• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Avoiding the 0

Bodhitharta

Regular Member
Dec 9, 2005
114
3
60
✟30,264.00
Faith
Other Religion
You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief. What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless. This would mean that essentially all philosophical positions equal 0. I have even banned from some sites for saying this, why? Because it is apparently too much for some to bear.
There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.
Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source? Is it not clear that a Source or Original Prime Source has no need of any previous source hence the term Source.
Atheists make the default position of things as pre-universe = Nothing and pre-living organisms as coming from nowhere.
Believers believe that the pre-universe= Capacity/Will and Pre living organisms as coming from some "Intent"
When we look logically we know nothing and nowhere are abstract and basically illogical terms because even nowhere is somewhere and even nothing is something.
So if we have an existing Universe then we have an existing Universe because of the CAPACITY/WILL to have an existing Universe and if we life forms that intend to live then that proves the intent is there. So now that we can know that WILL and INTENT is a product of CAPACITY we can also form a reliable and logical conclusion that the CAPACITY to WILL with INTENTION is an act of CONSCIOUSNESS which we know for a fact is an existing Characteristic of Creativity/development.
Any Atheist should truly understand the Reality of Why God must exist because of the rational conclusion.
I hope you find your way home
God Bless!
ASana Bodhitharta
 

Lord_Marx

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2006
890
61
✟31,421.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief. What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless. This would mean that essentially all philosophical positions equal 0.

The only aspect of life that is inherent is the fact that it exists. Beyond that, it's up to us to place a value on it. If you think a universe without a creator is meaningless, that's a shame, but you have the right to such a opinion.

There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.

I do not follow your logic; the only requirement for something "to be" is for it to exist.

Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source? Is it not clear that a Source or Original Prime Source has no need of any previous source hence the term Source.

As far as our knowledge of our world goes, everything does indeed need a source or cause. As for an original uncaused source, we have never observed such a thing. Therefore I see no reason to think that a God or universe could just pop into existence on its own.

Atheists make the default position of things as pre-universe = Nothing and pre-living organisms as coming from nowhere.

Atheists do not necessarily believe that the universe came from nothing; they just don't think that it was created by a higher life form. Some don't even believe that there was a pre-universe and instead think that the universe may expand and collapse in an endless loop.

The rest of your post is extremely confusing. Perhaps you could rewrite it to be a bit more clear...
 
Upvote 0

TheOutsider

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
Dec 29, 2006
2,747
202
Indiana
✟33,928.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
bunnypancakerv8.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Patzak

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2005
422
34
44
✟30,722.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.
That's either nonsensical or a tautology. If you mean it in the sense of there having to be a separate capacity, then you're just multiplying entities and end up with an infinite regression (i.e. for something to be it must have the capacity to be, but then for something to have a capacity to be, it must have a capacity to have the capacity... also there probably has to be a capacity for being red etc.). On the other hand, if you don't want an infinite regression you just end up with a circular statement that everything must have a capacity to be and this capacity is demonstrated only in the fact that everything actually is.
Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source? Is it not clear that a Source or Original Prime Source has no need of any previous source hence the term Source.
It is clear, especially since by calling it "Original Prime Source" you have just defined it as such. What isn't clear is whether that concept has anything to do with reality.

When we look logically we know nothing and nowhere are abstract and basically illogical terms because even nowhere is somewhere and even nothing is something.
Yes, they're abstract, but that doesn't mean they're illogical. Nothing is nonsensical only if you try to imagine/think of it as something; same for nowhere. As long as you don't try to consider abstract concepts as things they work perfectly well.

So if we have an existing Universe then we have an existing Universe because of the CAPACITY/WILL to have an existing Universe and if we life forms that intend to live then that proves the intent is there.
That doesn't follow at all. Even if we accept (and we don't) the need for a "capacity for" whatever, this doesn't equate to a need for a will or intent. The steps in your reasoning are way too large.

So now that we can know that WILL and INTENT is a product of CAPACITY we can also form a reliable and logical conclusion that the CAPACITY to WILL with INTENTION is an act of CONSCIOUSNESS which we know for a fact is an existing Characteristic of Creativity/development.
We can form that conclusion regardless of your previous reasoning; a willful act is always an act of consciousness. However, you haven't really shown that the existence of the universe is such a willful act, so your conclusion is moot.


