Atheistic life Moot?

[neo of the mind]

Question -

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here for the sole purpose of ensuring they make the right decisions for the most positive outcome.

Why does the Atheist bother to concern themselves with the thought of why they are here, if in fact they do? Woudn't that be moot? Why go through the trouble? For the Athesist that also believes in Evolution, what's the point? You find out for a fact that evolution is true and you are a decendant of things that all lead to nothing that started for no reason. What does that knowledge actually benefit? You still die in more or less 100 years and accordingly, to your belief system, there is nothing afterwards.

I'm trying to understand people that have this ideology and how they are able to wake up every morning. What's the motivation? Is it only due to the fact that the ingrained self preservation keeps you from killing yourself, that your are here to read this post?

Maybe I am viewing the Atheist's existence all wrong, somebody tell me what they live for?

[burntgorilla]

What's evolution got to do with it? How would it differ from "believing" in the Theory of Relativity?

What would any person live for? Happiness, family, friends, interests, hopes, dreams, anything that a religious person would...

Are you trying to tell me that the thought of an afterlife is the only reason religious folks get out of bed?

[Ethos]

Humanity does not exist in isolation, each working indepedently, each untouched by the other. We live for our future selves and we strive for the benefit of succeeding generations.

Nothing is so selfish as to believe life is not worth living unless there can be a personal, eternal reward at the end of it.

Ethos

[serenity]

Nothing is so selfish as to believe life is not worth living unless there can be a personal, eternal reward at the end of it.


You know, that's a pretty damn good point.

(Or "damned"! :) )

[AgentM]

Question -

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here for the sole purpose of ensuring they make the right decisions for the most positive outcome.

Why does the Atheist bother to concern themselves with the thought of why they are here, if in fact they do? Woudn't that be moot? Why go through the trouble? For the Athesist that also believes in Evolution, what's the point? You find out for a fact that evolution is true and you are a decendant of things that all lead to nothing that started for no reason. What does that knowledge actually benefit? You still die in more or less 100 years and accordingly, to your belief system, there is nothing afterwards.

I'm trying to understand people that have this ideology and how they are able to wake up every morning. What's the motivation? Is it only due to the fact that the ingrained self preservation keeps you from killing yourself, that your are here to read this post?

Maybe I am viewing the Atheist's existence all wrong, somebody tell me what they live for?

As an atheist I live for the here and now, as in this life. I live to enjoy my life and improve it as much as possible. As burntgorilla says, how are atheists different from you in that regard?

[neo of the mind]

"What's evolution got to do with it?" - That's what most Atheists that I have spoken to believe in, so in relation to why they are here, is the context.

"What would any person live for? Happiness, family, friends, interests, hopes, dreams, anything that a religious person would..." - You tell me, that's why I asked. Are you an Atheist, is that your answer?

"Are you trying to tell me that the thought of an afterlife is the only reason religious folks get out of bed?" - no.

"We live for our future selves and we strive for the benefit of succeeding generations." - Why?

"Nothing is so selfish as to believe life is not worth living unless there can be a personal, eternal reward at the end of it." - So what does that say about people who don't think there is anything at the end of it?

[neo of the mind]

"As an atheist I live for the here and now, as in this life. I live to enjoy my life and improve it as much as possible. As burntgorilla says, how are atheists different from you in that regard?"

The answer of why I am here dictates the purpose of my life. So if I believe that the why I am here answer is "no reason", then that equates to hedonism?

[lord tammerlain]

"As an atheist I live for the here and now, as in this life. I live to enjoy my life and improve it as much as possible. As burntgorilla says, how are atheists different from you in that regard?"

The answer of why I am here dictates the purpose of my life. So if I believe that the why I am here answer is "no reason", then that equates to hedonism?

What is wrong with hedonism?

[serenity]

"What's evolution got to do with it?" - That's what most Atheists that I have spoken to believe in, so in relation to why they are here, is the context.

"What would any person live for? Happiness, family, friends, interests, hopes, dreams, anything that a religious person would..." - You tell me, that's why I asked. Are you an Atheist, is that your answer?

"Are you trying to tell me that the thought of an afterlife is the only reason religious folks get out of bed?" - no.

"We live for our future selves and we strive for the benefit of succeeding generations." - Why?

"Nothing is so selfish as to believe life is not worth living unless there can be a personal, eternal reward at the end of it." - So what does that say about people who don't think there is anything at the end of it?


There's more to this story. It's true that atheists have at times struggled with "meaning" and so on.

but consider it this way: that religion is comforting to many people has exactly zero to do with its veracity, with its worth AS TRUTH.

No doubt I would be a happier person if I had faith that I was the smartest, most decent and excellent guy in the world; and if my loved ones and friends were, in my fanatsy, also superior beings to everyone else, that might make me a happier person.

That's no reason to believe that it is factual, that I really am a superior man. Any happiness that might accrue from this delusion is irrelevant.

I'm not about to start beliving in an insecure but benevolent Sky-giant on the basis that it might make me a happier person. (And that's not even a given; there're plenty of demonstrably unhappy religious folk...and I AM, in fact, a fairly contented person.)

[lord tammerlain]

"What's evolution got to do with it?" - That's what most Atheists that I have spoken to believe in, so in relation to why they are here, is the context.
Most christians that I know also "believe" in evolution. It is what is taught in the Catholic schools in Alberta. Evolution for them is just the process that God decided to use to create life.


"What would any person live for? Happiness, family, friends, interests, hopes, dreams, anything that a religious person would..." - You tell me, that's why I asked. Are you an Atheist, is that your answer?

"Are you trying to tell me that the thought of an afterlife is the only reason religious folks get out of bed?" - no.

"We live for our future selves and we strive for the benefit of succeeding generations." - Why?
Self interest, and part of the genetic drive that evolution provides. Every specis(sp) has an overwhelming drive to propigate itself, and ensure the sucess of its offspring over that of others


"Nothing is so selfish as to believe life is not worth living unless there can be a personal, eternal reward at the end of it." - So what does that say about people who don't think there is anything at the end of it?
It says nothing, as we expect to have our existance ended at that time, it is the here and now that is important, and possibly the legacy that is left.

[Ethos]

"Nothing is so selfish as to believe life is not worth living unless there can be a personal, eternal reward at the end of it." - So what does that say about people who don't think there is anything at the end of it?

Nothing. I was addressing those who hold to an afterlife as the ultimate goal.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

There's more to this story. It's true that atheists have at times struggled with "meaning" and so on.

but consider it this way: that religion is comforting to many people has exactly zero to do with its veracity, with its worth AS TRUTH.

No doubt I would be a happier person if I had faith that I was the smartest, most decent and excellent guy in the world; and if my loved ones and friends were, in my fanatsy, also superior beings to everyone else, that might make me a happier person.

That's no reason to believe that it is factual, that I really am a superior man. Any happiness that might accrue from this delusion is irrelevant.

I'm not about to start beliving in an insecure but benevolent Sky-giant on the basis that it might make me a happier person. (And that's not even a given; there're plenty of demonstrably unhappy religious folk...and I AM, in fact, a fairly contented person.)


"There's more to this story. It's true that atheists have at times struggled with "meaning" and so on." - So there is purpose in an Athesistc life? What is it?

"but consider it this way: that religion is comforting to many people has exactly zero to do with its veracity, with its worth AS TRUTH." - paper money has almost no worth in reality, but to the person that gives it worth.

"No doubt I would be a happier person if I had faith that I was the smartest, most decent and excellent guy in the world; and if my loved ones and friends were, in my fanatsy, also superior beings to everyone else, that might make me a happier person." - So an Atheists happiness is derived from feeling superior?

"Any happiness that might accrue from this delusion is irrelevant. " - irrelevant to what?

"I'm not about to start beliving in an insecure but benevolent Sky-giant on the basis that it might make me a happier person. (And that's not even a given; there're plenty of demonstrably unhappy religious folk...and I AM, in fact, a fairly contented person.)" - this doesn't answer my question or even pertain to it.

[neo of the mind]

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here for the sole purpose of ensuring they make the right decisions for the most positive outcome.

Why does the Atheist bother to concern themselves with the thought of why they are here, if in fact they do?

[Ethos]

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here for the sole purpose of ensuring they make the right decisions for the most positive outcome.

This is why the concept is inherently selfish. Concerning yourself with the "most positive outcome" does not ensure a positive outcome for others, though many may have faith this is the case.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

This is why the concept is inherently selfish. Concerning yourself with the "most positive outcome" does not ensure a positive outcome for others, though many may have faith this is the case.

Ethos

I didn't say the positive outcome was limited to oneself or even if oneself was the majority focus. You assumed that.

[serenity]

posted by serenity
"There's more to this story. It's true that atheists have at times struggled with "meaning" and so on." -

posted by neo
So there is purpose in an Athesistc life? What is it?

this was already addressed here on this thread...twice, at least. Life has worth in and of itself. To think it doesn't seems a bit perverse.



posted by serenity
"but consider it this way: that religion is comforting to many people has exactly zero to do with its veracity, with its worth AS TRUTH." -

posted by neo
paper money has almost no worth in reality, but to the person that gives it worth.

This is just way off base. I said "worth AS TRUTH," not material gain. I'm committing the heresy of suggesting that truth might actually be something to strive towards.



posted by serenity
"No doubt I would be a happier person if I had faith that I was the smartest, most decent and excellent guy in the world; and if my loved ones and friends were, in my fanatsy, also superior beings to everyone else, that might make me a happier person." -


posted by neo
So an Atheists happiness is derived from feeling superior?

No...are you wilfully misreading? My point was that a belief in an untruth does not gain relevance by the mere fact--or the mere claim, I should amend--that this delusion brings happiness.



posted by serenity
"Any happiness that might accrue from this delusion is irrelevant. " -


posted by neo
irrelevant to what?

