Upload
Login or register

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:10/01/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#6664
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 6378 total,  8674 ,  2296
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 23% (23/100)
Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 256 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:2414
FJ Points:5391

latest user's comments

#18 - And I agree with your assessment of what rationality is and it…  [+] (9 replies) 01/29/2016 on What Happens After You Die 0
User avatar
#19 - Bubmaster (01/29/2016) [-]
It's not like I have anything better to do, and it might be nice to talk to someone who isn't getting aggro from the start, haha. As I see it, with our current knowledge of the human consciousness, the only logical conclusion we can come to is that there is nothing after death, as the only thing we can observe that facilitates consciousness ceases its function.
User avatar
#20 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
Well, to avoid going into an specific religion, there is a necessity for a god. This necessity comes from various logical realizations.

One, perhaps one of the simplest, would be the origin argument. That is to say that everything has to come from somewhere. There's nothing in our observable perception that doesn't have a starting point that we can trace back up to the point we can no longer reasonably see where the line began. And so it's logical to conclude that this change over time went back before that point past which we cannot see anymore. That suggests that everything has a beginning. And so far, there is only one explanation for the beginning of our perceivable universe and that is a god of whatever form you prefer.

Another argument is the argument of morality and that without a god then there is no absolute morality. This means nothing is truly right nor wrong. This is because it is undeniable that all morality is relative unless given by a source of complete knowledge. Because who can assert something is good without being able to see all aspects of that thing? And so, if you were to take an atheistic view then you would also have to admit that there is nothing inherently right about taking that view. In fact there's nothing wrong or right with any action. And yet all people still live their own lives with an inherent understanding that some things are simply right and wrong. This basically states that believing in a void after life is a self defeating mindset that no one can nor would logically live their lives based on.

There are some others but for the sake of time lets start with these. Any thoughts?
User avatar
#102 - Bubmaster (01/30/2016) [-]
You cannot claim that there has to be an intelligent creator because we can't explain how the universe started. When the universe began, so did time, physics, and everything else, so the mechanisms for us to even begin to perceive what was going on beforehand did not exist until after the universe expanded. The only outcome we can determine from this is that we don't know what happened yet. Referring back to my previous statement, you have to take a leap of faith over a gap of logic to believe that there is a god behind it, as there is no logical step that can be taken to prove, without a doubt, that it was a god who created the universe. Throughout history, people have used gods to describe things they don't understand, until science has pointed them in other directions. One example I like to think of is lightning and how most religions interpreted it as the wrath of god, until we learned it was an ice particle mosh pit that caused it. On the subject of morality, morality has developed in humans over the course of evolution for a few reasons. Humans are a species that benefits from working together, as do many species, like hunting in groups to increase survivability and kill rate, raising children together to discourage predators, etc. Overall being in a group dilutes individual weaknesses across a group. This allowed the most social and friendly humans to survive, setting the basics of morality. Another thing our morality stems from is the fact that young humans are practically fucking useless until they mature, creating a strong dependence on the group, and thus viewing your elders as necessary to your own survival. Eventually, as we geared ourselves toward intellectualism, the elders also contained wisdom and knowledge, making them useful to us still. So, essentially, morals are key for human survival and, as nature do, help an individual survive and get some sweet poontang.
User avatar
#103 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
What gap of logic are you talking about? You said that we don't know how everything started and I agree. There is only one explanation that makes sense and that is that was some creator. The alternative is to say that it came from nothing which lacks sense. Besides these two, there is no real proposed origin of the universe. So logically you either believe in some creation story or you say "Maybe everything just...popped into existence?" Which seems more logical to you?

As for the use of gods to explain things. Why does our extended understanding change things? Could one not say that we used to think lightening was the wrath of some god and now we think that mosh pits of ice are the wrath of some god.

And what you are talking about there, with morality, is relative morality. A type of morality that is dictated by opinion or situation. And if it is our working together that helps us survive then it is just as acceptable that killing threats to oneself helps one survive as well. There is nothing inherent about getting along that makes it right in terms of relative morality. If you dictate morality by the natural laws of survival and procreation then all is permissible to this ends, including ridding ourselves of unwanted elements, taking so we might survive over others, and so forth.

Absolute morality, on the other hand, could only come from a deity or all knowing power. This is why no human is qualified to decide what is right and wrong. Even the best of us only have objective judgments to lean upon.