Anyway, there's nothing even remotely related to ethics here, so the thread should probably be moved to the Philosophy forum.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
59
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟134,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief. What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless.

That is NOT a consequence of my belief. This is NOT evasion on my part. It is simply that I have drawn different conclusions than you have.

There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.

There is no principle that says that something needs a capacity to exist. To function in a certain way, yes, but to exist, no.

Note that for consciousness, which is a function, the capacity is the human brain. The brain needs no capacity to exist as a brain.

Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source?

No. It needs to have the right causes and conditions in order to arise. It does not need a "source".

Atheists make the default position of things as pre-universe = Nothing and pre-living organisms as coming from nowhere.

No, they do not. I do not believe that anything comes from nowhere.

So if we have an existing Universe then we have an existing Universe because of the CAPACITY/WILL to have an existing Universe and if we life forms that intend to live then that proves the intent is there.

And what is the capacity for this capacity? And what is the capacity for the capacity for the capacity...

The universe simply exists. Existence as such needs no "capacity".

Any Atheist should truly understand the Reality of Why God must exist because of the rational conclusion.

If such a conclusion exists, you have not drawn it.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief.
Another option is that you misunderstand atheism and the consequences.
What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here
Wait. Atheism and evolution theory are completely different and independent things.
then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless.
If you define "meaning" as being "a god given purpose", this is obviously true for atheism. If you use this word in a different meaning your statement is debatable.
This would mean that essentially all philosophical positions equal 0.
What?? :confused:
This sounds like a non-sequitur blanket assertion. Could you eventually give us the logical steps on the way from one to the other?
I have even banned from some sites for saying this, why? Because it is apparently too much for some to bear.
I can think of other reasons. Anyways, I don´t think that banning a person for making unsupported assertions that are missing logical coherence is a good idea. Amongst other problems, it might feed the persecution complex of the poster.

There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.
I don´t seem to understand the grammatical structure and intended meaning of this sentence.
Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source?
No - this notion postulates a logical impossibility.

Is it not clear that a Source or Original Prime Source has no need of any previous source hence the term Source.
Yes, if there is such an original prime source, this would be the implication. Unfortunately this idea directly contradicts your postulation above.
Atheists make the default position of things as pre-universe = Nothing and pre-living organisms as coming from nowhere.
Maybe some atheists hold this notion, but it is certainly not included in atheism. There are atheists that like Techno, but that doesn´t make liking Techno an atheist trait.
Believers believe that the pre-universe= Capacity/Will and Pre living organisms as coming from some "Intent"
Be that as it may - this notion is not compatible with your first postulation.
When we look logically we know nothing and nowhere are abstract and basically illogical terms because even nowhere is somewhere and even nothing is something.
Every term is abstract. Language is abstraction. Yet, abstraction is the basis for logic. Your conclusion that abstraction make something illlogical is incorrect. "Nowhere is somewhere and nothing is something" is not logical, but utter nonsense.

So if we have an existing Universe then we have an existing Universe because of the CAPACITY/WILL to have an existing Universe and if we life forms that intend to live then that proves the intent is there. So now that we can know that WILL and INTENT is a product of CAPACITY we can also form a reliable and logical conclusion that the CAPACITY to WILL with INTENTION is an act of CONSCIOUSNESS which we know for a fact is an existing Characteristic of Creativity/development.
Sounds like you accept "capacity" as a source that fulfills your postulation that everything needs a source. If, however, a capacity is sufficient source, it is a sufficient source for the universe, even without the unparsimonous assumption of a creator god.
Any Atheist should truly understand the Reality of Why God must exist because of the rational conclusion.
Considering the way you argue here I am not sure I accept you as an authority on logic. But maybe you do have a point but are merely communicating it poorly.
 
Upvote 0

Robbie_James_Francis

May all beings have happiness and its causes
Apr 12, 2005
9,317
661
36
England, UK
✟35,261.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
1. Why does meaning have to come from a god, or any sort of intelligent or discrete ultimate source?

As you read this sentence, the meaning that I am sharing with you does not come from an inherent relationship between the words on the screen and the meaning I am trying to convey.

