Do you fear Death?

[AnimalSpirits]

You are welcome to your irrational behavior.

How do you define rationality? You seem to have assumed that nothing without some deep divinely approved meaning is worth doing, but that’s a fine example of you projecting a theistic notion onto atheists. On what basis would you say that “I wish to maximize my own happiness” is an irrational goal?

If we take your (absurd) position that nothing matters if there’s no sky dictator, then why is sitting still awaiting death preferable to getting a drink of water? Both courses are equally devoid of meaning, so what makes the former better? At best you’d argue that I should be indifferent between the two.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If we take your (absurd) position that nothing matters if there’s no sky dictator, then why is sitting still awaiting death preferable to getting a drink of water? Both courses are equally devoid of meaning, so what makes the former better? At best you’d argue that I should be indifferent between the two.

If you intend to be rationally consistent.

One is not sitting and waiting for death, one is simply not acting on life because to do so would be to give meaning to that which meaningless; death is just an inevitable result beyond your control. Rationally speaking you have no choice but to do nothing at all because you have no rational reason to do anything. There is no objective purpose to anything and so to act to any particular end is irrational. To act on your emotions is irrational because there is no true objective rational basis to act on them or act in any particular way in reference to them. To save ones life is to give meaning to something meaningless, You are acting on the fear of dying or trying to avoid the loss of something. But you are losing nothing truly meaningful and therefore you are acting on make-belief, chemical delusions, or irrational fear. One is not acting in a manner consistent with the true nature of objective reality. All this talk of love, loyalty, honor, respect, this is all delusional talk.

So if you’re still fighting to survive or attempting act to an end that you deem significant then you my friend are one of the most irrational objects in existence.

If you don’t believe in God, then why do you behave as if there is one? What you don’t understand is that your lack of belief in God has not entirely rid you of your religious behavior. You are simply taking things for granted and that is why you have failed to recognize the problem from a rational standpoint.

 

[Bradski]

You have no daughter. That object you call a daughter, that thing you give value to, is nothing more than a bag of chemicals and other objects and it has deluded you into giving “it” value, so “it” can survive and replicate for no meaningful reason or end.

You’re treading a very fine line, buddy. Lucky for you we’re not shooting the breeze in the local bar. The discussion would have ended a lot more abruptly than you would have envisaged.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Rationally speaking you have no choice but to do nothing at all because you have no rational reason to do anything. There is no objective purpose to anything and so to act to any particular end is irrational.

A. You are having serious trouble getting out of the religious mindset, which is crucial for this thought exercise. Just because something has no objective purpose does not mean it has no subjective value to the individual.

B. Even if we grant your false premise, the first sentence I quoted does not follow. If there is no objective function (to borrow a concept from optimization in mathematics), then it’s not that the rational choice is to sit still and do nothing- all choices are equally rational, from that view point. If there’s no goal, then all things “accomplish” the goal equally well.

You’re assuming that, given no “prime directive”, we should default to standby mode. I see no reason why that should be the case. Maybe that works for electronic automatons, not so much for biological ones.

If you don’t believe in God, then why do you behave as if there is one. What you don’t understand is that your lack of belief in God has not entirely rid you of your religious behavior.

Erm… animals have been doing what their evolutionary instincts tell them too for quite some time. To claim that as a religious notion is, well, wrong. Some things are hardwired into me, and I don’t see any particular need to go against them.

 

[ChainBreaker]

A. You are having serious trouble getting out of the religious mindset, which is crucial for this thought exercise. Just because something has no objective purpose does not mean it has no subjective value to the individual.

Subjective value is irrational and cannot be a rational basis to interact with the objective world. Objects in and of themselves have no true objective value, thus you are not being rationally consistent with the objective nature of reality.

If there is no objective function (to borrow a concept from optimization in mathematics),

We are no talking about optimization and mathematics. We are talking about being rationally consistent with the objective nature of reality. I know that if i experience guilt then logically speaking (if metaphysical naturalism is true) i have no objective grounds or standard to feel moral guilt. Therefore to act on that feeling would be irrational because there is no logically consistent link between my feelings of guilt and the true objective nature of my experience. It is irrelevant that i have these emotions due to evolution; they either rationally reflect reality as it truly is or they do not. Guilt either really means that i have done wrong or it does not. The thoughts that led to that feeling was based on erroneous information and chemical activity.

