the illogical god

[ubermich]

to tyler:

i guess it just comes down to overlapping definitions of atheism/agnosticism. correct me if im wrong, but i thought that striation of atheism was more correctly categorized in the latter term.

to xev:

Theism claims that a God exists.
Yet there is no evidence for this claim.
It is irrational to believe somthing for which there is no evidence.
Therfore, it is irrational to believe in God.

i dont think its as simple and clean cut as that. first of all, which i will not get into, some philosophers like kant, might say that to refute god is to tacitly acknowledge his existence. so might the postmodernists agree, who dont even touch that pile of worms.
but in more practical contexts: your proof holds rationalism as the endgoal, which makes sense, considering you call yourself a rational-existentialist. but who said irrationality was bad? instinct's saved my ass several times. of course, you can say that instinct is of this world and god isn't.

but when it comes down to it. god is what? nothing. a belief. a lie. a lie inasmuch as he matters not to us, like nietszche said. what matters about god is what we believe about him. but if irrationality = belief in god, then you CAN compart it to instinct, and it CAN be a way of saving you. not your soul, but your life on earth. i dont see how a true existentialist can negate a belief in god. a pure one, anyway, who takes existentialism beyond the books. if something fulfills your temporal existence, satiates your enslaving emotions, then why not do it, even if it is a lie? it "feels" right for you. thats why i think religion is something that really, fundamentally, shouldnt be discussed. it all comes down to which lie you're more comfortable with: the one wherein god exists, or the one wherein he doesn't.

Thank you. Interesting post, especially the comparison of Nietzshe and sado-masochism. I suppose that it also ties in with the use and expression of power.....especially as our Christian posters seem much enchanted with the notion of Xev being, er, trapped in bondage to whatever demons of athiesm they believe in. The simularity of the language is odd.

yes, power, baby, power. you read any foucault? sado-masochism is nothing but the most pure, or at least brutal and physical, expression of the human simultaneous desire/repudiation of power. its the raping of someone to the point of brutal, agonizing ecstasy, displaying all your human godliness by physical humiliating a slave "against" his/her will, then have the humility to unlock the handcuffs and submit as a helpless, pathetic fool before their lusty wrath. thats waxing poetic, but if you get past the weirdness of it, it really has a lot to do with power structures; shit even foucault was kinda into sand m, (at least into liminality/ the destruction of the binary opposition between pleasure and pain.) whats interesting here, is that SandM happens to all of us, whether we want it to or not. you have no power. you're just a slave like i am.
heres a simple example: i dont know you very well, but you seem to be very enthused with religion, in a negative fashion. it seems to control your existence: you base your hate around it, and in doing so "become what you most abhor." control in this sense is nothing but the ability to infatuate, to clog the mind up with. this is nothing new-that hate bonds, but its very true. you may not be a religious person, but yet you are. shit, you reread the fucking new testament on saturday nights.

dont be offended. im stuck in this too. besides, its just my sick personal, twisted view of the world.

I cannot justify it logically.
It gives me pleasure? Sure, why the fuck not? I'm moral because I'm egotistical.
But frankly, what logical reason is there for feeling pleasure from being moral?
I know I am not being logical. I've tried to put this on a logical footing many times, but it always falls apart.

thats whats so beautiful about man. he can deify logic along with the gods that already rape him, or he can follow his own twisted manifestion of it in which he is master. essentially, this amounts to becoming "god" metaphorically, the one up there looking down on us that people say exists. he doesnt follow logic. that fact that you dont can only liberate you.

i realize this might be strange to hear, but think about it. it can make sense, if you want it to. which is elemental to existentialism, right? of course, this is just an amalgamation of pent-up anger and frustration at an unbending universe, but the fact that i realize that and still believe it, in spite of its potentially pitfalls, makes me a great person, i believe. because you operate fundamentally on belief, either subconsciously or conciously, you might as well choose them. enslave your emotions, not vice versa.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by ubermich
to tyler:

i guess it just comes down to overlapping definitions of atheism/agnosticism. correct me if im wrong, but i thought that striation of atheism was more correctly categorized in the latter term.

They like to call themselves atheists because of them wanting to anti-identify against the theists. I assume they really dislike theists.

For some that are technically agnostic, they rather be called atheist because it basically represents "anti-theist" I was once an athiest so I understand most atheistic viewpoints.

but who said irrationality was bad? instinct's saved my ass several times. of course, you can say that instinct is of this world and god isn't.

Wait until Tyler starts pettifogging about how instincts are "perfectly" logical and go on about his profligate nonsense.

