The universe doesn't care! Why live? Why procreate?
Don't you see the problem with the atheist worldview? You are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do. What if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
(http://m.memegen.com/o6rd9m.jpg)
"The universe doesn't care," is irrelevant to "Why live? Why procreate?" So what if the universe doesn't care?
However, people care about their lives and their children on their own. They don't need the universe to care about anything. Whether people believe in a gods or are atheists, people care. They just do, because they are people, and it's what people do. You seem to be saying we should all throw in the towel because the universe is not a caring entity, but you are really implying that we can't care without a god, right? Well, we do care, even if you say we shouldn't. Sorry, we just do.
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PMThe universe doesn't care!
I should hope not. It's hard to imagine someone claiming otherwise unless it was someone touched in the head. Or a religious person. (Those categories may overlap somewhat)
QuoteWhy live? Why procreate?
You don't *have* to do anything.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png)
QuoteDon't you see the problem with the atheist worldview?
No, but I'd bet $10 that you're about to claim something to that effect.
QuoteYou are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do. What if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
The ol' subjective morality conundrum. Never seen that before.
The answer is actually really simple. Someone else's desire to harm others is overruled by others' desire not to be harmed.
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
The universe doesn't care!
How do you know the universe doesn't care?
QuoteWhy live? Why procreate?
Why not?
QuoteDon't you see the problem with the atheist worldview?
No, I don't. Even if there were some such "problem" with atheism, it wouldn't affect the truth (or otherwise) of the concept.
QuoteYou are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do.
Isn't that about all any of us can do, atheist or not?
QuoteWhat if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
OK, I'll bite...what if...?
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on September 07, 2016, 09:40:05 PM
(http://m.memegen.com/o6rd9m.jpg)
http://www.vhemt.org/
(http://vhemt.org/vbnbw.jpg)
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
The universe doesn't care! Why live? Why procreate?
Don't you see the problem with the atheist worldview? You are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do. What if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
I'm going to make a couple of assumptions here.
First off I'm going to assume this is a driveby post from someone who will never return to move their post count higher than 1. We get a lot of that here.
Secondly I'm going to assume your post refers to the belief that there is no point in living a life unless you spend that life believing in a some sort of higher power or something to that effect.
To that I will say the following. I don't expect to convince you of anything you don't already believe so my comments are only meant to try to help you understand the perspective of those who are not like yourself. You're right sort of. There is some truth in the statement that there is no point in living a life unless you spend that life believing in some sort of hight power. The true part being that there is no point in living a life. Period.
What I think you fail to understand is that there doesn't have to be a point. You were born and you're here and that's it. No reason for it. No point to it. And yet, here you are. There is no bigger picture. There is no great after world. You're here and this is all the existence you will ever get and there is no reason for it and there is no point to it.
So here is what you likely don't understand. Being here is enough. You didn't ask to be here, and yet you're here. And here is all you're ever going to have. So why not take it for what it is and enjoy it as best you can? What is the downside to that? What God worth his salt, imaginary or otherwise, would blame anyone for doing any different?
Doesn't mean you have to compromise your sense or right and wrong. If you want to follow a bible and live your life by your personal interpretation of what it says you should do, go for it. Just don't try to jam it down my throat or anyone else's unless you enjoy a good bitch slapping.
You're here, this is it and this is all. Cherish it and be happy because there is no upside in doing anything else.
The universe doesn't care, but I care. I like living. And life likes living: a product of evolution is the drive to live.
If the universe doesn't care, why waste your time with stupid questions?
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
The universe doesn't care! Why live? Why procreate?
Don't you see the problem with the atheist worldview? You are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do. What if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
Why are you too lazy to find your own purpose rather than assuming one needs to be imposed from without?
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
The universe doesn't care! Why live? Why procreate?
