Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Is religion give the best answer to the meaning of life?

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    I am not religious. I simply find the idea of God more intellectually stimulating than atheism.

    I do not know what intellectual background you come from so I will try to keep this as simple as possible, then deal with your criticism of religion separately.
    Nothing wrong with a personal view, but your knowledge of science comes from books, not from experience.

    (Original post by evantej)
    Modern science does not rely upon 'reason and evidence'. It relies upon falsifiability and verification (i.e. Bacon), which centre around a statement ('fact') being able to be proven false through evidence; in philosophy it is called the problem of induction (i.e. Popper). There is a massive difference between what you think science is based upon and what it is actually based upon. Whether a statement is actually false or not is completely irrelevant. So far as scientific method is concerned, it is more important that the statement can be shown to be false rather than actually finding out whether it is false. Verification takes this further because it suggests that if it a statement cannot be empirically proven then it is meaningless.
    Of course modern science relies on reason and evidence -- every academic subject does. How could papers be written if they did not adduce evidence and their authors did not employ reason?

    You have latched onto the important notion of falsifiability but have confused it with the incoherent one of verifiabilty. Science does not verify, it confirms or falsifies.

    (Original post by evantej)
    Because statements are empirically falsified there is an immediate bias towards knowledge based upon experience (i.e. Locke). This leads to a distinction between statements, which – although not chronologically correct in the history of philosophy and science – I will call contingent and necessary (i.e. Hume). The problem with this distinction is that it, either through British empiricism or later schools, leads to reductionism. Reductionism is problematic because it limits our understanding of complex systems for a number of reasons. Put simply, reducing issues to smaller and smaller units does not benefit knowledge. This is why I mentioned the C.S. Lewis: science seems concerned with what things are made up of rather than what things are.
    You imply that science is empirical. News? Then you raise the bogeyman of 'reductionism'. What can explanation be except to try to comprehend complex things in terms of simpler things?

    (Original post by evantej)
    - your consciousness, ethics, freedom and will etc. are all – for varying reasons – metaphysical concepts that simply cannot exist in modern science, whether for behaviourist or physicalist reasons. These concepts cannot be falsified so reductionism simply eliminates them. Without God (i.e. atheism), you cannot establish a metaphysical system, for example for ethics, where you can prove a statement (e.g. murder) has a necessary property (i.e. it is bad or immoral). If you believe in God then the problem of falsifiability etc. is avoided.
    True, but why would you want a metaphysical system?

    (Original post by evantej)
    - with respect to consciousness, science does not tell you 'how that works' at all. The problem of consciousness has been central to the western tradition of philosophy for the last four-hundred years. If science has moved any closer to explaining it, which it has not, then it would be to prove that there is no such thing as consciousness.
    Why is consciousness a problem and for whom?

    (Original post by evantej)
    I have explained twice why atheism is intellectually stifling. It leads, if properly followed, to an existentialist crisis where you are unable to advance any further. It is an aporia, an impasse.
    Advance where? Why?

    (Original post by evantej)
    I hope I have made my position a little clearer.
    A bit. Your position boils down to: I like thinking about God.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    I am not religious. I simply find the idea of God more intellectually stimulating than atheism.

    I do not know what intellectual background you come from so I will try to keep this as simple as possible, then deal with your criticism of religion separately.

    Modern science does not rely upon 'reason and evidence'. It relies upon falsifiability and verification (i.e. Bacon), which centre around a statement ('fact') being able to be proven false through evidence; in philosophy it is called the problem of induction (i.e. Popper). There is a massive difference between what you think science is based upon and what it is actually based upon. Whether a statement is actually false or not is completely irrelevant. So far as scientific method is concerned, it is more important that the statement can be shown to be false rather than actually finding out whether it is false. Verification takes this further because it suggests that if it a statement cannot be empirically proven then it is meaningless.

    Because statements are empirically falsified there is an immediate bias towards knowledge based upon experience (i.e. Locke). This leads to a distinction between statements, which – although not chronologically correct in the history of philosophy and science – I will call contingent and necessary (i.e. Hume). The problem with this distinction is that it, either through British empiricism or later schools, leads to reductionism. Reductionism is problematic because it limits our understanding of complex systems for a number of reasons. Put simply, reducing issues to smaller and smaller units does not benefit knowledge. This is why I mentioned the C.S. Lewis: science seems concerned with what things are made up of rather than what things are.