 

[Firefly]

Originally posted by ubermich
why we only remember him for his third meditation cogito ergo sum, because its a watertight conclusion based on logical discovery.

I'm sure it's the second meditation, but anyway, he thought all his meditations were correct, it was only centuries later that we can see clearly what makes sense and what doesn't.

sorry, dude. but im not familiar with humean terms. i just read some cursory material on him and decided he was crap.

Well, don't. Read his work, not about his work. If you don't like one point he's making you can't then refute everything else he's ever said. He wasn't crap, he was as influential (if not more) as Descartes, Kant said that reading Hume had "woken him from his dogmatic slumber [of non-philosophy]" and he seems to ahve made a lot less significant errors than Descartes. If you want to deabte Hume with me, you're gonna have to read him first.

I think at the end of the day, belief in the existence of (a) God is just that: a belief, religion. It's not meant to be proven, then there would be no test of faith.

 

[Xev]

ubermich:

i dont see how a true existentialist can negate a belief in god. a pure one,

I have nothing against belief. It simply does not mesh with whatever crude ethical structures I've put up.

anyway, who takes existentialism beyond the books. if somethingfulfills your temporal existence, satiates your enslaving emotions, then why not do it, even if it is a lie? it "feels" right for you. thats why i think religion is something that really, fundamentally, shouldnt be discussed. it all comes down to which lie you're more comfortable with: the one wherein god exists, or the one wherein he doesn't.

You're saying that whatever lie gives you the most pleasure, go with it, because there's no real way to know what is true and what isn't?

yes, power, baby, power. you read any foucault? sado-masochism is nothing but the most pure, or at least brutal and physical, expression of the human simultaneous desire/repudiation of power. its the raping of someone to the point of brutal, agonizing ecstasy, displaying all your human godliness by physical humiliating a slave "against" his/her will, then have the humility to unlock the handcuffs and submit as a helpless, pathetic fool before their lusty wrath. thats waxing poetic, but if you get past the weirdness of it, it really has a lot to do with power structures; shit even foucault was kinda into sand m, (at least into liminality/ the destruction of the binary opposition between pleasure and pain.)

As I suspected, the ebb and flow of power. Such a fascinating little concept, power that is. Power and control, which are closely related.

You've gained the one form of control you can ever really gain, and you can control the way in which you surrender it.

You are lucky.

you have no power. you're just a slave like i am.

Wrong. I have my weird codes of ethics. I follow them, I die, I have at least lived by my own standards. And in the end, I am the only person who really matters.

I mean, I know for sure that I exist, but I don't know that anyone or anything else does.

Actually, you are right. I have no control over anything. Whatever neurochemicals control my emotions control me as well. I do not control my life, it is controlled by a billion other factors, most of which I am not even fucking aware of.

I mean, fucking hell, a butterfly in Sierra Leone could affect the atmosphere in such a way as to cause a tornado in Michigan. To use an extreme example. And then there are such concepts as love and friendship and - no man is an island. One forms attatchments to other humans, one is at the mercy of forces even they cannot control.

It's actually funny when you think about it. The entire cosmos is one huge practical joke.

I don't know. I'll get back to you after a few shots of vodka.

a simple example: i dont know you very well, but you seem to be very enthused with religion, in a negative fashion. it seems to control your existence: you base your hate around it, and in doing so "become what you most abhor." control in this sense is nothing but the ability to infatuate, to clog the mind up with. this is nothing new-that hate bonds, but its very true. you may not be a religious person, but yet you are. shit, you reread the fucking new testament on saturday nights.

You have a point there. I admire the fundamentalists. They don't think. At all. They are like cheerleaders, really. I've always envied cheerleaders.

Such cheerfull, unthinking people.

Truth be told, I also worked on calc problems. For the sheer pleasure of it. This should give you some idea of how pathetic I am.

Basically, I'm after knowledge of any sort. And the Bible fascinates me.

On the other hand, I could not stand going out and getting wasted again. I don't feel any emotional connexion with my fellow partygoers, and it scares me.

dont be offended. im stuck in this too. besides, its just my sick personal, twisted view of the world.

I am not. It's got to be hard to offend a semi-drunk and utterly confused excuse for a philosopher. And I empathize. You, however, seem to be stuck in somthing else.

Twisted? Watch the news. International or local, it does not matter. Try to pick a high crime area if you choose local.

Basically, I am saying that the universe is sick and twisted.

I do hope that half of this post makes sense. Sometimes I feel that I ought not to bother, and simply retreat into the wilderness somwhere.

