| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
To my post about women taking Lysistrata as their guide I got this comment:
| Quote: | | You are an unfortunate human being. I hope one day you see yourself for what you are. |
To which Chagrapanga kindly responded:
| Quote: | May I ask you a few questions, please?
Did you ever take a Women's History class?
Are you aware of the current status of women in the world today?
Do you think that women's mores and values are reflected in the warfare state in which over 60% of the US government budget is spent on war?
Would not a Lysistrata-style sex boycott designed to force men to abandon warfare be a great social movement and benefit to all living beings?
Would not the abandonment of war permit us to redirect our energies toward meeting the adaptive challenges facing our species today?
I'm just saying ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chagrapanga tries to answer the question presented in the original post: "Does Not Believing in the God of the Bible Compel Nihilism? "
| Chagrapanga wrote: | Okay Dan, let's give it a shot. Obviously people enjoy hurling epithets, but there's a time for fun and a time for work. Let's work on this. The question to answer is "Does Not Believing in the God of the Bible Compel Nihilism?"
The Wikipedia definition of nihilism was put forth previously, and here I repeat it, bolding core elements:
"Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Subsequently there are no moral values with which to uphold a rule or logically prefer one action over another. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical, or ontological forms, meaning respectively that in some aspect knowledge is not possible or that contrary to our belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such."
So nihilism asserts that:
1. Life has no intrinsic meaning
2. Morality has no objective basis
3. Truth cannot be ascertained
The next question is whether rejecting the God of the Bible compels nihilism. Someone here answered the question very tersely, saying "no," without articulating a response.
I will bypass the argument as to whether Dawkins is a nihilist, or whether other posters here are nihilists. I am not, and will explain why:
1. Life has intrinsic meaning because every person strives to survive as an individual, and struggles with their fellow humans to survive as a community. Since we only struggle to keep that which is desirable, our conduct shows that individuals value their own life. The impulse toward survival is its own evidence that life is worth living.
2. Morality has an objective basis in what is called the Golden Rule -- each one must concede that others are entitled to receive the same benefits and protections that they desire for themselves.
3. Truth can be ascertained by the application of the empirical standard -- that is true which can be verified publicly. This is something more than "majority rules," but something short of absolutism.
So that is my bid to say something clear on the original topic. Perhaps someone else will try to place one stone on top of another, rather than flinging the two of them in the direction of their perceived adversary. |
Colubridae responded to various part of Chagrapanga's post as follows:
| Colubridae wrote: | How then; war, murder, rape, theft, physical bullying, mental bullying all part of the bible. And outside of Christianity. And outside of any other religion. How can you say “every”, clearly this is not reality. Since your statement is incorrect then “life has intrinsic meaning” is incorrect.
Errrr. Suicide bombers, flying airliners into buildings, suicide from despair, suicide as blackmail etc…. Clearly what you said is again nonsense.
If only everyone followed this. I seem to recall dawkins suggested the same.
Actually though not objective, but subjective.
I read your post as saying this is what is happening… Clearly reality points to this not being true… Unless you mean ‘ought’ to be true. In which case I agree.
Sorry but bollocks. Truth is ascertained by observing reality.
More self-serving bollocks
If you expect that saying this, de facto commands agreement, think again. If you post here, expect scrutiny. Not obsequious agreement. If it is nonsense, it will be shown to be nonsense and why. If it is sense expect agreement. You may be used to acolytes replying with:- ‘I see what you are saying, but think of this … [insert some other nonsense as appropriate]’. You wont get it here.
Have to go now, football on, and ironing to do. . |
They are a bunch of tough mother-fuckers over there at RichardDawkins.net. Chagrapanga responds to colubridae
| Chagrapanga wrote: | Life Is Intrinsically Valuable
Suicide is certainly antithetical to self-preservation. Nevertheless, self preservation is observed as innate behavior in all living creatures, without which evolution would have no motive force. People suicide when their desire to live has been overcome by circumstances - extreme pain, sickness, loneliness. No doubt the impulse for self-preservation alters when your health, freedom, and sense of well-being are eroded. But assume one is not crushed by inimical circumstances, self-preservation is a near-universal impulse. I argue that since we do only that which is of value to us, then we perceive life as intrinsically valuable. Nor is my assertion novel. Rousseau said as much in Emile:
It is the abuse of our powers that makes us unhappy and wicked. Our cares, our sorrows, our sufferings are of our own making. Moral ills are undoubtedly the work of man, and physical ills would be nothing but for our vices which have made us liable to them. Has not nature made us feel our needs as a means to our preservation? Is not bodily suffering a sign that the machine is out of order and needs attention? Death.... Do not the wicked poison their own life and ours?
Accordingly, I believe I have made the better argument.
