Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
PureX
Well-known member
Well, maybe if we had a time machine ... but even then ... let me put it this way; if God stood right in front of me, I would be truly amazed, and in that moment I would probably be convinced that it was God. Yet if God stood there very long, it would soon occur to me to look for some wires, or pulleys, or smoke machines and mirrors. And even if I couldn't see any, the thought would cross my mind that I might be having an elaborate hallucination of some kind. In the end, there really wouldn't be any way that I could be completely certain that what I saw was God, no matter what God looked like, said, or did.
I do not have the capacity for absolute certainty. And as a result, all I can do is go with what seems the most probable explanation for what I experience. Jesus probably was not God, and very likely did not resurrect from being dead. This is all I can say about it. Fortunately for me, the value I see in the story of Christ's life and death does not rest on the historical accuracy of the story.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....
This is a very rude vision on the material reality. You don't take into account that it's not just the molecules or atoms that count, but the way they are interrelated, connected, the patterns they form, and the way they interact with outside matter, and also their material history.
This kind of rude vision just showsm you have a too simple and too narrow vision on matter.
A star is fundamentally different from a human body.
The Gods of the past were human inventions, because humans did not understand how nature worked.
If you don't KNOW how something works, you are required to BELIEVE in something.
This more or less coincides with how our brain works, and the way how our "logic" is wired. We don't have a two-fold logic (false, true) but a more diversed kind of logic, which can also have values like "almost".
Sometimes we need to react to instances, like for instance danger, based on insufficient data. But we have to react, so we make assumptions.
For early manhood it's quite understandable we invented deities.
For present the day world, it is understandable we could and should go without deities, and understand the world at the basis how it works and what the world is like.
What we don't know, we are able of investigating, researching.
Outside of the human mind, "meaning" does not exist. The universe is quite meaningfull to us, cause it provides us the possibilitie to live, to reach happiness and satisfaction, etc.
Why do you think the universe is meaningless? Is your life miserable?
Of course we should care about evolution, because it's our history!
According to us, we are not "arbitrary by-products" of the material processes and history of the universe, we might even look at it as us being the most important goal of evolution, being the most evolved species that exist!
The point you miss is that, if you look deep inside yourself, the fact that you live is a positive fact. Despite any misery you may have lived through.
I take this, as that is how you look on yourself!
It's the personal meaning you give to your live, and your environment.
There is however no "meaning" outside of our human reasoning. The meaning of something, is the meaning we give to it.
We, as humans, can set our own values.
If you think your life is not meaningfull, then go live a miserable life, then that is your truth.
If you think your life has meaning, then go live a meaningfull life, and that is then your truth.
There is noone else but you deciding upon that!
You are just showing a PERSPECTIVE on life. The perspective is however not something that is there in an objective way, but is subjective. Your perspective is what you choose yourself.
If you think you need a God, to make your life meaningfull, I nor anybody else should stop you in believing that. If it makes you happy, if it makes your life meaningfull, then it's probably good for you!
But neither stop anyone else from having their own perspective on life.
There is no "inherent" meaning to life. Meaning of your life is what you make of it. Apart from that, evoultion is not just total randomness, nor is anything else. Your whole outlook on the material reality, is very confused and does not fit reality. But that is YOUR perspective on it.
And as a remark, you give a meaning to the world outlook of atheism, which isn't true. But it's your vision of what atheism is, and because of that perspective, this is why you are a theist.
But that is just great, cause you probably say to yourself, your life has to have meaning, and if you need a God for that to reach that, then that is fine.
Who should criticize that?
However, please understand that your vision of atheism does not coincide with how an atheist looks at reality. As if they would not want to find meaning in their life.
Quite right. But we don't need this eternal deity, as a "creator" for the universe, cause the universe itself is eternal.
If you can't recognize that, then why do you recognize that a God is eternal?
There is logic, and there is values, and emotions. Again, you just show a too narrow vision on reality, as if just logic would count.
Maybe it is not logic to feel happy, but it does not stop me from feeling happy.
Quite possibly that is the reason humans invented a deity.
But the situation after so many thousands of history has changed a bit, wouldn't you think?
I think the way you use "arbitrary" conflicts with the fact that our lives do have meaning. It's the meaning to live, we build ourselve.
