Now you are confusing me. Are you afraid of dying or not dying from boredom?

 

Try to reach 10.000 points (in our case 100 posts in this single thread will suffice, MMJ is quickly building on it)
After that you try to clear all the breadcrumbs (that life is throwing your way) and avoid the colored ghosts (in our case the trolls) and finally eat the "vitamin" pill (like a joint to relax after reading all these) so you can eliminate those ghosts before they eat you.
By the end of this thread the OP will surely have won at least 2 extra lives (there's another one more to be won at 50k pts or better 500 posts in this thread alone), so after gaining all these lives, this experience will probably make him a theist like a Hindu or Buddhist (extra lives=reincarnation etc).

PS: Human life on earth is too short to bear the burden of emptiness. For me it is quite tragic to think it all ends with death. But while i 'm on this plain of existence i will try and make the best for me, the people i love and the people i can reach. And that is how i roll. I apologize i lost it somewhere and got pissed, perhaps inappropriate to MMJ. I 've met terrible people hiding behind the veil of religion, beautiful people believing in nothing but science and hideous people believing in nothing but money while "saints" still try to teach them love, understanding and a peaceful way to lead their lives. There IS a moral code to human life whatever we believe or not. And we all know what it is, 'nuff said. Make the best of what you can and thou shall be rewarded, whether you are a believer or not.
Peace

 

Last edited: Apr 24, 2017

i am atheist and very antitheist, no greater problem do humans have than belief in nonsense

 

"advanced or non advanced neither the nothingness (nor you) can tell the difference! Atoms and Particles consisting you don't advance in any way! Cute but purposeless..."

so because atoms dont advance people cant?






"Even if you learn everything your atoms and particles won't remember a thing when you reach your nothingness. Ambitious but purposeless..."


so if atoms dont remember than learning is for nothing?






"Atoms and particles don't express or feel anything or being alive in any conceivable way. They just obey the Physical Laws! So purposeless again..."


so because atoms dont feel people dont?







"Atoms and particles currently consisting you are not alive or "alive". Every day you exchange zillions of them in fact and NONE of them cares for what moving you've just written!"

so because atoms are not alive people are not alive?






so lets use your logic son ( pats on head lightly)

1. music is just vibrations no point in listening
2. food is just atoms no point in eating.
3. an orgasm only last a moment no point in having one.( not eternal)
4. people and animals are atoms no point in caring
5. clothing is just atoms no point in wearing.
6. because the bible has a last page no point in reading ( not infinite pages)
7. because atoms dont feel people dont
should I go on?
basically if something is not eternal it is pointless
if anything is made of parts it is valueless

the bible has taught you well son, your daddy must be so proud.

 

JIM is morality divine command to you?

whatever god says is right?

was god creating Lucifer right?

 

I guess this makes you a Christian after all hehehe. Think about it.
I mean you can do better than that really. "Nonsense" is what that first producer responded to Madonna when she told him she was a singer. "Nonsense" is what the scholars told Copernicus when he told them the earth rotates around the sun. "Nonsense" is what politicians constantly feed their voters with and they still get elected.
I can bring more nonsensical examples but by now you should get the point.
Cheers

 

No matter what is real. The question is: which one does your brain like most?
@MMJ2017 please answer the question on the pic.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017

We already agreed about: People internalize experiences and their perception and understanding of reality is limited by their physiology and psychology. Once internalized and reduced to symbols, supposed reality is replaced with the map yet people believe their map is the territory.
And we have no choice but to think about the reality through the distortions and omissions of our minds.

Take any two individuals from this planet and give them 100 most common words (ranging from sensory to abstract and feeling related phenomena) to define them. You will be amazed at the difference in their understanding of the same world.

Just check last 32 pages and how much difficulty you have communicating your rather simple binary ideas with those who try to share their views. If the world was the same for all of us there would be hardly any reason for long discussion unless we were in class and you were giving a lecture as a respected representative of the field.

So although you take scientific knowledge as your truth Their knowledge doesn't make You a scientist nor an expert in whatever field you are touching with your words unless you successfully dedicated yourself to the field. Their understanding and knowledge aren't yours and since it is beyond the capacity of an individual to be proficient in all sciences that means that for anything and everything that you are not at the top of the field you'll have to settle to faith and ignorance. If you look thought the history even leading scientists in different fields do not easily agree.

I predict you would jump here to describe how it is not necessary to discover every "known" truth for yourself once it is proven that it works and we can just take it (their story) as a fact. And this is the point where you become a fan of science not a truth/fact seeker which isn't much different than you average religious follower.

 

It perfectly follows my previous post.
You said it beautifully, maybe this is the pinnacle of your thought:
"If I never existed if you never existed if no one ever existed reality would be the same. things would work the same way they do."