They come from the fact that we have come to a consensual agreement in the English speaking world that each particular word signifies something. It is the words surrounding each word (i.e. its context) and those communicating it that give it meaning.

Why can't the same be true of life? When a child holds her or his parents hand for the first time in a maternity ward, it is not god (nor the tooth fairy, nor Santa), that provides meaning. It is the love of those parents, their context and their own subjective experience that provides meaning.

We provide meaning to life, and however cold, unintelligent and uncaring every single natural process of the universe is, that is not negated. This isthe point, and we are the meaning.

2. Your position that there is an uncreated Creator, a totally original and ultimate Source, is no more logical whatsoever than the position that something can come from nothing. Both lead to logical absurdities, and you ought not make grand sweeping statements about logic and philosophy when you clearly demonstrate you have neither the capacity nor the desire to grasp either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quatona
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,214
62
✟65,132.00
Faith
Christian
2. Your position that there is an uncreated Creator, a totally original and ultimate Source, is no more logical whatsoever than the position that something can come from nothing. Both lead to logical absurdities, and you ought not make grand sweeping statements about logic and philosophy when you clearly demonstrate you have neither the capacity nor the desire to grasp either.

Totally agree with this. My religion teacher in college said, "Do you like my watch? Yesterday, it was just a bag of parts, and today, it's a watch! Evolution. Do you see how crazy that sounds?"

I raised my hand and said, "Wow, where did this watch come from? It wasn't here a minute ago. It just came into being, and now its on my wrist. Creationism. Does that make more sense to you? At least in your oversimplification and misrepresentation of evolution, you had something to start with. My oversimplification and misrepresentation of Creation pulls things from nothingness."

In the same way, let's imagine, for a moment, that there is God. And our purpose in life is what? To worship the Creator, and sit around in the afterlife telling him how great he his? Ego much?

Why can't things simply be?

You know when people say, "I saw a Monarch today! That's good luck." Or maybe what it means is you saw a Monarch. That and only that. Isn't that enough?

Isn't the "meaning of life" enough to say that the meaning is to simply live it, and enjoy it, and learn from it?
And isn't it a bit ironic that God gave us all life, and yet, those who claim to believe in God simply want to die so they can go to heaven? Those who claim to believe that God brings peace and happiness often talk about how dark, and scary the world is, while the rest of us enjoy its wonder and beauty?

Imagine this: you cat contemplates the meaning of its life. Why did you care for this cat? What is its purpose?

If it could talk, about the most you could offer is: Um, I like cats. I like the companionship. I like taking care of something that's low maintenance.

Or a plant asking you, "Why am I growing here? Why did you plant me?" Because you are pretty to look it. It's not that deep.

I think it is a bit ego centric to believe that some complicated being beyond our even understanding that transcends time and is omnipotent watches over us constantly as much as a servant as a god, and that somehow, we are more important than any other living thing.

I believe that we are simply part of the living things here on this earth - all of this, each sentient being, is all collectively God, and the purpose? The same as the purpose of the body - to learn to live in harmony as one.
 
Upvote 0

AuraTwilight

Active Member
Jul 20, 2007
306
23
36
✟30,547.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Just because there's no God doesn't mean life is meaningless. If you need a deity to give your life meaning, your life can't be all great.

I have even banned from some sites for saying this, why? Because it is apparently too much for some to bear.

Or because your statements are technically a form of harassment.

There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.
Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source? Is it not clear that a Source or Original Prime Source has no need of any previous source hence the term Source.
Atheists make the default position of things as pre-universe = Nothing and pre-living organisms as coming from nowhere.
Believers believe that the pre-universe= Capacity/Will and Pre living organisms as coming from some "Intent"
When we look logically we know nothing and nowhere are abstract and basically illogical terms because even nowhere is somewhere and even nothing is something.
So if we have an existing Universe then we have an existing Universe because of the CAPACITY/WILL to have an existing Universe and if we life forms that intend to live then that proves the intent is there. So now that we can know that WILL and INTENT is a product of CAPACITY we can also form a reliable and logical conclusion that the CAPACITY to WILL with INTENTION is an act of CONSCIOUSNESS which we know for a fact is an existing Characteristic of Creativity/development.
Any Atheist should truly understand the Reality of Why God must exist because of the rational conclusion.
I hope you find your way home
God Bless!
ASana Bodhitharta