And sometimes I feel that I just ought to get laid. Simply retreat into a life of pure hedonism. Stop taking myself so fucking seriously. To quote my favorite parody:

You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back

I'm convinced that it is.

 

[Tyler]

"They like to call themselves atheists because of them wanting to anti-identify against the theists. I assume they really dislike theists.
For some that are technically agnostic, they rather be called atheist because it basically represents "anti-theist" I was once an athiest so I understand most atheistic viewpoints."

You continue to lean towards being a typical sciforums theist. I suggest you start reading more of ilg's writings and learn that theism is possible without being an illogical ass who doesn't read what's written.

To be agnostic is to suggest that you have zero clue whatsoever as to whether god exists or not. Agnostics are 50/50 on whether god exists or not OR they believe god exists and humans just can't comprehend god.

Now, surely someone who can follow three sentances of logic can figure out that I am far from agnostic.

I do not hold a belief in god.
I believe no god exists (which is actually not a belief, but a lack of belief. like I said, the natural state is not to believe in a god - so I have not made a choice to not believe in god, I have just turned down the option).
Agnostics believe they have no clue whether or not god exists or god exists and they can't comprehend god.

Follow yet, genius?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by ubermich
distinction between pure, discovery-logic (of which every example you've given belongs to) and need-based/emotional logic.

I don't see that you can split it up. Whatever motivation or intent one has at the outset, one either uses logic or doesn't. If one begins with a set of axioms one must be prepared to defend them.

where in my original posts did you interpret me assuming god existed.

My bad.

I'm trying to prove that such a "universe made entirely of gumdrops" or such a "god" cant be proven using A to B to C logic.

Of course. You're changing the primary conditions. If we change + to mean - then 2+2=0 rather than 4.

I dont know if you're missing my point: but you just said it

Sorry, much of my last post was based on my erroneous assumption. I agree. In fact, I have no problem with the Theist position when it is admitted as illogical or based upon a "leap of faith".

theres one major flaw in your positing "the simple possibility that metaphysical phenomena do not exist as imaginary concepts."

Misquote here, I stated that the flaw is failing to address "simple possibility that metaphysical phenomena do not exist except as imaginary concepts"

if you're saying he doesn't exist then you're just as assumptive as the religious fanatics and myself. who said nonexistence is more simple than existence?

I'm not, I take the weak Atheist position.

WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?

Nothing.

~Raithere

 

[ubermich]

to firefly,

excuse me, but i think you should take a look at the url address at the top of the screen. see that? it says "sciforums.com"
sciforums, not scijournal, not scipreachingpedestal, but sciforums.

i dont know if you have public places in the uk, but a forum is a place where you communicate with other people, not pontificate to them. if you want to masturbate rhetorically, go buy a journal from walmart.

look at what you're doing. you read my post, tell me my logic sucks, and cite hume without establishing his argument at that, just taglining the bastard. then when i say im not familiar with hume, you snap that i should go read his shit?

for what? so i can find out if his theories disprove mine? if i wanted to do that in the first place (which i probably will, now, thank you) i would just have gone and borrowed a fucking book on hume, NOT posted on a fucking forum where people offer advice and feedback. obviously, if you want to communicate knowledge not just masturbate out your representations of it, you should explain why im wrong and not just tell me it because some philosopher three hundred years ago said something on causation.

im sorry if im a little bitter, but this is the same phenomena that you posted on my "college help plz" thread. you told me that i should do the work for myself! obviously, im asking help from people who are more knowledgeable than i am, who obviously exist. that doesnt mean im not going to do anything myself. well, if youre outlook on life is such that people should always learn from primary sources then i dont see why you even bother to have philosophical discussions . or to talk to people at all. just go sit in your room and read about dusty dead people. it must be that you just want to lecture and not learn.

in conclusion though i agree with your final statement.

I think at the end of the day, belief in the existence of (a) God is just that: a belief, religion. It's not meant to be proven, then there would be no test of faith.

im done, no hard feelings i hope, but feel free to tear me up if you must.

 

[ubermich]

to xev:

you're right. i am losing all control over my work habits. sciforums is slowly ensnaring me into its wicked grasp.

i looked at my number of posts today. 41 it says.

*sniffs, waves goodbye to the outside world.

