Conquer Club

Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby waauw on Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 pm

DY emotionally abuses his wife, because nobody can prove her emotions exist.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby DoomYoshi on Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:36 pm

waauw wrote:DY emotionally abuses his wife, because nobody can prove her emotions exist.


Ok, I've earlier established that things happen to either fate, fortune or free will.

If you don't believe in free will then everything is a combination of fate and fortune. If you don't believe in the will, then you don't actually have any beliefs at all. You only think you do and they are an illusion. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you believe and knowledge really is relative. So you may as well believe the thing that leads to joy - Christianity.

If you do believe in belief, then you believe in will and you believe in the supernatural (something inexplicable with current science). Since by believing in belief you admit the supernatural, you might as well pick the popular supernatural theory - Christianity.

Either way, all roads lead to Rome.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:05 am

DoomYoshi wrote:
waauw wrote:DY emotionally abuses his wife, because nobody can prove her emotions exist.


Ok, I've earlier established that things happen to either fate, fortune or free will.

If you don't believe in free will then everything is a combination of fate and fortune. If you don't believe in the will, then you don't actually have any beliefs at all.


Unlike a god, free will doesn't ask you to believe in it. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no way your opinion can influence the outcome, nor is there any way you can know for sure. It feels like you have free will, so you might as well act on it. If you really do have free will, then you're acting correctly. If it's an illusion, then you're acting the only way your delusions will permit you. Either way, the only rational and and reasonable way to act is as if free will exists. You can never know with certainty whether it is real or fake, and wasting your time on an impossible quest is just plain stupid.

Either way, all roads lead to Athens.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby mrswdk on Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm

Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

maybe not exactly the same.

Postby 2dimes on Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:56 pm

mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: maybe not exactly the same.

Postby waauw on Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:22 am

2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Symmetry on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:40 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
waauw wrote:DY emotionally abuses his wife, because nobody can prove her emotions exist.


Ok, I've earlier established that things happen to either fate, fortune or free will.

If you don't believe in free will then everything is a combination of fate and fortune. If you don't believe in the will, then you don't actually have any beliefs at all.


Unlike a god, free will doesn't ask you to believe in it. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no way your opinion can influence the outcome, nor is there any way you can know for sure. It feels like you have free will, so you might as well act on it. If you really do have free will, then you're acting correctly. If it's an illusion, then you're acting the only way your delusions will permit you. Either way, the only rational and and reasonable way to act is as if free will exists. You can never know with certainty whether it is real or fake, and wasting your time on an impossible quest is just plain stupid.

Either way, all roads lead to Athens.


What if you don't believe either way?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Postby 2dimes on Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:11 am

Symmetry wrote:
duk wrote:free will


What if you don't believe either way?

Neil Peart wrote:If you choose not to believe, you still have made a choice.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: maybe not exactly the same.

Postby mrswdk on Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:47 am

waauw wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: maybe not exactly the same.

Postby mookiemcgee on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:24 pm

mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.


Oh geez, I guess I attend different atheist meetings than you... We just talk about how insane organized religion is, and how it is the source of virtually all wars in history. And how it's funny how religious people are against abortion, but totally pro sending those babies to kill and be killed in holy wars against giant windmills.
User avatar
Brigadier mookiemcgee
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:33 pm
Location: Northern CA

Re: maybe not exactly the same.

Postby Dukasaur on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:31 pm

mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.


No, atheism requires you to think for yourself. There's no priest spoon-feeding you glib answers to all the questions on life's quizzes. You actually have to look inside yourself and see where your path lies.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Postby 2dimes on Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:46 pm

There's no such thing as atheists.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re:

Postby mookiemcgee on Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:07 pm

2dimes wrote:There's no such thing as atheists.


Heretic!
User avatar
Brigadier mookiemcgee
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:33 pm
Location: Northern CA

Re:

Postby Symmetry on Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:51 pm

2dimes wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
duk wrote:free will


What if you don't believe either way?

Neil Peart wrote:If you choose not to believe, you still have made a choice.


Maybe. Do you have a favourite Pokemon? Or an opinion on the latest production of the Bolshoi ballet? What's your take on String Theory?

Your point is taken, but it's a little trite, don't you think?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby DoomYoshi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:15 pm

Dukasaur wrote:Is the person happy, productive, and well integrated with the customs of his tribe? No? Then something is broken.


At best, this is a "might=right" philosophy and at worst it means that only serial killers who don't get caught are good.

Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
waauw wrote:DY emotionally abuses his wife, because nobody can prove her emotions exist.


Ok, I've earlier established that things happen to either fate, fortune or free will.

If you don't believe in free will then everything is a combination of fate and fortune. If you don't believe in the will, then you don't actually have any beliefs at all.


Unlike a god, free will doesn't ask you to believe in it. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no way your opinion can influence the outcome, nor is there any way you can know for sure. It feels like you have free will, so you might as well act on it. If you really do have free will, then you're acting correctly. If it's an illusion, then you're acting the only way your delusions will permit you. Either way, the only rational and and reasonable way to act is as if free will exists. You can never know with certainty whether it is real or fake, and wasting your time on an impossible quest is just plain stupid.

Either way, all roads lead to Athens.


Here you claim that whether or not the supernatural exists, one should act as if it does or be stupid. I don't understand why this discussion is still going on.

mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.

Exactly. Pure atheism doesn't allow for value statements of "that is good" or "that is bad". Atheists claim to be rational, but then found their arguments on irrational and subjective assumptions (the value of life for example has no grounds).
Dukasaur wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.


No, atheism requires you to think for yourself. There's no priest spoon-feeding you glib answers to all the questions on life's quizzes. You actually have to look inside yourself and see where your path lies.


This is precisely wrong. The amazing thing about theism is about how many different perspectives there are. Rather than being spoon-fed, one must rationally pick between dozens of alternative viewpoints and sometimes create new ones. In theism, one can have interesting moral quandaries that are shades of gray. In atheism, there is no morality (although atheists don't actually live like that, almost proving that they believe in God) so all moral questions are answered with "both choices are equally right or wrong".

In short, the most rational thing is genocide. The black plague of the 14th century allowed the economy of Europe to grow substantially and allowed upward mobility of the lower classes and the creation of a middle class. There are actually limited resources on the planet. As the poor keep breeding and the rapefugees keep invading, the middle class grows weaker and weaker. These are indisputable facts. Only something (like a Creator God) can give meaning to the lives of the poor and make serial killing not the best option.