I just showed that even when not believing in any God, human lives do have meaning. If you think you can't go without believing in a God, then perhaps you just must prolongue this religious addiction, but reality shows you that people can be quite happy, and live meaningfull lives without a self-created deity.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....
This is a very rude vision on the material reality. You don't take into account that it's not just the molecules or atoms that count, but the way they are interrelated, connected, the patterns they form, and the way they interact with outside matter, and also their material history.
This kind of rude vision just showsm you have a too simple and too narrow vision on matter.
A star is fundamentally different from a human body.
The Gods of the past were human inventions, because humans did not understand how nature worked.
If you don't KNOW how something works, you are required to BELIEVE in something.
This more or less coincides with how our brain works, and the way how our "logic" is wired. We don't have a two-fold logic (false, true) but a more diversed kind of logic, which can also have values like "almost".
Sometimes we need to react to instances, like for instance danger, based on insufficient data. But we have to react, so we make assumptions.
For early manhood it's quite understandable we invented deities.
For present the day world, it is understandable we could and should go without deities, and understand the world at the basis how it works and what the world is like.
What we don't know, we are able of investigating, researching.
Outside of the human mind, "meaning" does not exist. The universe is quite meaningfull to us, cause it provides us the possibilitie to live, to reach happiness and satisfaction, etc.
Why do you think the universe is meaningless? Is your life miserable?
Of course we should care about evolution, because it's our history!
According to us, we are not "arbitrary by-products" of the material processes and history of the universe, we might even look at it as us being the most important goal of evolution, being the most evolved species that exist!
The point you miss is that, if you look deep inside yourself, the fact that you live is a positive fact. Despite any misery you may have lived through.
I take this, as that is how you look on yourself!
It's the personal meaning you give to your live, and your environment.
There is however no "meaning" outside of our human reasoning. The meaning of something, is the meaning we give to it.
We, as humans, can set our own values.
If you think your life is not meaningfull, then go live a miserable life, then that is your truth.
If you think your life has meaning, then go live a meaningfull life, and that is then your truth.
There is noone else but you deciding upon that!
You are just showing a PERSPECTIVE on life. The perspective is however not something that is there in an objective way, but is subjective. Your perspective is what you choose yourself.
If you think you need a God, to make your life meaningfull, I nor anybody else should stop you in believing that. If it makes you happy, if it makes your life meaningfull, then it's probably good for you!
But neither stop anyone else from having their own perspective on life.
There is no "inherent" meaning to life. Meaning of your life is what you make of it. Apart from that, evoultion is not just total randomness, nor is anything else. Your whole outlook on the material reality, is very confused and does not fit reality. But that is YOUR perspective on it.
And as a remark, you give a meaning to the world outlook of atheism, which isn't true. But it's your vision of what atheism is, and because of that perspective, this is why you are a theist.
But that is just great, cause you probably say to yourself, your life has to have meaning, and if you need a God for that to reach that, then that is fine.
Who should criticize that?
However, please understand that your vision of atheism does not coincide with how an atheist looks at reality. As if they would not want to find meaning in their life.
Quite right. But we don't need this eternal deity, as a "creator" for the universe, cause the universe itself is eternal.
If you can't recognize that, then why do you recognize that a God is eternal?
There is logic, and there is values, and emotions. Again, you just show a too narrow vision on reality, as if just logic would count.
Maybe it is not logic to feel happy, but it does not stop me from feeling happy.
Quite possibly that is the reason humans invented a deity.
But the situation after so many thousands of history has changed a bit, wouldn't you think?
I think the way you use "arbitrary" conflicts with the fact that our lives do have meaning. It's the meaning to live, we build ourselve.
I just showed that even when not believing in any God, human lives do have meaning. If you think you can't go without believing in a God, then perhaps you just must prolongue this religious addiction, but reality shows you that people can be quite happy, and live meaningfull lives without a self-created deity.
Last edited:
If I interpret this right, you claim to say that from knowledge we know there was a first cause?
This amazes me. Please tell me then, what was the first cause?
And maybe you can also tell us, since this "first cause", is also a "first effect" which is quite peculiar cause it doesn't have a cause, why at that very instant causality was broken. How can there be causality outside of causality itself?
Unless you admit that the "first cause" is nothing but the infinite causality chain, which then leads to the very conclusion, that there is no such thing as a "first cause".
And because as I stated, that is the case, and for our actual reality, we are never be able of measuring actual infinities, and both our observations in spatial and time extends, present us a horizon, we will never be able to know all of history throughout all of space and time.