So if you wish to live by relative morality then how can you be again someone else's idea of morality sense all you have to go on is your own? What makes yours correct while theirs wrong?
User avatar
#104 - Bubmaster (01/30/2016) [-]
You're trying to apply the current physics of our universe, the fact that something can't just pop into existence, to an entity that existed before physics and time. This thought process requires linear time, a concept that only exists because we perceive it to. So, it is technically possible that it popped into existence, but in a way impossibly unperceivable to us. We can only think and understand using the physics presented before us. The gap in logic I'm referring to is the fact that nothing about not knowing something means that it's a god. The burden of proof lies on someone to prove that it was a god, not to prove that nothing else besides that makes sense yet. Even if you think that it doesn't make sense without a god, you're putting your cart before the horse if you use that as a conclusion, as you are trying to prove your theory with your hypothesis. It'd be like saying that I don't understand why I'm held down to Earth, nothing else but giant weasels in the sky blowing down on us currently makes sense to me, therefore it's giant space weasels. The obvious gap in logic here is that no one has ever observed or tested to obtain this conclusion. On morality, there is only subjective(relative as you called it) morality, as thoughts and ideas such have to be subjective. There is no objective morality, and this is observable through the studies of different cultures. What would be considered heinous crimes in some cultures, such as pedophillia, would be everyday life in others. If morality were objective(absolute), there would be little to no conflict, as it would be nearly impossible to offend. The only morals that seem to be objective are the ones that are beneficial to all man, such as not murdering your allies, which are proven to be non objective by not being present within all cultures. You last question, however, is the question of the millennia, and the focus of a lot of philosophers. If that question could be answered, there would be no conflict. There is no objective right or wrong, only what each individual perceives to be right or wrong, in which conflict will always arise. And, depending on your subjective morals, could cause you to respond differently, some with negotiation but others with violence.
User avatar
#105 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
And I agree with the first part of your post. That a timeline necessitates a start to that timeline. But if we keep in mind what is being argued here, which is that its unfair to say that the logical conclusion is an atheistic void after death, then we are pitting the idea that the universe was created by a being we can't understand vs the idea that the universe was created by a "thing" we can't understand which isn't thinking, otherwise that would be a god.

So do keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove anything to you in this particular argument. That is a whole different debate that I'd be happy to get into if you have the time. Our argument is over what is more logical to believe. A distinction I hope you can appreciate.

So then in order to figure out which one is more logical to assume, we have to look at the supporting evidence for each. There really is no evidence for the "I don't know what made everything" argument. Modern science has some possible insight into a very long ways back in time but, as of yet, cannot touch on what started it all off or even how to define the beginning of all things perceivable. But we can logically tack on that to assume there is no life after death is to assume there is no god as well, at least none of the major religions or any that I've ever heard of.

The alternative is that the universe was created by an known or unknown deity. The evidence for this one is considerable.

There is the first thing any logical human being should look at in the number of people who believe it is true. And while this isn't a good argument for any single religion being the right one, it is solid evidence that some deity is real. This comes from the fact that there are many people who claim to have been talked to by a god. Regardless if you believe them or not, it cannot be dismissed as evidence for what else do we have in this world but the word of others. So once again, not to say everyone who claims to see or hear a god is being truthful or sane, merely that it should be taken into account.

Next comes the rational of fairness. It is imperative, for a sane human being, to believe the world is fair. That is to say that there is an order to the universe and that that order will continue to function. And order, by most definitions, implies purpose and thoughtful design. After all, one wouldn't find a watch in a mud puddle and think "I wonder how nature formed this." No, logically you would assume it were made by a thinking creator. In the same way, the order and laws of nature reflect, in the human mind, a creator more so than random chance of creation. And if the universe were made out of random chance, including the outer most bounds of it's fabric such as time, then what are the odds those laws will be changed or modified at random? It seems more logical to believe in intentionally designed order than randomly chanced upon order.

This is closely related to the next evidence: human desire for purpose. This one is a bit more subjective, but so far as I have seen, no one, including atheists, lives without purpose. That purpose can be found in the belief that, despite the lack of after death reward, actions in life matter to those who experience them. And I think most would agree that a belief in actions in life carrying over into the potential eternity or at least the continuation of an after life is of greater purpose than what one would do in life alone. And so what logical mind, when given the choice, wouldn't choose the belief which held greater promise of purpose?

(Continued below.)
User avatar
#106 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
(Continued here.)

The last backing for the belief in a creator I can offer is gain. The logical weighing of which "gamble" is more worth the effort. This is an old argument often used against atheistic ideas and I think it fits well here too in the argument for which is more logical. That if one were to choose to live as though the universe were a random happening not tended by a celestial gardener, then one would be resigning all actions to take place in life. This means that there is no reward to be had in the afterlife. However, even if one had to sift through the numerous religions, one would be infinitely more likely to find the correct and thus rewarding belief than if one were to choose not to "play the game." So once again, going purely by a weighing of the most logical, one would gamble for the possibility of reward instead of the guarantee of none.

I know this was very long and I do apologize but I look forward to your response should you choose to read this novel.
User avatar
#87 - popeflatus (01/30/2016) [-]
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 This video features the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and explains why you can have a universe that comes from literally nothing with no god involved at all.

When you talk about their being objective morality I simply refute you. Morals are not determined by the Bible but by ourselves and have evolved over time.
User avatar
#100 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
But how can you base objective moral values on nature when nature is morally neutral? That argument seems, to me, to be completely subjective. Is it right or wrong that a wolf kill a deer and eat it? Is it wrong that the deer failed to survive? Of course not, these are not moral issues, these are simply mechanisms of nature.

In that way, I can't see how you would say that morals evolved. If you go with the natural view of morality then it would go against ones morals to help another human being in some situations. Mainly when there is no perceivable gain for you from it. They will contribute nothing to society, they will not breed, and they will be nothing but a leach on other humans should they continue to live. And example of this can be found in the elderly.

