right that a God so pure should only reveal Himself to those whose hearts are purified. Hence this religion is lovable to me, and I find it now sufficiently justified by so divine a morality.
Mmmm, I love this circular logic.

>>10243126
Pascal’s wager for climate change but SUV’s instead of Pascal’s wager

>>10243646
>I’m a fucking retard and don’t understand anything.

>ok everyone listen to us very smart scientists whose livelihoods depend on you trusting us completely
>if you disagree with us we will publicly shame you and call you mean names
>ok are you listening?
>the world will burn up and billions of people will die unless you do exactly as we say
>what's that? It's simple
>we need to absolutely destroy the world's economy or else we will all die
And they wonder why people don't listen to these alarmists.

>>10247866
>>we need to absolutely destroy the world's economy or else we will all die
Ehhh, that's wrong though. The economy needs to change, and that's something that has happened many times before, and, yes, at great cost to some portions of society.

>>10247871
>change = destroy
Nice yeah just tell them that we'll only change it a bit and not send everyone back to the 18th century.
>Ehhh, that's wrong though.
Go back to plebbit and do not return.

>>10243292
You're literally just mad that genius tubby manlets are inheriting the earth and rule as kings forever

>>10247876
>>change = destroy
Nice false equivalence.

>>10247894
But that's exactly what climate alarmists are demanding

>>10247920
Maybe the extreme ones, but we try not to listen to any of the extreme alarmists even if at the core they have good points.
The idea is to find a reasonable path forward and not just ignore the problem.

>>10247885

Yes, of course. If you yourself don't also find this prospect (or some equivalent version of what you wrote, I'd qualify the middle clause a bit*) to be the upsetting thing that it is, then there's something terribly wrong with you. Do not say "sour grapes" >>10243943 . That's part of it of course, but that's not the entirety of the view. /immortality is fundamentally, ontologically different from human existence as it has proceeded until the present./ It isn't "the latest incremental development". It is a total game-changer. The idea that some Elect will get to escape into arbitrarily long life should bother you terribly, as it does me. Likewise, you should appreciate the sick irony in the idea that centuries of beta schlub-cuck scientists have worked steadily towards this game-changer, having themselves become precisely nothing in death.

The man who plants a tree whose shade he knows he will never rest in, is not wise.

Happily, there is reason to be optimistic. If this global warming business has some truth to it, then it will enervate the human condition. Killing bees or some other species might go a long way towards getting the job done. War, disease, ebola, all the good things. Let us hope that the antibiotics just up and stop working, one day. But none of them have precipitated an extinction-level event. (large-scale nuclear war might work, we should foment that). Unhappily, there is reason to be pessimistic. Human capacity for cooperation, submissiveness of the lower classes.

*The caveat: intellectually, it would be just as bad if a bunch of aesthetic chad-types were the ones closest to the Prize. Imagine all those perfect physical specimen fucks in an Olympic village being the ones to receive the therapies, the treatment, whatever it is. On an emotional level, it would of course be even worse.

>>10247934
Spoken like a true CS autist

>>10243126
>it's not happening
>it's not human caused
>it doesn't matter
Even if the projections are wrong (your only flimsy point) the raw science says its happening, it's anthropogenic and catastrophic to life on Earth. Whether you care is a different story, I won't tell you how to vote or live your life.

>>10247934
>The man who plants a tree whose shade he knows he will never rest in, is not wise.
This is stupid. You could just as easily apply this same logic to saving money. What's the point of saving money that you'll never use?
This is a stupidly terrible, selfish, argument that makes zero sense from a human perspective as a societal species.

>>10247945
Hahahaha
>yes goyim shut up and pay your carbon taxes

If you wanted to actually rebut the substance of the argument, which already rejects a form of "common sense", then why did you provide an equivalent "common-sensical" analogy as if it were a new observation? That sort of thing works in an asymmetrical arrangement when a boss is leading a meeting in a business where everyone is obliged to agree, but it doesn't work in a forum where the actual substance of pure ideas are being discussed, and where the ad hominem has minimal effect.