Some things are hardwired into me, and I don’t see any particular need to go against them.

Because you choose to be irrational. You feel that it does not serve you to be rational about experiences. I don’t blame you. A truly rational atheist is **Siting, Starving, and then Rotting. **

 

[ChainBreaker]

Erm… animals have been doing what their evolutionary instincts tell them too for quite some time. To claim that as a religious notion is, well, wrong. .

Human beings don’t just act according to instinct like animals and neither do you. You think looking after ones child is the right thing to do as a parent (i think you will agree if you are an honest atheist) . You believe its right(human beings even disagree on what is right in some situations). Animals don’t believe anything, they just act according to their instinct (at least we have no reason to think otherwise; otherwise they are in the same existential predicament we are.)

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Subjective value is irrational .

Says who? You seem to very much enjoy asserting things about other people’s value systems, with little or no justification.

We are no talking about optimization and mathematics. We are talking about being rationally consistent with the objective nature of reality. I know that if i experience guilt then logically speaking (if metaphysical naturalism is true) i have no objective grounds or standard to feel moral guilt. Therefore to act on that feeling would be irrational because there is no logically consistent link between my feelings of guilt and the true objective nature of my experience. It is irrelevant that i have these emotions due to evolution; they either rationally reflect reality as it truly is or they do not. Guilt either really means that i have done wrong or it does not. The thoughts that led to that feeling was based on erroneous information and chemical activity.

I don’t choose what I feel- it just sorta gets thrown at me and I may or may not respond (“I” being the decision making part(s) of my brain, in this case). Whether or not there’s a rational process underlying it is irrelevant from my POV- it’s a stilumi. If some offered you $1 every time you snapped your fingers, would you turn your nose up because the underlying process is irrational? I don’t have to like the fact that the parts of my brain that produce happiness light up when I eat certain foods, but I do understand it.

Because you choose to be irrational. You feel that it does not serve you to be rational about experiences. I don’t blame you. A truly rational atheist is **Siting, Starving, and then Rotting. **

Again, you’ve yet to explain why someone who thinks that nothing matter should prefer inaction to action. Both are 100% meaningless, from that perspective. You’ve set a silly standard based on silly reasoning, and of course come to a silly conclusion.

So what I’m looking for:

Why should I disregard subjective value as irrational?

Why is inaction preferred to inaction from a rational perspective? What’s your definition of “rational.”

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Human beings don’t just act according to instinct like animals and neither do you. You think looking after ones child is the right thing to do as a parent (i think you will agree if you are an honest atheist) . You believe its right(human beings even disagree on what is right in some situations). Animals don’t believe anything, they just act according to their instinct (at least we have no reason to think otherwise; otherwise they are in the same existential predicament we are.)

I “believe it’s the right thing to do” insofar as it gives me warm fuzzy feelings, while a parent abandoning their child makes bad feelings. Not too hard to imagine why that particular set of feelings might have been hardwired in there. More generally, I get good feelings when I feel that I’ve helped someone and bad ones when I feel that I’ve hurt someone (oversimplifying of course). Ta-da, suddenly I’m walking around being friendly despite the belief that in the end any and all signs and memories of life will disappear from existence.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Says who? You seem to very much enjoy asserting things about other people’s value systems, with little or no justification.

Subjective value is irrational and cannot be a rational basis to interact with the objective world. Objects in and of themselves have no true objective value, thus you are not being rationally consistent with the objective nature of reality when you place subjective value on things or objects.

I don’t choose what I feel

You can choose how you respond. And you can either respond rationally or irrationally.

• it just sorta gets thrown at me and I may or may not respond (“I” being the decision making part(s) of my brain, in this case). Whether or not there’s a rational process underlying it is irrelevant from my POV- it’s a stilumi. If some offered you $1 every time you snapped your fingers, would you turn your nose up because the underlying process is irrational? I don’t have to like the fact that the parts of my brain that produce happiness light up when I eat certain foods, but I do understand it.

