Atheists... Your life is pointless

@FBM,

Quote:

Are you saying that the famed Marquis performed a series of carefully designed and controlled experiments to collect empirical data on the electrical potential of neurons vis a vis the conscious awareness of decision-making?

Yes with the help of his trusted valet, one La Jeunesse, and some handy specimens.

I think we should drop the subject FB. It is not suitable for the delicate sensibilities normally found on such threads as these.

Geoffrey Gorer wrote that de Sade posited the bases on which all scientific work rests and on which all modern medicine, biology and psychology do also.

Quote:

For all science today is materialist in its assumptions, whatever it may be in its popularizations; it is a pity that it has forgotten this precursor and well-nigh martyr in the cause of objectivity.

Algernon Swinburne said that the day will come when a statue of Donatien Alphonse Francois: The Marquis de Sade will be erected in every city of the civilised world.

He might very well be said to be the Jesus of Science and he suffered a similar fate except that ostracism was more humane in his day. He is even ostracised by A2K's objectivity fanatics. I dare speculate that his works and his biographers are not to be found in any of those educational establishments which claim dedication to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And he will not be unique in that respect either.

Which has led me to the obvious conclusion that our delicate atheists are more concerned with getting Catholic morality out of their own sex lives because of how inconvenient it is to their carnal expressions. Getting it out of everybody's sex lives being unimportant to them.

1 Reply

@spendius,

OK, if you think we should drop it, I'm fine with that. However, I will read up on the people you mention, even if you don't return the courtesy. I'm not one of those "delicate atheists" and I'm not even sure what group you're referring to, as in my experience theists have a much more fragile metaphysical world-view to protect, seeing as how it's completely unsupported by empirical evidence.

On a final note, if you really want to undermine scientific empiricism, read up on Hume's (and others) problem with inference. It's a powerful argument, though empirical evidence and necessary inference drawn from it far outweigh alleged, feel-good, pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by, mystical revelations to ancient Bronze Age, goat-herding, scientifically illiterate nomads by a long shot. Anyway, I'm too busy this week to pursue this any further. Best of luck to you, and please keep in mind that I have no real animosity towards peaceful theists. I just like to excercise my grey matter on things like this. After this semester is over and this research paper is written, I'll find another chew toy. :cheers:

2 Replies

@FBM,

A question, if I may:

You mentioned that you are an "atheist"...and a not particularly delicate atheist.

I'm wondering...what does a not particularly delicate atheist say about the existence of gods?

Are there any?

Is there a possibility there are some...or at least one?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Actually...more than one question, it appears.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually...more than one question, it appears.

Forgiven on the question count. Wink

There is so much equivocation on the definition of 'atheist' that I won't even define myself as such. It's just another label, anyway. I have seen no credible evidence of anything supernatural, gods included. Therefore, I suspend judgement on the ultimate answer to that question. However, until some sort of evidence presents itself, I will continue to poke holes in unfounded metaphysical claims, just for practice, whether they're knowlege claims for or against the existence of something for which there is no proof. I mentioned Hume's problem with inference. Until something better comes along, I'm going to hang with Pyrrho of Elis' approach. It relieves a lot of my stress about the whole convoluted mess. If you or anyone else has any credible evidence for or against the existence of a god or anything supernatural, I'm all ears (eyes, I guess).

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius, the spread of religious cults is done through brain washing. For members of a religious cult the brain washing of children starts almost at birth and is continuous throughout the child’s life. Children in our society are not raised neutrally to age of majority and then allowed to study different religions and pick a religion or no religion. Adult authority figures have a tremendous influence over a child whose brain in its formative stages. The choices about religion are made by a child’s parents.

After generations have been brainwashed the religious cultists looks around at all the brainwashed and points out that as proof positive of the existence of god. If brain washing of children were outlawed to age twenty there would be far fewer people who “believed” in god.

When my father and mother were in a discussion with a local priest as to whether I would be required to attend Catholic school, the priest said let me have him and he will be god’s for life. They decided to let me attend public school all of which were in easy walking distance of home. I often wonder if that priest could have damaged my brain so bad that I would not have been able to think for myself, I would like to think he couldn’t but the realities of neuroscience would have put the odds in his favor.

Neuroscience has provided us with a simple truth brains are grown not an instrument that measures reality accurately as much as it shapes reality to fit our philosophy. The neuropath ways determine not only what we think but how we think. Our neocortex edits reality it spends more effort filtering out incoming information then it does perceiving information. Our eyes see only a portion of light frequencies. Our ears hear only a portion of sound frequencies. The rest is simply filtered out by their design structure. A man’s philosophy is in effect an editing mechanism. The philosophy of life allows a man to simply filter out any information which is not consistent with his philosophy of life as “not true.” In the end a man’s philosophy shapes the physical structure of his brain. The neuropath ways to process any inconsistent information atrophy and die. The other neuropath ways that reinforce your philosophy become stronger. In fact a brain has been created for belief in a god and it is impossible for that brain to process any information that shows that existence of God is only fairy tale as now is the accepted wisdom for most gods that were in style before the current one came in style. Man created god, god did not create man.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

David Hume.

The problem with that for me is that it offers no hierarchy of the passions.

I have a passion for cakes. But I have a more powerful passion to avoid obesity. I have a passion for free and easy sex but I have a stronger passion for an orderly social existence.

Left to ourselves we would indulge the passions of the moment without afterthought. We need guidance to protect us from ourselves. How that guidance is derived and perfected in the service of an orderly society, which must be the highest passion, and then inculcated in the population, is a matter of technique operating on the empirical principle of what works best under all the circumstances.

