Religion is for....

Nihilism is a meaningless concept to an atheist (very punny, eh?). A Christian cannot imagine meaning in the world without God, because the spiritual world supposedly means everything. An atheist is under no requirement to accept the premise that the world is meaningless without the spiritual. I fail to see how the spiritual would make the world any more meaningful anyway.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Recognising that there is no innate meaning to existence isn't hate.

It is a very positive thing, it allows us to create our own meaning.

Its the difference between being a boy with a comfort blanket or a man!
Click to expand...
M'eh.

Real men don't need constant verification that other people believe the way they do too. This weird phenomena among people to constantly post about their religious (or non-religious) beliefs is caused by a need for agreement that I find totally unnecessary.
 
Damocles said:
I can't believe it will be 10 years... This July is our 10th... What am I supposed to give her? Balsa Wood or something like that?
Click to expand...

Hey, you can get her one of those balsa wood airplanes I used to play with as a kid....if they still make 'em. That's what I plan to give my wife in a couple of years. ;)
 
Damocles said:
M'eh.

Real men don't need constant verification that other people believe the way they do too. This weird phenomena among people to constantly post about their religious (or non-religious) beliefs is caused by a need for agreement that I find totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

People debate the nature of reality all the time, Damo. If you believe no debate is necessary, then you are free to not participate.
 
Bittermark said:
People debate the nature of reality all the time, Damo. If you believe no debate is necessary, then you are free to not participate.
Click to expand...
Yes. I am also free to mock people who think it is important or that they are going to solve all the answers to "The Riddle" or some other nonsense.
 
I fail to see how the spiritual would make the world any more meaningful anyway.

It is, IMO, more fulfilling to see a beautiful vista, be that the Grand Canyon or Keira Knightley, and know that the view was as a product of innumerous chains of cause and effect than to think of it as an invention of some sky-parent, designed to keep its children happy.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Abiogenesis is bringing life from something not living. The christian god making Adam from dust is abiogenesis.
Click to expand...


as far as the literal meaning of "abiogenesis"....genesis - beginning.....bio-life.....a-indicating causeless (e.g. a-moral) then no, God creating Adam would be biogenesis, but not abiogenesis....

How is a non-theist abiogenesis superior? Because a theist abiogenesis asks more questions that it answers. It is obscurum per obscurius. For instance, if life required a god to bring it into existence, what brought the god into existence.
Click to expand...
god is eternal, it was not necessary for anything to bring him into existence...

You are, I presume, aware that the building blocks for life, complex proteins, have been recreated in a lab. Full, independent, life forms haven't yet, but then nature had millions of years, and few science tenures last that long.
Click to expand...
so you have faith in the ability of science to explain what it has not been able to explain....I have faith in a creating deity.....we both operate on faith.....your position is equal to my position....

Because making your own moral choices involves just that. Using a moral code supposedly created by a sky-lawgiver (although actually created by man many years ago) doesn't involve any personal moral decisions to be made, except one...do you accept the god's morality.
Click to expand...
yes.....what is your point?.....how does that contradict the possibility of a deity?.....

If there is no deity, then innately nihilism exists.
Click to expand...


????....there is no rational basis for that conclusion....
 
Real men don't need constant verification that other people believe the way they do too.

When Darwin spread the truth of evolution by natural selection because he needed constant verification that other people believed the way he did?

I am just presenting the philosophical side of the two god role, attacking the god, the great comforter.

I don't need verification. I get my satisfaction from the joy of thought.

So cheap ad hominem mate!

This weird phenomena among people to constantly post about their religious (or non-religious) beliefs is caused by a need for agreement that I find totally unnecessary.

I would much rather be here against all the Dixies of the world than a series of agreements. Where is the fun in that?
 
AnyOldIron said:
I fail to see how the spiritual would make the world any more meaningful anyway.

It is, IMO, more fulfilling to see a beautiful vista, be that the Grand Canyon or Keira Knightley, and know that the view was as a product of innumerous chains of cause and effect than to think of it as an invention of some sky-parent, designed to keep its children happy.
Click to expand...

as a nihilist you should be aware that the Grand Canyon no longer exists....it ceased to be the moment you left.....as for Keira, I have it on good authority she refused to show up even when you imagined her.....
 
as far as the literal meaning of "abiogenesis"....genesis - beginning.....bio-life.....a-indicating causeless (e.g. a-moral) then no, God creating Adam would be biogenesis, but not abiogenesis....

a- doesn't mean causeless it means without.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a-

Biogenesis is organisms deriving from other organisms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biogenesis


god is eternal, it was not necessary for anything to bring him into existence...

Well that pretty convenient! How does that work exactly?

so you have faith in the ability of science to explain what it has not been able to explain....I have faith in a creating deity.....we both operate on faith.....your position is equal to my position....

Well, if you class faith as recognising the impossibility of absolute knowledge, maybe. If you ignore the misnomer use of the term faith, in the context of religion. We all know that trying to gain absolute knowledge sent the great philosopher Rene Descarte loopy and all he came out with is some nonsense about doubt.

But that doesn't mean we have to believe any old cobblers. We have to look at which methods of knowledge have produced the best results and backing reason.

Science, essentially through repeated observation, has produced everything we have and everything we do. It has created the computer you type on, farmed the food you eat and all of the knowledge you bring to this debate.

No maybe Damocles is right and we are about to solve some great riddle. Tell me. What has faith brought to the table?

yes.....what is your point?.....how does that contradict the possibility of a deity?.....

It doesn't. We were discussing the comparable strengths of the two moral systems.

If there is no deity, then innately nihilism exists.

????....there is no rational basis for that conclusion....

If there is no deity, what creates the innate meaning in existence?
 
as a nihilist you should be aware that the Grand Canyon no longer exists....it ceased to be the moment you left.....

A nihilist doesn't believe that something doesn't exist because they aren't there.

A nihilist considers that there is no innate meaning in existence.
 
as a non-nihilist, I have often wondered....does it suck if you think and you discover you still aren't?.....

In English please?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Real men don't need constant verification that other people believe the way they do too.

When Darwin spread the truth of evolution by natural selection because he needed constant verification that other people believed the way he did?

I am just presenting the philosophical side of the two god role, attacking the god, the great comforter.

I don't need verification. I get my satisfaction from the joy of thought.

So cheap ad hominem mate!

This weird phenomena among people to constantly post about their religious (or non-religious) beliefs is caused by a need for agreement that I find totally unnecessary.

I would much rather be here against all the Dixies of the world than a series of agreements. Where is the fun in that?
Click to expand...
Darwin doesn't come on here and try to poke the zealots, you zealot. The sole reason for doing this is to get people who agree with you to tell you how smart you are, it makes you feel good. Real men don't need that type of validation on religious (or non-religious) belief.

me -> :pke: <- you

:D <- me again after poking the weird atheist zealot.
 
Darwin doesn't come on here and try to poke the zealots, you zealot.

128 years of death is a serious barrier to contributing to online discussions.

Zealot? Me? ha ha! If someone could just produce a convincing argument for deities and the like I will change my opinion. No zealot me.

The sole reason for doing this is to get people who agree with you to tell you how smart you are, it makes you feel good.

Still taking those pop-psychology night classes Damo?

Weed makes me feel good. Sex makes me feel good. Red wine makes me feel good. Sunny days make me feel good.

I come here to chat to you guys. I like discussing things with people who completely oppose me. But, and don't take offense at this, you are just avatars on a screen. I don't really care how you all feel about me.

Real men don't need that type of validation on religious (or non-religious) belief.

As Felix Lighter says to Bond in Casino Royale...

"Do I look like I need the validation?"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top