Discussion my friend and I had

[lindseyw]

My friend - who doesn't believe in god (atheist) - and I - who doesn't know if there is a god (agnostic) or even what is truly meant by god (ignostic) were discussing beliefs the other day and the discussion came to a point where I said the following:

There really isn't any difference, ultimately, between theism, atheism, anything-ism, as these and all thought processes are merely a way to entertain ourselves as we pass time living on earth. Heck, everything we do, for that matter, is just a preface for the unavoidable act of death, and it all means nothing in the end (despite how much comfort we may take from it in any given moment).

I probably would not have come up with a thought like this even as recent as a year ago, but I did the other day (and have had similar views for the past year or so) and it was fascinating to think that no matter what anyone does or says or believes on earth, it doesn't really matter, as we are all going to die.

My friend, who is very analytical and practical, dismissed my thought and said something to the effect of "There's a huge difference between believing in something where you have no proof it even exists and basing things on observation (science)." I was trying to explain that that view is a very elementary one to have, and I was trying to look beyond all that by observing the essence of our behavior: which, for all humans, is to basically pacify ourselves as well as we can while we're alive. He became angry and, as I said, dismissed the thought, but he did not have any "facts" to back it up, and this is Mr. Scientific Method over here who all of a sudden seemed to be basing his opinion solely on emotion.

Thus, I'm here to see what you folks have to say.

[ILOVEJESUS]

About what?

[lindseyw]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

About what?

I'll re-state more succinctly:

How would you respond to the following remark?

There really isn't any difference, ultimately, between theism, atheism, anything-ism, as these and all thought processes are merely a way to entertain ourselves as we pass time living on earth. Heck, everything we do, for that matter, is just a preface for the unavoidable act of death, and it all means nothing in the end (despite how much comfort we may take from it in any given moment).

[Michael]

That's Nihilism.




I heard an argument the other day about this.

Imagine you are on a deserted island, there is no natural source of food, and nobody knows you're there. You will surely die there.

Then miraculously, a crate of food washes up on your island. It won't last you forever, but it will probably keep you alive for the next 30 days, after which you'll probably die.

Should you eat the food, let yourself starve, or just find a sharp rock, slit your wrists and kill yourself there and then? Afterall, you're still going to die after the food is gone so really it means nothing.

Which one would you choose, and why? Think about it, and hopefully you'll answer your own question.

[ILOVEJESUS]

If there being no God makes you want to look at the world like that, then be my guest. You could also look on it as being a small chance to exist, so use the time you have the best you can. Whatever makes your short stay more comfortable I guess.

[Professor Chaos]

It's like saying, "There's really no difference between eating filet mignon and eating semen-encrusted cat shit, as both are simply acts of chewing and swallowing matter...before eventually dying."

The level at which you ascribe categorical titles is too high.

[Davin]

lindseyw wrote

My friend - who doesn't believe in god (atheist) - and I - who doesn't know if there is a god (agnostic) or even what is truly meant by god (ignostic) were discussing beliefs the other day and the discussion came to a point where I said the following:

Here's a helpful flow chart:
[Do you believe in a god or gods?] -----No---> You're an atheist.
|
Yes
|
V
You're a theist.

lindseyw wrote

There really isn't any difference, ultimately, between theism, atheism, anything-ism, as these and all thought processes are merely a way to entertain ourselves as we pass time living on earth. Heck, everything we do, for that matter, is just a preface for the unavoidable act of death, and it all means nothing in the end (despite how much comfort we may take from it in any given moment).

Right, because everything we do means nothing in the end, then they're all essentially the same action. What you're doing here is reducing the meaning of words down to uselessness because all the things mean the same thing. Let's see how you being buggered is exactly the same as someone waving to you. If you truly think that all actions are the same, then you'll have no objection to either, because in the end, they're all the same thing aren't they? The reality is, that things are actually different because they are different things. Even if they all mean nothing in the end, they mean something now, and since we're here now and not currently at the end where things men nothing, it's not useful to speak in future nihilistic tense for things that are happening now and things that happen before it all means nothing.

lindseyw wrote

I probably would not have come up with a thought like this even as recent as a year ago, but I did the other day (and have had similar views for the past year or so) and it was fascinating to think that no matter what anyone does or says or believes on earth, it doesn't really matter, as we are all going to die.

