So I met a person who is an atheist, but not an agnostic, and very strongly against being titled as an agnostic. Basically he's a gnostic atheist, but it took me a while to clear up what both of us were saying.
In the end I came to an interesting conclusion.
User: To be honest I made a bad example. However simply because you can't disprove something isn't compelling evidence to believe it.
Me: But agnostics don't believe god exists.
User: Right but the don't not believe it either. Which in this case I don't believe any of it. I don't believe there is any god at all.
Me: It is possible for an agnostic to also believe that deities will never be proven to exist.
But then he's like, a gnostic agnostic atheist, because he's making the claim that he knows that god can never be proven or disproven to exist. Which, if god were to show itself, would disprove them.
So it seems my best bet is to be an agnostic agnostic atheist, who says existence of deities currently is not proven nor disproven, and we do not currently have a way to prove or disprove it, but I don't know if that could change in the future or not.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
SRPP: [Religion] Do you value Premarital Sex?
*This was written just today, as opposed to all of the SRPP posts which are actually from years ago.
In-fact... I can only imagine someone not being able to have sex at any time if they lack the specific organs to do so.
... What's the point of you explaining that instead of whether or not you value it. And how does this thread even pertain to religion at all?
I believe in sex regardless of marriage. I've been raised in an environment with values. How about you?
________________________________________________________________
Anyway, I do not value marital status. Marital status to me is only a legal status you agree to enter with someone to obtain benefits. You only do this with someone you love enough to trust (or trust enough to love?). But in any case, marriage is only a concept that exists because of a made-up culture and it is meaningless symbolism.
The only things I value are love, sincerity, integrity, etc. These encompass emotions that exist in humans regardless of our routine or 'culture' in regards to how we organize reproduction of our species. They exist because that is how we are biologically. The reason I actually value these are because they are something you can actually feel, something a bit more than just a shared title you entered for benefits. Beyond that, I think it is asinine to say you have to be married to be committed to another. Even before you're married, you're already in love and committed (hopefully).
This is also why I think Valentines day on its surface is pointless. You shouldn't wait for only a single day out of the year to be really loving towards your significant other, or only wait for a single day to do something really special for your other. Nor is it even really strategic to always do something "special" on the same predictable day.
Of course, in the end, marriage and VDay are only good because of culture and spread beliefs that will cause any couple to experience emotional highs around those situations which will draw out those people who don't think about just being loving all the time / at random.
I actually don't like "Holiday entitlement imprinting" at all, including birthdays. During Christmas and near your birthday, most people become expectant that they will get something or deserve to be given gifts. A lot of people I know literally go around asking strangers for stuff. Holidays shouldn't be an excuse to become a beggar, especially considering those who don't live such privileged lives such that they can even become expectant of obtaining gifts. I don't like how some people only seem to show thanks and admiration of life near Thanksgiving. The Vday scenario is even worse when I hear about people who are like that.
While I consider marriage completely non-sequitir in comparison to what point in a couple's life they have sex, here is a list of what I think are very very very important to consider before having sex.
1. Do you know each other's medical history.
2. Have you agreed on birth control or the responsibility of taking care of a child.
3. Have you assessed your financial ability to take care of a child if you chose that.
4. If you plan on having a child, are you really in love?
5. If you think you're in love, do you understand the expectancy for how long love lasts, and do you think it will last or that you can deal with divorcing at some point in a civil manner?
6. If you're planning on birth control, depending on your personalities, "true" love might not matter. But medical history still does.
7. (For me personally) I would only consider it with someone I plan to live with for the rest of my life [barring any unexpected divorcing].
nV Shoxie: I believe in sex after marriage, I've been raised in a christian environment with values.How about you?I believe it's possible to have sex after marriage AND before marriage.
In-fact... I can only imagine someone not being able to have sex at any time if they lack the specific organs to do so.
... What's the point of you explaining that instead of whether or not you value it. And how does this thread even pertain to religion at all?
I believe in sex regardless of marriage. I've been raised in an environment with values. How about you?
________________________________________________________________
Anyway, I do not value marital status. Marital status to me is only a legal status you agree to enter with someone to obtain benefits. You only do this with someone you love enough to trust (or trust enough to love?). But in any case, marriage is only a concept that exists because of a made-up culture and it is meaningless symbolism.
