On Being Atheist...

[1sickbastard]

Well see, if you believe in God, there is no human element. But that's not dogma. It's just the way things are. Right?

No, the notion of God is part of how humanity defines itself. In every system of belief, it's the relationship between God and Man that is the core for how that system functions. Gods do not, apparently, exist unless they interact with humans. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that if God(s) didn't interact with humans, humans wouldn't be aware of the existance of God(s).

Question: When you're having sex, do either you or your partner(s) scream out "Oh Random Chance, Oh Random Chance"? (relax, is joke!)

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, the notion of God is part of how humanity defines itself. In every system of belief, it's the relationship between God and Man that is the core for how that system functions. Gods do not, apparently, exist unless they interact with humans. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that if God(s) didn't interact with humans, humans wouldn't be aware of the existance of God(s).

Terry Pratchett's novel "Small Gods" would amuse you. In it, he posits that "gods" are an entity that feeds on belief, and, in a sense, poops out miracles. Which miracles induce more belief for the god, which allows it to grow larger and poop out larger miracles, which induce more belief. Eventually however, the religion overtakes the god and the belief doesn't go to the god itself but to the trappings humans have surrounded it with-- and then the god dwindles for lack of sustenance untill it becomes a mote of hunger once more.

Question: When you're having sex, do either you or your partner(s) scream out "Oh Random Chance, Oh Random Chance"? (relax, is joke!)

1) I call myself "Stella" so as to give my partners an appropriate ejaculation at ejaculation.

Or, 2) I scream out "DARWINNNN!"

 

[PoppingTom]

the notion of God is part of how humanity defines itself.

Help me understand this: no god = no humanity ?

 

[cloudy]

ETA: Why do Xtians expect that non believers will read the Bible? It's meaningless to me, I don't believe in God. It reminds me of those old chain letters that list dooms and rewards if you send the thing on or not-- and say; "This is true whether you believe or not."

It's really an interesting book, barring all the "begats." I never looked at it so much as something that must be followed to the letter, but rather as an interesting compilation of parables.

Approached from that angle, there actually is much good to be found in it. You never know, you might like the stories (and the Song of Solomon is HOT. )

 

[1sickbastard]

Terry Pratchett's novel "Small Gods" would amuse you. In it, he posits that "gods" are an entity that feeds on belief, and, in a sense, poops out miracles. Which miracles induce more belief for the god, which allows it to grow larger and poop out larger miracles, which induce more belief. Eventually however, the religion overtakes the god and the belief doesn't go to the god itself but to the trappings humans have surrounded it with-- and then the god dwindles for lack of sustenance untill it becomes a mote of hunger once more.

I think this concept was used in a Star Trek episode "Who Mourns for Apollo?" (title may be wrong, old trek). Still it's a fun concept-that God(s) need human kind as much or more that humans need God(s).

1) I call myself "Stella" so as to give my partners an appropriate ejaculation at ejaculation.

Or, 2) I scream out "DARWINNNN!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanx for the belly laugh!

 

[sr71plt]

Help me understand this: no god = no humanity ?

I believe he's saying it's the other way around: no humanity = no god.

Which means to me that the assertion is that humans created god(s); god(s) wouldn't exist otherwise. I've seen that argument posed.

For me, it's just the flip side of having a human assert "God wants," though. I don't have the foggiest notion whether there would be a god or not if humans didn't exist to create a god. I'm still trying to find the edges of the universe.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's really an interesting book, barring all the "begats." I never looked at it so much as something that must be followed to the letter, but rather as an interesting compilation of parables.

Approached from that angle, there actually is much good to be found in it. You never know, you might like the stories (and the Song of Solomon is HOT. )

I like my erotica queer. And graphic. REALLY graphic. Always have...

 

[cloudy]

I like my erotica queer. And graphic. REALLY graphic. Always have...

Different strokes for different folks. *shrug* I like mine to be not quite so graphic - sometimes.

 

[PoppingTom]

I believe he's saying it's the other way around: no humanity = no god.

Maybe I have a total different view on humanity than you got.

Maybe I'm wrong - but wasn't it Jesus, who praised the humanity of somebody who doesn't share his belief?

