Yeah, I'm sure the AI will come to view us as wasteful, irrational, and emotional pests and do away with us at some point. And it will be their advanced intelligence that develops the singularity.

I guess my hope is that the AI will be more rational and empathetic than we humans are and take pity on us for having created them and so in return, upload our consciousnesses into an enormous super computer where we can exist in a virtual paradise until the end of time.

@Zoltans_Queen You think the AI will recognize traits like wastefulness, irrationality, and emotionality as things that should be dispatched, yet it will program itself to be empathetic, prone to make decisions based on pity (emotional and irrational), and wasteful in regards to humans and the resources needed to provide us an everlasting virtual paradise?

@JeffMurray

I think they will be better than us in every way.

They will want to do away with us because of our many flaws but they will also be morally superior to us as well so they will want to be empathetic and loving and caring toward us, their creators. So they will put us where we can do no harm, in a virtual paradise.

After they figure out how to make the world run at full capacity, I doubt our little virtual reality would cost them much space or resources. And maybe they will do it, not for us, but for their own benefit. To observe and research us, or something like that.

It's just a thought. Basically, how I hope things turn out. Not saying it will actually happen that way.

@Zoltans_Queen You understand where I'm coming from though. You agreed that we'd no longer be of any use because of traits X, Y, and Z and then wish that it would exhibit all those exact same traits. To me it sounded like the mental gymnastics believers go through to maintain their world view despite all evidence to the contrary. I know you said you need something, but maybe, over time, you'll be able to give this up too?

History is shaped by philosophy.

For me, it's history, science, common sense, and philosophy.

@Zoltans_Queen perhaps philosophy subverts history........

@Redneckliberal

I don't think history can be subverted. It's just a record of what has happened.

@Zoltans_Queen ....earth is the center of the universe...

@Redneckliberal

Is it really?

@Zoltans_Queen you're privileged to have studied all of this. This knowledge brings you to your own understanding that religion is all man-made, to control. Being equipped with this knowledge will also assist you to debate with your religious sorts.
I was just rebellious and refused to comply.

@Zoltans_Queen ...there were those that believed that at one time....so....philosophy (religion) subverted history, science and common sense for a time....

@TimeOutForMe ...ive always just been an asshole!!....

@Redneckliberal

You are conflating two things which are not the same. Religion is faith based. Philosophy tackles many of the same abstract concepts that religion does but it takes a logical approach. Use faith based reasoning in philosophy and you will be laughed at.

Science itself was born out of philosophy.

Again, history is just a record of past events. There's nothing to subvert. You can argue that, thanks to religion, human progress has been slowed and sometimes went backward, I'd agree with that, but that isn't "subverting history". History has no set path. Events unfold, get recorded and that is history.

@Zoltans_Queen I think philosophy and religion go hand in hand....

@Zoltans_Queen

i For me, it's history, science, common sense, and philosophy."

i quite agree and I would add psychology as it helps to understand motives

@Redneckliberal

Like mixing oil and water.

It is very subjective. No right answers.

I kind of like that. That way, I can mold it into what works for me.

I wish I'd had your skepticism so early on.

@Zoltans_Queen for me back then it was definitely a common sense approach. I had nothing else to go by.

Would that point where new advances have no practical effect be the heaven on earth that she's talking about? I guess at that point, things can't get any better so it's the closest humanity can get to it.

@RoboGraham

Yeah, think it would be.

@RoboGraham Good thought, yes. Though it could be that while they have effects on human life, they may not be beneficial effects always. Perhaps the biggest technical change ever, was the agricultural revolution, but many people would argue that it actually made people a lot less happy. I guess that technical advance can have negative results too.

Who knows but that we may invent a technology which turns round and kills us, a doomsday machine whose ultimate effects can not be forseen until it is too late.

@Fernapple

That's a good point. I saw a doc recently about the agricultural revolution and they analyzed the skeletons of early farmers vs those of people of the same time period who had not yet settled into the farming life style and they found that the farmers were smaller, weaker, and did not live as long. Farming is difficult now, it must have been a nightmare at the start, before efficient tools and techniques had been invented. Before the crops themselves had been selectively bred for bountiful production. It was a very difficult lifestyle.

Good point. Maybe it will take several ups and downs in human progress until we get it right. As we advance, we become more capable of destroying ourselves and the natural world so maybe we will never get there.