To matters of truth. You're having a difficult time with this, I see.

"
posted by serenity
I'm not about to start beliving in an insecure but benevolent Sky-giant on the basis that it might make me a happier person. (And that's not even a given; there're plenty of demonstrably unhappy religious folk...and I AM, in fact, a fairly contented person.)" -


posted by neo
this doesn't answer my question or even pertain to it.

then you forget yourself, because it certainly does. you asked (with approximately zero concern, interestingly enough--the lack of compassion among the religious is a constant source of amazement for me) why an atheist, unblessed by your superior worldview, would not simply kill himself.

I answered that--because I have no urge to kill myself, as I am not miserable and tortured.

[neo of the mind]

this was already addressed here on this thread...twice, at least. Life has worth in and of itself. To think it doesn't seems a bit perverse.

- My question has nothing to do with the worth of Life, but purpose. Sorry if it was already addressed, could you please show me the exact thread where my question was asked?


This is just way off base. I said "worth AS TRUTH," not material gain. I'm committing the heresy of suggesting that truth might actually be something to strive towards.

- I was using money as an example, not shifting the discussion to money and it's use, but rather to point out that the truth of money is that in itself, it's not worth anything, only when somebody put value on it because what it represent is when it has a worth.


No...are you wilfully misreading? My point was that a belief in an untruth does not gain relevance by the mere fact--or the mere claim, I should amend--that this delusion brings happiness.

Relevance to who?



To matters of truth. You're having a difficult time with this, I see.

- So, now it's insult time? So soon?

"

then you forget yourself, because it certainly does. you asked (with approximately zero concern, interestingly enough--the lack of compassion among the religious is a constant source of amazement for me) why an atheist, unblessed by your superior worldview, would not simply kill himself.

- zero concern? That's your perspective. I gave the only answer that logically could be surmised. If there is no purpose for why you are here, then there would be no purpose for living. I'm trying to understand what the purpose is that an Atheist thinks they have and why they bother to find out the details of their existence if in their view, there is no "cause" for their existence.

I answered that--because I have no urge to kill myself, as I am not miserable and tortured.

- ok, so because you are not miserable and tortured, that defines your purpose?

[Ethos]

I didn't say the positive outcome was limited to oneself or even if oneself was the majority focus. You assumed that.

I can only respond to what you have written. If you were making another conclusion, by all means re-state it.

At this point I must ask for a clarification of your true intentions. If this thread is meant to explore an intellectual curiosity, I would think you have received enough information to further your understanding. If you are attempting an attack on "atheism", I would suggest another line of reasoning is in order. The meaning of life is not as universally uniform within atheistic doctrine as you have been led to believe.

You might try a search for "secular humanism" if you are honestly curious about a belief system other than your own which does not include the afterlife as a necessary component to living a decent, fulfilling life.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

I can only respond to what you have written. If you were making another conclusion, by all means re-state it.

- ok, I wasn't clear enough for you to not make an assumption. The "most positive outcome", is not limited nor the main or minor reason of the person's self outcome.

At this point I must ask for a clarification of your true intentions. If this thread is meant to explore an intellectual curiosity, I would think you have received enough information to further your understanding. If you are attempting an attack on "atheism", I would suggest another line of reasoning is in order. The meaning of life is not as universally uniform within atheistic doctrine as you have been led to believe.

- Actually I have not received an acceptable answer to the question yet. I was given a answer, but It wasn't from an Athesist. The answer that I was given from an Athesist is only one and I would like more, especially an answer that essestially doesn't defend itself by attacking the opposite position. Is that ok with you? Let me know if not and I will relinquish my freedom of speech.


You might try a search for "secular humanism" if you are honestly curious about a belief system other than your own which does not include the afterlife as a necessary component to living a decent, fulfilling life.

-Actually, I am interested in what Atheists on this forum think versus what an Atheist published.

[Ethos]

- Actually I have not received an acceptable answer to the question yet.

In that case you are unlikely to get an "acceptable" answer. I have a feeling your lack of acceptance is less a result of receiving incomplete or illogical responses than it is a personal limitation based on existing faith which prevents you from exploring alternative viewpoints from a neutral perspective.

Ethos

[JoeR]

-Actually, I am interested in what Atheists on this forum think versus what an Atheist published.



"What would any person live for? Happiness, family, friends, interests, hopes, dreams, anything that a religious person would..."

In otherwords the purpose of living...is living. That is more than enough.

[Craig]

Neo of the Mind,

Let me provide you with an analogy as to why an atheist might want to do the right thing. This analogy is based upon a real world example that I was informed of a while back, though I can only remember generalities, and not particulars. At a medical clinic, the staff on hand wanted more blood donations to meet the need for them, which exceeded the amount of blood they were currently receiving. Many of the donors came back repeatedly, happy to donate blood, but it was not sufficient. So, the staff came up with a plan to increase the number of donations. They decided to pay the donors cash for each blood donation they made. When they put the plan into action, they were astonished at the results- the regular donors ceased to make donations, and drug dealers and other people similar to them began to donate blood in order to make some "easy cash". The staff had thought that giving cash rewards would up the number of donors all around, but instead it merely lead to a proliferation of less reputable donors and a decline in regular donors.

What the staff had failed to realize was the reason behind why the different groups were donating. The regular donors gave blood not because they wanted a reward, but rather because it made them feel good. They stopped donating when cash was offered because they felt it demeaned what they were doing. In contrast, the new donors were concerned about the reward. They made a donation not primarily out of a need to do a good thing, but rather because they wanted cash. Thus, while both groups were donating blood, they were doing it for two very different reasons.

I think this analogy should nicely illustrate why atheists may want to do the right thing and make a positive difference in the world, even if they don't believe there is a reward at the end.

[serenity]

- I was using money as an example, not shifting the discussion to money and it's use, but rather to point out that the truth of money is that in itself, it's not worth anything, only when somebody put value on it because what it represent is when it has a worth.


No...are you wilfully misreading? My point was that a belief in an untruth does not gain relevance by the mere fact--or the mere claim, I should amend--that this delusion brings happiness.

Relevance to who?



To matters of truth. You're having a difficult time with this, I see.

- So, now it's insult time? So soon?

"

then you forget yourself, because it certainly does. you asked (with approximately zero concern, interestingly enough--the lack of compassion among the religious is a constant source of amazement for me) why an atheist, unblessed by your superior worldview, would not simply kill himself.

- zero concern? That's your perspective. I gave the only answer that logically could be surmised. If there is no purpose for why you are here, then there would be no purpose for living. I'm trying to understand what the purpose is that an Atheist thinks they have and why they bother to find out the details of their existence if in their view, there is no "cause" for their existence.

I answered that--because I have no urge to kill myself, as I am not miserable and tortured.

- ok, so because you are not miserable and tortured, that defines your purpose?
[/quote]

Ok, let me try to clarify it further. I apologize for the insult, but I felt (maybe erroneously) that you were playing cute little games. I will now assume you were not.

Instead of answering you point by point, which is getting both of us nowhere in this particular discussion, I'll lay out a very brief and rough summary of my position:

1. First, I am an atheist. Second, I used to be a Christian. I note the second only to pre-empt what some have said (not you, however); that I could not possibly understand religious faith, never having been subjected to it.

2. I feel life is worth living, and it has nothing to do with what happens after I die, about which of course I know nothing. I do not feel any regret over a lack of a higher Purpose, ordained by a greater intelligence. This does not bother me, nor worry me, in the slightest.

3. I am not, not ever have been, driven to thoughts of suicide, either because of my lack of faith or for any other reason.

4. I believe in morality because morality is demonstrably real; it exists; every person (or near enough) feels it. Why should this be so? Presumably because we are social animals of a uniquely sophisticated mind.

Now, some of this, notably the idea of morality, seems trivial to those who believe that morality is a Truth, both of AND above human beings, laid out or put forth by a perfect being to whom we are all by definition subject.

So be it; I totally understand this feeling (having known it myself), but as I don't believe in God, I consider the point more or less moot anyway.

You ask about "purpose." Your words were, "If there is no purpose for why you are here, then there would be no purpose for living."

Two things; two maybe separate points:

1. The second idea does NOT automatically and incontrovertibly follow from the first, though I do understand the logic. I'm not sure of what "purpose" means when one doesn't believe in God; but it's not clear that the implied value-judgement is legitimate.

2. But let's say for the sake of argument you are correct (I do have some sympathy for this view, on an intellectual level; again, if freed from the implied criticism that is pretty plainly there). My answer is, and not to be fatuous or anything, "so what"? The "purpose" of life certainly exists, automatically; life is its own answer, and will not be disputed. this iosn't quite what you're getting at, but I at least partly reject the parameters you've set up.

What you are saying is that, minus an overarching intelligence, life has no "purpose." again, this is not completely clear. But no, by the way YOU seem to mean it, I agree: life has no such "purpose."

But it doesn't for a second mean that there is no purpose for living. What is your purpsoe for living? To serve God? to fulfill his plan, of which you cannot understand? Ok; I get this; but since I don't believe God exists, I believe this to be an illusion.

It ultimately makes no difference "why" i am here; I most certainly am here. And I am not unhappy; and I don't consider the fact of my being, or the fact of existing life, to be trivial. And I don't miss god, and don't miss my faith; in fact I am happier without it.

Obviously atheists and believers aren't going to agree; impossible. But that's ok too, i hope.

[burntgorilla]

"What's evolution got to do with it?" - That's what most Atheists that I have spoken to believe in, so in relation to why they are here, is the context.

So do most Christians. Your point?

"What would any person live for? Happiness, family, friends, interests, hopes, dreams, anything that a religious person would..." - You tell me, that's why I asked. Are you an Atheist, is that your answer?

