The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 17, 2010, 11:36:38 AM
-
What atheists think is love is only a bio-mechanical reflex to propagate.
Humans are made of tissues and bones which are made of amino acids and proteins which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles which are made of quantum phenomenon. In short, humans are only clouds of condensed particle-waves.
Clouds of condensed particles waves are not capable of love because particle-waves themselves cannot love (to suggest otherwise is to suggest a theory of pantheism).
No thing is capable of producing any thing greater than itself. Five cannot come from three without an outside operator. So too the material universe cannot create love from emotionless matter and energy and if there is no outside Operator then nothing greater exists beyond what we sense: unloving particle-waves.
"Love" is merely a descriptor assigned by those who cannot apprehend or are scared by natural phenomenon. The same way primitive man conjured stories of angry spirits to be able to psychologically contend with volcanoes and hurricanes so too did he invent "love" to describe mating/parenting instincts.
With such an understanding of the universe I defy anyone to prove otherwise without resorting to some "I think/believe/hope/have faith" statements.
-
What atheists think is love is only a bio-mechanical reflex to propagate.
Um, what gives you the idea that atheists view love as more than an emotion arising from biological processes? Aren't theists the ones who view it as something magical?
-
Magic? I'm not aware that Mr. Snuggs calls himself a Pooka.
C. S. Lewis has an interesting representation of the consequences of reducing human thought and emotions to mere biochemical reactions toward the end of That Hideous Strength, which is the third book in the "Space Trilogy". While Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength are connected, in that order, they can also be read individually.
-
Magic? I'm not aware that Mr. Snuggs calls himself a Pooka.
I don't know what a Pooka is but I haven't had any luck in getting Mr. Snugs to say if he is a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist. Perhaps you could get the information out of him.
-
I only pop by here during bouts of boredom, and almost never post - but I thought this was worthy of a reply.
What atheists think is love is only a bio-mechanical reflex to propagate.
Humans are made of tissues and bones which are made of amino acids and proteins which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles which are made of quantum phenomenon. In short, humans are only clouds of condensed particle-waves.
Clouds of condensed particles waves are not capable of love because particle-waves themselves cannot love (to suggest otherwise is to suggest a theory of pantheism).
I think my experiences provides me good reason to think otherwise.
1. I am a cloud of condensed particle waves.
2. I can love
3. Therefore, condensed particles waves can love.
The fact that I can love is pretty self-evident, in the same way that its self-evident that I can be angry.
No thing is capable of producing any thing greater than itself. Five cannot come from three without an outside operator. So too the material universe cannot create love from emotionless matter and energy and if there is no outside Operator then nothing greater exists beyond what we sense: unloving particle-waves.
See above. Loving particle waves certainly exist as far as I can tell, so it would appear your argument is incorrect.
And the word "great" here, seems pretty ambiguous. The numbers analogy ("five cannot come from three") seems to use "great" as a measure of quantity. But its not at all clear that if we call love "greater" than material, that in that context it refers to an increase in quantity. It sounds like it means something else. I'm not sure what - perhaps you can clarify.
But, if we want to think of love and the universe as quantities, perhaps love is simply a smaller quantity hidden within the quantity of the material universe - and it only is visible when the quantity of the material universe is divided up in certain ways.
"Love" is merely a descriptor assigned by those who cannot apprehend or are scared by natural phenomenon. The same way primitive man conjured stories of angry spirits to be able to psychologically contend with volcanoes and hurricanes so too did he invent "love" to describe mating/parenting instincts.
If "love" is a descriptor that actually refers to something real (and its clear to me that it does), then it exists. Angry spirits, on the other hand, do not refer to anything real. So love is not like angry spirits in any way that I can see.
With such an understanding of the universe I defy anyone to prove otherwise without resorting to some "I think/believe/hope/have faith" statements.
Well, let me pose a question to you. What properties would existence need, in order for love to exist? Do you even think it is logically possible for something like love to exist, in some possible universe - a theist universe perhaps?
-
I think my experiences provides me good reason to think otherwise.
1. I am a cloud of condensed particle waves.
2. I can love
3. Therefore, condensed particles waves can love.
Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that we're more than that of which we're made. Even if a person could be broken down into a recipe of sorts what would be missing is the complex and unrecoverable history of interactions which formed and shaped that person in body and mind.
-
I don't know what a Pooka is but I haven't had any luck in getting Mr. Snugs to say if he is a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist. Perhaps you could get the information out of him.
Usually I'd recommend a rather humorous classic movie at this point, but your request inclines me otherwise. OTOH, if Mr. Snugs claimed to be a Pooka I might be inclined to believe him.
-
Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that we're more than that of which we're made. Even if a person could be broken down into a recipe of sorts what would be missing is the complex and unrecoverable history of interactions which formed and shaped that person in body and mind.
It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.
And what Wilbur is peddling is third rate Hinduism. If you were half as smart as you pretend you would have been able to recognize that fact.
-
It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.
What is unreasonable about it? Just declaring something as unreasonable is all well and good, but perhaps you can spell why you think so.
And what Wilbur is peddling is third rate Hinduism. If you were half as smart as you pretend you would have been able to recognize that fact.
Well, I haven't spent much time researching or learning about Hinduism, so I could not say. I will say that I do not believe anything I said is contradictory to atheism. That is, there is nothing logically contradictory about believing that the sketch of an argument in my post is true, and believing that atheism is true. Here too, you could be more constructive and actually follow up with actual points of disagreement, instead of a conversation killing declaration.
I should add that its not entirely clear what the overall aim of your challenge is supposed to be. You seem to waffle back and forth between conflicting ideas. Are you suggesting love does not exist, or that it does exist, but simply refers to some sort of unremarkable natural phenomena (presumably to facilitate reproduction)? If love is simply a mundane natural phenomena, are we then supposed to be rationally compelled to view it in some hyper-reductionist, nihilistic light? Why?
And what about my follow up question... what properties would existence need in order for love to exist - or to be something more than the nihilistic picture you paint of it? If love is nothing more than a certain type of condensed particle-wave, and is therefore meaningless, what would it need to be, in order to be meaningful?
-
Haha! I didn't figure out that Rubliw is Wilbur. I am slow.
-
It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.
And what Wilbur is peddling is third rate Hinduism. If you were half as smart as you pretend you would have been able to recognize that fact.
So, what are you? Theist, agnostic, or atheist? I'm starting to sense a reluctance on your part to answer that question.
-
Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that we're more than that of which we're made. Even if a person could be broken down into a recipe of sorts what would be missing is the complex and unrecoverable history of interactions which formed and shaped that person in body and mind.
Yea, I tend to agree. In contrast to what SB seems to be saying, it is possible for collections of particles to have properties that the individual particles do not have. So, even if love is not a property that an individual particle can have, its certainly possible that it is a property that certain arrangements of them could have.
-
What is unreasonable about it? Just declaring something as unreasonable is all well and good, but perhaps you can spell why you think so.
Well, I haven't spent much time researching or learning about Hinduism, so I could not say. I will say that I do not believe anything I said is contradictory to atheism. That is, there is nothing logically contradictory about believing that the sketch of an argument in my post is true, and believing that atheism is true. Here too, you could be more constructive and actually follow up with actual points of disagreement, instead of a conversation killing declaration.
I should add that its not entirely clear what the overall aim of your challenge is supposed to be. You seem to waffle back and forth between conflicting ideas. Are you suggesting love does not exist, or that it does exist, but simply refers to some sort of unremarkable natural phenomena (presumably to facilitate reproduction)? If love is simply a mundane natural phenomena, are we then supposed to be rationally compelled to view it in some hyper-reductionist, nihilistic light? Why?
And what about my follow up question... what properties would existence need in order for love to exist - or to be something more than the nihilistic picture you paint of it? If love is nothing more than a certain type of condensed particle-wave, and is therefore meaningless, what would it need to be, in order to be meaningful?
I can't tell if Mr. S is telling us what he believes or if he's telling us what he thinks materialists should believe or if he's just being pissy. The OP is a jumble... but I think that's by design.
-
What is unreasonable about it? Just declaring something as unreasonable is all well and good, but perhaps you can spell why you think so.
You're the one that claims love exists but no one can supply empirical evidence.
I already described how humanity is little more than bio-mechanical-chemical machinery and the elements those machines are built out of particle waves which are themselves unable possess emotions. This is true and cannot be disputed.