    To address your points individually:

    - your consciousness, ethics, freedom and will etc. are all – for varying reasons – metaphysical concepts that simply cannot exist in modern science, whether for behaviourist or physicalist reasons. These concepts cannot be falsified so reductionism simply eliminates them. Without God (i.e. atheism), you cannot establish a metaphysical system, for example for ethics, where you can prove a statement (e.g. murder) has a necessary property (i.e. it is bad or immoral). If you believe in God then the problem of falsifiability etc. is avoided.

    - religion does not restrict you to scripture, absolutist morality and unproven ideas. This is all nonsense. You have some preconceived notion of what religion is, but I can assure you that no concept has undergone as much debate, reason and evidence as 'religion'. Religion has never been a static concept. You need to acknowledge that before this discussion can go any further.

    - with respect to absolutist morality, it would appear you are simply ignorant of change in religion over time. I am unsure how religion captivates 'you in ideas such as slavery, torture etc.'. From a historical perspective, I would like to point out that it was religious pressure in Britain which banned the slave trade.

    - with respect to will, it depends upon the person's belief. Some religious denominations could be considered fatalist, but there are others which are not, and some which equally empower the individual to glorify God through their action (i.e. they see themselves as potentialities, so to speak).

    - with respect to consciousness, science does not tell you 'how that works' at all. The problem of consciousness has been central to the western tradition of philosophy for the last four-hundred years. If science has moved any closer to explaining it, which it has not, then it would be to prove that there is no such thing as consciousness.

    - with respect to metaphysics, I never said you need to acknowledge God's existence in order 'to be able to discuss the possibility of the existence of [G]od'. We have no real disagreement here.

    I have explained twice why atheism is intellectually stifling. It leads, if properly followed, to an existentialist crisis where you are unable to advance any further. It is an aporia, an impasse. This is why I used the example of Sartre. He wrote about the nature of existence (i.e. its meaninglessness). But then tried to establish a system of ethics beyond this (i.e. there is meaning in meaninglessness!). It completely contradicts what he had done. The reason why this is not a problem for most people is because, ironically, they refuse to accept reality. While openly admitting they are atheists, they refuse to acknowledge the historical relationship between religion and concepts they hold to be true. Existentialism is at least an intellectually valid position. But most atheists are in self-denial; a condition Sartre said inhibited acknowledgement of the nature of reality.

    I hope I have made my position a little clearer.
    Apeiron has addressed most of your points very well.

    But to summarise my response...

    Your biggest problem is your belief that some kind of existential meaning is necessary. Why must there be some kind of external or supernatural meaning beyond what we already know? Can you answer this question? No. Because the question in itself is 'intellectually stifling'. It inhibits you from true understanding of the world and existence.The moment you realise that this idea of seeking deep meaning is entirely a human creation and is not necessary to understand the world and life, you will realise why atheists are atheists.

    You speak of dealing in what we can measure as 'intellectually stifling'. Again, the opposite is true. Science has allowed our understanding of the world and universe to progress in leaps and bounds through its basic principle of dealing in what we can measure. As Apeiron stated, reason is a fundamental principle in Science. In other words, you cannot reasonably conclude anything without sufficient evidence. I think your understanding of what reason is might be a little off.

    Science does tell us how consciousness works. I'm sure you're not interested but if you pick up a book on neuroscience you'll learn these things. Our consciousness and perception of the world is only possible through the structure and function of our brain. There's no magic or hocus pocus.

    You talk about how religion changes... I'm pretty sure the Qu'ran is still the Qu'ran, the Bible still the Bible... Unlike society, law etc. these things don't change. Thus by any real definition religion doesn't change. Religion is absolutist and always will be. That's ALL religion is. An absolutist set of ideas that people are demanded to follow regardless. Again, Science, reason, atheism, stand in stark contrast, constantly adapting to new ideas of morality.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Since no one posted on my post about meaning in life i thought i would share it here as it is the closest thread related

    I have found so much freedom in meaninglessness. Meaninglessness is truth! It's so obvious that there is no meaning, I am just sitting here typing these words looking at this screen, there is no grand objective or great end to which this moment is for, this moment and every other moment is free of agenda, free of meaning. If there is a meaning, it is obvious that I am not supposed to know what it is other wise I would know what it is...Thankfully I don't have to burden myself with one.