Am I an atheist? I don't quite know. I would describe myself as agnostic, because I don't believe that there is no God, but I see it as very unlikely, so borderline atheist, I guess. If that's the answer you were looking for, it's a rather stupid question to ask.

"Are you trying to tell me that the thought of an afterlife is the only reason religious folks get out of bed?" - no.

So where do they differ from non religious folk?

[TomAZ]

Sans all the intellectual verbal jousting, my reason for being an Atheist is quite simple. I reject superstition in all it's forms. 'Nuff said!

[chukster8614]

Question -

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here for the sole purpose of ensuring they make the right decisions for the most positive outcome.

Why does the Atheist bother to concern themselves with the thought of why they are here, if in fact they do? Woudn't that be moot? Why go through the trouble? For the Athesist that also believes in Evolution, what's the point? You find out for a fact that evolution is true and you are a decendant of things that all lead to nothing that started for no reason. What does that knowledge actually benefit? You still die in more or less 100 years and accordingly, to your belief system, there is nothing afterwards.

I'm trying to understand people that have this ideology and how they are able to wake up every morning. What's the motivation? Is it only due to the fact that the ingrained self preservation keeps you from killing yourself, that your are here to read this post?

Maybe I am viewing the Atheist's existence all wrong, somebody tell me what they live for?
Speaking as an atheist I would have to say that life itself is precious and the fact that you are lucky enough to be born should instill you with a desire to respect life in all it's forms.

It seems that the religiously/fanatically motivated are the ones who don't seem to respect life, thinking that a better life awaits them.

I'll take secular humanism over primitive superstition anyday.

[neo of the mind]

I thought I would re-write my question more clearly, since most of the responses have not addressed the question. Therefore it must be due to the question not being asked correctly:

Original:

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here for the sole purpose of ensuring they make the right decisions for the most positive outcome.

Why does the Atheist bother to concern themselves with the thought of why they are here, if in fact they do?

Revised:

A person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here, because they believe that they were in fact created by something. That, if they were created by something, then there is a purpose behind being created. The sole focus of thought of why and all the details that pertain are to understand what that purpose is. That purpose would obviously include the current life and the current life affects the life after "death". So, decisions in this life, based off the understood purpose for existence, are the means to fulfill that purpose in this life and after death in a positive outcome, since normal people don't desire a negative outcome when trying to fullfill a purpose.

Question - Why does an Atheist concern themselves with the thought of how their existence came about, ie. evolution, if according to my understanding of classical Atheism, there is no creator? If there is no creator, then there would be no purpose of being created. This lead me to the statement in the subject asking if an Atheistic life was moot due to the fact that there is no purpose of being created according to the logic of Atheism.

[Dangerrmouse]

Evolution explains the how, not the why of our existence. Your understanding is flawed. There is no questioning of one's creation, since an atheist does not believe in a creator, there can be no "creation". Why do some need to have a purpose to exist? We patently do exist. Some of us accept this, some of us create elaborate heirarchies of self justifications for being. Some of us accept random chance, some need the certainty (however illusory) of faith in their lives.

[neo of the mind]

Evolution explains the how, not the why of our existence. Your understanding is flawed. There is no questioning of one's creation, since an atheist does not believe in a creator, there can be no "creation". Why do some need to have a purpose to exist? We patently do exist. Some of us accept this, some of us create elaborate heirarchies of self justifications for being. Some of us accept random chance, some need the certainty (however illusory) of faith in their lives.

"Evolution explains the how, not the why of our existence. Your understanding is flawed." - No it's not, I know that "evolution" is a way of explaining the how, I never said it was used to explain the why.

My question was why would a person want to know the how, if they believe there is no why. It's that simple. Another way of putting it, since people are stuck on the evolution theory example, is why learn how a car operates along with what all the parts do and how the car is put together, if the person believes there is no purpose for why the car was made in the first place?

[Madrigalian]

"Evolution explains the how, not the why of our existence. Your understanding is flawed." - No it's not, I know that "evolution" is a way of explaining the how, I never said it was used to explain the why.

My question was why would a person want to know the how, if they believe there is no why. It's that simple. Another way of putting it, since people are stuck on the evolution theory example, is why learn how a car operates along with what all the parts do and how the car is put together, if the person believes there is no purpose for why the car was made in the first place?


Is it not enough to survive and flourish as a species? To reach the "new world", the moon, the stars, colonize and continue to evolve such that "humanity" endures far into the future and far beyond our place of origin. To make our mark among all of the cosmos' life forms as a truly enlightened species that can adapt beyond even planetary extinction?

Honestly, I am not an Athiest, though I doubt my belief in a creator would at all resemble that of your own, even abstractly, but I see no lack of purpose in any "sentient" being's desire to prosper, evolve and grow, individually, and as a species. ... Particularly, as a species. Where our children's children will remember us, as their reveared ancestors who gave them "purpose" to continue the journey.

[Dangerrmouse]

"Evolution explains the how, not the why of our existence. Your understanding is flawed." - No it's not, I know that "evolution" is a way of explaining the how, I never said it was used to explain the why.

My question was why would a person want to know the how, if they believe there is no why. It's that simple. Another way of putting it, since people are stuck on the evolution theory example, is why learn how a car operates along with what all the parts do and how the car is put together, if the person believes there is no purpose for why the car was made in the first place?

You introduced evolution to your question. It is natural that people will respond to it.

You use an example which presupposes that life was created and that it was created for a purpose. There is no evidence for either.
We are a curious species. That is reason enough in itself to study how things work. Why overcomplicate matters?

[neo of the mind]

So the reasons so far given to why an Atheist bothers to understand the how, believing there is no why, is the following:

1. We are a curious species, which is reason enough to study how things work. To reason otherwise is to overcomplicate the issue.

2. To reach the "new world".

3. To reach the moon.

4. To reach the stars.

5. To colonize.

6. To continue to evolve such that "humanity" endures far into the future and far beyond our place of origin.

7. To make our mark among all of the cosmos' life forms as a truly enlightened species that can adapt beyond even planetary extinction.

8. To prosper, evolve and grow, individually, and as a species. ... Particularly, as a species.

9. So our children's children will remember us, as their reveared ancestors who gave them "purpose" to continue the journey.

Any others?

[steveksux]

How do children cope when they find out Santa Claus is not real? Their goal in life is to be nice for Santa during the year so they get cool presents at Christmas. What could they possibly have to live for once they find out Santa is not real? Isn't life moot for children once they discover the truth?

Randy

[brainpan]

...why learn how a car operates along with what all the parts do and how the car is put together, if the person believes there is no purpose for why the car was made in the first place?I liked Danger's response, but I can't resist weighing in with one of my own.

What causes you to believe there can be no purpose in an atheistic worldview? The purpose of a human body is as self evident as the purpose of a car. It makes no difference whether it was created by natural observable processes, or by a make-believe sky pixie. Either way it is up to us to give meaning to our lives, and I think we have done a pretty good job of it.

The purpose of the human body is to allow us to observe and appreciate existence, and to find love and happiness in each other's company. To borrow Dangermouse's quote-- ""All you need is love! Love and peace are eternal."-John Lennon--there is your answer.

[neo of the mind]

How do children cope when they find out Santa Claus is not real? Their goal in life is to be nice for Santa during the year so they get cool presents at Christmas. What could they possibly have to live for once they find out Santa is not real? Isn't life moot for children once they discover the truth?

Randy


All of which has nothing to do with the question posted. Good job again. :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

I liked Danger's response, but I can't resist weighing in with one of my own.

What causes you to believe there can be no purpose in an atheistic worldview? The purpose of a human body is as self evident as the purpose of a car. It makes no difference whether it was created by natural observable processes, or by a make-believe sky pixie. Either way it is up to us to give meaning to our lives, and I think we have done a pretty good job of it.

The purpose of the human body is to allow us to observe and appreciate existence, and to find love and happiness in each other's company. To borrow Dangermouse's quote-- ""All you need is love! Love and peace are eternal."-John Lennon--there is your answer.


I didn't mean for my question to get all the Atheist's panties in a bunch. I just wanted to find out your thoughts on a question posed. Most of you coudn't even focus on the question to answer it and still are incapable of doing so. The answers that were given lead to the conclusion that you guys think your in a Star Trek episode. LOL.

[brainpan]

I just wanted to find out your thoughts on a question posed.Not so much that you would actually acknowledge my on-topic response to your post. Let me allow you a second chance to respond to my challenge. What causes you to believe there can be no purpose in an atheistic worldview?

[neo of the mind]

Not so much that you would actually acknowledge my on-topic response to your post. Let me allow you a second chance to respond to my challenge. What causes you to believe there can be no purpose in an atheistic worldview?

So, let me get this straight....I start a topic and ask a question and in order for the illusion that I would get an answer is maintained, I have to answer questions until the orignal question is forgotten about or my inability to answer a non-related question is used in someway to invalidate my original question.

[Craig]

Well Neo, if you want to get technical, I can go that route. First of all, your question "This lead me to the statement in the subject asking if an Atheistic life was moot due to the fact that there is no purpose of being created according to the logic of Atheism," is a non-sequitor. "It does not follow" that the atheistic life being moot has a logical connection to there being no purpose of being created. I know you're trying to establish a logical connection, but it really doesn't make much sense.

Secondly, questioning the initial premise that leads to a question is a perfectly valid response, even if you don't care for it, to your question. It's particularly valid in the case of philosophical type questions, which yours is. Your question implies some sort of need or importance of a "purpose". Inherent in this implication is a number of assumptions, whose truth or accuracy is being called into question. So, while such responses might not have been what you were looking for, they are completely on-topic as far as your question is concerned.

