Why?

366 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jack6's picture
@LogicFTW.

@LogicFTW.

Awesome! I couldn't agree more.

Only one thing to add...quit struggling to find the "right" answer. That's the illusory self at work!

LogicFTW's picture
I am always interested in

I am always interested in learning, challenging what I think I know, I will probably continue to "struggle" to find the "right" answer, but I also know I cannot let my interest in finding this particular answer consume too much of my thoughts and time, it is likely possibility the answer is not really knowable and/or applicable or useful in any real way. I let it float around in the background of my thoughts, and when I am in the mood to ponder it I do.

To me, moderation is key. The search for answers I consider to be a fruitful worthwhile and useful endeavor, but I can not let that search for answers or any particular answer limit me in other ways too much.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Tin-Man's picture
@quip Re: "Let's say someone

@quip Re: "Let's say someone puts you in an otherwise empty, pitch black room and ask of you (from outside the room.) to tell them what's inside the room."

Well, the first thing I would do is start banging repeatedly on the door and crying loudly for my mommy, which means I would likely not hear the question from outside the room. Then I would grope around until I found a corner (Hope it ain't a round room, dammit.), and curl up on the floor and sob quietly to myself while sucking my thumb until I fell asleep. (I really don't understand why everybody has to make these things so complicated....*shaking head in baffled manner*...)

Sheldon's picture
"it's been asserted that the

"it's been asserted that the unexamined life is not worth living. "

That doesn't mean all examinations of it are rational.

"xamine it and ACTIVELY draw your own conclusion as to the meaningfulness of this assertion."

Conclusions cannot rationally be inferred from anything that is unfalsifiable, as you have been told. That is what unfalsifiable means, that a claim, belief, or idea cannot be falsified in anyway EVEN IF that claim, belief or idea is in fact false. In science unfalsifiable claims are often referred to as "not even wrong" in order to denote they are useless for any rational inquiry as they can teach us nothing.

Your question implies that (human) life exists for a reason, so first demonstrate any evidence there is a reason, then show how the claim / belief can be falsified. If you can do neither of these then your question is irrational by any objective standard.

In order to think rationally it is essential that we have the integrity to admit when we don't have an answer, and of course when something is unfalsifiable and can therefore not be be answered. This is where if you have any intellectual integrity you adopt an agnostic response to that claim or belief, and admit that nothing can be known about the claim. I don't know about you but I generally don't accept or believe things are true or valid when nothing can be known about them. I might as well accept there are invisible unicorns running around the place.

Cognostic's picture
My parents never had sex. We

My parents never had sex. We had a lot of seagulls where I grew up. One shit on the driveway one day and everyone just ignored it. But then it rained and when the sun came out I sprouted. It's a kind of emasculate conception.

Sheldon's picture
Emasculate conception, good

Emasculate conception, good one. My dad masturbated onto a tree, and I grew out of it 9 months later, it was an ejaculate conception.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Let us circumvent the

Let us circumvent the inevitable, all roads I would imagine, lead to the deity of choice.

So lets ask, Why god/gods? Perhaps after all this time, it is in actuality all down to Russell's teapot.

Cognostic's picture
Russell's Teapot was always a

Russell's Teapot was always a flawed analogy. It has to be an omnipotent, omnipresent, all loving, invisible, non-corporal, prime moving, teapot to strengthen the analogy.

Kataclismic's picture
I think you're wrong. Science

I think you're wrong. Science is a brand new field of study, only about 300 years old, and it is the epitome of focussing on questions which provide insight into the world around us as opposed to questions that serve no purpose. Your question, as opposed to being fundamental, was actually left in the dark ages a millennia ago. Organized religion just makes you feel that it is important for their own benefit.

arakish's picture
Actually science has been

Actually science has been around a lot longer. Eratosthenes calculation of the Earth's circumference was done using math, but through the scientific method. Primitive as it may have been, but he still followed the essence of the scientific method, thus using science.

rmfr

Edit: and an even more primitive example: The invention of atlatl.

Kataclismic's picture
I suppose I was referring to

I suppose I was referring to the revolution, which officially began (according to this source) 475 years ago, putting me off the mark by 175 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

arakish's picture
I can accept that. It is

I can accept that. It is true that "Modern" science is still very young. However, science and the scientific method have been around for almost as long as humans have been using tools. It all stems from the question: "What if I try this?" And if it does not work, you try something else. That may not be the true scientific method as defined today, but it is a methodology. Another adage it follows: "If at first you do not succeed..."

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
Um..: Science is not a field

Um..: Science is not a field of study, It's a method of study used by various fields. Just say'in. We all know what you meant.

arakish's picture
Ok, quip.

Ok, quip.

Been noticing your little whiney-ass pleas as to why no one wants to answer your question.

Question: WHY do you exist?

I don't know. Why do you exist? If you answer that, then that is also my answer.

However, without your answer, I am here because I am here. It ain't rocket science. Me mom and me dad had sex, 7½ months later, here I am.

rmfr

Jack6's picture
@arakish

@arakish

My answer is immaterial.

Your answer "I am here because I am here." "Mommy and daddy had sex" is a cop out and logical dead-end.

arakish's picture
quip: "Your answer "I am here

quip: "Your answer "I am here because I am here." "Mommy and daddy had sex" is a cop out and logical dead-end."

Nope. Wrong answer. There is no other answer to your idiotic whiney-ass Religious Absolutist bullshit question of "Why do you exist?" The ONLY answer is me mom and me dad had sex. One sperm, one egg, boom I am here. It is not a cop-out. That is the EXACT reason why I exist.

There are no other answers. There are no other explanations. There are no deeper bullshit relious reasons. Only one. Daddy fucked mommy. Sperm met egg. 7½ months later I was born.

If you want a cop-out, you are the one who is doing so:

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓

My answer is immaterial.

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑

Now that is a cop-out if I ever seen one.

I have seen that exact same answer, word for word, from so many other whiney-ass Religious Absolutists such as yourself.

If you ain't going to answer the questions we pose to you, then why should we answer yours?

rmfr

Jack6's picture
@arakish

@arakish
"If you ain't going to answer the questions we pose to you, then why should we answer yours?"

Your answers are your own. I ask nothing of the sort from you.

arakish's picture
@ quip the Spinster

@ quip the Spinster

quip: "I ask nothing of the sort from you."

Yes you did. You keep asking "Why do you exist?" and we gave you our answers. You are just like all Religious Absolutists and refuse to accept the answer we give.

***big nasty wet smooch***

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
@quip, who are god's (or

@quip, who are god's (or equivalent) parents, in your view?

Jack6's picture
I'm not sure of your meaning

@Sapporo
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Please rephrase.

Sheldon's picture
You don't seem to understand

You don't seem to understand that the principles of validation in rational thought don't in any way dictate there must always be an answer, and they certainly don't imply we always know if there is an answer, let alone what it might be.

You keep insisting people tell you why we are here, but can demonstrate no evidence that there is even a reason. That is a logical dead end, and for a fairly obvious rational reason.

Why do you keep claiming to be thinking rationally, but ignore the fact your question contains logical fallacies? It makes it look like you're simply trolling. Just like the dishonest way you claimed not to be an atheist in your profile, then objected when people accept the fact that you can only therefore be a theist.

Your question as well as being fallacious, lacks coherence, are you ask why I as an individual exist/ If so then the reason is my parents wanted a child. Or are you asking why humans exist, in which case we evolved, as did all living things. If on the other hand you asking why any life exits, then this as I have stated implies something you admit you cannot properly evidence, as you can demonstrate no objective evidence there is ANY reason that life exists.

Repetition won't make your question any less irrational. Nor can you hope to badger people into an answer that does not exist, especially when most of them seem to have a far better grasp of what is and is not rational than your post and OP imply you do, and who recognise when someone is using argumentum ad ignorantiam in an attempt to fallaciously reverse the burden of proof.

Jack6's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

"You don't seem to understand that the principles of validation in rational thought don't in any way dictate there must always be an answer, and they certainly don't imply we always know if there is an answer, let alone what it might be."

Correct. While if you'd bother to explore my argument you'd discover that that is EXACTLY my position on the matter. What's ironically humourous is that since YOU and the others on this thread seem so invested in the need for evidence - only to discover a lack thereof - you use the above as a stone-walling rhetorical device against inquiry. Fascinating really!

"You keep insisting people tell you why we are here, but can demonstrate no evidence that there is even a reason. That is a logical dead end, and for a fairly obvious rational reason."

I seek no such answers from any one here. Likewise, I assert no such reason. Try to accurately evaluate the argument before placing assumptions upon it.

"Just like the dishonest way you claimed not to be an atheist in your profile, then objected when people accept the fact that you can only therefore be a theist."

That simply expresses a fallacious false choice. I'm sure you're aware that a theist believes in a supreme being..of which I do not. Nor am I an atheist. I simply suspend any belief of such. I am - as noted appropriately in my profile - 'other'. That's the best box you may place me in.

"[A]re you ask (sic) why I as an individual exist/ If so then the reason is my parents wanted a child. Or are you asking why humans exist, in which case we evolved, as did all living things."

You seem to be under the impression that my question is solely an natural, corporeal one. Try it from a epistemological/ontological perspective.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Fuck me dead. Zen 101...the discovery....at last it's out in the open.

After all this nonsense quip could have just identified that, instead of all this unnecessary windbaggery...mind too much 'grasshopper' and not enough study. a 'quip' will make.

Sheldon's picture
quip "since YOU and the

quip "since YOU and the others on this thread seem so invested in the need for evidence - only to discover a lack thereof - you use the above as a stone-walling rhetorical device against inquiry. Fascinating really!"

