Death

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Why not? Maybe comforting isn't the right word, but I think there is peace to be found in it. Everybody will die, the sun will explode, all stars will explode, everything ends.

Maybe as a standalone concept, but in the larger context of religious belief I don't think it's nearly as comforting as the alternative.

Originally Posted by Beebs

Why is there a need for a singular objective? Life doesn't need to have meaning to be important and worthwhile.

There doesn't need to be a singular objective, but saying "important" and "worthwhile" is pretty much the same as saying meaningful. They are all abstract constructs of the human mind that are completely subjective outside the existence of God. If you're arguing from an empiricists point of view then those ideas dwell outside the scope of the scientific method and therefore don't actually exist.

Originally Posted by Beebs

Not to mention, when there is an afterlife, why bother to go towards any objective with any real intention?

Well there's the Hindu idea of karma and reincarnation with the ultimate goal of earning your way into the afterlife, or the Christian idea of living as Christ to bridge the gap between God and man. But I doubt that's what you mean. Maybe BDH can give a better answer to this question, since he's the only one I can think of on the board who genuinely believes in an afterlife.

[thekremlin]

This thread sucks.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

The only thing interesting about this thread is that Dirty Harry can't distinguish the differences in why he believes one thing versus another. What would seem to be a simple mental exercise is at the very least difficult to do. It's actually fascinating.

Is there a lack of self-introspection? Cognitive deficits? A predisposition to magical thinking? He accused others of being "rebellious" for having beliefs different from his, is it some sort of propensity to worship authority figures (perhaps due to childhood molestation or gay fantasies about having gay sex with his own father?)?

Is there a cure? Is there a way we can identify these people before birth like Down's children so an "intervention" can take place? He should be in a lab so scientists can study him.

[thekremlin]

Sucks sucks sucks

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Extraterrestrial intelligent life, which we have been searching for evidence of for decades and found none.

Decades is really nothing. Our first radio broadcasts into space, which travel at the speed of light (which, as far as we know, is as fast as anything can travel in a linear sense), haven't really gone that far.



Not to mention corruption of the signal/message that happens by various things in the environment of space, and even if it was crystal clear, could they even understand it? Even if they couldn't understand it, could they determine where exactly it came from?


You would really like the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan. (I almost hate recommending Sagan or NDT anymore because of the internet circle jerk surrounding them) I'm sure you've seen the movie, but the book is much, much better, and ponders many questions dealing with both ET and the afterlife. Seems like the perfect book for where your mind is at right now, I think you'd really like it.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

It was the most clear and concise way of saying it, and it was the most constructive way to say it.

A few of us said the exact same thing basically, it really is that Beebs just simplified it. Also, Beebs doesn't post a lot, so you probably don't have a problem listening to him more than some of us who you might not like/respect much, therefore your views of us are tainting the information we are trying to give to you. You come across as a very "fuck you, you're an asshole, so I'm not listening" sort of guy, which, while I can definitely sympathize with, isn't the path to knowledge and wisdom.

Just about everyone else's response was dripping with condescension and self-righteousness. I tend to block that shit out.

I think you should try to ignore that and see whether what they have to actually say has merit or not. When we tell you these things and you go to Nubblies looking for answers, you should kind of expect it by now. There are myriad authors out there who explain the concepts you are having a difficult time with in a more passive, educating manner, but you don't seem interested enough in the evidence we have (or don't have) to pursue this path. So when you ask a question that has a pretty obvious answer for a clear thinker, and being that you're an educated/smart enough young man yourself, it seems to the outsider that you have some kind of emotional "block" that is preventing you from accepting what appears to be "real". Condescension often comes out of the feeling of "you should know better, why don't you?"

I admit I do sound like this sometimes, particularly when speaking to those ignorant about science or religion, but I'm trying to stop doing it altogether; it's just not worth it, and, as I just related, emotional thinkers are less likely listen to facts about reality if they view it as coming off as condescending/arrogance; even if what they say is factual truth. It's a very hard line to toe, I think.

The problem though, is that 90% of the time you post you sound very self-righteous and condescending yourself -- something that, based on your views and opinions here, you really have no reason to be, except maybe on the subject of accounting. So when you say "I tend to block that shit out" -- you might have just discovered why some of us here find it hard to take your views seriously. It's difficult not to do the same thing with you.






