Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@oldman
So much for gracefulness. Your hostility is quite telling. Well, I'm not going to "fuck off" from a thread I've created.... so you're stuck with me.
Read the OP and its various responses and form a civil, intelligent rebuttal else take your own colorful advice.
Re: quip - "So much for gracefulness..."
Uh, oh. Mr. quip gets ahold of one. A short little one-hopper over to the third baseman. Will he make the play at first?.....
@ quip
"Read the OP and its various responses"
Oh, please point me in the direction that requires a civil, intelligent rebuttal when you have yet to make a point?
To echo several other comments from civilised intelligent posters on this forum. Its a load of old cock, cock.
When presented with an old turd masquerading as "wisdom" I can hardly respond with anything but derision when it is presented by a tyro with the confidence of a superman and the abilities of an ill educated spratt.
Again, present your arguments in english, in a readable form and you will get a reasonable response.
Quip is trolling, quite obviously. His question is a thelogical cliche. It's specious nonsense. Or else he'd not keep evading my question to demonstrate some evidence life has an ultimate purpose or meaning?
If it doesn't then asking why we are here is like asking why mermaids tend to be nocturnal.
@ Sheldon
100% agree. Which is the reason I have responded to his infantile "why" modes as an exasperated elder citizen...oh wait.....
Oh, Sheldon! I give you a big virtual hug.
You finally saw that for yourself.
HUG, again.
hooray.
Re: Old Man - "Oh, please point me in the direction that requires a civil, intelligent rebuttal when you have yet to make a point?"
And the third baseman easily fields the one-hopper and makes the throw. Runner out at first...
What evidence have you that there is any ultimate purpose to human life?
@arakish, FFS - I thought you were on a rant about me for a second there...
LOL
Now would I say something so heinous about the nicest person here at AR?
rmfr
(Hands to face, blushing!) Placing the "F U" sign behind my back. Ha ha ha ha .....
Re: OP (Why?)
From the timeless wisdom of the legendary Mr. Charlie Daniels: "There's some things in this world you just can't explain."
https://youtu.be/gSM7voOCkU0
Agreed.
"To the dumb question "Why me?" the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: why not"
- Christopher Hitchens
@Randomhero1982:
The perfect response. Trust Christopher.
And the theist praying to god is like the pompous twit blustering to the maitre d', "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"
haha I love these two replies so much!
Why does a cat have a tail? Why do the French eat the snail? Yeah so, irrelevant questions, while entertaining, don't mean much! Biologically we are here, no meaning,! Psychologically tho we always liked to attached meaning! Thinking that your special in the grand scheme of things is just narcissism!
I would say *biologically* speaking we're here to procreate the species...though beyond that biology cannot comment. How about "experientially"? How does that sit with you...or do you still feel compelled to compare more apples to oranges?
"How about "experientially"?"
How about it? You again seem to be implying something within a specious question. What evidence can you demonstrate that our evolved ability to be self aware has an overarching purpose behind it? Life originated, life evolves, human's have evolved, humans have evolved consciousness to be self aware, ipso facto it's irrational to assume purpose behind this process when none of the evidence supports the belief, Occam's razor applies here.
Sheldon: "What evidence can you demonstrate that our evolved ability to be self aware has an overarching purpose behind it?"
None that you would accept. (Prima facie)
Likewise, by what logic can you offer that would illustrate why you dissmiss the question out of hand?
"I'm me because I'm me" is not a logical response...matter of fact it's defies logic to NOT ask the question.
@ quip
You cannot offer evidence because there is NO evidence our evolved self-awareness has any purpose. There is no purpose for "self-awareness" except for self-awareness. It is an emergent quality.
Let me ask this of you: Can the lower animals, such as a deer, think? Are they self-aware? If not, why not?
"I am me because I am me" is a perfectly logical response. Please explain how it is illogical.
rmfr
@arakish
""I am me because I am me" is a perfectly logical response. Please explain how it is illogical."
It's not illogical, it's tautological. Which, in the strictest sense is not wrong, but is utterly feckless beyond its ostensible implication...which in turn, should rationally spur further inquiry. Or at the very least, not to be employed as the default out-of-hand dismissal of it.
