Thought experiment: meaning in life

[Guest]

Exactly. You are acknowledging that you don't have any personal sense of ethics. You just believe what your church tells you to believe.

No, I didn't say that either. I said quite the opposite actually. Why do lawyers such as yourself insist on lying about everything? Is it possible for you to not lie? What I said is that if I really believed there were no meaning, then I would work to overcome my nature, as that would be the logical thing to do. Do you lie because you just can't handle your own truth? Or is that how you achieve your own meaning?

Let's again review what you in fact said:

"What I'll say is this, if I could know with absolute 100% certainty that life truly had no meaning, impossible, but say I really believed that, then I would dedicate every power of will that I could muster to resisting my natural inclination to care for others. I would strive to become a sociopath."

The meaning of those words is that if you found out that your religious dogma was not true, you would consciously choose to abandon any empathy for others and instead try to hurt them.

That means that the only reason you do not make that choice is your belief in your religious mythos, which means that you have no personal sense of ethics. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the words you said.

Let's see......repeats creationist talking points disputing the validity of evolution, repeats revisionist Mormon folklore about the supposed reasons for polygamy, thinks there is no reason to act ethically to others without his church's dogma........

Is this what lawyers do? You take anything that anybody says and twist it, you tell the jury what you want them to think instead of just letting them decide the meaning of what the witness said on their own? And I wonder who is it you think you're trying to fool here? Do you have a following of mindless turds you're trying to impress?

The thread where EAllusion noticed that you're parroting standard creationist talking points disputing evolutionary theory: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34065&p=812545&hilit=creationist#p812545

The thread where Elphaba and others noticed that you are parroting the revisionist LDS folklore about the reasons for polygamy: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34156

The thread where you explicitly said that if you found out your religious beliefs were wrong, you would consciously choose to abandon caring for others and act like a sociopath: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34158

No, see, an existentialist would look to create meaning for himself, not abandon it. The latter again is nihilism, and it's what you said you would choose if you found out your church's dogma was wrong.

Maybe I'm being too generous to think you dishonest. I seem to remember saying that I would look to create meaning for myself.

No, I said an existentialist would look to create meaning for himself or herself. A nihilist and an existentialist are in the same boat in that they both believe life has no inherent, objective meaning. The difference is what each decides to do about it. Here's a simple and fun pop culture way of explaining that, since actually learning about any of the topics you babble about is too much trouble:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... tiNihilist

And my taking exception that you would choose to harm other people without your church to micromanage your ethical values means that I am opposed to wantonly harming other people. That means I have empathy for other people. Which precludes me from being a sociopath.

Harm other people? So to you is lying a demonstration of your empathy?

Feel free to specify anything I have said about your posts that you assert to be a lie. I will be happy to support what I said with your own statements, as I did above.

It's okay, Water Dog. Cracking a book occasionally in your life isn't for everyone.

Time to measure dicks? How about this, what book would you suggest?

That's right, Water Dog. When you clearly have no curiosity in exploring the universe outside your own inner monologue, that means everyone else is in a dick-measuring contest with you when they notice your navel gazing. (Mixed metaphor sponsored by Droopy™.)

Yes, Water Dog. When a person disagrees with your shallow ethos, it means that he lacks empathy. Or something. There's probably a book somewhere that would help you sort that out. Which means that information will remain protected from your scrutiny.

No, it demonstrates you frantically trying to protect your own shallowness.

"You're protecting your own shallowness," said someone who has no demonstrable familiarity with his own religious history and said he would consciously choose to act like a sociopath if he found out his religion was not true.

It is apparent that you are obsessed with the self-created meaningless of your own existence,

If I had created a meaninglessness, then that would mean I came up with a construct to give context to my existence, which doesn't really make sense, does it?

and it clearly troubles you, so everyone must be brought down to your pathetic level. It's classic schoolyard bullying is all it is, except through the anonymity of the internet, for the coward who is too afraid to actually go to a schoolyard. I suppose that somehow in your lawyer mind, your life has more meaning if you can verbally tear the meaning of others down?

Tell me some more about how everyone who gainsays your assertions is all dramatic and emotional. You know, how everyone else but you is like that.

By the way, my name is Justin Roberts. I outed myself on this board a long time ago. So much for that anonymous coward thing, huh? What's your name, Water Dog, since we can't have those anonymous posters cowardly calling people names (like bully and sociopath and liar) on the internet?

Also, my personal attack above wasn't veiled or obfuscate at all. It was quit obvious. And what I said is demonstrably true in your posting history. Your sense of Mormonism is about two steps away from riding a unicycle to church and ironically using Pabst Blue Ribbon for the sacrament.

