I think out loud in the Flame Lounge

[DoctaD]

Outside of our O-Zone, our atmosphere, what do we affect? Humans, dolphins, squirrels or oaks, what difference do we make to the universe beyond our planet?

Assuming there were some omnipotent creator, what affect would we have on it? Our whole world giving a feeling of joy or sorrow to this power?

Is that our world?

At this very moment I see Nihilism as the only rational view of a human being.

Why are we here?

How about Why could we be here?

Can someone think of a rational explaination for our very existance apart from that of simply to exist?

[Armalite]

Why do you need to have a reason to exist? You see a reason shaped hole in your existence and search for a reason shaped block. I don't any hole.

Or in other words

You presuppose that there must be a reason, then, not finding one you feel an emptiness where the reason should be. Why does there have to be purpose? What is purpose? You need no purpose to exist, to live, to see beauty, or even to be happy. It is only the search for a purpose that you will never find that brings unease and discontent.

[DoctaD]

So you can easily live believing you are pointless?

[odin_dax]

Here's a take I think Armalite can agree with me on (at least I hope)...

What we believe doesn't matter. One thing is certain, we're all going to die one day. Immortality, I don't see otherwise, is impossible. Death may be delayed, but death is inevitable. Our beliefs can be powerful. They shape us, guide us. There are many differences across various spectrums, but the core of morality is generally the same. Atheists even claim they can recognize morality without a higher power (though, most atheists are raised in religious-based beliefs, so I claim otherwise - but that's another subject).

Point is, if we are who we are, follow whatever we choose to believe, and those beliefs make us better people, happier people, productive people, caring, giving people, give us comfort, then does it matter what I or Armalite thinks? or even what you think? We'll all be forgotten in three generations, but our effects will last in our offspring and those we "touch."

I don't see how believing in any set of religious or spiritual principles can be wrong if the goals and benefits outweigh anything else so greatly. Atheists and the anti-religious don't seem to get that.

That's all I have to say on the subject. Hope it helps, DD.

[Armalite]

Nice way to sneak in some classic jabs. I've NEVER heard THOSE condescending arguments before, especially in SUCH a subtle and Christian-like packaging.


Anyway DD, yes, I can. And I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to aswell. All this gibberish about beliefs and crap, ignore it. You don't have to hold beliefs or have faith or find meaning or any of that crap. Think about what you are doing when you are happy. Are you reflecting on purpose or meaning? Are you pondering about the intricacies of your own belief systems? Fuck no! Just live! You are going to die, and the time you have is all you have. Just live your life.

[DoctaD]

Just live your life.

Yeah, I was pretty wasted last night. This makes sense now. I don't usually over-analyse anything, nevermind everything.

[odin_dax]

Nice way to sneak in some classic jabs. I've NEVER heard THOSE condescending arguments before, especially in SUCH a subtle and Christian-like packaging.


Actually, those statements were very non-Christian. I don't know what jabs you're referring to. I referred to myself in the "who cares?" part. my statement about non-religious people is true, and I know we differ on many opinions, so I had hoped we could agree on this subject, which is basically my point (that I'm not going to write again).

[Armalite]

There are many differences across various spectrums, but the core of morality is generally the same. Atheists even claim they can recognize morality without a higher power (though, most atheists are raised in religious-based beliefs, so I claim otherwise - but that's another subject).


I don't see how believing in any set of religious or spiritual principles can be wrong if the goals and benefits outweigh anything else so greatly. Atheists and the anti-religious don't seem to get that.




These are both classic stabs. Once again I must remind you that I am not in anyway new to this form of discourse. If you want I can show where lists and examples of formulaic religious attacks and logical fallacies and kept on a nice little website.

First stab, the claim that morality is necessarily religious. And that therefore atheists must be immoral or amoral. Simply false. People are born atheist. And morality itself is something that comes from necessary and instinctive behaviours ingrained in us by social interaction and evolutionary forces. Religion is just a nice neat tool to explain this.

The second argument, again nothing new. Problems with it are the fact that faith and religious belief, regardless of how benign it may seem, are still filters you are applying to reason that may prevent sound decision making and ultimately stop you from seeing the world as it is. The "anti-religious" get more about it than you seem to. With such a short life to live, wouldn't you want to see the world as it really is, and not how a witch doctor told you it is?