You seem to be just ignoring what i am saying. You can either respond rationally to stimuli or you can respond irrationally to stimuli.

I know that if i experience guilt then logically speaking (if metaphysical naturalism is true) i have no objective grounds or standard to feel moral guilt. Therefore to act on that feeling would be irrational because there is no logically consistent link between my feelings of guilt and the true objective nature of my experience. It is irrelevant that i have these emotions due to evolution; they either rationally reflect reality as it truly is or they do not. Guilt either really means that i have done wrong or it does not. The thoughts that led to that feeling was based on erroneous information and chemical activity.

Again, you’ve yet to explain why someone who thinks that nothing matter should prefer inaction to action. Both are 100% meaningless, from that perspective. You’ve set a silly standard based on silly reasoning, and of course come to a silly conclusion.

It has been explained. Calling it silly won’t change that,** unless of course rational judgment is silly to you.** What is revealed is the fact that rational thinking is no concern of yours unless it serves your ideal existence. Therefore you are not a rationally consistent atheist.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Subjective value is irrational and cannot be a rational basis to interact with the objective world. Objects in and of themselves have no true objective value, thus you are not being rationally consistent with the objective nature of reality when you place subjective value on things or objects.

I asked for clarification because I assumed you had something better to back it up. You’ve just assumed that no objective value implies no subjective value, written QED, and called it a day. The whole point of subjectivity is that it’s based on the individual perspective, rather than the universal one.

You can choose how you respond. And you can either respond rationally or irrationally.

And the rationality is judged on the basis of my objective function or lack thereof- in neither case am I obliged to consider whether or not the stimuli arrived via a rational process.

You seem to be just ignoring what i am saying. You can either respond rationally to stimuli or you can respond irrationally to stimuli.

I’ve been making the same points because you’ve failed to address them. If I claim all odd numbers are not divisible by 2, and you counterclaim that 3+2=6, I won’t really feel the need to adjust what I’m saying.

It has been explained. Calling it silly won’t change that,** unless of course rational judgment is silly to you.** What is revealed is the fact that rational thinking is no concern of yours unless it serves your ideal existence. Therefore you are not a rationally consistent atheist.

It’s been explained, I’ve pointed out flaws, and you’ve reasserted your conclusions with the same reasoning. My patience has been more or less exhausted- enjoy your debate with strawman atheism.

Feel free to respond if getting the last word will make you feel happy.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I asked for clarification because I assumed you had something better to back it up. You’ve just assumed that no objective value implies no subjective value,

I never said that no Objective value means people don’t have subjective values or preferences.

I said the following. Objects in and of themselves have no true objective value, thus you are not being rationally consistent with the objective nature of reality when you place subjective value on things or objects.

You have not refuted that fact.

And the rationality is judged on the basis of my objective function or lack thereof- in neither case am I obliged to consider whether or not the stimuli arrived via a rational process.

If you are concerned with being rationally consistent with the true objective nature of things then you are obliged to consider whether or not what you are thinking or doing is rationally consistent with the true objective nature of things. Of course you won’t do that because if i am right (which i am) you will be too scared to face the rational consequences.

I’ve been making the same points because you’ve failed to address them.

I have addressed them. You are simply ignoring my argument because it doesn’t serve your personal agenda.

If I claim all odd numbers are not divisible by 2, and you counterclaim that 3+2=6, I won’t really feel the need to adjust what I’m saying.

It’s a shame for you that i am not actually doing what you are accusing me of or trying to make it seem like.

It’s been explained, I’ve pointed out flaws, and you’ve reasserted your conclusions with the same reasoning. My patience has been more or less exhausted- enjoy your debate with strawman atheism.

You haven’t pointed out any flaws. You have merely avoided addressing the problem while trying to keep your rational integrity by calling my argument silly. You failed

Feel free to respond if getting the last word will make you feel happy.

