Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did I say that? Even once? No. I did not. So keep your words out of my mouth as I clearly have enough of my own.
I said the exact opposite, that we find meaning ourselves in our own lives and this is a good thing. What there does not appear to be however is a meaning in life objectively in and of itself and that is a massively different statement to the tosh you just shoved into my mouth for me.
We subjectively assign and explore meaning in our own lives with ourselves. We do not need to assume life itself holds some inherent and objective meaning in order to do so.
Sorry I made you so angry. The existential question of what meaning it all has is not answerable. To find some meaning in ones life I think is all an individual can do.
Sorry I made you so angry. The existential question of what meaning it all has is not answerable. To find some meaning in ones life I think is all an individual can do.
I remember feeling no such emotion. Strangers on forums are unable to anger me. What the post was was a firm treatment of your statement and nothing more. Any anger you attribute to it is your own invention.
The point was, as you have now agreed, that while life has no apparent meaning in and of itself, this is not the same as saying people are unable to subjectively assign one to their own lives... and quite happily too.
I reject this notion that life is somehow not worth living unless there is some objective and externally assigned meaning and intention behind it all. The universe, and life within it, does not owe us any "meaning" nor is one required.
It reminds me of a great answer I was given one when I asked a group of people who liked walking "What is the point of walking. You start at point X, and end at the same point X, so why not just stay at X and save the trip since you are not going anywhere". The answer was "The Journey IS the destination". While we were being tongue in cheek I think that answer pretty enlightening when considering the purpose or meaning behind ones life. With life the journey itself really is the destination.
I remember feeling no such emotion. Strangers on forums are unable to anger me. What the post was was a firm treatment of your statement and nothing more. Any anger you attribute to it is your own invention.
The point was, as you have now agreed, that while life has no apparent meaning in and of itself, this is not the same as saying people are unable to subjectively assign one to their own lives... and quite happily too.
I reject this notion that life is somehow not worth living unless there is some objective and externally assigned meaning and intention behind it all. The universe, and life within it, does not owe us any "meaning" nor is one required.
It reminds me of a great answer I was given one when I asked a group of people who liked walking "What is the point of walking. You start at point X, and end at the same point X, so why not just stay at X and save the trip since you are not going anywhere". The answer was "The Journey IS the destination". While we were being tongue in cheek I think that answer pretty enlightening when considering the purpose or meaning behind ones life. With life the journey itself really is the destination.
As I believe I pointed out several posts back, is it not true that there is at least one purpose or meaning in life - that of reproduction? All life must reproduce in order to survive to the next generation. This is a universal drive, is it not? And isn't it true that most other drives in life are secondary to this all-important drive?
It is true that from a courtroom evidence point of view we do not have proof. But belief goes beyond that. There are other things to take into account. You could say circumstantial evidence is one of the factors. And if the goal is to figure out if God exists or not wouldn't it make sence to pull in all the data? Isn't the truth more important than debating logic, even for yourself. If there is a God wouldn't you want to know. So if that is true wouldn't you want to find a way to that truth however possible?
uhhhh...yes... I think. Thing is that courtroom evidence is better than guesswork and speculation and I have to say that science and logic is better even than courtroom evaluation (I know, I've been there ) and using the very best and most reliable methods we have God - claims do not stand up. Not even using circumstantial evidence placed under valid scrutiny (selecting odd bits of half- digested info to prop up a preferred belief is another method altogether).
Will be glad to debate whether they do in an appropriate thread. When we use 'god beyond' that, we are left afloat with nothing but what were taught by others who know know better than we do or picking what suits our preference. None of that is worth a damn as far as ascertaining the truth goes.
To return to topic, doubts about the huge amount we don't know about the cosmos are just that - doubts - they are not handy gaps to shovel in all sorts of speculation, myth and fondly believed delusions on the flimsy grounds of 'It might as well be true as not'. That is simply self - delusion.
Doubts about man - made religions and their personal Gods? Nah. Not apart from the detail. I meran I am in doubt whether Bethlehem was inhabited or not i the 1st century Bc- AD but that Jesus wasn't born there? Nah. Little doubt at all.
I think people tend to put too much faith in the ability of humans to find proof through this scutiny you mention. We can't even figure our where it came from so how are we supposed to figure out if there is a God or not?
We know how to prove whether or not there's a god messing with the universe and so far, everything points to not.
uhhhh...yes... I think. Thing is that courtroom evidence is better than guesswork and speculation and I have to say that science and logic is better even than courtroom evaluation (I know, I've been there ) and using the very best and most reliable methods we have God - claims do not stand up. Not even using circumstantial evidence placed under valid scrutiny (selecting odd bits of half- digested info to prop up a preferred belief is another method altogether).
Will be glad to debate whether they do in an appropriate thread. When we use 'god beyond' that, we are left afloat with nothing but what were taught by others who know know better than we do or picking what suits our preference. None of that is worth a damn as far as ascertaining the truth goes.
To return to topic, doubts about the huge amount we don't know about the cosmos are just that - doubts - they are not handy gaps to shovel in all sorts of speculation, myth and fondly believed delusions on the flimsy grounds of 'It might as well be true as not'. That is simply self - delusion.