Don't you see the problem with the atheist worldview? You are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do. What if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
They are not wrong. If they want to die that badly, they are not wrong to kill themselves. Are they right if they want to kill someone else? I wouldn't use right or wrong for that situation. I'd say it's usually (not always though, of course. Non-defensive killing can sometimes be a moral act, for instance when one helps an elderly family member die, who wants it and is suffering) immoral because I care about human well being, and I wouldn't want to live in a society where it was acceptable to kill others in a non-defensive way without suffering consequences (not because of justice, but just to keep the rest of free society safe from them).
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 07, 2016, 09:52:29 PM
How do you know the universe doesn't care?
Good point. Human beings ARE the Universe, and we do care, so that settles that.
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
The universe doesn't care! Why live? Why procreate?
I care. Fuck what the universe does or does not 'want'.
Oh wait. Just noticed he's a sock.
[mod]bye[/mod]
So, the sock didn't survive this one thread? How ... appropriate.
@Hijiri Byakuren it was DavidOller, Emmwhaaaaa, etc.
A bunch of accounts that basically just either posted 1 post or never posted. All the same person
Quote from: Atheon on September 07, 2016, 11:08:22 PM
The universe doesn't care, but I care. I like living. And life likes living: a product of evolution is the drive to live.
This is proof that you are either a god or superior to G-d ... or both.
Quote from: murad on September 07, 2016, 09:23:19 PM
The universe doesn't care! Why live? Why procreate?
Don't you see the problem with the atheist worldview? You are merely stating your opinion of what you think we ought to do. What if someone else thinks it better to kill and die, why are you right and they wrong?
That's bullshit, he made one post and he was banned. Talk about anti free speech.
Anti-free speech would be the government limiting speech. Not some internet forum.
The rules state '3. Proselytizing (attempts to convert people to a religion/belief system by means of preaching) is allowed as long as intelligent discourse follows, and as long as it is not spam.'
It was a hit and run post. No discourse, let alone intelligent discourse, was planned by the OP. Therefore, everyone was wasting their time by responding to OP. Now that OP is banned, people won't waste their time by responding to him. AF isn't Twitter or Facebook.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 08, 2016, 07:41:33 PM
That's bullshit, he made one post and he was banned. Talk about anti free speech.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1146976#msg1146976
Using a sock account is a bannable offense.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on September 08, 2016, 07:41:33 PM
That's bullshit, he made one post and he was banned. Talk about anti free speech.
I was going to let him stay, but then I noticed he was a sock. I noticed those couple accounts overlapped, but I wanted to wait to make sure it wasn't a coincidence.
The First Church of the Holey Sock has lodged a complaint with the Council of Nicea.
I would ask what a sock is, but some smart ass would just tell me it goes between your feet and your shoes.
Anyway, I like being an atheist because it led to a house and a car and cable TV and a steady supply of moderately-priced decent wine when I stay up all night. As opposed to a muddy cave begging the lightening god not to strike me. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 09:51:02 AM
I would ask what a sock is, but some smart ass would just tell me it goes between your feet and your shoes.
"Sock" is short for "sockpuppet", an entity being operated by someone off screen, and a weak copy of a real person. Few people do socks for a reasonable purpose, most are just to support some agenda.
That make sense. Thank you. I think.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 01:50:04 PM
That make sense. Thank you. I think.
He's being serious. "Sock puppet" is so commonly used that I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it. I've never fully understood the motivation for sock puppeting. It's an odd deception that doesn't have much practical value. Almost all forums will ban someone for doing it.
I'm an old fart who doesn't use social media. LOL! And you kids get OFF my lawn! You will kill all the weeds! They're good on my salads.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 03:06:43 PM
I'm an old fart who doesn't use social media. LOL! And you kids get OFF my lawn! You will all the weeds! They're good on my salads.
I'm only 65 myself, but I still use Urbandictionary.com frequently. "PITA" for example, is not a type of Mexican food.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2016, 05:57:33 PM
I'm only 65 myself, but I still use Urbandictionary.com frequently. "PITA" for example, is not a type of Mexican food.
Oh you youngster! LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 01:54:16 AM
Oh you youngster! LOL!