If you don't believe me, follow your implicit assumptions all the way to the core. If you come to a conclusion that doesn't result in genocide being a good thing, then you made a mistake.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Dukasaur on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:14 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Is the person happy, productive, and well integrated with the customs of his tribe? No? Then something is broken.


At best, this is a "might=right" philosophy and at worst it means that only serial killers who don't get caught are good.


Are you stringing together random words here? How do you possibly draw such a bizarre conclusion?

Do serial killers increase happiness? No? Then they are not good, regardless of whether they are caught or not.

Do serial killers increase health? No? Then they are not good, regardless of whether they are caught or not.



DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
Unlike a god, free will doesn't ask you to believe in it. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no way your opinion can influence the outcome, nor is there any way you can know for sure. It feels like you have free will, so you might as well act on it. If you really do have free will, then you're acting correctly. If it's an illusion, then you're acting the only way your delusions will permit you. Either way, the only rational and and reasonable way to act is as if free will exists. You can never know with certainty whether it is real or fake, and wasting your time on an impossible quest is just plain stupid.


Here you claim that whether or not the supernatural exists, one should act as if it does or be stupid. I don't understand why this discussion is still going on.


Again, I can't help the feeling that you're just stringing random words together. In what possible bizarro world does the supernatural have anything to do with a logical question like that?


DoomYoshi wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.

Exactly. Pure atheism doesn't allow for value statements of "that is good" or "that is bad". Atheists claim to be rational, but then found their arguments on irrational and subjective assumptions (the value of life for example has no grounds).
Dukasaur wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
2dimes wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.


Which one is following a guy that taught adultery is still wrong but it was time to stop killing people with rocks for it?


atheism?


Atheism doesn't teach anything except how nothing means anything and people might as well just kill their babies.


No, atheism requires you to think for yourself. There's no priest spoon-feeding you glib answers to all the questions on life's quizzes. You actually have to look inside yourself and see where your path lies.


This is precisely wrong. The amazing thing about theism is about how many different perspectives there are. Rather than being spoon-fed, one must rationally pick between dozens of alternative viewpoints


No, you can't put "theism" and "rationally" together in any universe. Rational thought is thought based on real, tangible, quantifiable factors. Gods are imaginary beings. Their attributes are only limited by the creativity of the bullshit merchant selling their story. They do not pertain to anything real or quantifiable.


DoomYoshi wrote: and sometimes create new ones. In theism, one can have interesting moral quandaries that are shades of gray.

The real world is full of interesting moral quandaries. Sometimes they are shades of gray, in fact most of the time. Religion specializes in glib black-and-white fre-fab answers for people who are too lazy for nuanced thoughts. She's a witch? Burn her! She's an adultress? Stone her in the marketplace!

DoomYoshi wrote:In atheism, there is no morality (although atheists don't actually live like that, almost proving that they believe in God) so all moral questions are answered with "both choices are equally right or wrong".

Absolute total unadulterated 100% bullshit. Atheism is morality. As an atheist, at every action I have to think "Will this make my life better? Will this be beneficial to my people? Will this better the lives of other living things?" And of course, I constantly have to balance one against another. This benefits me but not my tribe, this benefits my tribe but not my family, this benefits my family but not the biosphere as a whole. I balance these things, and I have to live with the consequences. At all times I am concerned with the fate of living things. LIVING THINGS> L.I.V.I.n.G. THings. Not imaginary fucking sky fairies.

Ghost whisperers have no morality. Just judgement. Butcher 10,000 Philistines? Sure, no prob! If they had grovelled before Jehovah they'd still be alive! Drive every last fucking thing on the planet into extinction? Sure, no probs! God told Adam every living thing was his to exploit. If it pleases our whim to exterminate them all, we have God's blessing! Serving an imaginary being is perfect! You don't have to worry about the pain you inflict on the living! Look down on the suffering of others while you walk around patting yourself on the back for your holiness.

DoomYoshi wrote:In short, the most rational thing is genocide. The black plague of the 14th century allowed the economy of Europe to grow substantially and allowed upward mobility of the lower classes and the creation of a middle class. There are actually limited resources on the planet. As the poor keep breeding and the rapefugees keep invading, the middle class grows weaker and weaker. These are indisputable facts.

Absolute nonsense. Yes, there are limited resources, and overpopulation is the root of all problems. But genocide is a terrible cure. Beside the fact that it creates horrific suffering, it's a temporary solution at best. The only permanent solution to overpopulation is empowering people. People only breed like rabbits because they're caged in cities like rabbits. Once people have interesting and positive things to do with their lives, they realize that they don't want to screw it all up by having children. Only people who feel trapped have big families. Someone who has the freedom and the disposable income to go climb Kilimanjaro doesn't want to throw it all away and spend his days stuffing Pablum into a mewling brat.

The only permanent and humane solution to overpopulation is not genocide, but wealth. Free people from wage-slavery. Let the robots do the work. Let people listen to symphonies and climb Kilimanjaro. Luckily, we are very close to that, but your priests would have you throw it all away. The priestly class depends on humans to be suffering and desperate, so they need the priest to come forward and offer false hope. Always religion is at its strongest wherever suffering is maximized, and they do their best to keep it maximized.

The single worst thing that can happen to derail a person's life is an unplanned pregnancy, so the religionists fight against abortion. All those lonely desperate unwed mothers make great targets for having their souls saved. (Soul saved = being given false hope for future happiness when all real hope has failed.) This is the single biggest fight of 60 to 70% of the religions.




DoomYoshi wrote: Only something (like a Creator God) can give meaning to the lives of the poor and make serial killing not the best option.

If you don't believe me, follow your implicit assumptions all the way to the core. If you come to a conclusion that doesn't result in genocide being a good thing, then you made a mistake.


Who the f*ck do you think you're talking to? I was following my implicit assumptions all the way to the core when you were shitting in your diapers. I've tried to teach you, but you've chased after sky fairies. I can only hope that you will come back to sanity before too much of your life has been wasted.

Even if there was a god, all the evidence would show that he must be pure evil. The second law of thermodynamics proves this. If god was good, he would structure a universe so that beautiful things persist and evil things fade. In fact, the universe is the opposite. Entropy wins all battles. All beautiful things disintegrate, evil and chaos triumphs. Life ends, death is forever. Creation is difficult, destruction is easy. In every way the game is rigged against the beautiful and the living and in favour of the ugly and the dead.