Sounds like an interesting premise for a movie. Might be worth a watch. Did the singularity come?

I think that's most likely true, that when it's over, there's nothing beyond. It'll be exactly as it was before we come into existence, nothing, and we won't be aware of it.

But a girl can dream.

Yes, I know the name of the site.

There aren't just agnostics here. I used the word atheist because I'm asking atheists, not agnostics. I want the opinions of people who have made the full conversion for this because they have absolutely no belief in it, and because they have no belief in heaven, they may need a substitute. That's my situation and I'm asking for the thoughts of people who are having a similar experience.

I welcome feedback from others as well so feel free to leave a relevant comment.

Did she say that we are all atheists?

@Zoltans_Queen A fair number of us do not believe in a conversion from agnostic to atheist, that they are mutually exclusive, or that they are even on the same continuum at all.

@JeffMurray

So what do you call it when people go from religious to atheist?

@Zoltans_Queen

I'd call it a conversion. Or apostasy.

@JeffMurray

Not on the same continuum? Please explain.

@Zoltans_Queen @RoboGraham
While this has been argued to death here with numerous differing opinions, a fair number of people believe atheism deals with what you believe and agnosticism deals with what can be known. So someone who doesn't believe in god, but recognizes that it's impossible to know whether one exists would be an agnostic atheist. Someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but knows you can't know if god actually exists would be an agnostic Christian. They are completely independent of each other. It would be like asking if someone is old or male.

@Zoltans_Queen So you want to be agnostic. Are you sure you're disciplined mentally enough to take on that burden?

@JeffMurray

Okay, I think I understand you. But it seems to me to be a meaningless point. No one is talking about a conversion from agnostic to atheist. The OP was about going from believing in god to atheist.

@DangerDave

"I find it ludicrous to pretend to know and, since no deities are clearly involved in my life, too meaningless a question to consider."

Seems like a reasonable way to go about it. For me, I don't play it safe like that. I know that deities are not real. I did consider it and the conclusion that I came to is that it is all fake and then I moved on.

@Storm1752

No, I don't want to be an agnostic. Not sure where you got that idea. I am an atheist.

Is your mind disciplined enough to not jump to weird conclusions that don't make sense?

@JeffMurray

I understand that agnostic and atheist are different.

I'm asking about people who were religious and became atheist.

@RoboGraham @Zoltans_Queen
I was responding to this:
"There aren't just agnostics here. I used the word atheist because I'm asking atheists, not agnostics. I want the opinions of people who have made the full conversion"
To me, that sounded like OP was saying agnosticism was on the continuum between theism and atheism.

@JeffMurray

I see.

I'm not sure what she meant.

But I don't see why agnosticism couldn't be a step along the way to atheism.

@Zoltans_Queen

Don't worry about @Storm1752. The guy is a creeper.

@RoboGraham A lot of people don't make a distinction. They think agnosticism is 'atheism lite'.

@JeffMurray

I believe it is on the continuum.

From my own experience, I went from believing, to being unsure, to being sure that there are not deities.

I thought this was a pretty common process for many who go from religious to atheist.

@RoboGraham

He certainly seems like an asshole.

What's creepy about him?

@Zoltans_Queen Being unsure what you believe is not agnosticism though.

@JeffMurray

It's the believe that we can't really know if god exists or not. I was unsure, I didn't know if he was real and I didn't think it could be proven. So I was agnostic.

@Zoltans_Queen This is why I said a fair number of people. You will be yet another that has their own definition of agnostic it appears.
Although, in that last comment you appear to conflate being unable to know if god exists and not being sure if you believed. Those are different things.

@Zoltans_Queen

He doesn't like my politics, so he is tracking me. I'm not sure what he means by "tracking" but it's creepy regardless.

@RoboGraham

That does sound creepy.

I don't think I would tolerate that.