I use to ride a unicycle actually, not to church, but those were the days. Pabst Blue Ribbon? That must be one of those Utah things, you'll have to explain it to me.

And with that, current pop culture joins the list of Water Dog's inverse-Renaissance-Man ignorance about the world around him.

Demonstrably true huh? Perhaps you should create a thread all about me, and feel free to quote me out of context and tell me what I really think. I think that would be a lot of fun. Let's hear Darths case against Water Dog.

Okay. We'll start with this in-context quote that speaks for itself: "What I'll say is this, if I could know with absolute 100% certainty that life truly had no meaning, impossible, but say I really believed that, then I would dedicate every power of will that I could muster to resisting my natural inclination to care for others. I would strive to become a sociopath."

Could be. Try posting something that isn't trolling, so we can get a baseline.

That would require you to be honest for a few minutes.

Yeah, see, Water Dog, when a person supports his claims with verifiable evidence, that's not dishonesty.

[_Darth J]

My point is very simplistic

Fixed.

[_Darth J]

Sorry, Water Dog. From following the exchanges between you and the others on this forum, it becomes ever clearer to me that you understand Darth J. not at all, and he has you pegged! It is also abundantly clear that you will probably never understand this, no matter what anyone says.

I read it differently. I think Darth J. does understand Water Dog but has a personality disorder that is satiated by argumentation. You on the other hand don't understand Water Dog at all.

Oh, hello, Arch Stanton! How fortuitous that you suddenly show up, and in your first post ever on the board are curiously familiar with all the players! And it just so happens that you intimately understood what Water Dog meant to say, as opposed to what he did say. Just somethin', huh?

I have to agree with you, though, that you can infer a personality disorder when someone is arguing the merits of various ideas.....on an internet message board that consists of people arguing the merits of various ideas. That's a keen insight there, Arch Stanton. I have a similar theory that people on a golf course have a personality disorder that compels them to hit golf balls with a golf club.

However, if you really think you would become a sociopath if you lost your current beliefs in God and a hereafter, and your life would therefore cease to have any meaning for you, I fervently hope you remain a TBM for the rest of your life!

If I read Water Dog correctly I think what he actually said is that there are two types of people who don't believe in god/afterlife. 1) Sociopaths, 2) Emotional Slaves.

Not only did he not present this dichotomy, if the OP meant that there was no meaning to anything---which it doesn't say---then there is nothing to be a slave to, since we're nothing but a bunch of biochemical processes anyway. So your proposed either/or condition that Water Dog didn't ever articulate is incoherent.

Oh, and you have not suggested any reason to accept your proposed dichotomy. There's that, too.

If there is no meaning beyond that which we create, it's not logical to be concerned with others. Empathy, love, selflessness being a pre-programmed biological urge, just like sex, and ought to be bridled and controlled.

No, that's self-contradictory. It doesn't make sense that you need to suppress your instinctive biological urges in order to become unfettered. If abandoning your religious beliefs means that life has no meaning, even subjectively, then there is no apparent reason to deliberately ignore biological urges toward altruism in order to pursue a chosen path of harming others.

In reality though people are weak-minded. True atheists are generally ill-disciplined sociopaths, selfish only to the extent they are able to weakly control their mind. They can't help but care a little. They would likely become true sociopaths not for their laziness.

We of course know this from the historical case study of Korihor, a real person who demonstrated typical atheism when he lived among pre-Columbian Hebrews in America who were Christians living the law of Moses that adopted the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[_Darth J]

No, atheists aren't necessarily sociopaths, although they definitely trend closer to that end of the spectrum

[citation needed]

as Darth (and several others here) demonstrates.

What you do, Water Dog, is copy and paste where I have ever said in four years on this board that I'm an atheist.

You really should stop throwing around the word "sociopath," too, since you clearly don't understand what it means. You gave that away when you said this: "I would strive to become a sociopath." It's the fact that you think a person can choose to become a sociopath that makes it a non-starter for you to act like you know what you're talking about.

Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is the psychological name for "sociopathy," is largely regarded to be caused by a combination of biological factors and environment. Since exploring a book about introductory psychology, or philosophy, or the history of your own goddamn church, is too much work for you, Water Dog, let us turn to that esoteric vault of arcane knowledge, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial ... y_disorder

Personality disorders seem to be caused by a combination of these genetic and environmental influences. Genetically, it is the temperament and the kind of personality a person is born with, and environmentally, it is the way in which a person grows up and the experiences they have had.

