TEH ULTIMATE DESTINY!

That's fucking hilarious. I can't stop myself from laughing everytime I read it. It's like reading the argument of a DragonBall Z fanboy, except they have a straight face on.

Okay, Paisley - you want to talk metaphysical, without bringing all that 'evidence' and 'science' gibberish into it? I'll throw down.

First thing's first: we crush all of our assumptions. This leaves us with only the one thing we can be certain of - our own existence. So, where do we go from here, from a theological standpoint?

The only place we can: atheistic.

We can't become theistic without opening-up the assumption can of worms.

Amusingly enough, this also totally destroys any assertion that an atheistic view demands my life have no 'ultimate meaning'. Clinging to no assumptions, what meaning aside from 'ultimate' can my existence have? For all intents and purposes, I am existence, and existence ceases to even be once I'm no longer around to provide it/be it.

So, how's that for my 'ultimate purpose'? Without me, there is no universe, because the entire thing is quite possibly a construct of my imagination. Is that 'ultimate' enough for you?

Because it works.

How do you determine the validity of illogic?

The famous quote from wack job St.Martin Luther can actually sometimes be good advise;  "Pluck out the eye of reason".  Kind of an Occams Razor idea ....

"People can lose their lives in libraries. They ought to be warned." Saul Bellow 

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."  Douglas Adams

"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec

Religion dogma is poison said a "Jesus" philosopher ..... Religion is doubt said a Buddha.

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig 

Really care ? Love life ?  Be a scientist, or at least support the most godly life worship of all, SCIENCE ..... kill religion dogma.

BTW, we are god, god doesn't die, it recycles. (a buddha and a scientist)

Relax, trust GAWED ,  YOU ..... 

Yeah, this, without the solipsism (because you cannot assume there is no external agency influencing you without, as you say, opening up the assumption can of works) is what Paisley's been desperately alternating between trying to spin and trying to ignore from me.

You're confusing the colloquial definition of "absurd" with Philosophical Absurdism.

Profanity is often expressed by individuals as a means to release anger and frustration. It is usually a symptom of ego-identification.

I don't have a quarrel with science per se. I am simply making the argument that without beliefs, we would not be able to engage in rational discourse. This notion that faith and rationality are mutually exclusive is simply false.

Why is that?

Sorry, but this statement seems to suggest a not-so-subtle God-belief. In fact, I would suggest you are dangerously flirting with solipsism (the belief that your own ego is God).

Not quite. The difference between solipsism and pantheism is that the solipsist actually believes his own "ego" is God. In classical pantheism, the ego is the false self (the "carnal self" in New Testament terms).

I guess you can make the argument that solipsism is atheistic in the sense it denies the reality of God (the true Self). However, it is a theistic belief in the sense that the solipsist actually believes his own ego (false self) to be God.

Faith seeks to know God.

The belief that love is the nature of God is a basic spiritual insight held by many.

"God is love." 1 John 4:8

  Okay P god is love ... what is hate  ? okay , lack of god , okay , now what ? Dogma ?

  I think you will agree the angel I sent is love .... a few posts above. Really friend , check it out and tell me what you think , and be extra nice to yourself  .....  you are amazing , I dig your passion .....

Richard Dawkins clearly doesn't understand pantheism.

  Mr. P - What you are saying is really not helping us that reject dogma god ideas, no matter how fancy. You are playing with words to a guy thats says, I AM GOD AS YOU.

What is your purpose ? , I have sincerely asked you,  in the name of LOVE or caring.

I have often said, "Love is all the answer", and I still do. I AM atheist. Love includes indignation.

All is connected. Peace / War ? Yeah why ?  Thanks for caring .... What are we fighting for Mr. P    and why ? 

A meaningless life is an absurd one.

It is ultimately irrational because it is ultimately absurd. And absurdity is what happens once you have completely dispensed without all faith and hope.

I have already demonstrated that rationality entails faith (faith as the atheist defines it). Moreover, faith (as I and many theists define it) is not fear. Quite the opposite. It is letting go of fear.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18
 

The bottomline is that the atheistic worldview is ulitmately a pessimistic and a morbid one because it is ultimately a worldview without faith and hope.

Apparently, you neither understand pantheism nor panentheism.  There is no objective world without subjective experience.

Incidentally, science does not know what the ultimate fate of the universe will be. The entropic heat death theory is only one theory. Furthermore, you have not factor quantum events into the equation.

That your worldview is ultimately morbid and absurd is really indisputable. And whether or not my metaphysics only gives me "comfortable illusions," then  at least I can say that I have present comfort.  

No, you haven't.

