[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 375 KB, 918x721, Australopithecus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2675881 No.2675881 [Reply] [Original]

Dear atheists,

provided that you subscribe to the theory of evolution, you probably also subscribe to the formulation, as Camus put it, that existence precedes essence. This renders your life, life itself, inconsequential, meaningless, trivial. Without cosmic order, without an arbiter that rests outside the immediate reach of human life and perception, in other words without divine objectivity, the question "why?" has no answer. One has to make do with what one can, have relationships, gratify senses, achieve goals, etc. However, in the sum total of things, nothing matters, at all, because everything will eventually die, all experience will eventually end, and nothing that you or anyone does will ever be of any ultimate consequence. As essence only follows existence, it is a construct, in other words, not ever truly essential.

I find it strange how anyone can truthfully accept the full force of such a conclusion and go on living. The conclusion itself is conceivable, but the continuation of life with philosophical integrity and consistency (placing any importance whatsoever on things which are all ultimately absolutely trivial) is not. So why haven't you killed yourselves yet? Or do you admit living a hypocrisy? Or how do you rationalise the continuation of your own existence and granting any importance to anything?

>> No.2675886

Well when you put it like that It makes much more sense why grown adults have an imaginary best friend in the sky.

>> No.2675887

>>2675881
You need to read more Camus, friend.

>> No.2675896

Read this,

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm

>> No.2675897

I don't believe in evolution.

>> No.2675898

>>2675881

>subscribe to the theory of evolution.

Yes, I do, in the same way I subscribe to the theory of gravity.

As for why I continue living knowing that I'll cease to exist someday, who the hell knows? I simply do.

>> No.2675899
File: 10 KB, 175x263, bigN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2675899

>needing to believe in order, justice, and fairness
>2012

>> No.2675909

>As Camus put it
you mean Sartre.
>suicide?
Camus stated that suicide is the most important philosophical problem, that we have existence, and we can actually choose to END it, absurdly. George Carlin also put it easily: "That's gotta be the most interestin' thing you can do with your life. End it! It's a bold act."

How am I living a hypocrisy by holding core Absurdist beliefs? Do you mean by setting goals for myself, by making meaning? What you're getting at is more nihilism than Absurdism, as Camus put it. Sure, everyone is 'in despair' but not everyone is 'despairing'. I just have fun with life, whatever that is, because fuck it. Obviously I'm not full-on hedonist, and I don't kill because it's an act of ignorance, but I don't mind life not having a meaning. I can create a meaning for myself, as long as a maintain an ironic distance from it, by laughing once in a while. That's a key revelation I got from reading The Myth of Sisyphus-- Sisyphus isn't merely happy, smiling, he's laughing! and so am I.
>Objectivity
I subscribe to the model of objective reality, but I think humans in their current state cannot every know it without being tainted by their perception. I'm interested in post-humanity though, I think ultimately it would come back to an inert state, all knowing, but non-interactive, kind of like a Deist god. Ever read The Last Question, OP? http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

It's a cool story. But anyway, back on topic....no, actually, I think I'm done.

>> No.2675910

So you assume that atheists are also materialists?

No atheist is bold enough to admit they know all the mysteries of the universe, at least not one who wants to be taken seriously. As such, none will admit their isn't an "essence" of some form, even if it could be scientifically quantified sometime in the future.

>> No.2675912

Existence IS an essence, especially existence which can assess itself as existing.

>> No.2675914

>>2675896

>The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that can not be surmounted by scorn.
>There is no fate that can not be surmounted by scorn.

Camus' mistake is to imagine that this scorn is witnessed by anybody, anything, presumably fate. I do not find this sufficient reason to keep rolling the rock. Sisyphus' emotions are inconsequential. In fact, I would expect that after a time they erode, just as the "desensitised" youth of today often find themselves devoid of any real emotion. By accepting his fate in such a way, Sisyphus undergoes a lobotomy.

>> No.2675918

>>2675899
>1889

>> No.2675920

>>2675914
>By accepting his fate in such a way, Sisyphus undergoes a lobotomy.
By a lobotomy, you mean he ceases to be human? By accepting the 'truth' (if you oblige it being put that way) of life's meaninglessness, does this make him less than human, or more than human? Something to consider.

>> No.2675925

>>2675914

Maybe your emotions are inconsequential.

>> No.2675927
File: 143 KB, 1024x737, friedrich-nietzsche-insane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2675927

>>2675918
>1889

>> No.2675933

>>2675927

>insane
>not super-sane

>> No.2675938

>>2675933

you spelled syphilis wrong

>> No.2675939

I continue to exist out of cowardice. Accepting there is no point doesn't mean you kill yourself, I just think it makes sense to. Its still scary.

>> No.2675941
File: 185 KB, 500x319, tumblr_m31nzlrm5Y1qdfb8co1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2675941

Life would kinda suck if I was put here, and someone else got to decide what is meaningful.


I get to create my own meaning every single day, that kinda of power feels damn good. The chocolate milk I just drank tasted good. and she is hot

>> No.2675944

>>2675881
>why havent I killed myself yet?
Because I like living. I don't believe in a 'greater being' and understand that everything will eventually end. It isnt that hard to wrap your head around... I want to keep living, and I would care if I was to die, but I know my time will come.

>> No.2675946

>>2675909

>I don't kill because it's an act of ignorance

Ignorance of what? Of the suffering of others? Of empathy? But that has no meaning either. The brutal gangrape of a disabled 17-year-old in South Africa is just as inconsequential as you enjoying ice-cream on a summer afternoon. The rapists and murderers are no worse in any objectively claimable standard than Gandhi.

How much ironic distance can you have? Can you have ironic distance to the victims of the Holodomor?

Perhaps it is intellectually dishonest of me to bring up human suffering, but when it's so stripped of meaning. Yes, perhaps you might have the strength to sardonically smile at your own torture and your torturer, but what of the people who do not? How do you explain The Myth of Sisyphus to a kidnapped and abused prepubescent? This is a fallacious appeal to emotions, but your "solution" of ironic distance is just such an appeal too.

>> No.2675949

Watch this and listen to me you jewnigger. This infinitely complex pattern is the mandelbrot set. It is what you get when you iterate the equation z=z^2+C and plot the solutions where C>2 on the complex plane. It doesn't mean anything. Nobody made it "for" a "purpose." But I like it anyway. Why? Because I think it's beautiful and because I think it's interesting and because fuck you that's why.

>> No.2675953

>>2675946

Congratulations, you've finally figured things out.

Better hope people continue to define "rape" as bad and "enjoying ice-cream" as good.

Or maybe god will save us....