Rational my behind. That didn't make any sort of sense.
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟35,756.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Dear Bodhitharta, I am sorry you believe your life has no meaning without a god. Your life must be sadly empty of all kinds of good things that make a life worth living. Why, without believing in gods, I am able to love and commune with my family and friends. I can try to improve their lives, and I can have great hopes for their children and grandchildren. I can try to help total strangers live happier lives. I am able to learn and experience innumerable wonderful things. I am able to create beautiful and useful things. I can walk to and fro in the earth, marvelling. I can cultivate the earth and watch plants grow under my hands. I can even - dare I say - cuddle a kitten or two, and thereby derive great joy in the meaning of life. You can have these joys as well, even if you continue in your god-beliefs, but you must occasionally turn your eyes away from the contemplation of falsehoods about the real human condition.

(B., channelling the Anti-Emmy.... no offense, Emmy!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eudaimonist
Upvote 0
R

rebelEnigma

Guest
I raised my hand and said, "Wow, where did this watch come from? It wasn't here a minute ago. It just came into being, and now its on my wrist. Creationism. Does that make more sense to you? At least in your oversimplification and misrepresentation of evolution, you had something to start with. My oversimplification and misrepresentation of Creation pulls things from nothingness."

Actually, this is an incorrect analogy on your part. A correct one would be that God walked over to you, assembled the watch, then placed it on your wrist and told you what it was. His analogy worked since it is, in fact, an accurate representation of evolution: something complex coming together by chance.

In the same way, let's imagine, for a moment, that there is God. And our purpose in life is what? To worship the Creator, and sit around in the afterlife telling him how great he his? Ego much?

That is our heart's greatest desire, all of us. We were created to be with Him and find our greatest joy in being in His presence. But, singing is just one part of bringing God glory, a very small part since our whole lives are meant to bring Him glory.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,214
62
✟65,132.00
Faith
Christian
I agree that it is probably a better analogy, but still, does that make any sense? No one has ever seen God, and things don't simply fall from the sky, or appear on your lawn. God doesn't knock on your door and say, "Look. I made a Liger. It's a cross between a lion and a tiger. It's flippin awesome!" He doesn't even appear to anyone. Might as well say leprechaun color the grass green.

However, re: us spending all day and night worshipping God - it sounds like the sad teen mothers that have children so that someone will love them - the opposite of why a parent should have a child - to give love, not to demand it.
 
Upvote 0

Pheehp

Active Member
Jul 10, 2006
119
11
39
Edinburgh
✟22,813.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief. What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless.

you seem to be confusing 'just being' with 'being meaningless' there doesnt have to be a grand design for something to have worth.

also saying that the universe started somewhere => god was the start point isnt very water tight is it -.- did you consider the universe formed from not a god aparently "not magic" was too far of a stretch..

just because you and the rest of humanity doesnt quite understand something doesnt mean you imediately go to IT WAS MAGIC!! theory - which is what religions creation ideas are basically.
 
Upvote 0

Bodhitharta

Regular Member
Dec 9, 2005
114
3
60
✟30,264.00
Faith
Other Religion
Dear Bodhitharta, I am sorry you believe your life has no meaning without a god. Your life must be sadly empty of all kinds of good things that make a life worth living. Why, without believing in gods, I am able to love and commune with my family and friends. I can try to improve their lives, and I can have great hopes for their children and grandchildren. I can try to help total strangers live happier lives. I am able to learn and experience innumerable wonderful things. I am able to create beautiful and useful things. I can walk to and fro in the earth, marvelling. I can cultivate the earth and watch plants grow under my hands. I can even - dare I say - cuddle a kitten or two, and thereby derive great joy in the meaning of life. You can have these joys as well, even if you continue in your god-beliefs, but you must occasionally turn your eyes away from the contemplation of falsehoods about the real human condition.

(B., channelling the Anti-Emmy.... no offense, Emmy!)