The only things I value are love, sincerity, integrity, etc. These encompass emotions that exist in humans regardless of our routine or 'culture' in regards to how we organize reproduction of our species. They exist because that is how we are biologically. The reason I actually value these are because they are something you can actually feel, something a bit more than just a shared title you entered for benefits. Beyond that, I think it is asinine to say you have to be married to be committed to another. Even before you're married, you're already in love and committed (hopefully).
This is also why I think Valentines day on its surface is pointless. You shouldn't wait for only a single day out of the year to be really loving towards your significant other, or only wait for a single day to do something really special for your other. Nor is it even really strategic to always do something "special" on the same predictable day.
Of course, in the end, marriage and VDay are only good because of culture and spread beliefs that will cause any couple to experience emotional highs around those situations which will draw out those people who don't think about just being loving all the time / at random.
I actually don't like "Holiday entitlement imprinting" at all, including birthdays. During Christmas and near your birthday, most people become expectant that they will get something or deserve to be given gifts. A lot of people I know literally go around asking strangers for stuff. Holidays shouldn't be an excuse to become a beggar, especially considering those who don't live such privileged lives such that they can even become expectant of obtaining gifts. I don't like how some people only seem to show thanks and admiration of life near Thanksgiving. The Vday scenario is even worse when I hear about people who are like that.
While I consider marriage completely non-sequitir in comparison to what point in a couple's life they have sex, here is a list of what I think are very very very important to consider before having sex.
1. Do you know each other's medical history.
2. Have you agreed on birth control or the responsibility of taking care of a child.
3. Have you assessed your financial ability to take care of a child if you chose that.
4. If you plan on having a child, are you really in love?
5. If you think you're in love, do you understand the expectancy for how long love lasts, and do you think it will last or that you can deal with divorcing at some point in a civil manner?
6. If you're planning on birth control, depending on your personalities, "true" love might not matter. But medical history still does.
7. (For me personally) I would only consider it with someone I plan to live with for the rest of my life [barring any unexpected divorcing].
Monday, February 23, 2015
SRPP: Inhuman concepts are impossible
A lot of people will look at something like the holocaust as inhuman. Against human nature, which some claim is for humans to be moral.
People will say that torture is inhuman, or slavery.
In stories, demons and monsters and mythical creatures are often called inhuman because they cause pain in various forms and lack remorse of any form.
The way I see it, being a dick is part of being human. You can't say something is inhuman when a human is fully capable of doing it. Humans are capable of causing pain and misery, that doesn't make them inhuman.
Demons and monsters only inhuman in that they are not physically human. It is impossible to say that something is mentally inhuman, that a concept is inhuman, because we are sentient, sapient, and self-aware. We define what human is, anything a human defines can only be human.
People will say that torture is inhuman, or slavery.
In stories, demons and monsters and mythical creatures are often called inhuman because they cause pain in various forms and lack remorse of any form.
The way I see it, being a dick is part of being human. You can't say something is inhuman when a human is fully capable of doing it. Humans are capable of causing pain and misery, that doesn't make them inhuman.
Demons and monsters only inhuman in that they are not physically human. It is impossible to say that something is mentally inhuman, that a concept is inhuman, because we are sentient, sapient, and self-aware. We define what human is, anything a human defines can only be human.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
SRPP: My view on pro-choice
Sperm is nearly limitless as we constantly regenerate it.
But don't women have a limited amount of eggs? (Like a 100 lol, as if they're ever gonna run out).
Something that is not yet cognizant nor has not observed anything and has no memories, is insignificant. It does not matter to argue that you are depriving the future of said entity because you cannot assume whether or not that entity's life will have been happy or not in the future. I mean sure, you could look at genetics and the social environment it will be born into to gauge the psychological conditions the entity will be subject to, but there are too many unknown and difficult to track variables for one to truly know how it will turn out (even though given limitless resources, you could tell).
From the point of view that non-aware life is insignificant, it does not matter how many bugs, sperm, eggs, fetuses, etc you disrupt the life of and degenerate into simply a mass of carbon and other molecules. A mass of carbon is no better than a rock. And the only difference between a bug and a rock is that one is sentient. Otherwise, the bug is not cognizant. The rock is also not cognizant, nor a fetus, nor sperm, nor yellow slime molds. Sentience alone does not make for significant life forms. It is cognizance that defines humans. Some life forms don't even show signs of sentience.
