Sociopath Community

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said:

It's also an odd stance because it's a baseline belief when most individuals understand it and take the extra step to search out a passion or a principle(s) to live by.

What's the point of doing that though other than personal fulfillment? 

Personal fulfillment? How about goals, aspirations, dreams, living life more comfortably? You didn't choose this life but you can certainly choose to live it more comfortably, it takes an investment in effort

Exactly, personal fulfillment. 

While the typical motivation is selfishly driven (arguably all motivations are), it is possible to turn that lens on itself and question how much value it actually has. 

Thinking family emphasis is about reproduction shows how many colors you are missing from your perspective. Family values and ethics, very little to do with having children.

Actually, most expressions related to going "the family way" tends to be related to having or otherwise raising children... 

So what are these "Family Values and Ethics" then? 

Family emphasis is not about reproduction in the least. Either you really have a reptile brain or you are being needlessly difficult on this minor issue. 

All I did was ask what the family values and ethics are if they aren't about reproduction, then related it to typical expressions used to show how it could be taken that way. 

By your stance, someone that has had 8 kids and runs has more of a family emphasis than a underage sibling that takes it upon themselves to support the family

That's a strawman. 

Nihilism is an escape for most.

Again, how is seeing that life has no purpose or value an escape instead of existential pain? Why not claim at this point that Depression's an escape for most? 

There is one area I can agree that it's "an escape for most", and that's in debate. Countering how much someone cares about something with "But nothing really matters" is bullshit, while entertaining everything on an equal playing field meanwhile is sporting. 

It is our default state to only care in the moment and how we feel at the time.

Not everyone's built the same, and if they stumbled onto Nihilism they were liable to fall into it naturally on their own. Nihilism itself isn't a studied perspective (or at least it doesn't have to be), or one based on immediate peer modeling, it's a view that in spite of it's contrary and assumptive nature also stands to question the value of everything. Nihilism is negative, yeah, but it's also still inherently Existential. 

The views tend to come from people that, at one point at least, viewed life as something that's out of control. It's no mystery why it tends to occur more often to the mentally ill, but that isn't the perspective's fault, that's the fault of those who'd be typically liable to fall into it.

Nihilism is a perfectly fine perspective that, more often than not, represents the next tier of life criticism after atheism has run it's course. For many on that path, once Theism is rendered meaningless in the grander scheme of things it doesn't take much to turn that same line of questioning towards everything else. 

Carnal pleasures have shaped humanity far more than isolated ideals and discipline. Most people today live weekend to weekend, with little concern for the future and even less planning for it. Reactionary masses that only care to shape what's going on for the day 

This is more of a general statement about decadence, and most that follow it probably aren't even Nihilists. 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is "nothing" because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life.

I'd say every perspective yields that, just replace "nothing" with whatever their bender is about. 

It sounds more like you dislike Atheism because you think it's arrogant enough to think it knows something at all (spoiler alert: that's most if not arguably all faiths).

You do a spoiler alert, just to rephrase my own words. I've addressed the implied arrogance of faith already. And yes it strikes me as very arrogant to think you have even an accurate opinion on the creation of existence itself. 

How zealous do you imagine most who practice faith are (including atheism as faith, even though for many it's marked by the belief that others make no sense)? A person can suppose that something works a certain way, figure that they have the most likely answer, without being as full of themselves as to say it could be no other way. 

Arrogance comes in all flavors, even Agnostic. I'm sure you've met your share of Agnostics that lord it over others how dumb they are for thinking that they know all the answers, which really translates to the Agnostic thinking that they know the answer by "knowing" it is unknowable. 

In the end it's the same ego expressions regardless, showing it's not about what faith is prescribed to, but rather what attitude they take with it. 

Call it zealous but it's true. We know nothing about something we know nothing about, anything more than guesses are arrogance.

Is it not worth the journey of forming our own perspective, merely because of an objective answer being unreachable to us at this time? Are we not entitled to our own opinions anymore? 

This is like people who call History shit because "it happened already", or Art a waste of time for it's "impracticality" or "wasted materials". The time spent not just learning the material, but more importantly reflecting on it, is where the introspective value is, as without taking a perspective on it it's just trivia. 

We don't need to know the answers, but the journey for answers at all is somewhat inherent to the human condition and we all take that journey a little differently. Said journey is inherently projective, too, so by the end of it we're liable to find ourselves. Their finding Atheism or Nihilism isn't what made them not try as hard by your standards, but rather that tendency may have been a contributing factor for their eventual subscription to Atheism/Nihilism. 

Basically, if they had never encountered Atheism or Nihilism in their lives, they'd still be extremely likely to reflect similar if not the same behaviors as otherwise. 