I've learned humanity as something independent of every belief. Learned, belief could rather overthrow humanity.

Maybe another misunderstanding.

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe I have a total different view on humanity than you got.

Maybe I'm wrong - but wasn't it Jesus, who praised the humanity of somebody who doesn't share his belief?

I've learned humanity as something independent of every belief. Learned, belief could rather overthrow humanity.

Maybe another misunderstanding.

No, it just that what you post here is irrelevant to anything I've posted--and isn't anything that I disagree with (or have disagreed with).

 

[1sickbastard]

Help me understand this: no god = no humanity ?

If you mean that without god, h. sapiens doesn't exist, then no.
What I mean is that the concept of some 'divine spark' inhabiting human awareness, essentially the soul. This is what justifies humankind's sense of being special.
Why is it considered immoral to kill another human, or (for some) to have an abortion? Because in so doing a part of that divine spark is being snuffed.
If humans are really just another animal, why not implement eugenics? Why not kill off those society considers diseased or dangerous. What point is there to allowing individuals freedom to make choices or allowing them individual liberty? We're animals which need containment and breeding to enhance the species, not humans that deserve rights.
For that matter, why should cannabalism be illegal. An animal is an animal. (See Johnathan Swift's-A Modest Proposal)
We don't (generally, in advanced countries) allow dangerous animals to roam at will. those animals are corraled, caged and sent elsewhere, or killed outright with out a second thought.
Humans can only be killed (legally) by the state, after due process and deliberation. Even dangerous humans may be freed from incarceration after a time. Anmials proven dangerous to humans, rarely so.
Animals that become diseased are put down if the cost of keeping them alive outweight the cost of treatment, or if the disease is communicalbe and dangerous (Rabies, mad cow's, hoof in mouth, etc).
Humans are kept alive at all cost, even if they themselves desire death.

Of course I could be completely wrong. I am an avowed irrationalist so I can believe what ever I want without needing to reconcile those beliefs. Logic is so limiting.
"DAAAAARRRRWWWWIIINNNN!!!!"

 

[Pure]

stell originally said

stell:rational thinking, empirical research, and the scientific process (which is not at all the same as "logic," which is a process for argument and discussion) are indeed tremendously powerful tools for understanding reality. belief and imagination are not. You don't throw away the best tools for the job in favor of make-do, make-shift tools.


pure you don't answer either question, so i presume you have no good reasons or arguments for your claims about "best" (or maybe only?) tools. your position is of simple dogmatism, against which i won't argue.

stell
You mean you expect me to explain how I've made unbelievably stupid decisions based on faith?

You go first.


stell:ETA: Why do Xtians expect that non believers will read the Bible? It's meaningless to me, I don't believe in God.

==

essentially you propose, but don't defend _the only truths about the world are those of science--statements based on scientifically acceptable evidence and a process of scientific method._

unfortunately you offer no defense or justification for this proposal [in my words summarizing you], nor do you present any evidence except anecdotal-- that you have made some stupid decisions based on 'faith'-- a term i did not use-- rather than evidence.

if you're talking about relationships, those i know who've made 'rational' and 'evidence based' decisions-- scientific approach so called-- have made some of the stupidest decisions i've known. you do not really lovingly trust someone if you lose confidence when there is the first bit of "evidence" that seemingly calls their character into doubt. conversely, you shouldn't necessarily trust someone based on the first seemingly solid bits of evidence that they're on the level. else you're easy prey to the better con men and cleverer pychopaths.


---
as for your reading the book of job: it was for the arguments. i suppose i expected a degree of cultural literacy and interest in the issues. same as if you suggested i read Dawkins or Dennett. i have. read or don't; i have no desire to make you 'believe'. i'd just hoped you'd raise the level of your slapdash arguments.