And so what you seem to be suggesting is that any means is justified if the ends is survival be procreation. But what makes that objectively true? There doesn't seem to be anything behind that argument. What does it matter should a human life or even all human life stop? The answer is, without God, nothing. So once again we come to the conclusion that there can be no objective morality without a god of some sort.

As for the video, his snarky jabs aside, he breezes over a lot of, what I thought was the main point of the video, which is that everything could come from nothing.

Through out the video he talks about nothing. But then seems to use two types of nothing interchangeably. The two types of nothing are, what I would call, true nothing and spacial nothing.

Spacial nothing is the one he talks about most directly. This is the type of nothing that isn't really nothing, it's a synonym of "space." For example, if I were to have a basket in a vacuum and asked you "What's in this basket?" then you would well within logic to say "Nothing is in that basket." That is spacial nothing. Because there is something in that basket, and that thing is space. There is exactly the amount of space inside from one inner edge of the basket to the other edge. And you don't even need to points to have spacial nothing, it can be done with one point. Such as "There is nothing from this point to infinity in that direction."

True nothing is a self defeating definition. That's because as soon as you label it with the name "nothing" it becomes a thing. We're not talking about an empty space, that's a thing. We're not even talking about the lack of an empty space, that is also a thing. Anything that can be put relative to anything else is a thing. And that's where his assertion falls short.

Yes, it's possible to imagine that the universe cancels out to 0 and it's simple mathematics that you can take 0 and get 0 = 1-1 all the way to 0 = infinity - infinity. But that's not working within the bounds of true nothing. So if energy(which is that same as matter) came from nothing, where did the nothing come from?
#15 - I meant the first part where he says "Oblivion: The most …  [+] (12 replies) 01/29/2016 on What Happens After You Die +1
User avatar
#85 - popeflatus (01/30/2016) [-]
It's the most rational because firstly thee is no evidence for ay after life whatsoever. Secondly, we know that consciousness is due to the activity of our brains. When the brain dies, consciousness ceases, so you get "oblivion".
User avatar
#17 - Bubmaster (01/29/2016) [-]
Something that is rational uses logic, reason, evidence, and not emotions, to make sense of an idea. Religions are commonly based upon faith, which does not always take logic into consideration, usually relying on your belief and strong emotions toward/about God, Vishnu, Yahweh, etc. to fill in the gaps of missing logic. Something being irrational doesn't make it objectively false, as it could be things we can't/don't understand yet. If you believe that logic is important, then you will observe something that is irrational as false whereas someone who is religious could see something irrational as possible through their deity, who they believe, without empirical proof(ergo irrationally) can defy our current understandings logic and reason.
User avatar
#18 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
And I agree with your assessment of what rationality is and its relation to logic and reason. However it is still debatable as to whether believing there is a void after death or a continuation is the more rational.

I'm happy to have that debate with you if you'd like but it may end up being quite long and involved.
User avatar
#19 - Bubmaster (01/29/2016) [-]
It's not like I have anything better to do, and it might be nice to talk to someone who isn't getting aggro from the start, haha. As I see it, with our current knowledge of the human consciousness, the only logical conclusion we can come to is that there is nothing after death, as the only thing we can observe that facilitates consciousness ceases its function.
User avatar
#20 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
Well, to avoid going into an specific religion, there is a necessity for a god. This necessity comes from various logical realizations.

One, perhaps one of the simplest, would be the origin argument. That is to say that everything has to come from somewhere. There's nothing in our observable perception that doesn't have a starting point that we can trace back up to the point we can no longer reasonably see where the line began. And so it's logical to conclude that this change over time went back before that point past which we cannot see anymore. That suggests that everything has a beginning. And so far, there is only one explanation for the beginning of our perceivable universe and that is a god of whatever form you prefer.

Another argument is the argument of morality and that without a god then there is no absolute morality. This means nothing is truly right nor wrong. This is because it is undeniable that all morality is relative unless given by a source of complete knowledge. Because who can assert something is good without being able to see all aspects of that thing? And so, if you were to take an atheistic view then you would also have to admit that there is nothing inherently right about taking that view. In fact there's nothing wrong or right with any action. And yet all people still live their own lives with an inherent understanding that some things are simply right and wrong. This basically states that believing in a void after life is a self defeating mindset that no one can nor would logically live their lives based on.