There are Atheists who are essentially waiting for that moment when something can prove it wrong, who instead of presuming "to know", they'd presume "to guess" until shown otherwise as their understanding of an Occam's Razor perspective. 

You will always have members of every group that are tiptoeing onto another.

How is an Atheist that isn't full of itself tiptoeing into other groups? This isn't even what I explained above. 

Atheists actively disbelieve or lack a belief in god. Anyone that would say they dont know, but would rather guess without commitment aren't atheist. I'm not talking about this group of people, only the group committed to the belief of non belief

Atheism just means they don't believe in Theism, not that they zealously deny and rebuke it. There isn't some bar to pass or tiers to climb to be a "true atheist", and like all causes there's always the cringe that comes from the squeaky wheels. The main split I tend to see when it comes to atheism is between if they "Think that Church is bad for people", the militant perspective, or "Wish they could have what they've got", the envious one. 

Many I've met presume to say what makes the most sense to them instead of being stupid enough to claim they "know the answers". The arrogance you're reflecting on is mutually exclusive from the philosophy, as it not only can be handled humbly, but often is. Many of them depending on their upbringing are actually rather tired of having to debate their faith with people, and prefer to not bring it up. 

I am addressing the points the title they identify with represents.

Which are what, stuff like how it's a "gateway to Nihilism" (and Depression)? 

The Nihilism tends to precede the Atheism. Even former religious sorts converting to Atheism tend to be in the bouts of a Nihilistic spiral ("What's the point of _____ if _____ isn't the case?") before swapping labels. Personally I'd attribute most of that to a culture backlash more so than atheism itself. 

You ought to be attacking whatever's making for the Nihilism instead of the Atheism, as while Atheism is itself often a symptom of Nihilism, Nihilism is usually a symptom of something more psychological in nature. 

It is circumstancial. It is too broad of a psychology topic to argue which vague, abstract idea came first when they are both massively present in society naturally. It would require a lot of unfounded assumptions

How is it too broad? 

You were discussing how Atheism is an unhealthy perspective to take, while I'm saying that Atheism is a counter culture perspective that reflects already existing traits within the individual. It's not like every person exposed to Atheism is going to pick it up, there has to be something inherent within them that made it click, and all it takes for any a-perspective is a critical opinion over something that exists around them. 

While a Christian for instance would be liable to not be one if they'd never heard of it, you could very easily have an Atheist or Nihilist who has never heard of those terms. This makes it easier to make it about individual psychology (philosophy helps a lot with that in general anyway). I don't see how this isn't something that could be discussed. 

Kestrel said:

Lol only you are making this implication that people need god or religion to not be depressed or nihilistic. I said only atheist, not agnostics or people who don't concern themselves with it.

The only sensible answer is agnosticism and I can see faith from how traditional we tend to be.

Atheism imo strikes me as defiant compensation, an answer for no reason at all on something we know little about.

I could say the exact same about religion. 

What I'm gathering here is that, much like your distaste towards the hypothetical, you see philosophical discussion as a waste of time. Philosophy, as opposed to portraying their psychology, to you is meant to denote a lifestyle, and that is a big part for how you could look at the subject with such a lack of depth. 

"There are Atheists who are essentially waiting for that moment when something can prove it wrong, who instead of presuming "to know", they'd presume "to guess" until shown otherwise as their understanding of an Occam's Razor perspective. "

^ This.

I haven't followed the full chain of posts. Generally I've heard people try to argue for the existence of God by assuming:

1. Man made God (e.g. the Christian God) is real.

or

2. There exists some conscious being that can explain how the Universe was created and dictates how the Universe works.

Most people tend to agree that it is difficult to argue for the existence of a man made (e.g. Christian) God, while it is easy to come up with arguments to refute it, statistically or otherwise. The beef I have with the second category is that I see no evidence to support that a conscious being is needed for the creation of the Universe.

Essentially, almost by definition, the second "God" encompasses everything that Science can not explain at the moment. Is it possible that a conscious being created the Universe? Sure, everything is possible. Is it required? I don't see any reason it would be.

It seems to me like the simpler explanation, as per Occam's razor, is that there exists *something* that can explain how the Universe was created. But I see no need to add complexity to that statement by stating that something has to be conscious, just like I don't go further to say that something calls himself/herself/itself Mickey Mouse, that his nose is blue, and hair gray.

The more complexity I add, the more likely I am to be wrong. The only way to offset that statistical bias is by evidence, which as far as I know there is none.

So, until proven otherwise, I think it's perfectly logical to assume God likely doesn't exist.

Legga said: 

I haven't followed the full chain of posts. 