Your retort was to say, "I love, ergo love exists" but I already explained love is only a survival reflex. An organism that lacks an instinct/behavior/reflex to propagate will not propogate and die out. What you call "love" is only a biological accident that allows your species to breed and raise young. It's not love it's a function of the endocrine system.
Well, I haven't spent much time researching or learning about Hinduism, so I could not say. I will say that I do not believe anything I said is contradictory to atheism. That is, there is nothing logically contradictory about believing that the sketch of an argument in my post is true, and believing that atheism is true. Here too, you could be more constructive and actually follow up with actual points of disagreement, instead of a conversation killing declaration.
You and TNO want to make assertions devoid of any empirical observation and you deliberately mis-label natural phenomenon with fanciful terms.
I call it Hinduism but perhaps pantheism is the more accurate term. Pantheism is all = god. The universe is self existing and self-aware. Either by design or by accident that being is splintered into all other beings. As it experiences itself--or sheds its illusions--the lesser beings migrate back into the greater whole.
To claim humans can love is to say they come from a greater whole, formed from the stuff of the universe and that they can love other humans (more stuff from the same universe) and that this "love" is an innate attribute of the stuff that forms them and one day they will cease to be as "individuals" and the stuff from which they were composed will return to the greater quantity from which it came.
I should add that its not entirely clear what the overall aim of your challenge is supposed to be. You seem to waffle back and forth between conflicting ideas. Are you suggesting love does not exist, or that it does exist, but simply refers to some sort of unremarkable natural phenomena (presumably to facilitate reproduction)? If love is simply a mundane natural phenomena, are we then supposed to be rationally compelled to view it in some hyper-reductionist, nihilistic light? Why?
Yes, because that would be the plain, self-evident truth of the matter.
You forget the flip-side of your so-called life: death
It must be admitted that man is only a long series of accidents. The universe exists wholly by accident with no regard or intention for man's being. The universe would just as soon drop an asteroid on us as give us a pre-biotic soup. Rather than man being a product of love he is a product of death and misery as innumerable hordes of creatures died from starvation, disease, cataclysm, violent struggle and just plain dumb-assery. Man is an accident and transitory. No Thing wanted him, he is not guided by much beyond his stomach and penis working in tandem. Man exists in constant terror of death yet is fated to die. His cities will crumble. His painting will moulder. One day the earth shall wink away as the sun expands and even then the last star will flicker and die as the universe grinds itself into a lukewarm puddle of atomic mush. No Thing will mourn him, judge him, comfort him or even know he was ever here in the first place.
Just because nihilism upsets your fairy tale wish-thinking doesn't make it untrue...it just makes you an escapist.
And what about my follow up question... what properties would existence need in order for love to exist - or to be something more than the nihilistic picture you paint of it? If love is nothing more than a certain type of condensed particle-wave, and is therefore meaningless, what would it need to be, in order to be meaningful?
In a strictly naturalistic materialist universe?
Nothing. Get used to it.
The onus isn't on me to prove what COULD make love exist because I have already explained love doesn't exist, it is only a name ascribed to a phenomenon of the endocrine system just as "God's wrath" is assigned to explain natural phenomenon more properly labelled "earthquake in Haiti."
In contrast to what SB seems to be saying, it is possible for collections of particles to have properties that the individual particles do not have. So, even if love is not a property that an individual particle can have, its certainly possible that it is a property that certain arrangements of them could have.
No. No thing can create anything that is not first inherent in its own being. H20 = water and only water and can never equal anything other than water because the elements involved have no other potential. "Love" is not an instrinsic property of the material universe as is mass, valaence, etc.
-
So, what are you? Theist, agnostic, or atheist? I'm starting to sense a reluctance on your part to answer that question.
{the wind howls as a lone tumbleweed rolls past}
-
It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.
No, it's not wish thinking to say that a human being is more than that of which it's made. A human being can be described as a process which takes place in time and space, right? To suggest, as you have, that a human being is nothing more than the sum of it's parts is tantamount to taking a sort of snapshot of the process that is a human being.
-
{the wind howls as a lone tumbleweed rolls past}
I'm a nihilist.
Happy?
Now scientifically refute any point I've made.
No, it's not wish thinking to say that a human being is more than that of which it's made. A human being can be described as a process which takes place in time and space, right? To suggest, as you have, that a human being is nothing more than the sum of it's parts is tantamount to taking a sort of snapshot of the process that is a human being.
A process or an event?
A process leads to some end. An event is a thing that occurs. If there is some end to which human existence is working then please show us your facts and figures to support your assertion.
Humans live and die and from the beginning until the end and all points in between are purposeless. That is the sum of it.
-
I'm a nihilist.
Happy?
Not really. Do believe that the universe was a created by a god?
-
Not really. Do believe that the universe was a created by a god?
Not a gad. The God. The Lord of Hosts. King of Kings. etc etc etc. He also invented the martini.
-
It might be helpful to understand you better if state your premesis and conclusions in argument form, without all the cruft. But, I'll try to address the main themes in your post here.
Does love exist?
Yes. I'm perfectly happy to say that the term love refers to purely material processes involving the endorcrine system. I think it could be arguable that love also incorperates patterns of behavior that are independant of what your endocrine happens to be doing at the moment, but in either case - its all fits neatly inside materialism.
I'm also perfectly happy to acknowledge that many people do use the term love to refer to something that isnt real. So shame on them. I'm not doing that, however.
So to end this portion of the post on a note agreement, we do seem to both think that the term love refers to a material process, or in your words "a survival reflex". This is fine.
Can new properties arise that arent inherent in "the being" of its constitutients?
Of course they can, and it should be trivially self-evident. Forget love and emotion for a second. Can a single h2o molecule scratch its back? Of course it can't. They don't even have backs. Nonetheless, certain arrangements of mostly h2o molecules do have backs and can scratch them quite easily. There are at least two new properties gained there: a) a back, b) the ability to scratch it.
Can a single h2o molecule think? Not that we know of. Nonetheless, certain arrangements of mostly h2o molecules do think. Empirical fact.
Unless you can show otherwise, these counter-examples are fatal to the argument that properties of the whole must be "inherent in the being of its components". The matter that combines to form the systems we call people, has been here during the entire lifespan of the universe after all - and it certainly hasnt always had the same properties that people have.
As a matter of fact, the argument you have been presenting on this point is a clear-cut, text-book example of a fallacy of division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division).
Therefore Nihilism, Oh noes!?
As a point of agreement, I will concede that there is no ultimate cosmic purpose. No Thing (ie creator being) wants us, or created us. While there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos, purpose and meaning certainly exist, in localized prudential forms. In fact, unless you commit yourself to an infinite regress, there has to be a termination point for purpose, beyond which it is incoherent to require further purpose (same for meaning). Yet the question could be easily asked "What is its purpose?", and one would easily have to say "There is no purpose for this thing". That termination point, from where I sit, seems to be the mind of a sentient being.
Our minds conceive of and move with purpose. One might even say purpose, like back-scratching, is an emergent property of sentient systems. So its with no problem what-so-ever, that I say love is meaningful and filled with purpose, to me. Whether the cosmos agree's, well... I can't see why that even needs to enter into it.
To sum it up, one might say that minds exist for no purpose, but in existing, they certainly gain purpose and meaning.
Question: Can love exist in some possible universe?
I was not restricting you to materialism here. I was seeing if you think meaningful love can exist in any possible universe, a theistic one included. In part, this is simply to get a better idea of what exactly you think love is supposed to be. So how bout it?
-
You misapplied the fallacy of division and misused the anaology of H2O. H2O can be part of a system that has tactile and motor nerves to feel an itch and scratch it but the balance of that system is simply reacting to stimuli no matter how much it wants to say, "I lo-o-o-ove a good back-scratching."
Tell us: when a bear fights ferociously for her cubs is it "love" or an in-grained biological response to stimuli of a percieved threat to propagation?
-
You misapplied the fallacy of division and misused the anaology of H2O. H2O can be part of a system that has tactile and motor nerves to feel an itch and scratch it but the balance of that system is simply reacting to stimuli no matter how much it wants to say, "I lo-o-o-ove a good back-scratching."
But the whole (ie, the system of H20) has gained features (to feel and scratch an itch) that the individual molecule does not have. One argument you presented suggested clearly that individual particles would have too be able to love, in order for us to love. In other words, you did suggest that the properties of a whole must be contained in its individual parts (ie. the fallacy of division)
Tell us: when a bear fights ferociously for her cubs is it "love" or an in-grained biological response to stimuli of a percieved threat to propagation?