We can make up ans answer and say "God did it", but in reality the answer is: we don't know.
We will always have a limited amount of knowledge, and won't have or acquire absolute knowledge.
Heusdens wrote:
According to Quantum Physics, and brain-on-wheels known as Stephen Hawking, the idea of a first cause is based on our limited perception of space and time. The very concept of time, as we experience, is due to our biology, and is extremely narrow. Prior to the rapid expansion of space-time following the Big Bang, time is irrelevent. So isn't the idea of a first cause. If we take the current physics into account, the beginning of the universe was due to pre-existing conditions, and those pre-existing conditions were due to other conditions which we cannot ever probe because the Big Bang blocks us. Go back to the big bang, and you hit a wall of spacetime that we cannot probe beyond.
Right-on!
According to Quantum Physics, and brain-on-wheels known as Stephen Hawking, the idea of a first cause is based on our limited perception of space and time. The very concept of time, as we experience, is due to our biology, and is extremely narrow. Prior to the rapid expansion of space-time following the Big Bang, time is irrelevent. So isn't the idea of a first cause. If we take the current physics into account, the beginning of the universe was due to pre-existing conditions, and those pre-existing conditions were due to other conditions which we cannot ever probe because the Big Bang blocks us. Go back to the big bang, and you hit a wall of spacetime that we cannot probe beyond.
I agree on this in sofar we can acknowledge the fact that our observation of space and time has a horizon, we can not get past.
It does however not indicate that we must assume that beyond that horizon, there is a plain "nothing" and a "first cause" therefore has to be assumed.
ALthough we might never know for certain, we can make pretty good guesses of how the universe would have looked like beyond the horizon. These aren't necessarily "wild guesses" cause we can model this pre-existing universe and make pretty good predictions of how it would have to look now, and have observations made that can exclude some of the models, and favour others.
PureX
Well-known member
I appreciate that there are minds like that of Steven Hawkins that can at least speculate on what existence might be like beyond or before our universe came into being. But for myself it's pretty much impossible to even come up with an idea or image. I can't really even grasp what energy is, and it's creating and sustaining everything in my universe, here and now.
I liked reading about string theory because it created such an elegant and simple image in my mind, and because it described energy as "oscillating strings" and it described the various essential particles as the result of different frequencies of oscillation, which appealed to the musician in me. Yes! the whole universe is a song! But even with the pretty image, that gnawing question of what these "strings" are made of, and where would they come from still remained.
Yet I have to admit that these questions I had are the result of my living in a universe of time and space. If the object of the question precedes even time and space, then question of it's cause becomes somewhat irrelevant, doesn't it?
The artist in me kind of enjoys this, though. Imagine a mystery so deep that we can't even formulate the QUESTION! *smile* Ya' gotta like that. Maybe a mystery that deep deserves to be called "God".
I liked reading about string theory because it created such an elegant and simple image in my mind, and because it described energy as "oscillating strings" and it described the various essential particles as the result of different frequencies of oscillation, which appealed to the musician in me. Yes! the whole universe is a song! But even with the pretty image, that gnawing question of what these "strings" are made of, and where would they come from still remained.
Yet I have to admit that these questions I had are the result of my living in a universe of time and space. If the object of the question precedes even time and space, then question of it's cause becomes somewhat irrelevant, doesn't it?
The artist in me kind of enjoys this, though. Imagine a mystery so deep that we can't even formulate the QUESTION! *smile* Ya' gotta like that. Maybe a mystery that deep deserves to be called "God".