You're saying that whatever lie gives you the most pleasure, go with it, because there's no real way to know what is true and what isn't?

yes, and so much more. let me show you another facet of this philosophy, using yourself as an example, again.
you are a rational person, or so you claim, but if you really were, i mean if you really, truly, were absolutely rational/logical, you would not exist.
you called yourself a "rational-existentialist" earlier.
but thats impossible, as im sure you know.

first, lets consider what "rational" means. "rational" could have two definitions: a strict and a loose one. strictly, i define rationality as pure, unadulterated logic. more loosely, i define it as the need for a reason to actuate your actions. whatever you believe, however, you MUST go by the strict definition of logic (since you are also existentialist.) you said in your belief in god that it is irrational to believe in something for which no evidence supports.

our loose interpretation of "rational," unfortunately, is untenable because these fanatics do have reason to believe. its a blind, emotional need for a security-providing god figure. even if it isnt that, its something driving them to have faith against logic. So, since you have already rejected the loose interpretation of "motivation behind one's actions" as "rational" we must go by the strict interpretation: pure logic.

however, pure logic by nature repudiates ANY contradiction. by establishing your disgust for these fanatics, you are embracing pure logic, and unfortunately, have negated yourself.

you see, you (as with everyone) are a contradiction in terms. you choose NOT to believe in god BECAUSE its "illogical" (w/o proof) yet you admit you have faith/pride in your altruistic morality IN SPITE of its being "illogical" (w/o proof that your actions help you.)
youve already admitted to being a contradiction, nothing im saying is new.

yet, you are still a strict logician, and as such you must negate any premise proving contradictory. yet you choose to live. like camus wrote once, (im paraphrasing on his critiques of absurdism) "life is a choice, every action you make has meaning." you can either choose to live or die, xev. but you still live.

why? you might say its for some "cause," or maybe its just because you're too much of a pussy to pull the fucking trigger.

that doesnt matter though. what matters is that we see from this example that YOUR IRRATIONAL, SUBCONCIOUSLY BASED BEHAVIORS/BELIEFS DEFY LOGIC. you strive to live logically, yet you fail bc:
1) the final implication would be complete subject paralysis.
2) you have an animal instinct to embrace life no matter how depressed you are.
so im saying why hide you're true nature? i dont mean the savage desire to go kill people left and right by "true nature." i mean youre true nature of illogicism. dont hold yourself up to living by such rational "standards." thats what i mean by a "lie." if you do, you will die a slave to your ideals of how we MUST live as educated humans.

of course, i think if you sit on this you'll realize my alternative isn't much better. in the end, my philosophy steals from spinozas, who believed that there were only three base emotions: pain, pleasure, desire. i dont buy into his bullshit about "elevating" or "de-elevating" the nature of the soul through pleasure and pain (you cant if you believe in SandM, but that takes too long to explain here.) but what my philosophy does is it idealizes human desire, your wishes for hedonism.

 

[ubermich]

sorry, server probs again. heres part 2:

in the end, you're either going to be a slave to someone else's desires (if you believe in rationality its that enlightenment ideal that man is good/perfectible through reason, blah blah blah) or to your own visceral ones (greed, power, lust, vengeance.) i dont see why you should follow someone else's sick, irrational desires when you have plenty of your own to choose from.

all the desires, "ironically," are the seven deadly sins. and im sure theres more out there, but those are the main ones. that ties into religion, for ya: the church taught the world for 2000 years to repudiate their own desires and love someone else's.

again, that may sound sick, but its where my logic has taken me. and thats why i sometimes wish i could be simplistic like nelson. as much as i want to believe my own philosophy, part of me still grapples with the downright ignominy of it. thats my good side talking, something ill have to learn to kill or to nurture as i grow older. in any case, my conciousness will be a slave, its just a question of to whom or to what.

you might say, "so you're advocating we kill reason and just act irrationally?" in many bigger words, yes. but what separates us from the stupid people lower on the evolutionary ladder, the cousins of african gorillas, your "cheerleaders" is that we know what were doing. we choose that fate, and in doing so turn the tables back on god and the world, reverse the role of master and slave (like, conveniently, in SandM) by destroying everything theyve taught us. by acting against our conditioned instinct. if you really want to fuck with god, xev, dont play on his level, (or the level of those who have tried like pathetic fools to put reason behind their faith) but subvert it.

I mean, I know for sure that I exist, but I don't know that anyone or anything else does.

ah, i love little mindgames like this. imagine nothing exists around you (seriously.) nothing, not your computer, not your body, not even me. in fact, im just renegade electrical impulses in your brain being manipulated by your sub-concious. im just a visual manifestation of some dark, sexual urge to let it all go, reach rock-bottom, and fuck your brains out in a nasty little sexfest at the neighbors'. youve always wanted to fulfill these desires-greed, lust, vengeance- and im just the part of your subconcious that gave you the reason. do it, do it, do it!

