SaintConfused wrote:Isn't thinking a taboo usually, around these kinds of forums? I don't want my thoughts to be seen as spiritual, emotional, or whatever attacks against who someone else is all because of beliefs and world views.
I didn't state that anyone has 'mind control powers'.Cactus wrote:in case you was wondering...you are allowed to agree (or disagree) with anyone. We don't have any mind control powers.
What I was referring to is the definition of random;SaintConfused wrote:Cross.eyedAll the universe. The answer is in you're own question, imagine that. 'Chance' isn't random, but it's also not too common either. There is a high 'chance' it's going to rain again tomorrow, does this make the event of rain itself 'random'? no, not at all. Other factors come into account with the universe, this is why natural selection has been observed and become aware too humanity in the first place. There was no 'random chance' that we came across this principle, it was already established even before the first humans came along. We don't have to deny gravity, just because there is a 'chance' that another fire will consume the forests of California this year as well. The universe didn't come by 'random chance', even though a random, chaotic, 'living', realm (or deity, I'm not forcing you to decide either option) would provide the 'chance' for the universe to expand and to have various lifeforms. Tapeworms, and other parasitic organisms can if not already do exist inside us. Let's narrow things down by calling an organ for instance the stomach is going to be 'Earth' temporarily, these parasites will compete and eliminate each other if the environment doesn't extinct them all up in one sweep. The placement wasIf all the universe came by random chance, what would there be to hope for?
not 'random', and there is a high chance/probability as well as a low chance/probability that various things could have happened within the organ/Earth. It is anything but 'random', however the changes each species will go through will be 'random' and the chances are staggering near 'impossible' outcomes. This does not make existence, in itself, alone, a 'random chance' without something (or someone, whichever you prefer) to guide the 'chance' and something to avoid bringing absolute order too the 'randomness'.
If we are here accidentally, how could we trust that our brains are giving us accurate information?
We aren't here 'accidentally'. The brain is a receiver.
Without there being a creator, we are here by accident.What purpose would there be if we can't trust the information we receive?
In a world without absolutes, could we use such words as right and wrong?
But not absolute right or wrong-the line becomes blurred without divine guidance.We do anyways, often able to explain why one is 'right' and the other happens to be 'wrong'.
If there is no justice, why do we have a conscience?
We are not conscience to heed an agreement made between several people that calls itself 'justice'. We are to observe the conscience these 'justice' makers and followers, even if we disagree with them. An 'unjust' conscience can and will adapt it's own 'justice', this is why America has 'Independence' (supposedly), amongst a few others. It is self-'justice', it has never really been 'justice for all' truly. Our conscience does not depend on 'justice', 'justice' is not part of the body or even an extension of it, as much as each of us should be able to customize and share our individual 'justice' without too much trouble by exercising our wills. We have 'conscience', because we can, not because we deserved it, or we're the best the universe (or God) has ever produced/'created'.
What, if we merely live and die, would make for a meaningful life?
And what, ultimatly, would be the purpose or meaning of life?We can
contribute and guide ourselves, and each other, that's meaningful for a short life span.
Where would we have ever gotten the concept of LOVE in a natural world?
A lot doesn't require a definition, an expression, or even a 'sign' to make itself culturally important.
A chance isn't 'random' if there is a chance (70% vs 1% for example. There is no 100, or 0). Practical, not absolute 'chance' exists. It's not 'accidental' just because it's possible. Natural Selection has an aim, it's not a 'random chance'. Mutations are random, they are often aimless. This does not making them meaningless or useless for Evolution in general though. Survival of the fittest isn't a random chance, although there is a high and low chance that some species will go extinct before or because of others.if you will allow; random chance-without aim, an accidental chance.
I disagree. You keep placing randomness in a negative context, instead of a positive one. We don't leave with 'nothingness', the dinosaurs provided us with their remains even though they didn't have a choice to go extinct or not. Earth will recover, life still happens, and there is always going to be 'something' even if it's not 'everything'. We can preserve a legacy, because we won't live on Earth eternally (without some more serious advancement in technology, which requires a lot resources). Are you going to call that legacy 'nothing to hope for'?If we come by chance from randomness, then we 'leave' by the same process which leaves us nothing to hope for-nothingness.
We aren't here 'by accident' just because there isn't a 'creator'/designer. I find that absurd. Is there a name for that attempt at logic? the bible (let alone the NT) has never been imprinted into the human gene pool, as a solid foundation for existence. This means that, even in our fetal state we have no direct connection with 'a creator' like that of our parents, future friends, and others. We have been born human, not more than human just because tradition demands we believe some thing and repeat it. Has the bible ever provided a post-human that survives 'better' then the rest of us? (adaptableWithout there being a creator, we are here by accident.
Such as? even if I can't, this does not prove ID to be true.Can you explain the (outside) processes by which humans can reason?
There is no need for absolutes. The blurring can be cleared over time, 'divine guidance' would just strengthen the blindness instead of removing it.not absolute right or wrong-the line becomes blurred without divine guidance.
Why not? need I remind you that theocracy made Rome crumble, not Atheism. You would be a criminal just because no deity exists?If God exists, we have justice. If He doesn't, there can be no justice.
The history of human government also isn't over, you've given little to 'prove' about human government being completely unjust.The history of human government has proven this.
Keep living, maintain and protect ourselves as a whole species and others on this planet.What, ultimately, would be the purpose or meaning of life?
