Vinegar

Ah. We got a lot of depressed teenagers here. Hum. Hem. Mmm. Even if the stars should die in heaven Our sins can never be undone No single death will be forgiven When fades at last the last lit sun. Then in the cold and silent black As light and matter end We’ll have ourselves a last look back And toast an absent friend. - Eliezer Yudkowsky. Good guy. I'm not too sure why I chose that poem. I'm sorry. My posts tend to be overly-analytical wordvomit. A far cry from emotional understanding, truly. I'm also reminded of a song I heard a while back. It was originally in japanese, but english translation of one of the lines (more or less. Paraphrased for purposes of meaning.): SH Themes: Good song. Words to say, words to say... Well, if you feel that nothing matters. If you find it difficult getting out of bed. If you find it difficult to storming care about existence, whether it be yours or another's. If a sort of... unintentional and reluctant apathy has enveloped your world. Or, if you simply feel like you want to die. End this gorydamn storming suffering. If you want to gaze into the abyss, and welcome it. Well, in the case of apathy, that is... something to keep, somewhat, actually and suprisingly. Don't let it rule your heart, yet remember it from time to time, and let yourself break into a smile not in spite of it, but because of it. Decide meanings for yourself. Let whimsy take hold, if only briefly. Dance in the school football-field and laugh at the sky, knowing that those who stare and whisper have not yet felt this freedom. Its nice to not care sometimes. Then try to puzzle out how to convince the therapist you don't have schizophrenia. As for the suicide. In the words of Albert Camus, I suppose. "Martyrs, cher ami, must choose between being forgotten, mocked, or made use of. As for being understood--never!” Understnading. This is what we are all craving here, is it not? The world is restrictive. The people around you can be judgemental. They can mock your fears. Your worries. Play it off as attention-seeking, paranoia. The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. Apathy helps with that. If framed correctly in the mindset. Thus why I said earlier it was something to keep. On that note. Look at all the leaves Maybe if I smoke this one it will make me dizzy Tiny wizard! David gorydamn Copperfield! A sort of violin and a creepy little doll with ADHD and lacking in pills. Have I thoroughly screwed over your Apophenia?

I think Pathfinder's points answer this pretty well, but if I may provide another point. Which I also mentioned in my very long post previously, but lets be honest: No one can be bothered to fully read that. Why automatically jump to a monotheistic origin to explain this? Again, underdetermination. Evolution has been quantitavely proven through scientific observation and repeatable expirements. Heck, the fact that bacterial resistance is such a big problem in the antibiotic industry indicates how much biological organisms can evolve. Tack on a couple billion years, and you can get some pretty nutty stuff. And thus I believe evolution to be more likely than the many alternative theistic explainations that can't be proven. Perhaps in reality, we are all being puppeteered by microscopic cosmic personifications of a badly worded eulogy. Who knows. But that theory is difficult to prove, so I'll disregard it for now. I agree somewhat with your second paragraph. I consider myself an Atheist, if one is to be honest, partly in preparation for eternal oblivion. If I'm right, then oh well. If I'm wrong, joy. Even if I'm cast down onto a crucifix in the 7 layers of hell, I'll be concious enough (through the crippling agony) to think "Huh. Well thats interesting." Which is to me, a joy beyond all this world could provide.

