money schmoney what can keep your dick hard over the years? lay it on us SuperTrap i wuld like to hear this
Have ya ever met a happy atheist?
- Thread starter SuicideTaxi
- Start date
money schmoney what can keep your dick hard over the years? lay it on us SuperTrap i wuld like to hear this
Ok, so now that we've established that Taxi's epistemology is in fucking shambles, let's put this one to bed:
Long answer: morality has its roots in our sense of fairness, reciprocity, and empathy, which are traits that all social species have to varying degrees.
Would you like to know more?
Short answer: evolution.
Long answer: morality has its roots in our sense of fairness, reciprocity, and empathy, which are traits that all social species have to varying degrees.
Would you like to know more?
Psst.... maybe you didn't get the memo but... pretty much everybody has dismissed you as something of a halfwit who isn't comprehending even the basic concepts of the subject, and the whole while having a one-sided argument that he's claiming to be the winner of.
Just FYI.
Just FYI.
Uh huh.
Tell us again to "prove" something that doesn't exist in the physical realm again.
Okay, go.
Tell us again to "prove" something that doesn't exist in the physical realm again.
Okay, go.
Why do you believe that there is anything that exists outside the physical realm?
Because I'm not just a meatsack limited by the five senses that my body is capable of?
And what's your reason for believeing that that's true?
Besides "I just know", of course.
For the same reason that anyone knows that they're in love?
Or knows that someone or something is more meaningful to them than something else?
Or that they have a connection with something for reasons that transcend the logical?
Or that a piece of music moves them more than another piece of music comprised of the same instruments, same musicians, and even performed in the same key at the same beats per minute?
Because some things are intangible, some things cannot be put into a test tube or duplicated in a laboratory, but those things still exist all the same, and are completely relevant, real, and impacting to the human experience?
It's not that complicated to figure out, really.
We aren't machines. We're humans. And we're more than just our five senses.
Or knows that someone or something is more meaningful to them than something else?
Or that they have a connection with something for reasons that transcend the logical?
Or that a piece of music moves them more than another piece of music comprised of the same instruments, same musicians, and even performed in the same key at the same beats per minute?
Because some things are intangible, some things cannot be put into a test tube or duplicated in a laboratory, but those things still exist all the same, and are completely relevant, real, and impacting to the human experience?
It's not that complicated to figure out, really.
We aren't machines. We're humans. And we're more than just our five senses.
Except modern neuroscience and biochemistry can explain all of those phenomena, including your own subjective experience of them to a degree, without appealing to any supernatural or metaphysical causation. We understand the series of physical interactions that cause you to feel the way you do, down to the subatomic level.
And while we currently do not understand consciousness to any great detail, we do have mountains of evidence to support the claim that it is entirely a product of chemical processes in your brain.
What I'm picking up here is that you find the idea of us being biological machines with no supernatural component somehow denigrating. Why is that?
No it can't.
It can explain what is occurring, such as the effects of "being in love", but there is nothing that science can predict or determine as to why someone falls in love. Or why someone will kill their lover.
It can explain how certain frequencies effect people over others, but no, it can't explain why one piece of music over another piece of music can move a person to tears or motivate them to change their lives.
It can explain how a person is predisposed to be addicted to one drug over another. But it can't explain why one person can overcome that addiction while another will die from it.
Consciousness may be tied into more neural pathways or more (or different) chemicals in the brain, but it's irrelevant because it's once again explaining a how instead of a why.
It's not "supernatural", you read too many comic books.
It's spiritual, a completely different concept altogether.
Which pretty much proves that you're attempting to discuss subject matter in which you barely have even the slightest concept. All while attempting to limit the discussion to your own extremely limited capabilities, which is your own five physical senses.
Last edited:
And in the same way, science can explain how you might come to believe that you're more than just a meatsack, even if you're not.
Imagine the scenario where only physical reality exists, and through a series of purely physical processes, you became wrongly convinced that a spiritual realm (or whatever) exists. How would you be able to tell that that's not the reality you're actually living in right now?
Ok, replace "supernatural" with "spiritual" then, the question remains the same. You seem to dislike the idea that human beings are governed in total by physical processes. Why is that?
