origin of life...

[queenofnines]

I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.

And how would living forever have any more of a point?  Life is special because it ends...  You are right that it ultimately doesn't make a difference whether you die today or 100 years from now; I see it as akin to what's the point of going to a movie if you know it's just going to end in two hours?  The point is to enjoy yourself, of course, and that enjoyment can carry over and last longer than just those two hours.  

It might sound cliche and like a Hallmark card, but your life is a gift; whether you throw it in the trash right away or ultimately play with it for awhile makes no difference.  However, since you're going to die anyway, why not make the most of the brief time you have?  Life can be quite enjoyable for those who get out there and live it to the fullest.  

We are also programmed with a survival instinct, which makes it pretty difficult for us to seriously contemplate killing ourselves even if we realize it's all pointless.


P.S. I am okay with receiving some bottles.

[Abrupt]

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

If most people believe they don't actually die when they die, where is the motivation for developing the scientific technology to try and extend our natural lifespans?  If this life is just the doormat where we wipe our feet until we get to the "real life" in eternity, why bother trying to contribute anything of significance to better humanity?

Any belief that isn't true is inherently harmful.  You can put yourself and others around you through some pretty nasty stuff clinging to the "comfort" of your beliefs.  There are tons of examples of this, from germaphobes to doomsday worriers to wacky diet enthusiasts.

I see it quite the opposite.

Of course you do; having taken the position of a religious adherent/'true believer' means a certain obligation to defend such a position, (even when at a tactical and strategic disadvantage). 

Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  Furthermore stipulate and expound upon the tactical and strategic disadvantages I suffer from while so defending such quests for advances in these areas?

If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.  The contribution to humanity would be for the same reason the larvae eats while in that stage -- and that is because it is a development stage to what comes after.

Non sequitur.  This is contextually-equivalent to asking, "why live for even a moment?"  The questions aren't rhetorical since the main objective of being alive is to first to live; all else would follow that prerequisite.

You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless.  You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.  What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?  You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

[Abrupt]

I see it quite the opposite.  If we are as fleeting as you indicate then why prolong the agony.  Why extend life 100 years or 1000 years when ultimately each of those years is just another reminder of your coming demise -- what a wicked self inflicted wound that would be.

And how would living forever have any more of a point?  Life is special because it ends...  You are right that it ultimately doesn't make a difference whether you die today or 100 years from now; I see it as akin to what's the point of going to a movie if you know it's just going to end in two hours?  The point is to enjoy yourself, of course, and that enjoyment can carry over and last longer than just those two hours.  

It might sound cliche and like a Hallmark card, but your life is a gift; whether you throw it in the trash right away or ultimately play with it for awhile makes no difference.  However, since you're going to die anyway, why not make the most of the brief time you have?  Life can be quite enjoyable for those who get out there and live it to the fullest.  

We are also programmed with a survival instinct, which makes it pretty difficult for us to seriously contemplate killing ourselves even if we realize it's all pointless.


P.S. I am okay with receiving some bottles.

Here I agree it is in the journey that the importance exists.

It comes back to my previous questions about those who believe we are only temporary and meaningless and that nothing matters and one should simply live to enjoy.  Why don't such people do this then?  Why do they confine themselves to the wills of others (society/government/law) when they know that such ultimately deprives them of the best experiences they could obtain?  You mentioned before that you do so out of fear (being arrested/etc) but that is an irrational response to an emotion just as is the hard wired survival instinct.  If you have as much certainty in your temporary state as you maintain then these should be something you could overcome and then truly enjoy life as you wanted to instead of traveling blindly within the herd of society bending daily to the will of the pack and the oppression of those who have claimed authority.  You should actively pursue asserting your dominion over others, never toiling or doing anything that you absolutely did not honestly wish to do, and never tolerating even an instance of unhappiness (as unhappiness and hardship would be entirely manufactured by you since you are not bound by any reason to endure it otherwise).

That is my quandary with what you say you wish and know compared to what you do.  Maybe I am thinking about it too cold and logically to understand the emotional devotions that are implied by one who shares your views though -- I don't know but it puzzles me...