Thank you both for making this not-so-young guy feel a little less not-so-young. :D
Quote from: trdsf on October 29, 2016, 06:29:01 PM
Thank you both for making this not-so-young guy feel a little less not-so-young. :D
It's been my experience that people live until they die, or less if they spend too much time bitchin' about dying.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 30, 2016, 09:23:27 AM
It's been my experience that people live until they die, or less if they spend too much time bitchin' about dying.
True 'dat. I don't
feel 50+. I don't expect to feel like a fiftysomething until I'm a seventysomething (cranky lower back notwithstanding).
My mailbox doesn't care if I get mail so why should I check it every day about 1pm?
Quote from: trdsf on October 29, 2016, 06:29:01 PM
Thank you both for making this not-so-young guy feel a little less not-so-young. :D
Anything I can do to help, LOL!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 30, 2016, 09:23:27 AM
It's been my experience that people live until they die, or less if they spend too much time bitchin' about dying.
I don't know about that. Some people seem to die before their minds and bodies stop functioning. They are usually theists. I think they start looking forward to finding Heaven. It is fine with ME if they leave as early as possible. In fact, in their 20s would be good.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 04:07:38 AM
I don't know about that. Some people seem to die before their minds and bodies stop functioning. They are usually theists. I think they start looking forward to finding Heaven. It is fine with ME if they leave as early as possible. In fact, in their 20s would be good.
I remember one of those 1950's Biblical Spectaculars (as we used to call them). There is a scene in the movie where Caesar is inspecting all the Christian lion kills left lying in the dirt in the aftermath of a Roman Coliseum half time show. He frustratingly observes, "Look at their faces. They are all smiling," as he realizes the Christians have once again outfoxed him, and denied him of his pleasure. I was less than 10 years old, and I remember thinking, "Horse Shit!"
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 06:51:35 AM
I remember one of those 1950's Biblical Spectaculars (as we used to call them). There is a scene in the movie where Caesar is inspecting all the Christian lion kills left lying in the dirt in the aftermath of a Roman Coliseum half time show. He frustratingly observes, "Look at their faces. They are all smiling," as he realizes the Christians have once again outfoxed him, and denied him of his pleasure. I was less than 10 years old, and I remember thinking, "Horse Shit!"
I never saw that scene, but I would tend to agree with you. Those movies were utter nonsense.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 07:24:08 AM
I never saw that scene, but I would tend to agree with you. Those movies were utter nonsense.
I'll bet you did. I believe the actor who said those lines was Peter Ustinov, who must have had a contract with MGM to play Caesar in all those films.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 07:34:35 AM
I'll bet you did. I believe the actor who said those lines was Peter Ustinov, who must have had a contract with MGM to play Caesar in all those films.
Well, actually I really never did watch biblical movies. They always seemed rather silly. And I'm not much of a movie-watcher at all. Sci-fi mostly, and knowing it is all humorous fiction. I haven't been to a movie theater in 15 years and watching a whole movie on TV mostly bores me.
Saturday afternoon was a ritual with my friends. The movie theater was a block away, and another one was 4 blocks away, and it cost 25 cents for a double feature. Almost all theaters showed double features, and the few that didn't we considered rip offs. We would watch anything. We even watched some seriously substandard crap, and thought it was good. I rented one of those Biblical spectaculars a few years ago just for the nostalgia, and it was 2nd rate. Back then, the Biblical Spectaculars were a fad, much like Marvel movies today.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 09:03:18 AM
Saturday afternoon was a ritual with my friends. The movie theater was a block away, and another one was 4 blocks away, and it cost 25 cents for a double feature. Almost all theaters showed double features, and the few that didn't we considered rip offs. We would watch anything. We even watched some seriously substandard crap, and thought it was good. I rented one of those Biblical spectaculars a few years ago just for the nostalgia, and it was 2nd rate. Back then, the Biblical Spectaculars were a fad, much like Marvel movies today.
I seem to have missed out on that. But I do recall when you could get a hamburger and fries for a quarter. Does that count?
We were just never into movies much. We liked running around outside more.
I do actually remember what seems like much more time running around and riding bikes. Not sure how we got it all in.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
I do actually remember what seems like much more time running around and riding bikes. Not sure how we got it all in.