[brainpan]

So, let me get this straight....I start a topic and ask a question and in order for the illusion that I would get an answer is maintained, I have to answer questions until the orignal question is forgotten about or my inability to answer a non-related question is used in someway to invalidate my original question.I agree with Craig's response. I would only add that the "non-related" subject you're complaining about is one you brought to the discussion, not me.

[neo of the mind]

Well Neo, if you want to get technical, I can go that route. First of all, your question "This lead me to the statement in the subject asking if an Atheistic life was moot due to the fact that there is no purpose of being created according to the logic of Atheism," is a non-sequitor. "It does not follow" that the atheistic life being moot has a logical connection to there being no purpose of being created. I know you're trying to establish a logical connection, but it really doesn't make much sense.

Secondly, questioning the initial premise that leads to a question is a perfectly valid response, even if you don't care for it, to your question. It's particularly valid in the case of philosophical type questions, which yours is. Your question implies some sort of need or importance of a "purpose". Inherent in this implication is a number of assumptions, whose truth or accuracy is being called into question. So, while such responses might not have been what you were looking for, they are completely on-topic as far as your question is concerned.

Craig - I thought I had made my question more clear and explained my premise in post #27. What exactly doesn't make much sense to you in the connections I gave? Tell me specifically, where my non-sequitur is in that post.

I agree with your second paragraph, even though I think the responses of "answering a question with a question" have been mainly diversions. There have been some direct answers to my original question, but mostly the input is focused on a secondary comment that I had made. I thought that my post #27 would refocus my question better, since it was not as clear as it should have been at the start.

[burntgorilla]

So the reasons so far given to why an Atheist bothers to understand the how, believing there is no why, is the following:

1. We are a curious species, which is reason enough to study how things work. To reason otherwise is to overcomplicate the issue.

2. To reach the "new world".

3. To reach the moon.

4. To reach the stars.

5. To colonize.

6. To continue to evolve such that "humanity" endures far into the future and far beyond our place of origin.

7. To make our mark among all of the cosmos' life forms as a truly enlightened species that can adapt beyond even planetary extinction.

8. To prosper, evolve and grow, individually, and as a species. ... Particularly, as a species.

9. So our children's children will remember us, as their reveared ancestors who gave them "purpose" to continue the journey.

Any others?

For every reason that a religious person lives. People just exist. Why do you get out of bed in the morning?

[Craig]

Craig - I thought I had made my question more clear and explained my premise in post #27. What exactly doesn't make much sense to you in the connections I gave? Tell me specifically, where my non-sequitur is in that post.


The non-sequitur is just what I said: "It does not follow" that the atheistic life being moot has a logical connection to there being no purpose of being created. It's not a formal non-sequitur in the sense of a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. Rather, it's the fact that the second half of your proposition "there is no purpose of being created" does not logically follow from the first "The atheistic life is moot". As I said, I know you're trying to make a logical connection between the two, but it really doesn't make much sense. If the second part, "there is no purpose of being created" is true, it doesn't necessarily lead to the first part "the atheistic life is moot." Basically, there are some assumptions going on in order to link the two parts of your question together, and I'm questioning whether the logical connection between the two is anything but tenuous.

[steveksux]

All of which has nothing to do with the question posted. Good job again. :rolleyes:You would be wrong, it is precisely on point assuming the atheist believes the afterlife is no more real than Santa Claus.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

The non-sequitur is just what I said: " It's not a formal non-sequitur in the sense of a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. Rather, it's the fact that the second half of your proposition "there is no purpose of being created" does not logically follow from the first "The atheistic life is moot". As I said, I know you're trying to make a logical connection between the two, but it really doesn't make much sense. If the second part, "there is no purpose of being created" is true, it doesn't necessarily lead to the first part "the atheistic life is moot." Basically, there are some assumptions going on in order to link the two parts of your question together, and I'm questioning whether the logical connection between the two is anything but tenuous.

Fair enough, but I said that post#27 fills in the "in-between" of those two statements. So, instead of having A = D, which you are pointing out as not connecting, I did A=B=C=D. If you don't think the connection is valid from that standpoint, then you can comment on that.

[neo of the mind]

For every reason that a religious person lives. People just exist. Why do you get out of bed in the morning? - Thanks, I added your input as number 10.

So the reasons so far given to why an Atheist bothers to understand the how, believing there is no why, is the following:

1. We are a curious species, which is reason enough to study how things work. To reason otherwise is to overcomplicate the issue.

2. To reach the "new world".

3. To reach the moon.

4. To reach the stars.

5. To colonize.

6. To continue to evolve such that "humanity" endures far into the future and far beyond our place of origin.

7. To make our mark among all of the cosmos' life forms as a truly enlightened species that can adapt beyond even planetary extinction.

8. To prosper, evolve and grow, individually, and as a species. ... Particularly, as a species.

9. So our children's children will remember us, as their reveared ancestors who gave them "purpose" to continue the journey.

10. Just because.

[neo of the mind]

How do children cope when they find out Santa Claus is not real? Their goal in life is to be nice for Santa during the year so they get cool presents at Christmas. What could they possibly have to live for once they find out Santa is not real? Isn't life moot for children once they discover the truth?

Randy

Really, I was a kid and I have kids and I have never met a kid whose purpose in life consisted of being nice so that they would get presents every year.
Maybe the week leading up to Christmas. LOL.

Also, to say the Santa Claus is on the same par of the creator of everything, which created for a purpose is absurd.

[steveksux]

Really, I was a kid and I have kids and I have never met a kid whose purpose in life consisted of being nice so that they would get presents every year.
Maybe the week leading up to Christmas. LOL.

Also, to say the Santa Claus is on the same par of the creator of everything, which created for a purpose is absurd.Not absurd at all, for an atheist which is who you're talking about. From their perspective the "creator of everything" IS PRECISELY no more real than Santa Claus. The problem you're having is trying to understand atheists motivations from a religious perspective. Its almost like saying you can't understand why fish don't drown. Breathing air is natural and necessary to you, as is religion, you can't imagine going without either. Not so for fish.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Not absurd at all, for an atheist which is who you're talking about. From their perspective the "creator of everything" IS PRECISELY no more real than Santa Claus. The problem you're having is trying to understand atheists motivations from a religious perspective. Its almost like saying you can't understand why fish don't drown. Breathing air is natural and necessary to you, as is religion, you can't imagine going without either. Not so for fish.

Randy


I am not saying that at all. I'll put it this way and maybe you will understand.

The realization and effect on a person that Santa Claus does not exist is not comparable to the realization and effect on a person that God does not exist. Stating otherwise is absurd.

[steveksux]

The realization and effect on a person that Santa Claus does not exist is not comparable to the realization and effect on a person that God does not exist. Stating otherwise is absurd.Maybe that's where you're getting hung up on this. I'm not stating that as a fact, I'm using that as an analogy. We're talking past each other to some degree. I'm just trying to get you out of the mindset that an atheist is somehow missing something by not believing as you do.

Atheists don't care about the afterlife or heaven because they think its imaginary. You don't live your life in despair that you'll never get the 72 virgins promised Islamic militants who die in Jihad. Cause you don't believe in that. Its as irrelevant to your life as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or ancient Greek or Roman Gods. As is your God and afterlife to atheists.

Randy

[brainpan]

Atheists don't care about the afterlife or heaven because they think its imaginary. You don't live your life in despair that you'll never get the 72 virgins promised Islamic militants who die in Jihad. Cause you don't believe in that. Its as irrelevant to your life as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or ancient Greek or Roman Gods. As is your God and afterlife to atheists.

RandyThat's a good analogy. Every once in a while, I like to remind Christians that they're in agreement with atheists on the existence of every god but one. But I think your answer would be more helpful to them.

[neo of the mind]

Maybe that's where you're getting hung up on this. I'm not stating that as a fact, I'm using that as an analogy. We're talking past each other to some degree. I'm just trying to get you out of the mindset that an atheist is somehow missing something by not believing as you do.

Atheists don't care about the afterlife or heaven because they think its imaginary. You don't live your life in despair that you'll never get the 72 virgins promised Islamic militants who die in Jihad. Cause you don't believe in that. Its as irrelevant to your life as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or ancient Greek or Roman Gods. As is your God and afterlife to atheists.

Randy

That is established that Atheists do not believe that they were created by someone and that there is no afterlife, that this life is it for them. It has been established as well that the Atheist believes that their existence was not brought about for a purpose.

It is also established that a person that believes in God doesn't understand that at all. That's fine too, what I thought I could understand was WHY an Atheist would spend the time to undertand the HOW of their existence, even though they accept that their existence was not a result of an intelligent purpose. I say intelligent because I don't think randomness is purpose. I received the ten answers summarized in the above post. I understand the 10 explanations. If I have any questions on them, I will ask further.

[steveksux]

That's fine too, what I thought I could understand was WHY an Atheist would spend the time to undertand the HOW of their existence, even though they accept that their existence was not a result of an intelligent purpose. I say intelligent because I don't think randomness is purpose. I received the ten answers summarized in the above post. I understand the 10 explanations. If I have any questions on them, I will ask further.The HOW is just as fascinating to figure out. Christians are also interested in the HOW, even if the focus is slightly different, as in how God used natural laws such as evolution to create mankind, the earth, the universe, etc. That is certainly worthy of study independent of the why.

Whether or not God was using the "screwdriver", or the screwdriver was turned by natural forces, its the same search for the process and tools that created the universe, man, etc. Regardless of whether God is the prime mover or its simply the result of natural forces.

Randy

[steveksux]

That is established that Atheists do not believe that they were created by someone and that there is no afterlife, that this life is it for them. It has been established as well that the Atheist believes that their existence was not brought about for a purpose.Do you have any goals? Why can't people have their own motivations independent of a "purpose" handed down from a supernatural being? People want to help other people, cure cancer, discover the secrets of the universe, lose 10 pounds before they are seen in public in that new bathing suit, nail the hot chick in accounting, simply because they are worthy goals in and of themselves. There is plenty of purpose to go around here on Earth.