Morality Is Based on Reciprocity
Hurrah! We have agreement. I asserted that the Golden Rule "must" be conceded as a moral principle because a person cannot deny to another that which they would demand for themseleves. I used the word "must" in the sense of a moral imperative, not as a statement of universal compliance. Clearly, every playground bully and CIA torture contractor breaches the rule. Morality gets little respect from the unreflective. However, we aren't having that problem here.
You responded:
If only everyone followed this. I seem to recall dawkins suggested the same.
Actually though not objective, but subjective.
I read your post as saying this is what is happening…
Clearly reality points to this not being true…
Unless you mean ‘ought’ to be true. In which case I agree.
With those clarifications from either side, we have achieved consensus. The Golden Rule rules. And Dawkins has blessed it! Let jubilation reign!
Reality Is Ascertainable As That Which Is Publicly Verifiable
By occupation I have been an attorney for some twenty-four years, and have tried about sixty jury trials. For about ten years I did that in the province of Southern Oregon, where those who are not fundamentalist Christians are often New Agers and others unacquainted with empirical thought. Accordingly, I would conduct jury selection with a little instructive inquiry along these lines:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to ask you a simple question, and one that may seem strange, but bear with me. Can any of you read minds? If you do, please raise your hand. No one has raised their hand. Well then, I have another question for you. In this case you will be required to determine the state of mind of my client, the defendant, and the prosecutor will have the burden of proving to you that my client had a certain state of mind. You will be unable to return a verdict of guilty unless you can determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, my client's state of mind. And given that none of you can read minds, would you agree that in determining this issue, you will have to rely upon my client's words, actions, and other observable characteristics in order to deduce his state of mind? And will you agree that if you cannot deduce his state of mind based on those observable facts, that you will return a verdict of not guilty?"
On other occasions I would discuss with jurors the necessity not to rely upon other means of learning the truth -- such as praying for an answer, believing in something they see in a dream, banking on a hunch, or reading the astrology column. The reason, I would explain to them, is not because I wanted to discredit these ways of learning things. They might be valid, who knows? But since we could not get six or twelve jurors to agree that they were valid ways of ascertaining the facts, the judge would direct them to restrict their deliberations to evidence that is publicly verifiable by universal agreement.
So that is what I mean by saying that publicly agreed facts are the only basis for ascertaining reality. Now, when I placed limits by saying this isn't just elevating majority rule to the level of truth-determining, I meant to say that a statement isn't necessarily true just because everyone agrees with it, because we must distinguish between facts and opinions. Opinions are often clothed as facts, like "I could tell he was drunk, because he was unable to stand." The fact may be that the person was very ill, under the influence of medication, or paraplegic. The fact is, he was unable to stand. And I would argue that even if we look at old, venerable mistaken notions like "the earth is flat," which was once a subject of universal agreement, we will see that it was an opinion, cloaked as a fact, and that by examination of the facts, the truth was eventually ascertained, and then gained universal acceptance.
The statement "self-serving bollocks," is an unfair criticism of this assertion, which underlies all empirical investigation and the scientific method. At this stage of the discussion, I believe I have the better part of the argument. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Several people on the thread said:
| Quote: | | No one here that I know of (including Dawkins) is a nihilist. |
But the facts were quite otherwise. In fact, the forums are literally CRAWLING with nihilsts everywhere.
| Quote: | Personally, I'm a moral nihilist. The Golden Rule is entirely subjective there's nothing even slightly objective about it, not even close.
Seriously, what's your problem with nihilism? What's it ever done to you?
I don't even think nihilism is a dirty name.
Well that does sound tempting [blowing her brains out like Hunter S. Thompson, boozed out on alcohol] but alas I'm already planning to die either in a hotel fire or of exposure along some train tracks in Mexico.
I've always wanted to die at the top of a mountain just below the tree line. Ideally I would watch the sun set and then take a final nap.
And on the subject of death. Why do you suppose that a state of temporary consciousness is preferable to one of permanent unconsciousness? Isn't the prospect of eternal non self-awareness rather appealing to you? It is to me. |
And answers to a thread entitled "Life, a Disappointment," were answered by some of the most cold-hearted people I have ever encountered in conversation. These are the types of people Richard Dawkins "inspires" with his "nature" meditation. The original poster got no comfort from the majority of those posting.:
| Quote: | I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol or violence, but it's always worked for me.
Suck it up. Reach for your own oxygen mask and when you have met your own survival needs help others. And stop crying. There are plenty with a lot greater need than you and we can't hear them if you keep making that racket.
Much of life sucks... get over it. Some of life is wonderful... concentrate on that.
Some people think that their glass is half empty. Some people think that their glass is half full. Some people are just happy they have a fucking glass at all.