[falcon9]

Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  

That's not the obligation I wrote of.  In context, it remains the same burden of proof obligation for a believer making religious assertions.  I didn't include "a desire to seek scientific advancements" within the paradigm of specious religious beliefs, that's a tangetial diversion you introduced just now.  Such diversions aside, you still have failed to meet the burden of proof obligation for the religious assertions you've made thusfar.  Doubtless you'd prefer rehashing your rationale, (not "reasons"), for doing so however, we've previously argued these points inconclusively.  It was deemed moot to continue unless you either produce tangible/factual evidence to support your previous religiously-based, (not 'scientifically-based), claims under the burden of proof obligations, (or, simply concede that there is no such evidence; e.g., that "faith" is a belief which lacks evidence).  At this juncture, you've chosen neither option and wish to pursue a third; that of prevarications.

You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless. You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.

Don't presume to tell me that I missed the point when you actually mean that you're perceiving that I've missed your point, (the two are not equivalent).  As I have addressed the point, (so far, to a limited extent), your first presumption is false.  As to your second presumption regarding a "claim" I never explicitly not, implicitly made; please quote where I made such a claim in context, otherwise your second
contention is also false.

What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?

Your conclusions proceed from a false premise; I've never maintained that life was "a pointless struggle ...".  As QoN has pointed out to you, being aware of having a finite lifespan isn't logically-equivalent to "a pointless struggle".  The point of life is to live while you are able and to make the best of the time you do have.  If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.

You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

[queenofnines]

It comes back to my previous questions about those who believe we are only temporary and meaningless and that nothing matters and one should simply live to enjoy.  Why don't such people do this then?  Why do they confine themselves to the wills of others (society/government/law) when they know that such ultimately deprives them of the best experiences they could obtain?

Running amok and breaking all sorts of laws is the entitlement you seek (as you've stated before).  Everyone has their own definition of what the "best experiences" are.  For some, it's doing drugs, for others (like me), it's traveling the world and engaging in as many unique activities as possible.  Most people hold themselves back, though, from obtaining their personal definition of the best experiences.  I try not to as much as reasonably possible.

You mentioned before that you do so out of fear (being arrested/etc) but that is an irrational response to an emotion just as is the hard wired survival instinct.

You're twisting my words.  Like I said before, the fear of being caught is not the primary reason for avoiding illegal activities.  It doesn't come naturally to most people to do harm just for the "fun" of it.

traveling blindly within the herd of society bending daily to the will of the pack and the oppression of those who have claimed authority.

I agree that most people do this; few people are truly unique and think for themselves.  However, as a rule, I don't blindly accept whatever society is selling and defy the status quo on many counts.  One example of how I do this is when it comes to wanting children.  Reproducing is an ingrained expectation and one that most people will oblige to without ever giving it a second thought.

never toiling or doing anything that you absolutely did not honestly wish to do, and never tolerating even an instance of unhappiness

Both of these are extremely unrealistic.  There are some things you just have to do if you wish to continue surviving.  You can't expect others to wait on you hand and foot when it comes to acquiring food just because you don't feel like working to earn it, for example.  And it's pretty much impossible to never experience unhappiness, as a breadth of situations are out of your control.

[falcon9]

Maybe I am thinking about it too cold and logically to understand the emotional devotions that are implied by one who shares your views though -- I don't know but it puzzles me...

One hypothesis regarding your puzzlement is that your contention is extremely hypocritical, (neither logical nor 'ironic').  That is, those "emotional devotions" are more accurately applied to faith-based non-reasoning and there's little of 'cold logic' in that, (due to "faith" being "blind" by definition and bereft of logical reasoning).

[Cuppycake]

Maybe I am thinking about it too cold and logically to understand the emotional devotions that are implied by one who shares your views though -- I don't know but it puzzles me...

One hypothesis regarding your puzzlement is that your contention is extremely hypocritical, (neither logical nor 'ironic').  That is, those "emotional devotions" are more accurately applied to faith-based non-reasoning and there's little of 'cold logic' in that, (due to "faith" being "blind" by definition and bereft of logical reasoning).

Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this

[falcon9]

Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this

You can't steal what's freely given, m'lady.  Enjoy.
 

[Cuppycake]

Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this

You can't steal what's freely given, m'lady.  Enjoy.
 

Why thank you sir !

[falcon9]

Just so ya know ... I am soo stealing this ...

You can't steal what's freely given, m'lady.  Enjoy.
 

Why thank you sir !

