[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 29 KB, 394x304, discussion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4203101 No.4203101 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, yesterday I was talking to a friend of my gf's and out of the blue she hit me with something along the lines of "Well that's real fine but anyway you atheists can't stop being pessimistic assholes who can't enjoy anything."

Since we were just talking about books and video games I was obviously confused and wondered where that'd come from and asked her what she meant by that, to which she replied "Well you don't think there's any meaning or reason for us to be here, so you can't actually be passionate about things the same way we are."

And I was all like... "But that's really wrong, we don't need a purpose in the same way you seemingly do, we (or at least I) don't need a purpose in the same way you do; we can simply find our own and decide instead of accepting what "higher forces" give us.
And honestly if you think about it, we're all made of the same building blocks as everything else. The human body is made out of the same atoms the sun is, only different in kind and numbers; and don't forget a huge part of our bodies is just water.
In fact I suppose that if you wanted to find a "greater purpose" for our existance without summoning magical entities, you could just say we're the way the universe has to explore itself, to know itself."

Sorry for the wall of text, the thing is she shut up, so it did work on her, but I'd never really quite thought about this whole thing. It seems correct to me though, could we say we're one of the ways the cosmos has to learn about itself?

>> No.4203118

She's right, you're one of those pretentious dicks that poopoos everything and enjoys nithing. You don't deserve her.

Enjoy getting married to a femae atheist. You'll spend your whole life cleaning up after her and doing all the choresmas she spends your money and cheats on you, because she has no morals and is a sociopath like you.

>> No.4203136

I suppose there is some truth to that claim, if you often have the question of "what's it all good for" in your head.

>> No.4203148

OP is a Carl Sagan fan but doesnt want to admit it.

>> No.4203169

>>4203101
1) This isn't science or maths so fuck off to r9k with your stories.
2) People who believe in god are deluded who fucks who have no reason in life other than to serve a beardy man and give him blowjobs on demand.
Cunts everywhere.

>> No.4203195

>>4203118
>how do I into reading comprehension
>assumptions
It was my gf's friend who I was talking to all along. Nevertheless I'm glad I "don't deserve her"; don't think anyone does.

>>4203136
Never really been quite the philospher, so honestly I've never cared much about those things. I mean even if you come up with a satisfactory answer, of what practical use would it be? I doesn't give me peace of mind in any way, and it sounds like that's all it could be good for.

>>4203148
I do like Sagan, but why would you bring it up?

>>4203169
I'm mostly a lurker and I've seen far more off-topic threads blooming and thriving here before; and /r9k/ would just reply with a storm of "oh so edgy" and "fuck religion". I know some of the /sci/ regulars well enough to know they'd at least have something half interesting to say.

>> No.4203206

>>4203195
>I mean even if you come up with a satisfactory answer, of what practical use would it be? I doesn't give me peace of mind in any way
>give me

Works for others I guess. I'm not too content with life being atoms fucking each other (if necessary and in regards to humans) to make similar molecules. I accept it though. I think.

>Never really been quite the philospher, so honestly I've never cared much about those things.

Yet you label yourself an atheist, or how did she come up with that? You agreed to the supposition, didn't you?

>> No.4203217

No, it sounds like teleological garbage that physicists with a lack of understanding of biology and evolution would say.

>> No.4203223

>>4203206
I did agree because I've never really looked so much into the actual terminology to find out what I technically am. I remember reading about what the whole deal with what different religious people call themselves briefly and getting the idea idea that atheism was simply complete disregard for the whole thing. Maybe that definition is wrong, but it indeed is how I feel; I don't care about people saying how there's a god above when the whole thing sounds like wishful thinking on top of not having any way to prove it.

>>4203217
Why? I know how evolutionist theories work, I understand biology to a certain degree; none of that collides with what I stated, I believe.

>> No.4203226

>>4203223
>evolutionist theories

EJECT, EJECT!

>> No.4203234

>>4203226
Oh come on, I didn't mean anything by that. I know how most low-level evolution bashing revolves around saying how "evolution is just a theory" very loud; but it's still just a theory. The most fleshed out and believable one I've heard of by far, I may add, but I thought one wouldn't need to point that out in this context.

>> No.4203235

>>4203223
Anyway, are you passionate about something? Ergo proved her wrong. What brings you to /sci/?

>> No.4203239

>>4203223

You are stating that humans have a purpose. As an Atheist, surely you are familiar with the teleological argument that theists use all the time? The secular version of the argument is the exact feel-good crap that you are asserting.

You are asserting a secular version of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

>> No.4203245

>>4203235
Nothing, I suppose.

>>4203239
Perhaps I worded it wrong, but when talking to her I came up with the whole thing as a "well if you really want some great purpose as an atheist I suppose you could think about it like this blah blah blah", I didn't really buy into it, but it "made sense" to me, which is why I wondered what you would think about it.