In fact, every time you say this, you run right headlong again into me, and you have yet to overcome that. You say it cannot be disputed. I dispute it. You attempt to throw cute little questions at me. I answer them. Your only recourse is the same, every single time: You stop responding. You ignore, hoping I'll go away.

It seems that in the face of someone who is willing to challenge your basic assertions about my beliefs, or lack thereof, all you can do is run away. Allow me to help you out...

Fixed.

Unless you'd care to actually address the issue, instead of tossing out clever little quips that only let me demonstrate once more that your basic premise is, itself, only an assumption?

I read about half of all this.

Seems to be alot of jockeying and positioning on Paisley's part. Contexts keep going back and forth.

Pointless thread is pointless. >.<'

Unfortunately, you have already gone on record and clearly stated a belief in solipsism. You actually believe your ego is not only the center of existence but also the creator of it. This qualifies as a god-concept by any standard.

Yes I have. An absurd worldview is an irrational one by definition. No further commentary is required.

Belief and reason mutually presuppose each other. I have already demonstrated this ad nauseam.

No, they're not the same. Based on the atheistic worldview, physical processes are not driven by purpose (respiration is a physical process). To argue that they are is to make a teleological argument for the existence of God.

I have already explained how faith and rationality mutually presuppose each other. So your charge is moot.

If life is ultimately meaningless, then your whole life is nothing more than an exercise in futility. This is an absurd worldview. This is an irrational worldview.

I believe that life has a higher purpose - a final causation to which everyone and everything is moving towards. This sense of ultimate purpose gives my worldview a rational basis - a rational basis which is completely lacking in yours.

Intuition is distinct from logical analysis. What don't you understand?

Admittedly, the "God gene" theory was a "tongue-in-cheek" explanation. I don't necessarily agree with it. However, on the other hand, I do not completely dismiss it either. Clearly, the spiritual faculties in some individuals are more developed than others. Why this is so I am not sure. I suspect it is due to a combination of factors. Some have chosen to develop their intuitive faculties by engaging in some spiritual practice. Others have chosen to suppress it by adopting an unduly rationalistic approach to life. However, there may be a genetic component too. I see all natural processes being psycho-physical. So the idea that there may be a "physiological arrangement" is is not necessarily contradictory. 

There's a lot he hasn't done, Nigel.

No, I didn't subjugate the analytical to the intuitive. I said that they are complementary. Do you know what complementary means?

I stand by my previous statement: "A balanced mind is one in which the analytical and the intuitive complement each other."

Yeah. I know.

What's weird is that he seems to think he's supported his assertions, and answered all the questions. It's like there's no common ground whatsoever. I mean, I like to think that reality is the ultimate common ground, and that all we have to do is agree on the meaning of reality to hold a rational discussion; but he won't even commit himself to a realistic definition of reality. Or any definition, it seems.

It's almost like he's fucking with us on purpose, avoiding any real questions, and focusing on the nonsense he claims to eschew. I'd almost believe he's doing that on purpose -- not because he has no rational answers, but because he's enjoying seeing us banging our heads. If so, he's the best damned troll I've seen in a long, long time.

(tin foil hat off)

Um, You have not shown how the conclusion that life is absurd is itself fallacious or contradictory (although I did entreat you to do so).

If you are claiming that my worldview of a life with no ultimate purpose is an irrational one, you need to demonstrate a fallacy or contradiction in my worldview, or you need to demonstrate rationally (not NON-rationally), the basis for your worldview.  Otherwise, you all you have is a circular argument:  "Your worldview is irrational because I say so".

So yes, further commentary is required.  If you are incapable of producing further commentary (and given your track record, I quite suspect that is the case), your argument is worthless.  Note that noone here has said to you:  "A pantheistic worldview is an irrational one by definition. No further commentary is required."  Try to imagine how you would respond to such an "argument".

You have been told that presupposition is irrational...ad nauseam.   If anyone out there can make sense of the phrase "Belief and reason mutually presuppose each other", please let me know.  At any rate, you failed to address the problem with line of thinking as I described in the above quote:  "I could just as easily ask you to take it on faith that there is no god, and from there logically deduce there is no god." 

Do I have to point this out to you ad nauseam before you address it?  With something besides another useless one-liner? 

You may have said "faith and rationality mutually presuppose each other", but you haven't explained anything, and you still ignore (ad nauseam) that presupposition is irrational.  And none of this changes the fact that you went from defending the rational basis for your god-belief (rather weakly), to saying it wasn't rational after all.

Correct.

You are yet to demonstrate how it is irrational.  You may find this worldview unpleasing, but so sorry, that does not imply it is irrational.  In fact, you seem to imply that the basis for your pantheistic belief is to comfort yourself.   Kudos for finding comfort, but no points for rational thinking.