What's life worth? Nothing, unless you have a ton of money and become a playboy/girl.
Hey, it could be worse. And will be.
So what? Life doesn't own you anything, it doesn't give a shit how you feel and it hasn't promised fuck all. Be depressed, be angry and shout about how unfair it is all you want, it changes nothing. It just makes you look like a teenager with a tantrum. Lifes a disapointment you say? Your mistake is to have any sort of expectation at all just be grateful you werent born a worm. At least when you are human you have the power to reason and change.
Disappointment is proportional to expectation. Following the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the natural state of things is not paradise but chaos. Given that, already the fact that there exists unicellulars should be a source of awe and wonder, let alone the possibility to whine on an Internet discussion group.
Fuck. Stop talking about it and just bloody DO something. Jesus wept!
What's life worth? Not a lot and you aren't helping either
You have the right to be depressed, but speak for yourself. If you think that life sucks while many think that life rocks, is it more likely that the problem resides in life, in your life or in your thinking ?
All subjective bullshit. You think life's a disappointment, fine. Go ahead and cry in a corner. I never had life built up to anything fuzzy and warm, so I was never disappointed. I was actually pleasantly surprised about the beauty of life and existence as a whole, even with its violence, suffering, etc. It makes the pleasant moments that much sweeter. If the universe was all just peaches and cream, I'd become very fucking bored and complacent.
There is plenty of good and bad in the world, plenty of pleasure and sorrow. That you choose to focus exclusively on the negative and wallow in self pity, rather than trying to focus on the good and actually trying to deal with both in any positive way - negating the bad as best as one can and encouraging the good, that's your choice.
My idea of hell is a fucking orally masturbatory Utopian society where everyone talks of "letting love into your heart" and self-righteous virgins rule the roost i.e. heaven
Well you are doing a good impression of a miserable bastard. Life does not attack you it simply happens.
There is so much to be thankful for, so stop complaining and enjoy your life.
All you are doing is pointing and complaining. You have to actually DO something before the pain will go away. OK?
Lower your expectations and you will be fine.
Life can't be a disappointment unless you had some sort of unrealistic expectations. I blame Disney. 
Translation = "I'm miserable and wont be happy until everybody is miserable".
There are no full lives.
Those who tried, ended up disappointed.
It is simple to observe.
You're exactly right: life's a great disappointment, no doubt.
Children take vaccine shots early, otherwise they would be killed in a week or two after birth.
Life today is as dangerous as it has been in previous centuries.
Fifty thousand plus drivers die in car accidents every year in the USA, plus many other thousands elsewhere.
[Here in South Africa one thousand in December alone, in a month of Christmas/schools holidays!]
AIDS is making life a horror for millions.
Drugs!
Alcoholism.
Depression!
Great, great disappointment, sorry.
The couple had two beautiful children, and decided for a third.
Was born severely retarded.
My neighbour’s wife died two months ago,
after giving birth to their second child two months earlier.
Life, you say!
A great, great disappointment.
Your dog dies and you cry;
thousands of children are killed and/or mutilated in adults’ wars and you cry nothing.
An Indian farmer has his crop destroyed by hail and he cannot pay the bank the loan;
he kills himself leaving 4 children behind.
The bank manager cries nothing.
Life is a disappointment, if not a disaster.
You get toxic flowers living next to the inoffensive.
A child picks the wrong one and end in hospital or dead.
Don’t say life is nice.
Oleanders by dahlias.
My friend [58] is dying in hospital with spread cancer after smoking cigarettes for 40 years.
Life is a disappointment, for he never heeded to the friendly warnings.
Speak for yourself, sir. Mine's been chock full of wonder, awe, insight, growth, experience and interest.
Get real unless you are suffering in some way you have nothing to complain about. All you perceptions about life belong to you. Yeah life can be shit but would you go back to the middle ages. At this time Humans have never had it so good. We can conquer most diseases we live for many more years than most other animals. Nothing predates on us apart from some parasites and bugs. We have control over our environment. We can travel further and faster than many other creatures. We can in the majority of cases know that we can leave our homes and return safe and sound. Now compare this to the natural World. Life there is cruel disease ridden and short. Humans have it all no other animal has achieved this level of sufficiency and safety. Yes we have wars Yes we have some famine Yes we have Religion but I would not want to be some other creature. I have a world that I can learn about and appreciate.
