Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Provide meaning for life and answer the unanswerable.

42?

69.

79.2456

I can play this game all night. (or till I fall asleep.)

You need to read Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Sir

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Provide meaning for life and answer the unanswerable.

Does it really *need* meaning?
Hey if it makes *you* happy go for it (so long as all other participants are consenting) but not everything need meaning.

Oldgrue wrote:Does it really *need* meaning?
Hey if it makes *you* happy go for it (so long as all other participants are consenting) but not everything need meaning.

Everything inherently strives to be contextually awesome though... goddamn I am in love with these things already.


And so on...

And so forth...

And forthwith

Being an Atheist to me means accepting there is no meaning to life. We simply are. How we got here, where we're going, where we'll end up are all just chance. Humanity, the greatest example we know of the sheer jamminess of the cosmos.

Thankfully, being a migratory and inquisitive species, we'll soon be out among the stars poking and mucking around, and I think the world will be better for it. Space Exploration gives us a chance to cross over Religious and Geographical boundaries, and act as a single species.

Posting from iPod, please forgive the typos. I think the second the universe was created, there was an entity that was woven into the very fabric of the universe. I refer to it as Pan. It is a curious entity, with its conscience drifting through time and space, testing the limits of matter and energy. Like a scientist perfoming an experiment, it is trying to create the perfect instance of, for lack of a better term, 42. It is not perfect, and some of the things it does things we can't understand.

Polonius wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?

Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.

Do you not understand anything about the differences between faith and empirical science? If you're expecting faith to provide proof, you're doing it wrong.

If religion had evidence, it wouldn't be religion. If science didn't have evidence, it wouldn't be science.

Exactly.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Being an Atheist to me means accepting there is no meaning to life. We simply are. How we got here, where we're going, where we'll end up are all just chance. Humanity, the greatest example we know of the sheer jamminess of the cosmos

Being an atheist absolutely does not mean life is without meaning. I find it upsetting (not offensive, but distressing) that people can be so defeatist about a world not created by God. And it is not just religious people who think life only has meaning if it comes from God - even lots of atheists say it.

If there is no Creator, it just means that we have to imbue life with meaning ourselves instead of having someone else do it for us. Unlike most of the children I work with and most of my colleagues, I do not believe in God, yet there is no less value/meaning to what I do to help them than what the believers in my school do. The card I got last week from an ex-student thanking me for saving him from a life of gang-crime in East London holds no less meaning for me - in fact, it holds more. I value his thanks as highly as I could possibly value the attention of any deity. That card came at a good time for me, when I'd not had anything like it for a while, and it reminded me why I do what I do. There is 100% plenty of meaning in an atheist life, and in atheist philosophies. Seeing a kid who can barely read and write explain to his friend who is videoing exactly how a heart functions, while he sticks fingers through ventricles and atrea, watching the face of a girl who suddenly "gets" decimals, pupils remembering to thank you for the trip you organised, seeing pupils collect their exam results (in fact, you could, if interested, watch some of my pupils collecting theirs - that teacher is one my colleagues, by the way, not me - I avoided the camera and am only in it briefly), realising who the next pupil you can try to help is...

Just because something started by chance (or, arguably, inevitability), it does not mean it cannot acquire meaning.

I agree.

I'm not sure if Humanism is different to Atheism however it is a philosophy or moral code which gives meaning to life without the need for worship of a deity.

Fateweaver wrote:

Fifty wrote:@GoFenris -

I will be putting Pastafarian on my next census form.

Not because I actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but because I believe in the value of mockery as a weapon in the fight against idiocy/creationism. In the face of such blind stupidity as creationism, how can any rational person not resort to mockery to preserve their sanity?

What a nice, blanket attack on anyone who is religious who believes in the idea of creation.

Perhaps I should say that people who believe in the Big Bang theory are stupidly blind. See, I can troll too (in fact I get accused of it daily so I must be doing it right).

I think this thread needs a lock. It's just gonna get ugly.

Well, supposedly there are non-religous people who believe in something called "intelligent design". I think they are foolish to believe that too. It is not a religious thing, it is an ID/Creationism thing. I am one of those rare people who reads works from people with viewpoints I disagree with. I find it easy and interesting to read science books I agree with, but I also like to pick apart books that challenge my own ideas like Darwin's Black Box and Non-zero to prove I'll at least listen, even if I do not accept what is being said. Now, I am willing to concede the point that God may exist as I have no evidence to disprove it. I don't think he does exist, but I am willing to admit I may be wrong. On the other hand, the mountains of evidence for evolution compared to the claims I have seen to try and support Creationism seem a different case. (And Creationism is not helped by the number of people who create fake, easily disprovable evidence, to support it). A few inexplicable cases that are often no better explained by Creationism than they are by Evolution do not make a case.

Fateweaver, you and I are on the same page when it comes to how we express are opinions on the 'web. I don't know you, so I am not going to sugarcoat how I say things the way I do in the real world.