In the case of a bear, I think it might feel something not unlike love - though probably very different from us. I would also concede to full blown determinism, but I don't think anything I said is incompatible with it.
-
But the whole (ie, the system of H20) has gained features (to feel and scratch an itch) that the individual molecule does not have. One argument you presented suggested clearly that individual particles would have too be able to love, in order for us to love. In other words, you did suggest that the properties of a whole must be contained in its individual parts (ie. the fallacy of division)
Stimuli-response cycles are inherent in the parts. What the hell do you think chemistry is?
In the case of a bear, I think it might feel something not unlike love - though probably very different from us. I would also concede to full blown determinism, but I don't think anything I said is incompatible with it.
"Love"--if it existed--would be a choice. The biological urge to propagate is no different from hunger...do it or die off. Your parents had no more choice to "love" you than a domino has a choice to fall for the actions of the domino that preceded it.
-
Not a gad. The God. The Lord of Hosts. King of Kings. etc etc etc. He also invented the martini.
Oh, right. The creator of the true world and the apparent world. The one who I suspect Mr. S believes exists. :uhsure:
-
Oh, right. The creator of the true world and the apparent world. The one who I suspect Mr. S believes exists. :uhsure:
And, ironically, is responsible for your own free will...
[ref: apple in Eden for unwashed heritics]
-
And, ironically, is responsible for your own free will...
[ref: apple in Eden for unwashed heritics]
Sorry, sir...
...I cannot give TNO freewill, try as I might. I can only work with the materials given me.
-
Oh, right. The creator of the true world and the apparent world. The one who I suspect Mr. S believes exists. :uhsure:
Amazing how you can so arrogantly mock people for this kind of belief...yet you have a rock solid unshakeable belief in the unproven theories of man made global warming and evolution.
The very same person who thinks that any Christian is believing in mere fairy tales...believes in two giant ones himself.
Hypocrisy much?
-
Stimuli-response cycles are inherent in the parts. What the hell do you think chemistry is?
The nervous system may operate on chemistry, but as a system it can be described wholly apart from that chemistry, by the properties it exhibits as a system - just like you could describe the function of a watch and its gears totally apart from the chemistry of the material it was made from. One can begin to think of the system in terms of principles which are, admittedly, enabled by its chemistry at the very bottom, but otherwise many steps removed from it. But if you want to look at it your way, it really seems like it would be consistent with your line of thinking to say that subatomic particles can love, since the chemical processes that make it happen are facilitated by the properties of the particles involved.
"Love"--if it existed--would be a choice. The biological urge to propagate is no different from hunger...do it or die off. Your parents had no more choice to "love" you than a domino has a choice to fall for the actions of the domino that preceded it.
I'd have to know what you mean by choice, to comment further. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the choice that love requires is a type of libertarian free-will sort of choice (which might stipulate that a mind must be free from the causality of this universe), or if choice here has a more compatibalist meaning - or perhaps something else entirely. If its the former, I'd simply object to the idea that love - much less anything - requires such a concept to be coherent or meaningful.
-
"Love"--if it existed--would be a choice. The biological urge to propagate is no different from hunger...do it or die off. Your parents had no more choice to "love" you than a domino has a choice to fall for the actions of the domino that preceded it.
I do not agree, -----With humans love comes in all shapes and sizes.
First one must cut through all the different definitions of love, there is love of self, love of others, love of pets and love of children and or your new Sunday hat.
Being wildly in love is different then loving a parent or the love of the sea, or ones country.
One can fall in love and out of love in a heart beat. Hate is the direct opposite of love, it is difficult to fall out of Hate. Hate seldom morphs into love but love can become, if betrayed , into a self destructive element in ones life.
What causes what we call feelings in our life.? What about the people that lack the capacities to love their children or anyone but themselves.?
What is this thing called the 7 year itch that causes couples to question their commitment.?
Then there is the fact of life that has me stumped as to human nature. Couples that can be so in love and live together for 10-15 or more years, have children together then after all that time decide to get married. AH-----. why does the marriage last only 18 months to 2 years and then divorce.?
Mothers are suppose to bond with their children, some do some don't, some parents have a favorite child, if love is but a chemical reaction should not this be impossible.
Love is very selfish as we see everyday with people who have children and remarry someone that dislikes their child. 9 times out of 10 the parent with the child will place the sex object ahead of their own child.
So rather then ask about chemicals and the need to procreate, first we need to find out why we LIKE something or dislike it, then we can figure out about love.
Note: quote tags edited by moderator for clarity......
-
Amazing how you can so arrogantly mock people for this kind of belief...yet you have a rock solid unshakeable belief in the unproven theories of man made global warming and evolution.
The very same person who thinks that any Christian is believing in mere fairy tales...believes in two giant ones himself.
I'm not mocking anyone. I'm just voicing suspicions. I find it interesting that Mr. S, who seems to have a lot to say about atheists (none of it good), won't say whether he's a theist, agnostic, or atheist. Mr. S says he's a nihilist but that could mean any number of things. Don't get me wrong-- I really don't care about what Mr. S is or isn't. I just think that his posts would be more coherent if he would give us better idea of where he's coming from.
Hypocrisy much?
Sometimes.
-
I'm not mocking anyone. I'm just voicing suspicions. I find it interesting that Mr. S, who seems to have a lot to say about atheists (none of it good), won't say whether he's a theist, agnostic, or atheist. Mr. S says he's a nihilist but that could mean any number of things. Don't get me wrong-- I really don't care about what Mr. S is or isn't. I just think that his posts would be more coherent if he would give us better idea of where he's coming from.
Blatant lie #1
Sometimes.
Blatant lie #2
-
Blatant lie #1
Blatant lie #1.
Blatant lie #2
Blatant lie #2.
-
I'm not mocking anyone. I'm just voicing suspicions. I find it interesting that Mr. S, who seems to have a lot to say about atheists (none of it good), won't say whether he's a theist, agnostic, or atheist. Mr. S says he's a nihilist but that could mean any number of things. Don't get me wrong-- I really don't care about what Mr. S is or isn't. I just think that his posts would be more coherent if he would give us better idea of where he's coming from.
TRG is free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he was referring to how you mock christians, not me.
I've made my argument very clear but you have no answer so you play games. It's your TNO-MO
-
I've made my argument very clear but you have no answer so you play games. It's your TNO-MO
How is it a game to ask you whether you're a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist? It's a straightforward question.
-
How is it a game to ask you whether you're a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist? It's a straightforward question.
**** your deflections. God or not I do what I want without apology or alibi and this is why you are a lesser species not worthy of survival.
And just to demonstrate what a ****ing ignorant dumbass you are speaking out of your depth:
Nihilism = nothing
You cannot definitionally assign atheist, agnostic or theist (or deist or pantheist or whatever) because by definition:
IT
DOESN'T
****ING
MATTER
Got it, dumbass?
You might as well ask how many sides I have as a triangle.
Now back to you:
I asked you to empirically prove how love can exist.
I've also asked you to empirically prove morality exists.
The former extends from the latter because in the latter case all you could offer was some simpering nonsense about you and your family and how much they mean to you. I asked about the latter because you keep pontificating to us with your liberal dogma about what we and society ought or ought not be doing in the name of some fictitious greater good.
Others have asked you empirical proof for other issues from evolution, to origns of life to .
All you do is dance around the subject until you can think of some non-sequitor to ask in return then and when others refuse to answer because you yourself have not answered their queries you feign chagrin at not have your deflection answered.
My postualtion is you are a fraud. You do not endorse atheism because it has provided evidence for your convictions but because religion is wrecking your good time and smug--and wholly unfounded--sense of superiority. You like feeling smarter than people and that is because you are weak. As soon as you are challenged you run into the cloud banks to hide behind "I think/feel/believe/hope..." You should just stick a bone through your nose and sacrifice a virgin to keep the Great Dahr-Wyn from growing angry and destroying your village.
If you want to say there is no God but raise your middle finger to Him just in case He does exist have the ****ing stones to just do it and man up to it. But to climb on the internet to bully a bunch of people about their beliefs why claiming beliefs are irrelevant is the height of hypocrisy and self delusion. Atheism means "it all doesn't matter" but you keep saying it matters.