>> No.2675954

>>2675946
ignorance of what happens after death, silly.

>> No.2675955

>>2675925

>I get to create my own meaning every single day, that kinda of power feels damn good.

But you don't. Your "meaning" is but a delusion, a solipsistic escapism from the truth of the real meaninglessness of everything. It is no more noble or rational than the grown adult "talking to an imaginary friend before bed."

>> No.2675959

>>2675955

You're so deep buddy.

I bet the philosophy police will cart him away because his "meaning" is a delusion.

>> No.2675960

>>2675946
Ironic Distance is a personal thing, fyi. You don't HAVE to run around to starving children screaming "YOU HAVE NO FREE WILL", self>others. Accepting any other dichotomy is philosophical self-suicide.

>> No.2675961

>>2675955
of course it isn't noble, and of course it is escapism. you are putting too much value on meaning. Like I said, my chocolate was good, and being the universe experiencing itself is good enough for me. It is not even close to as dumb as talking to God.

>> No.2675965

I kinda like living, it's been good so far.

Why would I want to lose the chance to have more fun just because it's ultimately meaningless?

Humans have only been around a very small amount of time relative to the life of the planet Earth, yet we've made some pretty staggering changes and accomplishments (both good and bad).

Doesn't mean we can't have fun in the process.

>> No.2675972

>>2675946

It's a fallacy to state that ironic distance causes actions to be neutral in value. Killing someone creates a different mathematical outcome than helping them. That is a fact.

>> No.2675977

>>2675939
One of the few intellectually honest answers itt. Everybody else keeps existing "because fuck you."

>>2675944
>I want to keep living, and I would care if I was to die, but I know my time will come.
So you are satisfied with the answer "for the present moment I like this"? I can imagine it, but I cannot empathise.

>> No.2675980

are the religious not intensely nihilistic?

>> No.2675983

>>2675980

The "afterlife" belief is the apex of nihilistic belief.

>> No.2675986

>>2675972

You are confounding the moral definition of "value" with the mathematical.

>> No.2675988

>>2675965

Do you think an immoral action can exist?

>> No.2675995

I really hope there is no meaning, the meanings for this piece of shit are not something I wish to exist

>> No.2675996

>>2675986

Why have a difference at all? Morality is mostly mathematical equations that benefit somebody at the time of their conception anyway.

>> No.2676001

>>2675988
Within the context and framework of the grand universe? No, because energy in the universe cannot be created or destroyed - it only moves around. Thus, any action we take will only change the allocation of energy.

Within the framework of humanity, there certainly are immoral actions. We can certainly reallocate energy in ways that are not beneficial to us (i.e. murder people, etc.).

>> No.2676003

>>2675960

>It's a personal thing
You are dodging the issue. You are denying universality yet you ascertain that there is no God, but you make your own meaning, and it is only your own meaning that matters. At the same time, it only matters to you, and anyone else's is their own business. This is a small step from solipsism. What leaps in cognitive dissonance do you have to make? Does everything come down to personal feelings then? Again, what do those personal feelings matter as far as the philosophical internal consistency of continuing to live life is concerned?

>> No.2676007

I think the purpose of life is bigger than just one life. Each one of us has just a single lifetime during which we can contribute to the advancement of the human race or create our own personal immortality through art or innovation. Basically, at the very least, we should have kids. The goal of humanity should be to turn inanimate matter into tools or machines or other representations of intelligence and creativity.

>> No.2676010

>>2676003

You're arguing against the brick wall of absurdity.

Unless you can prove god exists, theist/deist belief is the same thought process you've just described.

>> No.2676014

>>2675914

jeeeeez you misread this shit sooo fucking bad homie

the scorn inheres in the struggle it doesn't depend on any outside observer to validate it sisyphus has a lucid understanding of his struggle and being un-lobotomized is the whole fuckin point of that

jeeeeeez

plus asking everybody else why they're not killing themselves when you're making threads about your facile ass misreading of camus and not killing yourself is really fucking rude so i'm saging your shit deal with it

>> No.2676019

>>2676001

Not beneficial in what regard? Insofar as our biological well-being is concerned? But how then do your make the leap from "is" to "should be"? Morality is, by definition, universally prescriptive. How can you have anything universally prescriptive if all conception of what is "good" is based on how people might feel? Is it relative? Based on the lowest common denominator of the majority? Can you conceive of a room of people who get an incredible amount of pleasure from torturing babies, and there happens to be one in the room? In the conception of morality you seem to imply (I might misunderstand you, but then you would lack, I think, internal philosophical consistency about things) that it is okay for them to torture that baby.

>> No.2676025

>>2676019

Is your argument based on how people might "feel," or what, because you aren't going anywhere with this. You've hit the limits of language. Enjoy.

>> No.2676039

>>2676010

Of course I cannot prove God exists. What I am trying to suggest instead is that deferral to cosmic order (of whatever strain) holds more validity than deferral to a feelsgoodman philosophy. I am fully aware of the insurmountable walls of absurdism and post-modernity, my frustration, perhaps, lies more with people's rather light-hearted acceptance of these things. The logical consequences somehow do not strike with the full force that they should.

>> No.2676044

This is argument fails on the same premise that the argument from morality fails.

What is it that drives us, makes our lives worth living? The very fact that we have them to live is enough for an atheist. We acknowledge the grand timeline and our place in it, incredibly small as it may be.

To say that without some spiritual law-giver our lives are meaningless denotes that if such a law-giver were real our lives would be full of purpose.

To some extent, that is true, and very sad to imagine.

Our lives would indeed be full of purpose. One. Singular. Purpose. Purpose handed to us from outside. No so much purpose but a command. The life of the theist is to wallow in servitude to the delusions he entertains. He is a slave in mind, and thus a slave in life.

If a petty, servile trudge toward certain death and illusory reward, and an experience that differs in only the most miniscule aspects from that of a billion others sounds appealing to you, I would wholly recommend theism.

If you want to contribute and be a part of something greater, if you would like to be part of the force that propels our species forward into new, unknown territories, then I invite you to cast off theism. I invite you to participate in any way you would like. I invite you to set your own standards of fulfillment and to achieve them, abandon them, and define them anew completely at whim.

I, and other atheists, create my own existence and my own purpose. And we look on with pity at those who define their own experiences according to centuries-old mythology. They will never beat new paths, but instead travel the same worn circuit as countless others before them.

And I look on with deeper pity at people like OP, for his is a bleaker tragedy. He cannot imagine life without his shackles.

>> No.2676051

>>2676039

There is no difference between the two. Again, unless you can prove there is a cosmic order there are only "feelsgoodman" philosophy. In fact, belief in order is the ultimate "feelsgoodman" philosophy.