So, even in the ludicrously unlikely event that there is a god, he's definitely the enemy of rational beings, not the friend.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby DoomYoshi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:51 pm

I suggest you read the entire post first since the arguments are spread out and need to be read in light of each other rather than as isolated units.

Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Is the person happy, productive, and well integrated with the customs of his tribe? No? Then something is broken.


At best, this is a "might=right" philosophy and at worst it means that only serial killers who don't get caught are good.


Are you stringing together random words here? How do you possibly draw such a bizarre conclusion?

Do serial killers increase happiness? No? Then they are not good, regardless of whether they are caught or not.

Do serial killers increase health? No? Then they are not good, regardless of whether they are caught or not.



If the customs of the tribe are that the weak should be persecuted, then it is a might=right philosophy. Rationalism results in killing others. According to your tests, integration with the customs of the tribe is important, so since the basic custom of the tribe is not killing others, to be truly rational and also integrated somebody must be a killer and not get caught.

DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
Unlike a god, free will doesn't ask you to believe in it. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no way your opinion can influence the outcome, nor is there any way you can know for sure. It feels like you have free will, so you might as well act on it. If you really do have free will, then you're acting correctly. If it's an illusion, then you're acting the only way your delusions will permit you. Either way, the only rational and and reasonable way to act is as if free will exists. You can never know with certainty whether it is real or fake, and wasting your time on an impossible quest is just plain stupid.


Here you claim that whether or not the supernatural exists, one should act as if it does or be stupid. I don't understand why this discussion is still going on.


Again, I can't help the feeling that you're just stringing random words together. In what possible bizarro world does the supernatural have anything to do with a logical question like that?



Free will must be supernatural because things happen according to one of 3 reasons: determinism (Natural), random (either natural or supernatural) or will (supernatural).
DoomYoshi wrote:
No, atheism requires you to think for yourself. There's no priest spoon-feeding you glib answers to all the questions on life's quizzes. You actually have to look inside yourself and see where your path lies.


This is precisely wrong. The amazing thing about theism is about how many different perspectives there are. Rather than being spoon-fed, one must rationally pick between dozens of alternative viewpoints


No, you can't put "theism" and "rationally" together in any universe. Rational thought is thought based on real, tangible, quantifiable factors. Gods are imaginary beings. Their attributes are only limited by the creativity of the bullshit merchant selling their story. They do not pertain to anything real or quantifiable.

I have yet to see an example of rational thought based on real, tangible or quantifiable factors. Even when people are shown the real, tangible and quantifiable factors, they retreat into denial.

DoomYoshi wrote: and sometimes create new ones. In theism, one can have interesting moral quandaries that are shades of gray.

The real world is full of interesting moral quandaries. Sometimes they are shades of gray, in fact most of the time. Religion specializes in glib black-and-white fre-fab answers for people who are too lazy for nuanced thoughts. She's a witch? Burn her! She's an adultress? Stone her in the marketplace!

DoomYoshi wrote:In atheism, there is no morality (although atheists don't actually live like that, almost proving that they believe in God) so all moral questions are answered with "both choices are equally right or wrong".

Absolute total unadulterated 100% bullshit. Atheism is morality. As an atheist, at every action I have to think "Will this make my life better? Will this be beneficial to my people? Will this better the lives of other living things?" And of course, I constantly have to balance one against another. This benefits me but not my tribe, this benefits my tribe but not my family, this benefits my family but not the biosphere as a whole. I balance these things, and I have to live with the consequences. At all times I am concerned with the fate of living things. LIVING THINGS> L.I.V.I.n.G. THings. Not imaginary fucking sky fairies.

"Will this make life better?" - Why does your life matter? The first example you chose is exactly the one that I already said is totally subjective and irrational.
"Will this be beneficial to my people?" - The things that made America great are slavery, genocide of the natives, exploitation of the poor, persecution of the minorities. These are the same things that are currently making Russia and China great. They are the same things that made Europe great and Rome before. You can deny that tribalism and othering go hand in hand, but I have yet to see any real or theoretical proof. At all points through history, an oppressive and centralized government results in a strong opponent for other nations. A divided and free society results in a weak opponent. What is good for the tribe does not lead to morality, as practiced.
"Will this better the lives of other living things?" - Why does this matter? According to the science of life (biology), the successful organism is the one that reproduces it's own genes. So now you are ignoring the very science that you earlier claimed your logic was based upon.

Ghost whisperers have no morality. Just judgement. Butcher 10,000 Philistines? Sure, no prob! If they had grovelled before Jehovah they'd still be alive! Drive every last fucking thing on the planet into extinction? Sure, no probs! God told Adam every living thing was his to exploit. If it pleases our whim to exterminate them all, we have God's blessing! Serving an imaginary being is perfect! You don't have to worry about the pain you inflict on the living! Look down on the suffering of others while you walk around patting yourself on the back for your holiness.

The issue here is tribalism. When a religion is viewed as a tribe, these things happen because the atheistic, tribe-based "morality" sinks in. People need to avoid using labels when describing themselves. Who am I? I am a man - that's a meaningless tribal definition. I am a Canadian - that's a meaningless tribal definition. I am a Green Bay Packers fan - that's a meaningless tribal definition. By looking at the world around you and defining yourself based on subjective human standards, the only definitions you can come up with are tribal ones. This is why it is handy to have an external measuring stick, to build an self-identity that uses no labels whatever. The tribal self-definition results in Kevin Spacey "I molest because I'm gay". The action "molest" could be considered an identity-label for Kevin Spacey, but that doesn't really tell us anything about him as a person or about molesters as a group. The title "gay" doesn't tell us anything about him as a person or about gays as a group. Are all gays molesters? One could argue that a person's self-identity is based on numerous, overlapping tribal identities that coalesce into a description of the person, but that's not how it works in practice. I have an identity by which I know myself, and identities by which I know others. For others I may start with flat character labels and then flesh them out as I know the person better, but that's not how I self-identify. Rather, I know who I am intrinsically, without any comparison to tribes or others.