And **** you and your "I just like the debate" bullshit because you don't debate. I repeat: YOU PROVIDE NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BELIEVE
And you mock Christians?
I'm a nihilist. To see you beaten until you are a quivering ball that suddenly realizes the pointlessness and fragility of his own existence would tickle my electrons to no end. Call it "tough love."
-
**** your deflections. God or not I do what I want without apology or alibi and this is why you are a lesser species not worthy of survival.
And just to demonstrate what a ******* ignorant dumbass you are speaking out of your depth:
Nihilism = nothing
There are different forms of nihilism and I suspect that you're aware of that.
You cannot definitionally assign atheist, agnostic or theist (or deist or pantheist or whatever) because by definition:
IT
DOESN'T
*******
MATTER
Got it, dumbass?
You might as well ask how many sides I have as a triangle.
Wow! I'm not asking you about what you think matters or doesn't matter. I'm simply asking you if you believe a god exists. The question can be answered regardless of whether you think the answer matters or doesn't matter.
But don't torture yourself. If you don't want to answer then say so... but don't try to tell me you've answered.
-
Your concession is duly noted.
-
Your concession is duly noted.
Yes, I concede that it was silly of me to think that I could get you to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward way.
-
It cannot be more plainly stated. You seem to think I have some hidden agenda. Are you accusing me of being a christian nihilist?
What next? Creationist atheists?
:rotf:
Now stop with the non-sequitors and sack-up to the fact that you believe in fairy tales.
-
**** your deflections. God or not I do what I want without apology or alibi and this is why you are a lesser species not worthy of survival.
Worthy? Lesser? From whence do such value assessments flow for a "nihilist" such as yourself?
Atheism means "it all doesn't matter" but you keep saying it matters.
Quite a debatable point - hardly something to be assumed or accepted without an argument. With only a few exceptions, the notable atheist philosophers who would ascent to that proposition are very few and very far between.
There is nothing logically contradictory between atheism and things which preclude at least some forms of nihilism, like moral realism, relativism, and objectivism.
-
Worthy? Lesser? From whence do such value assessments flow for a "nihilist" such as yourself?
Mine.
Because I can.
Quite a debatable point - hardly something to be assumed or accepted without an argument. With only a few exceptions, the notable atheist philosophers who would ascent to that proposition are very few and very far between.
It's not my fault the planet is filled with escapist pussies.
There is nothing logically contradictory between atheism and things which preclude at least some forms of nihilism, like moral realism, relativism, and objectivism.
Put up or go fellate a jackhammer.
-
It cannot be more plainly stated. You seem to think I have some hidden agenda. Are you accusing me of being a christian nihilist?
I wouldn't be suprised even in the least to find out that you're some kind of a religious nihilist.
-
It's not my fault the planet is filled with escapist pussies.
Do you think Christians are escapist pussies?
-
Mine.
Because I can.
Apparently this type of nihilism involves the rejection of the law of non-contradiction - which kind of makes it self defeating.
It's not my fault the planet is filled with escapist pussies.
Interesting... considering your comments above. Everyone else, when they use value laden terms, is an escapist. You on the other hand, are just being a "man"... or whatever.
Put up or go fellate a jackhammer.
I'm probably not the best one to make the cases for those things, nor am I really that interested in doing so here. I'm merely pointing out that your nihilism is a fringe belief among atheist thinkers, and is controversial to say the least. So its perfectly fine for any atheist to reject those particular assertions of yours out of hand, unless you support them with argument.
-
I wouldn't be at all suprised to find out that you're some kind of a religious nihilist.
What we do know is you are a "professed" atheist who traffics in fairy tales and lacks the stones to support the spew he expects others to live by.
Do you think Christians are escapist pussies?
Some pussies profess to be christians but its the atheists that pretend morality/love/justice/purpose exist are little more than cowards. They claim to intellectually acknowledge mindless, purposeless reality but because they can't stomach the thought that mommy never really loved them they conjure phantoms...but then they ridicule others for having different phantoms. People of faith admit they are people of faith, it's the atheist faithists that are so grating.
=============================
Apparently this type of nihilism involves the rejection of the law of non-contradiction - which kind of makes it self defeating.
Allegation - evidence = fail
My reality ends when I end and nothing outside me can change that fact, ergo my desires are the only desires that matter.
Interesting... considering your comments above. Everyone else, when they use value laden terms, is an escapist. You on the other hand, are just being a "man"... or whatever.
Escapist is not a value. It is a strictly technical term. ***** describes your refusal to acknowledge the plainly obvious because of your weakness. There's no moral quality to it and once I end my concern for your escapist pussification ends with me.
Still, it tickles my electrons to see a couple of escapist pussies writhing beneath their own fantasies.
I'm probably not the best one to make the cases for those things, nor am I really that interested in doing so here. I'm merely pointing out that your nihilism is a fringe belief among atheist thinkers, and is controversial to say the least. So its perfectly fine for any atheist to reject those particular assertions of yours out of hand, unless you support them with argument.
Judging from what you and TNO bring to the fight both you idiots together couldn't make a good argument for hot soup on a cold day.
Seriously? argumentum ad populum is the best you can bring?
-
What we do know is you are a "professed" atheist who traffics in fairy tales and lacks the stones to support the spew he expects others to live by.
Hey, unlike you, I at least put my views up for consideration. You won't even say whether you believe or don't believe in a god. I'm not sure why you're being so cagey but if I had to guess I would say that you're either a closeted theist or you're afraid you'll alienate your political confederates by coming out as an atheist.
Some pussies profess to be christians but its the atheists that pretend morality/love/justice/purpose exist are little more than cowards. They claim to intellectually acknowledge mindless, purposeless reality but because they can't stomach the thought that mommy never really loved them they conjure phantoms...but then they ridicule others for having different phantoms. People of faith admit they are people of faith, it's the atheist faithists that are so grating.
People who admit that their religious beliefs are based on nothing more than faith are actually quite rare. Nearly all the theists I've argued with on the Internet have claimed that their religious beliefs are rooted in both faith and reason.
-
Hey, unlike you, I at least put my views up for consideration. You won't even say whether you believe or don't believe in a god. I'm not sure why you're being so cagey but if I had to guess I would say that you're either a closeted theist or you're afraid you'll alienate your political confederates by coming out as an atheist.
People who admit that their religious beliefs are based on nothing more than faith are actually quite rare. Nearly all the theists I've argued with on the Internet have claimed that their religious beliefs are rooted both in faith and reason.
hey, Dumbasses. Take this thread on love over to the fight club.
dumbasses.
-
hey, Dumbasses. Take this thread on love over to the fight club.
dumbasses.
It is not really at that point as yet......MSB came at it from an existentialist perspective, and it is still (pretty much) stayed on topic, except for the past few posts.
Nebulous as it is, guys, lets keep it between the fences......
doc
-
TRG is free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he was referring to how you mock christians, not me.
I've made my argument very clear but you have no answer so you play games. It's your TNO-MO
You're correct. I was talking about TNO's boring and boorish mocking of people of faith.
-
They claim to intellectually acknowledge mindless, purposeless reality but because they can't stomach the thought that mommy never really loved them they conjure phantoms...but then they ridicule others for having different phantoms.
:rotf: I'd compliment you for your consistency, but I'm not sure whether you, or I, really exist. :rotf: You take atheism-agnosticism to its logical conclusion. Reflections on having one's bicycle stolen can be interesting.
-
You're correct. I was talking about TNO's boring and boorish mocking of people of faith.
How is mocking religion any different from mocking say... liberalism?
-
How is mocking religion any different from mocking say... liberalism?
I suppose that if you broadly define "liberalism" as a religion, the answer would be.........none.......
doc
-
My reality ends when I end and nothing outside me can change that fact, ergo my desires are the only desires that matter.
I don't think there are any reasons for any action that arent essentially rooted in our own preferences, so we sort of agree. But this is not fundamentally changed by the existence of an afterlife, or the likely possibility that our lives are only temporary, as you seem to suggest. The fact that our reality ends, has nothing to do with it. If our reality continued on for all time, our desires would still remain the only good reason we have to do anything at all.
However, realizing that our own preferences are the only reasons for action that we have need not ential the amoral nihilism that you seem to adhere too. Unless one is a true sociopath, one's own preferences will always include some concern for the welfare of at least a few other people, and may even compel one to be altruistic, philanthropic, and even self-sacrificing - these things will tickle electrons, as you say.
Judging from what you and TNO bring to the fight both you idiots together couldn't make a good argument for hot soup on a cold day.
Seriously? argumentum ad populum is the best you can bring?
Actually, I've put up several pretty clear refutations of your arguments as formulated, and spilled several hundred words on a brief sketches of my positions on various things, including meaning under atheism - most of which has been met with total silence.
As it is, that particular bit wasnt an argument per se, but really just a wake up call, for one who seems to have begun and ended his entire philosophical enquiry with a couple paragraphs of Neitzsche. You are hardly the last or best word on what the logical conclusions of atheism are - as such, your overtly emotional rants about the materialist universe (ironic, given that you at times seem to claim such emotions do not exist) are not something I, or any atheist, must feel rationally compelled to accept. That is all.
-
No, you haven't refuted anything. You only said that since you love the universe must be capable of love.
But my premise is that what you mistakenly call love is a biological happenstance of evolution.
I am challenging the denialism in the first place. Re-asserting the denial is not a refutation.
You are hardly the last or best word on what the logical conclusions of atheism...
Nothing I have presented can be scientifically refuted. If you want to posit that the particle-waves that comprise all matter and energy in the universe are capable of producing effects greater than their intrisic characteristics than it is you that should show the observed evidence/formula/calaculations for such things.
To claim one is guided by science but then surrender to such non-sensical ideas as a universe of "love" or "morality" or "justice" is absurd on its face.
your overtly emotional rants about the materialist universe (ironic, given that you at times seem to claim such emotions do not exist) are not something I, or any atheist, must feel rationally compelled to accept.
I don't claim emotions do not exist. Psychological reactions to environmental stimuli do exist. Case in point a fight or flight response. But I do not call it cowardice, I call it fight or flight.
So too I call a "mother's love" what it really is: an evolutionary by-product for propagation. There is no romantic love, there is only a breeding instict. A child's love extends only so far as its dependency. "Charity" is a herd instinct. And so on.
You try to act all superior but then again you traffic in unsupported myths.
-
So too I call a "mother's love" what it really is: an evolutionary by-product for propagation. There is no romantic love, there is only a breeding instict. A child's love extends only so far as its dependency. "Charity" is a herd instinct. And so on.
But what about feelings of love that can not in no way be connected to propagation or breeding instinct? I have heard those two things used as excuses for philandering husbands time and again.
-
I don't claim emotions do not exist. Psychological reactions to environmental stimuli do exist. Case in point a fight or flight response. But I do not call it cowardice, I call it fight or flight.
Oh?
"His cowardice will speak volumes for him."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,33624.0/msg,355824.html
"Civilization was supposed to be a darwinian reflex to the need for survival and in it man grows accustomed to every vice: sloth, gluttony, cowardice, etc."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,14876.msg178753.html#msg178753
"All they are doing is displaying their cowardice with acts of feigned bravado."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,1607.0/msg,23566.html
-
Congratulations. You've uncovered my deep-seated rhetorial flourishes.
Now if only you had facts to--after nearly 5 pages--to actually contest the OP.
Coward.
-
Congratulations. You've uncovered my deep-seated rhetorial flourishes.
Now if only you had facts to--after nearly 5 pages--to actually contest the OP.
Coward.
I don't think I can top Wilbur but I can't resist challenges. So, here goes...
Earlier you made the following statement:
No thing can create anything that is not first inherent in its own being.
Untrue. Imagine a set of 2-sided triangles with no thickness. If the triangles are joined into a Möbius strip, they become a one-sided structure. That is, they become a structure with a property (one-sidedness) not found in any subset of triangles.
-
And if a frog had wings...
::)
-
But my premise is that what you mistakenly call love is a biological happenstance of evolution.
I am challenging the denialism in the first place. Re-asserting the denial is not a refutation.
I have offered my opinion, that regardless of whether love is a happenstance of evolution, and/or is strictly a material process involving the collision of atoms, and/or mere undulations of “condensed particle wavesâ€, it exists. By mere fact of being one of those things, it exists. To deny love exists then is to deny that such a material process exists. I have argued that despite its natural origins and original evolutionary utility, it has value and meaning.
At this point, you just really need to elucidate on what you think love, in its incoherent form, is supposed to mean. So far, all you have said on the matter is “If it were real it would involve choice†– pretty vague. Its pretty obvious to me, that what you keep complaining about, is simply not what I hold love to be. Your criticisms might hold true against some poet type with a wild imagination, but they simply don’t seem to apply to me. We agree that love, like every other trait of living things, is a material process or thing which came about through evolution and natural selection.
Nothing I have presented can be scientifically refuted. If you want to posit that the particle-waves that comprise all matter and energy in the universe are capable of producing effects greater than their intrisic characteristics than it is you that should show the observed evidence/formula/calaculations for such things.
Why is love “greater†than? Once again, you suspiciously smuggle in value judgments in your allegedly valueless worldview, where “greatness†must assuredly be right next to love in the fiction section. Note, that “greater†is not something I have used in my brief explanations of love – its not something I am arguing for.
And we’ve already agreed that love is some material process… in light of that fact, and by virtue of your reasoning, we must consider love an intrinsic property of matter. After all, it happens through chemistry, just like an itch or a nerve impulse.
That aside, I also provided several trivial counter-examples of of “condensed particle waves†which have properties that their individual components lack. Brains are not an intrinsic property of atoms. Telling time is not an intrinsic property of the atoms of a watch. These condensed particle waves have properties that atoms, quarks or gluons do not. Emergent properties (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/) exist.
To claim one is guided by science but then surrender to such non-sensical ideas as a universe of "love" or "morality" or "justice" is absurd on its face.
I have never claimed to be guided entirely by science. One must rely on intuition, philosophy, logic, reason, and rationality. Science hasn’t the capacity to go everywhere, and where it cannot go we have to rely on other tools.
-
At this point, you just really need to elucidate on what you think love, in its incoherent form, is supposed to mean. So far, all you have said on the matter is “If it were real it would involve choice†– pretty vague. Its pretty obvious to me, that what you keep complaining about, is simply not what I hold love to be. Your criticisms might hold true against some poet type with a wild imagination, but they simply don’t seem to apply to me. We agree that love, like every other trait of living things, is a material process or thing which came about through evolution and natural selection.
I have to say... who I thought of when I read the OP is William Shakespeare-- his star-crossed lovers and all that. Who I did not think of is Richard Dawkins.
-
I have never claimed to be guided entirely by science.
But others do.
One must rely on intuition, philosophy, logic, reason, and rationality.
And some unicorns and the tooth fairy and maybe an angel or two thrown in for good measure.
Science hasn’t the capacity to go everywhere, and where it cannot go we have to rely on other tools.
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. --Joooooooz 11:1
There's another one about motes and beams.
I'm trying to discern the difference between you boys and them christians. So far the only real difference I can find is:
* They subscribe to an extra-natural persona to account for the tides of history and unexplainable phenomenon.
In common the both of you feel the need to prosletyze but they are far less annoying because:
* it is consistent with their first assumptions and
* they at least offer a happy ending (not to be confused with the happy ending one can pay for at the corner of Colfax and Federal).
To date I have resisted their lures but you and TNO strain my electrons to such a degree I am compelled to report the occurrence as a headache to such a degree that I should throw in with them just to escape you.
-
* they at least offer a happy ending (not to be confused with the happy ending one can pay for at the corner of Colfax and Federal).
Theists claim that their gods offer a happy ending but no one in all of human history has been able to conjure a compelling vision of that happy ending.
-
Theists claim that their gods offer a happy ending but no one in all of human history has been able to conjure a compelling vision of that happy ending.
Yes, well, as we have learned on numerous occassions elsewhere you've never been able to conjure a compelling vision of the crap you peddle but that fact has yet to shut you up.
-
I was hoping you would get around to addressing the substance of my posts instead of more avoidance, but such is life. I suppose I can indulge another red-herring.
But others do.
Fine. But they arent me.
I'm trying to discern the difference between you boys and them christians.
So far the only real difference I can find is:
* They subscribe to an extra-natural persona to account for the tides of history and unexplainable phenomenon.
Well, let me help you discern. I reject Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and the Bible as the word of God divinely revealed. False prophet, false book, false religion. Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that the Bible is the Word of God divinely revealed, original sin, eternal life, and on and on and on. There's at least a *minor* difference there. I am sure of it.