>> No.2676061

>>2676025

To the contrary, I am trying to illustrate that atheism results in impossibility for morality. Not because there isn't a specific God to judge, but because the very possibility of universality is thrown out the window, without the prerequisite of cosmic order, supra-human justice. Morality is an abstract prescriptive notion, it is nothing like science, the laws of which can and are universal. Just because you are kept earth-bound due to the laws of gravity does not mean that it would be an injustice were you not.

Where, then, is there space for morality in your absurdist understanding of the world?

>> No.2676071

>>2676039

It's like you're saying that people should all have the same reaction to a similar set of circumstances. But we have gotten to where we are because biology does precisely the opposite. So stop worrying, go have some ice cream.

>> No.2676074

>>2676061

Morality is a word used to describe behaviors that primates and other species commonly exhibit. That's all. It doesn't exist outside our ability to know and understand.

It's high time we stopped needing justifications for fucking everything with metaphysics and nonsensical theology. We have the ability to behave in a manner that does not self-destruct; that is mathematically superior to the alternative, and that is enough.

>> No.2676079

>>2676061
>>2676061
'Morality' is as illusory as divine intervention.

However, your charge that it has nothing to do with science is a good educator of just how uneducated you really are, and goes a long way toward explaining your sophomoric diatribes ITT. I won't do the work for you, but you should read about our development as social creatures, and how "morals" were integral to our survival.

Until then, stop being a tryhard nihilist-wannabe bitch.

>> No.2676091

>>2676074
>>2676079

I'm not OP, but can you two recommend some literature regarding the concept of morality as discussed in the last 5-6 posts in this thread? It's always been a super intriguing subject to me but I'm not sure where (or who) to read.

>> No.2676095

>>2676091
No.

>> No.2676097

>If you want to contribute and be a part of something greater, if you would like to be part of the force that propels our species forward into new, unknown territories, then I invite you to cast off theism. I invite you to participate in any way you would like. I invite you to set your own standards of fulfillment and to achieve them, abandon them, and define them anew completely at whim.

Grand prose for a puny idea. How is advancement of humanity (under what standard, by the way?) and the venture into new and unexplored territories predicated on the lack of belief in God? Do I need to start making lists of religious men who made great contributions to science?

>And I look on with deeper pity at people like OP, for his is a bleaker tragedy. He cannot imagine life without his shackles.

What am I shackled to, exactly? I have said nothing of what I actually believe, and if you took some time to actually read what my op says, you will see that I am not unwilling to entertain the possibility of no cosmic order. What prevents me going all the way is the logical conclusion that follows: that is, nihilism.
To be honest, for the first time in very long I actually feel liberated by allowing myself to entertain, in full capacity, both the idea of divinity and lack thereof. The latter seems to lead to spiritual death, so I lean to the former. You, on the other hand, are confined to nothing but yourself. No "greatness" other than what happens to accidentally pass you by, affect you, suggest itself to you, momentarily inspire you. According to you, life is transitory and holds no greater meaning than the here and now to all 7 billion of us. Suppose human life ends in 50 years. Suppose it ends in 100 billion years. What is the sum of this "greater" thing that you are leading everybody and adamantly contributing to?

>> No.2676098

>>2676091

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/1439171211

Sam Harris is kind of crappy but a good starting point.

>> No.2676102

>>2676079
You're drawing 'aught' from 'is'. Just because morality was integral to our survival as a species doesn't mean we AUGHT to follow the rules of morality.

>> No.2676104

>>2676102

Just cause God was integral to creating us doesn't mean we AUGHT to listen to his bitch ass.

>> No.2676105

I'm sure this thread was shitty from post 1, based on the OP, but I see this is coming into full on evo-psych retardation now.

>>>/sci/
Sage

>> No.2676107

>>2676074

>We have the ability to behave in a manner that does not self-destruct...

1. Splitting of the atom.
2. If we cannot entertain an objective (outside of human conception) meaning to anything (which I've tried to suggest atheism implies), who gives a shit if tomorrow nuclear war eradicates life?

>> No.2676115
File: 250 KB, 558x750, 1338196096181.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676115

Dear Theists,

as an atheist I am pretty much acknowledging that I am the descendent of a bunch of stupid as fuck animals. There is nothing special about me. As such, I don't give a shit if nothing has importance - I'm just a fucking ape at heart. I'll eat, sleep, screw, browse 4chan and earn dosh til I die of cancer in my 70s.

And I'll enjoy as much of it us I can, because my puny soul-less brain won't let me (and most humans) accept that everything is meaningless. Ironically, a part of life being meaningless is that the life itself must not be allowed to come to that conclusion.

tl;dr: your argument is self defeating.

excuse any poor wording or spelling errors. I'm too busy sinning.

>> No.2676119

>>2676104

Fuck /lit/, I really expected more maturity from you.

Yes, supposing a God, or any divine cosmic order in general we aught to listen to God (deciphering what "he says" and "which God" being irrelevant questions to his discussion). This is because he would be the moral arbiter of human life, the objective observer, much like a referee in a football match. What I am saying, again and again, is that one needs the possibility of such a referee (it does not even have to be a remotely human-like entity) in order for morality to even exist. Otherwise, nothing can be wrong, as there would be no real standard to measure anything against.

>> No.2676124

The ultimate problem with atheism. If this is really all there is, then it is all worthless. One day your brain will decompose and your memories and all that you are will become nothing, forever. It will be exactly as if you had never existed at all.

It's too bleak to be anything but the greatest condemnation of existence. Nothing has any value or meaning if the proposition of atheism is true.

Thankfully it is not.

>> No.2676126

>>2676119
Yes - and he is arguing: what makes God the 'moral referee'?

Because he is the highest life form? If we assume there is no God then humans fill that role. Because he 'created us'? No God? Then your parents are solely responsible for creating you, that doesn't make them the end all.

There is no 'objective' right or wrong no matter who is calling the shots.

>> No.2676130

>>2676124

Well it's true. So what?

>> No.2676133

>>2676126

>There is no 'objective' right or wrong no matter who is calling the shots.

Unless God, in all his omnipotence, says so.

>> No.2676134

>>2676133
Authority =/= morality.

>> No.2676135

>>2676126

God is the "moral referee" for a few reasons. The first being perfection, the second being that he is much more knowledgeable than any human could ever be.

After all, we would probably much rather have Ghandi in charge of things than we would someone like, oh, Charlie Sheen. You hand the reigns of leadership to the wise.