The success of the Christian culture suggests to me that that is what works best and if myth and superstition are required to strengthen the inculcation, given that a large majority of the population are not intellectuals, I'm all for them.

Those who pick holes in the method of inculcation are starting from the Christian society which they are unconsciously taking for granted and allowing a lower passion to take precedence over a higher one.

They are up to no good imo.

0 Replies

@spendius,

My other alternative is to let reason run its course. For example, with reason, and absence of religion, middle east conflict would be over, seeing that religion is more important in Middle Eastern ethnic conflicts than elsewhere.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FMB…thanks for the response. A Venn diagram of our positions would probably show lots of overlap.

I see no reason to suppose gods MUST EXIST in order to explain anything that is part of my existence…and I see no reason to suppose gods CANNOT EXIST. That said, I have no credible evidence for the existence of gods and I have no credible evidence that gods do not exist. On the Ultimate Question of “What is this all about?”…for me, the jury essentially is still out (and I doubt it will ever be "in.")

I usually “label” myself an agnostic…although I have used “non-theist” at times. I have come to the point (apparently as have you) where I truly prefer not to use a label, but rather simply to state my position with variations on what I said above.

You did write:

Quote:

I will continue to poke holes in unfounded metaphysical claims, just for practice...

Some of the responses you gave earlier seem to go beyond that, F. They seemed unnecessarily provocative…close to insulting to those who guess theistically. So I thought I would ask for something more concise to be sure I was on the correct page with regard to your position.

1 Reply

@RST,

Quote:

For example, with reason, and absence of religion, middle east conflict would be over, seeing that religion is more important in Middle Eastern ethnic conflicts than elsewhere.

That seems to me take leave of reason. One might say the same about flags and national anthems etc.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Last I checked, flags and national anthems weren't important to the Middle Eastern ethnic conflicts as Religion.

1 Reply

@RST,

Tribes are though.

Furthermore--how do propose introducing reason into that world. It isn't that easy in ours. Why does reason not prevail in dealing with what is known as the Fiscal Cliff. Reason can only have one answer surely?

3 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Reason can only have one answer surely?

What makes you so sure that I can have only one answer? Laughing

Why cant there be multiple answers? Rolling Eyes

As long as most people have more faith in the American dollar than they have in God I do not see were we could go wrong. Even atheist have more faith in the dollar than they do a God. I bet if there was a God he would be jealous of the petrol dollar.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Tribes are though.

Yup, tribes who profess their religion profusely to brainwash its people to commit horrendous atrociousness.

Regarding fiscal cliff, at least some of the religious are reasonable about this and wants a negotiation to protect the poor. I have no problem with religion, I only have a problem when religion runs a course against rational thought and reason.

Quote:

Reason can only have one answer surely?

I disagree. Creativity compliments reason well in providing more than one answer on a given matter. Some answers are sometimes better than others in a given circumstance, yet all are answers nevertheless.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You did write:
Quote:
I will continue to poke holes in unfounded metaphysical claims, just for practice...

Some of the responses you gave earlier seem to go beyond that, F. They seemed unnecessarily provocative…close to insulting to those who guess theistically. So I thought I would ask for something more concise to be sure I was on the correct page with regard to your position.

True enough. Sometimes I choose pointed language in order to try to deflate illusions, or to elicit well-thought-out responses instead of trite, off-the-cuff brush-offs. I hope that I made it clear that I'm attacking the ideas, not the people who hold them. If I haven't made that clear, I'd like to apologize and clear it up here. Nothing against people, just against poor reasoning. Elsewhere, I've defended theists' rights to believe whatever they like and admit that it's none of my business. But if someone posts an idea out there for the general public to see, well, it's fair game, I think. Smile

3 Replies

@FBM,

I agree; posting onto a public forum is open to challenge - especially ones with poor reasoning/lacks common sense.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5183660)
Frank Apisa wrote:

You did write:
Quote:
I will continue to poke holes in unfounded metaphysical claims, just for practice...

Some of the responses you gave earlier seem to go beyond that, F. They seemed unnecessarily provocative…close to insulting to those who guess theistically. So I thought I would ask for something more concise to be sure I was on the correct page with regard to your position.

True enough. Sometimes I choose pointed language in order to try to deflate illusions, or to elicit well-thought-out responses instead of trite, off-the-cuff brush-offs. I hope that I made it clear that I'm attacking the ideas, not the people who hold them. If I haven't made that clear, I'd like to apologize and clear it up here. Nothing against people, just against poor reasoning. Elsewhere, I've defended theists' rights to believe whatever they like and admit that it's none of my business. But if someone posts an idea out there for the general public to see, well, it's fair game, I think.

You are correct, FBM. The tone of some of the things you said led me to think that perhaps you were saying that thoughts about gods existing were absurd...which might be coming from a position of "gods cannot exist."

Just wanted to check. You have assured me that is not the case. I thank you for that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yup. I wouldn't make such an knowledge claim about such a non-evident metaphysical question. Well, unless I were drunk and sloppy or something. Wink

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I agree; posting onto a public forum is open to challenge - especially ones with poor reasoning/lacks common sense.

Yeah, and also when they come knocking on my door, like they did yesterday and two days before that. Grr.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

But if someone posts an idea out there for the general public to see, well, it's fair game, I think.

Then why did you flee to the safety of 'ignore' instead of defending your ideas. So typically hypocritical.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know