[odin_dax]

With such a short life to live, wouldn't you want to see the world as it really is, and not how a witch doctor told you it is?

I believe I've addressed that in this thread.

[Armalite]

Point is, if we are who we are, follow whatever we choose to believe, and those beliefs make us better people, happier people, productive people, caring, giving people, give us comfort, then does it matter what I or Armalite thinks? or even what you think? We'll all be forgotten in three generations, but our effects will last in our offspring and those we "touch."

I don't see how believing in any set of religious or spiritual principles can be wrong if the goals and benefits outweigh anything else so greatly.

Your advice to DD was to use faith as a crutch, who cares if is true, and to offer a superficial meaning to existence. How is that seeing the world as it is?

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

The second argument, again nothing new. Problems with it are the fact that faith and religious belief, regardless of how benign it may seem, are still filters you are applying to reason that may prevent sound decision making and ultimately stop you from seeing the world as it is. The "anti-religious" get more about it than you seem to. With such a short life to live, wouldn't you want to see the world as it really is, and not how a witch doctor told you it is?
Your advice to DD was to use faith as a crutch, who cares if is true, and to offer a superficial meaning to existence. How is that seeing the world as it is?
Well, that is odin's way of seeing things. Delusional, yes, but then again mostly all of odin's opinions seem to be based on some form of logical deception. Well, most religious people are that way. Who needs reason when we can have faith?, say the religious. Haha, I feel sorry for that lot.

At this very moment I see Nihilism as the only rational view of a human being.
Indeed. Nihilism could be said to be such. Life, ultimately, from a rational viewpoint, is meaningless. When one is catapulted into existance, people often search for meaning. But existance it lacks any inherent purpose. Nihilism, in the realm of philosophy, is the hardest of hardballs to the human ego and its search for purpose.

Religion and faith are defense mechanisms against anomie and meaninglessness. It takes willpower and a certain sense of detachment to become nihilist. ... Hell, it even took ME a long time to accept this viewpoint. It gets better with time. Eventually you stop caring.

Armalite puts it nicely. Just live your life.

[odin_dax]

Your advice to DD was to use faith as a crutch, who cares if is true, and to offer a superficial meaning to existence. How is that seeing the world as it is?

If that's what you got out of it, then your reading comprehension isn't the greatest.

[odin_dax]

Well, that is odin's way of seeing things. Delusional, yes, but then again mostly all of odin's opinions seem to be based on some form of logical deception. Well, most religious people are that way. Who needs reason when we can have faith?, say the religious. Haha, I feel sorry for that lot.


Actually, Christians don't say that, at least the ones who understand the Bible. The Bible teaches its readers to research.

Your other statements are simply based on the fact we disagree. I could just as easily say you're opinions are based on "logical deception" or that you're delusional. Your opinions are known, but we can tone down the jabs.

[headcase]

I wish you people would argue about spirituality without dragging up those damn books.


On nihilism, we are one of the most complex thing in the known universe (which is fairly complex in it's own right), and you go around feeling sorry for ourselves because you don't have a man in the sky to tell you you're special?







(By the by, I know you could rebuff that comment my giving an account of what nihilism really is, but you gety the point.)

[Armalite]

The difference between tal and I calling you illogical and you calling us illogical, is that we utilize logical criteria to dissect and examine your arguments, and we demonstrate this to each other and other forum members regularly, odin. We use very similar if not identical criteria for logical examination of concepts and therefore can agree on what comprises "logic." Thus by comparing the criteria of other people to our own criteria which we all accept as sound, we can determine whether or not that method of thought is sound itself. You consistently demonstrate, despite many claims that you do the opposite, to possess few critical and logical thinking skills.

[odin_dax]

The difference between tal and I calling you illogical and you calling us illogical, is that we utilize logical criteria to dissect and examine your arguments, and we demonstrate this to each other and other forum members regularly, odin. We use very similar if not identical criteria for logical examination of concepts and therefore can agree on what comprises "logic." Thus by comparing the criteria of other people to our own criteria which we all accept as sound, we can determine whether or not that method of thought is sound itself. You consistently demonstrate, despite many claims that you do the opposite, to possess few critical and logical thinking skills.