An Atheist that believes in evolution can not regard love as anything that trancends the simple chemistry of our brains, it can have no real meaning or purpose as evolution theory points out that evolution is not a progressive or goal oriented process it is just a process that would be happening naturally and without reason. In-fact most atheists will not understand that according to evolution their can be no higher and lower forms of life at all because life not having any intent means also it can have no lesser or greater values which means that your own life would not be anymore signifigant than a gnats life, right?
In regards to atheism being a philosophical 0 it must be said that if the brain is evolving in no particular way and Consciousness occured as a mere byproduct of an evolving brain that would mean that all conscious thoughts would have equal weight and intelligence is merely an illusion. In this regard no atheist should be willing to engage in what is essentially 0 sum games which in this case is in the form of debating what can be known, as according to the atheist mindset anyone thinking anything is merely the result of meaningless pondering, to give arbitrary meaning to a life that has oddly taken on the conscious realization of its own impending anihilation
This is The Atheistic 0 that needs to be realized and once realized should be avoided.
God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
59
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟134,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
An Atheist that believes in evolution can not regard love as anything that trancends the simple chemistry of our brains

I can and do. Love may arise from the functioning of our brains, however, it arises in the context of one's overall life. It is this context that gives love meaning. You are focusing on the abstract science, and ignoring the actual lives of actual people.

it can have no real meaning or purpose as evolution theory points out that evolution is not a progressive or goal oriented process it is just a process that would be happening naturally and without reason.

That is true. LIFE is a progressive and goal-oriented process, not evolution. You are focusing on evolution instead of an individual's life. There is no need for anyone to do this.

In-fact most atheists will not understand that according to evolution their can be no higher and lower forms of life at all because life not having any intent means also it can have no lesser or greater values which means that your own life would not be anymore signifigant than a gnats life, right?

Significant... to whom? To a human being? Or to a gnat? The gnat's life is far more significant to itself than a human's life, but a human's life is far more significant to itself than a gnat's life.

Context!

In regards to atheism being a philosophical 0 it must be said that if the brain is evolving in no particular way and Consciousness occured as a mere byproduct of an evolving brain that would mean that all conscious thoughts would have equal weight and intelligence is merely an illusion.

It is not the evolutionary view that the human brain evolved "in no particular way". Evolution is not teleological, however, it is a process of natural selection, not an arbitrary or "random" process.

In this regard no atheist should be willing to engage in what is essentially 0 sum games which in this case is in the form of debating what can be known, as according to the atheist mindset anyone thinking anything is merely the result of meaningless pondering, to give arbitrary meaning to a life that has oddly taken on the conscious realization of its own impending anihilation

According to most atheists, thinking is not inevitably "meaningless pondering". That is your proposed "mindset", not the typical atheist's "mindset".

This is The Atheistic 0 that needs to be realized and once realized should be avoided.
God Bless!

No doubt there are a few atheists out there with worthless worldviews. However, the Theistic 0, where it is found, should be realized and avoided too.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,214
62
✟65,132.00
Faith
Christian
An Atheist that believes in evolution can not regard love as anything that trancends the simple chemistry of our brains, it can have no real meaning or purpose as evolution theory points out that evolution is not a progressive or goal oriented process it is just a process that would be happening naturally and without reason. In-fact most atheists will not understand that according to evolution their can be no higher and lower forms of life at all because life not having any intent means also it can have no lesser or greater values which means that your own life would not be anymore signifigant than a gnats life, right?
In regards to atheism being a philosophical 0 it must be said that if the brain is evolving in no particular way and Consciousness occured as a mere byproduct of an evolving brain that would mean that all conscious thoughts would have equal weight and intelligence is merely an illusion. In this regard no atheist should be willing to engage in what is essentially 0 sum games which in this case is in the form of debating what can be known, as according to the atheist mindset anyone thinking anything is merely the result of meaningless pondering, to give arbitrary meaning to a life that has oddly taken on the conscious realization of its own impending anihilation
This is The Atheistic 0 that needs to be realized and once realized should be avoided.
God Bless!

Buddhists believe that a person's life is just as important to that of a gnat. If you believe in God, God gave that gnat life, yes? So, then why do you disregard the life of a gnat as being less important than yours, unless you worship man rather than God?