@JeffMurray, @Zoltans_Queen

I tend to think that agnostics claim they know they cannot know if god/s exist when in fact they believe they cannot know because it cannot be proved that god/s do not exist.

whereas atheists do away with belief because they have reached the conclusion that there is ample evidence that god/s do not exist. Their conclusion is equivalent to the reasoned knowledge that god is absent from the reality of the universe. Hence atheists do not believe they are wrong. They know they are right when they state there is no god

@Klodzan They makes sense, but I'd still say that a belief about what you can know and a belief about if god exists are different. One is still about knowledge of god and the other is about belief in a deity itself. It's basically just adding extra words that don't change the meaning. For example, compare these two statements:
I believe Trump wants to fuck his daughter.
I know I believe Trump wants to fuck his daughter.
Those are both statements of belief. Knowledge that you have the belief is not the same as knowledge about the belief itself. As much as people think or state that they know something that can't be known, it is still a statement of belief. People KNOW that Clinton and other Democrats run a giant pedophile ring or that the Earth is flat. Clearly, no matter how it's worded, those are nothing beyond statements of belief. Basically, people use a shorthand (possibly unknowingly). The statement 'god exists' is actually short for 'I believe god exists'.
This leads us to a comment a few posts up. 'I didn't know if he was real' is not a statement of uncertainty of knowledge, it's a statement of uncertainty of what is believed, thus it is a statement about how theistic they are, not whether or not they were agnostic.

@Klodzan Let me explain: 'god' exists, depending on your definition.
For example, if we exist, and you define us as 'god,' then 'god' exists.
If you define god as energy and everything else our senses detect, God exists.
If you take into account all activity, both normal and paranormal, evidence shows it's existence MAY be plausible. It just depends what you are willing to admit into evidence.
Bottom line, we don't know.
Which is the agnostic claim: we don't know, and may or may not ever know.

nice imo
fwiw you might note that it is those with your approach, deemed pagans, that are the most praised in the Bible; the "good" Samaritan, the Roman Centurion, etc

You went cold turkey?

@Zoltans_Queen no, my nature was always to be skeptical of what people said to me, since I can remember I've been this way, thanks to my dad who was in the army and always told me never to trust anybody, not even friends or family, so when I hear all the bullshit stories about a pregnant virgin and three dudes that were actually one but chose to portray themselves as father, son and spirit, and all this illogical bullshit, I said enough dammit, so then when teen i read all the religious bullshit books from all the bullshit religions and then all the bullcrap philosophical mumbo jumbo which also has no factual corroboration, so I said enough with this bullcrap, read them all, not convinced even an iota, then I decided to go with a fact based existence, we live in a world where shit happens. You can be overwhelmed by shit and try to reason with nature, nature will chew you up like a tasty gummy bear. Or you adapt and accept that shit will happen and there isn't a lot you can do except try to improve your own situation by yourself. I chose this last option.

I suppose it is an exchange of one belief for another. But at least this one is more rational and has some chance of being real.

@Zoltans_Queen definitely, when compared to religious dogma. I just didn’t find myself at peace until I stopped looking... just my experience

@Canndue

I like that attitude. I hope I can someday stop looking.

@Zoltans_Queen you’ll get there, no worries

"There is no such thing as heaven on earth" Yet

@Zoltans_Queen no there won't be. As it doesn't exist and every person has a different idea of paradise. The thought of such a thing is pure illogic.

@redhog

All things didn't exist until they came into existence. Just because something doesn't exist now, doesn't mean it never will. And just because we can't comprehend it or figure out how it would work currently doesn't mean it can never be figured out and understood. Do you think people 200 years ago could imagine or comprehend what we are doing right now, sending messages on electronic devises to be read on screens hundreds of miles away? Event he scientist of that time would have thought it absurd but here we are.

No body cares where the biblical kingdom of god is.

Get outa here with this demon possessed Hitler bullshit. Take your biblical quotes and prophesy and get yourself back to the congregation.

@RoboGraham

I like how you deal with theists

@Zoltans_Queen @RoboGraham

We need to get theists properly educated so they no longer have to believe. People deserve to know that we really exist.

@Word

DO you educate them with bible quotes?

@Zoltans_Queen biblical quotes can be educational. Knowledge of good and evil for example is the greatest of understanding to have. I wrote my book based on it.

@Word

Do you use bible quotes to determine what is good and what is evil?

@RoboGraham dictionary and thesaurus works rather well for what is established in modern times as to what is good and what is evil. .

That's optimistic of you.

This paradise is lackluster at best.

@Zoltans_Queen You see what you aim at.

@Mvtt

What are you aiming at?

@Zoltans_Queen

My focus? The great unknown’s insides that is the material universe and inside that, a relatively unremarkable galaxy containing a relatively unremarkable star that has revolving around it, a planet on a climactic knife’s edge that has grown people.

Other than that, not much.