Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So this is the opposite of a small-scale question, but similar to what I posted below, I’ve been going through somewhat of an existential crisis about mortality and the purpose of human life.
I want to hear all of your beliefs about the big mysterious questions. For my entire life until now I have been the hardest of hard materialist/physicalist atheists. Surprise surprise that at 32 that doesn’t fill the god-shaped hole in my heart anymore.
I’m currently just thinking about how weird all of this is. Is the universe an eternal thing? Is it a simulation? How do you actually handle the hard problem of consciousness? The Fermi paradox?
Something that has been tempting me is Michael Huemer’s argument about infinite reincarnation, very similar to nietzsche’s eternal recurrence. Essentially the bastardized argument is that if the universe is infinite in both temporal directions and you already were plucked from nothingness and given consciousness once, it will happen again even if the probability is infinitesimally small (because if time is infinite it’s bound to happen).
So what do you all think? What gives you comfort when pondering mortality?
Take a look into quantum mechanics and accept the many worlds interpretation as probably correct.
Take a hard Look into evolution and realise that natural selection is not enough to explain how we (humans) came to be in our current form.
Practice "pure" semen retention for 6-12 months and note down all the stuff that happens to you that's atypical. Check out /r/semenretention.
I'm not asking you to believe anything you read there I'm just asking you to self experiment. Use that sub to have an idea on what to look for.
You are kind of trapped in a materialist/physicalist box. So it's hard to break you out of it. I've given you stuff that you can research yourself that doesn't seem too outlandish from a materialist point of view.
There is a lot of discussion about the universe that is not materialist but it's happening in spaces, YouTube channels and websites that you probably don't respect.
All I can say is if you're truly after the truth you must question if you have any biases. You must question every single belief that you have. You must ask yourself "How do I know this to be true?". "Do I believe this because I did the research myself or am I just parroting something I heard from someone with higher status than me?"
GL
If you have convincing evidence that humans, despite several millions of years of fossil evidence demonstrating likely intermediate ancestors, couldn't have possibly arisen naturally, pray tell. You could get a Noble or three out of it!
Semen retention? C'mon dawg. If being sexually frustrated is a strict necessity for your third eye to open, it's a rather perverse one.
Why don't you lay out your arguments instead of vaguely waving in their general direction?
I was a materialist until recently and the transition was not a straightforward path. All the atheist vs theist arguments in the world had no effect on me, my worldview was set.
Until certain things happened in my life and a little bit of randomness/luck I began to start thinking differently.
I don't think its a good use of time and mental energy to get into the weeds of things because I experienced being a materialist and I had an answer for everything. It's going to sound cliché but the search for truth is a personal one and so arguing back and forth is not going to be productive for anyone. We both won't budge. There's literally no point.
However OP mentioned that he feels there is something missing in his model of reality. He mentioned that he was a materialist and so I made some assumptions and gave him some pointers on where he can continue his search for truth.
My comment was meant for OP who seems open to alternative ways of seeing reality. Not for you a somewhat unknown entity clearly ready for an argument.
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
I don't think that's what the rule means. When there's nothing you could say to someone that will change their mind, it's better not to engage. It would be as unwise as wasting time trying to prove the Holocaust really happened to certain Motteposters. They believe that it didn't, they know that it didn't, and they have a humongous army of soldier-arguments they're willing to throw at you. They will never believe it happened. Does this mean we should never have discussions that start with the assumption that the Holocaust happened?
The vast majority of posters here (and everywhere) aren't willing to change their mind about anything they have strong pre-existing convictions on. Discussions are still worth having regardless.
I feel there should be more affordance for orthodox ideas to skip debate on some of the assumptions than for heterodox ideas. Otherwise we could end up with situations like the following:
"I believe elites are all pedophiles who rape children in the basement of a certain pizza parlor. I'm not willing to debate this. This discussion is only for people who agree with me on this point. With that said, how do we stop these evil elites from doing this???"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link