Hopefully I don't confuse things more than you already have, but consider this analogy:  Suppose you accidentally step off a high ledge and begin plummeting to the ground.  You may find it comforting at this awkward moment to believe that you can fly.  Comforting as it might be, this belief would be irrational.  The only logical conclusion is you're going to become a ketchup stain on the sidewalk.  Depressing?  Yes.  Rational?  Yes again.

Correspondingly, we as individuals (and the universe as a whole) are moving towards our eventual non-existence.  If you find this prospect unsettling, that is your problem.  Apparently your current solution to this problem is to conjure (without evidence) a belief that life has a higher purpose, with some god somewhere up in the ether (again, without evidence).   Comforting does not mean rational.  Write that down and memorize it.

I don't understand, what is the irrational then, such that it is distinct from the nonrational.  If you're not clueing in:  How can I not just as easily say "I know intuitively there is no god; I know intuitively life has no ultimate purpose"?  You consider such statements to be irrational.  What makes my "intuitive" statement irrational, and your "intuitive" statement merely nonrational?

Ad nauseam indeed.

Ah - so when you find yourself in a direct contradiction, it's only "tongue-in-cheek".  Always helps to have an out.  Good thinking, bro.

I suppose your previous assertion that your belief was rational as tongue-in-cheek as well.  Any other tongue-in-cheekers you want to alert us to, or should we just wait to be pleasantly surprised?

Ah - so you agree with it, but you don't agree with it.  Pretty comfortable up on that fence, isn't it?

Clearly, you should have empirical evidence to support this.  Because if you don't, you shouldn't make such assertions.  Clearly.

Agreed.  Approaching life rationally gets rid of those spiritual faculties real fast.

Not necessarily.  Maybe, but not necessarily.

Your indecisiveness is most convincing.

  Yeah B , good title ! .... one small step for man , one giant step for mankind ! The internet is the best invention yet !  Now to fix the TV. Communication is higher  consciousness ....

a Buddha said AWAKE !

A Jesus said , I bring a SWORD, not peace, as there is no peace , when letting the religious hypocrites rule ! ( so debate loudly )     

Yes we have been trough this before. If there are physical events without physical causes, then materialism is wrong.

  Mr. P -  Bonding ? Why call it Spiritual ?

As if we have a choice ? A summary is in order now Mr. P 

..... are you some how saved , or in a higher joy , than the atheists ?  as I remind you,  I AM GOD AS YOU. 

Again , what else is there ? Inventing an after life is destructive to this one.

And again , what are we killing for ? As just recently a million plus Iraq people have been murdered ?  Why is the world not truly weeping ? I get it , no tears, because the afterlife means they ain't really dead.

Your hocus pocus spiritual religious view diminishes this one life and makes it much easier to kill others, as your false god has a plan and an afterlife.

Materialism is a much healthier and honest world view. The buddhists simply say all is recycled. Of course the folklore got wild and creative.  

A simple summary of your world view of solutions is now due ..... I say worship life in only the NOW ..... you say ??? and the next ???

You know, you've really hit the nail on the head there as to the major divide between pantheism and atheism. Many people, like Dawkins for example, see no definitive difference between pantheism and atheism, but the significant distance between pantheism and atheism is demonstrated here in the incongruity between the way each, loosely speaking, are inclined to weigh in on the sciences. The Philosophy of Biology lends itself to atheism, there is no doubt, however it is a philosophy under major transition and though Vitalism might be debunked in terms of the official race, its shadow lingers. References to 'our basic biology' which naively presuppose Vitalism, even when not intended, are still pervasively common.

Part of the reason is that it's not been that long since the barrier was broken between biological science and fundamental physical laws and reductions of biological systems to atomic levels have started to gain headway. In that endeavour, there is a way to go, and as I mention frequently, there are still major disparities in the subject of 'time' between the sciences.

Again loosely speaking, a pantheist is likely to be inclined toward physics and in this area Newtonian time and local systems have long since been dealt the proverbial heave ho, contemporary fundamental physics supercedes these frameworks on numerous levels, while biology as it is generally understood, is still very much framed within them. It's a high level of biology that doesn't assume newtonian time is a reality and for the most part the incorporation of fundamental interaction, as opposed to fundamental corporeality, in the context of biology, is an infant field.

So to say, pantheism as you've addressed, is incompatible with basic biology, this is a given due to the nature of the field of basic biological science (eg anatomical and cellular), it is set in outdated frameworks which do not reduce without losing a substantial weight of those very assumptions which set them apart.