Remembering How Bad Things Were Under...
Society & Culture3 mins ago
religious or atheist...
90 Answers
no matter which way you look at it, life is all a bit absurd.
From a naturalistic point of view, this planet that we live on will one day be consumed by the sun and all life will cease to exist. So why bother with any kind of advancement? We will all die in the end and cease to exsist anyway.
From a supernatural perspective (religious, spiritual etc) its just as meaningless.
We all evolve or enter into another dimension (reincarnate or end up in heaven / hell /summerland or some other realm) but to what purpose? What happens when we end up 'enlightened'? What then?
Any thought guys?
Thanks...
From a naturalistic point of view, this planet that we live on will one day be consumed by the sun and all life will cease to exist. So why bother with any kind of advancement? We will all die in the end and cease to exsist anyway.
From a supernatural perspective (religious, spiritual etc) its just as meaningless.
We all evolve or enter into another dimension (reincarnate or end up in heaven / hell /summerland or some other realm) but to what purpose? What happens when we end up 'enlightened'? What then?
Any thought guys?
Thanks...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by WrightsPie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Keyplus - “Lazygun - I really am strawman and I agree with that. But instead of providing me links can you just explain in simple words (as I am strawman)...”
You seem to be under a misapprehension. Lazygun is not calling you a “Straw Man”; the straw man argument is a fallacious (ie. illogical or inappropriate) way to argue a case...
http://www.nizkor.org...lacies/straw-man.html
As you claim to not like reading from links, I shall quote from the above website directly...
“The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed”
It would help both you and everyone else on this website immeasurably if you acquainted yourself with basic debating techniques and the more common logical fallacies. Even though you don't like links I feel that this one would be really worth reading and absorbing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
You seem to be under a misapprehension. Lazygun is not calling you a “Straw Man”; the straw man argument is a fallacious (ie. illogical or inappropriate) way to argue a case...
http://www.nizkor.org...lacies/straw-man.html
As you claim to not like reading from links, I shall quote from the above website directly...
“The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed”
It would help both you and everyone else on this website immeasurably if you acquainted yourself with basic debating techniques and the more common logical fallacies. Even though you don't like links I feel that this one would be really worth reading and absorbing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
///“Straw Man”; the straw man argument is a fallacious (ie. illogical or inappropriate) way to argue a case...///
Fine, I agree with that too as I might have taken that wrong. After all my first language is not English. But I do not believe that my question has anything to do with that. It is very simple question. I agree with whatever you people say about Evolution. For argument sake I even believe it is not a theory but accepted fact. It started from a common ancestor, natural selection, survival of the fittest and whatever else, I agree with all that. But all these things happen afterward. My question is very simple that where did the so called common ancestor come from?
Fine, I agree with that too as I might have taken that wrong. After all my first language is not English. But I do not believe that my question has anything to do with that. It is very simple question. I agree with whatever you people say about Evolution. For argument sake I even believe it is not a theory but accepted fact. It started from a common ancestor, natural selection, survival of the fittest and whatever else, I agree with all that. But all these things happen afterward. My question is very simple that where did the so called common ancestor come from?
Common ancestor ? How far back into the past are you going ?
As you progress back through the years you'll find one defined species branch off from a previous one that doesn't yet match the definition of the more recent species.
Go back far enough and you find self replicating systems that don't yet match the definition of life.
Before a system randomly formed that was capable of self replication then you are so far back that you're not yet at the stage where you can reasonably refer to an ancestor. But even then, whatever was sloshing about in the oceans is that which will become the precursor for life, and we are still considering this planet.
That said it has been suggested that the basic building blocks for life could develop elsewhere in the universe and arrive here to kick start the creation of life.
As you progress back through the years you'll find one defined species branch off from a previous one that doesn't yet match the definition of the more recent species.
Go back far enough and you find self replicating systems that don't yet match the definition of life.
Before a system randomly formed that was capable of self replication then you are so far back that you're not yet at the stage where you can reasonably refer to an ancestor. But even then, whatever was sloshing about in the oceans is that which will become the precursor for life, and we are still considering this planet.
That said it has been suggested that the basic building blocks for life could develop elsewhere in the universe and arrive here to kick start the creation of life.