I also find it interesting that you say you believe in a book, rather than a God. Do you believe the book, or believe in it? I suspect the former, but it is an interesting point.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:If you can equate something like electrons (which can be studied directly) to an amorphous figure, that seemingly occupies only the mind of humans; I am pretty sure I could dig what you were saying. The problem is just that though, I cannot logically connect electrons, to the form and existence of god; by any stretch of my logical mind.

But 200 years ago, electrons would have seemed equally crazy to the common man. Everything around us is mostly empty space? Most people cannot cope with the idea of wave-particle duality, and yet, it does not make it wrong.

@Killkrazy - Humanism has too many ideas I dislike. I am almost as reluctant to sign up for Humanism as I am for religions. If I was going to go down any road, I think I'd go for some philosophical branch of Buddhism (I'd have to avoid some of the ones that started going down more metaphysical branches).

Fifty: I politely ask that you NOT call Creationism 'idiocy'. That's insulting religion, something not permitted on this forum. This is why we can't have threads about religion; they ultimately devolve into trolling, shitstorms, and people forgetting Rule #1.

dogma wrote:

Fifty wrote:
I think the problem we have here is that the term "Atheist" was not even used until the late 18th Century.

The term 'atheism' (atheisme) originated in 16th century France as a pejorative. The etymological root of the word, the Greek 'atheos', had a meaning almost directly comparable to that of the modern 'atheism'; with the only difference being one of possession vs. belief ('without god' vs. 'lacks a belief in god').

Indeed. Gentlemen, cease and desist the attacks on creationism and intelligent design. If you can't discuss the topic without doing so, then don't post.

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:If you can equate something like electrons (which can be studied directly) to an amorphous figure, that seemingly occupies only the mind of humans; I am pretty sure I could dig what you were saying. The problem is just that though, I cannot logically connect electrons, to the form and existence of god; by any stretch of my logical mind.

But 200 years ago, electrons would have seemed equally crazy to the common man. Everything around us is mostly empty space? Most people cannot cope with the idea of wave-particle duality, and yet, it does not make it wrong.

Are you saying that god is a form of something that we already understand to a certain degree? Electrons as we understand them now, have allowed us to streamline technology. Our supposed understanding of god (which has definitions that would denote the literal impossibility of that) could be attributed to no more than our understanding of our selves; it could also however, denote the opposite, in which god has a further understanding of us (however you would interpret that given the context of god). Electricity gives me the power to use my computer, and participate in this conversation; I could say that god, perhaps in some way, is the reason that I can be here doing this in the first place, but I hardly equate that to god being as simple to understand as electricity is.

God is an amorphous figure, that has no more meaning than an individual chooses to put into it. Even though someone might feel so strongly that they are right, there are an awful lot of other people that probably feel the exact same way, in terms of their own views. If god means comfort, that is what god is. If god means lack of understanding, that is what god is.

I also feel like you are trying to sell me snake oil now quite frankly. If god is as simple as electrons, which is honestly what you are trying to tell me in short; then how, and by who's perception could that possibly be god. Is WD-40 god? Does the fact that I can use something like that in many circumstances make it universal? I can't imagine that you are actually pushing sincerely along this line of questioning, so I think I will take a pass on the rest of this rather twisted conversation.

No offense though, I just have a hard time getting what your selling. And I know that you are basically agnostic, or whatever other precise label you prefer.

I am not selling anything. I disbelieve in God.

I am simply saying that 200 years ago electrons did not fit into any frame of reference then available. Electrons as we understand them now, as both a particle and a wave, as having quantum potentiality, as part of an atom that is mostly empty space, as experiencing the weak nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces... all of these frames of reference were unavailable 200 years ago - thus there would be no context for people to understand them. Just because they fit into a world as we understand it now, it does not mean we understand everything about the world.

IF (And it is a very big IF that I do not believe will happen), God were shown to exist, it would need to be within a framework of understanding that does not currently exist, just as the context for understanding electrons did not exist back then.

To be fair, creationism, and/or ID, as science, are very, very weak. Calling either idiotic is crass, but not out of line.

The religious, theological, or philisophical idea of a creator god is a fine belief, and should not be insulted.

If you feel insulted, make sure the speaker was referring to religion before you get too upset.

If you feel like trashing ID, make sure you speak of it as science, not faith.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Fifty: I politely ask that you NOT call Creationism 'idiocy'. That's insulting religion, something not permitted on this forum. This is why we can't have threads about religion; they ultimately devolve into trolling, shitstorms, and people forgetting Rule #1.

Creationism is not representative of mainstream christianity. It's a tenet of a few of the more unusual sects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

The first book of the Bible deals explicitly with with creation myth - if you follow 'the book', to cherry-pick from it is unseemly IMHO. That's a thread which, when pulled would unravel the whole jumper (or 'sweater' for our American chums). The question of 'where everything comes from' has a definite scientific answer, and is not a philosophical question, as the Pope asserts. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't have the ultimate answer - asking the questions is what ultimately gives life meaning, not filling the gaps with god/s.

