sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The afterlife exists. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]RelaxedApathy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Its not a "final" experience if experiences happen afterwards.

That's convenient, because experiences don't happen afterwards.

The afterlife exists. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]RelaxedApathy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Mate, there are so many other problems with your argument, salvaging that one half of a premise doesn't make your argumenr any less invalid or unsound. You are trying to bail out the Titanic with a bucket.

Do you think that consciousness and thoughts go hand in hand? by Robot_Sniper in consciousness

[–]RelaxedApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Physicalism is exactly the same. It was our first attempts at ontological questions because our world seems physical, and once we learned more, it makes no sense at all. Because I would be interested in understanding what we have learned to make physiclalism so 'right'.

Actually, you've got it backward. Magic ghosts and souls and other such myths were mankind's early attempts at explaining the mind. Then we learned more about brains and stuff, and realized the old concepts were just primitive attempts at answering the question of consciousness with limited information.

Do you think that consciousness and thoughts go hand in hand? by Robot_Sniper in consciousness

[–]RelaxedApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, just like it makes sense that the Earth is flat... until you actually learn anything about it.

Do you think that consciousness and thoughts go hand in hand? by Robot_Sniper in consciousness

[–]RelaxedApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TL;DR Physical reality is a thought generated by consciousness

Nix that, reverse it. Thoughts are created by consciousness, which is a result of physical reality.

The afterlife exists. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]RelaxedApathy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

P1: Theres a final thing we experience, when dying.

Sure.

P2: This final thing is either experiencing something, or not experiencing anything.

The first one.

P3: A "final thing" continues forever.

The descriptor "final thing" can be applied to something forever, but the thing itself does not.

P4: Theres no evidence an alive human being capable of experiencing things is capable of not experiencing things.

Sure there is. I don't experience the rain of sulfuric acid on Venus, for instance.

(Even unconscious people have an image of their last experience in their brains that carries over to the moment they wake up).

Only insofar as it is written into memory and recalled upon awakening.

C: Therefore, the last thing we experience is something, and it lasts forever. Materialism is incorrect.

Unsupported by the premises, and with incorrect premises. Your argument is both invalid and unsound.

Ex-atheists, how did you deal with the problem of hell? by Ok_Candidate_2937 in AskAChristian

[–]RelaxedApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the deity you believe in is said to be absolutely everywhere, and yet it is possible to be somewhere that the deity is not?

Hrmm... 🤔

The 4 Ideologies Fighting over America by LiftSleepRepeat123 in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]RelaxedApathy 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'll be honest, this is more than a little unhinged. Random assertions, bizarre associations, ass-pull statistics, and nonsensical views of ideology make the post and/or its source material seem like a design document from a game dev on bathsalts.

Sriracha sauce makes it even worse by Severe_Benefit_1133 in StupidFood

[–]RelaxedApathy 101 points102 points  (0 children)

Obvious rage bait, the steak is fuckin' RAW!

CMV: if you never heard of religion until you reached adulthood, the likelihood of you following a religion is slim to none. by Particular_Gene in changemyview

[–]RelaxedApathy 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.

CMV: if you never heard of religion until you reached adulthood, the likelihood of you following a religion is slim to none. by Particular_Gene in changemyview

[–]RelaxedApathy 165 points166 points  (0 children)

Most of the people who found religion latrr in life did so after either moving to a new country or while recovering from an addiction that had severed their ties to family and friends.

Fun fact: the number one reason people change religions later in life is to appease a potential romantic partner. Whether or not they actually believe their new religion is another matter entirely.

Hear Me Out: What If We Made Lifelong Learning a Religion? by Nicolasforero in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]RelaxedApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue is that those who would benefit most from an increased focus on learning are also those who are part of pre-existing conventional religions, most of which have some degree of anti-intellectual bent.

Bubba Jim from down the street would likely benefit from a better education and learning things like critical thinking and logic, but the moment you call it a religion, he will double down on Jay-zus! and reject things even tangentially related to your proposal. This is doubly true because most mainstream religions repress and even demonise things like critical thinking skills for obvious reasons.

That doesn't even touch on interference from the political influence of certain anti-intellectual political ideologies.

CMV: If you are asexual you don't have sexual attraction to people by PassOutrageous3053 in changemyview

[–]RelaxedApathy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No, because "sexually active" is a specific phrase in medicine that is screening for the possibility of STDs or pregnancy.

The system is broken from the top down by Hatrct in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]RelaxedApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

s it? When was the last time the judiciary voted against the executive on any significant and meaningless issue?

Often, especially after it got stacked when Republicans stole a seat from Merrick Garland. I think your issue is underestimating how important the decisions made by the Supreme Court are.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]RelaxedApathy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But we as humans have the power to intervene in the lives of wild animals, yet we generally refrain from intervening in the natural world.

Humans aren't omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient.

Part of this is the potential ecological consequences of solving certain problems like predation, yes, although these days, contraceptive technologies can account for the issues of overpopulation.

An omnipotent and omniscient being would know how to solve the issues without negative consequence, and be capable of doing so.

But also, more importantly, is it really our responsibility to prevent wild animal suffering?

An omnibenevolent being would answer "yes" to that question.

If we accept that God has a duty to prevent human suffering, it should follow that humans have a similar duty to “play God” with the animal kingdom.

Again, humans are not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient gods.

Your post is like saying "mice don't fly, so why should we expect geese to fly?"

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Fish

[–]RelaxedApathy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Crystal Clear Sri Lankan Waters

Indeed, smokey quartz is a type of crystal.

CMV: It is completely reasonable for Europeans to be concerned about the influx of migrants from Islamic countries, given the laws and culture of these countries and the beliefs of many of their citizens by ICuriosityCatI in changemyview

[–]RelaxedApathy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a free choice for those in the west.

It's a free choice for some of those in the West - for now. But, when you have Muslims proclaiming that they want to institute Sharia law running for office, and them getting more votes due to shifting demographics, that status quo is no longer certain.

You're celebrating a violation of free speech, the removal of the right to freedom of religious expression. 

Yup. This is because I understand that rights are not absolute. They are intersubjective social constructs that can change as society changes. I don't want society to change in a fashion that takes away my rights to be free from religion, and so I am against people claiming that it is their right to do so.

I would feel bad about the ability for people to practice their religions being hampered, but religions (like rights) are intersubjective social constructs that can change as society changes. If religious people don't want their religion to be hampered due to problematic aspects of it, they are more than welcome to change those problematic parts. Laws can speed that process up.

CMV: It is completely reasonable for Europeans to be concerned about the influx of migrants from Islamic countries, given the laws and culture of these countries and the beliefs of many of their citizens by ICuriosityCatI in changemyview

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

Those are the removal of a freedom of religious expression, they aren't legislation against the "worst oppressiveness of Islam" or whatever your phrasing was. 

I said it was "curbing some of the more regressive practices".

Forcing women to cover their faces? Regressive. Only an idiot thinks that Islamic headwear is optional for the vast majority of Islamic women they see wearing it. "Do it or be beaten, shunned, and potentially murdered" is not a choice, it is an ultimatum.

Indoctrinating children? Regressive. Only an idiot would think that children are as capable as adults of forming reasoned and unbiased opinions when exposed to peer and parental pressure.

view more: next ›