There are some others but for the sake of time lets start with these. Any thoughts?
User avatar
#102 - Bubmaster (01/30/2016) [-]
You cannot claim that there has to be an intelligent creator because we can't explain how the universe started. When the universe began, so did time, physics, and everything else, so the mechanisms for us to even begin to perceive what was going on beforehand did not exist until after the universe expanded. The only outcome we can determine from this is that we don't know what happened yet. Referring back to my previous statement, you have to take a leap of faith over a gap of logic to believe that there is a god behind it, as there is no logical step that can be taken to prove, without a doubt, that it was a god who created the universe. Throughout history, people have used gods to describe things they don't understand, until science has pointed them in other directions. One example I like to think of is lightning and how most religions interpreted it as the wrath of god, until we learned it was an ice particle mosh pit that caused it. On the subject of morality, morality has developed in humans over the course of evolution for a few reasons. Humans are a species that benefits from working together, as do many species, like hunting in groups to increase survivability and kill rate, raising children together to discourage predators, etc. Overall being in a group dilutes individual weaknesses across a group. This allowed the most social and friendly humans to survive, setting the basics of morality. Another thing our morality stems from is the fact that young humans are practically fucking useless until they mature, creating a strong dependence on the group, and thus viewing your elders as necessary to your own survival. Eventually, as we geared ourselves toward intellectualism, the elders also contained wisdom and knowledge, making them useful to us still. So, essentially, morals are key for human survival and, as nature do, help an individual survive and get some sweet poontang.
User avatar
#103 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
What gap of logic are you talking about? You said that we don't know how everything started and I agree. There is only one explanation that makes sense and that is that was some creator. The alternative is to say that it came from nothing which lacks sense. Besides these two, there is no real proposed origin of the universe. So logically you either believe in some creation story or you say "Maybe everything just...popped into existence?" Which seems more logical to you?

As for the use of gods to explain things. Why does our extended understanding change things? Could one not say that we used to think lightening was the wrath of some god and now we think that mosh pits of ice are the wrath of some god.

And what you are talking about there, with morality, is relative morality. A type of morality that is dictated by opinion or situation. And if it is our working together that helps us survive then it is just as acceptable that killing threats to oneself helps one survive as well. There is nothing inherent about getting along that makes it right in terms of relative morality. If you dictate morality by the natural laws of survival and procreation then all is permissible to this ends, including ridding ourselves of unwanted elements, taking so we might survive over others, and so forth.

Absolute morality, on the other hand, could only come from a deity or all knowing power. This is why no human is qualified to decide what is right and wrong. Even the best of us only have objective judgments to lean upon.

So if you wish to live by relative morality then how can you be again someone else's idea of morality sense all you have to go on is your own? What makes yours correct while theirs wrong?
User avatar
#104 - Bubmaster (01/30/2016) [-]
You're trying to apply the current physics of our universe, the fact that something can't just pop into existence, to an entity that existed before physics and time. This thought process requires linear time, a concept that only exists because we perceive it to. So, it is technically possible that it popped into existence, but in a way impossibly unperceivable to us. We can only think and understand using the physics presented before us. The gap in logic I'm referring to is the fact that nothing about not knowing something means that it's a god. The burden of proof lies on someone to prove that it was a god, not to prove that nothing else besides that makes sense yet. Even if you think that it doesn't make sense without a god, you're putting your cart before the horse if you use that as a conclusion, as you are trying to prove your theory with your hypothesis. It'd be like saying that I don't understand why I'm held down to Earth, nothing else but giant weasels in the sky blowing down on us currently makes sense to me, therefore it's giant space weasels. The obvious gap in logic here is that no one has ever observed or tested to obtain this conclusion. On morality, there is only subjective(relative as you called it) morality, as thoughts and ideas such have to be subjective. There is no objective morality, and this is observable through the studies of different cultures. What would be considered heinous crimes in some cultures, such as pedophillia, would be everyday life in others. If morality were objective(absolute), there would be little to no conflict, as it would be nearly impossible to offend. The only morals that seem to be objective are the ones that are beneficial to all man, such as not murdering your allies, which are proven to be non objective by not being present within all cultures. You last question, however, is the question of the millennia, and the focus of a lot of philosophers. If that question could be answered, there would be no conflict. There is no objective right or wrong, only what each individual perceives to be right or wrong, in which conflict will always arise. And, depending on your subjective morals, could cause you to respond differently, some with negotiation but others with violence.
User avatar
#105 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
And I agree with the first part of your post. That a timeline necessitates a start to that timeline. But if we keep in mind what is being argued here, which is that its unfair to say that the logical conclusion is an atheistic void after death, then we are pitting the idea that the universe was created by a being we can't understand vs the idea that the universe was created by a "thing" we can't understand which isn't thinking, otherwise that would be a god.

So do keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove anything to you in this particular argument. That is a whole different debate that I'd be happy to get into if you have the time. Our argument is over what is more logical to believe. A distinction I hope you can appreciate.

So then in order to figure out which one is more logical to assume, we have to look at the supporting evidence for each. There really is no evidence for the "I don't know what made everything" argument. Modern science has some possible insight into a very long ways back in time but, as of yet, cannot touch on what started it all off or even how to define the beginning of all things perceivable. But we can logically tack on that to assume there is no life after death is to assume there is no god as well, at least none of the major religions or any that I've ever heard of.

The alternative is that the universe was created by an known or unknown deity. The evidence for this one is considerable.

There is the first thing any logical human being should look at in the number of people who believe it is true. And while this isn't a good argument for any single religion being the right one, it is solid evidence that some deity is real. This comes from the fact that there are many people who claim to have been talked to by a god. Regardless if you believe them or not, it cannot be dismissed as evidence for what else do we have in this world but the word of others. So once again, not to say everyone who claims to see or hear a god is being truthful or sane, merely that it should be taken into account.