Selective attention... This is really sad coming from you, one who claims to utilize logical and reasoning skills. You've demonstrated the only criterion that matters is whether or not somebody agrees with you. And how quickly you forget the times I've taken the opposite position or conceded certain points. At least I have an open-mind as well.

[Armalite]

Oh please.

If I have ever failed to concede in the face of a reasonable, supported argument please showcase it here.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

Your other statements are simply based on the fact we disagree. I could just as easily say you're opinions are based on "logical deception" or that you're delusional. Your opinions are known, but we can tone down the jabs.

Hmm....
Oh really now....?

What we believe doesn't matter.
...

I don't see how believing in any set of religious or spiritual principles can be wrong if the goals and benefits outweigh anything else so greatly.
...Is that not evidence of being delusional?

You clearly advocate the use of faith over logic, to the point of being blind to what clearly lies in front of you. For you, believing in invisible pink unicorns, flying sphaghetti monsters, and all such concepts which happen to be complete garbage is acceptable, as long as there are "benefits".

People need not believe in such nonsense to be beneficial and productive to society. In fact, logic itself is more beneficial to the individual than blind faith.

That, odin, is something that atheists and some anti-religious people get much more than you and the religious.

There are many differences across various spectrums, but the core of morality is generally the same. Atheists even claim they can recognize morality without a higher power (though, most atheists are raised in religious-based beliefs, so I claim otherwise - but that's another subject).

Oh yes. Attack atheists now for being supposedly amoral. Excellent move, odin.

I have shown this to you in a post of mine in another thread, but you seem to deny that which does not assert religion as most beneficial..

You make the assumption that atheists have no capability of morality. Far from it. One does not need to believe in deity to subscribe to a set of moral values. Proof? Look out your window. I know plenty of people who are atheist, yet are pleasant, respectful, moral members of society. Contrary to what you seem to think, most atheists are no more amoral than religious people.

Atheism does NOT equal amorality.

...Delusionality...
...Logical deception..
Seems to be your forte, odin.

[odin_dax]

You make the assumption that atheists have no capability of morality. Far from it. One does not need to believe in deity to subscribe to a set of moral values. Proof? Look out your window. I know plenty of people who are atheist, yet are pleasant, respectful, moral members of society. Contrary to what you seem to think, most atheists are no more amoral than religious people.

Atheism does NOT equal amorality.

.

No, I make the assumption atheists can't make moral decisions without living in some environment. To be clear, Christians too. Anybody. I only brought it up because atheists always claim to be "critical thinkers" and "open-minded" and free of religious restriction, but an atheist that says he isn't a product of his environment, or free from the bias of his, is full of shit.

And I never made the claim, like you and Armalite keep saying, that someone should follow a religious doctrine over logic. First, faith isn't illogical, as we've discussed. You may see it that way personally, which is fine, but it's not truth. I merely said that whatever makes somebody happy, then so be it. Did I say DD has to follow Christianity? No. The quote keeps coming up, and the fact that it does from the atheist advocates is clearly due to a strong bias against any sort of religion, not just Christianity, and only proves that I'm not discussing this topic with reasoning, or logical thinkers, only that I'm wasting my time. "I don't see how believing in any set of religious or spiritual principles can be wrong if the goals and benefits outweigh anything else so greatly." Let me edit that, "I don't see how believing in any set of religious or spiritual principles can be wrong if the goals and benefits outweigh anything else so greatly." Use your brain before you claim I'm the illogical one.

P.S. Yes, really, Tal.

[odin_dax]

Oh please.

If I have ever failed to concede in the face of a reasonable, supported argument please showcase it here.

I don't have the time to bring up every instance, but you have failed to concede any ground on Bible interpretation or the flood. You are "convinced" the flood never happened in spite of concrete evidence. You never said the flood could have happened or could have happened locally. There was a massive flood in what is now Iraq. It's a fact. You couldn't even concede to archaeological evidence. And you can't quickly dismiss the over 80,000 ancient texts in 72 different languages across the GLOBE as being rooted in the same "myth." There is no evidence to do so. Just the same, you are convinced of the Biblical interpretations you linked to even though they're incorrect.

