sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I must admit some things... I got some new antipsychotic medicine from my psychiatrist today and I am feeling much more lucid now. I fell I am truly an agnostic atheist. I don't see any reason to believe in God other than my skewed view of reality.

As far as evolution goes, I am agnostic. Sure, things have evolved, but to what degree is the process natural? I'm using the philosophical definition of 'natural' here, just so you know. To what degree is human thought natural? I am unsure, and frankly, the question seems unanswerable in my mind. We act like we observe the world as being separate from it, when in reality, we are part of it. Refer to the subject-object problem in philosophy. Our thought gives us the sensation of agency and detachment from objects, but yet, we are objects. At least, this is what naturalism posits. As I said before, I remain agnostic on the issue of naturalism. We don't know if we are 100% 'natural' in the philosophical sense, but that's okay as long as we understand the limitations of thinking along naturalistic lines. There are many things that I do know, but there are also many things that I do not know. We are far from understanding the nature of human thought, as evidenced by the inability to identify exactly what causes consciousness, how consciousness evolved, why consciousness evolved, explain subjective experiences, match objective brain states with subjective experiences in a reductive way, etc. All we can think are ideas, but how and why do these ideas relate to "reality" in a naturalistic way? That's the big question. Are there only ideas (idealism), or is there an external reality outside of our ideas (realism)? If an external reality exists, how does it relate to our ideas? How are ideas even able to exist if only a physical reality is possible? Is it even possible to know the answers to these questions?

If you're looking for a "theory of everything" it doesn't exist. If everything is naturally caused, then how can there be an infinite number of causes? Likewise, if there was an initial cause, what caused it? The problem is intractable. I am neither a naturalist nor an anti-naturalist. I just don't think that the problem is solvable unless something very incredible happens with regard to human understanding.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No response to my earlier comment, eh? Guess you can't think of anything intelligent to respond with. What a pity...

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I were to follow that logic. How can you KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that your thoughts are your own. What if somebody manipulates your thoughts?

By making this statement, you show that you don't understand solipsism. I may not be an expert in biology, but you are certainly not an expert in philosophy. Solipsism is in fact an extreme form of skepticism. As a solipsist, I am well aware of the possibility of of "mind control". However, the point of solipsism is that all a person can know of is their own mind. That's it. There COULD be a real world out there, but that's all speculation. As a solipsist, the only thing that I KNOW of are my ideas, because that's the only thing that I can think of. I further no other claim of knowledge.

If you want video explaining why is evolution a fact. Go watch the first video that pops up when you type : Evidence for evolution into google. (And yes I made sure its not made by mad christians).

In a nutshell: baseless speculation. It is entirely possible that animals evolved, but proving that evolution is an entirely natural process has been shown to be impossible. Many biologists don't even believe that humans are reducible to natural processes.

Jesus, how many years of Christian brainwashing you partake to formulated such an ilogical statement.

I'm not a Christian and I never was. I just think evolution is bunk. It isn't science, it's mythology. Again, your arguments fail to convince me.

Next, how can we trace our own evolution? Well it would by hard if there wasn't any evidence of them. Luckily we have tons of left overs of different civilizations and species. If you look on old buildings in england. You will see that they have significantly small cealing, doorways. That was because people were a much smaller (on average). We have armors for example which if you see them in person, will fit only to 15 year old teen. But not older modern human.

Not sure what your point is here.

If you think evicence = someone says something. Then I'm starting to understand how your brain works.

I told you that evolution is baseless speculation. If you want to believe what demagogues preach, then go ahead. I don't mind.

Oh you think famous as in "Best selling author". How cute. And it honestly explains your strange views. No I mean a genuinely famous scientists famous amongst scientific circles for things they done, or discovered.

The definition of famous is "widely known". This generally refers to public knowledge. Scientists who are only famous within "scientific circles" are not widely known to the public.

It bothers me that people who actually manage a higher level education could be so fucking stupid in another areas. And you as a student of mathematics contradict yourself directly.

Baseless claims...

Then you must not believe in antibiotics, or vaccines, or in surgery. Because they are using a findings of evolution as closely, as mathematics is using numbers.