DoomYoshi wrote:In short, the most rational thing is genocide. The black plague of the 14th century allowed the economy of Europe to grow substantially and allowed upward mobility of the lower classes and the creation of a middle class. There are actually limited resources on the planet. As the poor keep breeding and the rapefugees keep invading, the middle class grows weaker and weaker. These are indisputable facts.

Absolute nonsense. Yes, there are limited resources, and overpopulation is the root of all problems. But genocide is a terrible cure. Beside the fact that it creates horrific suffering, it's a temporary solution at best. The only permanent solution to overpopulation is empowering people. People only breed like rabbits because they're caged in cities like rabbits. Once people have interesting and positive things to do with their lives, they realize that they don't want to screw it all up by having children. Only people who feel trapped have big families. Someone who has the freedom and the disposable income to go climb Kilimanjaro doesn't want to throw it all away and spend his days stuffing Pablum into a mewling brat.

The only permanent and humane solution to overpopulation is not genocide, but wealth. Free people from wage-slavery. Let the robots do the work. Let people listen to symphonies and climb Kilimanjaro. Luckily, we are very close to that, but your priests would have you throw it all away. The priestly class depends on humans to be suffering and desperate, so they need the priest to come forward and offer false hope. Always religion is at its strongest wherever suffering is maximized, and they do their best to keep it maximized.

The single worst thing that can happen to derail a person's life is an unplanned pregnancy, so the religionists fight against abortion. All those lonely desperate unwed mothers make great targets for having their souls saved. (Soul saved = being given false hope for future happiness when all real hope has failed.) This is the single biggest fight of 60 to 70% of the religions.


Even if robots do all the work, since the flawed human mentality is comparative, there will be those who want more robots, or somebody else's robots, or to turn their fellow humans into robots. The "ideal" life in this concept is one where there is one immortal person who has exactly enough immortal people around him to provide companionship and entertainment with robots doing all the work. To get to this small population, once again genocide is required.

Since our tribes are getting larger and larger, the ability to lead is being selectively bred out of the human race. This will inevitably result in a world with very few shepherds and many sheep. People who have the internet can listen to symphonies. Instead they watch cat videos.

Having children is the entire point of life, scientifically, so once again you are proving that you are willing to totally ignore science in order to justify some irrational and subjective value system that you invented. Most biologists do this, especially those who have been poisoned by the ecologists. Conservation makes no sense for several reasons. A) Ecosystems are always in flux naturally, so trying to force your way upon the system to restore to some past point is misguided. B) If ecosystems are valued for their value to humans, yet killing humans is the best way to restore ecosystems, you enter a paradox. C) If ecosystems are valued for their own intrinsic value, and humans are part of that ecosystem, then the "destroyed-by-humans" should be valued as much.. If people didn't live in cities, the globe would be pretty close to ruined. If you build a house in a forest, you have just ruined that forest for several reasons. A) Now if a natural forest fire starts people will try to quash it so that the house isn't ruined. B) The road leading to the house will be the cause of roadkill. C) Anyone who wants to enjoy the forest will now have to look at your ugly house instead. D) You will probably kill the megafauna predators in the area as they threaten your families' life. People need to live in cities, because anything else is irresponsible, scientifically. Yet the very people who study and "love" nature are the ones who ruin it by constantly trying to be in it. As they do so, they spread wildlife diseases around the globe and further destroy the world.

Objectively, Genghis Khan was the greatest person who ever lived. Now you can counter that with subjective and imaginary things all you want, but you can never reconcile objectivity and morality.

DoomYoshi wrote: Only something (like a Creator God) can give meaning to the lives of the poor and make serial killing not the best option.

If you don't believe me, follow your implicit assumptions all the way to the core. If you come to a conclusion that doesn't result in genocide being a good thing, then you made a mistake.


Who the f*ck do you think you're talking to? I was following my implicit assumptions all the way to the core when you were shitting in your diapers. I've tried to teach you, but you've chased after sky fairies. I can only hope that you will come back to sanity before too much of your life has been wasted.

Even if there was a god, all the evidence would show that he must be pure evil. The second law of thermodynamics proves this. If god was good, he would structure a universe so that beautiful things persist and evil things fade. In fact, the universe is the opposite. Entropy wins all battles. All beautiful things disintegrate, evil and chaos triumphs. Life ends, death is forever. Creation is difficult, destruction is easy. In every way the game is rigged against the beautiful and the living and in favour of the ugly and the dead.

So, even in the ludicrously unlikely event that there is a god, he's definitely the enemy of rational beings, not the friend.

Just talking to anyone who will listen. All things in the material world do die. That is the point, not to rely on the world but rather on Jesus.

If you look a bit closer, you will see that I followed your earlier instructions exactly. I (like you) believe in irrational and supernatural things like "belief", "will", "value of life" and "morality". Rather than pretending to be rational, I realized that I am fundamentally irrational and found my entire worldview on these imaginary things. Then I adopted the customs of my tribe that seem best to lead to health and happiness - "Christianity". These are the very instructions you laid out in this thread, so I'm not so sure why that makes you upset.

How can one waste a life exactly? Certainly not through studying things that interest them?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:25 am

DoomYoshi wrote:I suggest you read the entire post first since the arguments are spread out and need to be read in light of each other rather than as isolated units.

Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Is the person happy, productive, and well integrated with the customs of his tribe? No? Then something is broken.


At best, this is a "might=right" philosophy and at worst it means that only serial killers who don't get caught are good.


Are you stringing together random words here? How do you possibly draw such a bizarre conclusion?

Do serial killers increase happiness? No? Then they are not good, regardless of whether they are caught or not.

Do serial killers increase health? No? Then they are not good, regardless of whether they are caught or not.



If the customs of the tribe are that the weak should be persecuted, then it is a might=right philosophy. Rationalism results in killing others. According to your tests, integration with the customs of the tribe is important, so since the basic custom of the tribe is not killing others, to be truly rational and also integrated somebody must be a killer and not get caught.

Always your downfall is this "all-or-nothing" bullshit.

Integration with the tribe is good, yes, but it is only one good among many.

The rational man has to weigh the many goods. What is good for himself. What is good for his family. What is good for his tribe. What is good for the biosphere in general. What is good for the progress of art. What is good for the progress of science. The rational man weighs and balances and struggles with these issues and sometimes has to face the fact that in many cases there is no right answer. Sometimes all the available choices are bad.