I know that if i experience guilt then logically speaking (if metaphysical naturalism is true) i have no objective grounds or standard to feel moral guilt. Therefore to act on that feeling would be irrational because there is no logically consistent link between my feelings of guilt and the true objective nature of my experience. It is irrelevant that i have these emotions due to evolution; they either rationally reflect reality as it truly is or they do not. Guilt either really means that i have done wrong or it does not. The thoughts that led to that feeling was based on erroneous information and chemical activity.

 

[BrunoMaria]

If one claims to argue rational, and the other claims that’s irrational =ABOUT DIVINE THINGS= then both are completely right and both are utterly wrong. For anything and all about the last and final things, truths and revelations God Himself gave us, can’t be measured in earthly directives we are used to, and always carry a lot of opinion in them. It’s right only then, when it matches Jesus’ doctrine. This we got to measure and find out. Our own opinion doesn’t mean a thing.
God’s truths are singular, decisive and absolute and never subject to sentiments, views and translations.
We on the contrary are called to rather than find highly intellectual interpretations that inevitably lead into nothing - even THE Nothing, nihil and even nihilism like a child who enters a dark room and then feels and is completely lost; actively find and hold on to the very substantively and tangible reality of God.
Arguing, even arguing on highly intellectual level does lead nowhere, if the main spice or rather foundation of Christianity is missing: Love. The very love Jesus Christ claimed as precondition for being member of His family named in Mark 12,29-31:
First; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is; ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these!

Arguing just for the sake of being right, makes us wrong in any case. Let’s instead link arms together and hold our brethren who possibly are not quite as strong in believe as we are, and walk together to God. Might be we then find that this brother in God actually is even stronger than we.

Yours
Bruno

 

[ChainBreaker]

If one claims to argue rational, and the other claims that’s irrational =ABOUT DIVINE THINGS
Bruno

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but we are not discussing divine things but rather the lack of them, and in that regard one can certainly discuss the logical consequences.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Arguing just for the sake of being right, makes us wrong in any case. Let’s instead link arms together and hold our brethren who possibly are not quite as strong in believe as we are, and walk together to God. Might be we then find that this brother in God actually is even stronger than we.

Yours
Bruno

This is the Philosophy forum, its very existence of which presupposes the value of reason and that some things can be known about God or lack thereof through reason alone. One is not arguing to be right, but rather one is debating to shed light on the truth as far as reason can take us. Faith has its value to, but faith alone cannot help us in matters that require reason and that is why there is a long and valuable tradition of philosophical thinking in the Catholic church. Catholics are not fideists.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

We better hurry and make up our mind, because there’s a better than average chance,
That most of us won’t be here in 50 years from now,

 

[BrunoMaria]

We better hurry and make up our mind, because there’s a better than average chance, that most of us won’t be here in 50 years from now

How very true. As to “50 years” no-one knows in the least when he/she will go and see God - which all will, disregarding if they believed in God or not. It never depens on one’s age. My son died in the age of 26 - I know many who’s much younger children died. The Bible says: You fool - you don’t know when your life is recalled from you…
Since even kids are able to 100% believe in God - why when they got more brain-capacity so many start doubting?! Atheists of course say; - ha - that’s exactly the reason - people start thinking and stop believing this rubbish!
But it’s vice-versa. Obviously many give away their ability to think when growing up.

 

[Thomas_White]

This (bolded part) makes sense; I know a combat veteran who survived some direct engagements in Iraq, and he said the only way he could get into the mindset of battle and the fact he might get killed, was to imagine he was already dead. Somehow for him, imagining being “already dead” psychologically removed any fear which would have paralyzed him.

I wouldn’t say I accepted death, but I became reconciled to its likelihood, or even to its virtual certainty, during basic training in 1967. One is never again quite the same. Was I afraid? Not so much.

It focuses one on the present moment. To dwell on it in these circumstances is to court death, of that I am certain. What happens is that once having become reconciled to its probability, and by setting this aside while focusing on the present as much as possible, there is a kind of freedom.

 

[jesuspsr]

No I do not

 

[ChainBreaker]

No I do not

But what if you had a grenade strapped to your groin?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Here is what Macbeth thought about it.

MACBETH
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.