Last edited:
Psycho Dave said,
Obviously, larger brains function on higher levels of order and complexity than smaller brains. And the space shuttle has more moving parts than my lawnmower. A fly is aware of its surroundings. A man is self-aware in his surroundings. In other words, if the fly’s brain was big enough, it would be self-conscious like a man. But there’s no way Dave can link higher levels of chemical activity in the brain to -- presto-chango! -- self-consciousness! Self-consciousness and a capacity for abstract thought and self-reflection could just as easily be an attribute unique to man for a reason or reasons other than brain size, not to mention that men of equal sized brains can be dumb as dirt or compose a sonata, in which case the “size” of the brain is irrelevant. Dave has arbitrarily assumed that brain size initiates self-consciousness. Proving that a man’s brain is more complex than a fly’s does not prove that self-awareness is the RESULT of brain activity. All it proves is that a man’s brain is more complex than a fly’s. How are we to distinguish between a rudimentary mechanical reflex to the environment -- a plant’s response to sunlight, or a fly startled by a sudden movement -- from a completely different sort of response called “self-awareness?” How many brain-cell cylinders are required before “self”-awareness kicks in? Whales have the largest brains on the planet, thus, by Dave’s reasoning, whales should be “smarter” and exist on a higher level of consciousness than man. If Dave could somehow “prove” that whales have a capacity for abstract thought and self-reflection, he would still need to establish a causative link between brain activity and self-consciousness. Dave’s hypothesis may account for man’s higher order of brute intelligence, but it does not explain why man is not an automaton, or more than an overgrown fly “reacting” to his environment.
Soulman
Plant life, like brain life, strives to survive, and interacts in self-directed ways to its surroundings. Dave is saying look, I raised my hand and the fly flew away, that proves it. Proves what? That flies react just like under-evolved men? He’s saying that the fly is aware enough, or “smart” enough, to avoid an obvious threat, therefore the fly is “conscious” like a man, just on a lower level. In other words, the fly is like a tiny man. A tiny man with a tiny brain, and stupid as a fly. It was just bad luck for the flies that flies failed to evolve into the earth’s dominant, biggest brained species. Maybe one day they will. In terms of relative levels of consciousness, a man could be described as a kind of giant, big-brained fly. Dave is saying that the fundamental difference between the “consciousness” level of humans and flies is that humans’ brains are firing on more cylinders. If that’s true, then obviously the solution to all our problems is bigger brains. Our brains are holding us back. What if we had a brain twice the size of the brain we have now, would we be twice as smart, or twice as self-aware? How high is high?
Obviously, larger brains function on higher levels of order and complexity than smaller brains. And the space shuttle has more moving parts than my lawnmower. A fly is aware of its surroundings. A man is self-aware in his surroundings. In other words, if the fly’s brain was big enough, it would be self-conscious like a man. But there’s no way Dave can link higher levels of chemical activity in the brain to -- presto-chango! -- self-consciousness! Self-consciousness and a capacity for abstract thought and self-reflection could just as easily be an attribute unique to man for a reason or reasons other than brain size, not to mention that men of equal sized brains can be dumb as dirt or compose a sonata, in which case the “size” of the brain is irrelevant. Dave has arbitrarily assumed that brain size initiates self-consciousness. Proving that a man’s brain is more complex than a fly’s does not prove that self-awareness is the RESULT of brain activity. All it proves is that a man’s brain is more complex than a fly’s. How are we to distinguish between a rudimentary mechanical reflex to the environment -- a plant’s response to sunlight, or a fly startled by a sudden movement -- from a completely different sort of response called “self-awareness?” How many brain-cell cylinders are required before “self”-awareness kicks in? Whales have the largest brains on the planet, thus, by Dave’s reasoning, whales should be “smarter” and exist on a higher level of consciousness than man. If Dave could somehow “prove” that whales have a capacity for abstract thought and self-reflection, he would still need to establish a causative link between brain activity and self-consciousness. Dave’s hypothesis may account for man’s higher order of brute intelligence, but it does not explain why man is not an automaton, or more than an overgrown fly “reacting” to his environment.
Soulman
Ahhh…so you are forming a paradox and applying it to atheists that claim there is no truth yet your paradox implies by their own admonishment of truth, their claim cannot be true.
This statement is myopic in scope.
Your statements make no distinction on the concept of "truth". You conveniently bundle the concept under a banner of absolutism. Absolute (or necessary) truth is what the atheists deny at the same time atheists do not deny the existence of contingent truths. Thus, my statement may not be absolute (as you so graciously pointed out) but there is a high probability that such a statement is contingently true in the majority of cases.
Are you absolutely sure about this statement?
It seems the security of the Christian position is only as secure as it's questionable interpretation of absolutism!!
This statement is myopic in scope.
Your statements make no distinction on the concept of "truth". You conveniently bundle the concept under a banner of absolutism. Absolute (or necessary) truth is what the atheists deny at the same time atheists do not deny the existence of contingent truths. Thus, my statement may not be absolute (as you so graciously pointed out) but there is a high probability that such a statement is contingently true in the majority of cases.
