Why?

366 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
@ quip

@ quip

Your comment(s) reveal a lot about yourself, and it raises my ire. Not because you are a jerk, but because you were born with a reasonably competent brain and are pissing it away and not utilizing it to it's maximum. My wife used to take care of mentally challenged adults. Most of them realized they did not have the capacity of average people, and yearned for that ability. And you are the opposite of my mentally challenged friends, someone born with a brain and acting like a complete brainless turd. Your comments gave me an encyclopedia on your behavior, I now know more about you than you can ever realize.

If you stopped and actually thought for a few moments, you would understand and know that almost all atheists have walked a long and difficult journey of introspection and hard decisions before they became atheists. You are insulting and offensive, because you are a little shit telling us that we don't think things through.

My one and only doctrine is to search for the truth, no matter where it goes.

quip's picture
@Dave

@Dave

My one and only doctrine is to search for the truth, no matter where it goes.

Your diatribe indicates otherwise.

arakish's picture
@ quip

@ quip

And your diatribes indicates David is 100% spot on.

Sorry for interrupting David.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
No problem arakish.

No problem arakish.

This quip reminds me of the three year old. Adults are having a rational discussion in the living room, and every ten minutes he runs in banging on a pot with a ladle, believe that everything is about him and that he is actually controlling the conversation.

Quip, you fail to do any deep thinking, you don't think things through, you are impulsive and a little prick.

Sheldon's picture
"Go inward and dispense with

"Go inward and dispense with the idea completely."]

You're asking an atheists to dispense with the idea of a deity? I don't think you have given this sufficient thought.
--------------------------------------------------------

You asked atheists in your OP to consider why they exist, so I am asking you again, what evidence can you demonstrate that there is a "why" for human existence? Otherwise your question is specious and fallacious.

quip's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

You're asking an atheists to dispense with the idea of a deity? I don't think you have given this sufficient thought.

No. Dispense with the religious conditioning that an ultimate answer - either god or the process of logic and reason - must exist external to the self thus one must "pick sides". YOU ARE reason, you don't exist apart from reason, you are reason manifest, expressing itself...you and reason are one.

The "us vs them" mentality is an irrational power-play. One - I daresay - you honestly enjoy. Yes?

Sheldon's picture
" Dispense with the religious

" Dispense with the religious conditioning"

Again this is a bizarre thing to say to an atheist, and again you seem not to have thought it through.

"either god or the process of logic and reason - must exist external to the self thus one must "pick sides"."

I know logic and reason exist, this is an objective fact, humans created the method of logic, and its strict principles of validation. What evidence can anyone demonstrate that any deity exists?

"YOU ARE reason, you don't exist apart from reason, you are reason manifest, "

An odd way to put it, i am capable of reason are most humans, this doesn't tell us anything about the validity of that reasoning at all. Your OP is predicated in the assertion that valuable introspection can be derived from asking a specious and illogical question, and I vehemently disagree. Until you or anyone else can offer some objective evidence that a "why" exists for (human) existence, then demanding atheists answer why they exist is specious, and irrational.

"The "us vs them" mentality is an irrational power-play. One - I daresay - you honestly enjoy. Yes?"

You know you're in debate forum right? It might be helpful if you Googled the definition of debate, instead of whining about its efficacy, as Breezy always does when he's run out of evasive tricks. You have been confrontational and even extremely disrespectful from the very start, and I said right from the off that you had "set the tone" of the debate with arrogant and condescending attitude, so it's a little for you to start raising specious objections to debate now.

What evidence can you demonstrate that there is any reason for (human) existence? You still haven't had the decency to reciprocate to all the atheists who have taken the time to answer the question you posed in your OP.

For the record I don't view the debate in the context of "us and them" as you apparently do. I keep an open mind, and set the same objective standard for all claims and beliefs, that objective evidence be demonstrated commensurate to that claim or belief. Unlike you I don't attempt to ring-fence religious claims from that same objective standard.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: quip - "You're still

Re: quip - "You're still grappling against the (projected) EXTERNAL god your culture has conditioned you toward. Go inward and dispense with the idea completely."

Whoa!.... *shaking cobwebs out of head*.... I feel like I have entered some surreal otherly-dimensional episode of "Kung Fu".

Master: "Grass Toker, snatch the Snickers bar from my hand."..... *holds out hand with giant bear trap in palm and snickers bar sitting on the trigger plate*...

Grass Toker: *annoying hyena laugh*... "Like, wow, maaaan.... *giggle*... That's, like, an awesome looking trap, duuuuude..."

Master: "Yes. And when you can snatch the Snickers bar from my hand, it will be time for you to get a job and move out of my basement."

Grass Toker: "Like, I don't know, maaaan..."... *sniff*... *wiping nose with back of hand*.... "Naaaah.... I'm just gonna go see what's in the fridge, dude.".... *turns and starts walking away into kitchen*.... *sound of cabinet doors opening and closing*.... *yelling back from kitchen*..."Awwww, duuuuude! Who ate all the Pop Tarts?"

Master: *carefully placing bear trap back on floor*.... "Shit."

quip's picture
@tin

@tin

LOL!

Master: The trap is an illusion, lay off the weed dude. There is no trap.

I do like Snickers though!

arakish's picture
quip: This is about the self.

quip: This is about the self.

OK. Tell us about the flaws of your "self."

