pouët.net

what i mean is you create your own hell and about the drinking that's part of the reason i'm guilty of it to. btw, i'm not drunk right now. you don't have to take responsibility for anything though. if i don't drink i get panic attacks. my problem is i drink to much sometimes. which probably causes them. anyway, people copy people. kids copy adults. then everyone says the world is to fucked up. in other news since i'm agnostic. i can't really go off and believe that god or any religious person could send anyone to hell for doing things and also i thought people had freewill and god doesn't go off and control people and the things they do. so, you must create your own hell. a mental hell maybe? but, it's kinda like people littering and then wondering about why there is garbage outside or when people get on probation and for community service they have to go outside and pick the shit up.

i don't really mind you criticizing my drinking. i know i need to quit and i have before.

also, if there is a god. he is the creator of all things. who ever said he was enforcing everything that happens? there's revelations in the bible stating a bunch of things. that may or may not happen. but, as long as most of you have been alive it has not happened. it doesn't make it untrue just yet. but, since that time you've had all this time to take advantage of your freewill. alot of people are probably going to die of natural causes and other things before all the stuff happens in revelations if it even does. so, you'll either create your own hell mentally or if there is a real heaven and hell. you'll send yourself there by what actions you choose. i personally think you're just dead when you die and that's it. so, i have to believe in the mental hell if i am to believe in a hell and also believe that everyone else would have the same type of hell. because, we are all made of the same things.

and if you would like me to take responsibility for my actions. then how i am sorry i got drunk and got emotional about it and upset you. i'd delete it for you if there was an option on here to do that.

and what about all the actions that me and everyone else on the planet takes that effects someone else negatively. some people will do things and not even appoligize, they might kill someone and just not give a shit. someone might goto war and their friends might get shot and then they come back with PTSD or maybe another mental disorder.
there are diseases on the planet. some haven't been cured and they just kill people. but, 90% of people on the planet would probably say there is nothing i can do about and some of them really can't do anything about. but, they probably wouldn't try unless they were really devoted to it. so they stay around and kill more people. if you want a hell you're living in it. but, if you want a heaven put a smile on your face.

anyway back on topic. i believe there is enough evidence to believe that richard dawkins does actually exist.

And what scientist, exactly, disagreed with that? Science enables knowledge, even knowledge about where the desire for knowledge comes from. The subjective is an interpretation and an experience of the objective, not a separate thing that would exist without the objective reality it mirrors. All the time, impressions of objective reality are perceived, stored and processed by the observer, entering into very complex patterns of brain activity, the result of which is ultimately a mental state that the observer subjectively perceives as inspiration or motivation. Physicalism is very depressing and scary, but there's nothing to suggest that the subjective is in any way magical or divine.

no scientist, just an army of annoyingly dogmatic nerds, or that's the vibe

Hexen: on topic award of the day!!! well done! :)

@doom: Nah! Only depressing and scary to the people that previously were deluded themselves with the unfounded idea of immortal souls. :)

Heck, if you want to know, you might as well listen to the guy talk. I think he has plenty of good points.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

The video that tomaes posted in the second page of this thread is quite entertainment too. :)

And what scientist, exactly, disagreed with that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic) <--- these Scientists, perhaps? If you're having trouble extrapolating the end result of their inevitable reign over society and over every facet of our daily lives, I refer you to a book called Brave New World. Once you've read it, please return here and describe to us exactly what's left of human dignity and "spirit" in that prophetic story. It shows you the result of not allowing people to be human, make mistakes and just generally be the fuck-wits we all are. Of course you've read the book already, you're "just not into conspiracy theories"....I know, I know :P :)

"Reason", technology and Science has its place and is undeniably valuable. just not in our daily lives (at least not to the extent I know most Technocrates such as Dawkins would love to see) dictating to essentially random organic beings, whose virtue is being random and spontanious. yes its a beautiful thing, like it or not doom. its what makes life a bit fun to live

guys save some of the angst for breakpoint, i wish to see this centuries-old debate played out onstage with sleepingbags and beer

j

There are no gods. You have no soul. Life is a set of chemical reactions. Everything you experience is nothing more than your sensors working together to create a single state of being.

Or the illusion of a single state of being. Since its not really.

hooray, artanis, meet Descartes

Interesting thread btw. I sense a confrontation between two main different worlds here, materialism vs spiritualism. In the first one you see things as they are in the material world (like that love, intuition, consciousness, etc are just chemical reactions in the brain) and in the opposite side there is a belief that maybe something higher exists (a soul?) than neural transmissions. Maybe it has to do with our need to set a meaning to everything. Some do have this need, others may seem to lack it. People don't understand that it's not the same feeling for everyone and they continue debating.

Personally I don't care. In the past I used to seek for a meaning as everyone till I found out that I am more content with the idea that there is no meaning in the universe at all, it's just us who put a meaning in our lifes. I am more content because now I know something, the fact that there is a possibility of a meaningless universe. Before that I was just confused and never found an end in this seek for a meaning. Today I like to think that things just are the way they are without an external reason. Is this nihilism? Or pragmatism?

However I find this debate interesting inside science. There are many good or known scientists fighting in favor of any of the two sides. Some have pure materialistic views, others do their science but without dismissing the spiritualistic view. Maybe it's a bit stupid, like science becomes ideology, but it's interesting to see what happens in the future. How things in the scientific view would change if there are stronger evidence in each of the sides?

Maybe I should write another blog post. Or sleep for today :P

I think you just did.