Atheism not equal to Nihilism

[insausage68]

Ok, so I see that you can call my opinion wrong and say that it is obvious yours is right. How am I supposed to have a correct opinion in this argument? You keep saying that Im wrong in everything I say, but all you do is say that you are right. Provide some proof here. Prove me wrong, dont just say I am.

You are actually getting less and less amusing, because I can actually tell you strongly believe what you are saying. The sad part is, there is nothing I can really do to change your opinion. No matter what point I could bring up, no matter how much I try, you will say Im obviously wrong and have another belief of yours to hold it up. Science is limited. I dont know how I can get you to understand this. I dont even care if you think religion is false, I really could care less at this point.

"Your beliefs dont conform to reality," so what? My beliefs dont conform to your reality. It's like those bumper stickers "I Ignore Your Reality and Substitute My Own." However, this is ment to be a joke and you are taking it too seriously.

 

"Your beliefs dont conform to reality," so what? My beliefs dont conform to your reality. It's like those bumper stickers "I Ignore Your Reality and Substitute My Own." However, this is ment to be a joke and you are taking it too seriously.

Has it not occurred to you that beliefs which do not conform to reality are beliefs in something that is not real?

You are too irrational to argue with any further. I should have stopped earlier. By arguing with you I sanction your irrational notion of debate.

If you want proof of any of my statements, simply post the statement and I will provide you with a rational proof.

 

Mystical Metaphysics

Most mystical metaphysical notions start out as an explanation for some phenomenon -- the sort of explanation found in many old Greek myths that we laugh about because they seem so far fetched today. But there is a sort of internal consistency within each one which explains why some of these have persisted. They do successfully provide an explanation for something, it's just that that explanation might not be true.
The common fault with many of these metaphysical notions is that they are arbitrary, meaning without any basis in reality. Sure, Persephone getting abducted by Hades and then later rescued by her mother Demeter will explain why the seasons take place, but there is no reason to choose this explanation instead of "the legend of the flatulent goat who drastically alters the weather throughout the year".
When a theory or belief has no grounding in reality, it is not useful and is usually harmful to some degree. If you believe that making sacrifices to Demeter will hasten Spring, that belief is harmful to you by cost of whatever you sacrifice, because springtime will not be affected by your efforts. To believe something without evidence, or even worse against evidence, can sometimes be quite harmful.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_Main.html

The above is a good assessment of why your beliefs are wrong and why you should give them up.

 

[insausage68]

Forgive me, but Im a bit more dedicated to my beliefs then to change them according to a web froum junkies opinion. These explanitions are only words, and yes, you should have stopped arguing with me, since Im fully aware Im correct. I had no intention of ever coming to an agreement with you, I just wanted to see what your opinion was.

You can throw around words till you run out of them, but if you continue to argue with your beliefs, you will never be correct. You need to look at life more seriously than you are at this point. I know you wont, but I figured I would throw in one last shot.

Last post for this thread.

You do provide great speeches, Ill give you that.

 

Forgive me, but Im a bit more dedicated to my beliefs then to change them according to a web froum junkies opinion. These explanitions are only words, and yes, you should have stopped arguing with me, since Im fully aware Im correct. I had no intention of ever coming to an agreement with you, I just wanted to see what your opinion was.

You can throw around words till you run out of them, but if you continue to argue with your beliefs, you will never be correct. You need to look at life more seriously than you are at this point. I know you wont, but I figured I would throw in one last shot.

Last post for this thread.

You do provide great speeches, Ill give you that.

You've never applied all the arguments you used against me to yourself have you? Maybe you should review the consistency of your opinion; in particular the hypocrisy of telling me I can't know I am right then asserting that you know that you are right.

 

[insausage68]

You've never applied all the arguments you used against me to yourself have you? Maybe you should review the consistency of your opinion; in particular the hypocrisy of telling me I can't know I am right then asserting that you know that you are right.

Im sorry, i take back the last post thing, this deserves it. Did you read this before you posted it. Please enlighten me how you can honestly tell me "the hypocrisy of telling me I can't know I am right then asserting that you know that you are right." What have you been saying to me? This exact thing, that Im wrong and you are inevitably right. Hyprocrisy, textbook definition, lol.

 

[insausage68]

And the purpose of your existence, to exist.

Sorry, I was going back through what you've already posted and I wanted to counter this statement. Your argument is that "the purpose of existence (is) to exist." Let me state another statement using that same logic, but using different terms. We could say, "The purpose of driving is to drive." Well, no, the purpose of driving is to transport you from one point to another. Now we can tell that what you said about existence makes no sense, because you simply used the word again in different context. What you're doing is using circular reasoning to establish a point. This is not a valid way to establish a view on a subject.

 

Im sorry, i take back the last post thing, this deserves it. Did you read this before you posted it. Please enlighten me how you can honestly tell me "the hypocrisy of telling me I can't know I am right then asserting that you know that you are right." What have you been saying to me? This exact thing, that Im wrong and you are inevitably right. Hyprocrisy, textbook definition, lol.

