Posts by ruggedraven36

To Native Americans—they’ve always been my blueprint for what actual human beings should look like. I’ll never forgive the pale crowd for wiping them out.

mistybison said:It seems many psychiatrists would agree that believing in God, an afterlife, or reincarnation is actually beneficial rather than harmful. People generally feel much better when they believe their existence carries purpose.🙂

Human perception is quite limited. We are only capable of understanding what we can sense through our physical senses and process with our logic. That doesn't mean those things represent the entirety of reality.🙂

I don't buy that. Sure, people can box themselves in—we do it all the time—but we can also push past our own limits in just about everything, not just what we can perceive.

"Since man is a spiritual being, he can consider himself worthy of the most sublime things; and when it comes to the sheer scale and power of his spirit, he can barely even wrap his head around it. Fueled by that kind of faith, he won't run into anything so harsh or rigid that it won't eventually be revealed to him." (Hegel)

Ethan Gomez82 said:Of course we're the most similar. You don't honestly think a human would invent a god that looks like a bee, do you? If a bee were the one doing the inventing, its god would probably just buzz and dance around to point out the safest meadows filled with endless nectar.

Don't bother guessing my take on this—I already laid it all out in post #113.

Olivia Evans8 said:Humans are interesting to other humans, and sure, to God too—it's just that He probably doesn't find us interesting in the exact same way we find each other.

I mean, seriously... you're talking about a being capable of whipping up a 10-dimensional universe with wild physics like He's talking about your grandma looking after you.

When people try to picture God, they can't help but project themselves onto the concept—it’s unavoidable. Usually, we just end up projecting whatever happens to be trendy or whatever matters most to us at the moment. One decade it's all about kindness and love, the next it's justice, then it's raw power or infinite intelligence—basically, whatever humans happen to be obsessed with. Saying "a being capable of creating a 10-dimensional solar system with wild rules" isn't some profound insight; it’s just pure human megalomania. There’s this constant push to strip away any resemblance between the divine and humanity, but honestly? That’s nothing more than a metaphor for how alienated we feel from ourselves.

Ethan Gomez82 said:People are only interesting to other people. Otherwise, they aren't. Even bees find flowers more compelling.

Olivia Evans8 was talking about God, not bees. It follows that if God is described as being made in our image, then humans are his most interesting creation—unless he’s got some goddess tucked away somewhere.

But sure, for some folks, the digits of Pi are more captivating than actual human beings, so I guess God might feel the same way.

Olivia Evans8 said:So, basically, God is a superhero...

I mean, think about it! Why would a being capable of creating entire universes, watching everything from quantum mechanics to whole galaxies outside of time, knowing absolutely everything—like every single decimal of Pi or every digit of Graham's number... actually care about us humans?

Isn't that incredibly selfish? Or honestly, just a massive projection of our own need for a parental figure onto a being that can... well, do literally anything.

If that’s really the core of it, then the answer is pretty blunt. It's because people are way more interesting than the vacuum of space, quantum physics, galaxies, or even the endless digits of Pi and Graham's number.

astor pec said:So, what about reflecting on belief? Nothing?

Thinking about belief just leads you to believe whatever that thinking spits out. It’s an observation process—it isn't some conscious choice.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Does believing in an afterlife actually help someone, even if nobody’s ever come forward to claim they saw anything on the other side?

Look, I'm an atheist. But I can't bring myself to agree with those certain types of atheists who insist that Faith is nothing but a useless distraction. I've found myself staring down the barrel of the idea of total, absolute non-existence...
The thought that when I die, everything just gets wiped clean. Like I never even existed in the first place.
I catch myself picturing that moment right before death—all my experiences, my entire life, just sitting there on the edge of this massive, cold void that’s going to erase every single trace of me without a shred of mercy. Pretty depressing, isn't it?

Even if that’s the reality, wouldn't it be better to believe there's something waiting for us after we go?
At the very least, it makes me feel better. Being able to find satisfaction in the present moment actually has a positive impact on how I live right now.
In that sense, I don't see why those stubborn, narrow-minded atheists feel the need to lecture theists about the "pointlessness" of religion.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's just that eternal tug-of-war between abstract concepts and our own direct experience...

That's a ridiculous question. If you actually know something is a fact, you can't exactly choose to believe the opposite.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It’s objective, sure, but it doesn't matter to anyone but me (and maybe a few others). I certainly am not writing this for the sake of people who couldn't care less.

It isn't objective because it's just plain wrong—and truth actually matters. Saying something is "important to someone" doesn't make it objective; you can't derive "importance" from the mere existence of a person. That's why we bother with actual arguments instead of just stating that someone happens to care about something.

Ethan Gomez82 said:What does an individual's capability have to do with anything? What they deem important is important to them, period. That’s why I brought up my dog. He’s incapable of many things, yet he has his own priorities—his own version of "importance" that is entirely his own and completely authentic. No one cares about the same things, and there is no such thing as objective importance. This doesn't change the fact that, as social creatures, we can reach certain compromises or agreements regarding what we value. Ultimately, anyone can pass judgment on what is "important," but that personal verdict only applies to them, not anyone else. You can try to force your personal values onto others like trying to shove a wardrobe through a keyhole, but it never works. Usually, those attempts just leave a trail of bodies in their wake.

Well, if you actually believe what you're saying isn't objectively important, then there's really no point in even commenting.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Exactly. You can't decouple what's "important" from the subject itself. Without a subject to care, nothing matters at all.

