I would like to address your world view and only your world view OP. I feel like it is pushing you toward a sociopathic attitude in which you quantify everything. I want to say that I nor anyone else on this forum or in this world can interpret your views on atheism for you, but I can also say that the concept of not having a grand scheme of things is an incredibly dreary and undesirable one. This concept alone will abstract your life, being that while you're right, perhaps your life will have no lasting impact, and all your joy should be centered on yourself. What value does this have over not centering all your joy on yourself? All of these concepts of joy are functions of dopamine are they not? Why not be absolutely altruistic in your pursuits since they have exactly the same "EV" of being selfish?

The real reason is your definition and choice. Rationalizing how you see the world and the decisions you make with the false principle of "logic" are only one way to perceive your actions. There is no "logical" superior between any of your actions as you said it best yourself, what you do may not matter. And this brings us to an existentialist cornerstone, that being you are not defined by some higher being, or post-humous life, but your actions in this life. This is also, simply another way of viewing a life that ultimately prescribes to be 0 EV. The point being all these choices seem to net to nothing, however they are still choices you make and please do not misunderstand them as ultimate logical imperatives.

We simply exist, it however is your choice to be a selfish *******(definition prescribed by society), so please do not rationalize your choices into logic with absolute conviction on the premises of atheism.

good lord please do not have children

the way you have described this doesn't have you dealing w/anything subconscious. perhaps i'm just being nitty though

If giving is about minimizing your own direct utility to maximize someone else's, but you think that maximizing your own utility is the only course of action that is justifiable, how can you reasonably choose to give? I mean you'd have to internalize the futility of indirect utilitity by definition if you had that world view.

It's not about the debt, it's about what you get for the debt. If it's about either having the girl or losing her, then yeah it can be worth it. But if it's just a matter of gaining the title of 'married', how can that possibly be a better use of resources than a house or a step toward retirement or even putting away money for your future kid's education or overall well being?

This isn't a textbook or a philosophy paper, this is your life. Try telling your girl that you don't want children because it won't maximize your utility; she won't leave you because you don't want children, she will leave you because you are a clown.

Our dopamine may be worthless from a grand scheme perspective but for us (which is all there is as far as we're concerned), our dopamine is inescapable. We can't experience happiness beyond the chemical mechanism for happiness unless there is a realm of happiness that transcends our physical being altogether, and this just doesn't make sense if all we are is an ongoing chemical reaction. If you think we have a soul and that there's someone in the clouds watching our every move, keeping score, then yeah you can be altruistic. But otherwise it just doesn't make sense to do anything but embrace our own limitations and maximize our utility according to their own rules.

I've changed my mind. Marry this girl. You won't find any other girl in the world that can stand you.

I guess my point would be that it would make me hypersensitive to signs that the subconscious factors are in play, thus they'd cease to be subconscious, thus they wouldn't be effective.

Actually, as far as were concerned we might as well be complexly operant conditioned dogs that have grown up and perhaps have far too long of a lifespan. All your definitions of utility are ones ingrained via life experiences, nurture, parents, whatever. For you to arrogantly assume that your own assignments of utiles to various activities and engagements are absolute is illogical in its own right. For you to pursue this idea of happiness being absolute is hilarious seeing as your entire thought processes, personality, etc for the most part would seem to be ingrained through experience. Even my conception of what is hilarious itself is not "my conception," in fact it is an amalgamate of parental guidance, tv, and whatever other influences in my life have brought me to believe.

As such, being that the very own utiles of which I justify my ultimate utileless existence are defined by others, I would much disagree with the notion that caring for others only exists if you think there are cloud people. It is an uninformed notion that our utiles have nothing to do with others.

On a different level, the very notion you are not attached to someone else is also quite awkward, but perhaps it is just you. People have an uncanny ability to attach themselves to even inanimate toys, yet you believe an active person that reciprocates is simply a decision on the utile scale? I feel quite sorry for you if you truly are unable to attach utiles to something. I personally know that i lose happiness if my favorite dress shirt set on fire. I would give an irrational amount more for "my" dress shirt versus a normal dress shirt, regardless that they both contain roughly the same macro balance of chemical compounds and quantities. The point to be hammered accross here is the assignment of utility is purely personalized, and most definitely not a rational activity. Sentimentality is not an illogical concept reserved for the crazy and the god fearing. Again, perspective and subjective-reality sir.