"None that you would accept. (Prima facie)"
Pathetic dodge. You're both implying you have evidence and refusing to offer it. Then my favourite part is where having loudly accused atheists in general of making assumptions, you assume to know what I will think about evidence you can't even demonstrate, priceless.
"Likewise, by what logic can you offer that would illustrate why you dissmiss the question out of hand?"
Firstly I haven't dismissed anything "out of hand" and I have already told you repeatedly why it is specious and irrational, and again in the post you have just responded to? Your question is specious, because it contains an inherent assumption that the very thing you're arguing for (a reason life exists) is true, this is a common logical fallacy called begging the question, and will remain so until you can demonstrate any objective evidence that there is any reason for the existence of life or human life. The question therefor as I have also told you repeatedly is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, used in a fallacious attempt to reverse the burden of proof away from your inability to demonstrate any evidence for your belief that life exists for a reason, and onto atheism, which makes no claims, and holds no beliefs about anything.
You believe there's a reason for human existence, therefore the burden of proof is yours, but because you know you can't evidence the belief you ask a fallacious question of atheists who have made no claims, and hold no beliefs about the origin of human life beyond what can be objectively evidenced.
""I'm me because I'm me" is not a logical response.."
It's not even a response since I never made it. My DNA shows the provenance of my ancestry, along with the scientific fact of species evolution it explains definitively the origins of the diversity of species and life we now see.
The exact origns of life itself are not yet known to us. However you and you alone are making an assertion and holding beliefs about those origins.
"matter of fact it's defies logic to NOT ask the question."
Nonsense, as I have said repeatedly, sticking a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't make it rational.
Why are unicorns so shy?
Asking specious unfalsifiable questions isn't rational, and is very easy. Why are you unable to understand the most basic concepts of informal logic like common logical fallacies? Even after they've been pointed out to you. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is it duplicity on your part?
Look up argument from ignorance fallacy, read and understand how these fallacies are used to try and fallaciously reverse the burden of proof. Then understand that nothing that contains logical fallacies can be asserted as rationally true, as you keep trying to do. Anyone who doesn't know this has no business claiming to be thinking rationally, and your refusal to acknowledge the fallacies in your question is rank dishonesty.
@Sheldon
"Pathetic dodge. You're both implying you have evidence and refusing to offer it. Then my favourite part is where having loudly accused atheists in general of making assumptions, you assume to know what I will think about evidence you can't even demonstrate, priceless."
My assumed answer(s) are immaterial. There's tens of thousands of possible answers (Including an atheistic one.). I expect you not to accept them on face value. This leads us to the second point.....
"Firstly I haven't dismissed anything "out of hand" and I have already told you repeatedly why it is specious and irrational, and again in the post you have just responded to? Your question is specious, because it contains an inherent assumption that the very thing you're arguing for (a reason life exists) is true, this is a common logical fallacy called begging the question, and will remain so until you can demonstrate any objective evidence that there is any reason for the existence of life or human life."
That's quite the lofty goal you've presumed on my behalf...nor is it germane to the OP or the inquiry. The fact that you assume it as such only points to your biased denial to refuse introspection into the nature of self.
Your flat-out denial to accept any inquiries regarding the self rest upon a tautological assumption. Let's try a practical example using the form of: "The dog is either brown or the dog is not brown." This statement cannot be false or invalid but - to the point - it conveys NO KNOWLEDGE in regard to the color of the dog. Hence your default take on the self reduces itself to the same specious (a term you ironically bandy about.) dead-end.
My quest is for fair objective inquiry NOT objective answers...if indeed that's even possible considering the nature of the question itself.
"It's not even a response since I never made it. My DNA shows the provenance of my ancestry, along with the scientific fact of species evolution it explains definitively the origins of the diversity of species and life we now see."
You just did! By whatever biological framework you decorate it in...it still boils down to "I'm me because I'm me." (The dog is either brown or the dog is either not brown. What color is the dog Sheldon?)
"Nonsense, as I have said repeatedly, sticking a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't make it rational."
Quite rational once you remove your bias.
"Why are unicorns so shy?"
