So what you're saying is that you're stupid* and like to be stupid
have I summed things up
*well perhaps the technical term is 'nihilistic'
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
What, that we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?
When I talk about fix, I mean that life is able to sustain itself through predation keeping prey in check, prey keeping plant life in check, and so forth. When you take out a predator, such as wolves in parts of the United States, their prey's population grow. Then when their population grow, there isn't enough food for them to all eat enough and begin to starve. Given enough time, how much I wouldn't know, either more vegitation will grow, a predator will be introduced or the prey will move on to a different area for more food. In the mean time, the prey wil begin to slowly starve. If the prey move on to another area, they will interfere with other wildlife, causing not enough vegitation, and so forth. This is what I would consider a broken ecosystem, one that cannot sustain the life within it so that some sort of change must occur so that a circle of life if you will may continue.
I guess I should change what I'm saying though. The more I think about it the more I realise that even though we aren't as direct a part of eco systems (very little prey on us, we don't need to live off wild animals for the most part, we grow a lot of our vegitation that we eat), I guess we are more of a part then I first thought. However, I still stand by the point that we are not directly a part of those ecosystems, but more of an intruder trying to push them aside and sort of getting caught with them. Such as farms who have animals preying on their live stock, all of the scavangers and stuff who live in and around cities, the massive amount of sea life that we eat. Does that make sense?
It makes sense, however it tends to lead to ideas like 'we need to live in harmony with nature' rather than accept that we are just as much a part of nature as any other species. We can either live in such a way where human life is sustainable or we can not. We can not survive without nature, but nature can easily survive without us(just like any other particular species). We are just another part of it, but we are the only part that has the foresight to understand the results of our actions and take steps to control those outcomes.
I don't really see it so much as protecting nature as protecting ourselves. If we fail to protect ourselves, nature will manage fine without us. It'll just look different, and their won't be anything around that will care about the difference.
As I said a few posts ago I have no idea where I'm going, I'm just having fun. Anyway...
I don't think I've said that what we as humans do is right or wrong, it's just what we do and we seperate ourselves from the rest of nature by doing it. There are other species that when introduced to a foreign ecosystem, and are able to adapt, will disrupt said system and throw off the balance. Snakehead fish for example. A very invasive species, but it uses the natural resources around it to invade the ecosysemt.
We as people, when we have the ability, take what we had from a previous area and try to change a new location to meet our needs. Such as deforestation for farming, getting rid of local predators to herd cattle and other such examples.
Maybe this is just what people are meant to do. We could simply be nature's way of saying "Okay, lets change things up a bit. I need something that can move a lot of animals around, change environments and become very adaptful through natural and inventful means." Although, if nature thought this I would imagine it would now be thinking, "Damnit, stop breaking stuff!"
Though, unless I'm horrible mistaken on this, an example of a very invasive species that can actually exist in an ecosystem without greatly disrupting it would be rats. Their everywhere because of us, but now fill vital roles as prey and predators, and make cute pets. But that last one is beside the point.
So what you're saying is that you're stupid* and like to be stupid
have I summed things up
*well perhaps the technical term is 'nihilistic'
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
What, that we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?
No, of course not.
That, too, would be entirely worthless.
It just amuses me how many people refuse to recognize the ultimate futility of reality. I see so many atheists so fervently fighting to "save" people, an I just don't understand what they are trying to save them from. We're all ultimately doomed to the same fate of non-existence no matter what we believe.
Man, talking about metaphysics is like trying to masturbate with someone else's dick. You're flying blind and basing everything on your own experiences, you feel like an idiot for doing it, even if you do it right, you won't find out until the end, and you're wasting your fucking time.
Man, talking about metaphysics is like trying to masturbate with someone else's dick. You're flying blind and basing everything on your own experiences, you feel like an idiot for doing it, even if you do it right, you won't find out until the end, and you're wasting your fucking time.
This is why I hate religion and science. To me, they both seem like futile attempts to explain things that we cannot grasp in the slightest. Why even try to explain it? Why even try to understand it?