Note: I am interpreting sentience as the ability to feel, taste, smell, see, hear. Not awareness, not the ability to make perceptions, only the ability to sense physical phenomena. Cognizance being the ability to gain knowledge; make subjective perceptions based on your senses; retain memory; act upon memory; etc.
The only thing logically in favor of being strictly anti-abortion for fetuses is if we happen to be suffering underpopulation and are nearing extinction. But that isn't really the case on Earth right now.
Note: It is only logically in favor of that scenario if the remaining human race agrees that it does not want to go extinct.
Anyway. Non-aware life is less significant than life that already is aware. A woman giving birth should be able to make the decision as to whether or not giving birth to a child will result in a better or worse life for herself and whether or not doing so is worthwhile for herself. Of course, the woman may decide that it is better for a new child to live even if she dies, which I accept as a decision even though she cannot really predict whether or not the child will live happily or poorly - it's her decision to gamble. If the woman decides that she would rather live at the cost of a child, it is at a cost of a life that never came into fruition anyway. If the woman simply believes her life would be worse by introducing a child, it is at a cost of a life that never came into fruition anyway.
But don't women have a limited amount of eggs? (Like a 100 lol, as if they're ever gonna run out).
Something that is not yet cognizant nor has not observed anything and has no memories, is insignificant. It does not matter to argue that you are depriving the future of said entity because you cannot assume whether or not that entity's life will have been happy or not in the future. I mean sure, you could look at genetics and the social environment it will be born into to gauge the psychological conditions the entity will be subject to, but there are too many unknown and difficult to track variables for one to truly know how it will turn out (even though given limitless resources, you could tell).
From the point of view that non-aware life is insignificant, it does not matter how many bugs, sperm, eggs, fetuses, etc you disrupt the life of and degenerate into simply a mass of carbon and other molecules. A mass of carbon is no better than a rock. And the only difference between a bug and a rock is that one is sentient. Otherwise, the bug is not cognizant. The rock is also not cognizant, nor a fetus, nor sperm, nor yellow slime molds. Sentience alone does not make for significant life forms. It is cognizance that defines humans. Some life forms don't even show signs of sentience.
Note: I am interpreting sentience as the ability to feel, taste, smell, see, hear. Not awareness, not the ability to make perceptions, only the ability to sense physical phenomena. Cognizance being the ability to gain knowledge; make subjective perceptions based on your senses; retain memory; act upon memory; etc.
The only thing logically in favor of being strictly anti-abortion for fetuses is if we happen to be suffering underpopulation and are nearing extinction. But that isn't really the case on Earth right now.
Note: It is only logically in favor of that scenario if the remaining human race agrees that it does not want to go extinct.
Anyway. Non-aware life is less significant than life that already is aware. A woman giving birth should be able to make the decision as to whether or not giving birth to a child will result in a better or worse life for herself and whether or not doing so is worthwhile for herself. Of course, the woman may decide that it is better for a new child to live even if she dies, which I accept as a decision even though she cannot really predict whether or not the child will live happily or poorly - it's her decision to gamble. If the woman decides that she would rather live at the cost of a child, it is at a cost of a life that never came into fruition anyway. If the woman simply believes her life would be worse by introducing a child, it is at a cost of a life that never came into fruition anyway.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Tech
So far I'd say google's doing p good with it's single click captchas and Google Glass.
So far I'd say adware really sucks with its instant mouse-over acts like clicking nonsense. It works past Adblock and Ghostery. Hidoi.
Rarara
So far I'd say adware really sucks with its instant mouse-over acts like clicking nonsense. It works past Adblock and Ghostery. Hidoi.
Rarara
SRPP: If emotions didn't exist
How would society differ? What different problems would there be? What problems wouldn't be?
This is different from my utopia thread in that people wouldn't really be happy either. They would be indifferent. Not necessarily apathetic. Decisions would never have some sort of emotional influence. Or would they? Could such a race still have opinions? Can an emotionless person say "I like this color better" when presented a choice between red and blue? Nah, they would say it doesn't matter. Or perhaps they would say blue is a cooler color and more tolerant to the eyes.
What if mental emotions didn't exist and only physical emotions did?