If you don't discern it… well, thats a personal failure on your part, not mine. Though I suspect its less that you don't, and more that you won't - or haven't bothered to so inquire before jumping to conclusions. The fact is, legion amounts of doctrine separate them from me.
This is not to say the Bible or Christian doctrine is entirely without merit. There is some redeemable stuff in there. I certainly have many points of agreement with Christians too. I have nothing against having things in common with them at all. So it shouldn't be strange even if some of my beliefs are Christian-like, at least some of the time. They can believe good things too.
Now from what I can tell, it seems that you believe that the negation of nihilism is as good as assenting to Christian theism, or at least very close to it. I don't. Its very possible to coherently believe that your nihilist position is false or absurd, while also believing Christian theism is false or absurd. To go further, its also possible to coherently believe your nihilist position is false and absurd, while believing that naturalism is probably true.
I'll reiterate - I think its a good summary of my position to say that there is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose. That purpose and meaning is not contingent upon the length of our lives - be they short, or be they eternal. Its there in either case.
I also suspect that if one assents to some form of meaning and purpose for one of the two, one must then assent to the other. So, if one claims that purpose and meaning is somehow inherent in eternal life, they must also assent to the proposition that it exists in a temporary life too. You do seem to imply that eternal life would have some meaning and significance - so I think this shows your nihilism false.
In common the both of you feel the need to prosletyze
I do like to converse about and argue my beliefs, and the beliefs of others. Guilty. But apparently you do too (see this thread for exhibit A).
but they are far less annoying because:
* it is consistent with their first assumptions and
You haven't done your part in defending your arguments as to why my brief outline of love - or any other portion of my worldview - are inconsistent with my "first assumptions". I've offered what I think are compelling objections to your arguments. They must be, because you still avoid answering them. When you actually do, your answers seem to be little more than repetition of the points that I have rebutted. Other answers have included total silence, and accusations of "being Christian-like". And third-rate Hindu-like. And Pantheist-like. Any other theism you want to accuse me of?
* they at least offer a happy ending (not to be confused with the happy ending one can pay for at the corner of Colfax and Federal).
They offer a false ending.
To date I have resisted their lures but you and TNO strain my electrons to such a degree I am compelled to report the occurrence as a headache to such a degree that I should throw in with them just to escape you.
It should be easy for you, because from what I can tell there is really only one point of disagreement you have with them: the existence of God. Get that out of the way, and I bet you'll be right at home. You dutifully play the part of the despairing nihilist of backyard Christian apologetics like such a virtuoso, that your whole persona really has a greasy feel like there is some apologist feverishly pulling the strings behind the scenes, in the throes of some bad character acting. Take that how you like.. doesn't matter anyway, right?
-
Fine. But they arent me.
I never was referring to you.
Kinda full of yourself, aren't you?
...there is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose...
:jerkit:
What tripe.
And yes, I like christians better than I like you and in that I am unapologetic.
-
Feel the love!
-
What tripe.
Nice argument.....
-
Nice argument.....
I concede there is no argument that can overcome your solipsism.
-
I concede there is no argument that can overcome your solipsism.
Solipsism is the idea that one can only be sure that one's own mind exists, and that therefore, the belief in the existence of external things is unjustified. I have not argued for solipsism at all, anywhere in this thread.
-
Solipsism is the idea that one can only be sure that one's own mind exists, and that therefore, the belief in the existence of external things is unjustified. I have not argued for solipsism at all, anywhere in this thread.
and I'm not that sure wilberrebliw has a brain.
-
Solipsism is the idea that one can only be sure that one's own mind exists, and that therefore, the belief in the existence of external things is unjustified. I have not argued for solipsism at all, anywhere in this thread.
"There is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose" is something that only exists in your head and in most everyone else's head your existence is pretty meaningless.
-
"There is no meaning and purpose that we exist, but in existing, we gain meaning and purpose" is something that only exists in your head
It exists in my head as a belief, yes. But more than that, I feel it is an empirical statement about the world. Even if there were no minds that presently held this belief, I maintain that it would still be probably true.
and in most everyone else's head your existence is pretty meaningless.
I can't presume to know the mental life inside 'most everyone else's head'. It could be that a majority of people would not say that my existence is meaningless.
-
It exists in my head as a belief, yes. But more than that, I feel it is an empirical statement about the world. Even if there were no minds that presently held this belief, I maintain that it would still be probably true.
Stop.talking.to.the unicorns.
Seriously. First you admit meaningfulness only a belief in your head but then you try to claim it is "more than that" only to tell us what you "feel."
Empiricism isn't a subjective feeling it is an objective observation. This thread's topic is about observable facts not whether of not pickle-peanut butter sandwhiches give you the tummy squishies.
-
Ah, the mood has struck again - I shall resume.
Stop.talking.to.the unicorns.
Seriously. First you admit meaningfulness only a belief in your head
I certainly didn't say "meaningfulness is only a belief inside my head", I also said it is an empirical fact about the world. "The sun is round" exists as a belief inside my head - it is also an empirical fact about the world. Roundness is a property of the sun, just like I would forward that meaning is a property of sentient minds. Other properties will include forms of love, intelligence, emotions and purpose.
You seem very eager pounce upon certain things and this might be causing you to jump to conclusions, perhaps where you shouldn't. I'm always happy to clarify my thoughts - you can be inquisitive without being accusatory and snide. One might be inclined to think thats all you have.
but then you try to claim it is "more than that" only to tell us what you "feel."
I claimed meaning was more than a belief inside my head. The "more" I was clearly referring too was not some ethereal, poetic sentiment, but that meaning is also an empirical fact about the world. More specifically, its an empirical fact about minds, just like intelligence is an empirical fact about minds.
Empiricism isn't a subjective feeling it is an objective observation. This thread's topic is about observable facts not whether of not pickle-peanut butter sandwhiches give you the tummy squishies.
I do hate to break the bad news - but all empirical beliefs come to us by way of subjective sensory experience. The set of all empirical beliefs you, me and everybody else hold, are facilitated entirely by subjective experience. So quite frankly, your demands in the OP that we can never use the terms "I feel"/"I believe", etc don't make a lick of sense - I'm only calling you on it now, because I used one of your silly trigger words. Not to mention, those terms are often used simply to indicate a level of uncertainty or open-mindedness - a willingness to debate or reconsider a belief - which is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, even when talking about what one currently believes to be empirically true.
Furthermore, the lines of reasoning you presented in your opening posts were almost entirely metaphysical in nature. Reasoning about the existence of things, based on inferences about abstract entities like numbers, was unequivocally NOT empirical, but actually an example of bonified metaphysical reasoning. This would be completely fine, of course - except for the fact that you seem hung up on empiricism, but seem entirely confused by what it is and why even your own arguments have not really been of that category (and therefore, don't even really meet the requirements you demand from others). So, let me be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of ontology, where one tries to use reason and logic to make inferences about the world, where empirical observation is not feasible. Its a pity you didnt realize you had joined the party sooner.
What empirical facts you do bring up, completely contradict one of your core arguments - that love does not exist. You contradict yourself quite clearly by stating that it does exist as an evolved trait to facilitate reproduction.
I think what you really want to argue is that since love is a material process which arose to drive reproduction, we should all have the same cynical emotional reaction to it (and the universe) that you do. If thats what you want to do, you have yet to make a clear argument in that regard, nor have you provided any good reasons as to why less cynical or even positive reactions to the evolved existence of love are unjustified.
-
I'm reminded of the 5 blind men feeling the elephant. One thought the body was a wall. Another thought the legs were tree trunks. Another thought the tail was a rope. The ears were thought to be palm fronds. The trunk was interpreted to be a snake.
It was still just a goddam elephant.
-
I'm reminded of the 5 blind men feeling the elephant. One thought the body was a wall. Another thought the legs were tree trunks. Another thought the tail was a rope. The ears were thought to be palm fronds. The trunk was interpreted to be a snake.
It was still just a goddam elephant.
Well, things do exist as they are, apart from our beliefs about them, yes. That idea has been and is essential to my view.
-
Well, things do exist as they are, apart from our beliefs about them, yes. That idea has been and is essential to my view.
Yes, right up until the point where you smuggle in unfounded declarations and parade them as facts.