The only problem here is that we (collectively) have no verifiable experience of unicorns thus no more inquiry need be done. On the otherhand the existence of the self, experientially speaking, is quite obvious. Yes?
In closing, the subject matter is only an argument from ignorance only when you ASSUME a particular answer from me. Yet, I accept BOTH the possiblity of rational evidence yet to be discovered and other, more metaphysical ones not privy to the likes of you and me. I'm agnostic to the question, content with the ambiguity.... its the only rational course of action. What IS an argument from incredulity is your stubborn insistence upon assuming the exclusiveness of the former.
"There's tens of thousands of possible answers (Including an atheistic one.)."
>>Evidence please? Atheism is not an answer to any question, or an assertion of any kind. It is just the absence or lack of the belief in a deity or deities.
-------------------------
quip "That's quite the lofty goal you've presumed on my behalf...nor is it germane to the OP or the inquiry. The fact that you assume it as such only points to your biased denial to refuse introspection into the nature of self."
Your question in your OP has an inherent claim, it is not lofty, nor have I implied it is. How can a comment directly salient to your OP question not be germane to it, that's absurd. Again your lie that I am denying introspection on anything is self evident, and again until you evidence there is or even can be a "why" for human existence, asking anyone to pick one is neither introspection or rational. As for nature, it offers no evidence for the assumption in your question. How you love to lay claim to spheres of enquiry like logic and science, but they don't support your beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Hence your default take reduces itself to the same specious (a term you ironically bandy about.) dead-end."
I have not posted my "take on the self", do stop telling me what i think. You asked why we (atheists) think we exist in your OP, but you can demonstrate no evidence there is even a why, hence it is specious nonsense no matter how much lie to try and twist this into a claim by me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"My quest is for fair objective inquiry NOT objective answers...if indeed that's even possible considering the nature of the question itself."
Again what fair objective evidence have you that enquiry is rational here, since you are asking for atheists to pick a why, and can't show that there is a why to human existence? And around and around he goes.
-----------------------------
"You just did! By whatever biological framework you decorate it in...it still boils down to "I'm me because I'm me.""
I never said that, try again.
-----------------------------------------
ME "Nonsense, as I have said repeatedly, sticking a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't make it rational."
quip "Quite rational once you remove your bias."
I treat all claims the same, and without bias, and this is the very definition of open minded enquiry. This lie of yours that your inability to demonstrate any evidence for your assumption that there is a "why" human life exists, represennts an opposite or contrary claim by me, is becoming tedious now.
------------------------------------------
ME ""Why are unicorns so shy?"
quip "The only problem here is that we (collectively) have no verifiable experience of unicorns"
Hilarious. So you now are ready to verify your "experience" that life has an ultimate meaning only I have asked again and again, now all of a sudden there is evidence??? Fucking hilarious. There are also people who have insisted they have experienced unicorns, I find their *UNEVIDENCED* claims as uncompelling as yours, and for the same reason, as unlike you I don't use bias to favour some (or one) claims over others, in order to prop up your beliefs.
---------------------------------------------------
"On the otherhand the existence of the self, experientially speaking, is quite obvious. Yes?"
Nice straw man fallacy, but your question implied an ultimate purpose for that existence, and that is what you have been asked to evidence. No one denied life existed at all. Why are you prepared to close rational introspection on the shyness of unicorns, are you saying shyness doesn't exist? Ho hum, we can play these games all night...
-------------------------------------------------
"In closing, the subject matter is only an argument from ignorance only when you ASSUME a particular answer from me."
Nope, you clearly don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the implications of common logical fallacies, but then that was obvious from the start.
----------------------------------------------
quip "Yet, I accept BOTH the possiblity of rational evidence yet to be discovered"
quip "I'm agnostic to the question"
How can you claim (agnosticism) that nothing is known or can be known about something, and simultaneously claim it is possible? Or impossible for that matter?