    The only thing I could say is the meaning of this moment is moment itself. The meaning of life is life itself. There are no super objectives, there is nothing else apart from this but this itself cannot be packaged and defined either. Not only do I see that without meaning life becomes completely simple but it becomes so much clearer and real.

    To enforce the idea of a greater objective or meaning is so oppressive, tiring and deluded. Let life be as it is, let it be meaningless, when I discovered meaninglessness I found that this is what I was trying through giving life meaning; freedom. To me, meaning of life means agenda to an idea, i.e. subjecting life the notion that things must have meaning otherwise they have no value. To me, everything automatically gained infinite value when there was no great meaning believed in.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There are a lot of different religions out there. They are based on faith. Faith is great, but it won't feed you or put clothes on your back. Religious beliefs provide meaning to billions of people, but are ultimately worthless. There is no evidence that there is an afterlife, or any form of metaphysical soul. All the evidence we have points toward the fact that we are entirely physiological beings. I am entirely inside my brain.

    Life has no meaning. It just is. I take no comfort in that. It just means that life is fleeting and precious. In the end I see no meaning to anything, because I'm going to die and everyone who knows me will eventually die. My existence is meaningless to the universe and will be forgotten in a relatively short amount of time once it is over.

    I find it very sad that many people spend their lives devoted to meaningless ideas that cannot be tested in any way, but if it makes them happy, so be it.

    They should just stop pushing their bull**** onto everyone else.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Newky)
    […] Your biggest problem is your belief that some kind of existential meaning is necessary. Why must there be some kind of external or supernatural meaning beyond what we already know? Can you answer this question? No. Because the question in itself is 'intellectually stifling'. It inhibits you from true understanding of the world and existence. The moment you realise that this idea of seeking deep meaning is entirely a human creation and is not necessary to understand the world and life, you will realise why atheists are atheists.

    You speak of dealing in what we can measure as 'intellectually stifling'. Again, the opposite is true. Science has allowed our understanding of the world and universe to progress in leaps and bounds through its basic principle of dealing in what we can measure. As Apeiron stated, reason is a fundamental principle in Science. In other words, you cannot reasonably conclude anything without sufficient evidence. I think your understanding of what reason is might be a little off.

    Science does tell us how consciousness works. I'm sure you're not interested but if you pick up a book on neuroscience you'll learn these things. Our consciousness and perception of the world is only possible through the structure and function of our brain. There's no magic or hocus pocus.

    You talk about how religion changes... I'm pretty sure the Qu'ran is still the Qu'ran, the Bible still the Bible... Unlike society, law etc. these things don't change. Thus by any real definition religion doesn't change. Religion is absolutist and always will be. That's ALL religion is. An absolutist set of ideas that people are demanded to follow regardless. Again, Science, reason, atheism, stand in stark contrast, constantly adapting to new ideas of morality.
    You do not see the paradoxes in your position. First of all, you criticise people for 'seeking deep meaning', and suggest it inhibits their ability to see the world for what it is. But you hold up science for improving 'our understanding of the world'. If science suggests there is no deep meaning in the world then why bother doing science in the first place? In fact, why bother doing anything if there is no meaning? Why are you on an internet forum posting about science? Even if you manage to convince me that you were right (i.e. why you engage in the debate [the meaning behind your action]), there is no meaning to my view of the world being changed. This is the existential crisis I keep referring to. It is blatantly obvious you have not understood this point, because it is not a debate about religion and science, rather a philosophical problem. This is why I mentioned Sartre, and his contradictory solution to the problem (i.e. trying to create an ethical system in a world which is meaningless).

    Secondly, and most glaring, you criticise religion for being an 'absolutist set of ideas'. But you hold up science for 'its basic principle of dealing in what we can measure'. So you criticise one set of static values instead of another, and you have the audacity to suggest my 'understanding of what reason is might be a little off'? This discussion has always been one of hermeneutics. But you use one set of values exclusively and imply that I am the dogmatic one.

    For what it is worth, science does not 'tell us how consciousness works'. Neuroscience has not even come close to this. I know this because of my linguistic and philosophical background, and from what I have read of science itself. If you hold physicalist views about consciousness then fair enough, but do not try and pretend that this topic is not up for debate. Go and speak to one of your lecturers if you do not believe me.