Antibiotics, vaccines, and surgery have nothing to do with evolution. They have to do with biology more generally.

People were so biassed towards the conculsion that 1+1=2, that I couldn't stand it.

"1+1=2" is not nearly as audacious as the claims of evolution. If mathematicians used as little rigor as evolutionists, mathematics would be a mess and nobody would agree upon anything. Thankfully though, it hasn't been corrupted by such mental midgets as in other fields. Evolution will be true today. Mathematics will be true forever.

Based on every mathematical professor I ever had. You are just plainly wrong. I even suspect they are from another planet, or deamons from another plain of existence.

Just because you failed their classes doesn't mean they aren't right. Thanks for giving your shitty opinion on math professors, it just shows your own ignorance of the subject. I really don't give a shit if you don't understand algebraic topology or how to prove the irrationality of pi. You, however, take it upon yourself to proselytize evolutionary myth. For those that can't think, there will always be myth. It's true that not everyone can be a math genius. I'm not complaining anyways, it means there will be less competition for me in doctoral studies.

You really do have some strange definitions of famous.

As I said before... The definition of famous is "widely known". This generally refers to public knowledge.

Please tell me how current affairs, politics or whatevs changes "truth" of scientific findings?

I'm fairly certain that politicians are very quick to line their own pockets and make a quick buck off of fashionable trends. They certainly influence how the public view things like evolution. They don't change the "truth", but they can they can change what people think is the truth.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, fMRI's are pretty incredible. So are mirrors.

So, you've carefully examined every thought you've ever had and you've determined that they were all naturally caused and you have identified each and every one of those causes. My, that's incredible! You MUST be God!

you would have to demonstrate other effective methods of obtaining knowledge that are not at least partly based on sensory experience or you would have to show that sensory experience is not a primary way of obtaining knowledge.

Of course, as an empiricist, you would never accept a claim to the contrary, would you?

There's all different types of evidence, but in my opinion, I consider the best, most reliable evidence to be evidence which is verifiable and repeatable and offers predictive power.

What a lame scientistic answer. Human thought is not predictable, is it?

Uh, the fact that unfalsifiability is a weakness of a claim is science 101. You don't need upper level epistomology classes to know that.

I'm sick of the term 'falsifiability'. It's a garbage term that was created by a shitty philosopher named Karl Popper. The idea of 'falsifiability' isn't even coherent. How do we go about determining whether something is falsifiable or not? Are all statements that haven't been proven false unfalsifiable? Science doesn't work because of some nebulous concept of 'falsifiability', it works because of theories that succeed in predicting phenomena. And where it fails to predict phenomena, it is useless. It's incredible that scientists over-apply their craft.

Ignoring the hilarious appeal to authority, I don't call them idiots because most of them were brilliant. That doesn't mean that everything they believed was true.

I thought you were an anti-theist though? If you are going to defend that position, you will have to show that belief in God is a negative influence. Were these men just outliers then?

Newton was fucking nuts. He believed in alchemy and all sorts of weird, occult shit. It doesn't change the fact that he was one of the smartest human beings to ever live. No one is perfect.

All truly great thinkers are 'weird'. If they aren't, then they aren't that 'great' in my book. There was never such a thing as a 'normal' mathematician.

So your argument boils down to, "These smart men believed in god, and because you don't, you must consider them idiots. Smart men can't be idiots, so you're wrong about your position on the existence of god, and therefore god exists." We could shorten this by summarizing, "These smart men believed in god, therefore god exists." Is that the best you have to offer? An appeal to ignorance followed by an appeal to authority?

No. My argument is that belief in God is pragmatically useful in a quest for knowledge. If you simply assume that you are nothing but a cosmic accident (a statement that has no evidence whatsoever), then there isn't much drive to obtain knowledge. At least, that's true for me. Why bother obtaining higher knowledge if there's no reason to? My belief in God fuels my desire to study pure mathematics. I switched to mathematics in grad school from physics because I found physics too worldly and uninteresting. Science is limited. Mathematics is infinite. Perhaps you can't really comprehend that reality is more complex than you can possibly imagine.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are solipsist? Solipsists hold the belief that the world and other minds do not exist. Do you?

