He is risen!

[Kidlicious]

Now the real irony is that you often fall back on that 'more people believe x so it most be true' argument.

[rah]

The MRA, at least your posts parrot their drivel.

[rah]

Now the real irony is that you often fall back on that 'more people believe x so it most be true' argument.

While questionable it still beats "kid believes x so it must be true" argument.

(I'm assuming you meant "must" since "most'" makes no sense.
And please cite more than twice where I used that. Often being defined as at least more than a couple. Or come back an admit that you just made that up like most of the stuff you post here.
I think I used it once and it was more like if that many people believe something, maybe you should reconsider it.

[Kidlicious]

If I believe something then I believe that it's true. What part of 'believe' don't you understand?

[rah]

When you consider it truth like

The other creatures are not like us. They have only a physical self, not both a physical and spiritual self. This should be an indication to you.

[Kidlicious]

You're mistaking dialectical reasoning with belief.

[kentonio]

Ok. You didn't tell me what your motivation is for thinking that individuals don't exist, which is an indication that my assumption is correct.

First of all, no-one said individuals don't exist. That would be really wierd and I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Secondly, even if someone did make that odd statement, them not randomly disclosing their motivations would not mean they were doing it to piss you off. What you're doing there is suffering from a pronounced case of meglomania.

Yes, people are often spiteful of the greatness of others. Do you actually question that?

Given that it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about, sure why not. Incidentally, a Christian talking about the 'greatness of the individual' is very, very funny.

[rah]

No you're mistaking truth with belief.
What reasons or facts do you have that supports that we have a spiritual self and cats do not.

[Lorizael]

I think we basically just don't know. I remember reading about radiation traces that seem to predate the big bang though, which would seem to point more towards a cyclic nature. I think it appeals to me too because it seems like a more fitting way for eternity to work, despite how unfathomable the concept still is of course.

There's a tremendous amount of evidence leading toward the conclusion that (a) the universe is ~14 billion years old now and (b) the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There is currently no reason to believe astronomers have detected anything "before" the Big Bang. There are some papers out there discussing observations astronomers could make to possibly see traces of pre-Big Bang things, but there is no consensus that the observations these papers suggest would necessarily point to pre-Big Bang things, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that any kind of universe like ours existed before the Big Bang.

For instance? Are you saying you're moving towards some kind of supernatural thought?

Supernatural thought? No, I don't think so. But I have no problem enhancing, changing, or even altogether doing away with human nature if it suits my purposes.

Lori, your problem is that you think too much about pointless, or even detrimental things. In fact, I may even go so far as to suggest that a large number of the problems you're currently suffering, are from a general lack of self-worth because you're finding yourself failing to attain whatever artificial 'higher purpose' you have set yourself.

Yeah, but if you stopped over-thinking about your universe-consuming cult, you'd have more time to over-think about ways to actually get sex.

Have you boned that girl out of your reading group thingy yet?

Actually, I think your mind has evolved to the extent that it has become an evolutionary hindrance...

MOBIUS, I'd really rather you not drag my depression into this. For one, you have your timeline exactly backward. I was depressed and suicidal way before I was philosophical and nihilistic. Two, I stopped being philosophically nihilistic 12 years ago. What I believe now resembles nihilism because I believe you have to sort of pass through nihilism to get to what I think is correct. Three, I'm doing pretty okay right now. And four, your argument essentially amounts to poisoning the well. Even if my philosophy directly led to my depression (which, again, would involve time travel), that doesn't mean my philosophy is incorrect.

[Elok]

On a wider point though, I just don't recognize your point about how without some greater goal suddenly all behaviour suddenly becomes fine. I actually find it pretty bizarre and disturbing. So without a god in your life you'd suddenly be running around murdering people and helping yourself to anything you wanted? I don't have one, and I've never felt any desire to do any of those things.

See 147, if you haven't already. I don't believe anyone (or almost anyone) is really moral. To the extent that our behavior appears moral, it does so because the self-interest we really serve happens to align with morality in a superficial way. That is, you don't want to do those things because you don't have any real need to do them and you'd go to jail if you did. And the same is true for me. Any nonsense we tell each other about being Good Decent People is a pack of self-serving lies. Superficial bourgeois morality will not stand up to any real temptation.

[rah]

Superficial bourgeois morality will not stand up to any real temptation.

But you believe religious morality will?

I don't care where people get their 'good' morality from as long as they have it.
I don't think one is superior to the other.

[Elok]

I've addressed this before, and I really get tired of seeing this argument. Everyone who refrains from bad behavior (without fear of immediate punishment) does so because their sense of right and wrong tells them to refrain. This often manifests itself as revulsion. You probably shudder at the thought of decapitating and skull****ing pre-pubescent, handicapped children. Most people do, probably even Elok! The difference is the ultimate source of revulsion for religious folks is their religion (because God imbued them with a sense of morality, perhaps), whereas for non-religious folks, this revulsion comes from something like "common decency" or what have you.