Are you absolutely sure about this statement?
It seems the security of the Christian position is only as secure as it's questionable interpretation of absolutism!!
PureX
Well-known member
Soulman,
Brain size does not directly equate to a brain's complexity. And even complexity doesn't always indicate the extent to which that complexity is used. However, I think it's safe to say that a brain the size of a fly's, no matter how complex or how fully utilized, will be insufficient to egual that of an average human. Size does matter.
Also, each life form on the planet is evolving to function within the specific biological niche it finds available to it. A life form like an elephant has evolved a large size, which includes a large brain, but it's survival is more dependant upon it's bulk than it's brain complexity. So even though the capacity is there, the need to fully develop it is not. So it does not get fully developed. Humans have evolved in such a way that our brain is our outstanding survival tool. So even though a human's brain is not the largest physically, it is by far the most fully utilized.
Dolphins have brains comparable in size and complexity to a human's brain, and they are in fact quite clever and complex animals. They have limited speech, they use tools, they have intricate social structures. But they are not nearly as challenged as humans have been in finding food, and they do not have hands that can built things like humans do. So even though our brains are similar in size and structure, the human brain has been more utilized in these areas and so has developed the ability for complex thought much more fully.
Also:
You posted that "Christianity has nothing to fear from a philosophy that admits it can’t know anything. It's hard to imagine a world-view more irrelevant than a world-view based on perpetual uncertainty."
It has a lot to fear if that world view is in fact closer to the truth. Also, no one here has posed a "philosophy that admits it can’t know anything". They have posed a philosophy that admits it can’t know anything for CERTAIN. Which is in fact the truth.
Brain size does not directly equate to a brain's complexity. And even complexity doesn't always indicate the extent to which that complexity is used. However, I think it's safe to say that a brain the size of a fly's, no matter how complex or how fully utilized, will be insufficient to egual that of an average human. Size does matter.
Also, each life form on the planet is evolving to function within the specific biological niche it finds available to it. A life form like an elephant has evolved a large size, which includes a large brain, but it's survival is more dependant upon it's bulk than it's brain complexity. So even though the capacity is there, the need to fully develop it is not. So it does not get fully developed. Humans have evolved in such a way that our brain is our outstanding survival tool. So even though a human's brain is not the largest physically, it is by far the most fully utilized.
Dolphins have brains comparable in size and complexity to a human's brain, and they are in fact quite clever and complex animals. They have limited speech, they use tools, they have intricate social structures. But they are not nearly as challenged as humans have been in finding food, and they do not have hands that can built things like humans do. So even though our brains are similar in size and structure, the human brain has been more utilized in these areas and so has developed the ability for complex thought much more fully.
Also:
You posted that "Christianity has nothing to fear from a philosophy that admits it can’t know anything. It's hard to imagine a world-view more irrelevant than a world-view based on perpetual uncertainty."
It has a lot to fear if that world view is in fact closer to the truth. Also, no one here has posed a "philosophy that admits it can’t know anything". They have posed a philosophy that admits it can’t know anything for CERTAIN. Which is in fact the truth.
Let's have some fun shall we? 
I pose this dilemma to Soulman yet anyone who wants to pose a challange can and is encouraged to do so:
Soulman,
I am basing this dilemma on the assumption that God does exist and that you believe in the Christian God, and that this God was the creator of everything in our universe. By everything I mean every concept, idea, emotion, physical entity…etc.
Now being the creator of everything means that everything was brought about by God's fiat. Therefore since everything was brought about by God arbitrary choice then everything cannot be an absolute independent of God's decree unless there is a standard of absolutism that is anterior to God and if this is the case God must be subject to this standard (and subsequently the creator of this standard).
Therefore, since God created the concept of everything this includes the human conceptualization of absolutism , so consequently , via his capriciousness, God could (probability is irrelevant) or has the ability - at any possible time- to render absolutism otherwise.
In conclusion the concept of absolutism itself is not absolute and is therefore an incoherent abstraction.
Likewise any of my above statements (being brought about by God) are not absolute thus they may as well be incoherent and useless.
The point is (If God is to exist) we simply don't know anything absolutely, we are at the mercy of God's fiat to know anything at all, yet interestingly enough our concept of God itself is subject to this innate incoherence………unless
1. as stated above: Such concept of "good and evil" and absolutism are anterior to God thus God becomes an irrelevant intermediary and can be dismissed as an omnipotent authority or--
2. God indeed does not exist thus the fiat does not exist, coincidentally the concept of absolutism dies with the concept of God and thus the horns of this deistic dilemma cease to impale mankind.