Of course, all of this can be traced back to all of us joining up when we were sort of assholes and being dicks to each other is what we are used to on this board. As I said, I'm trying to do this less and get emotionally baited less easily (as many of you know it's historically easy to do with Mr. Blonde), but it's pretty unfair of you to call others "condescending and self-righteous" in a thread you are trying to be serious in, then say something akin to "jew nigger faggot" in another thread.

[Saint DH]

I never once claimed to believe in the supernatural or religion. For the most part, I asked open ended questions to stir debate. The only thing I even hinted about my personal beliefs is that the possibility of after life, or continued existence, makes me happier and gives me hope. That's it.

I guess I get a little tired of the atheist circle jerk on this board. I find it so annoying that everyone seems so sure about something so unknown. I see people comparing belief in god to belief in unicorns and fairies, but I don't think this is accurate at all. Billions of people don't, and haven't for centuries believed in unicorns and fairies. Not saying that makes it any more correct, but it certainly makes it different.

I try very hard to not sound condescending and self righteous. I guess I failed. Usually I resort to insults and petty name calling rather than trying to sound like a condescending cocksucker. I'll try to work on this more.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

I never once claimed to believe in the supernatural or religion. For the most part, I asked open ended questions to stir debate. The only thing I even hinted about my personal beliefs is that the possibility of after life, or continued existence, makes me happier and gives me hope. That's it.

Any hope or belief in an afterlife is, by very definition, supernatural. If it's beyond the natural world, what we know currently, it is supernatural. And if the possibility of afterlife gives you hope and makes you happier, that's great. But if you want those beliefs validated, Nubblies is not the place -- you will only find pain here. Unfortunately, most of the people who believe in or hope for an afterlife do believe in the supernatural, and are religious or "spiritual" -- so they are who you would want to talk to. Finding belief in the afterlife and good arguments for it among educated and logical people just isn't likely to happen very often.

I guess I get a little tired of the atheist circle jerk on this board. I find it so annoying that everyone seems so sure about something so unknown. I see people comparing belief in god to belief in unicorns and fairies, but I don't think this is accurate at all. Billions of people don't, and haven't for centuries believed in unicorns and fairies. Not saying that makes it any more correct, but it certainly makes it different.

Again, it's not that we're sure, it's that it seems like the most likely/most probable reality given what we know now. I find it very interesting to ponder religion and the supernatural -- I just finished probably the most ridiculous "nonfiction" book I've ever read this morning -- but just because I ponder it doesn't mean it has any merit in reality. The more I read about world religions and supernatural beliefs, the more conflicting viewpoints arise, and the more rational atheism seems. People seem to "need" to believe, and as I said, given the shittiness of the world, I don't entirely blame them.

RE: Unicorns/fairies, it really is still pretty much the exact same thing. As Hitch said and Dent quoted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Asserting an invisible nonsense creature is in the corner of the room may seem like an immature argument, but it really is pretty much the same thing.

Can you imagine living in a world where people DID believe in unicorns or fairies en masse? you'd be making the exact same argument:

I guess I get a little tired of the atheiunicorn circle jerk on this board. I find it so annoying that everyone seems so sure about something so unknown. I see people comparing belief in unicorns to belief in gods and fairies, but I don't think this is accurate at all. Billions of people don't, and haven't for centuries believed in gods or fairies. Not saying that makes it any more correct, but it certainly makes it different.

If that sounds asinine to you, then welcome to the club. That's exactly how atheists feel, most of the time. It is, indeed, very frustrating to see so many people believe in something that, if we are talking evidence and philosophy, appears to have no actual basis in reality whatever. This is why I am so against childhood indoctrination and bringing children up with religions. I have no doubt this is the #1 reason so many people believe -- the people they trust and love the most in the world, from 0-18, put this belief on them, and that is a hard, hard thing to break. Not always the case, but the overwhelming majority of religious people were brought up in that religion.

Just for the sake of education, the logical fallacy you just used is officially named "argumentum ad populum" - Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting factor on Christianity's popularity in particular: Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'll try to work harder on being less condescending too, we can do it together!

[Beebs]

I thought DH's question was actually a pretty useful rhetorical device; not all questions imply the asker's beliefs.

Over the years Nubblies has become more homogenized in its beliefs, and things can turn into a bit of a circle jerk. Playing devil's advocate (see what I did there?) is healthy once in a while.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Maybe as a standalone concept, but in the larger context of religious belief I don't think it's nearly as comforting as the alternative.