*tips cowboy hat*
{there's a surprise, although not usually worn when posting - moreso when riding along the fenceposts}

[Abrupt]

Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  

That's not the obligation I wrote of.  In context, it remains the same burden of proof obligation for a believer making religious assertions.  I didn't include "a desire to seek scientific advancements" within the paradigm of specious religious beliefs, that's a tangetial diversion you introduced just now.  Such diversions aside, you still have failed to meet the burden of proof obligation for the religious assertions you've made thusfar.  Doubtless you'd prefer rehashing your rationale, (not "reasons"), for doing so however, we've previously argued these points inconclusively.  It was deemed moot to continue unless you either produce tangible/factual evidence to support your previous religiously-based, (not 'scientifically-based), claims under the burden of proof obligations, (or, simply concede that there is no such evidence; e.g., that "faith" is a belief which lacks evidence).  At this juncture, you've chosen neither option and wish to pursue a third; that of prevarications.

It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to.  If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made.  I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all, on the contrary it is you that follows a consistent duck, dodge, dip and obfuscate pattern.

You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless. You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.

Don't presume to tell me that I missed the point when you actually mean that you're perceiving that I've missed your point, (the two are not equivalent).  As I have addressed the point, (so far, to a limited extent), your first presumption is false.  As to your second presumption regarding a "claim" I never explicitly not, implicitly made; please quote where I made such a claim in context, otherwise your second
contention is also false.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie.  It is quite obvious you missed the point as you couldn't even manage the simple task of following the topic the reply was in reference to.  My first point is dead on center, and my second could only be false if I didn't know what I was responding to in my response to QoN -- but I did and it was you that didn't, and still apparently doesn't, know.  I suppose now we will have to debate what I was replying to, and of course you would obviously know my own thoughts better than I would, eh?  You really need to pay closer attention to what is being said and to what it is being said to.

What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?

Your conclusions proceed from a false premise; I've never maintained that life was "a pointless struggle ...".  As QoN has pointed out to you, being aware of having a finite lifespan isn't logically-equivalent to "a pointless struggle".  The point of life is to live while you are able and to make the best of the time you do have.  If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.

What conclusions?  I am asking questions in the above.  Again, go back and actually read what was said and to what it was said.  Remember, as much as you seem to want to make this about you, it was a point I was raising with QoN about my confusion on the subject.  I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog.  I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying then ask me to stipulate and clarify (and no I am not saying that I think I am speaking too complex, I am saying that my meaning may not be reaching the intended target with the clarity that I desired -- oh wait it is you that considers that perfectly fine though and an insult upon the reader as you stated ever so conceitedly in your 'dumbing-down or wising-up' thread.  Do know that I consider the obligation of clarity to be the responsibility of the speaker and not the audience and so I would put myself at fault if there is uncertainty.).

You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all.  You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs.  If you are not aware of this then you posses little awareness or are incredibly narcissistic and you would actually be entirely "blind" in your faith of your own critical thinking abilities (that is sure to get your nostrils to flare I would imagine, unless you are like me and smile and think "oh good one").  Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).  You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable.  Where is your confidence then?  Where is this mindset you hinted at when discussing your psychological evaluations for certain undisclosed military 'special' operations?  As Shakespeare wrote "To thine own self be true".

It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...

[Abrupt]

It comes back to my previous questions about those who believe we are only temporary and meaningless and that nothing matters and one should simply live to enjoy.  Why don't such people do this then?  Why do they confine themselves to the wills of others (society/government/law) when they know that such ultimately deprives them of the best experiences they could obtain?

Running amok and breaking all sorts of laws is the entitlement you seek (as you've stated before).  Everyone has their own definition of what the "best experiences" are.  For some, it's doing drugs, for others (like me), it's traveling the world and engaging in as many unique activities as possible.  Most people hold themselves back, though, from obtaining their personal definition of the best experiences.  I try not to as much as reasonably possible.

Well it isn't necessarily from a desire to break laws, but from a desire to do exactly what I want to when I want to.  If I truly believed as I seem to understand that you do then this is likely what I would do (perhaps I would add a degree of caution though and not make entirely foolish gambles).  In such a world why would I ever choose to do anything that I didn't want to do?  I think the reason they don't do this is because they act as sheep and are weak in will and only possess limited capacity to realize what they think they believe.  They can see the surface of the lake but not what lies within -- if the lake was their own true thoughts - that or they are afraid of the water.  This was my question to you and it is one that I don't understand. 

I know I don't think like others, I don't have the same emotional sympathies that most people display.  I don't really care so much if others have a bad day, even though I would tell them "sorry to hear that" (when I do this I am not lying I am honest as I am sorry that I had to hear it...jk (a little)).  I am not entirely cold-blooded in my emotions though.  I would prefer everyone to have an enjoyable time and I don't want any to suffer or be in misery.  It is just that I would much rather it be them a lot than me even a little.  This is the me at my natural core.

