NiamhNyx said:

In the past several years I've worked on breaking down my sense of self importance, or rather, my sense of duty to the grand scheme of things. In the process I've become an egoist. This may sound like a contradiction in terms, but bear with me. I am not 'important' in the sense that I am not duty bound to solve the problems of the world. I have no destiny, I have no grand task to accomplish. There is nothing I am obligated to achieve or live up to. I'm not important, I simply am. This opens up a great deal of space to play in. Since nothing matters and I am not not bound by destiny or duty my only perogative is to live my life in touch with my desires, always seeking ways to expand upon thier expression. This, however, puts me in conflict with social forces and ideologies that attempt to bind and dissolve my power as an individual, and destroy everything that I desire to experience.(Wilderness, clean air, equality, autonomous communities, freedom, etc.) This brings to mind a quote I am rather fond of: 

"Smash the symbols of the empire in the name of nothing but the heart's longing for grace." Hakim Bey.

---

Agreed. This is what I'm getting at with this thread.

Icelander said:

[...]We make our own meaning for ourselves, but that meaning may have little or nothing to do with our place in the scheme of things.[...]

---

Icelander said:

Agreed. This is what I'm getting at with this thread.

---

Veritas said:

We are special and important to ourselves, and perhaps to a few loved ones. But not in a Universal sense, which is what Icelander's post is about.

---

Veritas said:

There is no evidence that we are important in a Universal sense.  If we were, why disease? Why disaster? Why Genocide? Why child abuse?

It is not necessary to prove that we are not Universally important when no evidence can be shown that we are.

---

Wouldn't our good friend Mr. George 'Dubya' Bush say that the 'absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'??

Did you know that Carl Sagan actually said that as an example of a logical fallacy?    It has been quoted ever since by those who think it proves their point--how ironic! 

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Also, from Diploid's stickied thread:

Quote:

Burden Of Proof

The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

For example, you can't prove that God does not exist, therefore he does.

---