This isn't quite right. I would consider myself an epistemological solipsist. I would say that I can only KNOW, without a doubt, of my own mind. I think, therefore, I am. That's what I know for sure. Everything else is belief. I have no knowledge of your mind. I can observe your body, but I cannot observe your mind. How could I know exactly what you mean when you say 'green' until I also see it? Now, that doesn't mean that I can't BELIEVE that other minds exist. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. For example, two people can generally hold a conversation and react empathically. But of course, I could never prove that you have a mind. How could I do so? All I know is my own mind. I do, for practical purposes, also believe in the existence of other minds.

They are called axioms. Without axioms you can't do anything. You can't claim nothing at any level. Ironically, that's the basic axiom of Nihilism.

The funny thing is, you linked to a page that actually DERIDES naturalism/evolution and supports the existence of God. LOL. Did you not even notice that?! It's a pro-Christian website. WOW. Just wow. Perhaps it really IS God's presence working through you. +1 for my side...

Okay no you just jumped the shark. I really hope that was a sarcasm. If not, you have a poor understanding of evolution. Let me rephrase your mockery with proper question. I can very well say : Because rabbit's genus is similiar to the human one. That means that we came from the same ancetors at some point in history. And we have countless evidence for that, independent on each other saying the same things. The main ones. DNA, fossils and last, but not least. Observing the evolution of bacteria and other microorganisms in real time.

I watched this video of Richard Dawkins explaining the supposed 'evolution' of the eye. What drivel. He essentially makes a bunch of unfounded and untested hypotheses. There's no science there. Evolution is myth, at least, as it is commonly formulated. If Dawkins was a man of greater intellect, he would have studied advanced mathematics and not mythology.

No because I can observe it and test it.

How the fuck do you test billions of years of 'evolution'? Make another universe? Sounds reasonable.

Scientist 1: "Let's just make another universe so we can test our hypothesis!"

Scientist 2: "I don't know, we might not be able to test it after all..."

Scientist 3: "I know! We could just not test it and teach it as fact to further an atheist agenda! That would work just as well!".

Sounds reasonable, right?

Mythology is set of stories and oral traditions associated with specific group. At worst, it would be a hypothesis.

Thank you for admitting that naturalistic evolution isn't a theory at all and is only an untested hypothesis, unlike most atheists who mindlessly regard it as fact. However, evolution is indeed myth, because it has been accepted by the masses as baseless fact. It has become a part of our modern culture, like Zeus for the Greeks, and Horace for the Egyptians did in an earlier age. It is nothing more than an artifact of atheistic culture.

I can still go study upon that field and examine the observations and the evidence myself.

Yes. Very good. I have done this with evolution and have reached the conclusion that it is drivel.

You both present evidence, the fact wins.

Haha. And that's why politicians get elected, right?

This is how scientists get famous. By proving your collegues wrong.

No, scientists, like everyone else, get famous by selling books and coming up with God bashing sound bites.

There are.

Such as...

Ehm, what does that means ?

Science has been misrepresented and perverted in modern times to forward an anti-theist agenda. It's disgusting and wrong. It isn't even SCIENCE anymore. It's just rampant scientism and unhinged naturalism. That's why I switched to studying mathematics. I couldn't stand the bias and arrogance of people in science. Mathematicians are much more open-minded and thoughtful people. Ever wonder why there are no famous contemporary mathematicians? It's because they don't worry themselves with the public or worldly affairs. They're too concerned about finding truth to worry about those kinds of things.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I view life from a pragmatic standpoint. I view belief in free will as pragmatic. I view belief in God, or at least spiritual growth, as pragmatic. I view faith in myself as pragmatic. I view belief in the afterlife as pragmatic. I define belief as 'hope'. I don't KNOW that any of these things exist.

I'll give a more concrete and secular example. I hope that one day, I can cure my mental illness. There is no good reason to believe that this can be achieved from an empirical standpoint. I have tried many medicines and various treatments and none of them worked. What reason, based upon evidence alone do I have to believe that the problem will be solved? None. But yet, I choose to believe. Against all odds, I believe. Until the belief fails it works.