Next comes the rational of fairness. It is imperative, for a sane human being, to believe the world is fair. That is to say that there is an order to the universe and that that order will continue to function. And order, by most definitions, implies purpose and thoughtful design. After all, one wouldn't find a watch in a mud puddle and think "I wonder how nature formed this." No, logically you would assume it were made by a thinking creator. In the same way, the order and laws of nature reflect, in the human mind, a creator more so than random chance of creation. And if the universe were made out of random chance, including the outer most bounds of it's fabric such as time, then what are the odds those laws will be changed or modified at random? It seems more logical to believe in intentionally designed order than randomly chanced upon order.

This is closely related to the next evidence: human desire for purpose. This one is a bit more subjective, but so far as I have seen, no one, including atheists, lives without purpose. That purpose can be found in the belief that, despite the lack of after death reward, actions in life matter to those who experience them. And I think most would agree that a belief in actions in life carrying over into the potential eternity or at least the continuation of an after life is of greater purpose than what one would do in life alone. And so what logical mind, when given the choice, wouldn't choose the belief which held greater promise of purpose?

(Continued below.)
User avatar
#106 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
(Continued here.)

The last backing for the belief in a creator I can offer is gain. The logical weighing of which "gamble" is more worth the effort. This is an old argument often used against atheistic ideas and I think it fits well here too in the argument for which is more logical. That if one were to choose to live as though the universe were a random happening not tended by a celestial gardener, then one would be resigning all actions to take place in life. This means that there is no reward to be had in the afterlife. However, even if one had to sift through the numerous religions, one would be infinitely more likely to find the correct and thus rewarding belief than if one were to choose not to "play the game." So once again, going purely by a weighing of the most logical, one would gamble for the possibility of reward instead of the guarantee of none.

I know this was very long and I do apologize but I look forward to your response should you choose to read this novel.
User avatar
#87 - popeflatus (01/30/2016) [-]
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 This video features the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and explains why you can have a universe that comes from literally nothing with no god involved at all.

When you talk about their being objective morality I simply refute you. Morals are not determined by the Bible but by ourselves and have evolved over time.
User avatar
#100 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
But how can you base objective moral values on nature when nature is morally neutral? That argument seems, to me, to be completely subjective. Is it right or wrong that a wolf kill a deer and eat it? Is it wrong that the deer failed to survive? Of course not, these are not moral issues, these are simply mechanisms of nature.

In that way, I can't see how you would say that morals evolved. If you go with the natural view of morality then it would go against ones morals to help another human being in some situations. Mainly when there is no perceivable gain for you from it. They will contribute nothing to society, they will not breed, and they will be nothing but a leach on other humans should they continue to live. And example of this can be found in the elderly.

And so what you seem to be suggesting is that any means is justified if the ends is survival be procreation. But what makes that objectively true? There doesn't seem to be anything behind that argument. What does it matter should a human life or even all human life stop? The answer is, without God, nothing. So once again we come to the conclusion that there can be no objective morality without a god of some sort.

As for the video, his snarky jabs aside, he breezes over a lot of, what I thought was the main point of the video, which is that everything could come from nothing.

Through out the video he talks about nothing. But then seems to use two types of nothing interchangeably. The two types of nothing are, what I would call, true nothing and spacial nothing.

Spacial nothing is the one he talks about most directly. This is the type of nothing that isn't really nothing, it's a synonym of "space." For example, if I were to have a basket in a vacuum and asked you "What's in this basket?" then you would well within logic to say "Nothing is in that basket." That is spacial nothing. Because there is something in that basket, and that thing is space. There is exactly the amount of space inside from one inner edge of the basket to the other edge. And you don't even need to points to have spacial nothing, it can be done with one point. Such as "There is nothing from this point to infinity in that direction."

True nothing is a self defeating definition. That's because as soon as you label it with the name "nothing" it becomes a thing. We're not talking about an empty space, that's a thing. We're not even talking about the lack of an empty space, that is also a thing. Anything that can be put relative to anything else is a thing. And that's where his assertion falls short.

Yes, it's possible to imagine that the universe cancels out to 0 and it's simple mathematics that you can take 0 and get 0 = 1-1 all the way to 0 = infinity - infinity. But that's not working within the bounds of true nothing. So if energy(which is that same as matter) came from nothing, where did the nothing come from?
#14 - What's the difference between the two? The amount of carbon? T…  [+] (3 replies) 01/29/2016 on two stick pick +3
User avatar
#26 - ettne (01/29/2016) [-]
composition and tempering.
User avatar
#15 - Ripsometime (01/29/2016) [-]
Carbon content mostly, since high carbon steel gets hardest when put through a hardening process such as "Martensitic transformation". More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardening_ (metallurgy)
User avatar
#16 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
Thanks Jimmy.
#13 - This may not have a religious agenda but it might have a bit o…  [+] (15 replies) 01/29/2016 on What Happens After You Die 0
#119 - anon (03/06/2016) [-]
come to the religion board. the atheists need pwning
User avatar
#14 - Bubmaster (01/29/2016) [-]
It's not anti-religious if it's facts. He only states the logic of Heaven/Hell as portrayed in the Bible. If you think that that logic seems absurd, then it is you who determined that the rules seems unfair.
User avatar
#15 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
I meant the first part where he says "Oblivion: The most rational." And so naturally I'm like "Hold on their neighbor. Are we presenting facts or opinions here?"
User avatar
#85 - popeflatus (01/30/2016) [-]
It's the most rational because firstly thee is no evidence for ay after life whatsoever. Secondly, we know that consciousness is due to the activity of our brains. When the brain dies, consciousness ceases, so you get "oblivion".
User avatar
#17 - Bubmaster (01/29/2016) [-]
Something that is rational uses logic, reason, evidence, and not emotions, to make sense of an idea. Religions are commonly based upon faith, which does not always take logic into consideration, usually relying on your belief and strong emotions toward/about God, Vishnu, Yahweh, etc. to fill in the gaps of missing logic. Something being irrational doesn't make it objectively false, as it could be things we can't/don't understand yet. If you believe that logic is important, then you will observe something that is irrational as false whereas someone who is religious could see something irrational as possible through their deity, who they believe, without empirical proof(ergo irrationally) can defy our current understandings logic and reason.
User avatar
#18 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
And I agree with your assessment of what rationality is and its relation to logic and reason. However it is still debatable as to whether believing there is a void after death or a continuation is the more rational.

