Moderator: Community Team
waauw wrote:DY emotionally abuses his wife, because nobody can prove her emotions exist.
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.
mrswdk wrote:Like how Jews, Muslims and Christians are all just fussing over semantics of the same religion.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
2dimes wrote:There's no such thing as atheists.
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.
Dukasaur wrote:Is the person happy, productive, and well integrated with the customs of his tribe? No? Then something is broken.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
DoomYoshi wrote: and sometimes create new ones. In theism, one can have interesting moral quandaries that are shades of gray.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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!
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Dukasaur wrote:What do you think some dead Jew has to offer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users