Randy

[brainpan]

That is established...It has been established...It is also established...Now that that is established...
...what I thought I could understand was WHY an Atheist would spend the time to undertand the HOW of their existence, even though they accept that their existence was not a result of an intelligent purpose.Simple curiousity and thirst for knowledge. I am interested in the how of existence for the same reason I am interested in all the sciences. Anything else?

[neo of the mind]

So the reasons so far given to why an Atheist bothers to understand the how, believing there is no why, is the following:

1. We are a curious species, which is reason enough to study how things work. To reason otherwise is to overcomplicate the issue.

2. To reach the "new world".

3. To reach the moon.

4. To reach the stars.

5. To colonize.

6. To continue to evolve such that "humanity" endures far into the future and far beyond our place of origin.

7. To make our mark among all of the cosmos' life forms as a truly enlightened species that can adapt beyond even planetary extinction.

8. To prosper, evolve and grow, individually, and as a species. ... Particularly, as a species.

9. So our children's children will remember us, as their reveared ancestors who gave them "purpose" to continue the journey.

10. Just because.

11. Thirst for knowledge. (Which I guess is an intense form of curiosity.)

[brainpan]

11. Thirst for knowledge. (Which I guess is an intense form of curiosity.)No need for guessing, assumming, and especially not absurd and unwarranted attempts at condescention. Don't play childish games when you're stumped, just ask for help! :)

Noun 1. thirst for knowledge - curiosity that motivates investigation and study.

synonyms: desire to know, lust for learning.

References in classic literature:
1. His teachers complained that he would not learn, while his soul was brimming over with thirst for knowledge. (Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, Leo)

2. In her intellectual character it is pleasing to observe an insatiable thirst for knowledge, and a quick perception of the relations of things. (American Notes for General Circulation by Dickens, Charles)

3. For why should the thirst for knowledge be aroused, only to be disappointed and punished? (Flatland by Abbott, Edwin)

Anyway, now that you have catalogued responses to your question, are you prepared to share the meaning of the exercise? Now that I have provided a definition that will allow you to understand my response, what do you think of it? Do you actually have a point?

[mataj]

Why does the Atheist bother to concern themselves with the thought of why they are here, if in fact they do?I don't.

For the Athesist that also believes in Evolution,Evolution is a fact, not a belief.

I'm trying to understand people that have this ideology. . . It's a fact, not ideology.

. . . and how they are able to wake up every morning. What's the motivation? Is it only due to the fact that the ingrained self preservation keeps you from killing yourself, that your are here to read this post?Waking up every morning and continuing to live is an old habit of mine. I don't have any better idea about what else I could do anyway.

Maybe I am viewing the Atheist's existence all wrong, somebody tell me what they live for?I don't know that, but I know bloody well, that I alone can answer this question, and nobody else. If I accept somebody else's answer, I'll live for his ends, not mine, and I don't want that.

[neo of the mind]

No need for guessing, assumming, and especially not absurd and unwarranted attempts at condescention. Don't play childish games when you're stumped, just ask for help! :)

Noun 1. thirst for knowledge - curiosity that motivates investigation and study.

synonyms: desire to know, lust for learning.

References in classic literature:
1. His teachers complained that he would not learn, while his soul was brimming over with thirst for knowledge. (Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, Leo)

2. In her intellectual character it is pleasing to observe an insatiable thirst for knowledge, and a quick perception of the relations of things. (American Notes for General Circulation by Dickens, Charles)

3. For why should the thirst for knowledge be aroused, only to be disappointed and punished? (Flatland by Abbott, Edwin)

Anyway, now that you have catalogued responses to your question, are you prepared to share the meaning of the exercise? Now that I have provided a definition that will allow you to understand my response, what do you think of it? Do you actually have a point?

LOL, "meaning of the exercise"? I believe I have outlined the "meaning" of asking the question from the start. Thanks for the quotes from classical literature, but my definition works just as well. "Don't play childish games when I am stumped..." Stumped at what? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder...which is a problem you have to deal with, not me.

What do I think of your response....I think it is basically the same as the other 10 responses on the list.

[neo of the mind]

I don't.

Evolution is a fact, not a belief.

It's a fact, not ideology.

Waking up every morning and continuing to live is an old habit of mine. I don't have any better idea about what else I could do anyway.

I don't know that, but I know bloody well, that I alone can answer this question, and nobody else. If I accept somebody else's answer, I'll live for his ends, not mine, and I don't want that.

mataj - I refined my question in post #27, so if you want to respond to that, it would be better.

[mataj]

person that believes in a life after death, concerns themselves with the thought of why they are here, because they believe that they were in fact created by something. That, if they were created by something, then there is a purpose behind being created. The sole focus of thought of why and all the details that pertain are to understand what that purpose is. That purpose would obviously include the current life and the current life affects the life after "death". So, decisions in this life, based off the understood purpose for existence, are the means to fulfill that purpose in this life and after death in a positive outcome, since normal people don't desire a negative outcome when trying to fullfill a purpose..Monotheistic religion logic goes roughly like this: "You were created, therefore you owe your Creator your gratitude. Since He's not around at the moment, you can give your heartfelt thanks to us, His representatives."

Since there's no creator in evolution theory, the above logic fails, and religious business suffers.

As for me, I don't think, that pondering about Creator's existence makes much sense. I prefer to to reject "free will" concept, which makes Creator responsible for His creations.

Question - Why does an Atheist concern themselves with the thought of how their existence came about, ie. evolution, if according to my understanding of classical Atheism, there is no creator? If there is no creator, then there would be no purpose of being created. This lead me to the statement in the subject asking if an Atheistic life was moot due to the fact that there is no purpose of being created according to the logic of Atheism.Evolution is science. Science has nothing to do with the purpose of life & similar stuff.

[neo of the mind]

Monotheistic religion logic goes roughly like this: "You were created, therefore you owe your Creator your gratitude. Since He's not around at the moment, you can give your heartfelt thanks to us, His representatives."

Since there's no creator in evolution theory, the above logic fails, and religious business suffers.

As for me, I don't think, that pondering about Creator's existence makes much sense. I prefer to to reject "free will" concept, which makes Creator responsible for His creations.

Evolution is science. Science has nothing to do with the purpose of life & similar stuff.

I wasn't talking about pondering the Creator's existence, I was asking the purpose for an Atheist to ponder the details of how he was created. I have recieved 11 answers so far, if you can add to the answers without duplicating an existing one, please do.

[mataj]

I wasn't talking about pondering the Creator's existence, I was asking the purpose for an Atheist to ponder the details of how he was created. I have recieved 11 answers so far, if you can add to the answers without duplicating an existing one, please do.Yea, that's what I said, pondering about the Creator's existence makes no sense. It's all about free will. Without free will, our purpose is not our problem anymore. It becomes something our Creator has to deal with, not us.

Suppose you built/created a fence around your house. Fence does not have to ponder and guess what you want from it like "ummmm, let's see, what's the purpose of my existance, do I have to keep other people out, or do I have to keep this here dog in, or maybe both". No, fence just sits there, that's all it has to do. It's you who determine it's purpose, fence does not have to worry about it.

Even if you've created something more complicated and sophisticated, like computer program, the above logic remains the same. The computer program does not have to wander "What, o what is the purpose of my existence? Browsing the internet? Processing images? Editing text? Calculating something? And what am I supposed to calculate?". No. You, it's creator, determine it's purpose. And you are also responsible for it's proper functioning. If the program you wrote sins, does something it's not supposed to do that is, you are not supposed to burn your computer. You are supposed to debug the program you wrote.

[sub_zer0]

Even if you've created something more complicated and sophisticated, like computer program, the above logic remains the same. The computer program does not have to wander "What, o what is the purpose of my existence? Browsing the internet? Processing images? Editing text? Calculating something? And what am I supposed to calculate?". No. You, it's creator determine it's purpose. And you are also responsible for it's proper functioning. If the program you wrote sins, does something it's not supposed to do that is, you are not supposed to burn your computer. You are supposed to debug the program you wrote.

The debug would be Christ in this case, :)

[mataj]

The debug would be Christ in this case, :)There's no debugging of free will.

[dittohead not!]

Not being an athiest myself, I can't answer from personal experience. It does seem to me, though, that those who consider themselves to be athiests nevertheless are able to lead happy and stable lives. The one thing that believers in God and an afterlife have over those who believe in dust to dust and ashes to ashes is that we can one day come to them and say, "See? I told you so." If the athiests are correct, then they will never have that satisfaction. In fact, they will never know.

I'm not sure just how evolution got tangled up in this thread, but, then, I came in late and didn't read every post. There is really no connection between a belief in God and being able to understand the theory of evolution. Those are completely separate subjects, one philosophical, the other scientific.

There is, however, a conflict in the irrational belief in the young Earth idea and acceptance of scientific facts. Given other posts by the thread starter, I'm guessing that he is equating belief in God with belief in the literal interpretation of scripture and rejection of scientific research. Have I misinterpreted that position?

[mataj]

Not being an athiest myself, I can't answer from personal experience. It does seem to me, though, that those who consider themselves to be athiests nevertheless are able to lead happy and stable lives. The one thing that believers in God and an afterlife have over those who believe in dust to dust and ashes to ashes is that we can one day come to them and say, "See? I told you so." If the athiests are correct, then they will never have that satisfaction. In fact, they will never know.Eternal Salvation, or TRIPLE your money back! (SubGenius) :devil:

I'm not sure just how evolution got tangled up in this thread,It was mentioned in the opening post. I don't see much sense in debating it, though. Evolution is merely a manifestation of a more basic principle, called Emergence. Emergence is a sort of post modern replacement for creation.