There is no hypocrisy in my position. I know the truth to be absolute, I know reality to be objective. I am stating that you are incorrect, and that I am correct. I make no concession for invalid arguments. I am NOT asserting it is impossible to be correct, nor am I asserting it is impossible to know that you are correct.

 

And the purpose of your existence, to exist.

Sorry, I was going back through what you've already posted and I wanted to counter this statement. Your argument is that "the purpose of existence (is) to exist." Let me state another statement using that same logic, but using different terms. We could say, "The purpose of driving is to drive." Well, no, the purpose of driving is to transport you from one point to another. Now we can tell that what you said about existence makes no sense, because you simply used the word again in different context. What you're doing is using circular reasoning to establish a point. This is not a valid way to establish a view on a subject.

Its not circular reasoning, and my point is valid.

"The purpose of driving is to drive."
"The purpose of existence is to exist."

Your argument is that these statements are equivalent and therefore logical arguments that apply to one also should apply to the other.

The fallacy of your argument is that driving is a volitional act you undertake; a choice you make with an action you perform to follow through. But existence is not a choice you make, it is a choice which is made for you by your parents. It is true that continuing to exist is a choice, but the natural (naive) state of existence promotes continued existence.

1. The purpose of driving may not be transportation. Some people drive to calm down, others because it is rewarding. Rally car drivers drive to earn money.

2. Driving is an activity you undertake of your own free will. Existence isn't.

3. The purpose of driving can be said to be the purpose (the reason) of the driver, in venturing / beginning to drive. Likewise the purpose of life (existence) can be said to be the purpose (the reason) of the parents in having a child. This purpose is "to have a baby." In other words, the justification (and reason) for having children is: having children is good. Or, more generally: for its own sake.

4. "The purpose of existence is to exist," remains a valid statement.

 

[insausage68]

Its not circular reasoning, and my point is valid.

"The purpose of driving is to drive."
"The purpose of existence is to exist."

Your argument is that these statements are equivalent and therefore logical arguments that apply to one also should apply to the other.

The fallacy of your argument is that driving is a volitional act you undertake; a choice you make with an action you perform to follow through. But existence is not a choice you make, it is a choice which is made for you by your parents. It is true that continuing to exist is a choice, but the natural (naive) state of existence promotes continued existence.

1. The purpose of driving may not be transportation. Some people drive to calm down, others because it is rewarding. Rally car drivers drive to earn money.

2. Driving is an activity you undertake of your own free will. Existence isn't.

3. The purpose of driving can be said to be the purpose (the reason) of the driver, in venturing / beginning to drive. Likewise the purpose of life (existence) can be said to be the purpose (the reason) of the parents in having a child. This purpose is "to have a baby." In other words, the justification (and reason) for having children is: having children is good. Or, more generally: for its own sake.

4. "The purpose of existence is to exist," remains a valid statement.

Ok, so if driving can have more than one purpose, then so can existence. If the only reason you exist is to exist, then that honestly is sad. If all you do is live for nothing every day, waiting for the end of your life, then your life can't have much meaning.

 

Ok, so if driving can have more than one purpose, then so can existence. If the only reason you exist is to exist, then that honestly is sad. If all you do is live for nothing every day, waiting for the end of your life, then your life can't have much meaning.

Well I suppose your parents could have had you for the sake of keeping slaves. In which case your purpose is obviously to work for them. But working for them presupposes existence. Ultimately the only reason you are here is for your own sake.

It only occurs to you that existence is a miserable reason because you have a false morality. If you accept that existence isn't evil and that life is wonderful and that freedom is worth fighting for, then you will realize that the purpose of existence is the best and most wonderful purpose in the world.

 

[insausage68]

Well I suppose your parents could have had you for the sake of keeping slaves. In which case your purpose is obviously to work for them. But working for them presupposes existence. Ultimately the only reason you are here is for your own sake.

It only occurs to you that existence is a miserable reason because you have a false morality. If you accept that existence isn't evil and that life is wonderful and that freedom is worth fighting for, then you will realize that the purpose of existence is the best and most wonderful purpose in the world.

But, if our parents had us to be slaves, and that is our entire existence, then what "freedom" are we existing for?

 

But, if our parents had us to be slaves, and that is our entire existence, then what "freedom" are we existing for?

That was a hypothetical. But even if it weren't, your purpose in being created and your purpose in continuing to live can be different things. As shredderbeam pointed out, in deciding to continue to live, your purpose is your own because the decision is yours.

 

[insausage68]

But, if you chose not to live, then you have chosen not to exist. So, is it free will or not? We have no control to exist in the first place, but then at what point do we have the control? Or, is it controled by something else?

 

But, if you chose not to live, then you have chosen not to exist. So, is it free will or not?

What do you think genius?

 

[insausage68]

What do you think genius?

I already know, I want your view.