Yeah, so in that context, I would agree that don't think anyone can truly believe that their life means nothing. Even if you are a person who has lost everything (family, friends, money, etc...) you can still continue to have an impact (and a positive one) if you choose to do so.
But I don't really see what any religion has to do with that thought process, unless it is through religion that you find a community which to affect and/or through religion that you find your moral guide. And could certainly be the case for plenty of people (the majority of people even). But that doesn't exclude those without religion from finding those things.
I really do believe that religious people don't even approach these questions the way that an outsider thinks they do.
"You" go back to nothingness. But you leave a void and nature abhors voids.
Something somewhere in the vast extent of existence will be 'opening its eyes' and will need consciousness. It can fill in the void that you left.
The fact that you exist as something now means that existence as something is possible. "Nothing" is the wrong answer, because it could be literally anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing
Yes, I am making it up. Its not an answer, its just a way of looking at things.
I'm not saying "I don't know", I'm saying "I don't know, but its something".
I don't really understand the hostility here, its a thread about death, what else is there but personal musings
Didn't mean to be hostile. Just don't understand why you would make stuff up. I get it more when somebody refers to the bible if they look to that as an authority, or Buddhist teachings or whatever, but you struck me as a lone wolf making up your own thing all by yourself and I find that weird.
It is crazy-ish. Lots of interesting gems in here.
As I have said before, I am really, really astounded as to how certain many atheists are as to the most important questions asked by human beings throughout history.
I'm surprised by your surprise. Certainty is an interesting word for it; it's simply a belief predicated on a lack of evidence for any alternative possibility. If such compelling evidence presents itself, I suspect that's all it would take for people to change their minds.
There is no good reason to believe, or even remain open to the possible truth of, any sort of numinous crap on bad evidence.
As for questions asked by human beings throughout history, human beings throughout history have generally been exceedingly stupid. Most human beings still are. Pattern-seeking and an inability to cope with gaps in understanding are a part of how the human mind seems to have evolved, so it's hardly surprising that our first attempts to explain the workings of the universe involve some really dumb guesses made in the absence of any real data.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I really do believe that religious people don't even approach these questions the way that an outsider thinks they do.
I would agree, but wouldn't that be because the biggest question (what happens when we die) is already answered for them? They have the answer, in their mind, and so now life is just about trying to achieve that answer. That can steer them into doing all kinds of great, and all kinds of wrong.
The outsider is probably more interested in the explanation for the questions than they are about living their lives by what they think the answers are, because without a strict moral guide like religion, an outsiders guide will be ever changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Didn't mean to be hostile. Just don't understand why you would make stuff up. I get it more when somebody refers to the bible if they look to that as an authority, or Buddhist teachings or whatever, but you struck me as a lone wolf making up your own thing all by yourself and I find that weird.
Why? It's all made up. Whether it was done a few thousand years ago and someone wrote it down and now billions follow the same path, or you make up your own, what's the difference? I think a problem that arises during these discussions is a need to pigeon-hole people into these categories we've created. What are you, Atheist, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist etc.. Well if you believe this than you're not United Christian you're Lutheran, etc.. etc..
Even very devout people with probably have ideas that cross philosophical boundaries.
That baby story is awful, (Stupid quotes not working)
The babies don't have consciousness yet so this discussion couldn't occur.
But lets forget that for a moment and look at if the argument that their is no evidence for anything outside the womb to make sense.
The scientist baby would note that external forces would indicate that there are some forces that had to becoming from outside the womb. When they kick the elasticity of the wall bounces back. Gravity even in a floating environment appears to change. There are long 8 hr periods without any external movement.
The baby would also note that the organs in their bodies aren't fully being used and that there are lungs that respond when exposed to oxygen, A stomach more digestion and so on.
So scientist baby would be arguing with faith baby that something exists outside of the womb as it wouldn't be a matter of faith but all evidence would point to something existing outside of the bubble.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I'm surprised by your surprise. Certainty is an interesting word for it; it's simply a belief predicated on a lack of evidence for any alternative possibility. If such compelling evidence presents itself, I suspect that's all it would take for people to change their minds.
There is no good reason to believe, or even remain open to the possible truth of, any sort of numinous crap on bad evidence.
As for questions asked by human beings throughout history, human beings throughout history have generally been exceedingly stupid. Most human beings still are. Pattern-seeking and an inability to cope with gaps in understanding are a part of how the human mind seems to have evolved, so it's hardly surprising that our first attempts to explain the workings of the universe involve some really dumb guesses made in the absence of any real data.
I'm curious about this statement. I do not deny that Western science has, in the last three or four centuries, made an ongoing progressive series of wonderful discoveries that have absolutely widened our knowledge of the universe, and have also helped develop myriad technologies that have made our lives immeasurably better than they were before.
No arguments there.
I haven't even been a proponent of the after-life or any other such "woooo" beliefs in souls or whatever. I do think that in the absence of evidence, and really, the impossibility of any evidence, we can really move beyond anything but agnosticism, particularly when it comes to the afterlife.
My view is that we have not gained any additional understanding as to what it is like to be a human, and how a human must or might or could live a satisfying or decent life. In fact, the purely rationalist explanations - especially ones tinged with scientism - do a remarkably bad job of moving us further away from a reasonable premise upon which we can answer such questions.