The best part is the concept of utility and utiles in itself is only vastly theoretical. The direct applications to life are a misinterpretation. I really hope you enjoy defining your life thoroughly through a system applied in economics, yet no one in economics can accurately predict or value anything.

jesus christ could you be any ****ing lamer

That's what she said!

OP you must be very good looking since you come off very weird so congrats on having a gf.

So if everyone's individual notion of happiness is merely a construct of their environment with some genetic predilection mixed in, you would agree that we can't beat that or rise above it, because it defines the 'it' we're trying to rise above to begin with.

Applying your concepts to myself, you'd say my definition of reality and happiness isn't any truly more rational than the next person. But you'd agree it doesn't change anything - I'm still bound by my own perception of things, and that perception happens to be determined by my own concept of rationality.

In your case, you'd say 'hey, I attach more utility to my own shirt than to an identical shirt I've never worn, just because that's how it strikes me, and I won't fight that because there isn't any absolute truth to the value of any shirt anyway, just differing opinions based on differing perceptions which are formed by differing environments'. In my case, maybe I'd start out attaching more utility to my own shirt, but then I'd realize that there really is no difference between my own shirt and the next one, thus it doesn't make sense to value my shirt differently. Right there, I could no longer justify valuing my shirt differently, and I'd therefore value them the same whether I wanted to or not.

Or bringing it back to the matter at hand, you'd have a kid and assign more utility to it than anything, and you wouldn't resist that notion because you know there isn't an absolute truth to how it should be anyway. But I'd have a kid and realize that it isn't any different than any other kid, and simply because of that realization, I could no longer justify assigning imbalanced utility.

I'm not sure who is thinking on a higher level in that instance, we're probably on even ground, but the results are polar opposites.

OOT has an overwhelming consensus to agree with this. We gave him our advice on the matter.

Therefore, I expect wedding photos in six months.

Oh, and what LFS AND EVERYONE ELSE SAID.

I will most certainly concede that in the end sum I cannot be more correct than you are. I have no interest in being more correct or more incorrect at the valuation of life or all entailing. I only wanted to address the concept that your assignment of utility is based upon your own perspectives and predispositions that are not absolute nor justified by atheism.

In all truthfulness whatever decision you may choose will in your views be the correct one. The intellectual choice will be whether and how you question your views before making such a choice. No one will dissuade you otherwise, and I shall not attempt to do so. Just realize that you may or may not be playing a game of incomplete information, and your decisions are not based on absolute information.

I also imagine that you have some sense of societal good instilled in you, I really hope you do not feel ambivalent or happy when persay your significant other cries. I can hope that even you might feel the negative utility of that, and understand this beautiful concept of sentimentality that I have the privilege of enjoying and abandon your pursuit of an unquestionable rationality. If you do not, I can only say I quite enjoy these feelings and colors that add to my life.

+1

Marry and have kids. All girls are a like pretty much. They all want kids (atleast 90%). What are the odds of you finding anybody better who doesnt want kids?

People marry young, live happily ever after. People have the love of their life, but let it slip away. People lose the love of their life, but then find another in another decade. People find many loves throughout their life. People find no one.

Have a brew, make your decision, and don't look back.

The disconnect on kids will prove to be a major hindrance to the success of the marriage.

wow OP getting tons of backlash, yet i find myself nodding my head and saying "yep!" when i read his posts.

Atheists shouldn't procreate.

Enough with the ***** gambling metaphors you clown.

GF's likely reaction if she ever found and read this thread:

"Good God what a pretentious ass-clown. I've wasted the last seven years of my life."

LOL@ this chic wanting to have kids with this guy.

I don't know. I think pragmatic aspects of the decision like this can have some merit to them. Certainly economic aspects are huge factors (even more so historically) in getting married, and I think if you're getting married and DO really feel like looking for someone else that's probably a bigger problem. I know I've posted this in another thread some time ago, but I tend to think that marriage is an institution that doesn't make a ton of sense to me except in the context of child-raising, where explicit commitment seems to have a lot more merit. I think that outlook is probably somewhat similar to OP, in some sense, so it makes sense that some of these objections make sense to me.

My main argument against these being the prime motivators for marriage would itself be pragmatic - in the end these are probably not enough to make you happy with your choice, and that will just result in unpleasantness for everybody involved. There are plenty of successful marriages that get put together for reasons like the above, but I tend to think they come more from other cultures without the same emphasis on romantic love.