I say, "love is a biochemical reaction" and you say, yes, but that biochemical reaction gives our lives higher meaning and then whine that to say otherwise makes one a sociopath.
The only chemical reaction of transcendent signifigance is beer.
-
Well, let me help you discern. I reject Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and the Bible as the word of God divinely revealed. False prophet, false book, false religion. Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that the Bible is the Word of God divinely revealed, original sin, eternal life, and on and on and on. There's at least a *minor* difference there. I am sure of it.
{apologies to Snuggle, but I just have to point out...} wilbur, you make it so obvious that you pride yourself on your intelligence, your knowledge, your rational outlook on life. You make all your decisions by looking at all the facts, and then choose logically. Yet here you make quite clear that you've made an eternal decision without ANY knowledge. You've taken the opinions of those that also have no knowledge and based your decision on those opinions instead of learning the basic facts about Christ before deciding. It's awfully hard to make intelligent, logical, rational decisions based on complete ignorance.
-
{apologies to Snuggle, but I just have to point out...} wilbur, you make it so obvious that you pride yourself on your intelligence, your knowledge, your rational outlook on life. You make all your decisions by looking at all the facts, and then choose logically. Yet here you make quite clear that you've made an eternal decision without ANY knowledge. You've taken the opinions of those that also have no knowledge and based your decision on those opinions instead of learning the basic facts about Christ before deciding. It's awfully hard to make intelligent, logical, rational decisions based on complete ignorance.
Well, MrsSmith - I understand the greater points of Christian theology much more than you would ever give me credit for, and I know many of the arguments for and against the existence of God and for and against the truth of Christianity VERY well - I've studied much of the best that contemporary Christian philosophy has to offer, thank you very much. And I really don't think there is any amount of expertise I could display on the topic that would get you to reverse your belief here.
But as you do, you presume to be able to peer inside my brain, and tell me whats in it. But you simply cannot know what facts I have looked at, or what knowledge I do have, besides what little slices of it I have chosen to discuss over the internet.
And also given the absolutely tremendous effort I have to expel in our dialogs just to try and carry you to a point where you can properly characterize my arguments (most of the time, it doesn't succeed) so that - finally - you might get to the level understanding that would allow you to raise relevant counterpoints, I can say quite confidently that most of the time - you simply fail to understand me. Then, true to your form, you generally proceed to call me ignorant for it. You still don't even understand my abortion arguments properly. I would think it was a problem with my communication skills, if it wasnt for the fact that dozens others, in other internet conversations I have, can get the gist of what I say just fine - on the same topics. The problem is you.
So, with all that in mind, your lectures really carry all the force of a wet noodle.
-
Yes, right up until the point where you smuggle in unfounded declarations and parade them as facts.
I say, "love is a biochemical reaction" and you say, yes, but that biochemical reaction gives our lives higher meaning
I never qualified meaning with the term "higher". In fact, I already conceded that there is no "higher" or ultimate meaning. The concept itself is incoherent - even if God existed and created us for His purposes, or even if we are in a Godless universe. Whatever one currently believes is the ultimate meaning, will remain so for only as long as no one thinks to ask, "Well, what is the meaning of that?".
So that leaves us with a couple options. One option might be to banish the term from our language entirely, but I hardly think its incoherency (only when coupled with qualifiers like "ultimate" or "higher") warrants something so rash. We might simply remove the qualifiers and look for something real that the term might possibly refer too.
I would say meaning arises, and refers to something real, when one the combination arises of sentience, a desire to act, and a compelling reason (or reasons) for that action. In that sense, an act becomes meaningful - and the fact that we all die and the universe will end in billions of years does not detract from that at all, nor would the possibility of immortality and an everlasting universe make it more meaningful somehow.
It doesnt make any sense to say that planet earth does not exist, because eventually it won't. So it is with meaning.
and then whine that to say otherwise makes one a sociopath.
Here is what I really said: "Unless one is a true sociopath, one's own preferences will always include some concern for the welfare of at least a few other people, and may even compel one to be altruistic, philanthropic, and even self-sacrificing - these things will tickle electrons, as you say."
I'm not quite sure how one can parse that sentence as, "If one denies ultimate meaning, one must be a sociopath". That's not what I said at all.
-
I would say meaning arises, and refers to something real, when one the combination arises of sentience, a desire to act, and a compelling reason (or reasons) for that action.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
You're not saying anything beyond
being + will + reason = meaning
That is a declarative statement, not an explanatory statement. It doesn't even rise to the level of descriptive because nothing explains HOW being + will = meaning.
It does nothing to explain WHAT that meaning is/should be.
Nor do you expolain the quality of meaning. Every person labelled as a tyrant assumes he has reasons for his actions. Even Hitler and emperor Tojo can be said to have loved their respective nations and their people and from that they reasoned as best they could the best course to make their nations and people prosper and they exercised their wills in accordance with their reasonings. So were their lives and loves meaningful?
Nor does it explain to WHOM the meaning belongs. There was a case in ancient Greece where an emancipated salve was murdered but as the salve was emanicipated there was no loss to her former master. Her parents were already dead and she had no husband or children. Since no one had suffered a loss except the girl herself and she was--obviously--no longer existent it was ruled that no crime had been committed.
If all meaning is doomed to end did it ever really mean anything at all? It seems to me that once the beholder of meaning ceases to be then any meaning held by that person ends with them.
WHEN does meaning begin and WHEN does it end? How about slaves and prisoners who are deprived of their ability to affect their wills? Does meaning exist if will is absent such as in the case of a mental defective be it congenital or accidental?
A "compelling reason" excludes about 95% of the world's population that simply exists by happenstance. This si such a lame descriptor one must wonder if you consider the elites of science, politics, art, law and philosophy as being the only ones worthy having their existence declared "meaningful".
Does the 12 year old Thai boy who is abducted, beaten, strung-out on opiates to secure his complaince then dressed as a girl to be peddled off to fat, rich STD-spreading whites have a meaningful existence? He has, after all, been denied both his will and any compelling reason for his being.
-
Well, MrsSmith - I understand the greater points of Christian theology much more than you would ever give me credit for, and I know many of the arguments for and against the existence of God and for and against the truth of Christianity VERY well - I've studied much of the best that contemporary Christian philosophy has to offer, thank you very much. And I really don't think there is any amount of expertise I could display on the topic that would get you to reverse your belief here.
But as you do, you presume to be able to peer inside my brain, and tell me whats in it. But you simply cannot know what facts I have looked at, or what knowledge I do have, besides what little slices of it I have chosen to discuss over the internet.
And also given the absolutely tremendous effort I have to expel in our dialogs just to try and carry you to a point where you can properly characterize my arguments (most of the time, it doesn't succeed) so that - finally - you might get to the level understanding that would allow you to raise relevant counterpoints, I can say quite confidently that most of the time - you simply fail to understand me. Then, true to your form, you generally proceed to call me ignorant for it. You still don't even understand my abortion arguments properly. I would think it was a problem with my communication skills, if it wasnt for the fact that dozens others, in other internet conversations I have, can get the gist of what I say just fine - on the same topics. The problem is you.
So, with all that in mind, your lectures really carry all the force of a wet noodle.
Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong. Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything. You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck. I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.
-
Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong. Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything. You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck. I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.
Wilber,
Do you want me to break out the Book of Common Prayer (1639) on your ass?
I'll do it. I swear I will.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fI2_flXqHsI/SwU6uU6soxI/AAAAAAAAAT0/PRHTll_Y4FE/s1600/Alan+Young+01.jpg)
-
Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong. Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything. You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck. I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.
To test your prospect I would hazard a guess that even someone as debased as I am could more accurately recite Christian doctrine than Charlotte the Spider's charity case here.
Wilber,
Do you want me to break out the Book of Common Prayer (1639) on your ass?
I'll do it. I swear I will.
I don't believe you have the stones to do it.
*poke-poke-poke*
-
Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong. Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything. You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck. I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.
If I claim the God of the OT is a moral monster for committing genocide, for example - this isn't because I am ignorant of or have failed to comprehend the theologies that attempt to explain how apparently evil actions can be good, when God does them. On the contrary - I understand the theologies, I can accurately represent them in an argument, and I also happen to disagree with them.
Or if I were to say that Christianity fails due to the evidential problem of evil, this isnt because I misunderstand or am ignorant of the theodicies that attempt to reconcile God with the existence of evil - its that I think they are implausible or incoherent, so I disagree with them. So on and so forth.