Because we CAN grasp and explain these things, and we CAN understand them. Read some books on astro-physics, or, you know, research more. Every decade, we learn more and more, and that is the goal. To say we cannot, as in, we do not have the ability to do so, is simply unfounded. Centuries ago, they could not conceive of having what we do today.
Yet further, your analogy of atheists using "I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I DON'T SEE" is ludicrous as well. There is a lot of things I believe that I can't see. Like magnetism. I don't believe in God, because I have science that tells me many other things.
You have to consider, if it is all futile, then it doesn't really matter what you do, so if you enjoy unravveling the mysteries of the Universe as far as you can, even though you know that you'll never quite make it all the way, there's no good reason not to do it.
Evander on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
science does not have all the answers but it does have some very good questions
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
So what you're saying is that you're stupid* and like to be stupid
have I summed things up
*well perhaps the technical term is 'nihilistic'
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
What, that we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?
No, of course not.
That, too, would be entirely worthless.
It just amuses me how many people refuse to recognize the ultimate futility of reality. I see so many atheists so fervently fighting to "save" people, an I just don't understand what they are trying to save them from. We're all ultimately doomed to the same fate of non-existence no matter what we believe.
Yeah, why would we bother wanting the short time we have here to be fucking pleasant? Hey, if we're doomed to nothingness anyway, maybe we should turn this into hell on earth? That's your "logical" conclusion?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Yeah, why would we bother wanting the short time we have here to be fucking pleasant? Hey, if we're doomed to nothingness anyway, maybe we should turn this into hell on earth? That's your "logical" conclusion?
Science is very good at telling us how things work
Science has little to no bearing on how or why we should live our lives one way or another.
The questions of how and why we should live our lives is subject to things like morality, or ethics, or philosophy, not science.
Religion has, historically, tried to both explain how things work and how we should live our lives.
These days, I don't think that religion has much business telling us how things work, but it is still very much relevant in the question of how or why we should live our lives.
Personally, I'm an atheist, but I think that to completely dismiss religion out of hand is a short-sighted judgement which does not reflect the role and influence that religion plays in personal development, in community development, and in the way our culture sees itself.
Yeah, why would we bother wanting the short time we have here to be fucking pleasant? Hey, if we're doomed to nothingness anyway, maybe we should turn this into hell on earth? That's your "logical" conclusion?
You don't know what "logical" means, do you?
Um... nice rebuttal? Well, nice from you, anyway...
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Yeah, why would we bother wanting the short time we have here to be fucking pleasant? Hey, if we're doomed to nothingness anyway, maybe we should turn this into hell on earth? That's your "logical" conclusion?
You don't know what "logical" means, do you?
Um... nice rebuttal? Well, nice from you, anyway...
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Science is very good at telling us how things work
Science has little to no bearing on how or why we should live our lives one way or another.
The questions of how and why we should live our lives is subject to things like morality, or ethics, or philosophy, not science.
Religion has, historically, tried to both explain how things work and how we should live our lives.
These days, I don't think that religion has much business telling us how things work, but it is still very much relevant in the question of how or why we should live our lives.
Personally, I'm an atheist, but I think that to completely dismiss religion out of hand is a short-sighted judgement which does not reflect the role and influence that religion plays in personal development, in community development, and in the way our culture sees itself.
As an atheist, you are backtracking. Morals are not informed by religion. Religion is informed by morals. Morals are informed by culture. And culture is crafted from a collective idea in a population. Humans lived with a set code of conduct for a long long time before religion was invented. Keep in mind, we've been around for a lot longer than 10,000 years...
If you look at tribes in S. America or Africa or Indonesia who have created their own religion, you must ask yourself two things:
1) why did they create the religions?
2) why are they so vastly different.
I believe the answer to 1 is because they needed something to explain and define their moral code. I think, as humans, we are naturally inclined to want an explanation for everything, that said, it doesn't matter if it's imaginative or not. Further, since they don't have resources to science books, or the know how to find out themselves, yet, they really don't know much about why else to do so.