I don't recall "need" being an actual requirement for anything.
But logic being what it is, it certainly makes a lot more sense that all of this, this physical plane, the entire cosmos, it's all here for a reason, rather than just "cuz".
But logic being what it is, it certainly makes a lot more sense that all of this, this physical plane, the entire cosmos, it's all here for a reason, rather than just "cuz".
"Dislike" isn't the correct term for how I feel about it.
While I dislike the fact that people like you, who are limited to only what their senses tell them, try to dictate to me that I'm under some delusion because I have a capacity and an awareness that's greater than their own, at the same time I don't "dislike" the concept of spirituality being only a myth. It really doesn't make a difference to me either way. It's just a wrong (and awfully limiting) concept.
It's the equivalent of someone color blind being asked to see green.
"Do you see green?"
"No! Green doesn't exist!"
"But I see green."
"You only see green in your mind! Prove to me that it exists!"
"Well... I'm looking at it, and it's markedly different than all the other colors."
"I can't see it! Prove to me that it exists!"
"Well, 'green' is light with a wavelength between 520 and 570nm in the color spectrum, here look."
"But that doesn't prove to me what green is."
"But everyone is telling you that it's there."
"But I can't see it. Prove to me what green is!"
"Well... I really don't have to. I know that green is there, and if you don't, that's on you. Maybe some day you will see green. I wish you luck, because I know it exists. And it's pretty cool, actually."
Last edited:
Judging by your posts it does seem to me that you require a why, as it's the fundamental sticking point you keep harping on
You also seem to be convinced that we, machines made of meat and powered by electricity, have some 6th sense that's not quantifiable or that you've not really been able to explain
If you want to actually take the logical stance, then until we can prove with our physical senses(ie, the only senses we are able to quantifiably define, verify and experience) or, an extension of our physical senses(machines, telescopes, particle detectors, whatever) the existence of some kind of diety, then the only logical option is to not believe in it. Making shit up because you don't know the answer isn't logical
**edit** to reply more directly to your post, I should say: until we can determine via scientific analysis that there is definitely a "why" to the univese, the logical answer is: there isn't
You also seem to be convinced that we, machines made of meat and powered by electricity, have some 6th sense that's not quantifiable or that you've not really been able to explain
If you want to actually take the logical stance, then until we can prove with our physical senses(ie, the only senses we are able to quantifiably define, verify and experience) or, an extension of our physical senses(machines, telescopes, particle detectors, whatever) the existence of some kind of diety, then the only logical option is to not believe in it. Making shit up because you don't know the answer isn't logical
**edit** to reply more directly to your post, I should say: until we can determine via scientific analysis that there is definitely a "why" to the univese, the logical answer is: there isn't
Last edited:
You forgot to add "because I'm only limited to my five senses, I demand you prove it to my five senses!"
Meh... it's just green.
Meh... it's just green.
I'm not dictating anything. I'd be perfectly willing to believe that you have an extra sense that I don't, if you could propose a falsifiable experiment that we could conduct in order to confirm that you're not wrong. This should be possible.
Case in point:
I could ask you to pick 3 things that look the same to me, but you say that one of them is green. I could ask you to leave the room while I shuffle them, then you'd come back and point out the green one.
If you could repeatedly point out the same item after I shuffled them, then I might start to believe that there really is something different about that thing, even though I can't experience it directly. I could then increase the number of decoy things, have you do the same with other people, and build ever more elaborate experiments along the same line to make sure you're not using some other method that I do know about to pick the correct item. This way, I could build ever more confidence that you can in fact sense something that I cannot.
However, if in the very first experiment you'd fail to consistently pick the same item, then I would have no reason at all to believe your claim.
And just like that, I have succeeded in putting your sense of green into a test tube.
So, can you think of a repeatable, independently confirmable experiment like the one above to demonstrate that you are more than just a meatsack?
Last edited:
That doesn't prove that it's green.
It proves that I can pick that card from the rest and you cannot.
It doesn't make you see green either.
Based on your experiment, you would have to - on faith - take my word that the card is green.
It proves that I can pick that card from the rest and you cannot.
It doesn't make you see green either.
Based on your experiment, you would have to - on faith - take my word that the card is green.