Well seeing as we are pointing out logical fallacies, the one I think most applies to the position taken by people who choose to believe that 'because we cannot yet prove how life on Earth began then God did it' is the 'argument from ignorance'.
http://en.wikipedia.o...gument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.o...gument_from_ignorance
Ankou - “well thats only a little bit patronising.”
If someone has got completely the wrong end of the stick, don't you think it's even more patronising to allow them to continue with that line of reasoning? I wasn't trying to patronise or humiliate Keyplus; I was trying to explain the various and well established logical fallacies that plague debates such as this. If you see that as me being patronising then so be it.
If someone has got completely the wrong end of the stick, don't you think it's even more patronising to allow them to continue with that line of reasoning? I wasn't trying to patronise or humiliate Keyplus; I was trying to explain the various and well established logical fallacies that plague debates such as this. If you see that as me being patronising then so be it.
Don't you agree that we really are the most bigheaded creatures yet seen on this insignificant mudball?
We've not been around for 5 minutes, but every new silly idea is held up as the only true answer, from sun worship to the Big Bang.
One thing in common - they're all ditched sooner or later.
I don't think we're clever enough yet to ask the right questions, even.
We've not been around for 5 minutes, but every new silly idea is held up as the only true answer, from sun worship to the Big Bang.
One thing in common - they're all ditched sooner or later.
I don't think we're clever enough yet to ask the right questions, even.
///Well seeing as we are pointing out logical fallacies, the one I think most applies to the position taken by people who choose to believe that 'because we cannot yet prove how life on Earth began then God did it' is the 'argument from ignorance'.///
Same way I can put this with a little bit alteration like this,
Well seeing as we are pointing out logical fallacies, the one I think most applies to the position taken by people who choose to believe that 'because we cannot yet prove how life on Earth began then God did NOT DO it' is the 'argument from ignorance'.
So I believe no one knows or is willing to answer my SIMPLE question as people are more worried about logic, basic debating techniques etc than simplicity. But I must not forget that one of the simplest debating techniques is to ignore simple points and complicate matters so no one could move on. In that case enough said on this thread and see you all again somewhere else.
Same way I can put this with a little bit alteration like this,
Well seeing as we are pointing out logical fallacies, the one I think most applies to the position taken by people who choose to believe that 'because we cannot yet prove how life on Earth began then God did NOT DO it' is the 'argument from ignorance'.
So I believe no one knows or is willing to answer my SIMPLE question as people are more worried about logic, basic debating techniques etc than simplicity. But I must not forget that one of the simplest debating techniques is to ignore simple points and complicate matters so no one could move on. In that case enough said on this thread and see you all again somewhere else.
We can all post links and quote from our own particular points of reference.
I can quote from the New Testament that 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen'. I can say that Jesus knew that it would be hard for people to believe in the future, because we all like to have evidence. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed so the issue is, was He mad, bad or God, to say what He did. One thing I am certain of is that the Author of my faith spoke nothing but love and, whether we believe Him to be God or not, life would be a far better place if we lived according to His words (not someone's interpretation of them).
Evolution is a theory that is plausible to some, not to others, but none of us can *prove* how we came about. The question to creationists 'who created God' can also be addressed to Evolutionists 'where did the material needed for the big bang come from'? People who believe in God can also believe in Evolution. The Chronology of Genesis doesn't conflict with it, despite the fact that it is not intended to be read as a 'how', more of a 'why'.
The building blocks for life had to start somewhere, (even if in Outer Space OG!). The Great Hadron Collider may tell us a lot about the origins of life but *we* have had to put the particles in there - we haven't been able to make anything, never mind life, out of nothing.
I wish we could accept that we can't prove anything. We live our lives as best we can and if atheism does it for you I don't feel threatened by that. However, I have to admit that atheism is less offensive than much of what is done in the name of religion, although many have suffered persecution for being prepared to stand up for their faith. Sometimes that has been by other religious people but it is also by atheists in modern times. Sadly, people are flawed and use all sorts as a justification for their cruelty and intolerance.
I am so ashamed of what has been done in the name of my religion over the years and I'm afraid keyplus90 that, if I see it correctly, I am upset by your avatar. I agree that we should all stand up and speak for what we believe is right and stand up for the persecuted, whether they agree with our point of view or not. If we don't do that then, to answer the original post, life really is absurd.