With my faith and belief it is different for me.  I put others before me even at greater expense to myself.  Now if you assume I am honest about how I tend to describe how I generally think then you must also get an understand of just how compelling my beliefs seem to be to me.  This is also why I previously described myself as a good candidate to justify faith and you likely wouldn't really want someone like me running around doing exactly 'everything' that I wanted to (not that I am as terrible in the ways you see 'bad' as you mentioned in another thread, but that I would be as terrible at the things I mentioned as understanding as 'bad' in that same thread).

You mentioned before that you do so out of fear (being arrested/etc) but that is an irrational response to an emotion just as is the hard wired survival instinct.

You're twisting my words.  Like I said before, the fear of being caught is not the primary reason for avoiding illegal activities.  It doesn't come naturally to most people to do harm just for the "fun" of it.

Sorry for reading into them differently.  Understand I am trying to read them as I would see them applying to myself in a manner to show my confusion with how I see your view.  This also highlights your confusion with my views (just as mine with yours) in where you mention harming others just for the fun of it.  To think as me it would be 'harming' them to 'remove' them from your area or a contested acquisition or some reason like that and not for 'fun' (but I suppose it could be fun to some in that same way but I am not such a person).

traveling blindly within the herd of society bending daily to the will of the pack and the oppression of those who have claimed authority.

I agree that most people do this; few people are truly unique and think for themselves.  However, as a rule, I don't blindly accept whatever society is selling and defy the status quo on many counts.  One example of how I do this is when it comes to wanting children.  Reproducing is an ingrained expectation and one that most people will oblige to without ever giving it a second thought.

Respect to you in not being a blind follower.  Still, though, are their things you don't do that you want to for reasons other than emotional considerations?

never toiling or doing anything that you absolutely did not honestly wish to do, and never tolerating even an instance of unhappiness

Both of these are extremely unrealistic.  There are some things you just have to do if you wish to continue surviving.  You can't expect others to wait on you hand and foot when it comes to acquiring food just because you don't feel like working to earn it, for example.  And it's pretty much impossible to never experience unhappiness, as a breadth of situations are out of your control.

Plausibly unrealistic but not absolutely.  One with will and clarity enough could effectively exert their will and achieve such things at a very minimum of effort (and certainly less effort and time than working).  The unhappiness is a bit different as it is a chemical and emotional response and not always entirely in ones control, but it too could be greatly eliminated if one simply had the desire to do it as much as the freedom their temporary state necessarily suggests.

[falcon9]

It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to. 

My reply was contextual to the discussion underway and the "obligation" you chose wasn't the only one available since another was just indicated.

If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made. 

Falsely insinuating such when my replies have been contextual to discussions responded to is a weak diversionary tactic on your part.

I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all ...

Denying that you prevaricate, when there is extant evidence of you doing so, (in your on words, unless your elusive squirrels have been posting in your stead), is disingenuous.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie. 

Junkie?  Where did that random ad hominem come from, a realization that you lost an argument and resorted to simple name-calling?

I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog. 

If I were unable to "grasp the flow of the dialog", how is it that some portions of my replies have reflected and expanded upon what QoN has also posted in reply to the same "flow of dialog"?  Are you implicitly suggesting that she cannot follow that "flow", even though the replies from both of us have manifestly shown otherwise?  It's unclear whether you've marked this week on your calendar as "make false accusations & ad homs" week or, if this is merely the tactic you resort to when you've painted yourself into corners.  Either way, it's irrational and not indicative of critical thinking skills in action.

I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying ...

I never suggested that I didn't understand what you're saying, (or implying/insinuating or prevaricating about); that's your false insinuation.

You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all. 

Your simple denial runs contrary to the extant evidence of your posts in this thread.

You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs. 

More precisely, I am very critical of the specious beliefs that others hold, (not specifically of those holding them).

If you are not aware of this ...

My reply indicates that I am aware of consistently applying critical thinking to the concepts of 'belief-sans-evidence' therefore, any conclusions drawn from a premise of being unaware of this do not follow.

Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).

Secular laws do not require blind faith in them, nor worship, nor an unreasonable expectation that they are structured upon a lackof evidentiary procedures. Conversely, religious belief systems, precepts and strictures are exclusively dependent upon blind faith in their basis in order to induce a measure of control over 'believers'.  If you are unable to discern the differences between the two, your self-declared "critical thinking skills" would fall significantly short in this regard.