I'm happy to have that debate with you if you'd like but it may end up being quite long and involved.
User avatar
#19 - Bubmaster (01/29/2016) [-]
It's not like I have anything better to do, and it might be nice to talk to someone who isn't getting aggro from the start, haha. As I see it, with our current knowledge of the human consciousness, the only logical conclusion we can come to is that there is nothing after death, as the only thing we can observe that facilitates consciousness ceases its function.
User avatar
#20 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
Well, to avoid going into an specific religion, there is a necessity for a god. This necessity comes from various logical realizations.

One, perhaps one of the simplest, would be the origin argument. That is to say that everything has to come from somewhere. There's nothing in our observable perception that doesn't have a starting point that we can trace back up to the point we can no longer reasonably see where the line began. And so it's logical to conclude that this change over time went back before that point past which we cannot see anymore. That suggests that everything has a beginning. And so far, there is only one explanation for the beginning of our perceivable universe and that is a god of whatever form you prefer.

Another argument is the argument of morality and that without a god then there is no absolute morality. This means nothing is truly right nor wrong. This is because it is undeniable that all morality is relative unless given by a source of complete knowledge. Because who can assert something is good without being able to see all aspects of that thing? And so, if you were to take an atheistic view then you would also have to admit that there is nothing inherently right about taking that view. In fact there's nothing wrong or right with any action. And yet all people still live their own lives with an inherent understanding that some things are simply right and wrong. This basically states that believing in a void after life is a self defeating mindset that no one can nor would logically live their lives based on.

There are some others but for the sake of time lets start with these. Any thoughts?
User avatar
#102 - Bubmaster (01/30/2016) [-]
You cannot claim that there has to be an intelligent creator because we can't explain how the universe started. When the universe began, so did time, physics, and everything else, so the mechanisms for us to even begin to perceive what was going on beforehand did not exist until after the universe expanded. The only outcome we can determine from this is that we don't know what happened yet. Referring back to my previous statement, you have to take a leap of faith over a gap of logic to believe that there is a god behind it, as there is no logical step that can be taken to prove, without a doubt, that it was a god who created the universe. Throughout history, people have used gods to describe things they don't understand, until science has pointed them in other directions. One example I like to think of is lightning and how most religions interpreted it as the wrath of god, until we learned it was an ice particle mosh pit that caused it. On the subject of morality, morality has developed in humans over the course of evolution for a few reasons. Humans are a species that benefits from working together, as do many species, like hunting in groups to increase survivability and kill rate, raising children together to discourage predators, etc. Overall being in a group dilutes individual weaknesses across a group. This allowed the most social and friendly humans to survive, setting the basics of morality. Another thing our morality stems from is the fact that young humans are practically fucking useless until they mature, creating a strong dependence on the group, and thus viewing your elders as necessary to your own survival. Eventually, as we geared ourselves toward intellectualism, the elders also contained wisdom and knowledge, making them useful to us still. So, essentially, morals are key for human survival and, as nature do, help an individual survive and get some sweet poontang.
User avatar
#103 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
What gap of logic are you talking about? You said that we don't know how everything started and I agree. There is only one explanation that makes sense and that is that was some creator. The alternative is to say that it came from nothing which lacks sense. Besides these two, there is no real proposed origin of the universe. So logically you either believe in some creation story or you say "Maybe everything just...popped into existence?" Which seems more logical to you?

As for the use of gods to explain things. Why does our extended understanding change things? Could one not say that we used to think lightening was the wrath of some god and now we think that mosh pits of ice are the wrath of some god.

And what you are talking about there, with morality, is relative morality. A type of morality that is dictated by opinion or situation. And if it is our working together that helps us survive then it is just as acceptable that killing threats to oneself helps one survive as well. There is nothing inherent about getting along that makes it right in terms of relative morality. If you dictate morality by the natural laws of survival and procreation then all is permissible to this ends, including ridding ourselves of unwanted elements, taking so we might survive over others, and so forth.

Absolute morality, on the other hand, could only come from a deity or all knowing power. This is why no human is qualified to decide what is right and wrong. Even the best of us only have objective judgments to lean upon.