This time around it's at least more like a series of vignettes, unlike the two Inquirer topics that work more like one or two straight lines. 

Essentially, almost by definition, the second "God" encompasses everything that Science can not explain at the moment.

So basically a placeholder taken by people that see the existence of some deific form seeming like the simpler answer over there being nothing. 

I'd still argue it's a very presumptive placeholder based on grander claims than saying that the world is purely physical and without objective value. 

Is it possible that a conscious being created the Universe? Sure, everything is possible. Is it required? I don't see any reason it would be. 

As I asked Spatial earlier, if we were created, why does that matter beyond the fear of punishment? 

If the world was consciously created but the thing(s) that did it don't give two shits about us, does it even matter beyond a historical and/or scientific basis? 

The more complexity I add, the more likely I am to be wrong.

"It doesn't get simpler than reading a book written by God himself." 

There's always room to spin it. 

The only way to offset that statistical bias is by evidence, which as far as I know there is none. 

So, until proven otherwise, I think it's perfectly logical to assume God likely doesn't exist.

The burden of proof ought to be on the believers of wild claims anyway, not on the critic skeptics of said claims. If they can't prove it to me then why should I take it seriously? 

Turncoat said:

This time around it's at least more like a series of vignettes, unlike the two Inquirer topics that work more like one or two straight lines. 

I'll read it once I have a bit more time. Maybe tomorrow.

So basically a placeholder taken by people that see the existence of some deific form seeming like the simpler answer over there being nothing. 

I'd still argue it's a very presumptive placeholder based on grander claims than saying that the world is purely physical and without objective value.

Yes, this is what I would say as well.

As I asked Spatial earlier, if we were created, why does that matter beyond the fear of punishment? 

If the world was consciously created but the thing(s) that did it don't give two shits about us, does it even matter beyond a historical and/or scientific basis?

Interesting view point. Yes, if there's no evidence and nothing we can verify, then the question seems irrelevant.

The more complexity I add, the more likely I am to be wrong.

"It doesn't get simpler than reading a book written by God himself." 

There's always room to spin it.

I think this was the original point by some church people who were trying to refute Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a "statistical" argument, so it's not an absolute statement (well, nothing is an absolute statement if we really get down to it). And if we have the bible, then clearly it's a very simple explanation for everything. From what I understand, there are still people trying to use Occam's razor to justify God, even Occam did.

And as funny as it sounds, having a book that explains everything is definitely simpler than trying to come up with your own theory. So Occam's razor *IS* refuted in a sense when it comes to man-made Gods.

But the exact statement by Occam's razor is that we should take the simplest argument "unless evidence points otherwise". And there is definitely good evidence against man-made Gods.

To me, it seems like anyone using Occam's razor to prove God (in the active God sense) is trying to sweep the complexity of "God" under the rug. Introducing "God" is simple, because I can say it in a simple understandable way.

But then we have to come up with N assumptions for the existence of God, like who created God? Why is he all-powerful? If he knows everything, isn't he infinitely complex? And why did he create the Universe? And many more. The "theory" needs to explain all those assumptions. And those implicit assumptions seem to inevitably fight against Occam's razor. At least that's the argument.

If someone can prove God is likely to exist through Occam's razor, convincingly, I'll be happy to correct my belief system.

The only way to offset that statistical bias is by evidence, which as far as I know there is none. 

So, until proven otherwise, I think it's perfectly logical to assume God likely doesn't exist.

The burden of proof ought to be on the believers of wild claims anyway, not on the critic skeptics of said claims. If they can't prove it to me then why should I take it seriously?

 That's also true, Hitchen's razor. QED.

Legga said: 

As I asked Spatial earlier, if we were created, why does that matter beyond the fear of punishment? 

If the world was consciously created but the thing(s) that did it don't give two shits about us, does it even matter beyond a historical and/or scientific basis?

Interesting view point. Yes, if there's no evidence and nothing we can verify, then the question seems irrelevant.

This is why karmic faiths that recycle the soul into newer forms make relatively more sense to me. It's more like a filtration system based on your general behavior instead of merely picking a winning side and following it's cult-like doctrines. One without knowledge or foresight of the world in such a system could still be an interactive part of it instead of just tossed into a pit of fire like trash. 

But then we have to come up with N assumptions for the existence of God, like who created God?

A being that transcends time and space could feasibly create itself.

This is actually one of the less complicated things to try to factor about God. Stuff like why God would punish us for eating an apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when he knew well in advance that we would, is something worth questioning for instance. 

Why is he all-powerful?

He technically does have limits.

Creating existence was explained to have taken him a finite amount of time (six days), so he's not "all-powerful", just "immesurably powerful". Also if he was all powerful then Satan and Humanity wouldn't be such a problem for Him. 