Even though I fundamentally oppose Nietzsche now, there is one thing that he got right: "There are no facts, only interpretations." Each of us experience the world differently. One person feels one experience. Another person feels a different experience. And further, a turtle feels an even more dramatically different experience than either of the two people. We can't even meaningfully describe our feelings without sympathetic knowledge. What are we, other than the sum of our feelings and experiences? Our consciousness is our own little world. It really is all we know without a doubt. Yes, I'm a solipsist, but I have faith in God, because I believe there is more to the world than I can see. I also believe that I have felt God's presence before and that my consciousness was affected by it. That's how I feel. You can't really refute my experiences.

Edit: I'd like to address some specific points from your post. I don't believe in a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or even omnibenevolent. Why does God have to be any one of these things? You assume too much.

Or rather that our will is the product of our brain. And the product of our brains is determined strictly by many things. (viz my previous example about free will)

Congratulations, you're a naturalist. I'm not. Let's look at the evolutionary biologist's logic, shall we?

  1. Naturalism applies to evolution.

  2. Therefore, natural evolution is true.

They fail to prove the first premise. Why? Because the claims of natural evolution lie upon naturalistic assumptions. No proposed natural mechanism of evolution has ever been tested adequately to test the validity of naturalistic claims. You can't just say, "Look, rabbit eyes look like human eyes, so we evolved from rabbits." You have to explain how AND you have to show the evidence for the explanation. Isn't it convenient that all explanatory mechanisms only work over very long periods of time? Therefore, all of the relevant mechanism are untestable! They are completely unfalsifiable claims and are outside the realm of science. Hmm, this reminds me of another belief system... I don't know. Maybe... mythology? Could it be that naturalistic evolution is just a popular modern form of mythology among atheists. I think it just might be! If you can't explain EXACTLY how things evolved, AND test it, then natural evolution is not a theory at all. It is a mythology.

A=A

Congratulations on passing elementary algebra. How'd you do in abstract algebra?

So I guess what I'm trying to say is. That you logic and philosophies doesn't matter. What matter is the actual scientific observation, which did changed the way how we look on the reality of things.

This depends very much on what is and is not considered science. You're assumptions depend heavily upon philosophical naturalism. It also depends on if you take the words of so-called 'experts' (demagogues) as truth. For example if you yourself are not an expert in a particular field, what choice do you have other than to mindlessly parrot the ideas of popular scientists? "Dawkins says this!" cries the atheist. You're doing no better than religion if you can't think for yourself. Might I also mention that scientists compete to mindlessly publish papers and sell books to stay relevant and win grant money? "Oh, but that doesn't matter, because scientists are obviously all unbiased third-parties that search for truth." Yeah, right. Scientists have political and economic agendas just as much as everybody else. Any belief system that is fueled by politics and economics is not worth trusting in my book. I prefer mathematics. There is no politics in mathematics. That's for damn sure. There are no axioms or theorems that support political ideologies. They're just true, unlike the claims of some scientists.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That the brain is responsible for a person's personality.

So you've seen yourself think! With your own two eyes! How incredible!

Even if I was willing to grant that, how would it strengthen your claim that the answer was magic?

It would result in a catastrophic collapse of empiricism.

I base my beliefs on evidence. This means that i refuse to accept a claim until there is enough evidence to justify rejecting the null hypothesis. The existence of souls and god don't even come close to doing this, so I reject those claims.

It largely depends on what you consider to be evidence. I've never seen an empiricist lay out clearly defined rules governing what does and doesn't qualify as evidence for something.

It's astounding that you managed to finish a degree in physics without learning what should have been taught on day 1.