You can't "strive" to have a personality disorder, including "sociopathy." Now, you can choose to repress your instincts to be altruistic to others and consciously decide to harm them, and that is exactly what you said you would do in response to the OP. I've never talked to a single person who follows either secular ethics or religiously-inspired ethics who wouldn't consider that to be definitional evil.

You're also totally wrong conceptually when you think that people taking exception on ethical grounds to your proposed "striving" to be a sociopath means that everyone else but you is a sociopath. Again, the library or Barnes&Noble are evidently just a bridge too far, so here's Wikipedia:

Antisocial (or dissocial) personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. There may be an impoverished moral sense or conscience and a history of crime, legal problems, impulsive and aggressive behavior.

Being disturbed by your proposal of "striving" to be a sociopath only makes sense if the person disturbed by it has a regard for, or respect for, the rights of others. That's exactly the opposite of what a person with antisocial personality disorder (a "sociopath") is. You're just throwing this word out as a meaningless invective with no regard for its actual meaning. You may as well be saying that your interlocutors are herpetologists or Quakers.

My point is very simply that self-created meaning in life isn't actually worth anything. And comparatively one person's made-up value is worth no more than another's. It's not logical to be concerned with feelings which themselves have no actual meaning. How is sociopathy any different from selfishness? If by definition life only has whatever meaning we individually assign to it, then also by definition that meaning is selfish in nature. A person could still dedicate their temporary existence to others but 1) wouldn't that still be an act of selfishness and 2) what for?

And once again, an internet defender of the faith proves his interlocutors' point in the course of denying it. What you said above means that you need your church to tell you what to think and how to behave, because you can't come up with it on your own. You just conceded the point that you insist I am "lying" about.

[_Themis]

Which is a zero sum game when the individual has no value...

The individual has value to the individual and probably to other individuals.

But doesn't that then make it your meaning rather than theirs? It's like pegging your currency to the dollar, it's still your currency.

How does that make it selfish?

[_Darth J]

The meaning of those words is that if you found out that your religious dogma was not true, you would consciously choose to abandon any empathy for others and instead try to hurt them.

That means that the only reason you do not make that choice is your belief in your religious mythos, which means that you have no personal sense of ethics. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the words you said.

Blah. There are many other conclusions which can be drawn. One conclusion would be that I'm calling you a sociopath.

No, saying that you personally would strive to become a sociopath doesn't make any sense being interpreted as you calling me that.

Another conclusion might be that I'm framing an impossible scenario regardless of the LDS "mythos" and pointing out that those who claim not to believe in an afterlife actually do.

That makes no sense either, because you have no way of knowing if that's true, and because there are plenty of people who don't believe in an afterlife who can explain in rational terms why they hold ethical views against harming other people.

And yet another conclusion could be that I'm challenging the rationale of empathy from an existential (or nihilistic) context. Just a couple other conclusions that could be drawn... none of which involve doing harm to anybody.

No, asserting that nihilism would drive you to suppress your innate instincts toward altruism is internally incoherent.

That's right, Water Dog. When you clearly have no curiosity in exploring the universe outside your own inner monologue, that means everyone else is in a dick-measuring contest with you when they notice your navel gazing. (Mixed metaphor sponsored by Droopy™.)

So, no suggested books then?

Oh, that's right. It's my job to educate you how to even find out where you would try to learn anything about the world outside of your own head.

"You're protecting your own shallowness," said someone who has no demonstrable familiarity with his own religious history and said he would consciously choose to act like a sociopath if he found out his religion was not true.

Are you trying to attack me or the church?

You. It's not at all fair to label all Mormons as being amoral but for a veneer of religion, which is what "I would strive to be a sociopath" means.

If I had created a meaninglessness, then that would mean I came up with a construct to give context to my existence, which doesn't really make sense, does it?

Hence the obsessive struggle...

Yeah, or maybe you could walk through that again, and see if deliberately creating a construct of meaningless to give yourself meaning makes any sense at all.

My objection to your striving to be a sociopath fantasy doesn't make any sense if I'm a nihilist, by the way.

By the way, my name is Justin Roberts. I outed myself on this board a long time ago. So much for that anonymous coward thing, huh? What's your name, Water Dog, since we can't have those anonymous posters cowardly calling people names (like bully and sociopath and liar) on the internet?

ROFL. Well this just got interesting. I figured the J stood for Jizz, but appreciate the correction. I thought people already knew my name, isn't it William Schryver?

Personally I'm not into outing people. People should be able to engage in discussions without fear of personal or professional discrimination that might result from their opinions. I think it becomes silly to get so nasty though as you like to do.