[sub_zer0]

There's no debugging of free will.

Jesus takes care of the bug (sin) by people choosing or using their free will to accept Him.

[neo of the mind]

Not being an athiest myself, I can't answer from personal experience. It does seem to me, though, that those who consider themselves to be athiests nevertheless are able to lead happy and stable lives. The one thing that believers in God and an afterlife have over those who believe in dust to dust and ashes to ashes is that we can one day come to them and say, "See? I told you so." If the athiests are correct, then they will never have that satisfaction. In fact, they will never know.

I'm not sure just how evolution got tangled up in this thread, but, then, I came in late and didn't read every post. There is really no connection between a belief in God and being able to understand the theory of evolution. Those are completely separate subjects, one philosophical, the other scientific.

There is, however, a conflict in the irrational belief in the young Earth idea and acceptance of scientific facts. Given other posts by the thread starter, I'm guessing that he is equating belief in God with belief in the literal interpretation of scripture and rejection of scientific research. Have I misinterpreted that position?

Yes, you are misinterpreting my position. I do not hold to a young Earth idea, but What is called the "Gap Theory". To save typing, I generally agree with the articles at this site. http://www.christiangeology.com

Evolution got tangled up in this thread because my question was why Atheists would bother with the "how" of their existence, ie. evolution being their self described "how", when they don't believe their existence came about for a purpose. So evolution is not my intended debate on this thread.

[dittohead not!]

Yes, you are misinterpreting my position. I do not hold to a young Earth idea, but What is called the "Gap Theory". To save typing, I generally agree with the articles at this site. http://www.christiangeology.com

Evolution got tangled up in this thread because my question was why Atheists would bother with the "how" of their existence, ie. evolution being their self described "how", when they don't believe their existence came about for a purpose. So evolution is not my intended debate on this thread.

Good. We've had already plenty of debate about the reality of evolution. Evolution really has no relevance to belief in god or in a purpose for life anyway. Evolution merely tells us how life came about, not why, nor whether it was set in motion by an intelligence.

Isn't the so called "gap theory" just another way to somehow make believe that Genesis is to be taken literally?

[neo of the mind]

Good. We've had already plenty of debate about the reality of evolution. Evolution really has no relevance to belief in god or in a purpose for life anyway. Evolution merely tells us how life came about, not why, nor whether it was set in motion by an intelligence.

Isn't the so called "gap theory" just another way to somehow make believe that Genesis is to be taken literally?

Well, read the articles in the link. Basically, Genesis, literally speaking, the book itself is not totally literal, is doable as written if you take in the fact that God is reforming, "making" things again from things that already exist, versus starting from scratch.

That being said, I logically believe this (Gap theory) to be the way things happened but could be wrong. God can do anything, so for me to limit what he could do is rather foolish. I just think this is the way he did it. Me being wrong would not change my salvation or anything else. It just makes sense for me personally. I know it's against the grain of contemporary Christianity.

Though you say your not an Atheist, what's your take on my question, which wasn't about the right or wrongness of evolution. Do you think it understandable for people that don't believe in God and don't believe their existence came into being for a purpose, would bother looking into the answer of "How" they came into existence? I really think it's the only way they can justify their position of not beleiving in a Creator. It's their way of showing themselves that they are right, that there is no God.... but the point being to me is the ending conclusion of "so what?"...or better yet, "now what?". You accept there is no God, that you came to be by a process that had no reason to start and no meaning of purpose. Hence my question.

[mataj]

Jesus takes care of the bug (sin) by people choosing or using their free will to accept Him.For aught I know, they are usually brought up and/or scared into it, eternal fire & all. There is not much free will here.

Besides, if free will is debugged, it's not free anymore, right? So, no matter how you turn it- there is no debugging of free will.

[neo of the mind]

For aught I know, they are usually brought up and/or scared into it, eternal fire & all. There is not much free will here.

Besides, if free will is debugged, it's not free anymore, right? So, no matter how you turn it- there is no debugging of free will.

I think sub was saying was that we have free will, which, to your analogy, allows our program to become incorrect due to our input. Jesus would be the variable that allows the program to run correctly regardless of our input.

[mataj]

I think sub was saying was that we have free will, which, to your analogy, allows our program to become incorrect due to our input. Jesus would be the variable that allows the program to run correctly regardless of our input.Yea, I've always suspected free will is some sort of interference, not a gift. :D

[neo of the mind]

Yea, I've always suspected free will is some sort of interference, not a gift. :D

mataji - uh? Free will doesn't stop you from doing anything, it allows you to do anything. How is that interference?

[sub_zer0]

That being said, I logically believe this (Gap theory) to be the way things happened but could be wrong. God can do anything, so for me to limit what he could do is rather foolish. I just think this is the way he did it. Me being wrong would not change my salvation or anything else. It just makes sense for me personally. I know it's against the grain of contemporary Christianity.

Interesting viewpoint, I am curious in exactly what you believe and I have a few questions if you don't mind?

In believing in Gap theory instead of 6 DAY creation, do you believe that a span of time more than a day exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?

If so, why? And if so, what took place during that gap as far as development of species? During the gaps are the development of species more along evolutionary lines or as Genesis states, a 6 day creation chronological order?

[mataj]

mataji - uh? Free will doesn't stop you from doing anything, it allows you to do anything. How is that interference?You said: ". . . we have free will, which, to your analogy, allows our program to become incorrect due to our input. " Our input is therefore interference, which makes our god-given program function improperly. Jesus removes that interference.

[brainpan]

LOL, "meaning of the exercise"?Yes. More specifically, how does your unwarranted attempts at condescention make your point? Simply enumerating our responses without adding a useful reply to them seems pointless.
Thanks for the quotes from classical literature...Sure thing. They prove how astonishingly absurd your mocking of my use of language really was. If you act like a jackass, I'll point it out. :sorry:
...but my definition works just as well.It doesn't. "Curiosity that motivates investigation and study" is the actual definition of the term, and it is much more to the point than a clunky, confused, and ambiguous, "Which I guess is an intense form of curiosity."
Stumped at what?Your response indicated you were guessing at the meaning of "thirst for knowledge."
What do I think of your response....I think it is basically the same as the other 10 responses on the list.It is dissimilar from most the other responses. So again, you asked the question and I answered it. Step right up and continue the discussion.

[neo of the mind]

Interesting viewpoint, I am curious in exactly what you believe and I have a few questions if you don't mind?

In believing in Gap theory instead of 6 DAY creation, do you believe that a span of time more than a day exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?

If so, why? And if so, what took place during that gap as far as development of species? During the gaps are the development of species more along evolutionary lines or as Genesis states, a 6 day creation chronological order?

sub: Good questions. I would preface my points in saying that the "Gap Theory", includes the 6 day creation account in it. It doesn't exactly refute it, but refutes the interpretation of it slightly. The earth and heavens were created an undetermined time in the past, millions of years, sure. There is a gap of time, which I don't personaly have a concreate idea on how long it was. There was nothing living on the planet during the gap, so no species development. If there was evolution, it would have been before the gap. Everything died though, so any evolutionary chain would have been broken anyway. At the end of the gap, Gen 1:2 would be the start of what is considered the 6 day creation process. I don't know if they were literally 6 days or 6,000 years, each day being 1,000 years. You know what scripture I am getting the 1,000 years from. I am not certain in my mind about that yet. I look at it one way and say, Hey it's God, he could have done it in 6 days just as easily as 6,000 years. But he could also have done it in one day or one second....but he didn't do that. I think God created the earth in a way that it is in a limited constraint. Natural laws that God created that are on our physical planet and so forth. God of course can do things within these laws of nature he created or outside of them...he made them, so he can manipulate it or go around it if he so chooses. I say that to say He choose to do do the "re-creation", which I'll explain in a minute, in at least six seperate time periods, for a reason, and that reason may be because he wanted to do it under the natural laws He created versus outside of those laws. There's a reason for it, and I don't pretend to know it. I say "re-create", because I and others believe again that he created the earth and heavens at Gen 1:1 and just reformed the existing earth and heaven from it's ruined state. in Gen 1:2. I would like to have some forum threads were we could discuss specific and limited subjects without getting sidetracked. I know that's hard and I do it myself. This thread is a perfect example. :D I have just as much to blame as anyone else.

[neo of the mind]

You said: ". . . we have free will, which, to your analogy, allows our program to become incorrect due to our input. " Our input is therefore interference, which makes our god-given program function improperly. Jesus removes that interference.

Was it my analogy? I thought it was yours. LOL, sorry I lost track of who's "computer program" analogy it was.

I guess you could say "interference"...it's just when I think of that word, I don't have a sense of correcting fully or stopping bad "input" completely.

[neo of the mind]

Yes. More specifically, how does your unwarranted attempts at condescention make your point? Simply enumerating our responses without adding a useful reply to them seems pointless.
Sure thing. They prove how astonishingly absurd your mocking of my use of language really was. If you act like a jackass, I'll point it out. :sorry:
It doesn't. "Curiosity that motivates investigation and study" is the actual definition of the term, and it is much more to the point than a clunky, confused, and ambiguous, "Which I guess is an intense form of curiosity."
Your response indicated you were guessing at the meaning of "thirst for knowledge."
It is dissimilar from most the other responses. So again, you asked the question and I answered it. Step right up and continue the discussion.

I think we have started off in a bad way towards each other and that has been skewing what we are getting from each others posts.

I apologize if I have come off in a negative manner to you. I will take pause, re-read your questions and try to respond to them more appropriately.

edit: It's not a matter of if, I have. I apologize for coming off in a negative manner to you.