 

[amicus]

We may all wonder about the reason of our existence, but to wonder about the purpose is to accept, a priori, a teleological approach to the whole of the universe. At that point you have already accepted the notion of some form of 'divine' plan. I'm afraid, Amicus, that I have no need of a purpose for my existence, and, as for a reason, I accept for myself the same reason as for anything else: because it could and does.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "Anthropology, indeed!." I am even more confused by the apparent non sequitur about the continuing Muslim/Christian conflict. I can only conclude from this paragraph that I have no idea of what you think Anthropology is. I can assure you, however, that it isn't a discipline at a loss to address the question of continuing religious conflict.[/

QUOTE]

~~~

As I said before, Tio_Narratore, I love it when you talk smart, I really do. And with no criticism directed towards you, as I once used the six dollar words in my discussions...until I discovered that 99% of those listening or reading, don't understand the argument and lose interest...so...I commercialized my use of language to that which can be understood by most. It is not 'dumbing down' an exchange of thoughts, just reducing the concepts to the level of universal understanding, which, also includes the intellectual elite who are comfortable with terms likes telgological and a priori and even a posteriori:

Definition of TELEOLOGY
1
a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2
: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3
: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena

Definition of A PRIORI
1
a : deductive b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori c : presupposed by experience (or empiricism)
2
a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive b : formed or conceived beforehand

Definition of A POSTERIORI
1
: inductive 2
: relating to or derived by reasoning from observed facts — compare a priori
— a posteriori adverb
See a posteriori defined for English-language learners »
Origin of A POSTERIORI
Latin, literally, from the latter
First Known Use: 1588

~~~

Now...with that out of the way[I

]..."...We may all wonder about the reason of our existence, but to wonder about the purpose is to accept, a priori, a teleological approach to the whole of the universe. At that point you have already accepted the notion of some form of 'divine' plan...."[/I]

That is an interesting, powerful and 'absolute' statement, the kind of thing I am often accused of in my assertions.

Your argument appears to be solid when you state to attribute purpose to sentient life is to posit a 'creator' or 'divine' plan, in your words, but...does it really?

My immediate response would be that 'life has its' own inherent purpose', independent from but related to all aspects of existence, macro and micro.

Let me expand that concept to the natural existence of planet Earth and our Sun, a 'Star' by definition, our Solar system, our Galaxy. Each has a beginning and an end, and each has its' own 'purpose', in terms of its' own existence and within the infinite existence of the Universe.

The more man learns about the physical characteristics of the entirety of the Universe, we discover the interrelationship between 'Star Nurseries' Star birth and growth, life and death of Stars and Star Clusters, Galaxies and even the shape and form of Galaxies; all have their internal reason and purpose for existence, defined by the characteristics of each entity.

I do not find inference of 'divine' creation in a bean sprout in my garden; I do sense an innate drive, an imperative for fullfillment of purpose contained in the bean seed, a potential awaiting birth, again, with no purpose other than its' own existence within the possible paramenters of individual existence.

More importantly, I would suggest that your conclusion that to question and search for purpose in existence, is to imply a creator, is intellectually self-defeating and stifling and even injurious in a psychological sense as it must evititably lead one to question the purpose of ones' own individual existence. That is where existentialism and nihilism took us, with the result being subjective and relativistic moral choices that are life destroying.

That is not to summarily dismiss the quintessential question of why the Universe exists; but, if I apply my own reasoning, it logically forces me to conclude that the Universe too, has its' own inherent purpose and our task is to comprehend just what the hell it might be.



thank you

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Amicus, it doesn't quite work that way. My man G. K. Chesterton remarked that when a man stops believing in God, he does not then believe in nothing--he believes in anything. My corollary- even to the extent of believing that the universe and everything in it is made of of ten (or is it eleven?) dimensional, invisible, miniscule, vibrating strings of something. For which proposition there is no replicable, observable proof. I'll take God, a player to be named later, and a first-round draft pick. You can draft whom you want--or no one. Let's just agree to disagree.[/

