The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)
This is a hilarious thread (none / 0)
"Nietzsche's philosophy was that the meaning of life is to live life here on Earth."

A simplistic view of Nietzsche, and I would respectfully disagree. Will to power is a bit more complicated than just live life here on Earth, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra indicates he thought man was merely a bridge to a higher intelligence.

I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? [...] All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape...The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth...Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

But I digress, I will stand by my assertion that Nietzsche and others believed in a higher meaning to life, and the comment was to frame my argument of diverse views of the meaning of life and the character of God.

Typical Christian strawman, sorry. Noone in their right mind attributes anything to random chance (after Planck-time, I suppose). Even if that were the case, why would that rule out a meaning? Or the other way round: why would a meaning rule out random chance.

Have you been paying attention? The vast majority of the people who attack people of faith use the god of science to justify their beliefs and ultimately big bang is mere random chance of a set of molecules coming together in a random fashion to form life.

Circular logic from all sides.
please point that out to me, I might be a little slow at seeing the circular reasoning.

When arguing “faith” all arguments ultimately are circular. Start with a supposition and then prove it.
Basically persons of faith use
1.God is the greatest possible being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.God exists.

People who don’t believe basically argue
1. If something exist Science can prove it.
2. Science cannot prove God exist.
3. God does not exist.

Both sides have a belief system and base the outcome on that belief, by definition Circular arguments.

And you seem to make it pretty clear that you think that there is a higher meaning to life or something like that.  I don't know how to say this without offending you, but could you please explain that?

No offence taken but not in the limited time and space that is a forum. I have my belief system, it works for me. I have examined a wide variety of beliefs. and am comfortable in my beliefs, I’m not preachy about it and the only reason I responded was because DaeguBill asked “Is everyone reading this a non-believer, a deist or a cowardly religious person?”

I dislike being called cowardly.

I do not speak for everyone here, but I think most of us don't really care to hear what your justification for your beliefs are except maybe the OP. 

I refer you to DaeguBill posts.It may be a tired argument to many people, but as you may have noticed here it is not tired to many others.

I said it in the context of why “cowardly religious person’s” hadn’t bothered to respond. To people like me it's a tired argument that never accomplishes anything. It usually ends up in an attempt at people to show how clever they are and general comes across as smug insufferable intolerance on both sides.

The other is your mention of the concept of Dialectic.  You may not have meant to, but to me the manner in which it was mentioned came off as "oh so smug and condescending".  I feel like you were implying that it is such a complicated concept that many of us just wouldn't understand if you explained it to us or we looked it up ourselves. 

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, Read what I said again. I said The problem with threads like this is before you can begin a conversation the participants must agree on the Dialectic, and that will never happen with so many diverse individuals many who have never heard of the concept. I would suggest again that in a forum this size many people never heard of the concept of the Dialectic. Of course they can always Google it and learn the basics, or feign outrage that I would try to imply that they didn't understand it, and others who have heard of it but haven’t defined the meanings and principles of inference.

The perfect example of this is the following paragraph.
You do not need a religion, organized or personal, to believe your life means more than propagation of the species.  My life means many things to me that do not include reproducing.  Being happy and attempting to make others happy both directly and through the betterment of society as a whole are among those meanings.

We are obviously not talking about the same thing here, rendering further discussion pointless and unconstructive.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/20/2009 02:04:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Smugness 101 (none / 0)

A simplistic view of Nietzsche, and I would respectfully disagree. Will to power is a bit more complicated than just live life here on Earth, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra indicates he thought man was merely a bridge to a higher intelligence.

[...]

But I digress, I will stand by my assertion that Nietzsche and others believed in a higher meaning to life, and the comment was to frame my argument of diverse views of the meaning of life and the character of God.

Where does Nietzsche suggest that the "higher intelligence" is otherworldly? That was all I was stating (here on this Earth or the materialistic universe as opposed to metaphysical realms), I just dumbed it down a little so you could not complain about a "smug and condescending argument". How has a meaning of life anything to do with god or other metaphysical entities anyway?

Have you been paying attention? The vast majority of the people who attack people of faith use the god of science to justify their beliefs and ultimately big bang is mere random chance of a set of molecules coming together in a random fashion to form life.

What is "the god of science"? Such a thing does not exist, not even hypothetically, another christian strawman, that -like many other- derives from the ignorant position that "those people must have a god, too". Maybe some people will argue that in the Planck time random chance ruled, but the more sophisticated view is that we simply don't know and that we cannot attribute cause and effect, but that does not automatically constitute random chance! After Planck time it's all probability. What you state about the randomness of a set of molecules coming together is REALLY hilarious. You don't know shit about it, right? So you make blatant assumptions from ignorance... So what exactly elevates you above the level of creationists, let alone well educated atheists? I would suggest you do a little research on some scientific principles, but OTOH: what good would it do if you google some of the terms and read a wikipedia entry or two, if you don't even agree with the basic premises?