The answer to 2 is because of the culture and the niche they had to occupy to survive in those regions. The niche your species occupies in a specific area is relative to the ethical framework that rises up in the population around you.
Okay sure, you're right in the "Where does morality originally come from?" sense, but let's be honest here, probably 90% of the USA grew up in a religious household, and learned morality through religion.
So what you're saying is that you're stupid* and like to be stupid
have I summed things up
*well perhaps the technical term is 'nihilistic'
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
What, that we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?
come on, evander. you don't have to become insulting. I'd say that one could argue that atheists value life and existence MORE than religious people and especially nihilists, since it's obvious that if you view it as all there is to existence (which I do, to make my position clear), you try to get the most out of it.
How you come to the conclusion that the fixation on life and its values is EQUAL to the denying ANY meaning to life is somewhat nebulous to me
Edit: If your intention wasn't "smug insult", that is
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Well it depends on how you define "meaning." You don't need a God to make life meaningful. But reason or logic are not the places to turn for "meaning."
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
Morality =/= ethics.
what's the diff
Jinnigan on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
Morality =/= ethics.
what's the diff
Morality deals with a priori principles -- that "thou shall not kill" is, in itself, true. Ethics deals with the analysis of the rightness or wrongness of any action X based upon a belief system.
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
Morality =/= ethics.
what's the diff
Morality is apparently what [strike]Being[/strike] tells you is right and wrong.
what makes "thou shalt not kill" a priori true? we see in several cases religions where killing has been made acceptable in specific cases - the human sacrifice in the aztec culture is probably the most famous
Man created morals. Man created god to explain morals. God creates laws to uphold morals. Man denies god and his morals and laws. Man cannot have morals without god, whom man created to explains morals made by man.
Also, this is the first time I've heard someone say that without god there are no morals.
what makes "thou shalt not kill" a priori true? we see in several cases religions where killing has been made acceptable in specific cases - the human sacrifice in the aztec culture is probably the most famous
Well perhaps "murder" would be the better term. Not all religions would believe in the same mores, nor would all religions say that the purpose of religion is moral. The moral truth comes not from the predicate - not kill. Clearly people kill people all the time. It comes from the hortatory subjunctive "thou shall not." It is not true people don't kill people, but rather that the ought not kill people.
Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzy7UCBROzE
What, that we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
As I said a few posts ago I have no idea where I'm going, I'm just having fun. Anyway...
I don't think I've said that what we as humans do is right or wrong, it's just what we do and we seperate ourselves from the rest of nature by doing it. There are other species that when introduced to a foreign ecosystem, and are able to adapt, will disrupt said system and throw off the balance. Snakehead fish for example. A very invasive species, but it uses the natural resources around it to invade the ecosysemt.
We as people, when we have the ability, take what we had from a previous area and try to change a new location to meet our needs. Such as deforestation for farming, getting rid of local predators to herd cattle and other such examples.
Maybe this is just what people are meant to do. We could simply be nature's way of saying "Okay, lets change things up a bit. I need something that can move a lot of animals around, change environments and become very adaptful through natural and inventful means." Although, if nature thought this I would imagine it would now be thinking, "Damnit, stop breaking stuff!"
Though, unless I'm horrible mistaken on this, an example of a very invasive species that can actually exist in an ecosystem without greatly disrupting it would be rats. Their everywhere because of us, but now fill vital roles as prey and predators, and make cute pets. But that last one is beside the point.
No, of course not.
That, too, would be entirely worthless.
It just amuses me how many people refuse to recognize the ultimate futility of reality. I see so many atheists so fervently fighting to "save" people, an I just don't understand what they are trying to save them from. We're all ultimately doomed to the same fate of non-existence no matter what we believe.
I approve this pun.
I think I love you for this.
Awesome levels rising.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
the moment something isn't 100% perfect it's completely useless and must be torn down!
