starbug1

more in depth maybe?

This is based on opinion and "known-fact" only. I have the assignment finished. This is one question I wanted to know more about.

Consciousness seeks to create purpose-driven order. If we conclude there is no purpose, what motivation do we have to do anything? The solution is to find the purpose, which for an atheistic existentialist must ultimately be self-defined.

I suppose what I said would only work if you denied your consciousness completely.

 

Not "find"' date=' "create" is a better word. Find implies that a purpose exists indapendant of ones self. "Create" is much more of a personal/self defined thing.[/quote']

 

If we "create" then what exactly are we supposed to be creating?

 

If we conclude there is no purpose, what motivation do we have to do anything?

 

Exactly. So does this mean there is no reason to live, there comes no end to deriving a purpose; that is, if we argue and ultimately deny consciousness?

 

The solution is to find the purpose, which for an atheistic existentialist must ultimately be self-defined.

 

By this reasoning there is no reason to live, if otherwise your purpose "created" is one of happiness, then that's the reason. Or it is one of truth, which to our consciousness gains no happiness. An atheistic existentialist must be denied this because he is perpetually running into dead end's for a purpose. Like a random fluke in the universe, right? Do you agree with this? By all means, everything I know and have read about this says there is NO purpose for living with no "driven purpose." And that's why happiness prevails, the "purpose-driven" antidote.

 

ave you ever read The Myth of Sisyphus, by Albert Camus?

 

I know the myth and I know what Camus has to say about it. He says exactly what I said above. "Why keep pushing that thing up the hill all day, over and over, for a lifetime?" That's indeed truly the question of life. Why? And that's what I'm asking. If there are devoted atheistic existentialists, and other people who adopt the "Existentialist" doctrines, why do we go on living.

That I'm still trying to figure out.

 

Bascule, this is what I wanted you to answer. What is your purpose, if you feel that way about yourself. You obviously gain pleasure from your life. Reading books, evangalizing singularity, friends, partying. Am I right? The existential atheism is only brought up when thought about. Other times it gets ignored because it is frustratingly endless, and there is no definite satisfaction.

What are the reasons for why high blood pressure is a health concern?

Here is the fine print (sorry Cap'n)

The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.

Does this mean they have a sense of humor? Or does it mean they're out of their f***ing minds! They already are anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

(I happen to think a lot of creationists are just as silly as flat-earth believers)

C'mon. You can't really think that. Nobody, I mean nobody, actually believes the earth is flat. Right? Please tell me I'm right.

When was it published btw?

2001.

Isn't that the one that states that McDonald's fries have more meat content than the burgers (as they're fried in meat grease)?

For decades, McDonald's cooked its french fries in a mixture of about 7 percent conttonseed oil and 93 percent beef tallow. The mix gave the fries their unique flavor -- and more saturated beef fat per ounce than a McDonald's hamburger.

more fat content, not meat content. (So I take it you've read it, or at least heard of it?)

For reassurance about all of your imminent heart attacks because your arteries could possibly have been critical mass by the age of 20, MD changed its ways...

Amid a barrage of criticism over the amounnt of cholesterol in their fries, McDonald's switched to pure vegetable oil in 1990.

whew. Now that good taste is supplied by natural and artificial fat flavoring!

According to Wikipedia Lactobacillus are found in pickles and other fermented foods. You don't see AIDS victims running off to the store to buy Vlasic, so there probably isn't much truth to that claim.

Okay, how many people have read the book?

note: I just took it off the shelf again and I got the title wrong. It's Fast Food Nation.

You see that a lot with Creationists, especially on a "high-class" site such as answersingenesis. They slyly explain what they're about to get past all of the complex intricacies of complicated issues, and what comes out is a lot and a lot of contradiction. Like the molecular clock or the "semi-evolution," they cover up so quickly with little puns and evangelical BS. I swear, even if I was a Creationist (which I'm not) I still would only see that site as a Big Lie.

mold can grow on soap scum, the kind you find in your shower. so...yes and no. soap scum is a reaction with soap and lime, I think, making those hard deposits. To be honest, I've seen soap so scumy and gross-looking, that I swear it could be classfied as mold.

I really hate you for wasting my time.

What exactly was the point of that?

i had it before and after it was a fad.

So you're like the blog-fad originator/moderator of sorts.

what is that, ATP murder?

When we talk about unnatural behavior, I think it's more perception in particular cultures or societies and all that. I'm going to borrow bascule's word here, but it's all about 'the meme.' What people grow up to believe is supposedly 'natural.' And of course you have the different schools of psychology that believe whats 'natural' and what's 'unnatural' are all in the head. So I think we developed it. maybe not in a laboratory, but developed nonetheless..

there are a lot of nerd groups there... from gaming to science and everything in between.

Ecoli, will you post the link for your myspace? I'm curious to check it out, in a non-stalker kind of way. If I missed it before, sorry.

Perhaps you should try the waffles....

:D I'm still laughing, really. And I have no idea what you're trying to say. Okay maybe I am a little confused...

I was actually directing the question more at bascule because he was the one who expressed the idea in the first place. ...You've got the right idea ecoli, and its not creepy pcs, it's a fact of life, and all too real, so your statement really sounded a bit ...off, to put it nicely.

i refuse to join the fad

Your homepage is Xanga!!!!?

the struggle... the ignorance of the many is too overwhelming to fight, you have to try and work within the system of lies.

Of course, I know what you mean. It really does get on my nerves. Sometimes it's even more than that. Anyway, I kind of like pcs' idea. lightsabers would definately be cool. Not sure what it would solve...

nah, that's a waste of time, IMO.

what the lie or the struggle?

I have one question: have you ever wanted to kill yourself? That kind of mentality has got to be overwhelmingly depressing sometimes. And you said yourself you were atheistic existentialist. Wasn't the unlying philsophy something like, instead of "Why kill yourself?" it was "Why not kill yourself?" I know it's personal, just thought I'd ask. I mean all this about melancholy, lies and the placebo effect, looking for happiness in the hard face of truth. It's got to be harrowing.

Eric Burns' date=' the moderator of FNC's media-watch show "Fox News Watch" raised an interesting question on this past weekend's show, and I thought I'd pass it along here just to see what people think.

 

Is it hypocritical for a media web site to refuse to run pictures for ethical reasons, and yet include a link to a place where the reader can find those pictures?

 

I think it's an interesting question to ponder given the explosion of popularity and importance of web news outlets.[/quote']

 

I think it all spawned from the freedom of Information act, picture included. We have to have the access to everything else someone throws a fit. You don't have to, but the choice is still there.

Don't they taste like honey mustard and ranch dressing?

What are you talking about?!?

I haven't had a McNuggest in about 3 or 4 years, yet they tasted then the same they did when I was a kid. Just this really crappy meat with a strange breading. They are tasty. Burger King has the "healthier-looking" chicken nuggest. However, I don't eat either...I just get the chicken sandwiches. The dollar menu gets me every time..

What about yourself?

I'm the same way, although it's very hard sometimes to sacrifice happiness for truth. I haven't found my "self-identity" yet. I think that comes after high school. Nevertheless absolutely, any truth is better than being a "religious southern conservative." I'd only like to take the melancholy liberal atheist, and switch it around. Make it introspective yet broad-minded existentialist.