This kind of thinking always reminds and annoys me of first year psych students, who go around thinking they can diagnose people after talking to them for ten minutes. I can't put my finger on it exactly, it's just like hearing someone taking their first steps down a new road thinking they can tell people farther down the road how to travel on the road and where everyone is going. I'm sure it's very exciting for newbs to take in these new ideas, but take the fucking arrogance down a few notches until you've earned it.

lindseyw wrote

My friend, who is very analytical and practical, dismissed my thought and said something to the effect of "There's a huge difference between believing in something where you have no proof it even exists and basing things on observation (science)." I was trying to explain that that view is a very elementary one to have, and I was trying to look beyond all that by observing the essence of our behavior: which, for all humans, is to basically pacify ourselves as well as we can while we're alive. He became angry and, as I said, dismissed the thought, but he did not have any "facts" to back it up, and this is Mr. Scientific Method over here who all of a sudden seemed to be basing his opinion solely on emotion.

Just because a person gets emotional, doesn't mean that they're basing their opinion solely on emotion. For instance, I was trying to teach a friend how to perform an operation in an image editor, and I told said person to do exactly as I say or the operation will not work, well my friend kept trying to do what they thought I was gonna say instead of waiting for instructions several times while I kept telling them to not do anything I didn't say to do... I did get emotional, but was I basing my opinion on emotion? No. Were my instructions wrong merely because I became emotional? No. My opinion and expertise were not based on emotion, they were based on knowledge and experience. I think this parable aptly applies to the situation you described. It seems that your friend is far more logical than thou, and got irritated by you being very useless (for reasons previously described), but still trying to be condescending towards him because you had a brain fart that you took as a eureka.

[lindseyw]

Michael wrote

That's Nihilism.




I heard an argument the other day about this.

Imagine you are on a deserted island, there is no natural source of food, and nobody knows you're there. You will surely die there.

Then miraculously, a crate of food washes up on your island. It won't last you forever, but it will probably keep you alive for the next 30 days, after which you'll probably die.

Should you eat the food, let yourself starve, or just find a sharp rock, slit your wrists and kill yourself there and then? Afterall, you're still going to die after the food is gone so really it means nothing.

Which one would you choose, and why? Think about it, and hopefully you'll answer your own question.

I like this example. It's an intriguing experiment that leaves it open to the individual to decide.

[lindseyw]

Professor Chaos wrote

It's like saying, "There's really no difference between eating filet mignon and eating semen-encrusted cat shit, as both are simply acts of chewing and swallowing matter...before eventually dying."

The level at which you ascribe categorical titles is too high.

I understand what you're saying here, though why exactly is the level "too high"? Isn't it just a different way of looking at things?

Take, for example, someone who saves most of their money and doesn't use it for immediate pleasure. The person who loves going out to various events would consider the saver dull for never doing anything. Some might even say this person has a mental illness, depending on how extreme it is. I suppose, however, that it can be said that there's no difference between being the spender or the saver, as it's all a way of doing something with one's money (either getting rid of it or keeping it).

This seems to follow the same logic as the semen example. Maybe I'm missing something and again ascribing categorical titles that are too high. Though again, why is that the level is "too high" as opposed to simply a "different level."

[Professor Chaos]

Davin gave a good example with the buggering and waving.

[Professor Chaos]

I suppose you could call it a "different level." I suppose you could call ANYTHING a different level. Instead of semen and steak, I'll try this example:

What's the difference between self-castration and feeding the poor? Both are examples of losing something that you once owned.

What's the difference between sleeping and picking one's anus? Both are things one does when one isn't dying.

What's the difference between an orange and a jet airplane? Both are objects.

What's the difference between fucking a snowman and Jupiter? Both lack warmth.

[lindseyw]

Professor Chaos wrote

I suppose you could call it a "different level." I suppose you could call ANYTHING a different level. Instead of semen and steak, I'll try this example:

What's the difference between self-castration and feeding the poor? Both are examples of losing something that you once owned.

What's the difference between sleeping and picking one's anus? Both are things one does when one isn't dying.

What's the difference between an orange and a jet airplane? Both are objects.

What's the difference between fucking a snowman and Jupiter? Both lack warmth.

I get your point, practically speaking. Though it all comes back to the whole nihilistic thing with "well it doesn't matter what the difference is between an orange and jet airplane." I guess there is no answer, ultimately. There are opposing viewpoints that will always be out there.

[lindseyw]

Davin wrote

Even if they all mean nothing in the end, they mean something now, and since we're here now and not currently at the end where things men nothing, it's not useful to speak in future nihilistic tense for things that are happening now and things that happen before it all means nothing.

This is a good thought. Part of me feels silly doing things though because of the transitory nature: I think, ah it doesn't matter in the end so there's no point. How would you recommend combatting feelings like this?

[Smellyoldgit]

lindseyw wrote

How would you recommend combatting feelings like this?

About half a litre of drambuie and/or a good shag - works every time.

[lindseyw]

Smellyoldgit wrote

About half a litre of drambuie and/or a good shag - works every time.

I fuck all the time and that doesn't do shit!