I do hope that half of this post makes sense. Sometimes I feel that I ought not to bother, and simply retreat into the wilderness somwhere.

this is the same thing i feel, i go through emotional cycles. im not bipolar or anything. but sometimes id just like to pull the trigger and pull the night over my eyes one last time. then i get pissed and decide im not going to die a quiet death: i will be heard, and i will destroy as theyve taught me, become their mirror to show them what they really are.

now that ive written that, i feel sick looking at it. i still have much to learn

 

[ubermich]

to tyler:

i admire your posts, but i disagree with this:

I believe no god exists (which is actually not a belief, but a lack of belief. like I said, the natural state is not to believe in a god - so I have not made a choice to not believe in god, I have just turned down the option).

why would define the natural state to be a "lack of belief" in something. i think it's just as much as choice to say NO god exists as to say A god exists.

like aliens for example, its just as much of a leap to say "those fuckers with little white bodies are coming here, drawing pictures on our little cornfields for fun, abducting the rejects of our society, whom do they think they are?" as it is to say "no where in the entire galaxy, do any of those little fuckers with big black eyes, exist."

in fact, i think true nature (without a choice having been made) stands on the side of 50/50. (call me agnostic). i believe, without any logical verification nonetheless, just my own experience, that part of me is good and part of me is evil. i can choose to absolutize myself towards one of those polar extremes (a choice) or just sit back and watch the fireworks (no choice.)

 

[fadingCaptain]

i think true nature (without a choice having been made) stands on the side of 50/50.

I agree. I think we are all born purely agnostic and due to influence/knowledge/experience we are swayed towards atheism or theism.
I see the whole argument of religion or spirituality or atheism vs. theism or whatever as illogical. There will never be resolution or an 'answer'. I struggle with this - Is atheism logical simply because it is the opposite of theism, which is illogical? I mean it is more of a rejection of the illogical than the logical conclusion of any scientific method. I dunno if this is making any sense...

 

[Tyler]

ubermich (and fading):
First of all, thank you for the kind words.

Second, I maintain my side. By natural state I'm basically talking about from birth on. In another thread with Chosen I used an example to suggest this. Imagine a baby born into an enclosed area where he learned of science and scientific answers only. If at the age of 16 someone came up to this kid and said 'Hey, do you know some giant omni-everything superbeing created the Earth and all the animals (dinosaurs never having existed) 6000 years ago?' (Note to Tiassa/others; I am using Christianity as ONE example! Not to imply all religions or god beliefs are in any way the same!). You would surely look at them and laugh.

The point is, no baby is born into the world knowing anything beyond the basic instincts. To suggest that our natural state involves the agnostic view towards a god is basically to imply there is a god. For, why else would we have the 'instinct' of god if god didn't exist? There is no purpose biologically speaking to have this instilled in us.

Okay, enough crap. You're too intelligent for that. You can fully realize that a human child is not born knowing the concept of god. The concept is taught to him. What you're mixing up is some classic definitions of atheism and more of what I consider myself. The rejection of a god (Judea-Christian God, Islamic, Hindu......whatever) is a choice. And in that, we are born completely not knowing of the debate, so there is no side given to us in birth. The point is, I am not rejecting a god. I once did after reading the Torah and Bible. And that's the path to illogical atheism (as Tiassa will so eloquently point out if anyone attempts it).

Anyway, I am not rejecting a god. I am simply not taking up the option to believe in one. A human is born with no concept of god. One day, a person introduces them to the concept. I am simply denying to take that option.

Back to the point. So if a human baby is born with no concept of god then how can he be 50/50 on the decision?

 

[fadingCaptain]

tyler,
first off, we actually hold very similar beliefs. i do not reject god, but i do not believe a deity exists. does god in a extremely loose sense (such as higher power) exist? i do not know.

anyway, on to the question:

So if a human baby is born with no concept of god then how can he be 50/50 on the decision?

He is 50/50 because he has no concept of god! If you ask a child who has never heard of god - "Does god exist?" - will that child say "no"??? I think not. He more likely would answer "what is god?"! Therefore he neither believes in god or disbelieves in god. He simply has no clue and is therefore 50/50. If I twist my thoughts slightly I can see how not having a concept of god would mean no belief in god which would mean atheist. It all comes down to terms and definitions.

 

[Tyler]

"He is 50/50 because he has no concept of god! If you ask a child who has never heard of god - "Does god exist?" - will that child say "no"??? I think not. He more likely would answer "what is god?"! Therefore he neither believes in god or disbelieves in god. He simply has no clue and is therefore 50/50. If I twist my thoughts slightly I can see how not having a concept of god would mean no belief in god which would mean atheist. It all comes down to terms and definitions."