    Likewise, your views about religion are grossly wrong. I really do not know why you hate something so much when you are clearly ignorant about it. Disagreeing with me on this is not an issue of religion either, but a historical and political issue. Go and read any book on intellectual thought or history (or religious hermeneutics if you want to see how religious documents themselves have changed [and they have]) to see how religion has changed over time; the fact there are different religions and different religious denominations shows that religion is far more organic than you suggest. In addition, the fact that you are an atheist shows that religion is not an absolutist set of values, and if you had any knowledge of the New Testament you would realise that Jesus advocated freedom of choice in following his doctrines. Religion becomes meaningless if it is forced upon people.

    All I can suggest is that you read out of your subject area more widely before condemning most of history and humanity as ignorant.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    You do not see the paradoxes in your position. First of all, you criticise people for 'seeking deep meaning', and suggest it inhibits their ability to see the world for what it is. But you hold up science for improving 'our understanding of the world'. If science suggests there is no deep meaning in the world then why bother doing science in the first place? In fact, why bother doing anything if there is no meaning? Why are you on an internet forum posting about science? Even if you manage to convince me that you were right (i.e. why you engage in the debate [the meaning behind your action]), there is no meaning to my view of the world being changed. This is the existential crisis I keep referring to. It is blatantly obvious you have not understood this point, because it is not a debate about religion and science, rather a philosophical problem. This is why I mentioned Sartre, and his contradictory solution to the problem (i.e. trying to create an ethical system in a world which is meaningless).

    Secondly, and most glaring, you criticise religion for being an 'absolutist set of ideas'. But you hold up science for 'its basic principle of dealing in what we can measure'. So you criticise one set of static values instead of another, and you have the audacity to suggest my 'understanding of what reason is might be a little off'? This discussion has always been one of hermeneutics. But you use one set of values exclusively and imply that I am the dogmatic one.

    For what it is worth, science does not 'tell us how consciousness works'. Neuroscience has not even come close to this. I know this because of my linguistic and philosophical background, and from what I have read of science itself. If you hold physicalist views about consciousness then fair enough, but do not try and pretend that this topic is not up for debate. Go and speak to one of your lecturers if you do not believe me.

    Likewise, your views about religion are grossly wrong. I really do not know why you hate something so much when you are clearly ignorant about it. Disagreeing with me on this is not an issue of religion either, but a historical and political issue. Go and read any book on intellectual thought or history (or religious hermeneutics if you want to see how religious documents themselves have changed [and they have]) to see how religion has changed over time; the fact there are different religions and different religious denominations shows that religion is far more organic than you suggest. In addition, the fact that you are an atheist shows that religion is not an absolutist set of values, and if you had any knowledge of the New Testament you would realise that Jesus advocated freedom of choice in following his doctrines. Religion becomes meaningless if it is forced upon people.

    All I can suggest is that you read out of your subject area more widely before condemning most of history and humanity as ignorant.
    Again, you have this delusion of everything needing some special deep 'meaning' behind it. This is, as you state it yourself, a creation of humanity. Its not necessary.

    Why am I here on TSR posting, why do I do anything? Because, as science tells us, evolution dictates a deep seeded need to survive and reproduce. Again, no bloody deep special hocus pocus meaning is required. It simply isn't. I, like everyone else, exist to survive and pass on my genes to spread my existence as much as possible in the world.

    "For what it is worth, science does not 'tell us how consciousness works'. Neuroscience has not even come close to this. I know this because of my linguistic and philosophical background"

    I don't even need to retort to this.

    No, I do fully understand the 'existential crisis' you keep repeating. Therefore I realise that it is an entirely human construct and is not necessary to understanding anything at all. It is obvious that you do not understand this point.

    Again you are mistaken. Opposed to religion, science is constantly changing to what we come to understand. Yes, the world is static. Facts are static. The truth is static. You can't change reality. Therefore as a result the basic principles of science don't change you are right. But, again opposed to religion, science changes according to what we come to learn about the way things ARE, religion does not make this important transition.

    "Religion becomes meaningless if it is forced upon people."

    Then, religion is pretty ****ing meaningless then.

    Sure you can argue religion is 'organic' because new ones keep popping up. I could come up with a religion that dictates invisible spaceships fly around and tell our brains what to do - doesn't make it valid.