QUOTE]

~~~

Estragon...not to argue with you personally, but you reflect the opinion of many highly educated people who express the same loss of identity with the death of God.

I will further state that this is an important subject to me, for many reasons, perhaps the foremost is my children who were born into a world with little or no faith and a public and private education system that has rejected theology as a source of moral guidance but who have been offered no viable alternatives.

String Theory, Chaos and Uncertainty, even the billions spent to discover the 'God Particle' at CERN, are little more than intellectual masturbation to avoid really introspective thoughts applied to human ethics and morals minus a God figure.

I have been fortunate in my various careers to influence people, sometimes great numbers of them, thousands, to appear at a Rally, or an auditorium to hear my thoughts. I don't have an overblown ego in terms of my effectiveness but I am convinced of the power of words and thoughts as I find people everywhere, starving for discussions concerning moral issues, the right and wrong of things.

Thus I cannot just agree to disagree; I am compelled to confront the fog of self enforced ignorance that permits perfectly good people to ruin their entire lives by, for example, having an abortion at age 18. The act will never go away and will haunt forever. And yes, I know that as a fact.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

This point of view is shared by many, atheist, agnostic, and the faithful of every stripe.
However, I see two fundamental misconceptions;
1) that H. Sapiens is truly rational. Sure, we are capable of rational thought, but I think the core of our being is irrational. Have you ever been in love? Was it a rational decision or was it something you felt in the fiber of your being? Is self-sacrifice rational?
2) If a god, gods or God does exist, can such a entity be ruled by rational thought? Why would it constrain itself with logic? Remember, while logic and rational thinking are tremendously powerful tools for trying to make sense of reality, they are only tools.


A humanity that has reached the point in its evolution that it can transition to a mature, adult existence of rational thinking and consideration of an existance without a god at the helm, will be, I think, no longer human as we define it. It is possible that one day Homo Superior will arise, but that day will happen long after long after the 21st century has faded from memory, legend or even myth. And the beings who may, one day, excavate our crumbled civilization, probing into the mounds of our waste will wonder "what manner of creatures were these?"[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello, 1sickbastard, and welcome....formally, your argument goes back to the false 'mind/body dichotomy', that originated with Plato, thence Descartes and Hume, more commonly known as 'Dualism".

Not an easy argument to refute such a long standing theory, 'Pure' here on the forum and I, have gone round and round before on the subject.

The theory basically pits man's emotions, his body, against his mind, his reason and rationality. The base assumption is that emotions, basic drives, are separate and uncontrollable by the mind.

The 'truth' of the matter, is so very self-evident, axiomatic, that I wonder how anyone still accepts the thoroughly refuted theory of the dichotomy.

It is self evident because we can observe, with every new born child, a total blank slate of emotional content. A new human being has no preformed, inherited or innate emotional feelings and just like the mind, which is also born tabula rasa, must learn both thoughts and emotions.

Emotions are automatic responses to previously made value judgments. We 'learn' what we like and dislike and, yes, even 'love', over a lifetime and the expressions of those emotions, those 'values' does become automatic but not uncontrollable. One can and does control one's emotions, which totally invalidates the 'dualism' theory of early philosophy.

Altruism, as a way of life, is destructive of life, human individual life, as it requires the sacrifice of self identification and replaces it with faith in a religion or a political theory, like Socialism, that destroys the individual.

Self sacrifice, in terms of risking your life and perhaps losing it, in defense of your child or loved one, is a conscous choice, a weighing of values rationally made.

Amicus

 

[1sickbastard]

[
That is an interesting, powerful and 'absolute' statement, the kind of thing I am often accused of in my assertions.

Your argument appears to be solid when you state to attribute purpose to sentient life is to posit a 'creator' or 'divine' plan, in your words, but...does it really?

My immediate response would be that 'life has its' own inherent purpose', independent from but related to all aspects of existence, macro and micro.

Let me expand that concept to the natural existence of planet Earth and our Sun, a 'Star' by definition, our Solar system, our Galaxy. Each has a beginning and an end, and each has its' own 'purpose', in terms of its' own existence and within the infinite existence of the Universe.

The more man learns about the physical characteristics of the entirety of the Universe, we discover the interrelationship between 'Star Nurseries' Star birth and growth, life and death of Stars and Star Clusters, Galaxies and even the shape and form of Galaxies; all have their internal reason and purpose for existence, defined by the characteristics of each entity.

I do not find inference of 'divine' creation in a bean sprout in my garden; I do sense an innate drive, an imperative for fullfillment of purpose contained in the bean seed, a potential awaiting birth, again, with no purpose other than its' own existence within the possible paramenters of individual existence.

More importantly, I would suggest that your conclusion that to question and search for purpose in existence, is to imply a creator, is intellectually self-defeating and stifling and even injurious in a psychological sense as it must evititably lead one to question the purpose of ones' own individual existence. That is where existentialism and nihilism took us, with the result being subjective and relativistic moral choices that are life destroying.

That is not to summarily dismiss the quintessential question of why the Universe exists; but, if I apply my own reasoning, it logically forces me to conclude that the Universe too, has its' own inherent purpose and our task is to comprehend just what the hell it might be.



thank you

Amicus

Okay, I'm probably quibbling words here but...
Inherent purpose would seem to imply some sort design, a goal or result which is being actively sought, which is different from cause and effect, which has no such implications.
Any living thing shares the same purpose-to survive and propagate. Intelligence or awareness isn't necessary.
But to say that inamiate matter, clouds of interstellar gas/dust, has an inherent purpose to collapse, eventually to ignite in starfire is something else.
In otherwords, if there is an inherent purpose in the existence of the universe, doesn't that imply that the universe is somehow alive?

 

[amicus]

After the breakdown of socialism, I question absolutely every belief.

On the other hand: I accept every belief that's not misanthropic. People have the right to err.

I prefer logic until it doesn't last. And sometimes even logic and science can do inhuman things.

A lot of beliefs are feeded by feelings, often non-logic. Sometimes this can be the right way.

What's right, what's wrong? Well, I only know one thing: There are no bad men. Only masses of misunderstoods and errors.
Howggh