As Ankou said early on in the thread - it's the journey not the destination that is important. If there is no destination at the end of my journey, and I have been wrong, I've still had a fulfilled life and tried to be as caring as I can be to all 'creation'. I'll settle for that and can be at peace.
I can quote from the New Testament that 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen'. I can say that Jesus knew that it would be hard for people to believe in the future, because we all like to have evidence. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed so the issue is, was He mad, bad or God, to say what He did. One thing I am certain of is that the Author of my faith spoke nothing but love and, whether we believe Him to be God or not, life would be a far better place if we lived according to His words (not someone's interpretation of them).
Evolution is a theory that is plausible to some, not to others, but none of us can *prove* how we came about. The question to creationists 'who created God' can also be addressed to Evolutionists 'where did the material needed for the big bang come from'? People who believe in God can also believe in Evolution. The Chronology of Genesis doesn't conflict with it, despite the fact that it is not intended to be read as a 'how', more of a 'why'.
The building blocks for life had to start somewhere, (even if in Outer Space OG!). The Great Hadron Collider may tell us a lot about the origins of life but *we* have had to put the particles in there - we haven't been able to make anything, never mind life, out of nothing.
I wish we could accept that we can't prove anything. We live our lives as best we can and if atheism does it for you I don't feel threatened by that. However, I have to admit that atheism is less offensive than much of what is done in the name of religion, although many have suffered persecution for being prepared to stand up for their faith. Sometimes that has been by other religious people but it is also by atheists in modern times. Sadly, people are flawed and use all sorts as a justification for their cruelty and intolerance.
I am so ashamed of what has been done in the name of my religion over the years and I'm afraid keyplus90 that, if I see it correctly, I am upset by your avatar. I agree that we should all stand up and speak for what we believe is right and stand up for the persecuted, whether they agree with our point of view or not. If we don't do that then, to answer the original post, life really is absurd.
As Ankou said early on in the thread - it's the journey not the destination that is important. If there is no destination at the end of my journey, and I have been wrong, I've still had a fulfilled life and tried to be as caring as I can be to all 'creation'. I'll settle for that and can be at peace.
Keyplus' avatar is not necessarily 'cruel' to the ram. It depends upon the nature of the ram. I suspect that the fact that it is clearly balancing on some chap's rod (ooh err) then it is one of those mountain goat type animals that seem to thrive by climbing and balancing on the most precarious rocks imaginable in order to feed on the vegetable matter that is inaccessible to other animals.
I've recently been to Greece and seen mountain goats half-way up a mountain side, perched on tiny ledges that make the position of the ram in Keyplus' photograph seem positively spacious.
I abhor animal cruelty but I don't honestly see any in Keyplus' avatar.
I've recently been to Greece and seen mountain goats half-way up a mountain side, perched on tiny ledges that make the position of the ram in Keyplus' photograph seem positively spacious.
I abhor animal cruelty but I don't honestly see any in Keyplus' avatar.
@Keyplus.
Sorry, bit of a delay responding.
This first part is for archeraddict too. Reading your last post, archer, and many many posts of Keyplus, you both seem to be either confusing or deliberately conflating the genesis of life on earth ( the transition from lifelessness to prototypical life forms) with the theory of Evolution. The study of the creation of life is more correctly termed Abiogenesis, and has nothing at all to do with Evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about the creation of life itself.
@Keyplus. You assert that because us atheists/ rationalists cannot categorically point out exactly how life started on earth, then by not automatically believing that a supernatural, omiscient force created life on earth, we are somehow arguing from ignorance? Is that the gist of what you are saying? Well, with respect Keyplus, that is an absurd argument.
Why on earth should we automatically believe that any event that we cannot immediately explain has a divine/supernatural cause? If mankind lived and believed in the fashion that you describe, we would all still be living in caves!
Mankind has believed many things over the millenia, many of which have subsequently been disproved, or moderated, or improved, through the application of the scientific method.You, and other individuals of a strongly religious persuasion keep demanding simple answers ( after all, what could be simpler that pointing to stuff and saying "Goddidit"?) - But you know, stuff can sometimes be pretty complex, and to comprehend it you need to at least understand some basic scientific principles.