You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable. 

No, QoN mentioned fears in context.  If you are unable to follow the ebb and flow of who posted what, learn to correctly discern attributions.

It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...

It was not I who was operating under any false pretense, nor was I being sought when your squirrels were looking for nuts.

[Cuppycake]

Tell me then, what it is you know, of a believer's obligation (mine) to defend a position of a desire to seek scientific advancements?  

That's not the obligation I wrote of.  In context, it remains the same burden of proof obligation for a believer making religious assertions.  I didn't include "a desire to seek scientific advancements" within the paradigm of specious religious beliefs, that's a tangetial diversion you introduced just now.  Such diversions aside, you still have failed to meet the burden of proof obligation for the religious assertions you've made thusfar.  Doubtless you'd prefer rehashing your rationale, (not "reasons"), for doing so however, we've previously argued these points inconclusively.  It was deemed moot to continue unless you either produce tangible/factual evidence to support your previous religiously-based, (not 'scientifically-based), claims under the burden of proof obligations, (or, simply concede that there is no such evidence; e.g., that "faith" is a belief which lacks evidence).  At this juncture, you've chosen neither option and wish to pursue a third; that of prevarications.

It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to.  If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made.  I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted.  I am not elusive at all, on the contrary it is you that follows a consistent duck, dodge, dip and obfuscate pattern.

You entirely miss the point of the message.  You claim to know that your existence is finite and ultimately entirely meaningless. You claim to know this with certainty and tout your reason and logic.

Don't presume to tell me that I missed the point when you actually mean that you're perceiving that I've missed your point, (the two are not equivalent).  As I have addressed the point, (so far, to a limited extent), your first presumption is false.  As to your second presumption regarding a "claim" I never explicitly not, implicitly made; please quote where I made such a claim in context, otherwise your second
contention is also false.

I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie.  It is quite obvious you missed the point as you couldn't even manage the simple task of following the topic the reply was in reference to.  My first point is dead on center, and my second could only be false if I didn't know what I was responding to in my response to QoN -- but I did and it was you that didn't, and still apparently doesn't, know.  I suppose now we will have to debate what I was replying to, and of course you would obviously know my own thoughts better than I would, eh?  You really need to pay closer attention to what is being said and to what it is being said to.

What does reason and logic say about such a situation?  Does it say to pursue a pointless struggle that you are absolutely positive you will lose or does it say instead to listen to your own irrational emotions and genetic brainwashing to struggle to the end -- even though you are positively convinced that your struggle is absolutely without a chance?

Your conclusions proceed from a false premise; I've never maintained that life was "a pointless struggle ...".  As QoN has pointed out to you, being aware of having a finite lifespan isn't logically-equivalent to "a pointless struggle".  The point of life is to live while you are able and to make the best of the time you do have.  If someone irrationally takes that as some kind of narcisstic license to do whatever they want, in disregard of secular laws and infringes upon others in a negative way, such persons will be 'taken out' according to the precepts of secular laws, not "after life" by specious religious precepts.

What conclusions?  I am asking questions in the above.  Again, go back and actually read what was said and to what it was said.  Remember, as much as you seem to want to make this about you, it was a point I was raising with QoN about my confusion on the subject.  I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it.  You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you?  I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side.  Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog.  I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able.  If you don't understand exactly what I am saying then ask me to stipulate and clarify (and no I am not saying that I think I am speaking too complex, I am saying that my meaning may not be reaching the intended target with the clarity that I desired -- oh wait it is you that considers that perfectly fine though and an insult upon the reader as you stated ever so conceitedly in your 'dumbing-down or wising-up' thread.  Do know that I consider the obligation of clarity to be the responsibility of the speaker and not the audience and so I would put myself at fault if there is uncertainty.).

You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.

Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith.  Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
- http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

It isn't false at all.  You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs.  If you are not aware of this then you posses little awareness or are incredibly narcissistic and you would actually be entirely "blind" in your faith of your own critical thinking abilities (that is sure to get your nostrils to flare I would imagine, unless you are like me and smile and think "oh good one").  Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).  You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable.  Where is your confidence then?  Where is this mindset you hinted at when discussing your psychological evaluations for certain undisclosed military 'special' operations?  As Shakespeare wrote "To thine own self be true".

It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...

[falcon9]

Doubtless, so it would seem to a passerby to this thread.