>> No.2676136

>>2676134
This. If he is real I'd certainly do what I'm told to avoid going to that hell shithole. But I'd be willing to go to church every Sunday even if it was just some faggot dictator telling me to. Doesn't mean I agree with anything he says.

>> No.2676137

>>2676130

Are you saying that atheism is "true" or that it is not?

Not sure what part of my post you're confirming here.

>> No.2676141

>>2676126
>There is no 'objective' right or wrong no matter who is calling the shots.

If your claim is true, then torturing a toddler or fun cannot be universally morally wrong. You cannot claim otherwise without being inconsistent.

>> No.2676145

>>2676135
>>2676133
>assuming that God is omnipotent and that he's not just lying to get us to respect him

I SHIGGY DIGGY

>> No.2676143

>>2676135
No, you're wrong.

He just has his opinions about morality and everyone does. There is no objective right no matter how advanced the being.

Fuck it, I'm out of this thread.

>> No.2676144

>>2676136
>Doesn't mean I agree with anything he says.

You don't have to. It wouldn't change the fact that an omnipotent God could decide, once and for all, what is right and what is wrong.

>> No.2676146

>>2676143

>There is no objective right no matter how advanced the being.

But if God is omnipotent, you're wrong, here. God can set what is objective and what is subjective. That is literally within his power.

>> No.2676148

>>2676141
I'm not claiming torturing a toddler is morally wrong.

I'm not going to claim that the toddler's life has an absolute value and no one else can have a difference of opinion, or that torture is morally wrong.

It's just that most humans have have a certain aversion towards torture of youth. Whether that's a product of evolution or sociological or a combination of both.

>> No.2676149

>>2676143

Actually, you're wrong. Infinite knowledge overpowers subjectivity. Infinite wisdom makes all of your actions objective.

But alright, see ya. Have a good night.

>> No.2676150

>>2676135

Again, I am not claiming that there is a certain God who IS the moral referee. What I am saying is that you have to entertain the idea of some objective standard of measure for morality. In order to be objective, it has to transcend humanity. In order to do that, it has to be Godlike. Otherwise you might accept Plato's theory of ideal forms, though that falls only slightly short of accepting God either.

>> No.2676151

>>2676146
No he can't, since subjective and objective are human construct with specific definitions.

>> No.2676156

>>2675881
>provided that you subscribe to the theory of evolution, yo
Stopped reading right there. Why didn't you /lit/?

>> No.2676158

>>2676151

They are terms humans use to describe the nature of the world around them, and of mental processes and logic. Naming something does not make it yours, does not make it within human power.

>> No.2676161

>>2676148

Okay. If what you say is the case then do you agree that morality as such cannot exist? If all there is is a certain aversion towards torturing youth (and you can replace that with anything more gruesome if you like), then are you prepared to never make claims that something is wrong, and admit that whenever you find something ill with the world, it's only because of how you happen to, by accident, to be feeling, as do a bunch of others? Because if no, then you can make no claim to philosophical integrity. There is no right or wrong, and everything rests on majority rule.

I just find your position so strange. Just to be sure, do you maintain, for example that there was nothing wrong, in the moral sense, with Nazi Germany? And there would be nothing wrong with the extermination of a race of people (sorry, Godwin!)

>> No.2676162

Atheism / religion = non-belief / belief in god
Creationism / theory of evolution = not thinking / thinking that a scientific theory is correct

>> No.2676164

>>2676158

I never stated I didn't accept the theory myself. I think it was clear that I was implying the belied that this is the one and only thing that human life rests on. It also elucidated the concept of existence before essence.

>> No.2676168

>>2676162

Creationism can be possible in a scientific sense. After all, if God created this web of life using the same elements and basic "building blocks", why wouldn't he link the creatures together genetically? It would almost be lazy not too. It demonstrates the animal half of the human being and how it belongs to the world, in my opinion. Meanwhile the spirit half has the ability to transcend the world.

Maybe getting a little off key with Christian beliefs but that's how I feel about it.

>> No.2676172

I am no blind fool, scared by my own minuscule nature in the galactic scale to the point of needing to build shrines and idols to pray for salvation from the fervent imginary conjuring of tribal savages long dead and forgotten.
Life is chaos, randomness and mathematics. The odd's of life itself, of you resulting from a specific sperm and egg cell combination are incredibly. This is however, not magic, or the guiding hand of a deity, it is life. It is beautiful, it is ugly. It is awe inspiring and it terrifies you because of it.
It is so vast, so grand and utterly incredible that you cannot comprehend it. So rather than seek to understand it you seek to explain it away in a nice package you can ignore like a mental placebo. Life is an incredible conjunction of possibilities. A great spiralling chain of progress from the double helix to the whirl of the galaxy. Your fear and animal savagery to not just avoid understanding but actively trick your mind into constructing a reality where you are such a more important thing than you are is nothing short of obscene arrogance on an unimaginable scale. Your every choice to step towards the preachings of your cult is one more weak link that holds back the chain of progress. Not just of mankind but what ramifications this random growth that afflicts this world called life will bear on the future of existence itself.
We are small, so very small. Fleeting too. However we are a small step in the sand on a very long beach. Plenty came before us. More will come after. We live, we love, we die. What we make of that time is up to the person.
All i can wonder is if you think a life of devotion to nothing will be worth it in the end when the corners of your vision darkens and you body begins to die and there is no trumpeting of angels. Only the end. Just the end.

>> No.2676175

Changes in the allele frequencies in a population over time? BULLSHIT.

>> No.2676179

>>2676172

Confirmed for being an idiot. You managed to say nothing in a whole paragraph. Did you even attempt to read the thread?

>> No.2676181
File: 24 KB, 334x339, 1333066064209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676181

>>2676175
HELL YEAH MOTHERFUCKER

>> No.2676183

>>2676172
>implying that religion attempts to make things "small"
>implying that religion serves to construct images of humans as "important"

Come on man. Try harder. I could get a better theological discussion going with high school sophmores.

>> No.2676184

>>2676175
Nobody in this thread is denying evolution, asshole. Your sense of humour is outdated and flaccid.

>> No.2676186

>>2676179
its okay to be scared. don't worry. thats the lizard leftover in the gooey centre of your hindbrain screaming against the truth.

grip you bible and rock gently. its going to be alright, for the bible tells you so.

>> No.2676189

>>2676184
OUTDATED AND FLACCID JUST LIKE YOUR opinions

BOOM, SUCKA!

>> No.2676191

>>2676186

Religion is not about building a comfort zone, it's about challenging yourself to reach new levels of growth.