Doubts about man - made religions and their personal Gods? Nah. Not apart from the detail. I meran I am in doubt whether Bethlehem was inhabited or not i the 1st century Bc- AD but that Jesus wasn't born there? Nah. Little doubt at all.
As for me I'm just glad I didn't just stay focussed on the courtroom evidence because my heart would never have been open enough for His evidence to reach me. As for religion and Jesus...I have no idea nor do I feel it makes any difference to me.
I remember feeling no such emotion. Strangers on forums are unable to anger me. What the post was was a firm treatment of your statement and nothing more. Any anger you attribute to it is your own invention.
The point was, as you have now agreed, that while life has no apparent meaning in and of itself, this is not the same as saying people are unable to subjectively assign one to their own lives... and quite happily too.
I reject this notion that life is somehow not worth living unless there is some objective and externally assigned meaning and intention behind it all. The universe, and life within it, does not owe us any "meaning" nor is one required.
It reminds me of a great answer I was given one when I asked a group of people who liked walking "What is the point of walking. You start at point X, and end at the same point X, so why not just stay at X and save the trip since you are not going anywhere". The answer was "The Journey IS the destination". While we were being tongue in cheek I think that answer pretty enlightening when considering the purpose or meaning behind ones life. With life the journey itself really is the destination.
Ancient people described gods as persons born on earth, living and dying on earth and therefore as empirical ideas.
You need to look up the definitions of gods and of empirical. Dieties are more than human, and dieties are far from empirical ideas.
Quote:
Agnostic means “not knowing.” Agnosticism is the reasonable approach to topics like the universe and its particulars but when it is applied to theological or philosophical issues it is just unacceptable to me.
Quote:
The statement “Humans invented deities” does no harm to religion while the statement “God is a joke” does.
I don't believe I ever asserted that the concept of dieties is a joke. And I don't particularly care if my comments do harm to religion.
Quote:
“Humans invented deities” can be followed by “because people need to believe in a supreme being” and thus it ends up a theistic argument.
Quote:
“God is a joke” demands an explanation and when given it ends up showing extremely hostile to religion.
Humans invented dieties not because people need to believe in a supreme being (after all, I am living proof that this is not true), but because they need to have an explanation for things they do not understand. Before science, "<insert your pet diety> did it" was the default explanation.
Quote:
What do you know of angels (messengers of the gods)?
I know there is no evidence that anything like angels actually exist, just like there is no evidence that any dieties actually exist.
Quote:
Following are two relevant accounts. A myth by the
Quote:
Yorubas of Africa, free of theological additions and a report by Herodotus. Read them and if you want tell me whether a logical explanation stands behind these unrealistic beliefs of those people.
Once, long ago, all people lived in one town, called Ife, and they all spoke one simple language, Yoruba. In those days everyone was equal in all respects. Their skin was the same color, they were all good at the same things, they were all equally strong, equally beautiful, and equally healthy. Everyone had enough of what they needed, but no one had too much. If anyone needed something, they had only to inform God’s messenger, and he would tell God, who would provide them with what they needed. There was only one problem. People were bored. They wanted a change. So they started complaining to God’s messenger, asking for different things. Some wanted a bigger house. Some wanted different color skin. Some wanted to speak differently. So it went on. In the beginning the messenger would faithfully carry all their demands to God and God would listen patiently. But after a while God became irritated. He told the messenger what to tell them. The messenger went back to the people. ‘God says you are to be content with what he has given you. He has deliberately arranged things in this way so that you will not have anything to quarrel with each other about.’ But the people were not happy. ‘Tell God he must give us what we ask, or we will revolt against him. We will have nothing more to do with him. We will organize our affairs the way we want them, without his help.
The extent to which the people actually believed that the messengers could communicate with the gods, is shown by Herodotus. In his 4th book, in paragraph 94, he is referring to the Ghetes, whom he considers to be the most brave and law-abiding tribe of the Thracians:
This is how they explain their belief in their immortality. Whoever of them departs from this life goes to live with Salmoxes, a deity called by others Gheveleize. Every five years they select by lot one man from among them and they send him, with their requests, as a messenger to Salmoxes. The mission begins as follows; some of them line up in tight lines holding three spears upright, while others catch the man by his hands and feet and throw him in the air so that he falls on the spearheads of the erect spears. If the man dies, they consider it an omen of favorable disposition on the part of Salmoxes; if he survives, they accuse him of wickedness and select another messenger. The instructions are naturally given to him while he is still alive. !!
Your point is? Keeping in mind, of course, that the topic of discussion is whether or not atheists ever have doubts.
Quote:
P.S. I have the age of your great grandpa and I have been studying this matter for over twenty years. So do not misunderstand me.
Well, that is really interesting, since both of my great-grandfathers and in fact my non-great grandfathers are quite dead. So I doubt that you are of an age with them. I have been an atheist since I was a small child, despite many attempts to indoctrinate me. So do not misunderstand me.
“God is a joke” demands an explanation and when given it ends up showing extremely hostile to religion.
don't ya hate it when you always have to explain the punchline to someone
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think. Thing is that courtroom evidence is better than guesswork and speculation and I have to say that science and logic is better even than courtroom evaluation (I know, I've been there 
) and using the very best and most reliable methods we have God - claims do not stand up. Not even using circumstantial evidence placed under valid scrutiny (selecting odd bits of half- digested info to prop up a preferred belief is another method altogether).