You may or may not be right about that statement but since you don't have any way of proving it, that reasoning makes you just another believer in stories. People don't chose their fiction because they have a choice, it is a natural outcome of ignorance and limitations.

I wish you a better progress with your discussion on following pages, I'll probably leave it here.

 

Oh my a 32 page thread on the existence of a deity. I think at some point in life you get to realise that no matter how much you discuss this subject it will always be fruitless.

 

Fruitless in the sense a believer never convinces a non believer and vice versa? Well lots of people leave their faith, others would like to but feel the cant because of the communities they live in (not always so tolerant). They changed their mind at some point That aside, there are people sitting on the fence so to speak. Even that put aside there is food for thought for eveyone. And even that put aside dicussion are not always means to an end, but discussion and reading is something that is quite human and has value in and of it self.

 

Here is the very point i think you go wrong. Most, if not all, scientists are quite clear on those distinctions. But of course this distinction should be taught to children, but that is simply a question of education. The reality is real. The probing of reality by testing how things work is real. You do not have to simply believe what the scientists tell you, they give you the map so you can go and look for yourself, should you so be inclined. Surely you must see the difference between this kind of belief and the belief there is a God?

I would be amazed if you would give your opinion on the following: Is all fiction to you? Or is everything real? Or is there a distinction that can/ought to be made? If the latter, how do you suggest we make that distinction.

Peace.

 

Your nice attitude while at the same time disagreeing with me is appreciated Farao.

Let me try to explain without touching the word "real":
What we experience is internalization (through senses and language) of the "unknown" and we know only our interference (interaction) with the unknown which for all practical purposes is sufficient in order to find out what works and what doesn't.
Subjective = known, objective = unknown.
Those who are skillful in making good maps (know hows) about the unknown, maps that lead to predictive results are scientists, and I am not talking here about "classically" trained scientists only. For example if you as a drummer develop a fast learning drum method and it creates consistent results with those who follow the method, in this context you become the scientist within that field. Or if you find natural herbs that consistently cure specific diseases you are a scientist (of that field) even if you don't know how to read and lack any formal education.
So the only distinction worthwhile making is what works in the context of desired outcomes and what doesn't.

Since the world isn't black and white and it isn't static, some maps/know hows/methods etc. don't produce 100% consistent results. Science accepts that and instead of talking in absolutes we are thinking in terms of probabilities which is in my opinion very valuable in itself because if we as individuals learn that it is scientifically OK and even likely to be wrong (most of the time) we'd have much more flexibility in changing and improving our own maps.

Good enough?

 

[/QUOTE]


I am not sure I like either of those sir,

 

this is very interesting



"You may or may not be right about that statement but since you don't have any way of proving it, that reasoning makes you just another believer in stories."


THERE WAS actually a time where I didn't exist, where you didn't existed , where everyone alive right now didn't exist, it is demonstrable that reality was the exact same during that time. this is a FACT with demonstrable evidence it is the year 2017 , lets say we go back to the year 1900. okay maybe 1890, now there DEF is no person that is alive today, reality worked exact;y the same as it does now. that is a fact

"that reasoning makes you just another believer in stories.""

if by believer in stories you mean the story of demonstrable evidence of how the world worked from 1890 until now, but this is a bizarre usage. you are very quick to try an accuse me of NOT doing the thing for which i am demonstrating, which is that I am distinguishing between fiction and not, each moment I exist. You have no argument of what is wrong with it , but somehow are afraid to acknowledge it.

 

"So although you take scientific knowledge as your truth Their knowledge doesn't make You a scientist nor an expert in whatever field you are touching with your words unless you successfully dedicated yourself to the field."


I can't understand what you mean, are you saying learning is impossible? that even though us humankind has hundreds of years worth of knowledge in many fields , many lifetimes worth of knowledge, one cannot learn what that is?

do you have demonstrable evidence for that?

"your truth"

I dont know what that means

"Their knowledge"

I dont know what this means



"doesn't make You a scientist nor an expert"

how do you know WHAT makes ME?



are you SURE you are right when you think about what you consider the reality of how I actually am?

so you think there is a difference between a fictional account of the actual me and a reality account of the actual me?
now what do you use to differentiate between the fictional account or the reality account of the details that surround the actual me that exists?



""So although you take scientific knowledge as your truth Their knowledge doesn't make You a scientist nor an expert in whatever field you are touching with your words unless you successfully dedicated yourself to the field.""


How can you sit there and say there is a difference between the reality of what takes place? , and a fictional account of what takes place?



you have demonstrably shown that you accept the entire proposition


"I wish you a better progress with your discussion on following pages, I'll probably leave it here."

now that yo have admitted you agree with me , I also agree we have discussed it all thank you sir.