Get out behind your computer and see the world. You think you have everything figured out, but you don't. You don't really know anything about anything. You can keep on smirking to yourself and pretending that you're better than those around you, imagine that the things you say are deep and grand when in reality, they're actually intellectually shallow.

Someday maybe, you'll lose your arrogance and wish to learn, rather than to feel like you're right. Someday you'll get out from behind that computer screen and see the real world, and shatter the illusion of it that you cling to in your head. Someday. I hope.

>> No.2676207

>>2676191
thats it! keep up the struggle! it cant be true it just cant!
there must be a god of whom we are his chosen children! because that means we are special, and important! it means daddy does care! daddy did pay attention!
we aren't just a eating shitting fuck machine no better than rats or pigeons! because that would mean theres no excuse for my inactivity! that would mean i had to stand and think for myself!
What a silly notion that would be.

Now if you will excuse me i am going to go stone a gay for working on a sunday. Because my cults book of my gods words tells me i must do that or burn for eternity in a hell dimension.

>> No.2676216

When I was younger I occasionally fell into a "nihilistic depression" if that's what you're getting at. But yes I believe life is inconsequential, meaningless, trivial, etc.

>> No.2676217

>>2676207

[]Red herring
[]Straw man
[]Ad hominem
[x]all of the above

>> No.2676224

>>2676217
[x] mad
[x] told
[x] laughed at by an anonymous person he will never be able to stop

>> No.2676237

>>2676207

You truly are ignorant, it seems. Christianity focuses on loving all people, recognizing that you have not the authority to judge others and that instead the duty falls on you to save rather than scorn.

You clearly have no comprehension of religious principles in any shape of the word, you're just spitting out inaccurate criticisms that you've heard without fully understanding them. I'm afraid I can't respect you, and that saddens me deeply. Many atheists can at least provide intellectually stimulating conversation but you have failed in that regard.

Best of luck to you friend. You have many obstacles in your way, many walls to climb, but I believe that you have the potential to do so. You only have to find the will. Stop using your beliefs as an excuse to not live up to anything. Yearn for that person you were meant to be. It's within you, as it is with all of us.

>> No.2676245

>>2676224

I'm not even a part of this argument, but with the mad, told, etc. business...it's probably just best to avoid saying these things on /lit/ because anyone who sees that sort of thing here will immediately dismiss you and your posts. They're just going to think, "Oh, a /b/ type." Or "Oh, he's under eightteen. No wonder."

Like I know you probably think you just shut that argument down and you really pissed him off or something but that's not the way it's going to come off to anybody else. Just letting you know.

>> No.2676251

>>2676237

>you're just spitting out inaccurate criticisms
translation: you're just trolling

>> No.2676253

By the way I'm

>>2676237

and I didn't post

>>2676217

Just to allow you to distinguish between the anons you're arguing against.

>> No.2676258

because it's fun and interesting
your question betrays some serious retardation

>> No.2676271

Get this off /lit/ and back to /sci/

>> No.2676274

>>2676207

Your lack of an answer leads me to believe that you've exhausted your shallow intellectual wells and have decided to slink away.

Have a good one. Signing off.

>> No.2676286

>>2676191
Perhaps in your attempt to sound humble you ended up sounding too sure of the superiority of your attitude.

I'm not the guy you replyed to, but your response struck a chord with me, so I'll toss in my own views. I am an atheist, carefully keeping in mind the distinction that I do not believe there isn't a god, whatever the word means. (inb4 hurr ur agnostic! No shit, but agnostic is a sloppy term which is used with different definitions all over the Internet. I hold no theistic beliefs, and that makes me an atheist). I came to this lack of belief precisely because I acknowledged that I know little, and am certain of nothing. I read and learn every day, an I hope someday I will have learned enough to begin writing myself. I strive to be consistently epistemically humble. Many scientisa and atheists have this attitude, and I wise more people did.

I acknowledge the prevalence of underage kids who read some Dawkins (or whichever New Atheist is hated the most these days) and suddenly feel confident enough to go around asserting what does and doesn't exist, but they miss the point of science, and in the process give the theist an easy excuse to caricature atheists at large as arrogant and condescending.

I find this talk of purpose odd and unintuitive to the point that I wonder if I've ever had a sense of "meaning" as you all seem to. I suspect I will cease to exist when I die. I don't know that, but the claim is consistent with my understanding of the world as informed by science. This renders my time precious. Until my eventual death, I will seek to learn as much as I can and make few claims about the nature of the world until a time comes when I have the means to substantiate those claims.. I suppose I shall be reading more existentialism soon. Just my thoughts.

>> No.2676287

The Force.
It's within you, as it is with all of us.

>> No.2676292

I determined young that I would die, and that I didn't believe I would go to a heaven or a hell, that I didn't quite believe that a God could exist, but since then I've always wondered. Even as I tried to convince myself that I was sure, I was never without some doubt. So I figured that there was some probability to every possible answer to the nature of the universe.
Basically the fate of my existence became some giant roulette board: a slot allotted to each religion be it major; minor; or forgotten, a slot allotted to the idea that everything is without meaning, a slot for every philosophical question of 'could this all be a simulation of reality' and 'could this all be a dream'. So that one day, when I died I would figure out the true answer, or I wouldn't.
Last year I took a statistics class and I realized 'probability' isn't the best way to describe it. There is only one answer to the universe, life, and everything, and you can be sure of how things are, but you can also be wrong. The only thing I know is that I'm fairly sure that when I die, everything I ever did will be meaningless. Whether I skip every class next semester or get straight A's, whether I live to be a thousand or jump off a building tomorrow, whether I learn all the secrets of the universe or I become a vegetable from some terrible crash. I'm sure that when I die it will all be meaningless, but I could be wrong.
So my answer to your original question is that to this day I still live in doubt; you say I've accepted the great lack of importance of everything, and I have, but still I cannot do so fully. This conclusion may not be elegant but it is truthful, and it warrants my own life well enough for me.

>> No.2676304

I can't believe I'm writing this.

Just to note, though, just because something is practical or sustaining or well thought of or even purpose giving, it doesn't mean it's true.

We stay alive because nature compels us to, and I don't think I speak only for myself when I say I find a kind of enjoyment out of depressed nihilism, it's the kind of profound mood I like to entertain and I find it gives me purpose by fueling my desire to attain further knowledge, if only to prove myself better than others, (as you're doing right now).

And to put aside abstraction, there is no empirical data for any sort of deity, parade around the idea of our inability to disprove anything, but you'll only make yourself look a fool. Cite Descartes or maybe Kant, and you'll know that their ideas have been thrown around for a great time, but they still lack any real substance. The core of religion is based on circumstance, emotion and prophets with incredibly low accountability. Theists, by definition of faith, believe in what they believe because others tell them to or because they feel a need to.