The religious man doesn't have to deal with a big complex world. Everything is handed to him in a series of simple yes-or-no answers. THIS IS GOOOOOOD. TARZAN LIKE! THAT IS BAAAAAAD. TARZAN NO LIKE!

Virgins are good. Cherish them and give them everlasting life. Adulterers are evil. Burn them in hell for all eternity.

Simple, stupid, childish, single-variable answers to everything. No weighing, no balancing, no pondering. How much simpler it is to give up pondering ethics and just obey by rote. No wonder so many of you surrender your rational minds to the temptation of the Pablum Scribes. Stop worrying, stop thinking, just obey these simple rules! The answers are in the back of the book! Dr. God's Amazing 7-Day Brain Cleanse!



DoomYoshi wrote:I have yet to see an example of rational thought based on real, tangible or quantifiable factors. Even when people are shown the real, tangible and quantifiable factors, they retreat into denial.

Again, this is just a logical fallacy stemming from your obsession with simplistic all-or-nothing answers. I believe it's called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. People are not always rational, so you conclude that they are never rational. Extending this to other things will show how absurd it is. Chainsaws are not always out of gas, so no chainsaw is ever out of gas. Cakes are not always chocolate, so no cake is chocolate.

Most of us are rational to varying degrees, sometimes more, sometimes less. Rejecting rationality because it isn't perfect is, well, irrational.

Again, seeking all-or-nothing answers is your downfall. Most things are varying shades of grey.


DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote: and sometimes create new ones. In theism, one can have interesting moral quandaries that are shades of gray.

The real world is full of interesting moral quandaries. Sometimes they are shades of gray, in fact most of the time. Religion specializes in glib black-and-white fre-fab answers for people who are too lazy for nuanced thoughts. She's a witch? Burn her! She's an adultress? Stone her in the marketplace!

DoomYoshi wrote:In atheism, there is no morality (although atheists don't actually live like that, almost proving that they believe in God) so all moral questions are answered with "both choices are equally right or wrong".

Absolute total unadulterated 100% bullshit. Atheism is morality. As an atheist, at every action I have to think "Will this make my life better? Will this be beneficial to my people? Will this better the lives of other living things?" And of course, I constantly have to balance one against another. This benefits me but not my tribe, this benefits my tribe but not my family, this benefits my family but not the biosphere as a whole. I balance these things, and I have to live with the consequences. At all times I am concerned with the fate of living things. LIVING THINGS> L.I.V.I.n.G. THings. Not imaginary fucking sky fairies.

"Will this make life better?" - Why does your life matter? The first example you chose is exactly the one that I already said is totally subjective and irrational.
"Will this be beneficial to my people?" - The things that made America great are slavery, genocide of the natives, exploitation of the poor, persecution of the minorities. These are the same things that are currently making Russia and China great.

I don't see any evidence of the happiness levels in Russia or China increasing.

DoomYoshi wrote:They are the same things that made Europe great and Rome before. You can deny that tribalism and othering go hand in hand, but I have yet to see any real or theoretical proof. At all points through history, an oppressive and centralized government results in a strong opponent for other nations. A divided and free society results in a weak opponent. What is good for the tribe does not lead to morality, as practiced.

Again, this stupid all-or-nothingism. The survival of Rome has to be balanced against the survival of Roman science, the survival of Roman art, the happiness of the Roman people. The strength of the state is just one value among many.

The high point of Italian civilization was not under Roman rule, but during the Renaissance, when the central state had withered away to a token presence and the Italian cities were virtually independent.


DoomYoshi wrote:"Will this better the lives of other living things?" - Why does this matter? According to the science of life (biology), the successful organism is the one that reproduces it's own genes. So now you are ignoring the very science that you earlier claimed your logic was based upon.

Wrong again. Only the most primitive creatures reproduce exclusively their own genes. All multi-celled creatures and even many single-celled creatures reproduce their genes in conjunction with the genes of others. First and most obviously through sexual conjugation. The genes we pass on are never just our own. We can never predict how they will combine with the genes of our partner, and the most wildly improable resulst are possible.

But it goes much past just conjugation. The next most obvious example is social insects. Almost all the members of a beehive are sterile and will never directly pass along their DNA, but by helping to facilitate the lives of their royal baby sisters, they are playing the odds and contributing to the success of a package which contains highly similar DNA.

Quite frankly I am ashamed that with your genetic education you would even try such a juvenile creationist argument.

When you help a cousin, you are contributing to the survival of your genes, just as the worker bee contributes to the survival of some of her genes while feeding her baby sister. While not all are in common, the vast majority are. When you help a 2nd cousin, same thing. Effect slightly weaker, but still there. On and on it goes. When you help any human, you are helping someone who has an overwhelming majority of genes in common with you. Past the (very fuzzy) species boundary, same thing. When you help a bonobo, you are helping along a package that contains most of your genes. Less than your first cousin, but not that much less. And down the list it goes. You can use insulin extracted from a pig because the gene sequence the pig makes insulin with is almost the same as yours. So you may do well to save a pig's life, though it will more likely happen the other way around.

Down the list it goes. Since all plants and animals (and probably all eukaryotes, although just to stay on solid ground I'll stay away from the possible polyphyletic origin of molds) have a common ancestor, helping ANY plant or animal is contributing to the survival of DNA at least some of which is the same as yours.

All plants and animals are (fractionally) brethren. That's one good reason to care about them, but it's only the first of three.

The second is biodiversity. The universe is a huge and malevolent force that tries to stamp out life. Science shows that extinction is inevitable, and biodiversity is the big mutual pool of survival. No doubt our species will end at some point, but if some other species carries on then Death has not yet triumphed. Survival is a Quixotic quest at best -- the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that life will end no matter how hard we try -- but it's the only quest we have.

Maybe when the next asteroid hits all life on dry land will end, and the next heroes to carry the torch of Intelligent Life will be octopii. Maybe when a gamma ray burst comes an wipes out 99.999% of all species, the torch wll next be carried by the descendant of some primitive solenogaster. Poison the oceans now and kill off that species of solenogaster, perhaps the torch may finally fall. The point is you have no way of knowing what trait or combination of traits will enable life to survive the next big extinction. Maximizing biodiversity is spreading the bets and raising the possibility that something will get through the bottleneck.

