Atheists... Your life is pointless

<lag>

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

My point is simply this mate...One of two things seem to be happening and I am just interested in which one of the two you think are happening, or if there is another option...?

And I do not mean to be offensive...

One, you are trying to directly show other individuals that we are sociopathic as a society...If this is true, who do you think does not understand that everyone acts sociopathic/psychological/sociological...while they also know they can choose not to act socio...etc...and that would mean we are not, but can be? Or are? Because others choose to, or do not fully understand?

Two, you think we all are because we all act this way at times, and rationalize how we are not...Or think we are not, but we truly are and do not wish to acknowledge this about our society in general...Or try to change this about our society if we even could...? If this is true, it seems it is either sociopathic, to you, if someone does not agree? Or you make it appear that you do not think you act sociopathic, but may be? (I mean no offense, really, I am just very curious...)

If you disagree with both of those two...What do you think you act sociopathic about yourself? And why do you think that that is sociopathic? And how do you come to the conclusions that everyone else is, at times, just like you may be? (since you now list Christians who enslaved people, which I presume you disagree with, and do not fully embrace yourself? "The faith, and beliefs...")

I really do not mean to offend you...I am just curious, and do not understand your understandings mate...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Another reason I ask mate...Is because from your views, or posts...I can also see how everyone would appear to act socio, at times, in your perspectives...

But your views fail to point out how you think it is valid because of what you think is socio yourself, based upon what you do that is socio, and how you chose not to do them...So that you show you have an understanding of both...and how you make those distinctions...? And I am curious if you will share...

0 Replies

Are we still talking about Buddhists in Sri Lanka?

Quote:

Sri Lanka has denied entry to a British tourist at Colombo's international airport because he showed a lack of respect for Buddhism, reports say.

An immigration official told a local newspaper that when the man was asked about a tattoo of Buddha on his arm he had spoken "very disrespectfully".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21812855

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yea, but the bible authorizes slaves.

Dealing with the reality of slavery does not constitute authorization.

Good to see you again CI. I missed you so I had to come back.

3 Replies

@neologist,

Hi, and welcome back! I was only responding to a previous poster who was critical of christians owning slaves.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I know. Just needed to say hello.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

I really do not mean to offend you...I am just curious, and do not understand your understandings mate...

No offense taken.

Quote:

One, you are trying to directly show other individuals that we are sociopathic as a society...If this is true, who do you think does not understand that everyone acts sociopathic/psychological/sociological...while they also know they can choose not to act socio...etc...and that would mean we are not, but can be? Or are? Because others choose to, or do not fully understand?

I think that we are a little better than we use to be but we have a long way to go as a society.

Quote:

who do you think does not understand that everyone acts sociopathic/psychological/sociological...while they also know they can choose not to act socio...etc

I do not think that it is always a choice if someone is going to act one way or another because empathy is a sense that we have and if that sense can be flawed at times just as our other sense can be, then there will be times when we are behaving antisocial.

What are some things that can make our sense of empathy flawed? maybe the brain itself? maybe our environment?

Quote:

they also know they can choose not to act socio...etc

Here lies a big part of the problem and that is how do they know what is truly best in their interest if they do not study or have a strong interest in ethics?
I think that Jesus got it right when he said it would be easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven.
I bring this up because the rich man will do everything he can to promote his self interest even if it is to teach a flawed sense of morality to the masses.

Quote:

Two, you think we all are because we all act this way at times, and rationalize how we are not...Or think we are not, but we truly are and do not wish to acknowledge this about our society in general...Or try to change this about our society if we even could...?

I think that many people are this way but the latter part of your quote I would have to say there are people who do strive to change this about our society.

Quote:

Or you make it appear that you do not think you act sociopathic, but may be? (I mean no offense, really, I am just very curious...)

I think I have flaws like the rest of mankind and at times do and say things I wish I didn't.

Quote:

What do you think you act sociopathic about yourself? And why do you think that that is sociopathic?