Days actually DO last longer when you are a child. An undiscovered relativity law (relative to adults)... I have it on good authority that Hawkings is working on that very question. He will undoubtedly call it the Hawkings Diminitive or something like that.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 11:18:00 AM
Days actually DO last longer when you are a child. An undiscovered relativity law (relative to adults)... I have it on good authority that Hawkings is working on that very question. He will undoubtedly call it the Hawkings Diminitive or something like that.
Don't know how credible this is, but I heard an interesting explanation of the phenomenon one time. Because of our self-centered perception of time, when you are 10 years old, the last 10 years is perceived accurately as your lifetime. It represents the sum total of your most familiar standard of time; One lifetime.
But when you are 20, 10 years is perceived as only half a life time. At 30, 10 years is a third of a lifetime, etc. I suppose this presumes that least arbitrary biological clock is the one which compares time to our personal experience of time, the unit being most important to us being our experience of a life time.
Concepts like one minute, one day, and one year, are man made and arbitrary. The designations only have the value which are arbitrarily assigned to them.
I thought it was an interesting perspective. Had I not heard that, I would have just said after 50 years, periods of time seems shorter, because we have experienced them so much, the wonder and excitement being drained away. But I'm drawn to that other explanation.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 11:18:00 AM
Days actually DO last longer when you are a child. An undiscovered relativity law (relative to adults)... I have it on good authority that Hawkings is working on that very question. He will undoubtedly call it the Hawkings Diminitive or something like that.
Well, they would. When you're a child, you're shorter, so you're deeper in the Earth's gravity well, and time actually *does* move a little slower relative to adults.
...well, okay, by something on the order of microfractions of a femtosecond, but the science is still there!!
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 01:10:17 PM
Don't know how credible this is, but I heard an interesting explanation of the phenomenon one time. Because of our self-centered perception of time, when you are 10 years old, the last 10 years is perceived accurately as your lifetime. It represents the sum total of your most familiar standard of time; One lifetime.
But when you are 20, 10 years is perceived as only half a life time. At 30, 10 years is a third of a lifetime, etc. I suppose this presumes that least arbitrary biological clock is the one which compares time to our personal experience of time, the unit being most important to us being our experience of a life time.
Concepts like one minute, one day, and one year, are man made and arbitrary. The designations only have the value which are arbitrarily assigned to them.
I thought it was an interesting perspective. Had I not heard that, I would have just said after 50 years, periods of time seems shorter, because we have experienced them so much, the wonder and excitement being drained away. But I'm drawn to that other explanation.
It goes the other way. When you are 10, 10 years is a lifetime, when you are 20, 20 years is a lifetime, same for 30, 40, etc. So when you are 40, a lifetime should seem longer, not shorter.
Life starts getting shorter the very first day you wonder "Am I getting old"? Because then you are.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 04:45:05 AM
It goes the other way. When you are 10, 10 years is a lifetime, when you are 20, 20 years is a lifetime, same for 30, 40, etc. So when you are 40, a lifetime should seem longer, not shorter.
The presumption is that a lifetime is the unit of measure; It's the basic unit of measure, not one year or one day. Granted that unit would mathematically vary from one individual to another, and become a somewhat meaningless standard. But the whole concept of life speeding up with age has nothing to do with mathematical measurement. It's an illusion, and does not bind our mind by the boundaries of math.
As important as math is to physics, it does not change human illusions. It can be used to disprove human illusions, but it does not change the psychological causes.
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 06:09:36 AM
The presumption is that a lifetime is the unit of measure; It's the basic unit of measure, not one year or one day. Granted that unit would mathematically vary from one individual to another, and become a somewhat meaningless standard. But the whole concept of life speeding up with age has nothing to do with mathematical measurement. It's an illusion, and does not bind our mind by the boundaries of math.
As important as math is to physics, it does not change human illusions. It can be used to disprove human illusions, but it does not change the psychological causes.