>> No.4203248

>>4203234
>actually believes in evolution

fucking plebs

>> No.4203259

>>4203245

ok, if you think it makes sense to you, then whatever. You are free to believe what you want to believe. :)

I'm just saying it comes across as the same sort of specious reasoning that theists engage in. You, and theists, can believe what you want, but the conclusions you (and they) are drawing doesn't make sense. To make it explicit, the teleological argument here is attributing to humanity some kind of final cause ("knowing the universe") that is tied up with the purposes and processes of the universe.

>> No.4203264

>>4203259
>if you wanted to find a "greater purpose"

That's what he said. I don't read that as "I see a greater purpose".

>> No.4203268

>>4203264

Semantics and context. In the context of the original discussion he was having, he positioned himself as an atheist. Presumably, that comes bundled up with a bunch of other conceptual ideas, including a commitment to rationality. If he is just playing around with ideas with no commitment to rationality, then what am I to make of his position?

>> No.4203279

>>4203264
Thanks for clearing that up.
Also I just found out what the Carl Sagan mention up there was all about, well that was unexpected.

>>4203268
I simply said that if pressed to find a reason for our existance that one could work, but always from the base of NOT needing it, of it being just a "nice, rational idea to make you feel better if you need so". But since it sounded like it could make sense, it actually confused me to a certain degree and I wanted you guys to smack it up a little and see if it held up.

>> No.4203296

>>4203101
reported for gf. reported for massive faggotry. enjoy your ban

>> No.4203297

You could just simply pretend you believe in what they believe. So you get none of the crap unbelievers get for their lack of delusional beliefs and you don't actually believe in the crap they have in their minds.
I don't get why atheists must show their atheism everywhere they go. She may have a point there that maybe the reason you are atheist is that you can't enjoy the same delusions non-atheists enjoy.

>> No.4203301

>>4203296
you seem upset

>> No.4203306
File: 25 KB, 311x311, you-must-be-new-here-willy-wonka.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4203306

>>4203301
enjoy your ban. see pic

>> No.4203322
File: 57 KB, 600x373, 1274475471393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4203322

>>4203301
>spoilers in /sci/
Jesus christ.

>>4203297
If you must know I just avoid religious matters altogether, but I won't just back down if attacked like that for no damn reason when talking about completely unrelated stuff. Anyway, let's just let the thing die, my questions have been answered and I looking back I can't quite believe I could say what I said to her with a straight face; I mean it sure made sense to her, because it was just more of the same magical "higher purpose" stuff she's used to believe.

Well, bullet dodged. Thanks for helping me making up my mind /sci/.

Have a happy new year.

>> No.4203346

>could we say we're one of the ways the cosmos has to learn about itself?
Well, considering that most people are not interested in knowing the universe (maybe including her), this probably would apply only to a small minority of people.

Most people are not really interested in knowing the universe, so if they're also part of it, they basically try to ignore that.

>> No.4203399

>>4203322
So for the believers in a god, this is a way for the universe to "know itself"?

>> No.4203470

>>4203322
>>4203399
It just substitutes one delusion (belief in some higher purpose, god, etc) with another (that if you are a knowing type, then this is the universe's "purpose").

But it's a common confusion between outcome and purpose.

>> No.4203816

>>4203279

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

This is basically what you were arguing, isn't it?

[Sagan]
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it
But the way those atoms are put together
The cosmos is also within us
We're made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself

>>4203297

It's funny, we have all these laws against religious persecution, stating that nobody should be put out simply because of the crazy things they believe.

Unless it's D) None of the above.

>> No.4203847 [DELETED] 

...well Abrahamic monotheism necessarily implies objective purpose, and atheism does it... I dunno if atheism necessarily implies a <span class="math">lack[/spoiler] of objective purpose, though.

There's some truth in what this girl says, but she doesn't sound particularly pleasant or intelligent.

>> No.4203854

...well Abrahamic monotheism necessarily implies objective purpose, and atheism does not... I dunno if atheism necessarily implies a <span class="math">lack[/spoiler] of objective purpose, though.

There's some truth in what this girl says, but she doesn't sound particularly pleasant or intelligent.

>> No.4203888

>>4203854
>Abrahamic monotheism implies objective purpose

... what? Definitely not.

>> No.4203901

>>4203268
>rationality
>ignoring every part of philosophy other than the tiny fraction you can understand and that supports your beliefs

elect exclusively one

>> No.4203902

>>4203888

Sure it does. It's pretty plainly written in Genesis that all things were created to be subordinate to and to support Man.

That is their objective purpose in Judeo-Christian mythology.

>> No.4203925

not science
reported