Albatross wrote:The first book of the Bible deals explicitly with with creation myth - if you follow 'the book', to cherry-pick from it is unseemly IMHO. That's a thread which, when pulled would unravel the whole jumper (or 'sweater' for our American chums). The question of 'where everything comes from' has a definite scientific answer, and is not a philosophical question, as the Pope asserts. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't have the ultimate answer - asking the questions is what ultimately gives life meaning, not filling the gaps with god/s.

It's possible to believe in the bible without reading it literally. In fact, I argue it's best not to. The very fact that there are multiple versions of man's creation illustrates that the biblical story of creation is probably more poetic or symbolic than literal. Keeping in mind that the bible makes it clear in other places that God is not constrained in any way by time, I don't have any problem holding both scientific knowledge and biblical creation in my mind at once.

And no, there is no definite scientific answer where everything comes from. The search for the prime mover is still going on, and early cosmology and big bang theory were originally criticized as being religious, and not scientific, due to the then idea of an eternal universe.

At the end of any discussion on the big bang, all you have to do is ask "where did that super dense matter come from" to realize that there are still some pretty profound philosophical questions.

As for your final sentence, exactly how is the attitude you express there any different from any religious screed?

You may find it a bit unseemly, but the Pope is on board with the whole Evolution idea. If the Pope says "Here is how we see it", then that is what I will view as mainstream Christianity.

Albatross wrote:if you follow 'the book', to cherry-pick from it is unseemly IMHO.

Not really, there's no divine authority in the bible. Jesus is the word of the God; the bible is a scrapbook of assorted Jewish scripture, accounts of Jesus' life, and writings by early Christians.

There are plenty of times where the New Testament overrides what you would have assumed from reading the Old Testament, Jesus healing on the Sabbath for example. Thus, you already know from the bible that the Old Testament isn't water tight.

Kilkrazy wrote:Creationism is not representative of mainstream christianity. It's a tenet of a few of the more unusual sects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

I think you are mistaken KK, Creationism is representative of the whole Christianity, but only if you are a member of certain anti-Christianity groups, this means that:

a)They don´t know what they are talking about (a normal state in the human race)

b)For all they care the Pope could say that the sky is blue in St Peters Square that they would argue that the Pope denies the sky blueness.

Examples of this type of specimen, quite a few in Spain´s left leaning people to ridiculous extremes, lately in Spain not being a Christian in the Roman era was equal to being atheist as published by 2 mainline papers when talking about a movie set in the 3rd century AD. (Poor Jupiter et pantheon they got kicked to non existence)

M.

What?

When it comes to Evolution V Creationism, I'm surprised that people don't see how the two can co-exist, with both being correct after a fashion.

After all, God could have created Man using Evolution. By this, I mean God first kicked off those little spiralling coils of DNA(naynaynaynaynaynay) that eventually became the various species we know and eat today, as well as ourselves. The Bible's only mistake here is being a little too literal in claiming we were Gods main design, and the rest merely beta-testing. Happy Middle Ground, or a Cop Out is down to you guys!

Mind you, I guess the above hypothesis first requires the person to accept Evolution as a theory, which appears to be the major stumbling block.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
After all, God could have created Man using Evolution. By this, I mean God first kicked off those little spiralling coils of DNA(naynaynaynaynaynay) that eventually became the various species we know and eat today, as well as ourselves. The Bible's only mistake here is being a little too literal in claiming we were Gods main design, and the rest merely beta-testing.

I don't know if you're positing casually, or if you really have a very limited understanding of christian thought, but the bible doesn't claim we were God's main design. It simply tells the story of creation up to mankind. Considering how the Bible makes it clear that the Jews were the chosen people above other people, it's pretty low on the "humans are best" stuff.

As for beta testing, I have no clue what you mean.

Casual posting as usual!

IIRC, the Bible (or at least some denominations) claim Man was made in God's image, thats what I meant by it.

As for Beta-Testing, it explains the other beasts, trees etc as previous attempts at his perfect design. Not flawed so much as imperfect, the same way that even the greatest painters start with a sketch, and then amend it over time.

The Bible says nothing about the other creatures being imperfect IIRC. It further doesn't say they weren't made in God's image either.

Fair point, but once again I was casual posting.

Might put that at the top of all my future posts, so people pick up on the message rather than the wording

I am the GW rulebook of Religious Discussion!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Fair point, but once again I was casual posting.

Might put that at the top of all my future posts, so people pick up on the message rather than the wording

I am the GW rulebook of Religious Discussion!

My point really is that the Bible is silent on both of those and IIRC could be interpreted as such. In effect God creating everything. he created Adam and Lilith but she got too uppity for Adam's redneck arse so he commissioned a new work from the head sculptor. The Big G was, like, tired of hearing Adam's constant whining so made Eve, thinking "that'll shut him up." God had no idea what God was in for. J. Christ if he only knew he would have stuck with the goats. You don't hear them whining all the time.

I guess I'd also ask how seriously people are supposed to respond to posts that you don't want to put a ton of thought into? Not to claim this is serious business, but what's the point?

To see peoples responses. Think of me as a provocateur. I like to gather peoples opinions and digest them. No real motive other than I genuinely enjoy discourse. So when a question pops into my head, I ask it and await replies.

Not looking to trip anyone up, or show anyone up.