[dittohead not!]

Well, read the articles in the link. Basically, Genesis, literally speaking, the book itself is not totally literal, is doable as written if you take in the fact that God is reforming, "making" things again from things that already exist, versus starting from scratch.

That being said, I logically believe this (Gap theory) to be the way things happened but could be wrong. God can do anything, so for me to limit what he could do is rather foolish. I just think this is the way he did it. Me being wrong would not change my salvation or anything else. It just makes sense for me personally. I know it's against the grain of contemporary Christianity.

Though you say your not an Atheist, what's your take on my question, which wasn't about the right or wrongness of evolution. Do you think it understandable for people that don't believe in God and don't believe their existence came into being for a purpose, would bother looking into the answer of "How" they came into existence?

I really think it's the only way they can justify their position of not beleiving in a Creator. It's their way of showing themselves that they are right, that there is no God.... but the point being to me is the ending conclusion of "so what?"...or better yet, "now what?". You accept there is no God, that you came to be by a process that had no reason to start and no meaning of purpose. Hence my question.


I think delving into evolution is simply a way of satisfying human curiosity. It really has nothing to do with religion one way or another.

As for the "gap theory", that's just another way to try to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis without totally ignoring scientific facts, just kind of twisting them around a little.

[chukster8614]

God schmod

[Lumpen Prole]

I'm an atheist, and I want to live my life to the fullest and contribute something to this world because I know that I've got only one shot at it.

[burntgorilla]

I really don't see the point of this thread. Most Christians don't lie in bed until they think of the afterlife, and then decide to get up.

[neo of the mind]

I'm an atheist, and I want to live my life to the fullest and contribute something to this world because I know that I've got only one shot at it.

and in order to do that, you think about "How" you came into existence, via evolution or some other means? That's the topic of the thread, this is more of an answer as to why your an Atheist, which isn't what I was asking input on.


Read post # 56 on page 4 and see if you can add anything different to the list. ;)

[neo of the mind]

I really don't see the point of this thread. Most Christians don't lie in bed until they think of the afterlife, and then decide to get up.


Sorry that you don't see the point in it. There has been 11 distinct inputs given as to why Atheists think about the "How" of an existence that didn't start with a "WHY". Which is pretty good so far. It has been very informative. I know I have a much better understanding of an Atheist's point of view on this, that prior to this was based on my assumptions.


and No, most Christians don't think of the afterlife constantly or need to think of it in order to start their days. A lot of Christians do pray at the beginning of their day though. A lot of other people of different faiths do the same as well. But your point doesn't bear any difference on the point of the topic and would be a different subject.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Neo, just out of curiousity, why do you restrict this thread to Atheists? Is there a reason for your discrimination?

[neo of the mind]

Neo, just out of curiousity, why do you restrict this thread to Atheists? Is there a reason for your discrimination?

Discrimination? I am not asking people of religious faith the same question, due to the fact that they believe their coming into existence....going back to the very beginning, was on purpose and for a reason.

Athesists are the only ones that I know of that differ on that. So, unless you can give me another group to ask the question to.....

[Lumpen Prole]

and in order to do that, you think about "How" you came into existence, via evolution or some other means? That's the topic of the thread, this is more of an answer as to why your an Atheist, which isn't what I was asking input on.


Read post # 56 on page 4 and see if you can add anything different to the list. ;)

When you say "How you came into existence," do you mean how life began? I don't really concern myself with how life began. As far as I'm concerned that's a question we'll never be able to answer with complete certainty. But just for the record, I'm a huge proponent of the empiracally proven biological process of evolution.

And I haven't stated why I am an atheist.

[sub_zer0]

When you say "How you came into existence," do you mean how life began? I don't really concern myself with how life began. As far as I'm concerned that's a question we'll never be able to answer with complete certainty. But just for the record, I'm a huge proponent of the empiracally proven biological process of evolution.

And I haven't stated why I am an atheist.

And what empiracally proven biological processes only prove evolution?

[burntgorilla]

Sorry that you don't see the point in it. There has been 11 distinct inputs given as to why Atheists think about the "How" of an existence that didn't start with a "WHY". Which is pretty good so far. It has been very informative. I know I have a much better understanding of an Atheist's point of view on this, that prior to this was based on my assumptions.


and No, most Christians don't think of the afterlife constantly or need to think of it in order to start their days. A lot of Christians do pray at the beginning of their day though. A lot of other people of different faiths do the same as well. But your point doesn't bear any difference on the point of the topic and would be a different subject.

But don't Christians also want to know about those 11 things? None of them are really reasons for living. I don't wake up, and think "oh goody, I'll learn how stars work today". You just do. In the same way that believers do. I'm not quite sure why you think non-believers would be any different. :confused:

[neo of the mind]

When you say "How you came into existence," do you mean how life began? I don't really concern myself with how life began. As far as I'm concerned that's a question we'll never be able to answer with complete certainty. But just for the record, I'm a huge proponent of the empiracally proven biological process of evolution.

And I haven't stated why I am an atheist.

yes. So I can put your answer that "you don't think about how life began, via evolution for example? I would think that you have at some point because you say your a proponent of the "empiracally proven biological process of evolution". So are you saying that you did, came to a conclusion and no longer interest yourself in that topic anymore?

[neo of the mind]

But don't Christians also want to know about those 11 things? None of them are really reasons for living. I don't wake up, and think "oh goody, I'll learn how stars work today". You just do. In the same way that believers do. I'm not quite sure why you think non-believers would be any different. :confused:


Those 11 things were not given as reasons for living, they were given as reasons why an Atheist concerns themselves with the "how" of existence of life, seeing that they profess that there was/is no reason for the start of life.

As far as "just doing" something like that, in regards to your star example....No, I don't do anything, unless there is a reason for it.

Most people I know only "do" things for "reasons". If your saying that Atheists "do" things, like study stars for no particular reason, then I would say that's a distinguishing characteristic.

[burntgorilla]

Those 11 things were not given as reasons for living, they were given as reasons why an Atheist concerns themselves with the "how" of existence of life, seeing that they profess that their was/is no reason for the start of life.

As far as "just doing" something like that, in regards to your star example....No, I don't do anything, unless there is a reason for it.

Most people I know only "do" things for "reasons". If your saying that Atheists "do" things, like study stars for no particular reason, then I would say that's a distinguishing characteristic.

I had a feeling I was misunderstanding this thread.

But then, don't make the mistake in thinking all scientists are atheists. Plenty are religious, and see the universe as God's creation. So why would only atheists see them as reasons for exploring "how"?

[neo of the mind]

I had a feeling I was misunderstanding this thread.

But then, don't make the mistake in thinking all scientists are atheists. Plenty are religious, and see the universe as God's creation. So why would only atheists see them as reasons for exploring "how"?

BG - Nope, I don't make the mistake in thinking all scientists are atheists. I hope I didn't imply that somewhere. That's why the thread question was directed at Atheists specifically.

I know the thread isn't clear and I tried to restate my question after the fact. I think my thinking outloud, off the cuff in the original post added some info that was a distraction.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Discrimination? I am not asking people of religious faith the same question, due to the fact that they believe their coming into existence....going back to the very beginning, was on purpose and for a reason.

Athesists are the only ones that I know of that differ on that. So, unless you can give me another group to ask the question to.....

Well, your question in post #47, that you keep referring to is: "why an Atheist bothers to understand the how, believing there is no why", which would seem to indicate that people who believe there is "no why" would have different reasons for understanding the "how" than those who believe there is a "why".

I don't think this necessarily makes sense to discriminate here.

If you asked the question "why does an Atheist bother to understand the how of electricity (or motion, or gravity, etc), believing there is no why", it wouldn't make sense to discriminate. Do Christians have fundamentally different reasons for wanting to understand electricity than Atheists? Now, one could argue that implicit in the Christian's desire is to give glory to God, but I think that's going to be one additional reason, rather than entirely different set.

[neo of the mind]

Well, your question in post #47, that you keep referring to is: "why an Atheist bothers to understand the how, believing there is no why", which would seem to indicate that people who believe there is "no why" would have different reasons for understanding the "how" than those who believe there is a "why".

I don't think this necessarily makes sense to discriminate here.

If you asked the question "why does an Atheist bother to understand the how of electricity (or motion, or gravity, etc), believing there is no why", it wouldn't make sense to discriminate. Do Christians have fundamentally different reasons for wanting to understand electricity than Atheists? Now, one could argue that implicit in the Christian's desire is to give glory to God, but I think that's going to be one additional reason, rather than entirely different set.



"..which would seem to indicate that people who believe there is "no why" would have different reasons for understanding the "how" than those who believe there is a "why"."

Yes, that's what I think and that's why I asked the question, to determine if what I thought was valid, based on the answers.

Your example in regards to electricty would be valid if electricity was something that Atheists thought had no "why", but they do, which is no different than Christians. For the record again, this isn't a Christian/Athesist contrast. This is a Atheist/People that believe there is a "why", contrast. I said I didn't know of any other groups that state there is no why for me to add to the question parameter. So if you can name another then we shall bring that up and it woudn't seem discriminating to you on that level.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Your example in regards to electricty would be valid if electricity was something that Atheists thought had no "why", but they do, which is no different than Christians. For the record again, this isn't a Christian/Athesist contrast. This is a Atheist/People that believe there is a "why", contrast. I said I didn't know of any other groups that state there is no why for me to add to the question parameter. So if you can name another then we shall bring that up and it woudn't seem discriminating to you on that level.
Everyone agrees on the "why" for electicity? Aren't you confusing that with the "how"?

1) Let's say we all agree on the "how": I = V/R (and a host of other theories about electicity).

2) Then there's the "why" we study of the "how": Understanding electricity enables us to harness it to improve our lives (you can add in additional reasons if you want, such as giving glory to God).