    I also suggest that you read more widely out of your unproven and inherently biased subject area, into a proven, scientific one, before you condemn science at all. You can start by picking up a book on evolution if you want to learn more about life and its meaning. I know, its harder to read lots of difficult books than one bible... But I promise it will further your understanding.

    Oh, and I'll read the new testament when you read my book on invisible brain spaceships, deal?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Newky)
    Again, you have this delusion of everything needing some special deep 'meaning' behind it. This is, as you state it yourself, a creation of humanity. Its not necessary.

    Why am I here on TSR posting, why do I do anything? Because, as science tells us, evolution dictates a deep seeded need to survive and reproduce. Again, no bloody deep special hocus pocus meaning is required. It simply isn't. I, like everyone else, exist to survive and pass on my genes to spread my existence as much as possible in the world.

    "For what it is worth, science does not 'tell us how consciousness works'. Neuroscience has not even come close to this. I know this because of my linguistic and philosophical background"

    I don't even need to retort to this.

    No, I do fully understand the 'existential crisis' you keep repeating. Therefore I realise that it is an entirely human construct and is not necessary to understanding anything at all. It is obvious that you do not understand this point.

    Again you are mistaken. Opposed to religion, science is constantly changing to what we come to understand. Yes, the world is static. Facts are static. The truth is static. You can't change reality. Therefore as a result the basic principles of science don't change you are right. But, again opposed to religion, science changes according to what we come to learn about the way things ARE, religion does not make this important transition.

    "Religion becomes meaningless if it is forced upon people."

    Then, religion is pretty ****ing meaningless then.

    Sure you can argue religion is 'organic' because new ones keep popping up. I could come up with a religion that dictates invisible spaceships fly around and tell our brains what to do - doesn't make it valid.

    I also suggest that you read more widely out of your unproven and inherently biased subject area, into a proven, scientific one, before you condemn science at all. You can start by picking up a book on evolution if you want to learn more about life and its meaning. I know, its harder to read lots of difficult books than one bible... But I promise it will further your understanding.

    Oh, and I'll read the new testament when you read my book on invisible brain spaceships, deal?
    This is my last reply.

    I have explained a number of times that I understand your position. I understand you do not need to see some underlying agency in the world, or rather the futility of such a task in the first place. But I have also attempted to explain why this is hard for some people to accept. And not just religious people. Perhaps the following quotation will help you understand this: '[i]t is one of the engaging ironies of modern thought that the scientific method, which it was once fondly hoped would banish mystery from the world, leaves it every day more inexplicable'.

    Not once have I condemned science. The difference between us is one of perspective. For you science is everything. For me it is a narrow, albeit useful, tool for looking at select natural phenomena.

    What is apparent is that our difference in perspective makes us more or less open to other sides of the argument. You condemn lots of things without any knowledge of them whatsoever. You make fairly ridiculous suggestions such as I should 'read more widely out of your unproven and inherently biased subject area'. Not only is this juvenile, because I suggested it after you made a number of false statements about religion, but is ridiculous because you do not even know what my subject area is. You have no idea what I specialise in or what I have studied. The difference between us is that you are unwilling to consider anything outside science, whereas I am in the middle of reading Herbert Spencer's works (amongst others) because my masters dissertation focuses on how a number of writers interpreted evolutionary thought in the late nineteenth century.

    This proves you are just completely insincere too. If you were being at all consistent you would realise there is no such thing as 'pure thought'.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edward Henwood)
    It depends what your religion is: If it's Atheism, it recognizes NO MEANING to ANYTHING AT ALL! It is the religion of MEANINGLESSNESS!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    It depends what your religion is: If it's Atheism, it recognizes NO MEANING to ANYTHING AT ALL! It is the religion of MEANINGLESSNESS!

    This is NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT EITHER!

    Haha stalking you is too fun.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielMartin)
    This is NOT A LOGICAL ARGUMENT EITHER!

    Haha stalking you is too fun.
    The earth must suffer being orbited by the moon. The sun must suffer being orbited by the planets. I must suffer....
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    This is my last reply.