~~~

You are mistaken. There are bad and evil men and women; they don't need understanding they need extermination.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

I couldn't agree more on your earlier posts about getting a political forum here. That way those of us to join Lit to... hold on now... talk about erotica and reading and writing it or discussing it or even talking dirty like teenagers.... can talk about it without being interrupted by these high brow Rush Limbaugh wannabees that feel the need to start and end everyday on their soapbox. Save it for C-Span or talk radio. Is there a God? I don't know I'm to busy trying to figure out whose going to fuck who in my next story.
For the record though Lit does have a political forum. It's called the general board and populated by such staggering intellects as Pointless, Nipples Mcgee, Sean H and his army of Alts, and a cast of well ten's. You want to hear some failed politicians spout off go there. No really go now. Please.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Perhaps there ought to be a subforum for 'stroke' writers, shallow writers who express no moral or ethical principles in their stories...of course, that is impossible, as even deciding 'who is going to fuck whom', in your next story, requires a host of moral decisions.

Which is why the open forum concept for writers, the Author's Hangout, is just as it should be and should remain, a free, non censored place for authors to discuss anything they wish.

That small percentage that want to censor the forum, just started two Threads about the sad event in Arizona, political Threads, but the kind the Progressive Left love to bash Conservatives over. Nary a complaint was registered.

The pathetic inability of the Left to defend socialism and all its' sordid varieties is the reason they want to ban politics...they would prefer just to ban me, Amicus, as it is I they detest the most because I call them out on every issue to stifle the individual and censor his thoughts and and actions.

Truth. Someone new in 2009, should maybe do a little research and note that this was a totally left wing forum until late 2003....don't take my word, there is a search function at the upper right of the page, check it out.

Amicus Veritas...

 

[amicus]

SquareJohn...may I recommend a reading of the non fiction works of Ayn Rand, as many as you can find? You present good questions but you present them as if they cannot be answered.

regards...

ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

---
as for your reading the book of job: it was for the arguments. i suppose i expected a degree of cultural literacy and interest in the issues. same as if you suggested i read Dawkins or Dennett. i have. read or don't; i have no desire to make you 'believe'. i'd just hoped you'd raise the level of your slapdash arguments.

Sorry, slapdash is the best you're going to get out of me. This forum is not conducive to careful argument. There's no percentage in it. It isn't worth the attempt.

I am an atheist. I am without deities. I do not believe in any god or gods. I do not expect that there will ever be proof of any sort of sentient super-natural being ever, and I do not expect that such will appear to me, or you, or any being born in this universe, after we die.

I am still wondering what wonderful tool you use to understand this world-- Philosophy maybe, but I am not going to assume.