I am using the word sociopathic in a general sense meaning antisocial or disrespectful, I at times may be under stress because of many different reasons or I could be sick or a number of different things that could be on my nerves and I will at times be antisocial. Maybe someone will do or say something I think is hateful and I will respond in a negative way at times.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

rl--do you or don't you think that it is sociopathic for an atheist to bring children into the world bearing in mind that there is no point to life for such a person and the calculus of sorrow and joy which life entails being what it is. Life begins with teething and colic, for the lucky ones, and being chucked under the chin by proud fathers. It goes downhill after that. Jabs. Whenever I see scenes on TV of babies being injected with some **** or other I watch the faces of the little monsters change when the needle goes into their tender arm. The list of things with funny names which the injection is to see off bodes ill for the future.

Then there's being thrown up in the air by proud fathers, in order that he is entertained by how proud a father he is, when the best thing is smearing the contents of the potty over the furniture or lying in a cot sucking on a syruped dummy or, better still, in Mom's cradling arms sucking on a fat tit.

But the downhill slope gets steeper after that. ******* school. They have them starting at three here now. Fancy having to wash your neck, and carry a handkerchief and wear a tie at three.

I will refrain from the details of the further miseries life has in store due to the magnitude of the task and the sensitivities of atheist intellectuals regarding this important matter. Where's your much vaunted empathy eh?

The question being posed is whether or not reasoning logic critically thinks itself into extinction.

Why are you evading this important matter and blathering on instead about your relationship with Spadie?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Thank you RL, that was very well said. Very Happy

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Jabs. Whenever I see scenes on TV of babies being injected with some **** or other I watch the faces of the little monsters change when the needle goes into their tender arm. The list of things with funny names which the injection is to see off bodes ill for the future.

Here's your beautiful nature without vaccines:

http://phil.cdc.gov/PHIL_Images/10713/10713_lores.jpg

spendius wrote:

I will refrain from the details of the further miseries life has in store due to the magnitude of the task and the sensitivities of atheist intellectuals regarding this important matter. Where's your much vaunted empathy eh?

Do you honestly think that human's were happier or more peaceful pre-civilization? We were so much better off when we were "lucky" if we reached the ripe old age of 32 with our teeth half ground down infested with lice. It was a "better" time and place when 1/4 of the males died at the hands of other males, and dying in childbirth is something every woman should rightly fear?

spendius wrote:

The question being posed is whether or not reasoning logic critically thinks itself into extinction.

It seems quite obvious to me that reasoning logic has been an overall benefit to humanity. As all things powerful logos is a tool not a virtue. It must be properly applied. Ethics.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

I think you miss Spendi's point. He's stating that to live is to suffer, you're just talking about degrees of suffering.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I do call into question, a glorification of suffering.
The adage "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". This is folk wisdom at it's worst. Of course stress is needed in all life as challenge. There is a psychological and physiological distinction between distress and eustress.
I do not disparage art or aesthetic works, but naturalistic romanticism as Spendi has been espousing, is mumbo jumbo.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Here's your beautiful nature without vaccines:

Do you think I don't know? I suppose if I looked I could find cases in which those were avoided and worse outcomes ensued. But it wasn't the point. It is life which results in those ghastly diseases and thus demands the injection to prevent them. You're being selective. And emotional. And distasteful. And you make my point more forcibly as a result. There are conditions as bad as those in our own hospitals. Perhaps worse.

Why does an atheist visit pointless life an another when both risks are there to be run along with a multitude of others? I have given a Christian justification.

I never said Nature was beautiful. It's a bloody killing field. It's ghastly. It has no mitigating features. Except possibly as a backdrop to some ego pose which has the horrid truth about Nature on Ignore.

Quote:

Do you honestly think that human's were happier or more peaceful pre-civilization? We were so much better off when we were "lucky" if we reached the ripe old age of 32 with our teeth half ground down infested with lice. It was a "better" time and place when 1/4 of the males died at the hands of other males, and dying in childbirth is something every woman should rightly fear?

And that is beside the point as well.

Quote:

It seems quite obvious to me that reasoning logic has been an overall benefit to humanity. As all things powerful logos is a tool not a virtue. It must be properly applied. Ethics.

As is that. What does "properly" mean? What Matt thinks I suppose!

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks. If we think ourselves into extinction with reasoning logic then we would be an evolutionary failure. And I am suggesting that reasoning logic will do precisely that and there is evidence to show it is actually happening.