And your understanding of Camus is elementary.

I apologize if my arguments are poor, it's late and I'm tired.

>> No.2676305

Thomas Nagel wrote a paper on this topic. He argues (I think convincingly) that an atheist could have meaning in his life that isn't just cosmic defeatism (existentialism, humanism, etc.) He proposes a teleology for the laws of physics such that those laws are rigged in life's favor. Why not suicide? Because your life is one of the reasons the universe exists.

>> No.2676309

I hate summer.

>> No.2676354

actually, that was Sartre who put it that way not Camus, jackass.
The answer is as inevitable as the question.
I suggest you read more (or, perhaps) anything about existentialism before you attempt a self-congratulatory /lit masturbation session.

>> No.2676411
File: 13 KB, 300x300, 1299109755781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676411

>>2676245
>>2676251
>>2676258
>>2676271
>>2676274
>>2676309
>>2676354

>> No.2676427
File: 313 KB, 800x1634, meaning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676427

>> No.2676541

>>2676427
That picture is wrong and annoying and whoever made it must be killed.

>> No.2676556

Oh how I wish we had as much of a choice as this pic implies.

>> No.2676609

This is a very good question, though flawed.

>I find it strange how anyone can truthfully accept the full force of such a conclusion and go on living. The conclusion itself is conceivable, but the continuation of life with philosophical integrity and consistency (placing any importance whatsoever on things which are all ultimately absolutely trivial) is not. So why haven't you killed yourselves yet? Or do you admit living a hypocrisy? Or how do you rationalise the continuation of your own existence and granting any importance to anything?
I don't see a problem with this 'hypocrisy'. The philosophical subscription to the idea that it's probable that there is no inherent meaning in anything does not mean that the first response should be to commit suicide, start a murderous rampage, or whatever. A creature biologically and socially programmed to function in a certain way can assign to or have meaning for life and everything, while accepting that these things are purely subjective.

You should also understand that a lot of people are "soft" nihilists (sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, and these are my own imperfect conclusions, so I have no idea about the correct terminology), where they think it's _probable_ that nothing has inherent meaning.

>> No.2676622

>>2676427
sartre would love and then hate that

>> No.2676678
File: 39 KB, 500x500, 1318618534331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676678

>>2675881
there's still hope for the mystic mind... so yeah science found answers for important things, but that's just the beginning, there are still great mysteries science couldn't tackle, maybe never will...

for example, how non-life became life? how the first living thing ever appeared in midst of non-living things? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

also the Big Bang cosmological model makes sense, but it doesn't go as further as our minds can go... we wonder things way beyond that little point of explosion...

there's also quantum physics questions to be answered...

what I'm trying to say is there's always mysteries out there, wonderful things to think about, enough to make anyone get out of the bed in the morning, even if you have mystic tendencies and believes in science, like me, we still didn't reach a point of everything is known and answered, not at all

>> No.2676719

>>2676609
>The philosophical subscription to the idea that it's probable that there is no inherent meaning in anything
In the case of atheism (which the OP is making a case against) this is not just probable, but is in fact understood as a certainty. What you are describing might arise from agnosticism.
>does not mean that the first response should be to commit suicide, start a murderous rampage, or whatever.
No, it doesn't. But those responses are as equally warranted as any other response. This is because, as stated above, if man "constructs his own meaning" without any universal standard to guide him, no "meaning" can ever be anything but another name for personal preference. Under your formulation, a paedophile who continues raping children with ironic distance and a knowledge that life is ultimately meaningless and still extends a big "fuck you" to his or her ultimate futility is just as heroic in the Sisyphean sense as anything else. I find this perverse both intellectually and emotionally.

>> No.2676721

OP is dumb. Evolution gave us our powerful mind which allows us transcendence. Read ethics of ambiguity.

>> No.2676722

>>2676609 (cont from >>2676719)

>A creature biologically and socially programmed to function in a certain way can assign to or have meaning for life and everything, while accepting that these things are purely subjective.
As your post probably unintentionally implies, man's life under the atheist formulation is determined by biological and social programming. The "freedom" atheists speak of is in fact made null and void when one considers the full force of the deterministic implications this has. Under a religious configuration, meanwhile, man is free to transcend human suffering. This is besides the point, though. This personal meaning-making that you speak of does not, by definition result in anything lasting. In other words, if his meaning depends on man's own whim, it is then malleable, ungrounded, dependent on the moment of one's present feeling. Again, I do not understand why anyone can insist on calling this "meaning" when it sounds as merely a rationalisation for one's personal tastes.
>a lot of people are "soft" nihilists
If they are atheists, they are intellectually dishonest.
If they are not atheists, the OP is not addressing them.

>> No.2676736

>>2676721
I won't. Could you please explain it to my dumb self so I can understand your superior wisdom and profit? As I understand from the wikipedia entry on Ethics of Ambiguity, you're supposed to "will me free" from my shackles in order to "will yourself free."

>> No.2676741

>provided that you subscribe to the theory of evolution
Yes
>you probably also subscribe to the formulation, as Camus put it, that existence precedes essence.
Yes
>This renders your life, life itself, inconsequential
Obviously
>meaningless
Nope
>trivial.
No. Get out.

>> No.2676745

>>2675881
>I find it strange how anyone can truthfully accept the full force of such a conclusion and go on living
It's easy when you're not a fag. Life can be enjoyable even if there's no "reward" after. You live your life as a means to an end (which I find sad). My life is the end itself, I don't need anything to make it worthy.

>> No.2676758

>>2676745
You understand the OP when you're not a fag. Enjoyment has nothing to do with it, the question is about philosophical consistency. Nobody said anything about a reward.

>> No.2676770
File: 105 KB, 593x593, Theological_positions.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676770

>>2676719
>In the case of atheism (which the OP is making a case against) this is not just probable, but is in fact understood as a certainty. What you are describing might arise from agnosticism.
This is a common mistake. Agnosticism is not a stance on belief in and of itself, see the picture. Gnostic atheism is assertive, while agnostic atheism leaves room for the possibility of a deity.

>The "freedom" atheists speak of is in fact made null and void when one considers the full force of the deterministic implications this has.
Yes, determinism is tangentially related to this argument, but going into it would make this whole thing a damned clusterfuck. Though, it doesn't really refute my point about subjectivity.