Good point. And it all does come down to how you look at it.

I use the court analogy (my god, I sound like nelson restating my analogies) because it was one of the first I came up with. When I became old enough to be logical and was first introduced to the concept of a god my initial questions dealt with the nature of god. I asked about christianity and judaism and then my next question was 'how do we know god exists?' People's reply was 'faith'. Or 'god exists'.

A baby holds no belief in god. As there is no proof to even suggest god exists, I hold no belief in god. I maintain my natural state, as nothing as ever been done to move me from it.

 

[Avatar]

He is 50/50 because he has no concept of god! If you ask a child who has never heard of god - "Does god exist?" - will that child say "no"??? I think not. He more likely would answer "what is god?"! Therefore he neither believes in god or disbelieves in god. He simply has no clue and is therefore 50/50. If I twist my thoughts slightly I can see how not having a concept of god would mean no belief in god which would mean atheist. It all comes down to terms and definitions.

I read it and have the feeling tht there is a problem smwhere. not sure for now what.

maybe. maybe->
You: Does god exist?
Child: What is God
You: <- now this is the most interesting part. every human theist has a different perception of what god should be. and if even not, there are so much belief systems, religions.

1---
You: Does god exist?
Child: What is God
You: Allah is the only god and Mahmud is his prophet
2----
You: Does god exist?
Child: What is God
You: Zeus is the leader of gods. You should obey all the gods, though
3-----
You: Does god exist?
Child: What is God
You: Christ is thine lord. Let christ into your heart

these are just some of the possibilities.
now. you now force on the child your personal oppinion on what exactly god is. Maybe he'll now believe in Allah, but when a christian asks the same question to him afterwards

christian: does god exist?
child: yes it does and Allah is his name
christian: no Allah does not exist. God is the only god and Yeshua is his son.
child:
1.I'm confused
2. no my father told tht Allah is the ony god
3. you both have different gods, thus there is no one god, therefore gods don't exist.


children in general especially the small ones take what the grownups say to them as an ultimate truth, thus you somehow play dirty. you make the child believe in god, because by your answer you already give the answer to the child. you choose in the place of child.

if conversation went like this
You (atheist): Does god exist?
Child: What is God
You (ahteist): that is just some fairy tale, not worth to bother about

see? now the child KNOWS tht it is just a fairy tale.
child has no free decision, in this case you decide in his place

 

[Firefly]

Whoa, nearly missed this.

Originally posted by ubermich
i dont know if you have public places in the uk, but a forum is a place where you communicate with other people, not pontificate to them. if you want to masturbate rhetorically, go buy a journal from walmart.

wtf has me being in the UK got to do with anything? Hate to break this to you, I'm not uncomparably different to you simply cos I'm on the other side of the world, and as it is I belong to about 7 different forums, so I know what's the norm and stuff.

All I was saying is that if you don't like one point of Hume, you shouldn't therefore discredit his work, nor if you read a bad review on it. If I posted a review on Descartes and slated all his works would that justify some innocent reader proclaiming to someone else that it was crap? However, I am also not going to cite Humes entire works just to prove to you that he had a point in some of them. Also it would be off topic to discuss his theories on causation or whatever, neither do I intend to start such a discussion, I've studied Hume, some of his stuff seems reasonable but I don't find it particularly interesting.

when i say im not familiar with hume, you snap that i should go read his shit?

I didn't tell you to go read his shit, I said to read his works, I am not gonna teach it to you, and I think you have to if you wanna debate him properly.

so i can find out if his theories disprove mine? if i wanted to do that in the first place (which i probably will, now, thank you) i would just have gone and borrowed a fucking book on hume, NOT posted on a fucking forum where people offer advice and feedback. obviously, if you want to communicate knowledge not just masturbate out your representations of it, you should explain why im wrong and not just tell me it because some philosopher three hundred years ago said something on causation.

Like I said, I'm not gonna teach it to you, and causation is off topic. All I was saying is don't base your opinion of someone on someone else's opinion.

im sorry if im a little bitter, but this is the same phenomena that you posted on my "college help plz" thread. you told me that i should do the work for myself!

It just seemed a bit much from my point of view, plus most forums where people ask that, they're given a helping hand, not havign the answers spelled out for them. It's nice of the people who reply helpfully to do so (or they're just really bored ) Also, it's like me asking you for help on which Uni I should go to. Being in a different country you'd hav eno clue, and it would be way outta your way to find out about Universities in the UK.

well, if youre outlook on life is such that people should always learn from primary sources then i dont see why you even bother to have philosophical discussions

Don't even attempt to understand me after knowing me for less than a week.

in conclusion though i agree with your final statement.