It doesn't even matter if it's an alien. All life stands united against entropy. As long as one organism lives and continues to organize chaotic atoms into complex molecules, entropy has not (yet) won.

The third and most important thing is that we are no longer just dealing with genetic evolution. With the advent of self-awareness came the advent of memetic evolution. Even if the chemical engines of our animal bodies fail, it is possible that our minds will carry on, both in artificial intelligences and in natural ones. We are on the very edge now of being able to digitize thoughts directly and no longer needing to depend on the crude medium of language. The research is moving very, very fast now. Just in the last year simple visual images have been extracted directly from encephalography. I imagine in five years researchers subjects will communicate without language, and in ten years the technology will be available to the public. In fifty years, who knows? Bypassing the crude instrument of language, maybe it will finally be possible to communicate directly with dogs, horses, dolphins, swans, octopi. Any brain complex enough for abstract ideas.

Even absent that, memetic evolution will continue independently of genetic evolution. It's no longer just about passing on genes. It's about passing on memes.



DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Ghost whisperers have no morality. Just judgement. Butcher 10,000 Philistines? Sure, no prob! If they had grovelled before Jehovah they'd still be alive! Drive every last fucking thing on the planet into extinction? Sure, no probs! God told Adam every living thing was his to exploit. If it pleases our whim to exterminate them all, we have God's blessing! Serving an imaginary being is perfect! You don't have to worry about the pain you inflict on the living! Look down on the suffering of others while you walk around patting yourself on the back for your holiness.

The issue here is tribalism. When a religion is viewed as a tribe, these things happen because the atheistic, tribe-based "morality" sinks in. People need to avoid using labels when describing themselves. Who am I? I am a man - that's a meaningless tribal definition. I am a Canadian - that's a meaningless tribal definition. I am a Green Bay Packers fan - that's a meaningless tribal definition. By looking at the world around you and defining yourself based on subjective human standards, the only definitions you can come up with are tribal ones. This is why it is handy to have an external measuring stick, to build an self-identity that uses no labels whatever. The tribal self-definition results in Kevin Spacey "I molest because I'm gay". The action "molest" could be considered an identity-label for Kevin Spacey, but that doesn't really tell us anything about him as a person or about molesters as a group. The title "gay" doesn't tell us anything about him as a person or about gays as a group. Are all gays molesters? One could argue that a person's self-identity is based on numerous, overlapping tribal identities that coalesce into a description of the person, but that's not how it works in practice. I have an identity by which I know myself, and identities by which I know others. For others I may start with flat character labels and then flesh them out as I know the person better, but that's not how I self-identify. Rather, I know who I am intrinsically, without any comparison to tribes or others.

Yeah, self-awareness exists. There is an "I" independent of labels. Sadly, its relevance to our current discussion is tangential at best, or at the very least opaque to me.


DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:In short, the most rational thing is genocide. The black plague of the 14th century allowed the economy of Europe to grow substantially and allowed upward mobility of the lower classes and the creation of a middle class. There are actually limited resources on the planet. As the poor keep breeding and the rapefugees keep invading, the middle class grows weaker and weaker. These are indisputable facts.

Absolute nonsense. Yes, there are limited resources, and overpopulation is the root of all problems. But genocide is a terrible cure. Beside the fact that it creates horrific suffering, it's a temporary solution at best. The only permanent solution to overpopulation is empowering people. People only breed like rabbits because they're caged in cities like rabbits. Once people have interesting and positive things to do with their lives, they realize that they don't want to screw it all up by having children. Only people who feel trapped have big families. Someone who has the freedom and the disposable income to go climb Kilimanjaro doesn't want to throw it all away and spend his days stuffing Pablum into a mewling brat.

The only permanent and humane solution to overpopulation is not genocide, but wealth. Free people from wage-slavery. Let the robots do the work. Let people listen to symphonies and climb Kilimanjaro. Luckily, we are very close to that, but your priests would have you throw it all away. The priestly class depends on humans to be suffering and desperate, so they need the priest to come forward and offer false hope. Always religion is at its strongest wherever suffering is maximized, and they do their best to keep it maximized.

The single worst thing that can happen to derail a person's life is an unplanned pregnancy, so the religionists fight against abortion. All those lonely desperate unwed mothers make great targets for having their souls saved. (Soul saved = being given false hope for future happiness when all real hope has failed.) This is the single biggest fight of 60 to 70% of the religions.


Even if robots do all the work, since the flawed human mentality is comparative, there will be those who want more robots, or somebody else's robots, or to turn their fellow humans into robots. The "ideal" life in this concept is one where there is one immortal person who has exactly enough immortal people around him to provide companionship and entertainment with robots doing all the work. To get to this small population, once again genocide is required.

No. Again, population reduction doesn't require murder. Once people have better things to do with their time than breed, the population will drop like a stone without needing to kill anyone. You're erecting this monstrous strawman and you've done it a second time even after I dispelled him once already.




DoomYoshi wrote:Since our tribes are getting larger and larger, the ability to lead is being selectively bred out of the human race. This will inevitably result in a world with very few shepherds and many sheep. People who have the internet can listen to symphonies. Instead they watch cat videos.

I see no evidence for the first two sentences. In fact, the larger the tribe gets, the greater the payoff for having leadership skills, so if there was any change one would expect the evolutionary pressure there to be in favour of more leadership. Still, seeing no data I'll just dismiss this out of hand as an unlikely but unprovable assertion. As for the last statement, it's more of your all-or-nothing-ism. People watch a lot of cat videos so you jump to an extreme position and say that's all they do. In fact, tons of people are listening to symphonies. Others are creating maps of backward African countries whose governments are too poor to map them. Others are participating in SETI@home or learning about algebra. Others are contributing to medical research.

DoomYoshi wrote:Having children is the entire point of life, scientifically, so once again you are proving that you are willing to totally ignore science in order to justify some irrational and subjective value system that you invented.

No. Continuing life is the point of life. Having children is one way to do that, but it's not the only way. It's just one weapon in life's arsenal, and it's not necessarily the best tool any more.

Primates are k strategists, not r strategists, so it hasn't been our best tool for at least several steps back in our evolution.

DoomYoshi wrote: Most biologists do this, especially those who have been poisoned by the ecologists. Conservation makes no sense for several reasons. A) Ecosystems are always in flux naturally, so trying to force your way upon the system to restore to some past point is misguided.