I see. I accept your concession about anonymous internet bullying was empty posturing, and that you do in fact agree with the anonymous internet name-calling you just decried. That, or you can post what your name is and demonstrate your commitment to this moral principle you claim to hold.

Since you outed yourself though, and so long ago, is this you?

http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/bar_discipline/

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On April 10, 2006, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Justin Roberts for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Yep, it is.

And this?

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5335862

Federal prosecutors say Wayne Bergeson devoted his days to watching videos of child pornography; one of those videos was three hours long. They say by watching those videos, he was directly involved in harming kids. Bergeson also had guns in his house, but was not allowed to have them because he's a convicted felon... He was convicted by a jury in October of 11 second-degree felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and five second-degree felony counts of possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. Bergeson was convicted in 1980 of forcible sex abuse and kidnapping.

I'm not sure even Saul Goodman would defend this guy. I can't believe I'm actually spending time engaging in a debate about morals and empathy with a guy that defends child molesters and has been disbarred. Suddenly your style of communication makes complete sense. And on that note, I don't think I'm going to bother continuing down this message to reply any further.

Well, see, Water Dog, I have not been disbarred. The public reprimand you posted doesn't say I was disbarred, and my voluntary suspension from practicing law isn't disbarrment, either. Oh, and that defendant was not charged with being a child molester. He has charged--and convicted--of possessing child pornography. That's very bad and has a horrific toll on the children who are exploited, but it's not the same as actually molesting children. So congratulations on getting the facts wrong about both me and that former client, even when it was simply spelled out in front of you. That's some admirable reading comprehension you have there.

By the way, how curious that you're acting as if I sympathize with this person's actions, without posting what I was quoted in that article as saying:

Defense attorney Justin Roberts said, "He downloaded things off the Internet. Nobody should do that, nobody should possess that, nobody should possess those movies, but I don't think he was out preying on society in general."

You see, Water Dog, defending someone's right to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence doesn't mean you agree with what that person did (or was accused of doing). Defending someone's right to be treated fairly even if you disagree with what they're doing is how you demonstrate respect for the rights of others. That's sort of the summation of altruism. So what you want to do here is articulate some coherent reason why defending an accused person's right to a fair trial means you approve of that person committing a crime.

You know another funny thing, Water Dog, is you Googled me, and now you're saying I'm this scumbag who associates with child molesters, yet you decidedly left out when I've been quoted in the news representing victims of child molestation. Like this:

Man gets up to 40 years for sexually abusing teen

The victim's attorney Justin Roberts said he was pleased with the long sentence.

"He needs to be away from her. He is an ongoing danger to her," Roberts said. "He's destroyed her."

I wonder why you didn't pick that article I'm quoted in, Water Dog.

Respectfully, with 12k posts, maybe there are better things for you to be doing than wasting time arguing with idiots like me online? I mean that sincerely. I'm not important enough. Actually, this is making me seriously question what the heck I'm doing here. I have no idea who the heck I'm actually talking with here. Why do I care?

Luckily, Water Dog, I can tell you what I'm doing here and what you're doing here.

What I'm doing here is exploring various ideas related to religion and philosophy and the church I was in for most of my life. I'm exploring that largely through debate and examining the merits of argument, since people have been exploring ideas that way for several thousand years of civilization now. And it's not like I had 12,000 posts in the last week. I've been here for a while. And a post that's nothing more than one sentence or one jpeg counts the same as a great big long post that takes time to write.

What you're doing here is demonstrating why anti-Mormonism is superfluous, since Mormons like you do far more damage to the image of your church and its members than the Tanners or Ed Decker could ever have dreamed of doing. Your behavior, up to and including your naked hypocrisy about "anonymous cowards" (I note you aren't letting anyone Google your real name), and your demonstrable lies while accusing all and sundry of same, really do all the work that is needed. I'm not an anti-Mormon, but if I were, I would have people investigating the LDS Church read your posts, Droopy's, and bcspace's. And that would be the end of that person talking to the missionaries.

But hey, you can't read a simple paragraph and get the meaning right, and you're specifically ignorant of essentially everything you talk about, but at least you're an anonymous coward.

by the way, snazzy web design.

http://www.screenshots.com/jkrobertslaw.com/

Oh, the website that I didn't design and haven't used or maintained in ten years? Thanks.

[_Darth J]

Like this:

Man gets up to 40 years for sexually abusing teen

The victim's attorney Justin Roberts said he was pleased with the long sentence.