    I have explained a number of times that I understand your position. I understand you do not need to see some underlying agency in the world, or rather the futility of such a task in the first place. But I have also attempted to explain why this is hard for some people to accept. And not just religious people. Perhaps the following quotation will help you understand this: '[i]t is one of the engaging ironies of modern thought that the scientific method, which it was once fondly hoped would banish mystery from the world, leaves it every day more inexplicable'.

    Not once have I condemned science. The difference between us is one of perspective. For you science is everything. For me it is a narrow, albeit useful, tool for looking at select natural phenomena.

    What is apparent is that our difference in perspective makes us more or less open to other sides of the argument. You condemn lots of things without any knowledge of them whatsoever. You make fairly ridiculous suggestions such as I should 'read more widely out of your unproven and inherently biased subject area'. Not only is this juvenile, because I suggested it after you made a number of false statements about religion, but is ridiculous because you do not even know what my subject area is. You have no idea what I specialise in or what I have studied. The difference between us is that you are unwilling to consider anything outside science, whereas I am in the middle of reading Herbert Spencer's works (amongst others) because my masters dissertation focuses on how a number of writers interpreted evolutionary thought in the late nineteenth century.

    This proves you are just completely insincere too. If you were being at all consistent you would realise there is no such thing as 'pure thought'.
    Haha, kudos to you for scrabbling through my posts and finding that last one. That doesn't refute any of my statements whatsoever, though. We have evolved with brains that allow us to consider our own existence and its meaning. Its merely inevitable that humans will question existence, this doesn't mean it is in any way valid to jump to supernatural or unprovable conclusions. I've already said its important to consider what our purpose is, but its a very real, measurable debate in my opinion. And please note that when I said 'pure thought', I merely meant thought without any clear words, not some kind of phenomena separate from my body.

    As you said yourself, you've studied philosophy and linguistics. Not sure why you think I have no idea what your interests are...

    I don't think its ridiculous to tell you to study outside of your subjective field of interest. I do see your point on this but you clearly take an immediate favouring to your own area, as I do mine. I.e. "science [is a] narrow tool".

    Science isn't everything for me. This is an important thing to understand. The TRUTH is important to me. The truth is more important to me than anything. Science, as it stands, offers the most truth out there.

    I do have some knowledge of religion, but I don't think I need a picture-memory of the new testament or the qu'ran to be able to develop my own views on it. Its a fallacy to believe that I need to read as deeply as a religious person into religion to understand what it is and what its about.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    It depends what your religion is: If it's Atheism, it recognizes NO MEANING to ANYTHING AT ALL! It is the religion of MEANINGLESSNESS!
    A religion of scepticism is kind of a contradiction in terms.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    A religion of scepticism is kind of a contradiction in terms.
    WHY? Religion is simply one's cosmology! EVERYONE has one - even atheists and animals! As long as one has a worldview - however crude or absurd - or correct - one has a religion.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    WHY? Religion is simply one's cosmology! EVERYONE has one - even atheists and animals! As long as one has a worldview - however crude or absurd - or correct - one has a religion.
    Atheists tending to have a cosmology does not mean that atheism is that cosmology. Atheism is simply the absence of theism; it does not entail any worldview, beliefs or values whatsoever.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Atheists tending to have a cosmology does not mean that atheism is that cosmology. Atheism is simply the absence of theism; it does not entail any worldview, beliefs or values whatsoever.
    Yeah. Atheists don't even know whether they believe THEY EXIST or not, do they? ANYTHING to avoid taking RESPONSIBILITY for ANYTHING, eh?
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki)
    Yeah. Atheists don't even know whether they believe THEY EXIST or not, do they? ANYTHING to avoid taking RESPONSIBILITY for ANYTHING, eh?
    You don't have a point anymore, do you?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    You don't have a point anymore, do you?
    Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion then? Or did it JUST HAPPEN - FOR NO REASON/WITHOUT CAUSE?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I feel I should say something constructive, BUT I'M TOO ENAMOURED BY THE GENIUS OF MY OWN IDLE SPECULATION!!!
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I apologise if this has been said before, but I doubt that there is a meaning or purpose to our existence. It seems to me that we are just trying to justify our existence because it would seem counter-intuitive that we have no purpose (I probably haven't clearly expressed myself here...). It appears to me that it is just a psychological by-product if you will of our sentience.

    However, I did say doubt, I am not certain...
    And, we all know the answer to the question is 42, but what is the question?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 2, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.