This "ecosystems are always in flux" argument is a bit of a false equivalency. Yes, species die off and other species move in. To a limited degree, you're right. Trying to turn back the clock on a natural ecological progression is foolish. I think you know how ridiculous I find people's obsession with what is or isn't an invasive species. Fact is, species move around, and yesterday's invasive species is tomorrow's native.

On the other hand, when methyl isothiocyanate is dumped into a river and kills every multi-cellular creature in the entire ecosystem, it's reasonable to make an effort to remove it. Yes, it will eventually dilute to the point that the creatures will come back, but if we can short-cut the process and bring them back sooner, why not? Again, not an all-or-nothing question. A lot depends on the exact degree to which an ecosystem has been disrupted, how much it is already under threat from other effects like the deforestation of nearby fields, and just how much it will cost to remove the metamethyl.

I do think a lot of efforts are misguided, but for the umpteenth time -- it's not all-or-nothing. Just because some ecological restoration projects are misguided, doesn't mean that all of them are.

DoomYoshi wrote: B) If ecosystems are valued for their value to humans, yet killing humans is the best way to restore ecosystems, you enter a paradox.

Again, stop with the bogus killing dramatics. Population reduction can be achieved simply by an increase in wealth. People who have free time and lots of disposable income tend to be doing fun things and don't want to complicate their lives with children. Most unrestricted breeding occurs among poor people who don't see any hope of ever getting off the treadmill.

DoomYoshi wrote: C) If ecosystems are valued for their own intrinsic value, and humans are part of that ecosystem, then the "destroyed-by-humans" should be valued as much..

Following the same logic, the "fixed by humans" should also be valued. I'm not horrified by people cutting down trees for lumber. At the same time, I don't see anything wrong with intelligent management techniques that help the forest regenerate.


If people didn't live in cities, the globe would be pretty close to ruined. If you build a house in a forest, you have just ruined that forest for several reasons. A) Now if a natural forest fire starts people will try to quash it so that the house isn't ruined. B) The road leading to the house will be the cause of roadkill. C) Anyone who wants to enjoy the forest will now have to look at your ugly house instead. D) You will probably kill the megafauna predators in the area as they threaten your families' life. People need to live in cities, because anything else is irresponsible, scientifically. Yet the very people who study and "love" nature are the ones who ruin it by constantly trying to be in it. As they do so, they spread wildlife diseases around the globe and further destroy the world.

It's all about moving to a more reasonable population density, but this is getting farther and farther off topic.


DoomYoshi wrote:Objectively, Genghis Khan was the greatest person who ever lived. Now you can counter that with subjective and imaginary things all you want, but you can never reconcile objectivity and morality.

Objectively speaking, that's not an objective statement at all. It's based on your subjective prejudice that life is a zero-sum game. Since Genghis took a lot of land and women from other people, that makes him a great success in your eyes. But objectively, life is NOT a zero-sum game. It is possible to have a great romping life of your own while still providing a net benefit to others.


DoomYoshi wrote: Only something (like a Creator God) can give meaning to the lives of the poor and make serial killing not the best option.

Total nonsense. Being freed from being wage slaves and given a chance to do interesting things can give meaning to the lives of the poor. I'll ignore your inflammatory strawman as I've already addressed it enough times in this post.

I suppose in the absolute worst-case scenario, if one has no hope whatsoever of ever gaining anything tangible, then belief in some mystical nonsense at least allows the illusion of meaning. So, I'll grant you that it's better than nothing, to slaves, the terminally ill, life-with-no-parole prisoners, and a limited number of other people in hopeless straits. For everyone else, there's tangible gains to aspire to.



DoomYoshi wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:Even if there was a god, all the evidence would show that he must be pure evil. The second law of thermodynamics proves this. If god was good, he would structure a universe so that beautiful things persist and evil things fade. In fact, the universe is the opposite. Entropy wins all battles. All beautiful things disintegrate, evil and chaos triumphs. Life ends, death is forever. Creation is difficult, destruction is easy. In every way the game is rigged against the beautiful and the living and in favour of the ugly and the dead.

So, even in the ludicrously unlikely event that there is a god, he's definitely the enemy of rational beings, not the friend.

Just talking to anyone who will listen. All things in the material world do die. That is the point, not to rely on the world but rather on Jesus.

What do you think some dead Jew has to offer?

Yeah, yeah, just being facetious. I know you have a fairy-tale book that says he triumphed over death. Funny thing is, I have a fairy-tale book that says the exact same thing about Gandalf. Why should I take yours any more seriously than you take mine?

DoomYoshi wrote:If you look a bit closer, you will see that I followed your earlier instructions exactly. I (like you) believe in irrational and supernatural things like "belief", "will", "value of life" and "morality".

Thing is, you're dismissing these things as being supernatural when they are not. We can objectively measure things like happiness and life satisfaction. They're a bit fuzzy around the edges, but so is everything else. Nothing comes with absolute certainty, but there comes a point where you know the uncertainty is still there but no longer enough to worry about.

Of course, that's not good enough if you want to live in a simplistic, black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. That's the world of fairy tales. Scientists know there is always uncertainty. They aren't panicked by it.


DoomYoshi wrote:Rather than pretending to be rational, I realized that I am fundamentally irrational and found my entire worldview on these imaginary things. Then I adopted the customs of my tribe that seem best to lead to health and happiness - "Christianity". These are the very instructions you laid out in this thread, so I'm not so sure why that makes you upset.

How can one waste a life exactly? Certainly not through studying things that interest them?

Religion may be an easy way out for people who are too stupid to understand reality, but you're not. You've made a choice to be irrational -- it's not necessary to turn your back on reality and science and immerse yourself in fairy tales. Yes, we are all burdened with our reptilian brains, but these help our bodies get through, and enable our higher brain functions to work. Yes, Leonardo spent most of his time eating, drinking, and fucking, just like everyone else, but he also found time to paint the Mona Lisa.

And yeah, he attended Church in order to fit in with his peers, but he wasn't crazy enough to internalize its propaganda.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby mrswdk on Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:47 am

Dukasaur wrote:The religious man doesn't have to deal with a big complex world. Everything is handed to him in a series of simple yes-or-no answers. THIS IS GOOOOOOD. TARZAN LIKE! THAT IS BAAAAAAD. TARZAN NO LIKE!


