Atheism

[Dubious]

If we have mosquitos, then do we need a bug zapper or should we let it continue to fly about? Is there anyone who can sort out what we need to do and why?

This is a bug planet where bugs do nothing more than bug each other all day long to stave of the tedious boredom of bug life, it's no good trying to swat them out of existence, they'll only disappear when the last bug is no more, and even then, no bug will ever know that such an extermination took place.

I'll consider that a prophecy!

[Gary Childress]

If we have mosquitos, then do we need a bug zapper or should we let it continue to fly about? Is there anyone who can sort out what we need to do and why?

This is a bug planet where bugs do nothing more than bug each other all day long to stave of the tedious boredom of bug life, it's no good trying to swat them out of existence, they'll only disappear when the last bug is no more, and even then, no bug will ever know that such an extermination took place.

I'll consider that a prophecy!

I would imagine exterminating all the bugs would probably bring the downfall of our ecosystem somehow. I'm sure human beings rely on them to whatever extent to do something important. The best example I can think of is the pollination of plants. How would that work without bugs? What would anteaters eat? Or most interesting to me right now, what do Platypuses eat?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dubious]

This is a bug planet where bugs do nothing more than bug each other all day long to stave of the tedious boredom of bug life, it's no good trying to swat them out of existence, they'll only disappear when the last bug is no more, and even then, no bug will ever know that such an extermination took place.

I'll consider that a prophecy!

I would imagine exterminating all the bugs would probably bring the downfall of our ecosystem somehow. I'm sure human beings rely on them to whatever extent to do something important. The best example I can think of is the pollination of plants. How would that work without bugs? What would anteaters eat? Or most interesting to me right now, what do Platypuses eat?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Metaphorically, I was thinking of a different kind of bug...one that knows a lot about bugs including what platypuses eat...which begs the next question, who eats platypuses. Inquiring minds want to know especially if you're a platypus.

[Gary Childress]

I'll consider that a prophecy!

I would imagine exterminating all the bugs would probably bring the downfall of our ecosystem somehow. I'm sure human beings rely on them to whatever extent to do something important. The best example I can think of is the pollination of plants. How would that work without bugs? What would anteaters eat? Or most interesting to me right now, what do Platypuses eat?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Metaphorically, I was thinking of a different kind of bug...one that knows a lot about bugs including what platypuses eat...which begs the next question, who eats platypuses. Inquiring minds want to know especially if you're a platypus.

Why would one want or need to know what eats platypuses? Seems like an odd request to me, not that I would have an answer to it. I don't know anything about platypuses other than they live in Australia (or is it New Zealand) and they're kind of funny or odd looking.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The universe has nothing whatever to do with your metaphysical predilections which are nothing more than mind games - the art of devising ideas - in which some are stupid while others develop into sophisticated thought fractals. Turn them into sound and they may be symphonies or that which truly is disposable. Your metaphysical yearnings proceed from no other source than your physically and chemically operated neurons without which the metaphysical cannot exist. The latter, including all spirituality, is an epiphenomenal emergence rooted in its primary source. There is no other!

I’m always intrigued by ‘declarations’ that express a person’s most cherished beliefs. As alway I appreciate your adamancy and it’s clarity.

I acknowledge your view that metaphysics is ‘mind games’. I quite simply do not agree.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Middle English disposen, to arrange, from Old French disposer, alteration (influenced by poser, to put, place) of Latin dispōnere, to arrange : dis-, apart; see dis- + pōnere, to put; see apo- in Indo-European roots.]

[Middle English dispensen, from Old French dispenser, from Latin dispēnsāre, to distribute, frequentative of dispendere, to weigh out : dis-, out; see dis- + pendere, to weigh; see (s)pen- in Indo-European roots.]

You are right. I read dispensable as disposable. I acknowledge the correction.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Middle English disposen, to arrange, from Old French disposer, alteration (influenced by poser, to put, place) of Latin dispōnere, to arrange : dis-, apart; see dis- + pōnere, to put; see apo- in Indo-European roots.]

[Middle English dispensen, from Old French dispenser, from Latin dispēnsāre, to distribute, frequentative of dispendere, to weigh out : dis-, out; see dis- + pendere, to weigh; see (s)pen- in Indo-European roots.]

You are right. I read dispensable as disposable. I acknowledge the correction.

[Sculptor]

But in my own direct experience, I surmise that an almighty loving 'creator' called god is an impossibility. I started this thread to discuss the very popular assumed idea that there is a 'creator' of the universe, by expressing my own personal view about that idea.

I've had numerous experiences throughout my life of there being no God, so I know.

I've also had many and numerous experiences of life without many things too. I've never seen a Venusian Slank Twizzleflummmery, or Martian flinckwattle

[Gary Childress]

I would imagine metaphysics can be a lot of things, depending--including games. So I guess my question to you AJ, since you disagree with Dubious's opinion, is why do you do metaphysics and what is the purpose or reason that you do it? Or do you not do metaphysics?

[Sculptor]

[Middle English disposen, to arrange, from Old French disposer, alteration (influenced by poser, to put, place) of Latin dispōnere, to arrange : dis-, apart; see dis- + pōnere, to put; see apo- in Indo-European roots.]

[Middle English dispensen, from Old French dispenser, from Latin dispēnsāre, to distribute, frequentative of dispendere, to weigh out : dis-, out; see dis- + pendere, to weigh; see (s)pen- in Indo-European roots.]

You are right. I read dispensable as disposable. I acknowledge the correction.

You can dispense to dispose. It's a mildly ironic euphemism. Such as the prize fighter dispensed his opponent with a left-hook.

[Dubious]

The universe has nothing whatever to do with your metaphysical predilections which are nothing more than mind games - the art of devising ideas - in which some are stupid while others develop into sophisticated thought fractals. Turn them into sound and they may be symphonies or that which truly is disposable. Your metaphysical yearnings proceed from no other source than your physically and chemically operated neurons without which the metaphysical cannot exist. The latter, including all spirituality, is an epiphenomenal emergence rooted in its primary source. There is no other!

I’m always intrigued by ‘declarations’ that express a person’s most cherished beliefs. As alway I appreciate your adamancy and it’s clarity.

I acknowledge your view that metaphysics is ‘mind games’. I quite simply do not agree.

My "adamancy" as you call it proceeds by logic, more specifically the Bayesian type which applies a probability status to any model or hypothesis considered. It can be upgraded or downgraded based on observation and experiment. If metaphysics ranked higher on that scale, which is near zero, - nothing is ever qualified as absolute ZERO or ONE for that would imply certain knowledge which is impossible and not something science or logic aspires to - it would be more acceptable to me than an imagined "cherished belief" unauthorized by anything substantive allowing it to take any form; I long ceased to grant it the probability I once thought it had. There's a huge dichotomy between a mental fiction and that which has a much higher probability of revealing the truth as currently understood.

It all depends on how metaphysics gets interpreted. It could also operate as a mind catalyst which has no reference to any Bayesian probabilities. But better stop here because the way you understand metaphysics seems very contrary to mine. Not everything must conform to a truth to fertilize the brain. We know how effective even the most egregious untruth can be in that respect.

However argued, agreement is not necessary.

[Agent Smith]

In what sense, we must obviously make some kinda adjustment, are plants like bugs?

[Iwannaplato]

The universe has nothing whatever to do with your metaphysical predilections which are nothing more than mind games - the art of devising ideas - in which some are stupid while others develop into sophisticated thought fractals. Turn them into sound and they may be symphonies or that which truly is disposable. Your metaphysical yearnings proceed from no other source than your physically and chemically operated neurons without which the metaphysical cannot exist. The latter, including all spirituality, is an epiphenomenal emergence rooted in its primary source. There is no other!

I’m always intrigued by ‘declarations’ that express a person’s most cherished beliefs. As alway I appreciate your adamancy and it’s clarity.

I acknowledge your view that metaphysics is ‘mind games’. I quite simply do not agree.

My "adamancy" as you call it proceeds by logic, more specifically the Bayesian type which applies a probability status to any model or hypothesis considered. It can be upgraded or downgraded based on observation and experiment. If metaphysics ranked higher on that scale, which is near zero, - nothing is ever qualified as absolute ZERO or ONE for that would imply certain knowledge which is impossible and not something science or logic aspires to - it would be more acceptable to me than an imagined "cherished belief" unauthorized by anything substantive allowing it to take any form; I long ceased to grant it the probability I once thought it had. There's a huge dichotomy between a mental fiction and that which has a much higher probability of revealing the truth as currently understood.

It all depends on how metaphysics gets interpreted. It could also operate as a mind catalyst which has no reference to any Bayesian probabilities. But better stop here because the way you understand metaphysics seems very contrary to mine. Not everything must conform to a truth to fertilize the brain. We know how effective even the most egregious untruth can be in that respect.

However argued, agreement is not necessary.

Could you define metaphysics as you use the term.
And then show the calculations you used to reach the near zero number whatever it was.

[Dubious]

[Middle English disposen, to arrange, from Old French disposer, alteration (influenced by poser, to put, place) of Latin dispōnere, to arrange : dis-, apart; see dis- + pōnere, to put; see apo- in Indo-European roots.]

[Middle English dispensen, from Old French dispenser, from Latin dispēnsāre, to distribute, frequentative of dispendere, to weigh out : dis-, out; see dis- + pendere, to weigh; see (s)pen- in Indo-European roots.]

You are right. I read dispensable as disposable. I acknowledge the correction.

No problem! The etymology is very interesting but wasn't part of my thinking. The thing I concentrated on is the spectrum and distinctions of meaning a word vis-à-vis another may have wherein most seeming conflations are invariably fine-tuned by their separations.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would imagine metaphysics can be a lot of things, depending--including games. So I guess my question to you AJ, since you disagree with Dubious's opinion, is why do you do metaphysics and what is the purpose or reason that you do it? Or do you not do metaphysics?

All throughout what I have been writing, for months and months, has dealt in one way or another with my ideas about metaphysics. Did you not read?

Had you read and considered what I have said you’d know the answer.

Do you know, can you state — in paraphrase — why Dubious denies that the metaphysic is a ‘real’ category? Can you connect that denial with an atheist’s general stance?

I find you quite astute quite often, truth be told. You are much more thorough and have developed and structured presentations of your views, concerns, and preoccupations. For this reason I honestly think you could do your own research and you would not ask me a lazy man’s question.

You vould also examine any part of Evola’s thoughts on metaphysics and why the question is vital — for men living in ruins.