"He needs to be away from her. He is an ongoing danger to her," Roberts said. "He's destroyed her."

Oh, well in that case I applaud you. Lawyers never lie to the press after all, cue scenes of lawyers talking to the press from Dirty Harry and countless other films.

Of, of course I was lying about being glad this man wouldn't be able to hurt her anymore. Between what you've seen in the movies and random things you heard in Sunday school about Mormon history, it looks like you've got a lock on discernible reality there.

I wonder why you didn't pick that article I'm quoted in, Water Dog.

Well that's easy, I didn't see it. Interesting to learn that defending sexual predators is a habit with you though.

But see, in that KSL article you pulled up, I was quoted as disapproving of what that defendant did, yet you left that out because it conflicted with your ridiculous assertion that defending the rights of someone accused of a crime is the same as approving of the underlying crime.

I forgive you for saying that defending sexual predators is a habit with me. You clearly have me confused with apologists for Joseph Smith, which is understandable. There's nothing anywhere that would justify the assertion that I have a habit of defending sexual predators, particularly since that second article was about me representing the victim of a sexual predator.

However, when you say ridiculous things like this, I get it why you choose to remain in cowardly anonymity, even while whining about other people doing the same.

Luckily, Water Dog, I can tell you what I'm doing here and what you're doing here.

What I'm doing here is exploring various ideas related to religion and philosophy and the church I was in for most of my life. I'm exploring that largely through debate and examining the merits of argument, since people have been exploring ideas that way for several thousand years of civilization now. And it's not like I had 12,000 posts in the last week. I've been here for a while. And a post that's nothing more than one sentence or one jpeg counts the same as a great big long post that takes time to write.

What you're doing here is demonstrating why anti-Mormonism is superfluous, since Mormons like you do far more damage to the image of your church and its members than the Tanners or Ed Decker could ever have dreamed of doing. Your behavior, up to and including your naked hypocrisy about "anonymous cowards" (I note you aren't letting anyone Google your real name), and your demonstrable lies while accusing all and sundry of same, really do all the work that is needed. I'm not an anti-Mormon, but if I were, I would have people investigating the LDS Church read your posts, Droopy's, and bcspace's. And that would be the end of that person talking to the missionaries.

But hey, you can't read a simple paragraph and get the meaning right, and you're specifically ignorant of essentially everything you talk about, but at least you're an anonymous coward.

I thought you were going to tell me what I'm doing here? I was so looking forward to having my fortune told.

I did. You're making a fool of yourself and making Mormons look really bad. You're not offending me. Now if I were still a believing Mormon, I would be, because of the potential of guilt by association.

At any rate, Darth, I wish you well. You've gotten yourself wound rather tight so probably best to stop now. Let the name calling come to an end. I don't want to fight. Please accept my apologies for trolling your thread, goading you, or if I otherwise offended you. I started this. If it makes you feel any better I'm just a kid really. You finished law school before I even finished high school. We probably have very similar personalities, at least as far as hearing our own voices is concerned. I'm not sure what it is, but something about your style of speech just gets under my skin. In the future if you can be courteous I'm sure I can manage the same.

One, I'm not wound tight at all. You're presuming a sense of emotionalism in arguing ideas that other people don't necessarily have. Two, okay, I'm sorry about name-calling, too, and I will be more civil to you.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Since you outed yourself though, and so long ago, is this you?

Yep, this is why defenders of the church want people to out themselves. So they can change the topic and attack people personally. In a way it's understandable, they've been dealt such a terrible hand. I might try to derail and shift topics too.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

Water Dog...I find it funny that your opinion of lawyers is derived from movies. I hope that your opinions on other matters are derived from better sources.

As a lawyer, I take exception to the constant criticism of lawyers. I have noticed that generally the degree to which people dislike lawyers is inversely proportionate to education level. Essentially, uneducated people can't grasp what lawyers do. For example, as Darth J pointed out, you seem to be equating ensuring that an accused has a fair trial with approving of his/her actions. You use "defending" colloquially and you fail to grasp what it means legally. I don't know your level of education, but the comments you make about lawyers are what I'd expect from a fairly ignorant person.

With the greatest respect (there's no easy way to say this) I think you should be doing a lot more research and reflection before you post on a lot of the topics here. You may well be a smart guy, as you clearly seem to think you are, but you aren't where you should be from a research point of view to be posting with the aggression that you display. You're acting like an intellectual heavyweight but the actual content of your posts give the impression that you are an intellectual lightweight.

[_palerobber]

speaking of in real life, i found this short video of WD (seen at left)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4m-lNi61Rk