Look at Darwin. Undeniably right. There is so much evidence behind this rather elegant theory. We absolutely know that this was the mechanism by which life came about on this planet. However, Darwin doesn't do much to explain the bizarre aberration that is man, or why man remains the best and the worst of all animals. We have no phenotype. A beaver has its lodge, man has his condo development or whatever. However, the beaver is satisfied in his lodge, while we remain unsatisfied by any environment - even ones we specifically tailor to our liking. You can live in the most gorgeous house, surrounded by the most high-tech luxury, and still be neurotic enough to shoot yourself after your wife leaves you for another younger man.
The situation we are in, as a species and as unique individuals, is profoundly mysterious to me.
My view is that we have not gained any additional understanding as to what it is like to be a human, and how a human must or might or could live a satisfying or decent life. In fact, the purely rationalist explanations - especially ones tinged with scientism - do a remarkably bad job of moving us further away from a reasonable premise upon which we can answer such questions.
I assume I've misunderstood so please correct my interpretation:
You believe humans have obtained zero advancement in the areas of what it is like to be human, how we ought to live, or what constitutes a satisfying/decent life?
I assume I'm way off because you can't possibly believe that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I'm curious about this statement. I do not deny that Western science has, in the last three or four centuries, made an ongoing progressive series of wonderful discoveries that have absolutely widened our knowledge of the universe, and have also helped develop myriad technologies that have made our lives immeasurably better than they were before.
No arguments there.
I haven't even been a proponent of the after-life or any other such "woooo" beliefs in souls or whatever. I do think that in the absence of evidence, and really, the impossibility of any evidence, we can really move beyond anything but agnosticism, particularly when it comes to the afterlife.
My view is that we have not gained any additional understanding as to what it is like to be a human, and how a human must or might or could live a satisfying or decent life. In fact, the purely rationalist explanations - especially ones tinged with scientism - do a remarkably bad job of moving us further away from a reasonable premise upon which we can answer such questions.
Look at Darwin. Undeniably right. There is so much evidence behind this rather elegant theory. We absolutely know that this was the mechanism by which life came about on this planet. However, Darwin doesn't do much to explain the bizarre aberration that is man, or why man remains the best and the worst of all animals. We have no phenotype. A beaver has its lodge, man has his condo development or whatever. However, the beaver is satisfied in his lodge, while we remain unsatisfied by any environment - even ones we specifically tailor to our liking. You can live in the most gorgeous house, surrounded by the most high-tech luxury, and still be neurotic enough to shoot yourself after your wife leaves you for another younger man.
The situation we are in, as a species and as unique individuals, is profoundly mysterious to me.
Such an ego-centric view of man vs other species.
Why do you believe the beaver is satisfied with his lodge? Just because he can't get a better paying job and buy a condo?
Also, if you actually watch beavers, you will see that they are in fact never satisfied with their lodge - they will work endlessly to improve their lot.
One of the most distasteful things about religion/faith (for lack of a better term) is this notion that man is different and special. Get over it - we're fortunate, in that our brains have evolved towards higher levels of thought, but that doesn't separate us, it merely privileges us.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
I assume I've misunderstood so please correct my interpretation:
You believe humans have obtained zero advancement in the areas of what it is like to be human, how we ought to live, or what constitutes a satisfying/decent life?
I assume I'm way off because you can't possibly believe that.
Materially, of course. I made that pretty clear. In regards to political and moral freedoms. Yes, absolutely.
In terms of self-understanding, I would probably say, no.
Why do you believe the beaver is satisfied with his lodge? Just because he can't get a better paying job and buy a condo?
Also, if you actually watch beavers, you will see that they are in fact never satisfied with their lodge - they will work endlessly to improve their lot.
One of the most distasteful things about religion/faith (for lack of a better term) is this notion that man is different and special. Get over it - we're fortunate, in that our brains have evolved towards higher levels of thought, but that doesn't separate us, it merely privileges us.
I never said we were better. From my perspective. it could be argued that I am somewhat envious of beavers.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
As I have said before, I am really, really astounded as to how certain many atheists are as to the most important questions asked by human beings throughout history.
For what reason would I have to believe that something profound happens to me after I die? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest so.
Is it that theists can't come to terms with how insignificant they truly are, that they create and seek faith in a greater meaning?
Personally, I find my insignificance comforting. I suppose I can understand how some people would not.
“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”
― Christopher Hitchens
“About once or twice every month I engage in public debates with those whose pressing need it is to woo and to win the approval of supernatural beings. Very often, when I give my view that there is no supernatural dimension, and certainly not one that is only or especially available to the faithful, and that the natural world is wonderful enough—and even miraculous enough if you insist—I attract pitying looks and anxious questions. How, in that case, I am asked, do I find meaning and purpose in life? How does a mere and gross materialist, with no expectation of a life to come, decide what, if anything, is worth caring about?
Depending on my mood, I sometimes but not always refrain from pointing out what a breathtakingly insulting and patronizing question this is. (It is on a par with the equally subtle inquiry: Since you don't believe in our god, what stops you from stealing and lying and raping and killing to your heart's content?) Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for the respect of others—while in the meantime it is precisely those who think they have divine permission who are truly capable of any atrocity—so the answer to the first question falls into two parts. A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful, self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities… but there, there. Enough.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Last edited by Cheese; 06-20-2016 at 11:28 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