Grow up, it's not you thats dying of cancer. My mother died of cancer I don't need a lecture from the likes of you on how horrible it is. But my mother never regretted a day she lived despite it all and never loved life an inch less. You live in a affluent country that respects your rights, you are warm well fed and relitively well educated and you have the gall to say how life dissapoints you? You are just a spoilt child.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And despite the claim that all types of people of all ages post on these forums, a disproportionate numberseem to be young kids, as indicated by their monikers.
shh is an obsolete computer of the likes in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
josephchoi has a horrendous, ugly mask on
XiledSpawn is some kind of cyborg
Loki_999 is an animated demon
Faithless and Free is a space alien
Zuul is a demigod and minion of Gozer, the bringer of the apocalypse, who was in a ghostbusters-themed black metal band
NikidChickens is some muslim heiroglyphic
Some Random Chick is somewhere on the evolutionary line
Florrie64 is someone pulling out someone else's bloody stomach and using it to hit them over the head, then wearing it as a hat
Spearthrower is a medieval knight
Wasp is a wasp
EndersGame is some indistinguishable black and white thing
Eversbane is some pumped-up shirtless warrior with two swords
Hoopy Frood is some ugly devil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Truly, Richard Dawkins' followers are the biggest pack of cannibals I've ever met anywhere on the Net. Sadists. You could be being attacked by a pack of wolves, and not one of them would raise a finger to save you. Instead, they'd just enjoy the show. They act like Gods. Like they're way up on high, looking down at the silly activities of mortals, clucking their tongues at the foolishness of all they see. Immortal and beyond criticism. God save us from a future world inhabited by nothing but people like them.
Why are there only these two EXTREME camps? If you don't believe in God, but you believe you have spiritual origins, where do you go? Dawkins dismisses you along with the Bible crazies, and won't even consider the more subtle spiritual, non-physical arguments. He's really an extreme nihilist, and so are all of his followers, despite their denials. He could be a non-nihilistic atheist and say, "Hey, we came from purely physical origins, but now we have developed these wonderful brains and we can do wonderful things." And he does, sort of, but at the same time, he will not relinquish his selfish gene/meaninglessness/goalless position. Which makes you think he doesn't really mean it. He's more concerned with defending his past positions than going positively into the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NO EMPATHY OVER AT RICHARDDAWKINS.NET
Whatever magic was supposed to occur when the selfish gene was going to empathize has NOT happened in any of Dawkins' followers. Kind, soft hearts are NOT what they aspire to, they are proponents of THE HARD WAY. And yet, when you confront them with this fact, as I did after reviewing their nasty comments towards posters looking for comfort in a cruel world, comments like "Get over it!" and "Stop whining," and "Suck it up!" and "So what?" and "Speak for yourself!" and "Lower your expectations!", and accused them of being a bunch of thugs and gangsters, that was cited as one of my so-called "speech crimes" by the moderator. Are we supposed to believe that these people are looking at scientific facts with an objective mind and coming to fair conclusions when they refuse to see what kind of cold-hearted bastards they are? I KNOW they weren't insulted when I called them "thugs" and "gangsters." THEY WERE PROUD OF IT! A newbie who said he was a lawyer for 24 years got this response to one of his posts:
| Quote: | If you expect that saying this, de facto commands agreement, think again.
If you post here, expect scrutiny. Not obsequious agreement.
If it is nonsense, it will be shown to be nonsense and why.
If it is sense expect agreement.
You may be used to acolytes replying with:-
‘I see what you are saying, but think of this …
[insert some other nonsense as appropriate]’.
You wont get it here. |
Predictably, no one posts anything of substance on the boards, and certainly don't open their hearts to fellow posters lest they get their stomach ripped out, used to beat them over the head, and then used by their attacker as a hat.
No, these people were NOT insulted when I called them thugs and gangsters.
So the forums are filled with nothing but attacks and counter-attacks.
These people are not good representatives of Science. They are NOT open to new information. They are NOT into considering the evidence. They are PARTISANS of Richard Dawkins. They don't even want to hear anything that didn't come from Richard Dawkins himself, or doesn't agree with him. Richard Dawkins is running a Cult of Personality. I wouldn't trust these people's judgment as far as I could throw them. There's nothing but prejudice and narrow-mindedness there. I believe with all my heart that the Dawkins followers are no better than the Creationists they hate, they are as committed to their view, their sources, their Darwin/Dawkins God as the most rabid fundamentalist. Their judgment about scientific facts is NOT to be trusted. They have proven themselves insulated from new facts, and ideas.
All of which is totally ironic, because Richard Dawkins himself is such an unpleasant personality around which to build a personality cult. Well, he doesn't have to have personality, because HE HAS FUNDING. Microsoft zillionaires fund his enterprise, the same Vulcans that took over National Geographic, and are now selling us Catastrophic theories about how the Grand Canyon was formed, and are blaming us for global warming and the pollution of the planet. "It's all up to us," they say. If only we were more careful in our consumption! And have the same name as the Neocon Vulcans that surrounded the George Bushes and got us into A Terrorist War Without End. Yeah, THEIR terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