When you feel an emotion, there is a physical and mental aspect to it. When you are happy, you will both experience happy thoughts and a very physical rush. When you are sad, you will experience depressing thoughts and very physical symptoms such as shortness of breath and a heavy chest.
So let's eliminate the thoughts, and say people only still react to them. They are otherwise indifferent in their mental processes related to emotions. Being sad doesn't cause them to give up on something, only the rationalization of whether or not they can or cannot physically do something will cause them to give up on something.
Do you think humans today can do such a thing?
A small quote from Kyubey, "In our culture, the phenomenon called emotion is only a mental disorder."
yay basing philosophies on supah kuwaii animu XD =^__^=
This is different from my utopia thread in that people wouldn't really be happy either. They would be indifferent. Not necessarily apathetic. Decisions would never have some sort of emotional influence. Or would they? Could such a race still have opinions? Can an emotionless person say "I like this color better" when presented a choice between red and blue? Nah, they would say it doesn't matter. Or perhaps they would say blue is a cooler color and more tolerant to the eyes.
What if mental emotions didn't exist and only physical emotions did?
When you feel an emotion, there is a physical and mental aspect to it. When you are happy, you will both experience happy thoughts and a very physical rush. When you are sad, you will experience depressing thoughts and very physical symptoms such as shortness of breath and a heavy chest.
So let's eliminate the thoughts, and say people only still react to them. They are otherwise indifferent in their mental processes related to emotions. Being sad doesn't cause them to give up on something, only the rationalization of whether or not they can or cannot physically do something will cause them to give up on something.
Do you think humans today can do such a thing?
A small quote from Kyubey, "In our culture, the phenomenon called emotion is only a mental disorder."
yay basing philosophies on supah kuwaii animu XD =^__^=
SRPP: What is the purpose of life?
Over on SRPP, I made a thread that started out with only this paragraph:
There's probably threads like this already, but I'm hoping something interesting will come of it.
I'd like you to support your view, if possible. The reasoning/etc.
After a few days and some responses, I edited the post with my answer:
_______________________________________________________________________
Edit: Here is mine:
A lot of people took the psychological bait of the question "What is..."
The simple wording "What is" implies to the person answering, that there "is" one in the first place.
From this point of view, "meaning" implies a reason, need, or ulterior motive.
But whose motive would this be? Human motive? Some sort of unknown deity? Many of you have come up with your own interpretation such as "humans" or "biology" or "philosophy".
But from an objective point of view, it doesn't matter whose interpretation or view point you are trying to find meaning from. Whether the view is from a human, a deity, the topic of biology, or philosophy, that is a subjective view you made up based on your own or other's interpretations of "meaning" and "life".
Basically, asking the meaning of life is like asking, "What is the meaning of this rock?" It's easy to see that there is no meaning. It just is or it just exists. Someone already mentioned, to the universe, it doesn't matter. The fact that we exist and are alive is completely circumstantial. There's no objective evidence that some sort of entity willed it.
This is why I'm nihilistic. Humans make up a negligible portion of the universe as a whole. There could be a whole nother planet elsewhere with people like us who have their own history with their planet thinking the same type of philosophical stuff we do.
From this point, because there is no purpose or meaning of life, not an objective one, I do agree that there are subjective ones.
Considering the astronomical chances of us even being alive here, we really are lucky that we are, so we should enjoy it, and work to keep it going as long as we can. This is my own personal 'what I make of life' view. To go further, if you consider it logical to say you prefer feeling good things over bad things, then the purpose of life is just to be happy. And what's the happiest feeling? Love. So the purpose of my life is to be in love.
From a survival viewpoint, the purpose is our species' longevity.
From some society's viewpoints, the purpose is to advance and learn and grow.
If theoretically a deity existed, there are multiple possible purposes for our existence. Let's say solipsism is true, and that we are actually only a computer program created by almost omnipotent but not omniscient scientists. Our existence is only a test that was made by greater beings. The purpose of our existence was the expansion of their knowledge. Perhaps it wasn't even planned at all that we came into existence, and that is was pure chance. Perhaps it was expected and has happened in many tests and we really are just completely unimportant to them.
See: Universal Simulator
Another deistic theory would say that we were created by the deity for whatever reason just to live and glorify his ego and be punished for things he gave us the capability to do so in the first place. Some would say we were made to be tested by the same deity that made us.
