Humanity’s wishful belief in karma

•December 9, 2011 • 9 Comments

I grew up believing that if I behaved well, that life would reward me. If I listened to my parents, if I followed the rules, then I would be rewarded for my good behavior. However, as I grew up I saw people get things that they didn’t deserve, and others deserved things that they didn’t get. People may never get the life that they deserve no matter how well behaved someone is. Perhaps it is in accordance to our inner sense of fairness or rightness that we always hope the good guys win, and that they will live happily ever after. The fact is, however, that life is not black and white, and there is no such thing as right or wrong, only consequences. What your character is itself does not matter, the only thing that matters are the consequences of what you do.

I hate it when people complain about how selfish humanity is. It is the nature of human beings to be selfish, that’s how they survived millions of years of evolution. If someone was not programmed biologically to be selfish, their genes may have been wiped out years ago.


Might makes Right

•April 16, 2011 • 12 Comments

The only basis for morality is by force. Morals, whether derived from logic or not, cannot be enforced without force. If a individual feels that murder is wrong, then that is his own morals, but that does not stop someone else from murdering. When a large enough group of individuals agrees that something is wrong, that morality is defined in a law. Legal morality is based upon the ideas of a majority of the society in which it is drafted. As that society changes, the morality of it changes. Moral stances are backed up by force and the threat of force rather than by reference to an absolute morality. An idea that something is wrong or right does not become an “universal” moral rule until it is backed up by the people that believe it, and enforced by those people. If the people who believe in a certain moral rule do not exist, then the moral rule or law ceases to exist. A moral rule is fully dependent on the people who believe it and enforce it. Might makes right.

Even if a God exists, how is the morals that God imposes on the universe any different from a mortal human being’s own moral beliefs? The only difference is that God is all-powerful, and a mortal is not, which again proves that might makes right.

Deep pictures/comics

•April 10, 2011 • 4 Comments

Extension on Nihilism

•August 21, 2010 • 1 Comment

Free will continued

•August 21, 2010 • 7 Comments

If there is something that gives us free will, that free will could be explained through chemical and physical reactions, therefore making it not free will.

If everything could be understood, then obviously there would be absolutely no free will

But because we don’t understand everything because of our limited reasoning faculty in our brain, sometimes we assign things we don’t understand to ‘god’ or other magical forces.

I mean, if the whole human body can be understood through science and chemical reactions, then free will is completely destroyed.

It is because of our ignorance that we are still able to believe in such things as free will.

There is no such thing as “living beings”

•August 9, 2010 • 6 Comments

This is an extension to the “Human being are nothing but objects” post I made awhile ago. I thought of a better way to put it.

There is no such thing as “living beings”, but rather just complex biological machines programmed to survive through the use of irrational desires and emotions, which are the product of nothing except physical chemical reactions. Basically organisms are a complex arrangement of matter that became able to serve different functions and replicate its complexity through some sort of reproduction.

Complexity does not make us living beings, we are still dead matter.

A weird thought just hit me

•August 5, 2010 • 6 Comments

Teleportation, a machine de-constructs our molecules and re-constructs them somewhere else. You teleported to that somewhere else.

So what if the machine delays the de-construction but still re-constructs somewhere else. Or even doesn’t de-construct at all. Will you be two people at the same time?

Or what if that machine does de-construct you, but re-constructs you in two different places, would you be two people?

Let’s say that you are about to be teleported in an hour. You will be re-constructed in heaven and in hell. Should you be excited or sad?

How do you define yourself?

Are you defined as the actual atoms in your body? But then teleportations means you are dead. Plus, atoms flow in and out of your body all the time.

Rather are you defined as the formation of atoms in your body, but not the actual atoms themselves? But this poses another serious problem. Who is to say that you are the same person each day? Every moment and second there are chemical reactions and molecules moving around in your body. If you are not defined as the actual atoms in your body, but the formation of them, aren’t you a different person every moment of your life? Because the molecules in your body keep shifting.

After thinking about this for some time, the most enlightening, yet un-reassuring thought occurred to me:

Evolution made us think of ourselves as the same person all throughout our lives so that it can protect the same genes all throughout our lives.

… the definition of self is an illusion…

After this thought, all I could think of was… What The Fuck