Well trdsf suggested the opposite, so I was just showing another way of looking at our lifetimes. And, not being cliche, but time (lifetime) IS all rather relative. Some ancient ancestors would have considered living to 40 to be rather remarkable, yet I expect 80 to be expected.
Even then, 40 or 80, it never seems long enough, yet can sometimes get to feel too long. I suppose it is the length of enjoyable life that matters most.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 06:23:12 AM
Even then, 40 or 80, it never seems long enough, yet can sometimes get to feel too long. I suppose it is the length of enjoyable life that matters most.
Yes, I can't think of a better goal in life than that.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 30, 2016, 02:59:54 PM
My mailbox doesn't care if I get mail so why should I check it every day about 1pm?
Because that check from Nigeria has to come sooner or later, right?
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 06:09:36 AM
The presumption is that a lifetime is the unit of measure; It's the basic unit of measure, not one year or one day. Granted that unit would mathematically vary from one individual to another, and become a somewhat meaningless standard. But the whole concept of life speeding up with age has nothing to do with mathematical measurement. It's an illusion, and does not bind our mind by the boundaries of math.
As important as math is to physics, it does not change human illusions. It can be used to disprove human illusions, but it does not change the psychological causes.
In classical physics maybe ... but measuring rods are variable in Relativity, and the observer is crucial in Quantum Mechanics. You are thinking of metrology standards like in 19th century France, with the perfect meter bar kept under glass at a fixed temperature, in Paris. Measurements aren't random, they vary, but only as allowed in non-classical physics.
I wonder what's the error margin for that bar? How far off is it, since it can't be exactly one meter. Unless, that is, the meter is simply defined as the length of that bar. Is that the case?
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2016, 06:06:00 PM
I wonder what's the error margin for that bar? How far off is it, since it can't be exactly one meter. Unless, that is, the meter is simply defined as the length of that bar. Is that the case?
I think it used to be. Maybe with new technology there is a more permanent baseline, but I haven't heard about it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2016, 06:06:00 PM
I wonder what's the error margin for that bar? How far off is it, since it can't be exactly one meter. Unless, that is, the meter is simply defined as the length of that bar. Is that the case?
Yes ... that bar at such and such a temperature (Celsius of course).
Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2016, 07:32:42 PM
I think it used to be. Maybe with new technology there is a more permanent baseline, but I haven't heard about it.
Old method replaced in 1960 ... then that newer method was replaced with a time standard plus a fixed numerical value for the speed of light.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Time is more narrowly defined than length, hence this pragmatic change. The speed of light in relativistic units = 1 anyway. This means that if there is a successful test of light of varying speed in vacuum ... you have to do it with time variance.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
This has to do with the difference between phase velocity and group velocity (usually significant in matter ... this is why you have an index of refraction) but pulsed light interferes with itself ... so it depends ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2016, 07:48:45 PM
Old method replaced in 1960 ... then that newer method was replaced with a time standard plus a fixed numerical value for the speed of light.
That sounds familiar. Maybe that's why I posted my comment. Now we have to puzzle over whether or not time and speed of light are constants, and if not, do they fluctuate at some fixed ratio? Maybe future generations will puzzle over why time seems to go slower as they get older. Like if the universe starts to collapse. OK, this is getting silly.
Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2016, 08:11:20 PM
That sounds familiar. Maybe that's why I posted my comment. Now we have to puzzle over whether or not time and speed of light are constants, and if not, do they fluctuate at some fixed ratio? Maybe future generations will puzzle over why time seems to go slower as they get older. Like if the universe starts to collapse. OK, this is getting silly.
Someday, humans will consider Einstein to be as wrong as Plato.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 01:51:33 AM
Someday, humans will consider Einstein to be as wrong as Plato.
Anti-Semites in the 1930s already concluded that. But they were wrong. QM folks in the 1030s already concluded that ... and they may yet be proven right (spooky action at a distance does appear to be real ... so Einstein is losing). But Plato wasn't even much of a mathematician, let alone a physicist (naturalist in those times). Euclid was the mathematician, Aristotle was the naturalist, and Archimedes was the Eureka!