Red Mosquito

They didn't have any Dr. Pepper and I'm pretty pissed about it

this is just not your day, LV

Aukerman is obviously a very funny guy. I just don't get you, LV.

Orpheus wrote:Aukerman is obviously a very funny guy. I just don't get you, LV.

I think a lot of it has to do with his delivery. He seems a little too in on the joke or something. He reminds me of Rob Huebel, who I also find unbearably unfunny.

You should listen to more of the podcast. Find some episodes with Andy Daly, you can't go wrong with Andy Daly.

tommymtcom wrote:You should listen to more of the podcast. Find some episodes with Andy Daly, you can't go wrong with Andy Daly.

Maybe I should. Perhaps it would help if I didn't see him. He's been on HDTGM a few times, and while I still didn't find him funny at all, he was at least more tolerable in audio form.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

Yeah, this is existentialism basically.
And my problem here is that it seems to me you (and existentialism in general) are also making metaphysical claims without intending to do so. Example: "the how clarifies that there is no why". This is also some kind of a worldview.
I'm not a fan of the thinking that atheists are enlightened and "sticking to the facts" in contrast to the naive and irrational believers.

In my opinion everyone develops a certain, ultimately unprovable, worldview over his lifespan. You cannot not have a worldview. Problems arise when people dont doubt their own worldview.

Your first point is a good one LV. C.S. Lewis liked to make "the argument from desire," i.e. "I desire food-food exists. I desire companionship--other people exist. Therefore if I desire God, God must exist." IMO though, the desire for God or "another world" or whatever you want to call it comes from our inability to process basic facts like mortality, or that we are floating on a rock in a void, or that we can never know all there is to know. Intellectually we know these things, but emotionally we can't handle it, and this is where the desire for God comes from.

Orpheus wrote:Your first point is a good one LV. C.S. Lewis liked to make "the argument from desire," i.e. "I desire food-food exists. I desire companionship--other people exist. Therefore if I desire God, God must exist." IMO though, the desire for God or "another world" or whatever you want to call it comes from our inability to process basic facts like mortality, or that we are floating on a rock in a void, or that we can never know all there is to know. Intellectually we know these things, but emotionally we can't handle it, and this is where the desire for God comes from.

Yes, I totally agree with this. I was too limited in the way I worded my original point.

SpectorHD wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

Yeah, this is existentialism basically.
And my problem here is that it seems to me you (and existentialism in general) are also making metaphysical claims without intending to do so. Example: "the how clarifies that there is no why". This is also some kind of a worldview.
I'm not a fan of the thinking that atheists are enlightened and "sticking to the facts" in contrast to the naive and irrational believers.

In my opinion everyone develops a certain, ultimately unprovable, worldview over his lifespan. You cannot not have a worldview. Problems arise when people dont doubt their own worldview.

Sure, but there's a difference between a worldview based on quantifiable evidence and a worldview based on improvable speculation.

I think you're doing a pretty good job holding it down for the atheists. I would argue more about this stuff but at this point I'd rather just make plays and work with kids and do the other things I find fulfilling. I'm kinda past the point of trying to convince people unless they specifically ask me about my beliefs. It's just too exhausting.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

SpectorHD wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

Yeah, this is existentialism basically.
And my problem here is that it seems to me you (and existentialism in general) are also making metaphysical claims without intending to do so. Example: "the how clarifies that there is no why". This is also some kind of a worldview.
I'm not a fan of the thinking that atheists are enlightened and "sticking to the facts" in contrast to the naive and irrational believers.

In my opinion everyone develops a certain, ultimately unprovable, worldview over his lifespan. You cannot not have a worldview. Problems arise when people dont doubt their own worldview.

Sure, but there's a difference between a worldview based on quantifiable evidence and a worldview based on improvable speculation.

Focusing on quantifiable evidence itself is a unprovable worldview. I'm not saying this in a dismissive fashion. It is a very useful worldview for the human progress and our wealth. My job consists, partly, of doing psychological empirical research.

But: To say a statement like "there is no why" is based on quantifiable evidence seems pretty far fetched to me. It is an unprovable worldview. And everyone has the right to have his own view. I will never argue that my rudimentary christian believes are more warrantable than someone's belief in a almighty water-boiler. But to me the same is true for atheism.

SpectorHD wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

SpectorHD wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This is basically what I said before about metaphysical thinking: I think the urge to believe in some kind of intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

You say theism answers the why, not the how. I say that understanding the how clarifies that there is no why. And we shoudn't need one. And CERTAINLY not one with all the dangerous side effects of theism.

Tolstoy said it best: "The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless."

Yeah, this is existentialism basically.
And my problem here is that it seems to me you (and existentialism in general) are also making metaphysical claims without intending to do so. Example: "the how clarifies that there is no why". This is also some kind of a worldview.
I'm not a fan of the thinking that atheists are enlightened and "sticking to the facts" in contrast to the naive and irrational believers.

In my opinion everyone develops a certain, ultimately unprovable, worldview over his lifespan. You cannot not have a worldview. Problems arise when people dont doubt their own worldview.

Sure, but there's a difference between a worldview based on quantifiable evidence and a worldview based on improvable speculation.

Focusing on quantifiable evidence itself is a unprovable worldview. I'm not saying this in a dismissive fashion. It is a very useful worldview for the human progress and our wealth. My job consists, partly, of doing psychological empirical research.

But: To say a statement like "there is no why" is based on quantifiable evidence seems pretty far fetched to me. It is an unprovable worldview. And everyone has the right to have his own view. I will never argue that my rudimentary christian believes are more warrantable than someone's belief in a almighty water-boiler. But to me the same is true for atheism.

…Except that quantifiable evidence and physical existence are provable.

I think this whole line of metaphysical thinking is similar to the “We can’t really know” thing that came up earlier in this thread. The whole endeavor strikes me as quasi-deep and, ultimately, pointless. The fact that “we can’t really know” shouldn’t prevent us from accepting the fundamental nature of our existence (that being that we are physical organisms that exist on a physical planet in an almost incomprehensibly vast universe). That’s not really a worldview; it’s scientifically provable information. As humans, we might want to delude ourselves into believing otherwise for the sake of our own comfort, vanity, fear, and desire to mean something more, but that would be a denial of reality. That’s where the difference in what you call “worldviews” comes in: one is predicated upon an acceptance of reality, the other a denial of it.

This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

turned2black wrote:This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

I'm sure there's a why but not one that we're going to figure out in my lifetime so why worry about it.

turned2black wrote:This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?

pnjguy wrote:

turned2black wrote:This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?

No, because all the evidence points to there not being a "why."

So some people are unwilling to accept that we're merely an evolved species of germ and there has to be someone or something behind our existence?
I have as much problem believing the big bang theory as i do believing a deity created us. Both are as unlikely as each other in many ways.

dimejinky99 wrote:I have as much problem believing the big bang theory as i do believing a deity created us. Both are as unlikely as each other in many ways.

This isn't really true. I'm not saying I believe or don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, but at least it has some scientific thought/merit behind it, which creationism does not.