I pose this dilemma to Soulman yet anyone who wants to pose a challange can and is encouraged to do so:
Soulman,
I am basing this dilemma on the assumption that God does exist and that you believe in the Christian God, and that this God was the creator of everything in our universe. By everything I mean every concept, idea, emotion, physical entity…etc.
Now being the creator of everything means that everything was brought about by God's fiat. Therefore since everything was brought about by God arbitrary choice then everything cannot be an absolute independent of God's decree unless there is a standard of absolutism that is anterior to God and if this is the case God must be subject to this standard (and subsequently the creator of this standard).
Therefore, since God created the concept of everything this includes the human conceptualization of absolutism , so consequently , via his capriciousness, God could (probability is irrelevant) or has the ability - at any possible time- to render absolutism otherwise.
In conclusion the concept of absolutism itself is not absolute and is therefore an incoherent abstraction.
Likewise any of my above statements (being brought about by God) are not absolute thus they may as well be incoherent and useless.
The point is (If God is to exist) we simply don't know anything absolutely, we are at the mercy of God's fiat to know anything at all, yet interestingly enough our concept of God itself is subject to this innate incoherence………unless
1. as stated above: Such concept of "good and evil" and absolutism are anterior to God thus God becomes an irrelevant intermediary and can be dismissed as an omnipotent authority or--
2. God indeed does not exist thus the fiat does not exist, coincidentally the concept of absolutism dies with the concept of God and thus the horns of this deistic dilemma cease to impale mankind.
Last edited:
Flipper
New member
It all seems rather subjective though, doesn't it? I've felt those emotions standing on a high sea-side cliff in Galway, looking across at one of Ireland's great views. Was that a divine experience too?
See what I'm saying here?
This was written in 10th Century Persia. It was written by a Sufi called Nuri. Sufism, as you may be aware, is subsect of Islam that has a heavy mystical tradition. Is his experience as valid as yours?
See what I'm saying here?
This was written in 10th Century Persia. It was written by a Sufi called Nuri. Sufism, as you may be aware, is subsect of Islam that has a heavy mystical tradition. Is his experience as valid as yours?
Last edited:
Flipper
New member
Soulman:
I don't think that Dave was saying that at all, nor was he necessarily implying anything other than a general correlation between brain size and intelligence.
I think there's enough evidence to suggest that, like humans, some higher mammals are also self-aware. Brains, large or otherwise, are adapted to sensing and coordinating in ways that allow the animal to function effectively in its environment. Some functions require larger brains than others, like language or echolocation.
I don't think that Dave was saying that at all, nor was he necessarily implying anything other than a general correlation between brain size and intelligence.
I think there's enough evidence to suggest that, like humans, some higher mammals are also self-aware. Brains, large or otherwise, are adapted to sensing and coordinating in ways that allow the animal to function effectively in its environment. Some functions require larger brains than others, like language or echolocation.
Scrimshaw
New member
Psycho Dave,
Scrimshaw wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, if atheism is true, squashing people should no different than squashing ants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with whether or not people's belief in God stopped them from squashing people like insects. My statement above is regarding a logical basis for ABSTAINING from squashing people like insects. In other words, the theists (who morally oppose squashing people like insects) would have a logical basis for that moral, whereas the atheists do not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but if atheism was true, it certainly makes arguing and debating and caring about what other people think - futile and utterly pointless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're totally misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing against the fact that humans DO CARE, or even that their caring is "natural" for them. I am aruging, based on logic, that humans would have NO EMPIRICAL REASON FOR CARING. (Afterall, you worship at the alter of "empiricism", don't ya?) Humans would have no logical reason for caring because caring would be inherently pointless because nothing humans care about means a hill a beans. Everything that exists, including you and everything you care about would be nothing but the chance effect of a cosmic accident. Our limited, insignificant "frames of reference" would be no more meaningful than star dust.