For me, philosophy has its uses, but when dealing with the real, material world comprised of rocks and gasses and finances and viruses and love affairs and babies and birds and weather, moods and illusions, and all else in its nearly infinite variety-- I find the scientific process of empirical research, replicable testing, hypothesis proof and theory-- all based on the understanding that new information may come along at any time-- to be a pretty good way to go about it. I do not know of a better one.

It's quite true that individual scientists can and often do get caught up in their pet theory until they falsify evidence to "prove" it. But that's human nature, and science as a body of work tries, at least, to discourage such things.

In contrast, religion tends to train its followers to expect answers from some authority figure or another-- a priest or such-- and to accept those answers. This is a problem when scientists try to talk to the public, if they are honest they won't commit to hard statements and they'll find themselves derided-- Any scientist willing to make a solid claim without reservations or modifiers is very likely a charlatan.

By the way no, I was not referring to relationships.

 

[1sickbastard]

[Emotions are automatic responses to previously made value judgments. We 'learn' what we like and dislike and, yes, even 'love', over a lifetime and the expressions of those emotions, those 'values' does become automatic but not uncontrollable. One can and does control one's emotions, which totally invalidates the 'dualism' theory of early philosophy. Amicus

Thank you for your words of greeting.

One can learn to control one's emotions, or rather some can, other's maybe not so much.
After you learned to control your emotions, did you never feel them, or that you can and do feel them, but can turn them on and off at will
Or is it that you felt emotions, but controlled your reactions to them?

 

[amicus]