>Under your formulation, a paedophile who continues raping children with ironic distance and a knowledge that life is ultimately meaningless and still extends a big "fuck you" to his or her ultimate futility is just as heroic in the Sisyphean sense as anything else. I find this perverse both intellectually and emotionally.
In his view, it might be heroic or whatever other shit he assigns to it. In the eyes of 'normally' adjusted individuals and society at large, not. I don't really see your point here, you're just repeating what I already said in slightly different, more emotionally loaded way. And don't fucking say I'm directly condoning this sort of behaviour because I accept that this shit is relative.

>> No.2676771

>>2675881
> that existence precedes essence.

Evolution doesn't lead to this at all. if anything, most evolutionists believe in a human nature.

also sartre said this. again, if anything, camus disagreed.

and lastly, it doesn't render anything any more meaningless than it had already been.

>> No.2676773

>>2676770
(contd)

>if his meaning depends on man's own whim, it is then malleable, ungrounded, dependent on the moment of one's present feeling. Again, I do not understand why anyone can insist on calling this "meaning" when it sounds as merely a rationalisation for one's personal tastes.
Exactly, it IS rationalisation. We are imperfect subjective beings after all. You're also talking about everything as if we were a self-contained existence, when we are ultimately social beings and create moralities and meanings based on a sort of meta-evolution of ideas, feelings, etc.


>If they are atheists, they are intellectually dishonest.
Agnostic atheism (see picture again) isn't automatically a denial of meaning, or the possibility of magical beings. It's the refusal to subscribe to faith.

>> No.2676805

>>2676770
>This is a common mistake.
I apologise.
>Though, it doesn't really refute my point about subjectivity.
Then I don't understand your point about subjectivity. I can see how, say, in civil society this might make sense in the way that as long as everyone is following some set of rules, and attempting to "self actualise" while the present moment lasts. Without the backdrop of civil society, however, this seems to lead to nihilism. What is more, doesn't it seem that one has to engage in some cognitive dissonance in order to both acknowledge that one's "meaning" or "purpose" are subjective constructs and at the same time truthfully engage in them? The "axioms," so to speak, on which one's meaning rests are completely malleable. No meaning, then, can ever be fixed. To me this means that one cannot really call it meaning, because one can change one's mind about it on a whim.
>In the eyes of 'normally' adjusted individuals and society at large, not.
But the notion of 'normally adjusted individuals' is dependent on historical context (see: Old American South). Also, who cares what their understanding is when everything is purely subjective? In that way one can never reach much outside of oneself.
>And don't fucking say I'm directly condoning this sort of behaviour because I accept that this shit is relative.
No, by no means am I saying that. I am, however, saying that you cannot condemn it on moral grounds. To me it seems that you cannot make any universal argument other than something "I don't like it and all these other people don't like, and there's more of us, so don't do it or else."

>> No.2676815

Put it this way, if you're to kill yourself it isn't because of the fact that life is meaningless, it is because you can't handle the way that meaninglessness makes you feel. It isn't logical to say if life is meaningless you should kill yourself because there is no meaning to be alive that would be found in death.

>> No.2676822

>>2676805
>"I don't like it and all these other people don't like, and there's more of us, so don't do it or else."
That's sort of my point. I do kind of fluctuate between nihilism/moral relativism and Sam Harris's argument that there can logically be superior moralities, though I see the latter as rationally less consistent.

I'll fully admit this is logically quite contradictory, and that I don't have the exhaustively correct answer in this argument. I'm more trying to shed some light on what people think on this issue, and my main objection to OP was his (your?) assertion that atheism = nihilism.

>> No.2676832

>>2676773
>Exactly, it IS rationalisation. We are imperfect subjective beings after all. You're also talking about everything as if we were a self-contained existence, when we are ultimately social beings and create moralities and meanings based on a sort of meta-evolution of ideas, feelings, etc.

What I mean by rationalisation is not "reasoning out one's meaning," but rather "latching on to reasons to explain my preferences." It is the addition of an ad hoc hypothesis. You start, in other words, from a conclusion ("I like this") and then search for ways to justify it. There is no real philosophical probing involved, because this process not rest on reason, but in the attempt to make an argument for how you happen to be feeling at the time, which is based on arbitrary axioms (as nothing can be truly axiomatic if existence precedes essence). In other words, rationalisation is nothing but a textbook exercise on how to choose from a smorgasbord of reasons and put them into boxes of a similar colour. In this subjective scenario nothing can ever be wrong. You might give the wrong reason for something, but that only means you have failed, for the present moment, to find the right one.
And I don't see how your point about whether we're social or self-contained is relevant.

>> No.2676842

>>2676822

I see. Thanks. I concede then, that the position of Agnostic Atheism does not necessarily lead to nihilism. I still have my qualms about the position, although at the present moment I cannot find an objection stronger than "but muh feelings!"

>> No.2676849

>>2675881
>as Camus put it
>Camus put it
>Camus put
>Camus

0/10 Didn't troll me.

>> No.2676874

Brief comment: A person won't cut off his arm because he has no morality, then why would having no belief in meaning, values, or morality suddenly cause mass destruction of life and evil actions? People's natural impulse is self-preservation and that's where morality and meaning come from. Without God, as an atheist, it's easy to find meaning: self-preservation, the preservation of life for a society in which to exist. Why is that so hard to see?

tl;dr Without God, there is meaning; the meaning is the survival instinct, from which God, morality, and ethics all came from to begin with

>> No.2676879

>>2676874
Are you suggesting that doing good for others is a selfish act?

>> No.2676887

>>2676879
Of course. You wouldn't go out and start killing strangers just because of moral relativism, because it would harm you. An individual in society lives by society's rules for the sake of himself. Nobody wants to live on a deserted island. You interact lawfully for the sake of the whole out of selfishness. Charity will even exist. Doing for the self in no way results in harming the civilization as a whole, it simply removes the guilt associated with doing for the self. Doing for the self is the reality to all human action. A religious motive for doing good results in the feeling of guilt, because deep down inside, everyone knows the impulse is truly selfishness. Whereas, eradicating that necessity to act for others, and acting in selfishness instead, results in the very same expressions of compassion, kindness, and charity, but removes the guilt of doing it for the self.

>> No.2676917

It brings me great sadness to read so many posts by remarkable, brave, intelligent and humane people who have chosen to give such a big part of their time on this Earth towards a discussion that will just be deleted anyway.

Wait, what? this thread will be deleted someday? do you mean to say, all of this effort was for nothing? then why bother? our thread will die, then us (the only ones ever on the thread) will die, and that will be that. let there BE NO THREAD! i cannot live if THE THREAD DOES NOT LIVE!

We've all shared and explored this discussion with other strangers just like ourselves, in this 4chan thread that is sure to be gone in a week.