You - and the "several people" you speak of - constantly confuse this sort of disagreement with ignorance. It is not.
-
Evolution is built on genocide, it demands it and is powerless to stop it. Genocide is not right or wrong it is merely a fact, like helium, refraction and pi.
And since you reject the existence of God then your argument against genocide isn't with God (do you also argue with your unicorns?) it is with evolution.
-
Evolution is built on genocide, it demands it and is powerless to stop it. Genocide is not right or wrong it is merely a fact, like helium, refraction and pi.
And since you reject the existence of God then your argument against genocide isn't with God (do you also argue with your unicorns?) it is with evolution.
Of course my argument isn't with God - its with the religious folk who believe in him. And of course my argument isnt with evolution, because it cannot argue - it has no mind, and is therefore amoral.
-
Of course my argument isn't with God - its with the religious folk who believe in him. And of course my argument isnt with evolution, because it cannot argue - it has no mind, and is therefore amoral.
But you claim "the God of the OT is a moral monster for committing genocide" (not that you can define morally monstrous in materialist terms) but you argue in favor of a worldview predicated on genocide, i.e. you assert evolution born of naturalistic materialism is the proper worldview.
Christians can easily assert moral offenses as the precursors for a society's elimination. Evolution being mindless does not pick or choose according to moral precept only brute survivalism.
Now seeing as the underlying assumption is: there is no God, then we must assert the destruction of the Hittites or other societies by the Israelites is merely one population group competing with another for limited resources and Darwin told the Hittites to go **** themselves. Therefore, your complaint isn't about genocide but rather genocide cloaked in religious unction.
I find that to be an odd complaint because it doesn't really matter if we kill each other over the only potable water well in a 5 mile radius or because some guy told us he heard voices the dead guy in the conversation is still dead (and it's not like the Hittites weren't listening to their own disembodied voices).
-
But you claim "the God of the OT is a moral monster for committing genocide" (not that you can define morally monstrous in materialist terms) but you argue in favor of a worldview predicated on genocide, i.e. you assert evolution born of naturalistic materialism is the proper worldview.
Christians can easily assert moral offenses as the precursors for a society's elimination. Evolution being mindless does not pick or choose according to moral precept only brute survivalism.
Now seeing as the underlying assumption is: there is no God, then we must assert the destruction of the Hittites or other societies by the Israelites is merely one population group competing with another for limited resources and Darwin told the Hittites to go **** themselves. Therefore, your complaint isn't about genocide but rather genocide cloaked in religious unction.
I find that to be an odd complaint because it doesn't really matter if we kill each other over the only potable water well in a 5 mile radius or because some guy told us he heard voices the dead guy in the conversation is still dead (and it's not like the Hittites weren't listening to their own disembodied voices).
The God - as portrayed in the OT - is a mindful being who acts deliberately. The Israelites are beings who act deliberately. Evolution cannot act deliberately, so this whole objection really makes little sense. There's no contradiction condemning or praising deliberate agents for their deliberate acts, while believing things like evolution are true. To suggest so is clearly absurd.
-
The God - as portrayed in the OT - is a mindful being who acts deliberately. The Israelites are beings who act deliberately. Evolution cannot act deliberately, so this whole objection really makes little sense. There's no contradiction condemning or praising deliberate agents for their deliberate acts, while believing things like evolution are true. To suggest so is clearly absurd.
You said genocide was morally monstrous.
-
You said genocide was morally monstrous.
Genocide generally implies a deliberate act, on the part of a being or beings who can act deliberately. If it doesnt have that component, I don't think genocide would be the right word - epidemic, or pandemic, maybe. And I think I said God was the moral monster, for committing genocide, to boot.
-
Genocide generally implies a deliberate act, on the part of a being or beings who can act deliberately. If it doesnt have that component, I don't think genocide would be the right word - epidemic, or pandemic, maybe. And I think I said God was the moral monster, for committing genocide, to boot.
Well, since God doesn't figure into this equation then your charge of genocide can only apply to the population group acting out the extermination of another population group.
If man is the product of evolution and evolution--as a matter of routine in its own defintion--displaces one population group with another I fail to see what your complaint is. You act as if humans--who are merely a certain sort of animal but animal nonetheless--reach a certain level of self-awareness and are suddenly to stop being products of the very processes that created them in the first place. Where is THAT written?
-
Well, since God doesn't figure into this equation then your charge of genocide can only apply to the population group acting out the extermination of another population group.
God may not exist, but we can talk about his actions as a fictional character. People who believe in Him hold Him up to the moral standard. So its perfectly relevant, and important, to criticize the actions of this character. So God really does enter into it, when condemning the things that he has done, in books about him - even though He does not exist. Whats so difficult to understand about that?
If man is the product of evolution and evolution--as a matter of routine in its own defintion--displaces one population group with another I fail to see what your complaint is. You act as if humans--who are merely a certain sort of animal but animal nonetheless--reach a certain level of self-awareness and are suddenly to stop being products of the very processes that created them in the first place. Where is THAT written?
Just because we evolved and can observe natural selection, nothing compels us, nor gets us off the hook for committing atrocity. It does not compel us to speed along natural selection, or to become its "agent" by actively "encouraging it". Nor is it even correct to say that displacing populations by way of genocide is the proper way to actually "be the product of the process that created us", if that's what one wants to do. If you want to argue that, give it a shot - but I don't see it working.
Its pretty widely regarded that genetic diversity is one of the most important factors that contributes to a populations fitness. So genocide - along with the unrest, instability, insecurity and discord it would create - really isnt any kind of way to "be the product of the process that created us". It will generally put the population at risk - not carve out a new superspecies.
One stunningly obvious reason to condemn genocide, is that it makes the world a pretty miserable place to live. Also, allowing genocide as a policy puts ME, and YOU at risk - so even if you cannot muster an ounce of regard for others, it makes sense to condemn it for self serving reasons. One might even be able to say that avoiding misery is one way to "be the product of the process that created us".
And yes - we generally should start doing things differently, as we gain self-awareness. Once a being has the capacity to think and act rationally, he ought to do so, because it will be in his own self-interest. Genocides generally arent rational. If one can think of a couple rational arguments to engage in genocide, there are still more powerful and rationally compelling arguments against it.
-
God may not exist, but we can talk about his actions as a fictional character. People who believe in Him hold Him up to the moral standard. So its perfectly relevant, and important, to criticize the actions of this character. So God really does enter into it, when condemning the things that he has done, in books about him - even though He does not exist. Whats so difficult to understand about that?
I'm dealing in existential fact at the moment.
Speaking of which:
Just because we evolved and can observe natural selection, nothing compels us, nor gets us off the hook for committing atrocity. It does not compel us to speed along natural selection, or to become its "agent" by actively "encouraging it". Nor is it even correct to say that displacing populations by way of genocide is the proper way to actually "be the product of the process that created us", if that's what one wants to do. If you want to argue that, give it a shot - but I don't see it working.
Nothing compels it but nothing forbids it either.
Its pretty widely regarded that genetic diversity is one of the most important factors that contributes to a populations fitness. So genocide - along with the unrest, instability, insecurity and discord it would create - really isnt any kind of way to "be the product of the process that created us". It will generally put the population at risk - not carve out a new superspecies.
This is you just babbling in circles. To say we must mourn the extinct because our own survival depends upon it ignores the fact that we DID survive and they did not.
You also claim genocide creates instability and unrest.
Nonsense. If anything it resolves such things.
Athens could not survive forever alongside Sparta, nor Rome alongside Carthage. Their mutual tumults dragged on for decades and it wasn't until one was defeated that the other was able to continue less troubled.
Would you have permitted an entrenched Nazi regime simply for the sake of bio-diversity?
One stunningly obvious reason to condemn genocide, is that it makes the world a pretty miserable place to live. Also, allowing genocide as a policy puts ME, and YOU at risk - so even if you cannot muster an ounce of regard for others, it makes sense to condemn it for self serving reasons. One might even be able to say that avoiding misery is one way to "be the product of the process that created us".
In the eyes of eternity we are already dead.
And yes - we generally should start doing things differently, as we gain self-awareness. Once a being has the capacity to think and act rationally, he ought to do so, because it will be in his own self-interest. Genocides generally arent rational. If one can think of a couple rational arguments to engage in genocide, there are still more powerful and rationally compelling arguments against it.
Says who? The unicorns?