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
quip is all about the self,

quip is all about the self, the problem is he's making the common mistake of confusing rampant ego for introspection. He started with something of an apologists cliche, using a begging the question fallacy, with the old "why are we here" chestnut. Now it appears he's abandoned even that pretence, and is just on a lame repeat loop, with the odd ad hominem thrown in for good measure.

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't seen this coming, it's a shame MB didn't stay for the end game though.

David Killens's picture
Why?

@quip

"Therefore, as self-aware individuals it's quite rational, natural and meaningful to wonder the 'whys' of our life's experience.....all the more so regarding the abstruse nature of personal experience itself.

Quite the opposite from running from it by way of mere apathetic pedantry... wouldn't you say?"

Why?

quip's picture
@David

@David

Why?

The statement stands.

If you're content with pedantic bluster over introspection...suit yourself, you're in fine company. Re: Sheldon
Interestingly, you could easily replace 'pedantic bluster' with 'religion' ...with identical inflexible objection.

Sapporo's picture
Let us now go away and

Let us now go away and introspect the answer to "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?".

Tin-Man's picture
@Sapporo Re: "How many

@Sapporo Re: "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?"

Just one. His name was Bruce. But he instantly jumped back up and started cursing just as soon as he sat down. In retrospect, I suppose I should have warned him the pin was there. Unfortunately, curiosity got the better of me. As a result, I learned the wingspan of an angel is VERY impressive when it gets pissed. On a side note, I was told the pin had to be surgically removed.

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man Re: "Angel on a pin

@ Tin-Man Re: "Angel on a pin"

I heard the angel's name was Tiny. And he really cursed up a storm because Tiny ain't really all that Tiny. Or is that Bruce's nickname?

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Arakish

@Arakish

Yeah, "Tiny" Bruce. But he can be a little self-conscious about being called Tiny sometimes. Heard it has something to do with... ummm.... well.... has something to do with his.... *biting bottom lip*... uh, his halo. But I am always reluctant to ask. Angels are very sensitive about that for some reason.

Sheldon's picture
Well I'm happy to defer to

Well I'm happy to defer to your obvious expertise on pedantic bluster.

Or you could disavow us all, and offer some rational justification for your OP question to atheists, demanding they consider why they exist. Just demonstrate some evidence that there is a why for human existence?

Sadly it was obvious from the start you had nothing of substance. Which makes your accusation all the more hilariously ironic.

quip's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Just demonstrate some evidence that there is a why for human existence?

Being.

We (life in general) are simply neccesary for existence itself. To be extant IS the very subjective experience of it.

That's the best demonstration of objective evidence logic may draw.

David Killens's picture
@ quip

@ quip

"We (life in general) are simply neccesary for existence itself."

No, the universe existed billions of years before life showed up. Life is a product of the existence of the universe, life is not a condition for the universe to exist.

This is just a variation of the old "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it fall?" question. And of course, it fell because a person could visit the site of the fall and discover the fallen tree.

quip's picture
@Dave

@Dave

No, the universe existed billions of years before life showed up. Life is a product of the existence of the universe, life is not a condition for the universe to exist.

A quadrillion universes may exist ...each equally as old. Yet without the actuation of life qua life ... the tally might as well be zero.

David Killens's picture
@ quip

@ quip

I am referring to this universe we inhabit. The fact it existed before life completely negates your assertion, no matter how much word salad you throw at it or the confusion you attempt to inject.

quip's picture
@Dave

@Dave

I am referring to this universe we inhabit. The fact it existed before life completely negates your assertion, no matter how much word salad you throw at it or the confusion you attempt to inject.

Of course you are but it still doesn't matter. If not for the necessary existence/experience called life...there wouldn't exist any retrospective pondering regarding its status. It would span eternity..void of the very existential contemplation you just declared.

Maybe you should try veganism.

David Killens's picture
@quip

@quip

As always, when you are faced with being proven wrong, you attempt to change the subject and muddy the waters. No matter how you try to turn it into word salad or inject unrelated topics (vegan this time?), my response was to your statement ...

"We (life in general) are simply neccesary for existence itself."

And the universe existed billions of ears before life appeared.

quip's picture
@Dave

@Dave

And the universe existed billions of [y]ears before life appeared.

And that is a conclusion necessarily affirmed by the experience of existence itself i.e. LIFE.
Life-less existence can never affirm itself.

David Killens's picture
@ quip

@ quip

You are attempting to move the goal posts. Your original statement was ...

"We (life in general) are simply neccesary for existence itself."

You are once again attempting to change the subject and inject confusion in the form of "affirm". The universe exists and it preceded life. Fact.

quip's picture
@Dave

The@Dave

You are once again attempting to change the subject and inject confusion in the form of "affirm".

I'm certainly not changing the subject, rather I'm attempting to restate the subject in an effort to remove confusion from this, admittedly, difficult concept to wrap ones head around.

The universe exists and it preceded life. Fact.

No one is claiming otherwise. Again, let me rephrase: Both life and matter are 'necessary conditions' for existence - though neither are a 'sufficient condition' (each, by themselves) for existence. You're assuming the latter.

arakish's picture
Life is NOT a necessary

Life is NOT a necessary condition for existence. Existence would continue on just fine even without life.

rmfr

quip's picture
@arakish

@arakish

Existence would continue on just fine even without life.

You can't make that determination regarding existence without the post-hoc condition of the very existential experience itself.

arakish's picture
@ satirical wisecracker

@ satirical wisecracker

Yes I can. If the Earth was completely annihilated by an asteroid, would not the universe continue on without us?

As Tin-Man said, your Sky Faerie would finally get a break from us dumb ass humans.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.