Sounds like you and the other West is Best propagandists when you're writing big OT posts about how horrible Russia and/or China are.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby KoolBak on Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:55 am

That was a hellofa post Dukky =D>
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 7000
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby mrswdk on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:03 pm

It is kind of funny seeing the guy who posted in my Harvey Weinstein thread about how the point of power is to extort blowjobs from people now posting in this thread declaring himself a cornerstone of moral righteousness.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Symmetry on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:46 pm

Dukasaur wrote:What do you think some dead Jew has to offer?


Wow, even as an atheist I thought that was weirdly offensive.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Bernie Sanders on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:04 pm



Are you afraid of burning in Hell?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Bernie Sanders
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby Symmetry on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:12 pm

I'm afraid of burning anywhere. It's not location specific.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Mass shooting, Texas, 26 dead

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:58 pm

mrswdk wrote:It is kind of funny seeing the guy who posted in my Harvey Weinstein thread about how the point of power is to extort blowjobs from people now posting in this thread declaring himself a cornerstone of moral righteousness.


Who are you talking about? Duke and I both posted that same thought. We agree that in a rationalist system, rape is an acceptable outcome.

----

The arguments have become too convoluted, so I'll start from the top.

There are two realities. One is the "is" reality. This is the objective reality of science. The other is the "ought" reality. This is the subjective reality of laws, governments, tribes and happiness. To pretend that you rely only on objective science and then actually use subjective science is a lie, plain and simple.

Science can't make value statements. Period. It can tell you if something is, but not if something ought. Science can never answer the question "is this good?". How can you prove that happiness is good? Misery loves company, so maybe misery is good.

Here are some starting lines from the top 5 "fairy tales" in the US today.
"In the Beginning, the Earth was without form, and void"
"We the People, of the United States"
"Federal Reserve Note"
"'Who is John Galt?'"
"Terms and Conditions for your Mastercard"

None of the items covered here have any objective reality. You can't scientifically prove the value of money. You can't scientifically prove that the United States exists. All these things are "shared hallucinations". The United States exists because people agree that it exists.

Now I know you're going to repeat the crazy assertion that happiness is this hard, scientific principle, but happiness is completely and utterly subjective. None of the Holy Roman Emperors had electricity. Some of them were happy. Some of the Puerto Ricans have electricity, none of them are happy.

There are two observable principles in human life - sex and violence. Closely related to these two is enforcing your will upon others. Until your worldview can adequately explain these three things, it is a faulty worldview. You can try to sweep murder under the rug as much as you like, but it actually is effective, which is why it is used so often. If it didn't work, people wouldn't use it. Are all the soldiers and other murderers through history actually acting against their best interest? No, they are acting for their best interest, and so are rapists and others who would force their will upon others. This isn't a side issue, this is the only issue.

To address a couple particular arguments.
The only permanent and humane solution to overpopulation is not genocide, but wealth. Free people from wage-slavery. Let the robots do the work. Let people listen to symphonies and climb Kilimanjaro.

As you well know, utopian solutions are always flawed. This particular example is flawed in every way. First, you have set up consumerism as the ultimate ideal. Listening to symphonies and climbing mountains isn't happiness. Writing symphonies and making mountains out of molehills are where happiness lies. Production, not consumerism. I know through your own writings that you think religion is a consumerism scenario (go to church once a week, sit back and relax) but on the contrary Christianity is a creative enterprise. Every person must redefine Jesus in a way that makes sense to them. There are no spoon-fed answers, except for those who require them. The call is to go forth and show the glory of God in your works, and in so doing to lead others into a better life. The materialistic scenario you strive for is instead consume as much as possible and make someone else do the work.
Second, it's a welfare system. This is consumerism in a totally different form but once again won't lead to happiness.
Third is the focus on wealth. iPhones are not wealth. Upgrading to the latest thing won't make you happy, nor will any amount of wealth. You are not your fucking khakis. We already have more wealth than necessary as even a person making minimum wage is above subsistence level (although they will claim they are not due to the focus on a new iPhone). For 1800 years, the best and brightest all worked for the church. For a brief hundred year period the best and brightest were in manufacturing and inventing. Now the best and brightest go strictly to banking, which isn't wealth-generating, but rather wealth redistributing. Even though it seems like wealth is increasing, it really isn't - that's just numbers getting higher.

Yes, Leonardo spent most of his time eating, drinking, and fucking, just like everyone else, but he also found time to paint the Mona Lisa.

And yeah, he attended Church in order to fit in with his peers, but he wasn't crazy enough to internalize its propaganda.


That is entirely speculative. How do you know what he internalized? Furthermore, internalization doesn't really matter as proved by Nuremburg Trials. The argument "we aren't nazis on the inside, we just kill Jews on the outside" doesn't cut it. Similarly a "I'm not a Catholic, I just go to mass every day and twice on Sundays" doesn't cut it either - from a materialistic perspective. A theological perspective allows a distinction.

You've made a choice to be irrational -- it's not necessary to turn your back on reality and science and immerse yourself in fairy tales. Yes, we are all burdened with our reptilian brains, but these help our bodies get through, and enable our higher brain functions to work.

I haven't turned my back on science. I rely fully on all the observable evidence. That is how I was able to build a systematic philosophy from the ground up. Unless you do likewise you don't even have a reptilian brain but rather the brain of a lobster. Until you can answer the basic question of "why?", you are just crawling around the ocean floor grabbing things that look tasty. This is why your implicit assumptions clash with each other. Until you are willing to accept that science always points to a lack of real morality, you are just using science to serve your own needs, rather than listening to the evidence.

Of course, that's not good enough if you want to live in a simplistic, black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. That's the world of fairy tales. Scientists know there is always uncertainty. They aren't panicked by it.


In another thread last week I argued that doctrine is almost impossible and yet you will accuse me of black and white living. As a through-and-through postmodernist, I find that disconcerting. Scientists try to eliminate uncertainty, that's kind of the goal of the entire enterprise. A meteor fell from the sky but there is no way of knowing. The scientist says "maybe there is a way of knowing, let's look into it" and then a few hundred years later can address with certainty why that meteor fell from the sky.

----

In short, you have taken Aristotle's claim that speculation based on leisure is the goal in life. Except you are willfully ignoring the speculation part and ignoring the fact that his philosophy wasn't based on science, yet you claim to believe science.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users