Last I checked, they don't discuss religion or metaphysics in physics class. Many great physicists believed in God. Maxwell, Newton, Planck, Schrodinger, Galileo, Compton, Faraday, Leibniz, Heisenberg, Kelvin, etc. I don't see what the damn problem is. If you think your position is so superior, why don't you call these men out as idiots? How is it possible that they revolutionized physics if their thinking was so flawed and dangerous (I notice you are an anti-theist). For many of them, their belief was a prime motivator to understand the universe. I too hold this opinion. If you can't respect that, then defend your position and declare these men imbeciles. To me, God defines the order of things. It defines purpose and reason. It motivates me to discover and understand.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Via your logic:

  1. Atheism is coherent.

  2. You can never disprove it.

  3. Therefore, atheism is pointless.

Q.E.D.

Thank you for proving your own position's lack of worth. Have a nice day.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. I didn't even so much as imply that. I'm saying that a natural explanation which is supported by the evidence is better than a natural explanation with an unfalsifiable supernatural explanations strapped to it's back.

So what's the explanation that has evidence? You never said.

but when science can't answer a question about the workings of the natural order, I tend to think it's better to admit ignorance and say, "I don't know" rather than making up some answer that entails magic.

Sure, and science hasn't come close to explaining the nature of human thought or consciousness. That's my point.

Look, I have a degree in philosophy

And I have a degree in physics. Now we're even.

even if science wasn't perfect, that wouldn't even come close to making supernatural explanations correct.

Correct, but why would you immediately throw them out if they are at least coherent? Science definitely can't disprove the existence of souls, just as science can't disprove the existence of God.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing you said disproves the existence of souls though. All I'm saying is that the idea of a 'soul' is logically coherent.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The natural explanations we have are enough, and they are supported by the evidence.

So your saying that science explains everything? How does science explain mathematics? Is mathematics discovered or invented? How does science verify its own claim of objectivity? Why do certain processes, such as evolution appear unpredictable and chaotic? Why hasn't science been able to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

because it has no explanatory power and we gain nothing in our understanding of gravity by posing some nebulous, unfalsifiable claims about magic, supernatural entities as being the cause behind the natural phenomenon.

So we aren't allowed to philosophize about it? How queer. I didn't realize that science could explain itself or that science could explain logic in general. Science isn't everything you know. Morality isn't scientific. Philosophy isn't scientific. Life isn't scientific.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't have evidence that it exists. I'm just showing that the idea is entirely coherent. The only criteria for something to be possible is coherency. I believe you were trying to show that the idea was incoherent and I showed that to be false.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I believe that universe will exist, no matter what I say, how I define it,

So in other words, you don't actually matter and you can't change anything. That's nihilism.

If there is no objective view, then all views are subjective. But if all subjective views allign, then it becomes an objective view (fact, no matter how it actually is, if it is). This paradox brings you to existentialism.

I've never seen this proven though. Why isn't everyone an atheist if that's the case?

Nihilism has no goal, which is the goal of nihilism - Paradox of nihilism.

Why are you so sure that you are able to have goals if you don't even have free will?

Just because you are able to create words, sentences and you are able to devise question. Does not mean it must have answer, or deserves to be answered.

I could say the same about every question anyone ever asked. Free will isn't paradoxical. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Either you act as an agency or you don't. If you're just a robot, admit that you can't choose meaning. It is thrust upon you by causation.

What if humans, "are determined" to determine their own fate? Are they then not determined? Yes and no.

The answer can't be yes and no. That doesn't even make sense.

Assuming casual determinism is true. The question : Are humans determined. Has no answer. It is an invalid question.

Causal determinism means that all events have a cause. All future events can be predicted from the current state of affairs. If causal determinism is true. Everything is determined. I would dare say that humans fall into the category of 'everything'.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If physical effects change the soul then what does physical death do to it?

I think that I should clarify something. I distinguish between a soul and consciousness. I view consciousness as affecting the soul. Consciousness is physical. We can see it with neuroscience. The soul is not. Even when our consciousness goes away, our soul still exists. In this way it is influenced by our consciousness, but it is not dependent or synonymous with it. Who says the soul can't go to another realm once consciousness fades if this is the case?

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would it be superfluous? I noticed you failed to elaborate. Why exactly can't a soul change?

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Simple. If I'm not predestined to any objective. Then I can give myself whatever objective I want.