But every time I do make some sort of agreement, or a strong point, you drop that part of the discussion.You make all these arguments, then claim because somebody doesn't listen to them, they're illogical, can't think reasonably, etc. Hate to break it to ya, but I see you just the same. You're not free from the chains you bind to me, so you can drop the high-and-mighty act. You clearly do NOT have an open mind, so discussing any difference will only lead to more of this. The only way to deal with people like you is make the point and drop the subject. Maybe it's time I do so.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

No, I make the assumption atheists can't make moral decisions without living in some environment. To be clear, Christians too. Anybody.


Of course, odin, we believe you…

I eviscerate your claim. Then you twist what you say, and come up with some vague and ambiguous answer and claim that what you have said applies to Christians and “anybody”, in “some environment”.

However, it is clearly evident that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let us examine the statement which spawned this particular discussion.
There are many differences across various spectrums, but the core of morality is generally the same. Atheists even claim they can recognize morality without a higher power (though, most atheists are raised in religious-based beliefs, so I claim otherwise - but that's another subject).

Any half-wit can see this as a stab against atheism. You state that morality is fundamentally uniform. Then you go on to claim that morality is unrecognizable by those who are atheist.

So this also applies to Christians and “anybody too”?

I apologize if I or other members of this forum happen to see through the bullshit.

First, faith isn't illogical, as we've discussed.

Funny. I don’t recall any discussion of ours ending up with us agreeing on such a conclusion. Keep your unfounded opinions to yourself.

…but an atheist that says he isn't a product of his environment, or free from the bias of his, is full of shit.

What you are essentially saying is
“An atheist is a product of his environment, and is inherently biased.”
On the contrary. Believe it or not, there are many raised theists who deconvert. It's a fact. Yet so you claim otherwise.
If you claim that atheists are biased and full of shit, then you yourself are no better.

Nice stab, odin.

Do you have any other sweeping generalizations on atheism you would like to make?

Funny claim from someone who claims to have an open mind.

Use your brain before you claim I'm the illogical one.

Based from your multiple fallacious arguments and your incessant stabbing of atheism, it can be inferred that you are indeed illogical, odin.

[Armalite]

I don't have the time to bring up every instance, but you have failed to concede any ground on Bible interpretation or the flood.

Why would I? Your arguments are barely comprehensible, let alone logically sound, or well supported.

You are "convinced" the flood never happened in spite of concrete evidence. You never said the flood could have happened or could have happened locally. There was a massive flood in what is now Iraq. It's a fact. You couldn't even concede to archaeological evidence. And you can't quickly dismiss the over 80,000 ancient texts in 72 different languages across the GLOBE as being rooted in the same "myth." There is no evidence to do so. Just the same, you are convinced of the Biblical interpretations you linked to even though they're incorrect.

Of course I never gave ground on this argument. Your concrete evidence is nonexistant. In fact, the only evidence you have provided is a pamphlet containing circular logic and blatantly false claims about geology, as well as many red herrings.

I most certainly can dismiss all those ancient myths. They can quite easily all be wrong.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible? How are they wrong?

And finally, we come to the bolded portion. A logical mind would immediately recognise that all burdens are on YOU to provide evidence that the flood occurred, that some link exists, between mythology and reality, or any other claim. All I have to do is react. I do not need to disprove anything. All I need to do is show how your claims are faulty. That is how logic and science works.

But every time I do make some sort of agreement, or a strong point, you drop that part of the discussion.You make all these arguments, then claim because somebody doesn't listen to them, they're illogical, can't think reasonably, etc. Hate to break it to ya, but I see you just the same. You're not free from the chains you bind to me, so you can drop the high-and-mighty act. You clearly do NOT have an open mind, so discussing any difference will only lead to more of this. The only way to deal with people like you is make the point and drop the subject. Maybe it's time I do so.


My arguments are not unique to myself. Many of them have names. They are usually classic, textbook arguments. This is because we are debating topics that are old and dead. There is no scientific debate on whether the flood happened. They are what is echoed by the scientific community. You are the outlier.

When keeping an open mind, care must be taken to ensure your brains don't fall out.