"""So although you take scientific knowledge as your truth Their knowledge doesn't make You a scientist nor an expert in whatever field you are touching with your words unless you successfully dedicated yourself to the field."""


to be clear ,

lets say " i thought" it made me a scientist . you are saying the reality of whether i am is different than the fictional thought THAT i am. that the fictional thought THAT I am is false, that the reality of the actual me that exists is that it does NOT make me a scientist.

which is admitting the proposition.

 

Last edited: Apr 24, 2017

the most important information related to this topic, that is the distinction between fiction and reality or to be more precise fiction vs non-fiction. I want to be very clear there is a such thing as fiction. In this specific situation I am referring to fiction being any thought ,concept, idea, proposition or statement which cannot demonstrably be shown to be true in the context of reality. In fact fiction is the vast majority of thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, and statements and the tiny minority are ones that can be demonstrably shown to be true in reality,

Why is this important at all in any way?

Because there is a way human beings actually work regarding our thought process and our minds. our thoughts are made of words and symbols which are virtual not real , so for any meaning to be there, we have to be talking about those symbols representing something and reality is what the words are supposed to represent. next we human beings are stuck in a subjective experience of spending each moment inside of our mind, we are capable of misunderstanding and not accounting for all details of a situation which leads to fictional or false propositions ideas and thoughts statements. Reality is outside of us. In order for us to utter words strung together in a meaningful way those words have to accurately be describing that outside reality. in order for that to take place we have to have demonstrable evidence , meaning we have to test and probe reality to see what the answer is to a question then we can formulate a thought about how things actually work or what exists in reality.

This means when it comes to the topic of how can a thought, idea, concept or proposition EVER be true. It can only be true IF we have demonstrable evidence or data from reality itself that we form a proposition or thought based on in order to talk about how things actually work or what exists outside of our experience which is subjective.

 

mrfloyd

"""So although you take scientific knowledge as your truth Their knowledge doesn't make You a scientist nor an expert in whatever field you are touching with your words unless you successfully dedicated yourself to the field."""



mmj2017

"....next we human beings are stuck in a subjective experience of spending each moment inside of our mind, we are capable of misunderstanding and not accounting for all details of a situation which leads to fictional or false propositions ideas and thoughts statements....."



".....Reality is outside of us. In order for us to utter words strung together in a meaningful way those words have to accurately be describing that outside reality. in order for that to take place we have to have demonstrable evidence , meaning we have to test and probe reality to see what the answer is to a question then we can formulate a thought about how things actually work or what exists in reality....."

 

Words are unable to describe correctly reality fully, they are not perfect themselves. Every tools, methods used to name correctly reality are human constructed tools themselves, thus imperfect because built by entities who at some level always mislabel reality by not knwing it completely and correctly. We haven't named correctly reality entirely, the few pieces of reality we have correct names for, naming might be ajusted if language changes, etc, but still people will keep on adressing part of reality not yet adressed, at heart of the problem isn't reality itself but the fact that people always live and go beyond reality that is proven and named as they have to live in it. From the perspective that you indeed describe.
You have every right to defend your objectivism. It's actually a sane position, and the fact that almost no one contest the laws of nature is a testimony to the fact that most people share partly at least your objectivity. The problem isn't deniying or not reality, but your wish (or illusion) to reduce reality to what is named, proved and measured..Analytic philosophy isn't new and not every one embraces it. There are a priori to accept to be able to and those aren't shared by all. Your level of thinking, your pov, isn't accepted by all even if reality is. Those are different things.
That's also where farao is wrong imho, of course scientists agree that reality is real, I doubt many lives only in the scope of objectified reality (the one that has been correctly named, tested). Even less that they all only use in their everyday life exclusively expression and sentences that are by your definition right. They probably make the difference between their work of research and their family life or love problems.
Which maybe is where you want to go, I guess through your Hitler illustration you imagine a world where decision would be taken in the light of reality as you assert it (and as it is since reality just is) - because most people wont deny reality you would ,maybe, want them to not experience life beyond what has been proven (and not express things outside the scope of it, which would probably mean the end of hypothesis in science), in their experience of life.. The question is the rest, un name reality, unproven reality. The fact that it isn't proven doesn't mean we can't adress it discuss it. Even with no meaningfull name. We can just enjoy poetry or naming things or dreaming. Beyond reality.

Your challenge, your real challenge is to convince people to have faith in you and in your choice to only name rightfully named concept and address only proven reality (the namable one), which is a subjective choice, a very strong choice of life and a very different one than being an atheist (as it's commonly defined, not the meaning you've arbitrarely chosen for it with your fiction-non fiction differenciation). And doing that without going above the godwin point and refering to Hitler would be a huge thing.
BTW to me what you're trying to accomplish, as I wrote earlier, is to Convert. Not to reality. But to your take on it.

Sorry for sliping away the political reality of my country (a constructed social reality) called me away from that funny and interesting discussion.

 

Last edited: Apr 24, 2017