a challenge to those who feel intelligent

This thread is a head fuck when you're high :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

The quick answer is that I muddle through just like everyone else. No one has the manual. I think being a human being is an aburd thing. Absurd in a deep philosophical sense. I used to be a religious fanatic. When I started to get over that in my 30's I realized that I had swallowed lot of bullshit - much of it foisted on me by my very own self. I resolved to cut out the bullshit as much as possible - with mixed success. Bullshit is inescapable and sometimes even necessary. I cultivated a rather blunt, irreverant manner - others call it an "asshole". I believe that every man must find his own reason for living and that this is an intensely private matter - no other man will ever be able to judge or even fully understand this decision - to that extent I am an Existentialist. For me life is about the living of it. I try to figure out what things I really want to and to go after them without worrying whether they are important, appropriate or whether it all amounts to anything.

Being an atheist is a cold and lonely thing in many ways. You must confront the fact of your imminent death without any warm blanket or comfort that religion can offer. Death for an atheist is intensely personal and intensely lonely. But with this comes an exhilerating sense of release and freedom. My life is mine to do with as I wish and as I can.

I have found nothing that even begins to explain the way it feels to be a man and to know that I am a man. But I feel strongly, and this is a scientific idea, that one should not try to dispel mysteries with stories. Its ok not to know even though it is a torment.

---

First off. I think I agree whole-heartedly. Being comfortable over 40 fathoms isn't easy. But it's all there is unless you want to lie to yourself. My own outlook is fairly existentialist as well. I alone have complete creative power over, and complete responsibility for, my own life.
Now here's my follow up question. How can you look into the sea of human faces, knowing full well that they're all facing the same existential abyss, whether they face it openly or not, and not feel empathy and compassion for them? To change your own quote to a slightly more honest variation: "being a Human Being is a cold and lonely thing in many ways". But we're all in this together, some shared human existential experience. thats what makes it existential, afterall.

what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

... How can you look into the sea of human faces, knowing full well that they're all facing the same existential abyss, whether they face it openly or not, and not feel empathy and compassion for them? To change your own quote to a slightly more honest variation: "being a Human Being is a cold and lonely thing in many ways". But we're all in this together, some shared human existential experience. thats what makes it existential, afterall. what do you think?

---

I feel the same way :)

so... would that be like, demonstrating religious principles?

Did I just win the thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

Did I just win the thread?

---

Hehe - its boring when people agree - war can be much more productive than peace ;)

IIRC there have been three main attempts


#1 "Fuck you guys! I know whats right"

I kinda liked this guy - if you think about it, it has a certain consistency. Its mainly about the strength of private knowledge. Anyway at least he didnt waste a lot of time here - :D

#2 Attempts at direct proofs

These all have to make a lot of very questionable assumptions, assumptions that really cant be glossed over with "we can all agree that". They dont get off the ground

#3 We dont really know much so how should we go about things?

IMO this is the most productive approach, if done honestly and intelligently - its not a license for fuzzy sentimental thinking. But, the main challenge of this thread is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" (I would prefer "prove to a strong certainty" or even just "to a preponderance of the evidence" but #3 basically throws in the towel on all those and says "yer right, its impossible. Now what?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SensiRide

This thread is a head fuck when you're high :stoned:

---

lol i was trying to fish through the thesaurus enhanced bullshit, but after a couple of minutes my eyes just lost focus so I said fuck it and decided to tack on a post for myself

(why should they get all the fun:dance: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

Hehe - its boring when people agree - war can be much more productive than peace ;)

---

Maybe, but only if you can pay the high cost of resources. I don't think we'll have them for much longer in the manner that we do now, assuming things continue to go the way they are going. And when we consider the human cost of it. Then no, we find we've never been able to afford it really.
War sets resources against resources. Money is spent against money. Weapons used against weapons. Rather than peacefully contributing resources. At least there would be less waste.

Second: I agree about direct proof. I've spent posts agreeing. So what is it about science or religion or ontology or language that's different from "so we all agree that X"?

I don't consider any of this to be wasting time because it gives me the chance to ponder it all. I don't expect to derive any answer but there's some quality to the questioning itself that feels like stretching. It's healthy. Open minds are a good thing.
Is it a productive approach? Does it produce anything real that could be measured or calculated? No. Consciousness is still free of the tyranny of physicalism. And can we know it? Perhaps we can only approach its unknowable-ness

For many philosophers, morality is the derived from Pure Reason. A self-examination, free of empirical impressions.

Do you need to count objects to know that 2+3=5?
Are you aware that a triangle's angles will equal 180 degrees without having to measure them?
The necessity of a triangles properties do not demonstrate the necessity of triangles, but you might find it interesting to think about...

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

There you have it

lol, hmmm? if the power's out, then the powers out, i KNOW it won't turn on if the powers out or the comps broken, but knowing the comp isn't, or the powers not out, it will turn on. fact, not some sort of miracle that hey everytime i seem to push this button, the comp turns on? that's a work of god! no it's science dimwit. common sense, use the other side of your brain.

I can prove my religeon beyond a reasonable doubt..first get a gun..aim from temple to temple..and pull the trigger.. there! proven!