It is my view that just because the thread is gone, and we are gone, and everything is gone... Our discussion still has meaning. because it is our meaning, the meaning we create as we each stare into the empty abyss of our future.

Come on, guys. We have to realize deeper truths. Starting with a truth I'll share with you all now: if we, evolved primates, have the capacity and ability to even have any of this in the first place (let alone this complex discussion) then our created meaning becomes real meaning. We don't have to be given it (or the promise of eternal life). We have made it.

And if there is a god, then I know that god is great. For god knew that the only way for meaning to exist, is to see what happens when we try to cope with the fact that there is none. And that is perhaps god's plan after all.

>> No.2676919

>>2676887

Even in terms of evolution, you're wrong: camaraderie and cooperation, even sacrifice for people who aren't blood-related all have a place in the human mind because it's conducive to the survival of the species. Self-interest here necessarily extends to include all of the species, or at least those whom the person sacrificing himself can relate to (which is to say, all humans).

Also, to imply that charity and other acts of kindness are driven solely by an avoidance of guilt is pretty presumptuous. The burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that there are no cases where people act magnanimously with no correlation to their feelings. I know that I, for one, do my best to act selflessly and altruistically, but even when I do it, I feel nothing. There's no psychological reward. I simply acknowledge that the other person benefits, and that it's otherwise the correct thing to do.

Total selfishness isn't really a realistic idea at all, if you think about it long enough.

>> No.2676927

>I find it strange how anyone can truthfully accept the full force of such a conclusion and go on living.
What are you, from the fucking middle ages?

>> No.2676936
File: 30 KB, 480x301, godlol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676936

Truly one of the more ignorant posts I've seen on here. Obviously there is no rational way to respond to such a burst of pure stupidity.

>> No.2676958

>>2676919
>Even in terms of evolution, you're wrong: camaraderie and cooperation, even sacrifice for people who aren't blood-related all have a place in the human mind because it's conducive to the survival of the species. Self-interest here necessarily extends to include all of the species, or at least those whom the person sacrificing himself can relate to (which is to say, all humans).

That's exactly what I just said.

>> No.2676961

>Also, to imply that charity and other acts of kindness are driven solely by an avoidance of guilt is pretty presumptuous.

I didn't say they were to avoid guilt, faggot. i said that they were done out of selfishness, and that with morality calling for altruism, there would be a resulting guilt for that selfishness. doesn't that make sense to your pathetically deluded mind?

You feel nothing when you act altruistically? Keep lying to yourself.

>> No.2676970
File: 17 KB, 380x350, summer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676970

>OP asks legitimate questions, mistakenly attributes one of Sartre's arguments to Camus

>Maybe 10% of responses are well-thought out and contribute to the discussion; the rest are people throwing sperg-tantrums over the fact that OP mentioned god and misquoted Camus

>> No.2676973

OP's only sense of value in life comes from other people's estimations of his worth, thus he can't see the reason for living for his own sense of worth.

>> No.2676975

>>2676970
First time poster, long time not reader of any other posts. Let me be clear that the OP does not ask any legitimate questions. If the scientific method leads you to an answer, you do not simply choose another answer that suits you better. Furthermore, as animals we feel pleasure and don't want to die. That's why we don't kill ourselves. It's not fucking philosophical or complicated.

>> No.2676976

>>2676970

for me at least it wasn't so much the misattribution as the followup post where he got the polar opposite meaning from myth of sisyphus as what was on the page

and i still think it's incredibly rude to ask other people to kill themselves when you're not even going to do it yoruself

>> No.2676978

>>2676970
>OP asks legitimate questions
you didn't fucking troll me asshole
0/10 shitty troll
i'm not even mad

>> No.2676983

>>2676975
>First time poster, long time not reader of any other posts. Let me be clear that the OP does not ask any legitimate questions. If the scientific method leads you to an answer, you do not simply choose another answer that suits you better.

What answer are you referring to?

>> No.2676986

I do it by not giving a shit about the sum total of things. I enjoy living. My life will one day end. I have every reason to try and prolong my life as long as I enjoy living. I do not know if I will enjoy dying. I do not know with certainty if there is anything after death other than simple cessation of life processes (though I doubt it).

If my life is so pointless, ending it is similarly pointless, and I am free to do with it as I wish. Why are you so supremely arrogant that you need you threaten suicide if you can't have a life of objective cosmic importance? Why isn't it enough to just try and lead a life you will enjoy while you are alive?

I also find it strange that you apparently think that anything non-essential should be eliminated. Where the hell did you get that idea? Why should my life's cosmic triviality spur me to end it? If my life is trivial, what would ending it actually accomplish?

In short, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE MADE A LOGICAL ARGUMENT HERE?

>> No.2676998

>>2675881
>I find it strange how anyone can truthfully accept the full force of such a conclusion and go on living.

You quoted Camus, no go read some you trolling faggot.

PS, being too weak to live without fairy tales doesn't make them true

>> No.2677063

>>2675881

There are two sides to the equation. One side is a life determined by a "divine objectivity", by divine old books written thousands of years ago, or otherwise some interpretation of it that more or less mutates the original message of the book into something fitting for the current era of man.

The other half of the equation is a life that determines itself, a self-determination found in existing that turns man into his own God, or rather turning the externalization of one's action internal; one takes in God for himself, and becomes Him for himself.

In the end it all amounts to the same -- both of them lies, helpful lies, but helpful not only for the believer, but for society as a dispersed whole.

>> No.2677067
File: 124 KB, 435x619, YUGIOH CARDS.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677067

The conclusion that we are God does not in the end destroy the whole worldview up to the point where we once believed in God. It merely transfers it, from God to Man, and when the transfer is complete, the mind runs well again, because not much has changed. There is no difference between the theist and the existentialist. The theist is already existential, and the existentialist is already a theist. That is why the so called existentialist do not bother with killing themselves -- they take on the divine command not to kill, only without the divinity. We task ourselves with conserving the theistic morality without God -- that's the hypocrisy that existentialists have. Their "existence" preceding their "essence" ignores how their existence came to be -- within a christian morality, within a theistic universe. How can society make an atheist then? It is impossible. We are atheists only on the superficial level: We 'don't believe in God' anymore, but how does that actually change who we are? We may not go to church, but the sermons live inside of us. Existentialism is definitely dishonest, hypocritical, nonsensical. In that sense it is so much like the church.

>> No.2677070

>>2676983
that we can't prove that anything matters but that fact doesn't matter because things matter in spite of them having no reason to matter

>> No.2677124
File: 340 KB, 351x440, 5starpost.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2677124

>>2677067

>> No.2677288

I like the way food tastes, and i like the summer, and i like women, i like a lot of things.