Glad we agree on something.

im done, no hard feelings i hope, but feel free to tear me up if you must.

No hard feelings, didn't mean to tear you up, I just don't always see the point in beating about the bush.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Avatar,

child has no free decision, in this case you decide in his place

We are in agreement...see my post earlier in the topic:

I think we are all born purely agnostic and due to influence/knowledge/experience we are swayed towards atheism or theism.

Note that I say due to influence we will move towards atheism or theism. But I still contend that initially we are 50/50.

tyler,
I see your point.

 

[Avatar]

we are not under 50/50. we are under the laws of the probability law. which theist (christian, muslin, whatever) or any atheist yu meet first.

if the portions of the theists and atheists are really 50to50 then you are right.

cheers!

 

[Xev]

ubermich:

you're right. i am losing all control over my work habits. sciforums is slowly ensnaring me into its wicked grasp.

The less you fight it, the less you will suffer.

Believe me, because I struggled against it at first.

you see, you (as with everyone) are a contradiction in terms. you choose NOT to believe in god BECAUSE its "illogical" (w/o proof) yet you admit you have faith/pride in your altruistic morality IN SPITE of its being "illogical" (w/o proof that your actions help you.)
youve already admitted to being a contradiction, nothing im saying is new.

I do not think that this is hypocrisy on my part.

Because, well,

A: Few people have been harmed by altruism.
B: This is my provisional morality. I do not intend it to be my final moral system.

In fact, I don't think I'll end up with a "final moral system".

(Actually, my pride in my altruism - although I'm not sure it is really altruism - is precisely for the fact that it is not logical - yet)

why? you might say its for some "cause," or maybe its just because you're too much of a pussy to pull the fucking trigger.

Actually I haven't killed myself for reasons of simple hedonism.

Life is more pleasurable than painfull, and nonexistance does not appeal to me.

So basically, I am alive because I am a hedonistic athiest. The first time I seriously considered suicide, I decided against because I felt it to be an act of cowardice. The second time, it literally seemed pointless.

so im saying why hide you're true nature? i dont mean the savage desire to go kill people left and right by "true nature." i mean youre true nature of illogicism. dont hold yourself up to living by such rational "standards." thats what i mean by a "lie." if you do, you will die a slave to your ideals of how we MUST live as educated humans.

I do not completely deny my irrational, animal nature. I simply have it chained by my reason. And by my illogical ethics.

A bit of Pascal and a bit of Locke at work here.

I was once described as "fire and ice". Fairly accurate, you see, my true nature is not very pleasent. Not despicable...at least, I must fight against the notion that it is.

But it does need to be restrained. Hence my relience on reason and logic.

but what my philosophy does is it idealizes human desire, your wishes for hedonism.

Please, don't misunderstand me. I am a hedonist. Bu-ut....

I do refrain from harming the unwilling. And I need my logic to restrain me.

in the end, you're either going to be a slave to someone else's desires (if you believe in rationality its that enlightenment ideal that man is good/perfectible through reason, blah blah blah) or to your own visceral ones (greed, power, lust, vengeance.) i dont see why you should follow someone else's sick, irrational desires when you have plenty of your own to choose from.

Good point. But my enlightenment ideals do, in theory, bring me pleasure.

Basically, they restrain a part of me that I don't like.

Umm, I find pleasure in denying a part of my character....I contradict myself again.

again, that may sound sick, but its where my logic has taken me. and thats why i sometimes wish i could be simplistic like nelson. as much as i want to believe my own philosophy, part of me still grapples with the downright ignominy of it. thats my good side talking, something ill have to learn to kill or to nurture as i grow older. in any case, my conciousness will be a slave, its just a question of to whom or to what.

As I said, whatever gets you through the night. Or, as the Wiccans plaigerized Hipocrates:

"An it harm none, do what ye wilt"

if you really want to fuck with god, xev, dont play on his level, (or the level of those who have tried like pathetic fools to put reason behind their faith) but subvert it.

Willingly adopt the beast, as that other apostle of power, Machiavelli, put it?

ah, i love little mindgames like this. imagine nothing exists around you (seriously.) nothing, not your computer, not your body, not even me. in fact, im just renegade electrical impulses in your brain being manipulated by your sub-concious. im just a visual manifestation of some dark, sexual urge to let it all go, reach rock-bottom, and fuck your brains out in a nasty little sexfest at the neighbors'. youve always wanted to fulfill these desires-greed, lust, vengeance- and im just the part of your subconcious that gave you the reason. do it, do it, do it!