So if you wish to live by relative morality then how can you be again someone else's idea of morality sense all you have to go on is your own? What makes yours correct while theirs wrong?
User avatar
#104 - Bubmaster (01/30/2016) [-]
You're trying to apply the current physics of our universe, the fact that something can't just pop into existence, to an entity that existed before physics and time. This thought process requires linear time, a concept that only exists because we perceive it to. So, it is technically possible that it popped into existence, but in a way impossibly unperceivable to us. We can only think and understand using the physics presented before us. The gap in logic I'm referring to is the fact that nothing about not knowing something means that it's a god. The burden of proof lies on someone to prove that it was a god, not to prove that nothing else besides that makes sense yet. Even if you think that it doesn't make sense without a god, you're putting your cart before the horse if you use that as a conclusion, as you are trying to prove your theory with your hypothesis. It'd be like saying that I don't understand why I'm held down to Earth, nothing else but giant weasels in the sky blowing down on us currently makes sense to me, therefore it's giant space weasels. The obvious gap in logic here is that no one has ever observed or tested to obtain this conclusion. On morality, there is only subjective(relative as you called it) morality, as thoughts and ideas such have to be subjective. There is no objective morality, and this is observable through the studies of different cultures. What would be considered heinous crimes in some cultures, such as pedophillia, would be everyday life in others. If morality were objective(absolute), there would be little to no conflict, as it would be nearly impossible to offend. The only morals that seem to be objective are the ones that are beneficial to all man, such as not murdering your allies, which are proven to be non objective by not being present within all cultures. You last question, however, is the question of the millennia, and the focus of a lot of philosophers. If that question could be answered, there would be no conflict. There is no objective right or wrong, only what each individual perceives to be right or wrong, in which conflict will always arise. And, depending on your subjective morals, could cause you to respond differently, some with negotiation but others with violence.
User avatar
#105 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
And I agree with the first part of your post. That a timeline necessitates a start to that timeline. But if we keep in mind what is being argued here, which is that its unfair to say that the logical conclusion is an atheistic void after death, then we are pitting the idea that the universe was created by a being we can't understand vs the idea that the universe was created by a "thing" we can't understand which isn't thinking, otherwise that would be a god.

So do keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove anything to you in this particular argument. That is a whole different debate that I'd be happy to get into if you have the time. Our argument is over what is more logical to believe. A distinction I hope you can appreciate.

So then in order to figure out which one is more logical to assume, we have to look at the supporting evidence for each. There really is no evidence for the "I don't know what made everything" argument. Modern science has some possible insight into a very long ways back in time but, as of yet, cannot touch on what started it all off or even how to define the beginning of all things perceivable. But we can logically tack on that to assume there is no life after death is to assume there is no god as well, at least none of the major religions or any that I've ever heard of.

The alternative is that the universe was created by an known or unknown deity. The evidence for this one is considerable.

There is the first thing any logical human being should look at in the number of people who believe it is true. And while this isn't a good argument for any single religion being the right one, it is solid evidence that some deity is real. This comes from the fact that there are many people who claim to have been talked to by a god. Regardless if you believe them or not, it cannot be dismissed as evidence for what else do we have in this world but the word of others. So once again, not to say everyone who claims to see or hear a god is being truthful or sane, merely that it should be taken into account.

Next comes the rational of fairness. It is imperative, for a sane human being, to believe the world is fair. That is to say that there is an order to the universe and that that order will continue to function. And order, by most definitions, implies purpose and thoughtful design. After all, one wouldn't find a watch in a mud puddle and think "I wonder how nature formed this." No, logically you would assume it were made by a thinking creator. In the same way, the order and laws of nature reflect, in the human mind, a creator more so than random chance of creation. And if the universe were made out of random chance, including the outer most bounds of it's fabric such as time, then what are the odds those laws will be changed or modified at random? It seems more logical to believe in intentionally designed order than randomly chanced upon order.

This is closely related to the next evidence: human desire for purpose. This one is a bit more subjective, but so far as I have seen, no one, including atheists, lives without purpose. That purpose can be found in the belief that, despite the lack of after death reward, actions in life matter to those who experience them. And I think most would agree that a belief in actions in life carrying over into the potential eternity or at least the continuation of an after life is of greater purpose than what one would do in life alone. And so what logical mind, when given the choice, wouldn't choose the belief which held greater promise of purpose?

(Continued below.)
User avatar
#106 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
(Continued here.)

The last backing for the belief in a creator I can offer is gain. The logical weighing of which "gamble" is more worth the effort. This is an old argument often used against atheistic ideas and I think it fits well here too in the argument for which is more logical. That if one were to choose to live as though the universe were a random happening not tended by a celestial gardener, then one would be resigning all actions to take place in life. This means that there is no reward to be had in the afterlife. However, even if one had to sift through the numerous religions, one would be infinitely more likely to find the correct and thus rewarding belief than if one were to choose not to "play the game." So once again, going purely by a weighing of the most logical, one would gamble for the possibility of reward instead of the guarantee of none.

I know this was very long and I do apologize but I look forward to your response should you choose to read this novel.
User avatar
#87 - popeflatus (01/30/2016) [-]
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 This video features the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and explains why you can have a universe that comes from literally nothing with no god involved at all.