Elok's point is not that the absence of religion will sudden cause religious people to become evil psychopaths, but that the one reason for that sense of revulsion he believes is legitimate will disappear. That is, he (and I, and others) doesn't think things like "common decency" and "because that's clearly wrong, you psycho" are good justifications for that revulsion, because without a higher authority there is no meaning, which means there can be no meaning behind the revulsion (that isn't simply an evolutionarily programmed response).

(I might be making my own point and not yours, Elok. Tell me so if that's the case.)

You're making a similar point. I think we start from similar assumptions/attitudes, and run in very different directions with it, but we're speaking much the same language.

I think that our revulsion is really a very shallow thing; we've been taught to Be Good, and we project an aura of healthy morality onto all our actions, because it flatters us. But the real root of our decency is that we have full bellies, good health, hope for the future, and a certain respect for policemen with firearms. This is true for me, you, most everybody. If our circumstances changed, we would be astonished how quickly our scruples evaporated. If this were not true of humanity in general, almost all of history's atrocities would never have happened. Moreover, I have read in multiple sources that tribal societies are not Good as we understand it, and feel no guilt about it. We take our moral compass to be an instinct, when it's really social programming.

So, if I am to believe that it is in any meaningful sense wrong for, say, an Aztec to torture and humiliate a child captive before ripping his heart out, I must appeal to something beyond mere revulsion. Mr. Aztec didn't have that revulsion. He never heard of it. As far as he knew, he was giving the Gods the food they needed to preserve the universe. But I don't feel it's merely "incompatible with contemporary Western beliefs," but actually, objectively wrong. That he should not have done it, that he should have died before doing it, even though he had no way of knowing it. That requires a universal law. Which requires a universal lawgiver. And if there isn't one, then **** this world anyway. I'd rather believe in a lie than believe that, under those particular circumstances, it was the proper course of action to mutilate children.

Perhaps this is what you were saying, but we have different ways of expressing ourselves.

[kentonio]

There's a tremendous amount of evidence leading toward the conclusion that (a) the universe is ~14 billion years old now and (b) the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There is currently no reason to believe astronomers have detected anything "before" the Big Bang. There are some papers out there discussing observations astronomers could make to possibly see traces of pre-Big Bang things, but there is no consensus that the observations these papers suggest would necessarily point to pre-Big Bang things, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that any kind of universe like ours existed before the Big Bang.

Who said anything about consensus? Cosmology is largely formed of theoretical thought, and on the scale of things like the big bang we cannot know and quite possibly will never know the real answers.

This was the article I was referring to by the way.. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...efore-big-bang

Other theorists are also working on theories regarding some black holes possibly being 'primordial black holes' that pre-date the big bang. None of it can be proven, as I said it just appeals to me because a cyclic nature to the universe would give some sense to the concept of infinity. The universe having a start point doesn't sit comfortable with infinity to me, although given how utterly beyond our capabilities it all is to understand, it's unlikely to ever be anything more than a wild guess whatever you go for. You can't just talk about 'tremendous amounts of evidence' of the small part we do know though, when looking for answers for the larger question. If the universe is indeed only 14 billion years old then how the hell did it suddenly start, if there was nothing there preceding it? Matter out of nothing goes against the 'tremendous amounts of evidence' we have about how physics works.

Supernatural thought? No, I don't think so. But I have no problem enhancing, changing, or even altogether doing away with human nature if it suits my purposes.

Sorry but that sounds more than a little precious of you. Human nature is undeniable, its just a description regarding the behaviour and thought patterns we lean towards as a species. You can see direct correlation there with behaviour we've inherited earlier in the evolutionary journey, which would otherwise make absolutely no sense in any rational context.

[Elok]

But you believe religious morality will?

I don't care where people get their 'good' morality from as long as they have it.
I don't think one is superior to the other.

I follow a blog written by an Orthodox priest. He argues that what we usually call "morality" is merely external obedience to rules, and does not touch the inner being. Therefore, it is a load of crap. But most contemporary Western morals, religious or secular, follow precisely that pattern. They're about bourgeois respectability, not actual goodness.

[Kidlicious]

First of all, no-one said individuals don't exist. That would be really wierd and I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Secondly, even if someone did make that odd statement, them not randomly disclosing their motivations would not mean they were doing it to piss you off. What you're doing there is suffering from a pronounced case of meglomania.



Given that it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about, sure why not. Incidentally, a Christian talking about the 'greatness of the individual' is very, very funny.

I understand why you won't defend what you said.