Sure—but I think you're blurring the line between the subject and subjectivity. Not every person out there is equally capable of figuring out what actually matters.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Well, you missed the point entirely. Your own examples prove that importance is purely subjective—it only matters if it matters to SOMEONE, somewhere, at some time. Horse-drawn carriages were vital once; now, they’re practically useless to everyone. Traffic signs don't mean a thing to a hunter-gatherer, and in a while, they probably won't matter to anyone else either. Just another passing phase of history. What is the "importance" of anything if you strip away the people who rely on it? When you're starving, finding food is important. In other words, importance is just biology.

No, you're the one missing it. What even is a horse-drawn carriage in a vacuum? Nothing. An object only exists as what it is because of its utility.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Well, you missed the point entirely. Your own examples prove that importance is purely subjective—it only matters if it matters to SOMEONE, somewhere, at some time. Horse-drawn carriages were vital once; now, they’re practically useless to everyone. Traffic signs don't mean a thing to a hunter-gatherer, and in a while, they probably won't matter to anyone else either. Just another passing phase of history. What is the "importance" of anything if you strip away the people who rely on it? When you're starving, finding food is important. In other words, importance is just biology.

That's impossible. If you strip that away, then you aren't talking about those things anymore.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I honestly don't know if you realize just how spot-on you actually are.

Whether something is vital, essential, or irrelevant... those are all subjective labels. These questions fall apart unless you consider WHO finds them important. Things don't possess inherent importance or insignificance; they simply exist. To me (and frankly, to most people), the "most important thing" has nothing to do with quantum physics, even for those who grasp the science. For some, it might matter. But I highly doubt there is one single thing that holds universal importance for everyone.

Are traffic signs important or unimportant—or do they just exist? Is medicine important or unimportant—or does it just exist? Most things aren't just important; they wouldn't even exist if they weren't. You could practically define "unimportant" that way—it's just the stuff that *is*. How much something matters only makes sense once you actually know something about it and weigh it against everything else. If you're going to argue about what's important, you need actual arguments—otherwise, you might as well just decide importance by a show of hands.

What does it even matter what the most important thing in quantum physics is?

James Lee77 said:Try this thought experiment on for size: imagine you know for a fact that two different choices will give you the exact same amount of pleasure. One choice is totally selfless, while the other is just morally neutral. Since you aren't getting any extra "happiness points" for being a good person, what are you picking? Personally, I’d go with the one that brings some extra good into the world along with the pleasure. If you wouldn't, I guess you might be an outlier.

Man, if I had the energy or the patience for a full-on Socratic dialogue, I’d stop there. But since I don't, here's my take: if we agree that there are other motivations besides just pleasure, then we have to talk about how much those things actually weigh. Like, is it really true that a tiny, microscopic bit of extra pleasure is enough to outweigh a massive amount of something else that motivates us? I mean, probably not. It seems pretty plausible that there are situations where a huge amount of other stuff could easily outweigh a tiny lack of pleasure. Etc.

That’s a solid breakdown. It lines up with what I was saying earlier—pleasure is relative. Sure, it’s almost always in the mix when we're deciding what to do, but it’s rarely the only factor, let alone the deciding one.

Harold Doyle3 said:You responded from the heart... and honestly, that's what makes us human.

This reminds me of a passage from Hegelian logic science:

"In this day and age, we can't remind ourselves often enough that thought is what separates man from beast. Everything that enters a person's inner world—their very perception—is shaped by language. Once someone turns an experience into words, they've infused it with a category, whether it’s hidden, messy, or fully formed. To that extent, the logical is inherent to being human; or rather, it *is* our nature. Logic weaves itself into every natural human behavior—our feelings, our observations, our cravings, and our instincts—transforming them into something uniquely human..."

ruggedbadger2 said:I agree, it’s not about being cynical. It’s just a fact that killing yourself is incredibly difficult; the body is hardwired to stay alive at all costs. But once those mental loops take hold, I guess it becomes hard to pin down why someone did or didn't go through with it, or why they feel like they didn't.

Of course, both sides could be right here—maybe she kept going for her daughter, or maybe she just kept going because survival is an instinct we can't really turn off. We're just guessing from the outside, so it's impossible to know for sure. These are just my assumptions.

Look, regardless of how we're "hardwired," you aren't really a person unless you're making conscious, free choices about what's best. We can't pull a peek inside her brain to see her programming, but one thing is certain—what she did was noble.

hiddeneagle98 said:@wand if you're reading this, would the bolded part be interpreted as the half-truth version of the story? I'm just sitting here thinking—would she actually take her own life if the daughter wasn't there? But since she has her, it sounds much more "noble" to say she isn't choosing to live for the kid, but rather because she still finds her own life worth living despite the agony.

Why are you questioning this poor woman's sincerity?

I haven't heard cynicism this disgusting in a long time.

ruggedbadger2 said:That’s true, but that’s not really the point. We can’t predict where any given goal will actually lead us, but I guess we aren't exactly setting targets that are designed to end in misery—unless, of course, there's some sort of payoff involved. If Jesus had said, "Follow me and you'll burn in hell," he obviously wouldn't have had any followers.

Sure, pleasure is subjective. Personally? I’d never sign up for permanent bliss if the fine print required me to lose my mind or inflict suffering on someone else. Life isn't just about chasing abstractions like "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction."

ruggedbadger2 said:Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

The problem is, nobody has a crystal ball to know if a goal will actually make them happy. It’s easy to assume that living an honest life or chasing some noble cause will keep us from feeling like failures, but that doesn't mean life becomes a constant slice of chocolate cake. Most people don't just wake up and decide everything based solely on what feels good in the moment.