The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Tags: Atheist, Constitution, atonement, drugs, economic, education, guns, laws, new, police, More…politics, prison, profiteering, restitution, rights, woman
Join Atheist Nexus
You people and your certainty. Riddle me this, Zeigler: Is it possible for you to prove that you are not in a virtual reality right now? Or a dream? That's a hypothetical, really. I don't expect you to be able to say 'yes, I can prove it' because no one that we know of has ever succeeded at proving it, and the question has been asked, in various forms, for at least several thousand years.
You could be in a virtual reality right now, and the empricial evidence you cite for your logic could be merely a programming trick. You cannot prove that this isn't the case. You cannot prove you are in actual reality, experiencing things as they really are, and thus have accurate information on which to form theories about reality. You can't do it. No one can. So empirical evidence can be doubted. Everything can be doubted, except that one is doubting, which is the logic behind DesCartes famous line "cogito ergo sum," or 'I think, therefore I am.' However, even this undoubtable truth upholds the idea that reality is subjective, since it only proves to an individual that he or she exists. It does not prove that anyone else exists or that the individual is experiencing anything that accurately reflects reality. All the rest could be a figment of your imagination. So if you think you've gotten any further than I have in learning anything about reality, then you are only more deluded for that belief.
And you clearly were pissed off, or you wouldn't be cussing at me and deriding my response as intellectually insincere. Why would I talk to you just to waste my own time? I'm here saying these things because I actually want to, which makes it sincere. You're not famous, or important in the least, and no one is paying me to be here, so if I did not actually care, then I would not take the time. But if all you can do is dismiss the honest ideas of others, then I simply will not waste my time on you in the future. Peace.
@ John. No I'm not "pissed" at your comment. Only privileged by it. Since it has been common for people to interpret my comments as being angry; I'm going to include the words kitty kitty. If you've been studying "Universal Truth" your whole life (or the non-existence of it)-and this as all you've come up with kitty kitty? Truth or "accuracy" is dynamic. It evolves like everything else.
You write "determine what they believe is true by themselves". This is not a realistic perspective. Science and information is in great part accumulative over many lifetimes. There's a BIG difference between "belief" and "understanding" kitty kitty. You seem to have made no distinction between the two terms.
Kitty kitty you write "If a person is not governing their self, then someone else's opinions are being enforced on them; someone else's truth." Without laws you have Anarchy and will wind up like America... That was a little joke kitty kitty.
Kitty kitty your logic is practically non-existent. It sounds very adolescent. You are not conveying anything other than your emotional instability.
You say you would "fight to the death" for your belief or your opinions. What the fuck is wrong with you kitty kitty?
I furthermore contend that you are trolling. Your comments are typical of religious fundamentalists thinking. Kitty kitty I wont bother replying to the rest of your post due to a lack of intellectual sincerity and blatant contradiction.
I can tell you were pissed at my comment. Let me clarify that I do not believe in evil, so I am not actually calling you evil. My logic is simply this: I have never seen any evidence of objective, universal truth. I have studied this topic for most of my life, seeking a solid intellectual foundation on which to base something I could call progress. But after years and years of study in every topic you can imagine, I am left only feeling that I have made no progress at all. I am aware of no more "truth" today than I was as a child.
This has left me with the idea that people can only ever determine what they believe is true by themselves. And whatever they decide upon, it remains a belief, and cannot be proven. In light of this, I find laws to be a form of oppression. If a person is not governing their self, then someone else's opinions are being enforced on them; someone else's truth. And it cannot be someone else's right to determine my truth, or yours, because they have no proof that their ideas are correct, only their feeling that it is; only their belief.
I can find my own faults with every one of the ideas on your list. I cannot prove to you that they are faults, it is only my personal belief that they are. Since you requested examples, I'll give a few, but keep in mind that these examples cannot invalidate your belief in these ideals:
I find fault with #1 because I do not believe in rights. I do not even believe that humans have the right to survive. I belive we simply all exist, and that there is no purpose to our existence. I also believe in fate because I believe the universe operates causally, meaning every effect has a prior cause, which I draw all the way back to the beginning of time, if there was one. To me, as soon as anything came into existence, everything that would ever happen was determined, so whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened. There is no question of right or wrong, to me. Only what can happen does happen.
I find fault with #3 because humans are superficially judgemental, and even if we could see everything that everyone was doing, we could not know what they were thinking about what they were doing, and to me it is a person's own belief about what they are doing that makes it right or wrong to them. If someone is doing something with what they believe are good intentions, they should not be punished for it, and vice versa. But others could never be made to agree on this ebcause others cannot know their intent.
I find fault with #5 because, statistically, people are more likely to harm themselves or their loved ones with a gun, than to defend them with it. Making it easy to kill people will likely only lead to more killing than less. It also contradicts #12, disarming the police. Why should law enforcers be the only ones unable to easily kill someone else when they are more likely to be confronted with a deadly situation.
You also have several edicts that undermine economic principals that drive progress. If we do away with people's ability to make a profit, then we do away with their incentive.
Again, these are all just my opinion, but I would fight to the death to defend my opinion, so your laws would be met with a lot of resistance by people like me.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.