Perhaps some deity was bored, and made us just for entertainment.
_________________________________________
2018 addendum: (Written 2/18/2018)
The terminology for what I am has been coined and promoted into popular use now: I'm an optimistic nihilist.
If one looks at a field of flowers, sure, it's a pretty scene.
But if one looks at a single flower, managing to defy all odds to survive living in a harsh desert environment, would you agree that it makes the existence of that flower feel a lot more special to you?
If you agree that it does, then you understand why I appreciate life so much. There's no reason for life to exist. The odds of life existing are astronomically small, compared to the universe, compared to 13 trillion years of existence, compared to eternity
It's honestly astonishing that life is able to exist at all and for me to be here right now typing about it, because the chance that we are here right now is less than a 0.00000000...1% chance.
Life has no meaning, and that's what makes it all the more amazing that it's here at all.
There's probably threads like this already, but I'm hoping something interesting will come of it.
I'd like you to support your view, if possible. The reasoning/etc.
After a few days and some responses, I edited the post with my answer:
_______________________________________________________________________
Edit: Here is mine:
A lot of people took the psychological bait of the question "What is..."
The simple wording "What is" implies to the person answering, that there "is" one in the first place.
From this point of view, "meaning" implies a reason, need, or ulterior motive.
But whose motive would this be? Human motive? Some sort of unknown deity? Many of you have come up with your own interpretation such as "humans" or "biology" or "philosophy".
But from an objective point of view, it doesn't matter whose interpretation or view point you are trying to find meaning from. Whether the view is from a human, a deity, the topic of biology, or philosophy, that is a subjective view you made up based on your own or other's interpretations of "meaning" and "life".
Basically, asking the meaning of life is like asking, "What is the meaning of this rock?" It's easy to see that there is no meaning. It just is or it just exists. Someone already mentioned, to the universe, it doesn't matter. The fact that we exist and are alive is completely circumstantial. There's no objective evidence that some sort of entity willed it.
This is why I'm nihilistic. Humans make up a negligible portion of the universe as a whole. There could be a whole nother planet elsewhere with people like us who have their own history with their planet thinking the same type of philosophical stuff we do.
From this point, because there is no purpose or meaning of life, not an objective one, I do agree that there are subjective ones.
Considering the astronomical chances of us even being alive here, we really are lucky that we are, so we should enjoy it, and work to keep it going as long as we can. This is my own personal 'what I make of life' view. To go further, if you consider it logical to say you prefer feeling good things over bad things, then the purpose of life is just to be happy. And what's the happiest feeling? Love. So the purpose of my life is to be in love.
From a survival viewpoint, the purpose is our species' longevity.
From some society's viewpoints, the purpose is to advance and learn and grow.
If theoretically a deity existed, there are multiple possible purposes for our existence. Let's say solipsism is true, and that we are actually only a computer program created by almost omnipotent but not omniscient scientists. Our existence is only a test that was made by greater beings. The purpose of our existence was the expansion of their knowledge. Perhaps it wasn't even planned at all that we came into existence, and that is was pure chance. Perhaps it was expected and has happened in many tests and we really are just completely unimportant to them.
See: Universal Simulator
Another deistic theory would say that we were created by the deity for whatever reason just to live and glorify his ego and be punished for things he gave us the capability to do so in the first place. Some would say we were made to be tested by the same deity that made us.
Perhaps some deity was bored, and made us just for entertainment.
_________________________________________
2018 addendum: (Written 2/18/2018)
The terminology for what I am has been coined and promoted into popular use now: I'm an optimistic nihilist.
If one looks at a field of flowers, sure, it's a pretty scene.
But if one looks at a single flower, managing to defy all odds to survive living in a harsh desert environment, would you agree that it makes the existence of that flower feel a lot more special to you?
If you agree that it does, then you understand why I appreciate life so much. There's no reason for life to exist. The odds of life existing are astronomically small, compared to the universe, compared to 13 trillion years of existence, compared to eternity
It's honestly astonishing that life is able to exist at all and for me to be here right now typing about it, because the chance that we are here right now is less than a 0.00000000...1% chance.
Life has no meaning, and that's what makes it all the more amazing that it's here at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)