There doesn't need to be a singular objective, but saying "important" and "worthwhile" is pretty much the same as saying meaningful. They are all abstract constructs of the human mind that are completely subjective outside the existence of God. If you're arguing from an empiricists point of view then those ideas dwell outside the scope of the scientific method and therefore don't actually exist.

Surely it is possible to identify, although maybe not quantify, things such as meaningfulness and importance as tangible things through neuroscience? The original point was along the lines of "life needs x to be meaningful", but I contend you can identify "meaning" or whatever term is used without anything beyond life

Well there's the Hindu idea of karma and reincarnation with the ultimate goal of earning your way into the afterlife, or the Christian idea of living as Christ to bridge the gap between God and man. But I doubt that's what you mean. Maybe BDH can give a better answer to this question, since he's the only one I can think of on the board who genuinely believes in an afterlife.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I thought DH's question was actually a pretty useful rhetorical device; not all questions imply the asker's beliefs.

Agreed, but recent and elsewhere DH has spoken of how he believes/wants to hope in an afterlife and it just doesn't seem he was doing it purely rhetorically/playing devils advocate. I think it's pretty clear from his posting that he has an emotional investment in this and is more on the afterlife/supernatural side of death than the atheist/nothingless side.

Not that there's anything wrong with it. I just really, really, really don't like it when people talk about certain things then claim they're just being rhetorical or curious or playing a thought-exercise. It is very rare when they are completely separate from the ideas in question, and when they are it appears to be very apparent by the way they post.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I thought DH's question was actually a pretty useful rhetorical device; not all questions imply the asker's beliefs.

If you're talking about

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This is a bit off topic, but I'm assuming those of you who do not believe in afterlife also do not believe extraterrestrial life exists for the same reason of lack of evidence. Is this a correct assumption?

then I disagree, life elsewhere has been discussed in other threads with several atheists agreeing that chances are there is extraterrestrial life.
DH's worst crime is his ignorance of the search button!

[Beebs]

Well yes, but I took the question as a leading question to get people to explain if just lack of evidence or an impossibility of evidence was the issue.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Well yes, but I took the question as a leading question to get people to explain if just lack of evidence or an impossibility of evidence was the issue.

I really take issue with the concept of "impossibility of evidence" in almost everything it's attributed to, and it's why the concept of agnosticism really nags at me.

If something affects the physical world, it can, potentially and eventually, be tested inside the physical world.

In regard to the supernatural and metaphysical, brain science is really the key to all of these. Once we figure out how everything inside the brain works, we'll be able to eliminate a lot of mass delusions, I think. The fundamental misunderstanding here is emotions that make a person feel so "spiritual" or "connected with the universe" are so strong and meaningful that it instills in them a sense of "this can't just be physical" -- but all the evidence points to exactly that.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, if you can get those same emotions from certain drugs, it either means the drugs are physically and chemically affecting your brain/body (in the physical/material world), or it means that the drug is a spiritual conduit into another dimension or whatever. Pretty easy answer to me.

[Beebs]

The afterlife is a case where evidence seems impossible. I don't say that in a "it might be true" sense, but in a "there isn't and never will be tangible evidence" way.

[Mr. Blonde]

Agree. It seems like one of the most illogical things in the world to believe in a very extraordinary claim, no matter how nice it would be in theory, when evidence of ever knowing about it seems impossible.

[thekremlin]

This is the suckiest thread since DH tried to recommend a band to us.

[Saint DH]

I think we got it the first two times you said it. You can ignore threads you know.

Otherwise shut the fuck up faggot.

[thekremlin]

This thread would be better with the right to bear arms.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Surely it is possible to identify, although maybe not quantify, things such as meaningfulness and importance as tangible things through neuroscience?

What do you mean exactly? Like you could watch parts of someone's brain light up on a monitor when they talk about loving their children or finding God?

The point I'm arguing is that objective meaning can not come from the human mind if we're arguing from a strictly empiricist point of view.

[Dent]

Bump! if anyone forgot

You're Going to Die! - YouTube

You're Going to Die! - YouTube

[Saint DH]

Robert Lanza, M.D.: What Is It Like After You Die?

Thought this was a pretty cool take on death. And it's even cooler because we at least have theoretical evidence that the multiverse exists.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

and that evidence is netflix?

[Saint DH]

It's a huffington post article ffs. Were you expecting hard science and theoretical mathematics?

[Dent]

An Interview with John Gray: 'Human Progress Is a Lie' | VICE United States
Back to barbarism boys!