Okay, I'm probably quibbling words here but...
Inherent purpose would seem to imply some sort design, a goal or result which is being actively sought, which is different from cause and effect, which has no such implications.
Any living thing shares the same purpose-to survive and propagate. Intelligence or awareness isn't necessary.
But to say that inamiate matter, clouds of interstellar gas/dust, has an inherent purpose to collapse, eventually to ignite in starfire is something else.
In otherwords, if there is an inherent purpose in the existence of the universe, doesn't that imply that the universe is somehow alive?[/QUOTE]

~~~

I don't visit the forum everyday, so it took a while to catch up and respond to some of the truly incisive and thoughtful Posts, all of whom I appreciate and I just had a glimpse of perhaps publishing this Thread, excepting, the mindless usual suspects, of course.

Anne McCaffrey has a fascininating novel concerning a 'sentient' planet; she might have had the same question you voiced, about the Universe being, 'alive'.

I am not a scientist, but I do read the cutting edge articles that define our times and there is increasingly ever so much information available. Some of the more recent theories dealing with the 'Big Bang' and what happened afterwards are fascinating.

The relationships between matter and energy, gravity, the speed of light, the essential building blocks of the Universe, came equipped with the 'laws of physics', they say...gaseous clouds condensing through gravity, is not something I would attribute to purpose, rather to physics.

Let me ask you to make a leap of intellectual faith here, by introducing, 'Estrus', I will even define it: Definition of ESTRUS

: a regularly recurrent state of sexual excitability during which the female of most mammals will accept the male and is capable of conceiving : heat; also : a single occurrence of this state

It is an act of nature when the Mare or the Cow, lubricates, moves her tail aside and backs up to the nearest male...human females do the same in a more subtle manner and emit pheromones to amplify and broadcast their state of readiness to conceive....perfumes and deodorants mask most of that...but still....

Now...is that purpose, nature, physics, or what? Maybe it is why the majority of the world's societies lock up their women, eh?

I have been an atheist all my life, debating it is not a pleasure to me, but the corollary effects of the loss of religous morality as it affects modern society is very much a concern to me.

Further, debating and considering the origins of the Universe are of little interest to anyone outside the academics, but knowing whether abortion is moral or immoral, is an important issue, and can proceed only from a discussion of moral and ethical principles and thus a 'political' discussion, as morals and ethics are largely determined by statute, with or without theological input.

And...so it goes....

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Meet amicus, who places a great value upon Young Women (in his delusion that they will look up to him as befits a Randian Great man and maybe give him some virgin pussy) and exemplifies all that is creepy about the heteronormative American male.
Although he pretends he's worried about morality what really bothers him is that he cannot control women, not His wife, his daughters, nor the IM conversants who claim to be girlies...

 

[Pure]

note to ami

interesting remarks about teleology and all.

Quote:
TIO..."...We may all wonder about the reason of our existence, but to wonder about the purpose is to accept, a priori, a teleological approach to the whole of the universe. At that point you have already accepted the notion of some form of 'divine' plan...."

AMI That is an interesting, powerful and 'absolute' statement, the kind of thing I am often accused of in my assertions.

Your argument appears to be solid when you state to attribute purpose to sentient life is to posit a 'creator' or 'divine' plan, in your words, but...does it really?

My immediate response would be that 'life has its' own inherent purpose', independent from but related to all aspects of existence, macro and micro.

Let me expand that concept to the natural existence of planet Earth and our Sun, a 'Star' by definition, our Solar system, our Galaxy. Each has a beginning and an end, and each has its' own 'purpose', in terms of its' own existence and within the infinite existence of the Universe.

The more man learns about the physical characteristics of the entirety of the Universe, we discover the interrelationship between 'Star Nurseries' Star birth and growth, life and death of Stars and Star Clusters, Galaxies and even the shape and form of Galaxies; all have their internal reason and purpose for existence, defined by the characteristics of each entity.

I do not find inference of 'divine' creation in a bean sprout in my garden; I do sense an innate drive, an imperative for fullfillment of purpose contained in the bean seed, a potential awaiting birth, again, with no purpose other than its' own existence within the possible paramenters of individual existence.
=============================

a bit of a vitalist, are you?

ami'life has its' [sic] own inherent purpose',

a question is how do we find it out.


amiour Sun, a 'Star' by definition, our Solar system, our Galaxy. Each has a beginning and an end, and each has its' [sic]own 'purpose', in terms of its' own existence and within the infinite existence of the Universe.

I do not find inference of 'divine' creation in a bean sprout in my garden; I do sense an innate drive, an imperative for fullfillment of purpose contained in the bean seed, a potential awaiting birth, again, with no purpose other than its' own existence within the possible paramenters of individual existence.[/
====

pure responds,
ok, lets start with the bean sprout. it's likely destined for your table. so might one infer its purpose is to be uprooted and become food?

likewise stars apparently die, having given off X amount of energy, perhaps to their planets. is their purpose to die?

you are looking at ONE phase of a process, so to say, the ascending phase--e.g. the growth period of the bean sprout-- and using only that as a basis for affirming a purpose of life, e.g. "to live". nature in fact all the time has 'ascending lines' and 'descending [dying, decaying] lines', which are interdependent.

to take a very simple case, in nature there is the food chain. and LOTS of little fish get eaten by bigger ones, and LOTS of mice get eaten by cats. does the mouse have an inherent drive to get eaten?

in the end, the human body is 'eaten' by bacteria. there is nothing higher in the food chain, so the lowest fellows take care of business, that and the human cells themselves which stop replicating correctly.

in short, while it may seem arbitrary to infer a creator to explain the process, it's highly arbitrary to look at parts of the process--where life seems to increase-- and infer that 'growth' and 'increase' etc. are the 'inherent purposes.'

as far as ethics is concerned, one can see that looking only at 'ascending phases' might seemingly give rise to the idea that plant and animal life are to be preserved, allowed what you say is their 'inherent purpose.' but if as i suggest [ftsoa], their inherent purpose, for many cases is to get eaten, then of course our ethic will approve ending their lives, as we do all the time, for carrots and cattle (and which I'm sure you approve).


PS, as to the sprout, it comes from a seed, and you will say the seed's purpose IS to sprout. but in nature, LOTS of seeds get eaten, and lots of these don't survive. so again, it's dubious that the 'inherent purpose' of the seed, is to sprout.

 

[PoppingTom]

~~~

You are mistaken. There are bad and evil men and women; they don't need understanding they need extermination.

Amicus

Well, let's spin the Wheel.

You say, they don't need (your?) understanding.

But this means also, they don't need to understand YOU. Whether they do or not, they will be exterminated (by you?).

This means that every penalty to them don't deserve its name, cause it's pure revenge, and you don't expect any meaningful consequences for this by them.

Or you have to tell me the sense of penalties at all.