...it's called foreplay. Jesus.
Because we CAN grasp and explain these things, and we CAN understand them. Read some books on astro-physics, or, you know, research more. Every decade, we learn more and more, and that is the goal. To say we cannot, as in, we do not have the ability to do so, is simply unfounded. Centuries ago, they could not conceive of having what we do today.
Yet further, your analogy of atheists using "I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I DON'T SEE" is ludicrous as well. There is a lot of things I believe that I can't see. Like magnetism. I don't believe in God, because I have science that tells me many other things.
3DSFF: 5026-4429-6577
Why not?
You have to consider, if it is all futile, then it doesn't really matter what you do, so if you enjoy unravveling the mysteries of the Universe as far as you can, even though you know that you'll never quite make it all the way, there's no good reason not to do it.
I don't know if I agree with that.
Science can get extremely myopic and "group-thinky" at times. There are definitely times when science has wasted its time asking the wrong questions.
What science DOES have going for it is the right process. (the scientific method)
Yeah, why would we bother wanting the short time we have here to be fucking pleasant? Hey, if we're doomed to nothingness anyway, maybe we should turn this into hell on earth? That's your "logical" conclusion?
You don't know what "logical" means, do you?
Science is very good at telling us how things work
Science has little to no bearing on how or why we should live our lives one way or another.
The questions of how and why we should live our lives is subject to things like morality, or ethics, or philosophy, not science.
Religion has, historically, tried to both explain how things work and how we should live our lives.
These days, I don't think that religion has much business telling us how things work, but it is still very much relevant in the question of how or why we should live our lives.
Personally, I'm an atheist, but I think that to completely dismiss religion out of hand is a short-sighted judgement which does not reflect the role and influence that religion plays in personal development, in community development, and in the way our culture sees itself.
Um... nice rebuttal? Well, nice from you, anyway...
How about from David Hume?
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
As an atheist, you are backtracking. Morals are not informed by religion. Religion is informed by morals. Morals are informed by culture. And culture is crafted from a collective idea in a population. Humans lived with a set code of conduct for a long long time before religion was invented. Keep in mind, we've been around for a lot longer than 10,000 years...
If you look at tribes in S. America or Africa or Indonesia who have created their own religion, you must ask yourself two things:
1) why did they create the religions?
2) why are they so vastly different.
I believe the answer to 1 is because they needed something to explain and define their moral code. I think, as humans, we are naturally inclined to want an explanation for everything, that said, it doesn't matter if it's imaginative or not. Further, since they don't have resources to science books, or the know how to find out themselves, yet, they really don't know much about why else to do so.
The answer to 2 is because of the culture and the niche they had to occupy to survive in those regions. The niche your species occupies in a specific area is relative to the ethical framework that rises up in the population around you.
3DSFF: 5026-4429-6577
How you come to the conclusion that the fixation on life and its values is EQUAL to the denying ANY meaning to life is somewhat nebulous to me
Edit: If your intention wasn't "smug insult", that is
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Well it depends on how you define "meaning." You don't need a God to make life meaningful. But reason or logic are not the places to turn for "meaning."
Morality =/= ethics.
what's the diff
Morality deals with a priori principles -- that "thou shall not kill" is, in itself, true. Ethics deals with the analysis of the rightness or wrongness of any action X based upon a belief system.
Morality is apparently what [strike]Being[/strike] tells you is right and wrong.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
tools by their nature are amoral. You can take a hammer and build a house or use it to bash someone's brains in. It's still the same hammer.
Also, this is the first time I've heard someone say that without god there are no morals.
Well perhaps "murder" would be the better term. Not all religions would believe in the same mores, nor would all religions say that the purpose of religion is moral. The moral truth comes not from the predicate - not kill. Clearly people kill people all the time. It comes from the hortatory subjunctive "thou shall not." It is not true people don't kill people, but rather that the ought not kill people.
Err... you're pretty much dismissing cognitive therapy.