>> Bizarre claim, how on earth does one discover a lack of evidence? That's like saying you've discovered nothing. Besides the implied claim was yours, so it's for you to evidence that human life has a purpose. Though what kind of inquiry can be conducted based on your specious assumption there is an ultimate purpose for human life, and your (admitted) inability to demonstrate any evidence for that assumption, only you can know, as you seem reluctant to explain this grandiose claim?
----------------------------------------------------------
ME ""You keep insisting people tell you why we are here,"

quip "I seek no such answers from any one here."

It's in your OP, Tue, 09/04/2018 - 00:25 here:

quip "I've a "why" to ask of the resident atheists on this forum: WHY do you exist?"

So what you hope to gain by lying I can't imagine?
------------------------------------------------------------
quip "I'm sure you're aware that a theist believes in a supreme being..of which I do not. Nor am I an atheist."

If you're not an atheist then you are a theist by definition, again what you hope to gain by lying is lost on me, but this red herring about what some theists believe is pathetic semantics, and has no relevance.

Theism
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you can' fathom basic dictionary definitions then maybe grandiose showboating with specious questions as if they represent profound inquiry is to be expected. Either you believe something or you don't, and this is true irrespective of what you "know" which relates to agnosticism. Your error on that definition might explain why you now ignore it and seek a wriggle in semantics. I'd have more respect if you showed some honesty throughout this discourse, but sadly you have done the opposite. You claimed to not be an atheist, then instead of explaining you don't understand what theism and atheism meant you accused me of assumption, then tried to pretend agnosticism was some sort of 3rd option between theism and atheism, showing clearly you didn't understand that definition either. now you're indulging semantics, again.
---------------------------------------------------------
quip "You seem to be under the impression that my question is solely an natural, corporeal one. "

>>Not at all, try rereading my many responses, as I have stated plainly it is nothing more than irrational specious nonsense, and I have said why enough times, though you refuse to even acknowledge the fallacies in your question, and I believe I have been definitive enough times to make this latest claim of yours baffling.
------------------------------------------------------
"Try it from a epistemological/ontological perspective."

You can offer no evidence of any kind to justify the question from an epistemological perspective. Your question is an ontological fallacy of course, as again you can demonstrate no evidence that a "why" exists for human existence. look up ontological fallacy, and then try and understand using the word why in your question implies a why exists before you have offered any evidence in support of such a claim or belief.

Jack6's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

"Bizarre claim, how on earth does one discover a lack of evidence? That's like saying you've discovered nothing."

Well, duh! If you fail to discover evidence then you have *nothing* in the way of evidence.

Do you still insist on playing these sophomoric semantic games?

Redirect: You claim you exist because mommy and daddy had sex; DNA...yadda... yadda. In effect, your claiming that: you physically exist because you physically exist.

Does that brilliant tautological insight meet the standard rigor of logic in your mind? After all, "the dog is either brown or not brown" does naturally infer that mommy dog and daddy dog had sex....but not much else about the dog.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ quip

@ quip

"Do you still insist on playing these sophomoric semantic games?

Holy fek *wipes tears from trouser leg..." just as well I wasn't drinking me morning cuppa when I read that one.....oh the irony, who will think of the children?

Listen, squidling, your childish attempts at a derivative of zen philosophy aren't even at high school level.
Its very nice for you to come and display what you have found out (or not discovered) in your journey, but if you have a teacher (that hasn't slapped you upside the head in exasperation by now) go back and revise the bits where you didn't listen.

As it is you are coming across as an arrogant senseless prig. The one thing about zen and its derivatives is that you do not preach it, enlightenment and the ultimate of zen are there for self discovery. A precept you are violating every time you put your whiny ass "why" out here.

Jack6's picture
@everyone else

@everyone else

Old man shouted:
"The one thing about zen and its derivatives is that you do not preach it, enlightenment and the ultimate of zen are there for self discovery."

Seems the ol' gas bag is the only one catching on here!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ quip

@ quip

Look, squidling, that attitude just does not cut it. You know nothing of the people here except your (frequently) erroneous self satisfied smirking perceptions.

Intellectually most of them could run rings around your pretensions. They know exactly where you are coming from and either haven't engaged or have prodded you for shits and giggles.

I studied and practised zen for over 30 years, and still use most of the salient techniques in my daily life. Watching you use novice techniques in these forums is a laugh, but if you were within reach I would smack you very hard. You are way out of your depth.

Your approach was identified and consigned to the trash from your first post, that some responded to you was for their amusement and to help you on your journey by clarifying your muddled processes.

If you want to know something...ask....first lesson you should have engraved in front of your kneeling position. Telling ain't selling, why-ing is crying.

Edited for clarity

arakish's picture
Old Man: "Intellectually most

Old Man: "Intellectually most of them could run rings around your pretensions."

Not me. I run through them. Then stamp them underfoot.

;-)

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

*dodging flailing branches and stomping roots* yeh mate...sorry I forgot about the heavy mob with you and Cog..."der Management"

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.