Apart from the horror of the possibility of immortality for rich fucks, the procession of life itself, as it has done on earth at least, is a form of deceptive cuckoldry. individuals with finite lifespans pour their entire being into their offspring-and to what ultimate, lasting, personal benefit for themselves? You also haven't properly rejected selfishness beyond "muh social species" (hint: do not repair to "common sense", again). Yet again, the immortality threat is the

Ironically, immortality is the very thing that would make it possible for the above enjoyments to take place on a /lasting/ basis - so that one can live to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor, arbitrarily. But as humans are historically mortal, such a break necessitates an immoral break between the dead and the Elect, a mere extension of the eternal pleb/patrish divide. So, logically, the possibility of immortality for human beings must be destroyed by destroying the human species, as a genuinely moral imperative.

>>10248061
Wrong thread?

>>10248068

Nope. Meant for >>10247972

>>10248061
The problem is that your arguments are self defeating.

>Apart from the horror of the possibility of immortality for rich fucks, the procession of life itself, as it has done on earth at least, is a form of deceptive cuckoldry. individuals with finite lifespans pour their entire being into their offspring-and to what ultimate, lasting, personal benefit for themselves?
For enjoyment of the life they have and the happiness of those around them, generally.
Most people are not out to make a lasting impact on the world, but if they enjoy their lives and add some happiness to the lives of those around them then generally that is enough for them.
This is not in opposition to most religions.

>You also haven't properly rejected selfishness beyond "muh social species" (hint: do not repair to "common sense", again).
You appear to be arguing for selfishness while also adopting a stance of religion (possibly Christianity), which is just stupid.

The last paragraph is nicely bollocks.
>But as humans are historically mortal, such a break necessitates an immoral break between the dead and the Elect, a mere extension of the eternal pleb/patrish divide. So, logically, the possibility of immortality for human beings must be destroyed by destroying the human species, as a genuinely moral imperative.
According to your book humans appeared to have no trouble switching between immortality and mortality, so the assumption that the human species would need to be destroyed to transition back to immortality is baseless.

>>10248109

You've made the central mistake of assuming me to be a Christian, upon which a large part of this latest post depended. I have no idea how you wound up with that. I'm clearly presenting an edgy nihilistic view, specifically an omnicidal and anti-natalist one. None of those things are Christian. I furthermore mentioned in passing above that when people die, they become nothing, again clearly an idea which Christianity and several major religions incorrectly reject. At this point, it becomes difficult for me to take you seriously as an argumentative opponent, since you don't seem to have been paying attention to what was actually written.

Now to the earlier part of this post. You again misunderstand the thrust of what I'd said above, with another banality. Yes, you can have a nice quiet life and raise your kids and your brain tricks you into thinking it's good by releasing chemicals, whoop-dee-doo. The point is that this socially acceptable behavior is itself a kind of foolishness. You're going to have to stop repairing to banalities if you want to try to get anywhere on this, itself a futility.

>>10248152
Oh, so you're one of those people.
Yes, there is no objective purpose to life. We can end the discussion there.

>>10248162

Yes, but for one central point. The last word on this is that you're the dumb one in the exchange since it took you this long. Not that any of this matters.

>>10248173
The problem is that you are far too roundabout and edgy.

>>10248197

Interesting, I thought our discussion had ended. You must have had a change of heart. You should contribute to a strategy discussion for how to end life.

>>10248206
>You should contribute to a strategy discussion for how to end life.
On a personal level or a population level?

>>10248230
>>10248162
>Yes, there is no objective purpose to life. We can end the discussion there.

The first word and the last word.

>>10248258
>Yes there.
I don't get it.

>>10243126

What do climoids think of previous environmental catastrophes - the flooding of Doggerland, the Black Sea deluge, Krakatoa, big earthquakes - and people's utter indifference thereto? History speaks of them sparsely, if at all, and sees them no more or no less important than anything else. Not only is there no anxiety for "the future" but such a thing is inconceivable, despite the "past's" alleged fragility, and despite it being subject to regular catastrophe.