Oh hello, then.

*Whispers "Stars, hold thy fires. Let not light see my deep and dark desires"*

this is the same thing i feel, i go through emotional cycles. im not bipolar or anything. but sometimes id just like to pull the trigger and pull the night over my eyes one last time. then i get pissed and decide im not going to die a quiet death: i will be heard, and i will destroy as theyve taught me, become their mirror to show them what they really are.

I know. Odd coincidence, but it was reasoning almost exactly like yours that led me to put the razor blades back in their case.

now that ive written that, i feel sick looking at it. i still have much to learn

Don't we all?
And I do hope that you do not feel sick out of a sense of self-loathing. I hope very much that you do not feel the self-hatred that I do.

 

[ubermich]

to tyler:

Imagine a baby born into an enclosed area where he learned of science and scientific answers only. If at the age of 16 someone came up to this kid and said 'Hey, do you know some giant omni-everything superbeing created the Earth and all the animals (dinosaurs never having existed) 6000 years ago?' . . . You would surely look at them and laugh.

actually, as you've already pointed out tyler, i would probably say something like, "what in the hell are you talking about, freak?" because id have no clue what a "god" is. but your example here brings up another good point. i know you're elaborating on the whole "superbeing [who] created the Earth and all the animals 6000 years ago" to add funny/sarcastic detail, but i think it shows how people manipulate and embellish god, mixing him with other beliefs we have (assuming he exists.)

let's go back to the hypothetical question, "what if we're born 50/50?" well, maybe even that doesn't do justice to a tabula rasa kid. let's be as vague and general as possible : "what if we're born with a nebulous concept of a metaphysical being greater than any human?" sure, it may sound ridiculous, but what do all mythologies and "religions" around the world have in common? absolutely nothing, but a belief in a higher power. we cant know if any of these beliefs are true, the only thing we can intuit is that there must be some kind of inveterate, maybe even instinctual human NEED to believe in a "god."if we consider that, then it seems possible that the clean-slate kid will have a belief/urge to believe in a higher being. forgive me if i pull a nelson later on by confusing this urge with a belief, but im not really sure what it is. im not too interested in debating the semantics of it, as long as you agree its possible that the idea of god can exist innately within a child, free from worldly connotations.

that being said, we can see that the fanatic you cited already qualified characteristics of god as "omnipotent" and "the ultimate creator," an ALL-powerful being who threw some dust sculptures together to create people. assuming the kid has a nebulous notion of god, albeit not associated with the word yet, this fanatic has ALREADY distorted his image of a god. once the kid realizes what the fanatic is saying, he can choose either to believe or disbelieve, but he cannot forget, and thus his once nebulous and undefinable "notion" of a higher being starts drawing limits around itself, either to include the notion of "omnipotence" or to banish it, when before it may have never even been associated with god in the kid's head.

the ultimate implication of what im saying is twofold:
1) you cant forget once youve heard
2) i think what you're saying about "choosing to believe/not believe/natural state being ignorance" with regards to god is perhaps more accurately applied to the characteristics we impose on him, not the first, unadulterated notion we have of him as simply a being higher than us.

let me go into the first, first: tyler, i think that what you're saying about simply choosing NOT to take the leap of believing is god is shoving the cat under the rug. it may be pretentious of me to assume this, but i think its just a nice logical euphemism that hides your true disbelief in him. (keep in mind that im arguing for the sake of arguing, (almost) at this point, im definitely not trying to get you to believe in god for sure, just to keep your mind open.) even if we go with your idea that we have absolutely NO idea of god at birth, word-associated or not, the fact still remains that you NOW have an idea of him. and im sorry, but you HAVE to make a choice once you have information, either to aver or deny it. if ive never seen ice cream, and someone shows me a vanilla cone, i can only choose to like it or to dislike it. i cant forget that i ever saw the cone.

in short:
it seems to me that youre confusing the negation of something with an ignorance of it:
in your world: there's nothing at birth, and you add god.
im suggesting you have god at birth, and you add characteristics
if my suggestion is correct, then it might be said that youve merely seen the characteristics christianitys drawn up on god, and you dont like them, so youve mistaken these characteristics with the original notion of god and tried to kill him altogether.

of course, we're both assuming something. you-nothing at birth. me-god(very formless, subjective, definitely not christian) or urge for god. none of its provable, i know.