And btw: you posting that you're tired of hearing smug and condescending opinions by both sides but then making ignorant statements in a smug and arrogant fashion makes you a hypocrite. You obviously don't understand basic concepts of science, which means that you can shove your dialectic method! So you think people in this forum are generally below your level of intellectual discourse? Why don't you then just stay away from the discussion and stfu? Oh, I forgot: someone called you a coward and you were forced to defend your pride... Isn't pride one of the seven deadly dwarfs?

by eborujion on 06/21/2009 09:22:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's still a funny thread (none / 0)
 You don't know shit about it, right? 

you posting that you're tired of hearing smug and condescending opinions by both sides but then making ignorant statements in a smug and arrogant fashion makes you a hypocrite.

I didn't attack you yet you attack me.

Why don't you then just stay away from the discussion and stfu? Oh, I forgot: someone called you a coward and you were forced to defend your pride... Isn't pride one of the seven deadly dwarfs?

 Way to win the argument, I'm convinced YOU WIN!

You keep harping on Nietzsche to try and discredit my argument, and I would suggest that like a good conservative you have taken one thing out of context of the a statement to try and prove a point. Nietzsche, like the other philosophers I mentioned were trying to discern the meaning of life, which is ultimately what all conversations about god's comes down to.

So you think people in this forum are generally below your level of intellectual discourse? 

No, again that isn't what I said. There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. My argument was that to have a conversation about any form of spirituality, God or the meaning of life requires an agreement of meanings and principles of inference. That doesn't happen in a diverse a group as this causing the general name calling you exhibited above.

If I come across as condescending perhaps you are reading more into my comments than is there, which is your issue not mine. Sometimes we see ourselves in others.

I was just trying to have a conversation and answer a question without attacking an individual in the process by calling them names and telling them to STFU.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/21/2009 05:09:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Awww (none / 0)
I didn't attack you yet you attack me.

Yeah, I did. For being a hypocrite.

You keep harping on Nietzsche to try and discredit my argument, and I would suggest that like a good conservative you have taken one thing out of context of the a statement to try and prove a point. Nietzsche, like the other philosophers I mentioned were trying to discern the meaning of life, which is ultimately what all conversations about god's comes down to.

What, me, conservative? Rofltrotzki. Just because I dissent from you, does not make me a conservative (what do I want to conserve exactly?). All I wanted you to do was take Nietzsche from that group of theist philosophers you listed, because he does not belong there. I was not picking out of context, just because that was the only issue I wanted to address.

All conversations about gods come down to the meaning of life (for humans?)? Er, no, they don't! Even if that were the case, it is certainly not the other way round. See, atheists may also search for a meaning in life, they usually neither start nor end with a god.

No, again that isn't what I said. There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. My argument was that to have a conversation about any form of spirituality, God or the meaning of life requires an agreement of meanings and principles of inference. That doesn't happen in a diverse a group as this causing the general name calling you exhibited above.

And you pointed out that even if someone with no prior knowledge would look it up, they would not understand it, which pretty much questions their intelligence. And what you obviously still cannot grasp: there is no inherent connection between spirituality, god and a meaning of life. And you don't really need the metaphysical realm for anything except philosophical circle-jerking!


If I come across as condescending perhaps you are reading more into my comments than is there, which is your issue not mine. Sometimes we see ourselves in others.

OK, so the recipient is to blame, right, right... tell that to David Letterman! And did you just say: "Yes, I know, but what are you?"?

I was just trying to have a conversation and answer a question without attacking an individual in the process by calling them names and telling them to STFU.

As you stated you did not want to participate in the discussion because it was below you (the subject line is somewhat part of the post and making fun of the thread does not make your opinion less condescending).

Sorry, if I have offended you by telling you to stfu, I thought you can take it, being a smart-ass and all, you must hear that a lot. But by calling you a hypocrite, I just stated the obvious! Next time I get the velvet gloves, maybe.
But I won't, if you spout ignorant statements, claim superior knowledge in an unrelated (or not necessarily related) field and connect them by magic while saying that the discussion is silly.

by eborujion on 06/21/2009 09:00:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 0)
OK, so the recipient is to blame, right, right...

Yeah if your too fucking stupid to comprehend what I was saying even after I try to clarify it.

I didn't come looking for a fight with you, and I couldn't give a rat's ass what you think, but you're the one that comes across as a condescending prick.

You obviously have real issues with trying to prove how smart you are.