What is the 'something' you're referring to?how does something so personal come from impersonal random chance processes?
It's okay.~SCmy apology for taking so long to respond, I've been busy the last few days.
LOVE!SaintConfused wrote:Cross.eyed,if you will allow; random chance-without aim, an accidental chance.Correct me if I'm wrong; Are you saying re: the universe, that in the beginning out of chaos came order?A chance isn't 'random' if there is a chance (70% vs 1% for example. There is no 100, or 0). Practical, not absolute 'chance' exists. It's not 'accidental' just because it's possible. Natural Selection has an aim, it's not a 'random chance'. Mutations are random, they are often aimless. This does not making them meaningless or useless for Evolution in general though. Survival of the fittest isn't a random chance, although there is a high and low chance that some species will go extinct before or because of others.If we come by chance from randomness, then we 'leave' by the same process which leaves us nothing to hope for-nothingness.What is meant by leaving is there would nothing of life when the body dies-no soul, spirit, conciousness.I disagree. You keep placing randomness in a negative context, instead of a positive one. We don't leave with 'nothingness', the dinosaurs provided us with their remains even though they didn't have a choice to go extinct or not. Earth will recover, life still happens, and there is always going to be 'something' even if it's not 'everything'. We can preserve a legacy, because we won't live on Earth eternally (without some more serious advancement in technology, which requires a lot resources). Are you going to call that legacy 'nothing to hope for'?
What is left behind is of no count to anyone in that death.Without there being a creator, we are here by accident.The absurdity you claim is confusion for me.We aren't here 'by accident' just because there isn't a 'creator'/designer. I find that absurd. Is there a name for that attempt at logic? the bible (let alone the NT) has never been imprinted into the human gene pool, as a solid foundation for existence. This means that, even in our fetal state we have no direct connection with 'a creator' like that of our parents, future friends, and others. We have been born human, not more than human just because tradition demands we believe some thing and repeat it. Has the bible ever provided a post-human that survives 'better' then the rest of us? (adaptable
to UV radiation, controlled body heating and cooling, etc) I haven't seen any walking around.
Without an intelligent Creator there would be lifeless forces creating life-I find that absurd.Can you explain the (outside) processes by which humans can reason?That is a given, proving anything wrong doesn't prove the opposite right.Such as? even if I can't, this does not prove ID to be true.not absolute right or wrong-the line becomes blurred without divine guidance.How much time to achieve clarity? It seems to me and others the gray areas are growing while black and white are diminishing.There is no need for absolutes. The blurring can be cleared over time, 'divine guidance' would just strengthen the blindness instead of removing it.If God exists, we have justice. If He doesn't, there can be no justice.And I'll tell you that neither theocracy or atheism promote crimes-people do!!Why not? need I remind you that theocracy made Rome crumble, not Atheism. You would be a criminal just because no deity exists?
I'll tell you right now, Atheism doesn't promote crimes just because someone stops following religion.The history of human government has proven this.I never said it was completly unjust but any human government often fails the very thing it supposed to protect-it's citizens.The history of human government also isn't over, you've given little to 'prove' about human government being completely unjust.What, ultimately, would be the purpose or meaning of life?But this "meaning" of life is so temporary- I'm asking for an ultimate sense of fulfillment.Keep living, maintain and protect ourselves as a whole species and others on this planet.
Life has several meanings, there doesn't have to be an ultimatum for existence.how does something so personal come from impersonal random chance processes?What is the 'something' you're referring to?
Re: The Hope of Atheism and Humanism: The Ultimate Fate of...
As far as I'm concerned there is no 'beginning'. Chaos does correct itself though, yes.Are you saying the universe, that in the beginning out of chaos came order?
So then, whats wrong with implants the preserve your conscious or memory then? I don't see a problem with that. Physically, matter will remain and do it's part for the environment. That's not so bad. How much you put into a temporary 'life', will count for your death. There's no such thing as 'nothing' after we die.What is meant by leaving is there would nothing of life when the body dies-no soul, spirit, consciousness. What is left behind is of no count to anyone in that death.
What I find to be absurd is the claim that we're here 'by accident'.The absurdity you claim is confusion for me.
Well, can you show me how these forces have 'life' and are in any way connected to the 'intelligent creator' as well as us (within the universe) at the same time? I'd love to see it. There's nothing absurd about something that isn't an organism, working as a principle / law of the universe.Without an intelligent Creator there would be lifeless forces creating life-I find that absurd.
Of course not, but it never hurts to brainstorm the options.That is a given, proving anything wrong doesn't prove the opposite right.
Well assuming we can avoid mass extinction, not too long afterwords.How much time to achieve clarity?
We shall see how long it lasts.It seems to me and others the gray areas are growing while black and white are diminishing.
You still haven't answered my question. Would you kill me all because of the statement that 'God/Designer/Creator doesn't exist'?I'll tell you that neither theocracy or atheism promote crimes-people do!
Only if it's a completely federal government, not all have been governed that way. The government is made of citizens, if they can't protect themselves it's no different then national suicide against yourself and your 'people'. Seeing as how Jesus is human, I don't see how his government (whatever it may be) is a 'better' option then the next or last guy.any human government often fails the very thing it supposed to protect-it's citizens.
It's permanent if we apply it that way, it's temporary too you only because you refuse to accept it (for some reason).this 'meaning' of life is so temporary-I'm asking for an ultimate sense of fulfillment.
What 'impersonal random chance processes' do you think brought about affection?LOVE!