3) But are you asking "Why is there electicity?" - then you might get differences - with those believing in the a Creator saying that electromagnetic forces are essential for life, whereas those who don't believe saying "It just is".

You seem to be focusing on 2), while combining it with 3). I don't really see how 3) would necessarily impact 2)

[neo of the mind]

FGP,

I will think some on your last post and answer directly later. Need to do some job work but I thought I would give the link that was the catalyst for my question.

It is an essay by Dustin Shramek.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/atheism.html

[Meek Heir]

And what empiracally proven biological processes only prove evolution?

Evolution is the empiracilly proven biological process he is refering to.

[Meek Heir]

3) But are you asking "Why is there electicity?"

Here is the problem, "Why is there electricity?" could be answered the same way as "How does electricity exist?"

So if we phrase it better, in terms of the "Purpose of life" that neo origionally asked about we can see that "What is the Purpose of the existance of electricity?" is a question that no one has ever answered, mostly because it is a question that is completely irrevalent to learning about how it exists.

I say that "What is the Purpose of life?" is as irrevalent to learning about how it exists.

[Sgt Schultz]

Question - Why does an Atheist concern themselves with the thought of how their existence came about, ie. evolution, if according to my understanding of classical Atheism, there is no creator? If there is no creator, then there would be no purpose of being created. This lead me to the statement in the subject asking if an Atheistic life was moot due to the fact that there is no purpose of being created according to the logic of Atheism.

For me it boils down to the fact that I exist. As with all people I'm curious about life. I believe in freewill and I don't need a purpose to make it through the day. My life is what I make of it and it's the only one I have. I don't have a fear that there is nothing else beyond my short existence on this planet. Religion on the other hand plays upon that fear and dictates your actions; I dictate my own.

[Lumpen Prole]

yes. So I can put your answer that "you don't think about how life began, via evolution for example? I would think that you have at some point because you say your a proponent of the "empiracally proven biological process of evolution". So are you saying that you did, came to a conclusion and no longer interest yourself in that topic anymore?

As a student of biology I have read and considered the theories on the origin of life. I'm just not particularly interested in how life began, that's all. Some biologists are interested in the origin of life, some are interested in algae, some are interested in animal behavior, and so on. I haven't come to any conlusions as to how life began; no one has, because no one knows the answer.

[neo of the mind]

As a student of biology I have read and considered the theories on the origin of life. I'm just not particularly interested in how life began, that's all. Some biologists are interested in the origin of life, some are interested in algae, some are interested in animal behavior, and so on. I haven't come to any conlusions as to how life began; no one has, because no one knows the answer.

Lumpen - So, if I understand you right, you had/have no interest in the origins of life and you have only read and considered that topic because it related to your study of biology. This of course isn't quite what I was asking. I was asking why did you, if you did, take interest in the "HOW" of the origin of life, if in fact you believe that there is no "Why" of the existence of life.


"I haven't come to any conlusions as to how life began; no one has, because no one knows the answer."

No one has come to a conclusion as to how life began? There are plenty of people that would disagree with that statement, people of faith and Atheists.

Thinking that no one knows the answer is rather presumptious.

[neo of the mind]

For me it boils down to the fact that I exist. As with all people I'm curious about life. I believe in freewill and I don't need a purpose to make it through the day. My life is what I make of it and it's the only one I have. I don't have a fear that there is nothing else beyond my short existence on this planet. Religion on the other hand plays upon that fear and dictates your actions; I dictate my own.


Christians don't need a purpose to "make it through the day", either, they have a purpose to make it through life.

"Religion on the other hand plays upon that fear and dictates your actions; I dictate my own."

- Wow, your a Maverick aren't you! So there is no outside influence that makes a impact on your actions eh? Religion plays upon fears, maybe so with some, but not with all. You are correct in that people freely define their lives around what they believe to be the right thing to do.


"I don't have a fear that there is nothing else beyond my short existence on this planet." - really? Most people have at least a fear of the unknown but you don't even have that!

Come on, admit it...you have some fear don't you? Maybe fear is too strong of a word, how about, anxiety? Just a little bit...

[Sgt Schultz]

Christians don't need a purpose to "make it through the day", either, they have a purpose to make it through life.

But that doesn't mean I need one.

- Wow, your a Maverick aren't you!

Considering the % of people in this country who are atheist we could be considered mavericks.

So there is no outside influence that makes a impact on your actions eh?

From the point of view that God or belief in religion influences my life: not one bit.

"I don't have a fear that there is nothing else beyond my short existence on this planet." - really? Most people have at least a fear of the unknown but you don't even have that!

Come on, admit it...you have some fear don't you? Maybe fear is too strong of a word, how about, anxiety? Just a little bit...

Anxiety about death? Maybe a little but I don't think anyone could honestly say they don't have that. But those anxieties stem from my thoughts about the impact on my family, not in the absence of an afterlife. Even religious people don't seem to be in any hurry to get to heaven. But I don't fear death so to speak. Everyone dies, that is the one constant in the universe for all humans. I can't control that event so it doesn't rule my life, I just live it.

Honestly though I don't think you'll ever be happy with any answer we give because you are unable to see things from our point of view. Please don't take that as a criticism, it's just a simple fact.

[neo of the mind]

But that doesn't mean I need one.



Honestly though I don't think you'll ever be happy with any answer we give because you are unable to see things from our point of view. Please don't take that as a criticism, it's just a simple fact.


Well, my experience with people is that everyone needs a purpose in life and to get through life. I think your kidding yourself if you think you don't have one.

Me being happy with any answers is not the point. I wanted to understand the Atheist's point of view and your right, I am unable to do that. I left work today and looked at the majesty of the sky and my very being tells me that there is no way that this world is an "accident", that it was not created. I can't comprehend the abilty to not believe that. It's like those people that say they can meditate and NOT think of anything whatsoever. I think it's B.S. I think that all humans have an inbuilt feeling that there is a purpose for existence and there is a creator behind that purpose. There is a deep desire to wanting to know WHY. Human history points to that fact.

What I can't figure out, like in relation to those meditators, is how people can, if they truly do, not believe in something more than nothing or why, if they truly don't, pretend to.

Oh well, I tried. I'll still listen though and maybe one day I will be able to understand it. It is either real or it's a mentality that's a facade.

So in the same token, please don't take this as a criticism, it's just a simple fact.

[sub_zer0]

Well, my experience with people is that everyone needs a purpose in life and to get through life. I think your kidding yourself if you think you don't have one.

I know I do, I don't think there can or should be life without purpose.

Me being happy with any answers is not the point. I wanted to understand the Atheist's point of view and your right, I am unable to do that. I left work today and looked at the majesty of the sky and my very being tells me that there is no way that this world is an "accident", that it was not created. I can't comprehend the abilty to not believe that.

Through the same sky we all see, I am glad me and you and hope all will/can understand God, the Creator through that.

It's like those people that say they can meditate and NOT think of anything whatsoever. I think it's B.S. I think that all humans have an inbuilt feeling that there is a purpose for existence and there is a creator behind that purpose. There is a deep desire to wanting to know WHY. Human history points to that fact.

Most definately, within us all is the "breathe of life", our soul that aches for Christ to cleanse it.

What I can't figure out, like in relation to those meditators, is how people can, if they truly do, not believe in something more than nothing or why, if they truly don't, pretend to.

Oh well, I tried. I'll still listen though and maybe one day I will be able to understand it. It is either real or it's a mentality that's a facade.

So in the same token, please don't take this as a criticism, it's just a simple fact.

I was on the atheistnetwork forum and got banned because I stood up for God, essentially defending the same points that brainpan has brought up.

The common atheist, but pretty much all on that forum were constantly cussing and insulting me, my faith and my life in general, who I was, who I claimed to be, etc, etc.

Even friends of mine as well are so keen on making fun of or mis-representing Christianity and Christ, not willing to investigage it further other than a mocking. It boggles my mind, and I hope yours as well, because I see the prophetic implications of such statements and through that in hopes of glorifying Christ I shake all those insults off.

It has become clear to me, those who are not with Christ, rather some if not all of them, when they constantly ridicule an individual proclaiming Christ, over time it becomes justified in their mind that they are actually those things.

[Lumpen Prole]

Lumpen - So, if I understand you right, you had/have no interest in the origins of life and you have only read and considered that topic because it related to your study of biology. This of course isn't quite what I was asking. I was asking why did you, if you did, take interest in the "HOW" of the origin of life, if in fact you believe that there is no "Why" of the existence of life.


"I haven't come to any conlusions as to how life began; no one has, because no one knows the answer."

No one has come to a conclusion as to how life began? There are plenty of people that would disagree with that statement, people of faith and Atheists.

Thinking that no one knows the answer is rather presumptious.

"Presumptious"? Name one person who knows how life began, and then prove it.

[neo of the mind]

"Presumptious"? Name one person who knows how life began, and then prove it.

Jesus Christ.
Consciousness.

[Lumpen Prole]

Haha, ok. Sorry I asked. :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

Haha, ok. Sorry I asked. :rolleyes:

That's a surprise. :rolleyes:

[Lumpen Prole]

Allow me to re-phrase: Name me one person who knows how life began and can show me empirical evidence of such a claim.

[neo of the mind]

Allow me to re-phrase: Name me one person who knows how life began and can show me empirical evidence of such a claim.

So now your particularly interested in how life began?

Everything you assume to be fact, is because you have studied the empirical evidence?

Since Jesus is not here physically to reproduce is actions from the past, the empirical evidence that can only be pointed to are the Christians that believe in what he did and who he was from now back to his time of ministry. Those numbers grew expotentially and have remained substantial for thousands of years. He is either God manifested in the flesh or he is the bigg