If he knows everything, isn't he infinitely complex?

I figure it's simpler to see him like a program or a robot. Seeing all of time and space at once and knowing the best possible choices for every action would mean that he'd have no actual choices he could make, rendering Him quite singular. One who cannot make mistakes is also one who doesn't have other choices beyond "the right ones". God is a slave to Reality, not the other way around. 

"Worker bees can leave
even drones can fly away
the queen is their slave"
- Fight Club

If you think about it, one who is omnipotent is trapped within the bounds of all reality as opposed to being free enough to explore it as we are. God is trapped within His own paradigm (but being beyond the struggles of time, that's probably fine for him, seeing as His feelings are completely alien when compared to a person). 

Time grants us perspective, a sense of history, a relative means of personal appraisal over gains and losses, feelings God could never understand beyond his creepy little Jesus puppet act He tried to pull on us through lacking any true sense of self-consequence. The limits of our frame grants us appreciation in relation to strength, distances, our own limitations, anything physical, while God has never really had to relate to such hindrance. 

Unlike Satan, God is completely inhuman. It's no wonder their faith creates a strange sense of loathing towards much of the human condition. 

And why did he create the Universe?

He wants attention. God in His younger days, before detaching from worldly events and allowing Science to take His place in people's lives as His way of easing into retirement, basically was like a small child or crazy cat lady that fucked with people by puppeteering little narratives for them. 

I'm agnostic. I don't know if there's a creator/god w/e but it makes sense to me that there could be. 

I think organized religion generally sucks. I mean Abrahamic religions are essentially from the bronze age and pre-date science. How can people take them literally?  Christianity is so dark and depressing too. Like, there's a dead man nailed to a cross in agony posted basically everywhere. That's fucked up. And then all the hatred Christians show towards other people and the crusades and crap they did throughout history. Never mind the pedophiles protected by churches. There's so much hypocrisy. So many friends I have that grew up in Christianity were abused too. It just seems like it's all about repression and guilt. And that makes religious people secretly lash out behind closed doors. Ugh. 

The community of going to church seems like it could be nice if they aren't crazy fundamentalists and just chill together and eat pie. My family never did that so I don't really know.

MissCommunication said: 

I'm agnostic. I don't know if there's a creator/god w/e but it makes sense to me that there could be. 

Is this just the "Anything Is Possible" cop out, or have you actually thought about this? 

And then all the hatred Christians show towards other people and the crusades and crap they did throughout history. Never mind the pedophiles protected by churches.

These could easily be written off as Satan corrupting people into following God incorrectly. I mean... they already accuse that over each other's splinter faiths (ie: Catholicism), so that's even less of a reach to pull for murderers and pedophiles that found ways into their groups. 

So many friends I have that grew up in Christianity were abused too.

Christian abuse, or just abuse with Christian undertones? 

Abuse is more so an aspect of increased sapience than faith. While faith can justify a lot of things, so can anything else structured really, especially when it's vague enough to be taken as multiple interpretations. 

Christian abuse as a style of abuse though is quite signature, usually in relations to power being represented through direct control. Narcs of the doctrine want to be God (or God's mouth piece if they're humble enough), which I've seen lead to some pretty fucked up power kink. Those of weak character can use having something "greater than man" as a proxy for their dependency issues. For the older practices it also justified many levels of sadism and masochism. Basically, by design it's quite good at making disordered people become even more disordered (and seeing as I view everyone as at least a little disordered... imagine how that might affect my views). 

It just seems like it's all about repression and guilt. And that makes religious people secretly lash out behind closed doors. Ugh. 

Or they bottle up and explode. 

I've seen it lead to increased desperation for an outlet, which is a typical gateway for kinks and drugs. Pair that with repression, not allowing said outlets, and you'll find many a someone who has taken that taboo and turned it into a fixation. 

Mentally ill people are some of the kinkiest motherfuckers out there for their increased stress and bottling needing that outlet, but pair that with religion and you'll find some really screwed up motherfuckers. 

The community of going to church seems like it could be nice if they aren't crazy fundamentalists and just chill together and eat pie. My family never did that so I don't really know.

There's churches with female pastors now, and a few LGBTQ-friendly churches. 

Other churches tend to have bad things to say about those people, and even I find it inherently blasphemous. The texts are supposed to be terrible, and not sticking to them, even if it makes for a better social outcome and more followers, decreases the purity of it. 

Like really, why not just give the faith a new name if you're just going to change shit. I'd argue that Christian Church is a bad tradition to stick to (outside of low income areas offering a superstitiously empowered safety zone for people), but changing it into something better means it's not really Christianity anymore.