Some Buddhists believe in being vegetarian as to not take the life of a sentient being. When I first became Buddhist, I thought of the idea of having to take a spider out of my house and put it in the garden ridiculous. It is, as I had been taught in a Christian mindset, just an insect, and animal just an animal with no emotion, no soul that only acts on instinct.

What I found, suddenly, was that when I treated the least of creatures with some compassion and care, I taught other human beings in kind. I found myself fascinated by all of the life force that surrounded me.

In the movie The God's Must Be Crazy, they show a tribe in Australia who hunts for food. The man shot the animal with a dart that made him paralyzed. He then told the animal that he had to kill him so that his tribe could eat, and thanked the deer for giving his life. He then slit his throat, which makes the animal bleed out and die quickly.

Contrast this with the inhumane way that we debeak chicken, pump animals full of growth hormones, hang pigs up on hooks while still alive while they scream (part of the point being made in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.) When was the last time that you thanked an animal for giving its life so that you could live?

In the same way, people will often then only care about themselves. Religion is religion, but business is business. I had a boss that would wear her ash cross on her head all day, only to think only of herself during the business day, often at the expense of others. She was often withholding of information, and of layoffs, but all that really mattered was her job, if she could be sued for what was said, etc.

Even the idea of Jesus being your person Lord and Savior (TM) is more like your Personal Lord and Servant. Gimme this. Get me that job. Get me a wife. Help us win the game. Rarely do I hear people asking what God wants from them. They simply call on God when they want something, like a genie.

When looking at life and evolution, each life being believes that its life is important. A bear will knock your head off if she feels that you are threatening her child. She doesn't think of you being any better. In the same way, a mother is usually very protective of her child as well. It's really not that different.

When I was in high school, I remember watching a story about a primate who the researchers had trained to speak sign language. She had a baby, but the baby died. The researcher signed, "what's wrong?" She signed, "Sad." The researcher asked, "Were you crying?" The primate said nothing, but when asked why, the primate signed the word for baby, rocking her empty arms. In order to help her with her grief, they got her a kitten, which the primate then cared for, a sort of substitute during this time of loss.

I'm not sure how anyone can be so arrogant to think that man is the center of the universe, and that God bows before us like we are the most fascinating things on Earth, except that we feel threatened, as people did, when Gallileo showed that the Earth revolves around the sun, along with other planets, and not the other way around.

I don't think that there has to be a God for life to have meaning anymore than I think that there has to be a Santa Claus to enjoy Christmas.

Evolution is something that simply is. What does it mean if you are blond, you spouse is brunette, and your children are all dark? That brunette is the dominant gene - part of (dare I say it) evolution. It's more of a process. It's no differennt than photosynthesis, or evaporation. It rains or doesn't rain whether you believe in God or not. There doesn't have to be a reason.

But I would argue that in my experience, people who have such a hard core God belief and Creation belief have little, and often no, respect for the environment or other living beings. They somehow believe animals don't have emotion (which is clearly false), don't feel pain (which is clearly false), and in turn, often think that the only thing that is then important is themselves. They pollute the environment, and think that nothing will come of it. The pollute the air, cut down the trees, inject growth hormones into their chickens and beef, and think that injesting that will not harm them. They seem to think that man and nature are completely different, and therefore, since it isn't really "your place", you can trash it like a Spring Break hotel.

However, it does have a backlash.

Fortunately, people are realizing that you should stay away from pesticides, and we have seen native birds and butterflies returning to Toronto. More people are choosing organic fruit that is ugly on the outside, but sweet on the outside, in place of perfectly round oranges that taste like styrofoam.

Unless one can accept that they are part of nature, with a humility, and then try and live in harmony with it, they will continue a very destructive cycle.

As I said, I have found that though Buddhism, in caring for the least, I care far more for other people. I see them as myself - people that have families, that also want to be happy, that may be angry because of something that is going on with them or because they are having a bad day. And I often offer a smile to a stranger, and find that even small amounts of kindness can turn around someone's day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yasic
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
31,070
17,734
Here
✟1,632,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm not really an atheist, I'm just an honest person and admit that I don't know....but I'll give it a whirl

You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief.

The consequence that you speak of is one created by people of your belief, not theirs.