When you talk about their being objective morality I simply refute you. Morals are not determined by the Bible but by ourselves and have evolved over time.
User avatar
#100 - Vandeekree (01/30/2016) [-]
But how can you base objective moral values on nature when nature is morally neutral? That argument seems, to me, to be completely subjective. Is it right or wrong that a wolf kill a deer and eat it? Is it wrong that the deer failed to survive? Of course not, these are not moral issues, these are simply mechanisms of nature.

In that way, I can't see how you would say that morals evolved. If you go with the natural view of morality then it would go against ones morals to help another human being in some situations. Mainly when there is no perceivable gain for you from it. They will contribute nothing to society, they will not breed, and they will be nothing but a leach on other humans should they continue to live. And example of this can be found in the elderly.

And so what you seem to be suggesting is that any means is justified if the ends is survival be procreation. But what makes that objectively true? There doesn't seem to be anything behind that argument. What does it matter should a human life or even all human life stop? The answer is, without God, nothing. So once again we come to the conclusion that there can be no objective morality without a god of some sort.

As for the video, his snarky jabs aside, he breezes over a lot of, what I thought was the main point of the video, which is that everything could come from nothing.

Through out the video he talks about nothing. But then seems to use two types of nothing interchangeably. The two types of nothing are, what I would call, true nothing and spacial nothing.

Spacial nothing is the one he talks about most directly. This is the type of nothing that isn't really nothing, it's a synonym of "space." For example, if I were to have a basket in a vacuum and asked you "What's in this basket?" then you would well within logic to say "Nothing is in that basket." That is spacial nothing. Because there is something in that basket, and that thing is space. There is exactly the amount of space inside from one inner edge of the basket to the other edge. And you don't even need to points to have spacial nothing, it can be done with one point. Such as "There is nothing from this point to infinity in that direction."

True nothing is a self defeating definition. That's because as soon as you label it with the name "nothing" it becomes a thing. We're not talking about an empty space, that's a thing. We're not even talking about the lack of an empty space, that is also a thing. Anything that can be put relative to anything else is a thing. And that's where his assertion falls short.

Yes, it's possible to imagine that the universe cancels out to 0 and it's simple mathematics that you can take 0 and get 0 = 1-1 all the way to 0 = infinity - infinity. But that's not working within the bounds of true nothing. So if energy(which is that same as matter) came from nothing, where did the nothing come from?
#7 - I'm just talking about the content. I've come across a ton of …  [+] (2 replies) 01/29/2016 on no ideas +3
User avatar
#8 - gragasvlad (01/29/2016) [-]
this was supposed to be a statement?! I thought it was supposed to be funny....
User avatar
#9 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
No, I wasn't attempting to make a joke. Clearly I wrote it poorly if people aren't understanding it's just a statement. Not meant to mock. Just mean to explain my thoughts and perhaps invite an explanation from others.
#11 - Totally irrelevant and nerdy question. Does steel actually spl…  [+] (8 replies) 01/29/2016 on two stick pick +16
#25 - anon (01/29/2016) [-]
as the others said, hard does, soft doesn't.
a well-made sword would have a hard edge and a soft back.
meaning the edge would splinter, but the back would not.
User avatar
#28 - archael (01/29/2016) [-]
Pretty sure the soft steel makes up the core underneath the hard steel.
User avatar
#22 - europe (01/29/2016) [-]
Hard steel splinters, soft steel bends
Good thing to know when you gotta get through a chain
User avatar
#13 - Ripsometime (01/29/2016) [-]
Hard steel does, soft steel doesn't
User avatar
#14 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
What's the difference between the two? The amount of carbon? The alloy composition?
User avatar
#26 - ettne (01/29/2016) [-]
composition and tempering.
User avatar
#15 - Ripsometime (01/29/2016) [-]
Carbon content mostly, since high carbon steel gets hardest when put through a hardening process such as "Martensitic transformation". More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardening_ (metallurgy)
User avatar
#16 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
Thanks Jimmy.
#5 - I feel like people do this a lot. They have an idea. Other peo…  [+] (4 replies) 01/29/2016 on no ideas +5
User avatar
#6 - gragasvlad (01/29/2016) [-]
Are you talking about feminism?
User avatar
#7 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
I'm just talking about the content. I've come across a ton of comics or artsy short films with this kind of message. That all ideas are repressed or forbidden. But I've not seen such repression.

So my only conclusion has been that people who think their ideas are being repressed simply have bad ideas that get shot down when they bring them into the open. And so, for whatever reason, they choose to say that society is repressing their ideas rather than that those ideas are rejected by others on lack of merit and not simply because they are new.

I'm certainly not aiming these statements at anyone. It's merely an observation.
User avatar
#8 - gragasvlad (01/29/2016) [-]
this was supposed to be a statement?! I thought it was supposed to be funny....
User avatar
#9 - Vandeekree (01/29/2016) [-]
No, I wasn't attempting to make a joke. Clearly I wrote it poorly if people aren't understanding it's just a statement. Not meant to mock. Just mean to explain my thoughts and perhaps invite an explanation from others.