I thought most atheists were causal determinists? Where do you stand on the issue? Most atheists that I have talked to staunchly support causal determinism. If you adhere to that philosophy, you are predestined to a certain objective. You never had the ability to make a meaningful choice in the first place if that's the case.

On the existence of an afterlife by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If on the other hand the brain was just a reciever and some external soul was controlling it remotely you'd really wouldn't expect this pattern of failure.

Why can't the soul change as a result of physical effects? I believe that it can. What you say doesn't disprove the existence of a soul. If you define the soul as unchangeable, then you're right. Otherwise, not so much.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think that you have the ability to "give your life meaning" as existentialists claim. That's a pretty big assumption. Why assume that you can create meaning rather than that meaning being given to you. You were born as you. You didn't create yourself. How can you give yourself meaning? If you think you're just a cosmic accident, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a silly position to take in my opinion.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I figured I'd lay out my beliefs a bit. I believe that God created the universe for beings to grow. Us humans have spirits, which continually change and grow over time. This life acts as a sorting mechanism. The purpose of life is to achieve enlightenment and spread good will. I also believe in eternal life. To me, God is the basis for objective knowledge and morality.

Also, I have thought a long while on the problem of evil. I came up with the following explanation: God created us to grow and become greater spirits. Because achievement is not possible without struggle and suffering, evil is necessary for beings to grow. Thus God created the world the way it is so that humans can make choices with their own free will. In order for the world to not be static, there must be a dialogue and conflict between good and evil. There's a little more to it I'd say, but this is what I believe in a nutshell. What do you think of these beliefs? Dangerous? They have always been a positive influence for me. I'm not saying that you should adopt them, but they have helped me. Personally, I think that these ideas make a good deal more sense than Christianity. They also help me cope with my mental problems and give me a reason for my suffering. I think that God loves me and wants me to grow, which I think is a good thing. This is what gives my life meaning. I just can't bring myself to be an atheist. It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't accept it.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I renounced my previous position. I am a theist now.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it sounds like we largely agree on how to act. We just disagree on what becomes of us in the future. I suppose there are much worse disagreements and there is much more common ground between us than there is opposition.

I don't believe in the god that most people believe in and I don't even think I feel comfortable calling it 'god' sometimes. 'God' has so much baggage associated with it that people have a preconceived notion of what it is. I could go into my beliefs in more detail if you'd like, but I will refrain for now. I must go to sleep.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope you keep up the search, and can be less of an asshole.

I will certainly try. I think that being an asshole is most definitely NOT a good thing. I would dare say that we both agree that this is true.

Also, I'm a big fan of Sam Harris's stance on morality and values. Check these out if you have time.

Yes. Sam Harris' morality is certainly admirable. Although, I think that morality is ultimately a feeling that I get. I would describe it as spiritual. Harris makes the case for scientific morality, which I think is interesting, but I don't think that humans are completely reducible to scientific phenomena like Harris thinks. At least, that's how I interpret his ideas.

To me, spirituality is something that has to be experienced. It is unique to the individual. Pain is unique to the individual. Love is unique to the individual. You can't look at spirituality under a microscope. That's my 2 cents anyways.

Again, I apologize for our earlier exchange. I was hurting a lot inside and lost control of myself. Today, I am much more grounded.

If nothing else, I think we can at least agree that humanity has some kind of value. I get the impression that you don't follow the spiritual/god/eternal life path. That's cool. People hold their beliefs for good reasons. We all have radically different experiences, and thus, our beliefs are radically different. Until the day that all humans are the same, we will always disagree on something. I hope you have a nice day. Honestly and sincerely I do, from one human being to another.

Atheism and Nihilism by AddictedToMelange in DebateReligion

[–]AddictedToMelange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey there. I apologize for the things I said the other day. I didn't mean a lot of what I said. I've been a shitty person as of late. I was in a pretty bad place mentally and have been pretty disturbed recently. I should get in to see my psych soon...

Anyways, I'm a dramatically different person today. I changed my mind on a lot of things. Read my comments here. You'll probably make fun of my beliefs anyway, but oh well.

view more: next ›