I often find them victim to confirmation bias. Many of the explainations given, in my opinion, mistaken poetic reasoning (not a real term, but I'll use it. It refers to falsely correlating factors with seemingly logical reasoning, when it links more metaphorically or intuitively. For example, the argument "If the bible is a man-made, why does it go against all of man's desires?" It sounds persuasive but falls apart because it exaggerates its premise and draws a false conclusion. Christianity does not go against human desires; it constrols some impulses like greed or revenge while strongly appealing to others like love, purpose, justice, and eternal life, which are deeply human longings. It assumes a false either-or: that something must be divine if it opposes desire and man-made if it doesn't, when in reality humans constantly create systems that both restrict short-term impulses and serve deeper goals, from laws to philosophies. There is also an implicit mistake in equating difficulty with truth, as people often embrace demanding or self-denying beliefs for identity, meaning, or future reward without those beliefs being true. Look a Nietzsche, the poor chap. The argument selectively focuses on restrictive elements while ignoring appealing ones, and misunderstands human nature itself, since humans are not driven only by immediate pleasure but also by discipline, meaning, and delayed gratification, as seen in philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism. Opposing some desires is not evidence of divine origin, because that is exactly the kind of system humans regularly invent. Also, means that suicide can be interpreted as divine by that logic. It certainly goes against most base human and general natural instincts of self-preservation) with logical reasoning. I have no issue with christianity on it's own (removing a lot of social context, if one is to be honest). In fact, I have no problem with any religion. But I dislike how it seems christianity (and scientology, arguably), in the face of today's society, frequently tries to claim the scientific validity of their beliefs. Religion, as a whole, requires uncertainty to maintain generally. And the uncertainty exists. There are factors we cannot observe, evidence of something bigger perhaps. But to argue that a religion is verified by science, a practice targetting what we can observe and quantitatively verify, is inherently fallacious, as in christianity's case, it regards a being we cannot perceive as a whole or often even partially. Any attempt to confirm Christianity through science or strict logic encounters a fundamental mismatch from the start: they operate on different grounds not just thematically but epimistecally. Science encompasses systematic observation, measurement, and the refinement of models through repeatable evidence that we can detect. Religion is concerned with metaphysical claims, existential meaning, and forms of knowledge that are not fully accessible to be empircally verified. When a belief system depends on faith, revelation, or unobservable realities, it cannot be proven by a method that requires publicly testable data. This does not entirely invalidate religion. The uncertainty exists. But it simply means that scientific confirmation, in the strict sense, is logically and structurally impossible as a viable proofing-method. Many arguments that attempt to align science with Christianity extend beyond what the evidence can reasonably support. Cosmological findings, such as the apparent beginning of the universe or conditions that permit life, are often stated as indicative of a creator. However, these observations do not specfically indicate the Christian God. They are compatible with multiple explainations. Alternative theisms, deistic models, or presently unknown natural mechanisms. Thus the problem of underdetermination: the same body of data can indicate several competing interpretations. Moving from general features of the universe to a specific theological conclusion introduces a level of precision that the evidence itself does not warrant and is perhaps statistically less likely. Fine tuning arguments illustrate this issue more clearly. They typically depend on probabilistic reasoning applied to universal constants, despite the absence of a well defined sample space or knowledge of possible alternatives. Even if one grants that the universe appears finely tuned, the immediatly turning to a theism as the answer, Christianity per say, is unnecessary. At most, such arguments might support a form of teleology, but they do not single out any particular religioun, or even indicate a religious causal relationship. Historical considerations rarely scientifically provide confirmation. While there is substantive evidence suggesting that early Christian texts were composed relatively close to the events they describe, and that early believers were sincere in their beliefs, this establishes belief rather than the factual certainty of supernatural claims. Historical methodology can evaluate authorship, consistency, and context, but it cannot empirically verify miracles. By definition, miracle claims posit exceptions to established regularities, and are therefore less tractable under standard evidential frameworks. Philosophical arguments, such as cosmological or moral arguments, a;so do not yield uniquely Christian conclusions. Even if they succeed, they generally succeed in establishing only a general cause, necessary being, or some sort of moral foundation. There remains a substantial inferential gap between affirming the existence of some form of ultimate reality and affirming specific doctrines such as the incarnation or the Trinity. That logical seperation cannot be closed through logic alone. Experiential and quantitative claims don't resolve the issue either. Expirements regarding intercessory prayer have not produced consistent, replicable effects beyond what might be expected from placebo or psychological factors. Likewise, reports of personal transformation, while often profound, occur across a wide range of religious and non religious contexts. Their lack of exclusivity limits their plausibility in confirming any single religion. Arguments that appeal to the historical influence, global spread, or perceived moral value of Christianity often rely on the irrational (yet appearing intuitive) conflation of correlation with causation. The success or utility of a belief system does not entail its truth. Attempts to confirm Christianity through science, logic, or quantitative methods consistently exceed the scope of what those approaches can establish. The available evidence may be compatible with Christian belief, but it does not uniquely or conclusively verify it. At most, such arguments can support a degree of philosophical plausibility rather than deliver confirmation in the rigorous sense associated with scientific and logical proof. I repeat, the uncertainty exists. I, personally (and I think most Atheists. Maybe. Can't be sure) am an Atheist not because I entirely reject the idea of a "god", or some sort of uncomprehensible entity. The discovery and development of quantum physics has really screwed with our perceptions regarding science. We are only able to scratch the earth's crust, while the rest of it's depths remain mysterious to us. The cosmic speed-limit prevents us from exploring beyond a tiny portion of the galaxy. That, and expansion of the universe, at a certain distance relative to us is theoretically faster than the speed of light and thus theoretically inaccessible. And thus we know that uncertainties exist. Perhaps there are eldritch monstrosities hiding just beyond our view. Perhaps Dr Seuss was the true messiah and Horton Hears a Who was an allegory for our true existence, our universe a speck of dust suspended on a dandelion in the trunk of an almighty and incomporehensible elephant-entity named Horton. Just as it is incorrect to assume that religion can be conclusively proven, it is equally so to fully close your mind to the potential of the unknown, and thus religion. My point being: I cannot deny the existence of religion, but I think claiming that science proves or supports religious beliefs is inherently inaccurate and fallacious.

You'd be welcome to join me, as long as you don't mind online campaigning.

Also, I love that sort of board game. I started with the Campaign for North America once. I only stopped because the board I made out of cereal boxes got irrevocably damaged. I really think you'd enjoy a DnD campaign (or at least certain campaigns, which I play). Would you be interested in trying?

I think you'd be great in DnD. I simplify combat in my campaigns: Turn based stuff makes combat encounters a slog, thus I have my own crude but enjoyably fast-paced system based off DM intuition. I also usually play the solo variant of DnD. There isn't an official one, so I made up my own. Works pretty well. I will try my best to get it, it seems fantastic.

