Jump to content
Science Forums

motherengine

Members
  • Content Count

    504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

motherengine last won the day on July 31 2015

motherengine had the most liked content!

About motherengine

  • Rank
    Explaining
  • Birthday January 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    my own personal hell
  • Interests
    Art, philosophy, bourbon, lucid dreaming, etc.
  1. I don't see a team at all, only various groupings of animals with various beliefs and values.
  2. Nothing is worthless if it has worth to someone. I am only asserting that one person's worth or values cannot rationally be placed 'above' another's.
  3. 1- I also agree that a person can be moral without religion. But I would argue that the belief in morality itself can be religious, especially when it is preached as being anything beyond the predetermined articulation of non-rational emotions. 2- One can adhere to anything. But the adherence of one does not necessarily demand the acceptance of another. 3- The title of the thread is from a line in the film/book Deliverance which is given in response to the assertion that an aspect of the situation which the characters have found themselves in is "a matter of the law".
  4. Is it religious? If it is taken from the Torah then it may well be. Is it senseless? If its only support stems from an emotional basis, then I would say- yes.
  5. Good God, with the definitions. from Merriam Webster: hypothesis- a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action If you must rely on Wikipedia for your definition then I am proposing that the phenomenon of human beings relying on terms such as ‘justice’ and ‘rule of law’ in order to validate the condemnation and subsequent ‘punishment’ of certain social behaviors stems, in part, from the desire to live in relative comfort (i.e., that social comfort is, at least in part, depende
  6. Do you believe that you are actually choosing anything?
  7. I don't call anything "the best". I see only evidence of natural and universal indifference to what human beings believe in, however fervently. To abstain from stealing is only to abstain from stealing. And if such abstinence were to have a social effect that was perceived as 'good' or "the best" this would merely mean that many people feel/think this way, not that it is so beyond our subjective and transient thoughts and feelings. If we can perceive and acknowledge moral/sociopolitical indifference from the rest of the natural process as well as the known universe, and if we can find no
  8. from Encyclopedia Britannica: Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable. I am pretty sure that atheism can be 'legitimately' described as both a lack of, and a rejection of, belief in a god or gods.
  9. Some smart-a** wrote about the God delusion. What of the delusions concerning freewill, morality and justice? Clarification: I am paraphrasing a line from the film 1408 (concerning Hannah Arendt and her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil), as opposed to simply insulting Dawkins.
  10. No nerve hit. I initially started this thread to test a hypothesis and things went off the rails pretty quick (and due to my own insecurities, among other things, I encouraged this). I still think that atheism and nihilism are philosophically connected and I do not expect to find a rational objection that is not somehow perverting the assertion. That being said, I will recant my wish to stay focused and replace it with this: Post whatever you think/feel is relevant to the subject. PS: I would suggest that Moses was not atheistic as he is written to have known that only one god actu
  11. Understand that I was not referring to your analogy as ignorant and offensive. I don't find it offensive at all; to me it is simply your perspective (though one I do not fully share). But due to the broad scope of the assertions you are making I can understand how someone would simply dismiss them as stemming from bias and ignorance. And however relevant such things may be to anyone, I do wish this thread could veer back to the central idea (whether or not that idea is itself perceived to be relevant). Oh well— opening up a Pandora's box, I suppose this is what I get.
  12. I can understand how it could be read as an ignorant and/or offensive statement. That being said- Concerning issues related to the human need to find something 'larger' than one's self to believe in (e.g., socio-political ideology, the scientific method, analysis systems such as logic and reason, philosophical principles, secular groups, etc.), I find it a relevant expression of atheism (especially as an atheistic person who has no heroes or belief in the social order). To each his/her own.
×
×
  • Create New...