You are also evading the issue. In the periods you refer to there was no reasoning logic to speak of and I will agree that reasoning logic has provided many improvements but I think the goal of it is extinction. To think otherwise you have to claim that the joys outweigh the suffering and the mass recourse to escapisms of one sort or another suggests they don't.

Are we not relying on the unreasoning illogicalities of superstitious mumbo-jumbo to save us from extinction? What do the Darwinists have to say about that? Religion as a species survival mechanism sure does take some explaining away.

I gather that Prof Dawkins has fathered one child with 3 wives and as that was with his second wife I daresay it was an accident of animality.

We could, of course, purchase babies off the women. We already do to a certain extent. But what will they eventually charge if they catch up with rl on the reasoning logic front?

1 Reply

Spendius is too important to listen to what I say or ask, so I ask this of anyone reading what Spendius just wrote:

Quote:

If we think ourselves into extinction with reasoning logic then we would be an evolutionary failure.

That is true. Better we evolve ourselves into evolutions version of extinction. But, as Spendius noted, “that is beside the point as well.”

If we move ourselves into extinction by avoiding “reasoning logic” for whatever reason…will we be less an evolutionary failure?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius wrote:

There are conditions as bad as those in our own hospitals. Perhaps worse.

There are some worse conditions. On average though a human's life involves less suffering in than in any time in history. Look at hospital? Who's being selective now? Of course there will be more suffering within a hospital... who goes to hospital? Not the well.

Spendius wrote:

Why does an atheist visit pointless life an another when both risks are there to be run along with a multitude of others? I have given a Christian justification.

You have not given a "Christian" justification you have given (inadvertently) a justification for civilization. You are naive to think that Christianity has a monopoly on civilization. Christianity resulted from a Hellinization of an Abrahemic monotheism. There is as much if not more of Rome in "Roman Catholicism" as their is of Yahweh. Besides the fact that you ignore all other examples of civilizations. The power religions have in regards to society is as organizing groups toward common goals. The reason religions work at all is because humans have goals. Goals which can be channeled and/or taken advantage of.
Religion doesn't explain purpose, it exploits it.

Spendius wrote:

What does "properly" mean? What Matt thinks I suppose!

Cheap and inaccurate.
Properly means that which conforms to goals. Humans are born with an innate concern for others and themselves. Christianity does not "explain" this.

Spendius wrote:

You are also evading the issue. In the periods you refer to there was no reasoning logic to speak of and I will agree that reasoning logic has provided many improvements but I think the goal of it is extinction. To think otherwise you have to claim that the joys outweigh the suffering and the mass recourse to escapisms of one sort or another suggests they don't.

Reasoning logic was personified by Christianity as Logos. John 1:1. That you would continue this personification by giving reasoning logic "goals" is a gross misuse of the term. Logos is a tool, not a virtue, not a God.

Spendius wrote:

What do the Darwinists have to say about that?

Who cares? Who the hell are the Darwinists?
Your equating atheism with "Darwinism" is your bag, not mine. If you feel that origination defines your circumstance, then perhaps your linearity of thinking is what needs to be called into question.

Spendius wrote:

Are we not relying on the unreasoning illogicalities of superstitious mumbo-jumbo to save us from extinction?

I assume by "we" you mean humanity. No we are not ALL using mumbo-jumbo to save us from extinction. Certainly most are, in an attempt to bury heads in sand. Pray for relief or shut our eyes to reality. That seems more a condemnation of legalistic religiosity than a defense of it.

Spendius wrote:

But what will they eventually charge if they catch up with rl on the reasoning logic front?

Your attempted equation of Logos with capitalism is of course again merely a condemnation of the worshiping mind-set that you attempt to defend. Bow down before the market, from which all good shall flow. Markets like (reasoning logic)/logos are tools to be used properly or maliciously.
"Proper" defined by serving common interests or goals.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am not too important to listen to what you say Frank. I read all your posts on the threads I go on.

You are simply impossible to have a sensible discussion with.

For example--

Quote:

If we move ourselves into extinction by avoiding “reasoning logic” for whatever reason…will we be less an evolutionary failure?

shows quite clearly that you are being obtuse. As usual. If we become extinct by a process avoiding reasoning logic then it won't be reasoning logic that caused it. If you are thinking in terms of holocausts it is hard to imagine any that would cause extinction.

But for those who think life is a weary tale of woe, a not altogether unreasonable view, we could think ourselves, consciously, into extinction. Whistling Life Is A Bed Of Roses is just ridiculous. The unborn have no pressing reason to get here.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I think you're missing the point Matt.

Why would an educated atheist have children? What justification is there for visiting this **** on an innocent who hasn't asked for it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5280613)
I am not too important to listen to what you say Frank. I read all your posts on the threads I go on.

Excellent. This seems a shift in your attitude, but I may have been misreading you.

Quote:

You are simply impossible to have a sensible discussion with.

Not at all. I am not a dummy; I am not unreasonable; and I try to be as clear as possible. Frankly, I feel I succeed at latter more often than you.

I am an iconoclast...and I often enjoy conceiving of issues from an alternate perspective which may be a problem for you or others.

Quote:

For example--

Quote:
Quote:
If we move ourselves into extinction by avoiding “reasoning logic” for whatever reason…will we be less an evolutionary failure?

shows quite clearly that you are being obtuse.

Not at all, Spendius. And I am not being a wise-ass here. My comment makes sense and is clear.

In your post (which I cited) you wrote:

Quote:

If we think ourselves into extinction with reasoning logic then we would be an evolutionary failure.

I was merely calling attention to the fact that the same result might come of doing the opposite of what you cited as possibly leading to “evolutionary failure.”

(If we do “x” it may lead us into extinction and thusly into evolutionary failure…is not insurance against leading ourselves into extinction and thusly into evolutionary failure by doing not-"x". )

To me, your comment amounted to a kind of non-sequitur.

Quote:

If we become extinct by a process avoiding reasoning logic then it won't be reasoning logic that caused it.

True…but “extinction by any other name”…so to speak. I am saying that there are other processes that may cause extinction.

Quote:

If you are thinking in terms of holocausts it is hard to imagine any that would cause extinction.

There are all sorts of human activity that might ultimately lead us to extinction…and for all we know, “extinction” of the dominant species on a planet might be the usual rather than the extraordinary. Your statement seemed to warn against “thinking ourselves into extinction with reasoning logic.” Others might easily warn of moving into extinction by neglecting to think ourselves out of the possibility by reasoning logic.

Quote:

But for those who think life is a weary tale of woe, a not altogether unreasonable view, we could think ourselves, consciously, into extinction.

We could indeed. But we could, as I have now said a couple of times, just as easily move to extinction by neglect of that thinking.

Quote:

Whistling Life Is A Bed Of Roses is just ridiculous. The unborn have no pressing reason to get here.

I agree the “unborn” have no pressing reason to get here…although I prefer not to use the term “unborn” because it sounds like a line from a cheap horror movie. As far as life being a bed of roses…well, I guess there are problems. I am lucky insofar as I have a very positive perspective on life. I’m kinda sorry I’m moving so quickly toward its end, because I have been having a ball living my life.

Thank you for engaging me on this, Spendius.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

SpadeMaster most of man’s knowledge has been accumulated over time and most of us have only direct knowledge of a tiny fraction of man’s history. We basically have to take someone else’s word for what actually happened. We have no direct knowledge of most of mankind’s knowledge. The skill is in evaluating what passes for knowledge and separating the signal from the noise.

Knowledge from supernatural sources can never be questioned because they are from a supreme being. All knowledge needs to be questioned and when someone tells us this particular knowledge can never be question it should tell us that it is not knowledge but creed.

The child should not be influenced by the parent. I made no effort to pass my beliefs on to my daughter when she was child. My wife did take her to a couple of different churches but not long enough for them to brain washer her. But you can never eliminate the overall influence of the culture. This culture embraces superstition and magical thinking and huge stone monuments to superstition are built on many corners in every U S city. Even if you don’t chose to actively participate in a religious cult the influence is all around you. It is on television, the radio, the schools, and in social situations, you can never escape it.

Just being born agnostic would not change anything. That would be like being in the middle gun battle and trying to pretend you have no chance of being hit. The faces on man’s superstitions have changed over the years and will change again but magical thinking and superstition will continue to be opium of mankind.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know