My point is - if atheism is true, then there is no logical reason to care about our survival. Survival would be the vainties of vainties; the most futile endeavor a human could ever pursue since survival would be an impossible task to acheive. We never escape death. So what would the logical reason be for trying to accomplish a task (survive) that we *already know* can never be accomplished?? Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, we are cursed with the knowledge that we will one day die, regardless of our efforts, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Animals have ignorance as their excuse for vainly trying to survive. But what excuse would humans have? NONE.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I truly believed that atheism was true and believed that my pathetical speck of life was all I had before my existence would be terminated into the meaningless sea of eternity, I wouldn't waste one second of my life arguing or debating about anything, because if no God exists, then truth, lies, perception, thoughts, experiences - EVERYTHING would be relative and no one would have the right to tell anyone else how to think, live, or behave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I my LIFE would be a pathetic speck....and I was making that statement based on the hypothetical condition of atheism being true. Please "psychoanalyze" the context my statements. Thanks.
You couldn't be any more incorrect. I have not submitted any straw men whatsoever. I have simply taken atheism to it's logical conclusions. What atheists actually "believe" and what logical end atheism actually leads to - are two different things.
If atheism is true, what you "think" about your life is as meaningless as your very life itself. Your life would be nothing a the chance result of a cosmic accident. Any value you assign yourself would be just as "imaginary" as any of the gods you like to claim are "imaginary".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, what would be the point of arguing? Afterall, there would be no such thing as absolute truth; just a lot of relativistic opinions and none more "valuable" than any other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that "absolutely" true? Is there absolutely - no absolute truths?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine that you disagree, but what does it matter? You can disagree until you are blue in the face, but you have not proffered a single statement that resolved any my questions. If you are honest, you'd admit that atheism simply has no end game. It is a belief system that leads to total meaninglessness, relativism, futility, and absurdity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, atheism leads to meaningless. A meaningless thing is incapable of ascribing meaning to itself. Certainly, humans could make-believe they have meaning, but if our entire existence is the accidental by-product of a cosmic explosion, then our entire existence is completely arbitrary, pointless, and meaningless. Any make-believe meaning that you ascribe to yourself would not be real - only *imaginary*.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what "matters" to meaningless things (like humans) would be irrelevant because the things themselves are inherently meaningless. An inherently meaningless thing cannot assign meaning to itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are speaking out of two-sides of your mouth. Notice the last five words of your sentence - "even if there are NONE". Well guess what? If there ARE NONE, that means - there are NONE. Humans wouldn't have any meaning, and you admit this yourself while attempting to deny it. The fact that humans can think and analyze would only prove that they have the ability to play MAKE-BELIEVE and create an their own IMAGINARY meanings.
In my argument, when I say "meaning", I am not referring to imaginary meaning, but REAL meaning. Inherent meaning. If atheism is true, humans have no REAL or INHERENT meaning. Their existence would be as inherently arbitary as any moon rock randomly lying about on the lunar surface..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human life would have value? What "value"? OH!! You mean the *imaginary* value that you would arbitrarily assign to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant. Everything you just mentioned only exists as the random result of a cosmic accident. If atheism is true, it is only the result of freak accident that this solar system and planet exists with just the right conditions to support life. Thus, the very existence of - "genetically assigned components, socially-assigned components, and circumstantial components" - are also completely arbitrary; without any inherent meaning. If biological life itself is inherently meaningless, so would be any of the genetic behaviors that govern it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if humans have to create their own meaning out of thin air, how is that any different than creating the idea of God out of thin air? Indeed, if atheism is true, any meaning we assign to ourselves would be just as "imaginary" as any God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alas, my argument comes full circle and is proven valid by your very own statements.
My Argument: Atheists are ideological hypocrites because they claim that belief in God is not valid because God is "imaginary", yet, they believe in the "meaning" of their own lives; which they admit is *imaginary*. This conundrum that faces atheists is a prime example of logical self-contradiction and double standard, which are the primary signs of a flawed belief system.
Scrimshaw wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right, if atheism is true, squashing people should no different than squashing ants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with whether or not people's belief in God stopped them from squashing people like insects. My statement above is regarding a logical basis for ABSTAINING from squashing people like insects. In other words, the theists (who morally oppose squashing people like insects) would have a logical basis for that moral, whereas the atheists do not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but if atheism was true, it certainly makes arguing and debating and caring about what other people think - futile and utterly pointless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're totally misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing against the fact that humans DO CARE, or even that their caring is "natural" for them. I am aruging, based on logic, that humans would have NO EMPIRICAL REASON FOR CARING. (Afterall, you worship at the alter of "empiricism", don't ya?) Humans would have no logical reason for caring because caring would be inherently pointless because nothing humans care about means a hill a beans. Everything that exists, including you and everything you care about would be nothing but the chance effect of a cosmic accident. Our limited, insignificant "frames of reference" would be no more meaningful than star dust.