Bodhitharta said:
What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless.

Actually, any true evolutionist knows that evolution is not an explanation of life formation, only life progression. The scientific explanation for the beginning of life is a completely different field.

Bodhitharta said:
This would mean that essentially all philosophical positions equal 0.

Now we're getting somewhere!!!

There is a ton of evidence that supports evolution, anything before that is guess and should be treated as one.


...but that's just my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
52
✟37,709.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You know I have asked many atheists and nearly all evade the consequence of their belief. What I mean is that if someone is truly an atheist that is certain that evolution was the process of our being here then that would also mean that life is inherently meaningless. This would mean that essentially all philosophical positions equal 0. I have even banned from some sites for saying this, why? Because it is apparently too much for some to bear.
From an objective sense, then yes, you are correct. My life has little meaning as compared to the universe as a whole. From a subjective sense, my life has great meaning. I do not see the problem with this premise.
There is also another issue and that is for something to be it must have the capacity to be which means Consciousness for example would have had to be inherent.
Consider this does everything seen and unseen have to have a source? Is it not clear that a Source or Original Prime Source has no need of any previous source hence the term Source.
Atheists make the default position of things as pre-universe = Nothing and pre-living organisms as coming from nowhere.
Believers believe that the pre-universe= Capacity/Will and Pre living organisms as coming from some "Intent"
When we look logically we know nothing and nowhere are abstract and basically illogical terms because even nowhere is somewhere and even nothing is something.
So if we have an existing Universe then we have an existing Universe because of the CAPACITY/WILL to have an existing Universe and if we life forms that intend to live then that proves the intent is there. So now that we can know that WILL and INTENT is a product of CAPACITY we can also form a reliable and logical conclusion that the CAPACITY to WILL with INTENTION is an act of CONSCIOUSNESS which we know for a fact is an existing Characteristic of Creativity/development.
Any Atheist should truly understand the Reality of Why God must exist because of the rational conclusion.
I hope you find your way home
God Bless!
ASana Bodhitharta

The rest of this is gibberish. If you would like to clarify then please do so, but until then I cannot respond due to the fact that I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
52
✟37,709.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
An Atheist that believes in evolution can not regard love as anything that trancends the simple chemistry of our brains, it can have no real meaning or purpose as evolution theory points out that evolution is not a progressive or goal oriented process it is just a process that would be happening naturally and without reason.
Two points. First is that you are painting all atheists with the same brush. Atheism only has to do with a specific lack of belief in a god. It says nothing about spirituality as a whole.

Second point is so what? Just because I am aware of what many of the biochemical causes of love does nothing to diminish the feeling. I understand the process behind what makes food have a taste, but that does not effect the pleasure of a fantastic meal.
In-fact most atheists will not understand that according to evolution their can be no higher and lower forms of life at all because life not having any intent means also it can have no lesser or greater values which means that your own life would not be anymore signifigant than a gnats life, right?
On a objective level, you are right. But on a subjective level my life is one of the most valuable things out there. Once again, I fail to see why this is a problem for people. I am completely comfortable with the fact that my life has no grand meaning or purpose to the universe as a whole.

In regards to atheism being a philosophical 0 it must be said that if the brain is evolving in no particular way and Consciousness occured as a mere byproduct of an evolving brain that would mean that all conscious thoughts would have equal weight and intelligence is merely an illusion. In this regard no atheist should be willing to engage in what is essentially 0 sum games which in this case is in the form of debating what can be known, as according to the atheist mindset anyone thinking anything is merely the result of meaningless pondering, to give arbitrary meaning to a life that has oddly taken on the conscious realization of its own impending anihilation
This is The Atheistic 0 that needs to be realized and once realized should be avoided.
God Bless!
It seems that you are equating Atheism with Existentialism. They are not the same. I personally agree with much of what existentialism has to say, but I in no way speak for all atheists. Life is subjective. I assign meaning to my life. I decide what is important to me. I am fully responsible and accountable for how I live my life. How my life relates to the universe is of no consequence to me. How I am remembered after I am gone causes me little worry. And to be completely honest, until I had a child, what happened in the world after I am gone meant nothing to me. It may be a tad selfish, but I am okay with that as well.
 
Upvote 0