[Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic

[zap]

On 05/09/2017 08:14 PM, John Luke Gibson wrote:
> On 5/9/17, Lyberta <lyberta at lyberta.net> wrote:
>> doark at mail.com:
>>> I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
>>> potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
>>> an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
>> When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
>> believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
>> truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
>> time to investigate.
>>
>> And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
>> relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
>> I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
>>
>> The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
>> know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
>> I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
>> it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
>>
>> Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
>> don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
>> next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
>> understand that I understand nothing.
>>
>>> In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
>>> insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
>>> opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
>> I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
>> them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
>> hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
>> it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
>>
>>
> The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
> visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
> linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims
> are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
> "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
> which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
> self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
> consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
> extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
> (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
> to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
> obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
> referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
> suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
> and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
> of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
> fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
> christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
> ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
> die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
> obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
> utterly and completely fall apart.).
You can choose to think what you want, but for me it as relieved my
suffering long term.

I feel peace more than I ever used to, as a child I was an athiest. as a
teenager I was agonstic and four years ago I was in fact the kind of
christian you think all christians are...


The fact of the matter is you have black and white thinking

Saying all religion is conflict is to me like all science is good.

Science after all is directly responsible for why climate change is
happening.

I know you may mean well, but please try reading the gospels of jesus'
ministry before you claim to understand what is true and false. IF it
helps to motivate you do it for a laugh, not that I agree with that, but
he spoke out against the very things you are saying he supports. He
wants nothing to do with conflict other than to heal the hurts of those
who are suffering.

By the way, I do not think I am unreliable. I think we just have a
difference of opinion.

I don't think all atheists are bad heck, who knows what will happen at
the end of ones life, they could turn to christ.

Hard to say,

conversely, not all christians are good, mostly because some lie about
who they are.

You can find examples of both sides in all humanity I am sure but you
have to seek it out and alas that is something I fear you will not do.




>
> Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
> well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
>
> I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
> (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
> so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
> rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
> rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
> which that religion endorses.
> Thirdly,
> ______
>
> .................| ->   vvvvvvvv
> ______
>
> On the subject of Relativity:
> ______
>
> .................| ->    ^^^^^^^^^
> ______
>
> "The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
> misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
> "Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
> of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
> constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
> of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
> battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
> constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
> with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
> possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
> to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
> to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
> assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
> existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
> to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
> and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
> high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
> attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
> would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
> to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.

I will also add that I haven't read what you speak of, but I do know the
concept of blind chance...

and it makes me think that someone who doesn't want to accept the truth
or the truth is too hard to bear came up with it.

Not saying that you feel that way even secretly, but I do think that
such talk takes far more faith in science than it takes me to believe in
God.

That's my perception though. Again it is my opinion. So try to chill.


> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk