Philosophy Now Forum

Look, nothing about this whole thought-implanting even exists and there is no such thing as telepathy. It is all delusional superstitious nonsense. If we are going to have to continue on with this sort of discussion, then it is all meaningless and pointless since I do not believe in such a thing nor will I ever. I don't believe in reincarnation either and that is final.

You have also made a whole bunch of claims regarding me such as that I am transsexual and other things. If you honestly believe that and all other claims you have made about me, then you could very well be a paranoid schizophrenic (who knows though, I could be wrong). Also, why would I ever be trying to get you to commit suicide anyway? Even that is a delusion you are having and none of it is true.

And for you to claim that you are the greatest above Krauss and Dawkins, that is purely delusional nonsense as well. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. They are one of the greatest intellects. Lawrence Krauss is actually a friend of one of the greatest scientists known as Stephen Hawking.

MozartLink wrote:Look, nothing about this whole thought-implanting even exists and there is no such thing as telepathy. It is all delusional superstitious nonsense. If we are going to have to continue on with this sort of discussion, then it is all meaningless and pointless since I do not believe in such a thing nor will I ever. I don't believe in reincarnation either and that is final.

You have also made a whole bunch of claims regarding me such as that I am transsexual and other things. If you honestly believe that and all other claims you have made about me, then you could very well be a paranoid schizophrenic (who knows though, I could be wrong). Also, why would I ever be trying to get you to commit suicide anyway? Even that is a delusion you are having and none of it is true.

And for you to claim that you are the greatest above Krauss and Dawkins, that is purely delusional nonsense as well. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. They are one of the greatest intellects. Lawrence Krauss is actually a friend of one of the greatest scientists known as Stephen Hawking.

You are quite closeminded. You finalize your beliefs with no scientific reason as to why? Sounds like the mentality of a religious tard to me. Oh yes, I remember you say supported your belief with Mr. Krauss, despite him not even mentioning the word "reincarnation" a single time during his lecture. It's like how Christians verify their beliefs even though half of their beliefs are not even verified by the Bible. I am schizophrenic and delusional for implying you are transsexual? Funny stuff, seen as how you said your ideal life would be a mother with pink hair and her daugther, and a bunny running around the garden, and you went on a rant about chopping off penises and came off in a jealous sounding rage towards women. Also you seem to be one of those guru worshippers who puts men like Krauss and Dawkins on some kind of gaga pedastal. The science community equivalent of Lebron James fans. In the words of Mr. Kevin Solway, such a man is "no friend of mine." Stop acting like a peasant and think with a rational mind. By the way telepathy is somewhat verified by science, it's called the "Global Consciousness Project" but you wouldn't know because you treat science like a Christtard treats religion.

I think it is my personal experience of depression and anhedonia that have made my life bleak and meaningless. I think it has completely changed my mindset over to a materialistic atheist mindset in which I no longer perceive any hope in any afterlife or in anything supernatural. If it weren't for all those moments of chronic and severe depression and my anhedonia, then I think I might still have the christian belief I had in the past when I had my full pleasure back then. So the only way that my atheistic mindset can somehow change back over to a religious one or one that believes in the supernatural or reincarnation, then what would have to happen to me would be some miraculous unexplained life event that I would perceive as supernatural.

As for the whole part about chopping off the dick and the bitch in my analogue, those were nothing more than just metaphors that I used as replies to typical things people would say to me about life's struggles and such. I am not jealous of women at all or anything else of the sort that you are claiming me to be.

MozartLink wrote:I think it is my personal experience of depression and anhedonia that have made my life bleak and meaningless. I think it has completely changed my mindset over to a materialistic atheist mindset in which I no longer perceive any hope in any afterlife or in anything supernatural. If it weren't for all those moments of chronic and severe depression and my anhedonia, then I think I might still have the christian belief I had in the past when I had my full pleasure back then. So the only way that my atheistic mindset can somehow change back over to a religious one or one that believes in the supernatural or reincarnation, then what would have to happen to me would be some miraculous unexplained life event that I would perceive as supernatural.

As for the whole part about chopping off the dick and the bitch in my analogue, those were nothing more than just metaphors that I used as replies to typical things people would say to me about life's struggles and such. I am not jealous of women at all or anything else of the sort that you are claiming me to be.

Still doesn't explain why you want to smash pictures of Beethoven and why you said the ideal life would be a mother and her daughter.

Get this through your head, reincarnation is a concept divisible of religion, God, or the supernatural. It is a seperate concept, the sooner you understand this, the better. To keep saying that it isn't, and that it is isn't compatible with atheism, is exactly the equivalent of Bible thumping broken-record Christtard just saying things just because it sounds right to them, as you indicated earlier your belief is purely emotional, and unreasonable.

But I have reason to believe that there is far more scientific evidence supporting no reincarnation, no telepathy, etc. than there is scientific evidence supporting those things. This is because even Krauss said that we would not live on and that this is the only life for us. He knows what he is talking about and he wouldn't just say that without any good reason. Not only did Krauss say that, but Einstein and Hawking have also said those things as well.

MozartLink wrote:But I have reason to believe that there is far more scientific evidence supporting no reincarnation, no telepathy, etc. than there is scientific evidence supporting those things. This is because even Krauss said that we would not live on and that this is the only life for us. He knows what he is talking about and he wouldn't just say that without any good reason. Not only did Krauss say that, but Einstein and Hawking have also said those things as well.

Einstein had the philosophy of a pre-teen girl. A quote from David Quinn I believe. What did I tell you about putting blind faith in men? It's idiocy, plain and simple. Krauss probably said "this is the only life for us" because a. he didn't know better and b. he was using it as a pep-talk propoganda to get people to be more kind to others. Just because someone's good at math doesn't mean they know everything to the universe. Stop parroting your mortal idols and learn to think for yourself.

You say that you have "reason to believe there is more evidence supporting A." That indicates you don't actually know what the evidence is, or if it exists, which makes your blind faith in your conclusion A even more idiotic.

But here again, Krauss and all those other intelligent scientists of all time would not come to the conclusion that there is no reincarnation, no afterlife, etc. without having good reason for that. You say that there are other things that these scientists do not know such as philosophy. And that for them to come to those conclusions I mentioned makes them idiotic. However, I bet there are very intelligent people who are well educated in both philosophy, science, and other things who have still come to the same conclusions as Krauss and all those other intelligent scientists. I bet those people who have had education in both science and philosophy have had more education than those types of intelligent people who have claimed that there is a God, that there is an afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

Now there is a difference between false evidence and valid evidence. If I picked up a piece of paper off of the ground and said to myself that this is evidence that there are millions of these papers laying all around in some particular place around my vicinity, then that would be false evidence. Therefore, is there much more valid evidence supporting no god, no afterlife, no reincarnation, etc. and that the other evidence supporting otherwise is false evidence?

In the event that there is somehow equal valid evidence supporting both the existence of reincarnation, the afterlife, god, the supernatural, etc. as there is valid evidence supporting otherwise, then the mindset we should have would be like that of an agnostic who doesn't believe either side, but keeps an open mind nonetheless. However, I'm thinking here that there is much more valid evidence supporting no reincarnation, no afterlife, etc. But could I actually be wrong here though? I don't think so because I just simply don't believe that Krauss, Hawking, Eintstein, etc. would be wrong here.

MozartLink wrote:But here again, Krauss and all those other intelligent scientists of all time would not come to the conclusion that there is no reincarnation, no afterlife, etc. without having good reason for that. You say that there are other things that these scientists do not know such as philosophy. And that for them to come to those conclusions I mentioned makes them idiotic. However, I bet there are very intelligent people who are well educated in both philosophy, science, and other things who have still come to the same conclusions as Krauss and all those other intelligent scientists. I bet those people who have had education in both science and philosophy have had more education than those types of intelligent people who have claimed that there is a God, that there is an afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

Now there is a difference between false evidence and valid evidence. If I picked up a piece of paper off of the ground and said to myself that this is evidence that there are millions of these papers laying all around in some particular place around my vicinity, then that would be false evidence. Therefore, is there much more valid evidence supporting no god, no afterlife, no reincarnation, etc. and that the other evidence supporting otherwise is false evidence?

In the event that there is somehow equal valid evidence supporting both the existence of reincarnation, the afterlife, god, the supernatural, etc. as there is valid evidence supporting otherwise, then the mindset we should have would be like that of an agnostic who doesn't believe either side, but keeps an open mind nonetheless. However, I'm thinking here that there is much more valid evidence supporting no reincarnation, no afterlife, etc. But could I actually be wrong here though? I don't think so because I just simply don't believe that Krauss, Hawking, Eintstein, etc. would be wrong here.

You bet. That's what it seems you do when it comes to science. You bet on other people's words over your own good sense. But it's besides the fact. I couldn't find a single instance of Krauss even talking about reincarnation, let alone refuting it. It's as if you are putting words and claims that the man never spoke, into his mouth.

Same with Einstein, his philosophy on the afterlife was wishy washy and unsure. As for Dawkins I vaguely remember him talking about it in passing, but it was an afterthought and the type of reincarnation he was thinking of was more of the Indian "good dogs reincarnate into humans variety."

Show me a link to one of these idols of yours refuting it and we can have a discussion about it. Otherwise this conversation of yours is nothing more than blind faith idiocy.

I don't have such a link and was just simply thinking that scientists who don't believe in god, an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. are the more intelligent people and that people who believe otherwise are not as intelligent. Why do I think this? It would be because I am so very used to concepts such as an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. being always referred to as fairy tales and superstitious nonsense by intelligent scientists. That life is all about growing up and facing the facts of reality which would be that such things do not exist and are all comforting deluded lies. This mindset has been ingrained within my own mind. But aside from that, I wish to also talk about this concept of valid evidence vs false evidence. I have asked the question of whether there is more valid evidence supporting no afterlife, no reincarnation, etc.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Otherwise this conversation of yours is nothing more than blind faith idiocy.

Just take that Otherwise out.

My feelings of pleasure (all good feelings) are the only things that matter to me in my personal life and are the only things that define me and my life as truly good. Nothing else defines me or my life as truly good at all. Not even me living on for others in life and helping them out despite my absence of pleasure. I am going to explain more on this. But in the meantime, I will say something here which is that my sole reason for being a composer was because of my profound feelings of pleasure that I value so much. There was no other reason for me being a composer or even living for that matter. My pleasure is the only reason for me living. My pleasure to me is more important than the air I breathe. But now I have lost all my pleasure and there are never any brief moments of any given pleasure at all. It is called anhedonia and I think it is a negative symptom of schizoprhenia. So I have given up being a composer since I no longer find any good reason to become a composer without my feelings of pleasure to derive from my compositions.

I am going to give an analogue here of my situation of valuing my pleasure as the only good thing in my life and me giving up being a composer because I have lost it. It would be no different than if Beethoven said:

"Hearing is all there is to life. Without it, then you, your compositions, and your life are all nothing more than dead silence and nothing truly good at all. My hearing is the only reason for me living since it is a very profound thing to me. It is more important than the air I breathe. I would end my life if I have somehow lost it. I can hear all the beauty of nature and I will soon be able to hear the majestic compositions that I am going to make. I can do amazing things with my hearing. Therefore, I am going to do just that. I am going to do something amazing with my hearing. I am now going to choose to become a composer and create these amazing compositions I have thought of.

I am going to give a message to the world as well here. I am going to say to the world that deafness is completely uneccessary and that you can create great compositions through your hearing and they can turn out just as good or even better than those composers who have composed through their hearing loss. Hearing is the only good thing in life and it is that much more important that we find cures for hearing loss since you, your life, and your compositions would all be nothing more than dead silence to you. It would be all be nothing truly good at all without your hearing. Therefore, we need to find cures for hearing loss since the only thing that makes you a great composer and artist would be your hearing since any work of art you create would be nothing truly good at all to you without your hearing since it would all be nothing more than dead silence. You can still see your works of art and such. But you being able to see them is nothing good at all since only hearing defines us and our lives as being truly good. All other things in life are all nothing more than dead silent images and such without our hearing."

Beethoven then begins to learn how to compose and is in the process of composing his music. But he then becomes deaf and completely gives up being a composer since his hearing was the only thing that was important to him in his life and was the only thing to him that made him and his life good and worth living and nothing else. He only finds good value in his hearing and he finds no good value in anything else in his life without his hearing at all. Not even his own personality and his own artistic genius is anything good at all to him without his hearing. Not even him composing for other people and having them have something amazing to hear is anything good at all in his life without his hearing. It would be good for the other people who are able to hear his compositions. But his own personal life would be inferior, worthless, and of no good value whatsoever to him without his hearing.

Other people then come up to Beethoven and try to encourage him. They say to him that there is more to life than hearing and that there are other good things in life to live for and that he can still find good value in being a composer even without his hearing. But he doesn't believe them at all. He has absolutely convinced himself that hearing is all there is to life and is the only thing of good value in life. It is a firm and strict personal value and belief he has and no one can ever change it. If anyone tries to tell him to accept his hearing loss, then that advice would be an utter insult and a mockery to Beethoven since he would never live to accept having lost the one and only thing of true good value to him and his life. Beethoven would then become enraged towards anyone who tells him to accept his hearing loss. Beethoven has strictly decided that if he can't fully regain his hearing, then he is going to end his life and he won't have it any other way. From there, Beethoven continues to find no good value whatsoever in anything in his life without his hearing since everything to him in his life is now nothing more than dead images of silence. His only reason for living now would be him living to try and fully recover his hearing and nothing else. In the event that his hearing does fully recover, he will go back to being a composer and will find full good value in his life and composing dream once again. But in the event that his hearing doesn't fully recover, then he will end his life right then and there and no one is going to change his mind otherwise.

Therefore, this situation with Beethoven is the exact same situation with me here. My feelings of pleasure are the only good profound things to me and my life. I have lost all of them due to anhedonia (absence of pleasure). My only reason for living and my only reason for being a composer was because of pleasure. I wanted to not only experience pleasure from music and the compositions I would have made, but I also wanted to tap into and channel my feelings of pleasure to create emotionally powerful compositions of any type whether they be dark, gothic, happy, etc. It would be my pleasure in dark, gothic, happy, etc. things that would create these types of compositions. But now that I have lost all my pleasure, then I have strictly decided that I would end my life if I can never fully recover my pleasure. Therefore, I am now living to do all I can to try and fully recover my pleasure. Only if my pleasure is fully recovered would I then go back to being a composer and find full good value in me, my life, and my composing dream once again.

How many times are you going to copy and paste the same thing over and over? You act like a broken record. It's fine to regurgitate thoughts, but add something new to the discussion. You don't go into any depth of any kind, just say how miserable you are, but add no depth to your personal story or how it came to be.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:How many times are you going to copy and paste the same thing over and over? You act like a broken record. It's fine to regurgitate thoughts, but add something new to the discussion. You don't go into any depth of any kind, just say how miserable you are, but add no depth to your personal story or how it came to be.

That was something new. Therefore, here is also something new as well which is a more convincing argument for hedonism:

I am now going to explain how feelings of pleasure are the only true good things in life and how the version of happiness and pleasure that comes from everything else in life besides our feelings of pleasure are not the genuine form of happiness and pleasure at all.

If, let's pretend, that you had no thoughts or intelligence whatsoever. You also have no feelings at all whether they be feelings of pleasure or suffering. All your sensations such as sight, smell, etc. would then be nothing more than just sensations. There is no pleasure or happiness at all to them. They are just simple messages to the brain. Different functions of the brain are responsible for different things. The area of the brain responsible for sight or hearing in of themselves do not experience any feelings of pleasure or suffering. Feelings of pleasure and suffering come from different areas of our brains. Feelings of love, joy, or any other type of pleasurable feelings come from the limbic system. They come from specific regions of the brain.

The areas of our brains responsible for thinking and perception do not experience any pleasure or suffering in of themselves since they are a different function of our brains. Any form of pleasure, suffering, or happiness that is claimed to come from our thinking and perceptions alone without our actual feelings of pleasure or suffering, that is nothing more than just a thought. It is nothing more than just a simple message (like a word or a phrase) of pleasure or suffering. There is no genuine experience of pleasure or suffering from our thoughts and perceptions alone without our actual feelings of pleasure or suffering. All we are experiencing here is nothing more than just the simple message (perception) of pleasure or suffering.

That perception in of itself does not yield any genuine pleasure or suffering. To say that it does would be no different than saying that, since we can still perceive sound waves from our sight alone when we are deaf (such as if we were to look at sound waves coming from an audio device), then that means we can actually hear the sound through our sight alone without our actual hearing. So as you can see here, this would be false. It wouldn't be us hearing from the perception of those sound waves through our sight. Or, in this case, it wouldn't be us experiencing pleasure from our perception of what pleasure is through our thoughts and such alone. Instead, it would just all be the simple message of what sound and pleasure are and not the actual genuine experience of it.

So as you can see here, people are only fooling themselves into thinking that there is a form of genuine pleasure, happiness, or suffering that comes from our thoughts and everything else in life without our actual feelings of pleasure and suffering. Any form of peace, joy, love, happiness, suffering, misery, etc. that is said to come from our perceptions alone without the actual feelings of them are nothing more than just thoughts and that is it. In other words, we would not be expressing love to someone without our actual feelings of love. They would just be nothing more than expressions of the idea of what love is. That being, love can only be a feeling and nothing else. All those expressions that are claimed to be love without the feelings of love are what we would instead refer to as simple acts of help and aid and nothing more. I, myself, have lost all my feelings of love as well since anhedonia is something that completely shuts down the reward system in the brain.

In conclusion, even if we somehow could experience pleasure or suffering from our thoughts, perceptions, and everything else, then that could only be if we had our actual feelings of pleasure and suffering to do so. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to experience any form of pleasure or suffering without our actual feelings of pleasure or suffering.

More of the same thing that has already been said thousands of times. Doesn't even seem reworded.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:More of the same thing that has already been said thousands of times. Doesn't even seem reworded.

It's all different and all reworded. But aside from that, we can get back to the discussion regarding my atheism. I asked the question earlier of valid evidence vs false evidence and what mindset I should have based upon that. Should I have a mindset that is more inclined to something supernatural, religious, and perhaps believes in reincarnation? Or should I be more inclined to a materialistic atheistic mindset that does not believe in reincarnation? Or should I just have an agnostic mindset instead in which I am inclined to neither side?