Unfortunately you have real issues putting everything together. For example I didn't call you a conservative, I said your picking one thing out of the context of the totality of a comment is a well known conservative tactic. SEE THE DIFFEREINCE SPARKY? No you probably don't your too busy trying to prove how fucking clever, and what a heavy weight intellectual you are to bother to try and understand what I'm saying.

I do find it ironic that in another thread you wrote "A new language has to be invented (or an existing modified ;) and common definitions have to be found and put in use, so that all kinds of people with different backgrounds can express their respective experiences." which sounds remarkably like dialectic. I merely believe that it is near impossible to achieve in large numbers among so many diverse groups.

As to the Google comment, stick around and try to comprehend some of the things you read and you will understand why I made that joke. Google makes everyone think they are an expert. Not that I'm saying that's what you would ever do, I'm sure you are a world renowned philosopher, neurosurgeon, aerospace engineer, poet, graphic designer, and all around renaissance man.

So if you don't like what I say I would say perhaps you can take your own advise and just STFU.

Oh just so you'll know the "I hate being called a coward" comment was a joke, but humor doesn't appear to be your strong point either.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/22/2009 10:11:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Too Much Meta-Communication... (none / 0)
I didn't come looking for a fight with you, and I couldn't give a rat's ass what you think, but you're the one that comes across as a condescending prick.

You obviously have real issues with trying to prove how smart you are.

[...]

No you probably don't your too busy trying to prove how fucking clever, and what a heavy weight intellectual you are to bother to try and understand what I'm saying.

A wise person once said:
"If I come across as condescending perhaps you are reading more into my comments than is there, which is your issue not mine. Sometimes we see ourselves in others." by Hubble on 06/21/2009 05:09:42 PM EST

[...] Not that I'm saying that's what you would ever do, I'm sure you are a world renowned philosopher, neurosurgeon, aerospace engineer, poet, graphic designer, and all around renaissance man.

Close, world-renowned infamous internet forum participant that is!

[...]but humor doesn't appear to be your strong point either.

True, at least you got THAT right... ;)

by eborujion on 06/22/2009 05:21:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Speaking of wise men (none / 0)
A wise man once said I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I don't fancy myself as to having great knowledge, I have opinions. This is still a silly thread because whether you believe in God and a higher meaning to life, or feel that " Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"  You are operating on faith that you are right, because it can't be proven one way or the other.

Science still can't agree on the nature of the universe which is why we have so many theories to explain the physical universe. String theory being the latest in vogue theory to explain everything, which requires us to except alternate dimensions. We can't prove it yet, but it has a growing following.

world-renowned infamous internet forum participant that is!

Why thank you for noticing!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/22/2009 05:49:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fiend of Wisdom (none / 0)
Sure, sure, sure... Socrates is 3000 years dead (if he existed), Shakespeare some 500, let them rest. Listen to Daegubill pointing out why a fallacy from authority is not really an argument.

[...]This is still a silly thread because whether you believe in God and a higher meaning to life, or feel that

This is still a silly statement. You seem to be oblivious or ignorant that this thread is about the fall of theism and its implications for the future of society and mankind. You only joined because someone noted that no non-atheists opined so far but only to not give your opinion on the suject by pointing out how silly the discussion is.

But still if it were a discussion about wether theism or atheism makes more sense, it would not be silly! Futile maybe, silly no. Topic recognition skills: FAIL!

Science still can't agree on the nature of the universe which is why we have so many theories to explain the physical universe. String theory being the latest in vogue theory to explain everything, which requires us to except alternate dimensions. We can't prove it yet, but it has a growing following.

If science can't explain everything, so what? That doesn't mean that there is justification to make shit up out of thin air. What if there are different approaches to unify all occuring phenomena in the materialistic universe? Did Einstein proof Newton wrong? (Hint: no). Even if science has not all the answers yet (or might never have them), that does not change how we perceive and understand the universe so far if we adhere to a coherent and consistent explanation. And, yes, it might change substantially over the course of a lifetime and still be consistent with all we had known before!

You are operating on faith that you are right, because it can't be proven one way or the other.

Everything you do, think or belief requires a leap of faith, so what? The best you can do (and thankfully for you, your brain does it automatically most of the time) is go with the probabilities. And the physical universe is really much more probable than magic! Sorry, if your old buddies, the philosophers of long past, were not vested with all the science and other tools to get a better estimation of what is actually going on. They might have gotten some things right but they were (sometimes admittedly) just sitting in a cave and looking at the shadows.

But btw: string theory has been around for years now and is not the latest in vogue, what you describe as alternate dimensions are actually dimensions as in height, width or time. What you probably are referring to is the multiverse theory, which features what one might call classic sci-fi alternate dimensions (realities, i.e. universes). Sorry, renaissance man, remember?

by eborujion on 06/23/2009 05:43:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)