Acetyl CoA REDUCTION? Oh dear. I like this. Do you play DnD? Also, I request the rules/name of the game, please.

You could use it to essentially summon metal objects. Or... be spider-man.

2820. Be the one who posted 2817.

Ah, so that's why people don't like me! (An angel appears on my shoulder, a devil on the other). Angel: Bold of you to assume that is the only reason. Devil: I'll sell you your soul back. Please. Heavens, (brielfy covers mouth in horror at the slur), I'll pay you. Just take it back. 2817. Somehow find a way to consistenly wear a birthday hat. Backwards. *Fabric of reality rips at the improbability*

2813. Refer to salt as "sodium chloride".

Written by a japanese guy called Murakami. He writes in a wonderous manner. Or at least, his translator does. I admit, I loved roadkill before existentialism took hold.

You'd quite enjoy a book, known as "A hard boiled wonderland and the end of the world". It will screw with your head, but most pleasantly so.

Doubtful. You write in a way that is pleasing to the mind. I write so that I can read it 3 years later and think "Who the heck was I, 3 years ago?" The glory of screwing with oneself temporally. Epitome of one who has responsibilities but can't be bothered to address them.

The format is masterfully done. I salute you.

The last paragraph. Well put. Perhaps it was always a choice after all. I accidentally rambled for a few paragraphs after that. Read at your own risk.

And so, I think Maybe, if life wasn't spent as planned Maybe, it's time that you lend a hand

Glorious. True poetry.

A change in perspective? Granted, I haven't the foggiest idea what your previous perspective was.

Ah. I surmise you have the scars to show for it.

This is more relatable than one might think. It's an unfortunate thing to be going through: A constant feeling that something is wrong. Yet accompanied by the worry that the feeling is just caused by your ego to try to feel "special". My advice would be this: Seeing as you have identified the possibility that it could all be egotistical, I feel doubtful that it IS egotistical. Thus, if you can, get yourself diagnosed. Don't trust online quizzes though, those things are bad. Even if it turns out there was nothing wrong, at least not in a physiological or psychological level, at least now you know. Better to be viewed as paranoid or attention-seeking by society, than dead or irrevocably mentally damaged from some sort of unidentified manic depression. Sometimes you will feel like you are just trying to fulfill an archetype you read online. Well, whether you like it or not, human beings automatically are guided by ego and self-interest. It's what keeps us alive (I am of the personal belief that ego is simply an advanced survival instinct that has adapted to the development of human society). Those who are truly detached from such factors, are likely dead. I know, or can somewhat grasp the emotions you are likely feeling (I cannot claim to do so certainly, as humans are enigmatic, consistently somewhat to other human beings). I will say that (from personal experience, I admit), researching disorders and such usually ends up sinking oneself deeper into the spiral. You think "Ooo I might have this", when factually it is ridiculously easy to assign a disorder to oneself. You being aware of this is likely part of the reason you are worried that the "disorder" is an ego-spun illusion. Its also rare that a singular disorder is able to fully encompass all your problems, whether they are "fake" or "real". All humans are somewhat neurodivergent, and crass labels like "Antisocial, etc." often succeed in only deepening the archetypes we adhere to. Humans are multifaceted in many manners: Someone defined as antisocial will have situations or scenarios in which they are very social. The labels frequently only succeed in nudging our biases towards what is encompassed by the label. That was a bit of a tangent, I think. But I guess you could get the meaning. Feel free to ask if you wish. I've forgotten what I was talking about. I will update when something else comes to mind.

Well, Judaism doesn't entirely forgo an afterlife. The HaOlam haBa, or the World to Come, is an important aspect of Judaism. I'm not sure whether the Christians definitively "made up" afterlife in Judaism, but I doubt so. Going even farther back, early israelite texts refer to the Sheol, a shadowy place where but the righteous and malevolent souls go to rest, which can be considered an Afterlife.

A nice thought, certainly. However, i often avoid such thoughts. as I see them as avoiding the problem: At no point do you actually address the question of conciousness. I agree with your view on the afterlife. I believe it to be a tool for power as well: Religions always introduce some concept of the "Afterlife", and set requirements for achieving a certain kind of Afterlife. In this manner, religion is a socially constructed tool for controlling the masses: If you disobey these laws, or the ordainances of this church, you go to hell for all eternity. That is the deterrent. Death haunts you while awake? If that is what you are saying, I can relate.

Hello. I am an Atheist. I live as a nihilist and an absurdist. Screw all meaning, I suppose, yet revel in it all the same. Initially a Christian. Hopped around religions for a bit, trying to find one I thought made sense. Buddhist for a while. Converted to Islam for an on-of 2 month duration. A dozen smaller religions entangled into the bunch as well. How does everyone else here handle death? Being: What are your beliefs regarding it, which I believe are unto themselves a coping mechanism somewhat, and if you believe in eternal oblivion, how do you cope?