My point is - if atheism is true, then there is no logical reason to care about our survival. Survival would be the vainties of vainties; the most futile endeavor a human could ever pursue since survival would be an impossible task to acheive. We never escape death. So what would the logical reason be for trying to accomplish a task (survive) that we *already know* can never be accomplished?? Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, we are cursed with the knowledge that we will one day die, regardless of our efforts, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Animals have ignorance as their excuse for vainly trying to survive. But what excuse would humans have? NONE.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I truly believed that atheism was true and believed that my pathetical speck of life was all I had before my existence would be terminated into the meaningless sea of eternity, I wouldn't waste one second of my life arguing or debating about anything, because if no God exists, then truth, lies, perception, thoughts, experiences - EVERYTHING would be relative and no one would have the right to tell anyone else how to think, live, or behave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I my LIFE would be a pathetic speck....and I was making that statement based on the hypothetical condition of atheism being true. Please "psychoanalyze" the context my statements. Thanks.
You couldn't be any more incorrect. I have not submitted any straw men whatsoever. I have simply taken atheism to it's logical conclusions. What atheists actually "believe" and what logical end atheism actually leads to - are two different things.
If atheism is true, what you "think" about your life is as meaningless as your very life itself. Your life would be nothing a the chance result of a cosmic accident. Any value you assign yourself would be just as "imaginary" as any of the gods you like to claim are "imaginary".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, what would be the point of arguing? Afterall, there would be no such thing as absolute truth; just a lot of relativistic opinions and none more "valuable" than any other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that "absolutely" true? Is there absolutely - no absolute truths?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine that you disagree, but what does it matter? You can disagree until you are blue in the face, but you have not proffered a single statement that resolved any my questions. If you are honest, you'd admit that atheism simply has no end game. It is a belief system that leads to total meaninglessness, relativism, futility, and absurdity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, atheism leads to meaningless. A meaningless thing is incapable of ascribing meaning to itself. Certainly, humans could make-believe they have meaning, but if our entire existence is the accidental by-product of a cosmic explosion, then our entire existence is completely arbitrary, pointless, and meaningless. Any make-believe meaning that you ascribe to yourself would not be real - only *imaginary*.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what "matters" to meaningless things (like humans) would be irrelevant because the things themselves are inherently meaningless. An inherently meaningless thing cannot assign meaning to itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are speaking out of two-sides of your mouth. Notice the last five words of your sentence - "even if there are NONE". Well guess what? If there ARE NONE, that means - there are NONE. Humans wouldn't have any meaning, and you admit this yourself while attempting to deny it. The fact that humans can think and analyze would only prove that they have the ability to play MAKE-BELIEVE and create an their own IMAGINARY meanings.
In my argument, when I say "meaning", I am not referring to imaginary meaning, but REAL meaning. Inherent meaning. If atheism is true, humans have no REAL or INHERENT meaning. Their existence would be as inherently arbitary as any moon rock randomly lying about on the lunar surface..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human life would have value? What "value"? OH!! You mean the *imaginary* value that you would arbitrarily assign to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant. Everything you just mentioned only exists as the random result of a cosmic accident. If atheism is true, it is only the result of freak accident that this solar system and planet exists with just the right conditions to support life. Thus, the very existence of - "genetically assigned components, socially-assigned components, and circumstantial components" - are also completely arbitrary; without any inherent meaning. If biological life itself is inherently meaningless, so would be any of the genetic behaviors that govern it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if humans have to create their own meaning out of thin air, how is that any different than creating the idea of God out of thin air? Indeed, if atheism is true, any meaning we assign to ourselves would be just as "imaginary" as any God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alas, my argument comes full circle and is proven valid by your very own statements.
My Argument: Atheists are ideological hypocrites because they claim that belief in God is not valid because God is "imaginary", yet, they believe in the "meaning" of their own lives; which they admit is *imaginary*. This conundrum that faces atheists is a prime example of logical self-contradiction and double standard, which are the primary signs of a flawed belief system.
Last edited:
- Status