--------------------------------
"and other, more metaphysical ones not privy to the likes of you and me. ""
And you know this exists how? How can you even know whether it's existence is possible or not? I see this type of fallacious reasoning used by theists all the time. Ah, that's right, you're not a theist as you don't believe in a deity, oh but that can't be right as that would make you an atheist, and you claimed you're not an atheist as well???
dear oh dear quip....
quip,
Asking why Caesar lived when he did, why a man is a man (and not a woman), why one person is Mexican (and not Swedish), why we exist in the here and now (rather than a million years from now) is a meaningless question. At what other time could Caesar have lived? He is defined by the historical fabric of that time and place. In what world would Jim have been a woman? No such world exists. Why do we exist in the here and now? Wherever and whenever we exist is our "here and now!" "Here and now" is the only place and time we can exist. From the viewpoint of a caveman, we live a million years in the future. From the viewpoint of someone yet to be born, we may live a million years in the past.
It's like looking at a saguaro cactus near Tucson, Arizona, and asking why that particular cactus wound up there. What would we see if that saguaro was not growing there? Perhaps we would be looking at an empty patch of sand. In order to ask the question we have already selected a particular patch of desert where a particular saguaro is growing. To then ask why it is growing there at this time is a meaningless question!
Why do you exist at the present moment and not at some other date? To ask the question you are looking at a moment of time when you do exist. So, it is silly to ask why you do exist now.
Asking why an all-powerful, benevolent god would let a child suffer horribly is very good question! It is clearly contrary to reasonable expectations.
@Greensnake
I see you consider the inquiry into the self as meaningless therefore, let us consider an analogy :
Let's say someone puts you in an otherwise empty, pitch black room and ask of you (from outside the room.) to tell them what's inside the room. So you grope around in the dark only to conclude "There's nothing in here!"...Yet, YOU are in the room and I don't believe you consider yourself as nothing. Yes?
You see, you take the self - YOUR self - as the default, inveterate paradigm for experience. That is, you've passively assumed the self as unassailable fact and that seems a rational default to you, though you've nothing by way of rational discourse to assume it as such, as merely proclaiming you-to-be-you remains a tautological dead-end, an existential "groping in the dark", if you will.
This entails a change in perspective. I'm not asking why
" Caesar lived when he did" rather I'm asking YOU to ask YOURSELF: By what logical/rational/empirical method determined your particular experience of self in lieu of the self entitled "Ceasar".
The key to this lies wthin the power of self-inquiry itself....not in any particular answer. After all, it's been asserted that the unexamined life is not worth living. So, examine it and ACTIVELY draw your own conclusion as to the meaningfulness of this assertion.
@quip
If I was in a pitch black room, and asked what was in the room. After much blind groping around I would conclude: "well, it seems like only myself, a floor of sorts, some walls, normal air and gravity, and for a brief moment, your voice. How specific would you like me to get about my answer to your question?"
About what I would expect in an empty room other than your voice, that would be spooky especially in a pitch dark room!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@LogicFTW
Feel free to get as specific as desired...it doesn't affect the gist.
Anything more to add?
@quip
I meant more specification on "your question of "what is in the room." Really pretty nonsensical, I was taking a literal route when you were trying to explain an abstract concept. Like, well there is a floor, it mostly smooth, cold, etc. Sort of tongue in cheek humour response.
However I can add more by answering a question of yours on your previous post with my own thoughts:
This is one I have been wrestling with for some time and still have not gotten to answer I am fully happy with yet. I think it is likely I will never get to an answer there that I am happy with. I do know I am certainly not happy with the concept of "soul" as my own examination of the concept has me realize the concept is deeply flawed.
So far my thoughts/conclusions on this subject is: there is no self, "self" is just an illusion brought on by how are brains work, as it struggles with its limitations on brain functions and available knowledge in this subject, the brain has latched onto this "beginning and end" sense of self as explained by other people that also do not really know. Our brains were designed via evolution to take sensory input, compute patterns from the sensory input, create crude memories to allow for pattern recognition, that through its incredibly complexity and trillions upon trillions of connections allow us to use this pattern recognition to give the "human" version of life an enormous survival advantage of being able to somewhat accurately based on pattern recognition predict future outcomes. The brain was not designed by nature and evolution to figure out a sense of self or to even have a sense of self.
A sense of self is not necessary. Our concepts of self is likely a noisy, unintended byproduct of the incredible complexity of the human brain designed to do other things.
I am not saying I am right, but you did ask.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Pages