As for Abiogenesis - We have only really been studying the transition process of inert materials to organic life properly since I think around the 1950s ( miller- urey experiments). Various researchers have come up with hypotheses as to how life could start, and are now devising experiments to test their hypotheses. None of those hypotheses require the intervention of a divine or supernatural agency, so why would we want to invoke one? Doing that is to argue from ignorance, Keyplus. Its lazy as well.
Some of these proposed hypotheses seem extremely unlikely it is true, but that is no reason to just give up and say "Goddidit."
To just simply believe in what some folks have told you, based upon folk tales collected together in medieval times and then presented as magic books (bible, koran), and then to parade your belief in such tales as the uncontestable truth is the real argument from ignorance.
Sorry, bit of a delay responding.
This first part is for archeraddict too. Reading your last post, archer, and many many posts of Keyplus, you both seem to be either confusing or deliberately conflating the genesis of life on earth ( the transition from lifelessness to prototypical life forms) with the theory of Evolution. The study of the creation of life is more correctly termed Abiogenesis, and has nothing at all to do with Evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about the creation of life itself.
@Keyplus. You assert that because us atheists/ rationalists cannot categorically point out exactly how life started on earth, then by not automatically believing that a supernatural, omiscient force created life on earth, we are somehow arguing from ignorance? Is that the gist of what you are saying? Well, with respect Keyplus, that is an absurd argument.
Why on earth should we automatically believe that any event that we cannot immediately explain has a divine/supernatural cause? If mankind lived and believed in the fashion that you describe, we would all still be living in caves!
Mankind has believed many things over the millenia, many of which have subsequently been disproved, or moderated, or improved, through the application of the scientific method.You, and other individuals of a strongly religious persuasion keep demanding simple answers ( after all, what could be simpler that pointing to stuff and saying "Goddidit"?) - But you know, stuff can sometimes be pretty complex, and to comprehend it you need to at least understand some basic scientific principles.
As for Abiogenesis - We have only really been studying the transition process of inert materials to organic life properly since I think around the 1950s ( miller- urey experiments). Various researchers have come up with hypotheses as to how life could start, and are now devising experiments to test their hypotheses. None of those hypotheses require the intervention of a divine or supernatural agency, so why would we want to invoke one? Doing that is to argue from ignorance, Keyplus. Its lazy as well.
Some of these proposed hypotheses seem extremely unlikely it is true, but that is no reason to just give up and say "Goddidit."
To just simply believe in what some folks have told you, based upon folk tales collected together in medieval times and then presented as magic books (bible, koran), and then to parade your belief in such tales as the uncontestable truth is the real argument from ignorance.
Keyplus90 - I did say 'if I saw it correctly' and I don't know the context and so I apologise if there was no abuse of the ram - I really couldn't tell from the image.
Lazygun - I promise that any confusion of theories on my part is not deliberate. I am not a scientist and try to read around the subject as best as I can, given my limited intellect. I'll try to read more about Abiogenesis but, from a very limited understanding, it still will leave the question of where the inorganic matter came from. I really don't know how God put the whole process in place and I certainly can't prove that He started the process or if He exists. I'm excited by our new understanding of the origins of our world and life on it - I don't see that faith in a God and knowledge are mutually exclusive.
Just one other thing. I *believe* because I have had a very personal 'experience' of God. I'm sure it can be passed off as emotions etc., but I promise you it felt and feels very real to me and has changed my life. Human love can do the same thing and it too can't be analysed and scrutinised, but it is still powerful. I don't believe because of what some folk have told me - it's far more personal and real than that.
Lazygun - I promise that any confusion of theories on my part is not deliberate. I am not a scientist and try to read around the subject as best as I can, given my limited intellect. I'll try to read more about Abiogenesis but, from a very limited understanding, it still will leave the question of where the inorganic matter came from. I really don't know how God put the whole process in place and I certainly can't prove that He started the process or if He exists. I'm excited by our new understanding of the origins of our world and life on it - I don't see that faith in a God and knowledge are mutually exclusive.
Just one other thing. I *believe* because I have had a very personal 'experience' of God. I'm sure it can be passed off as emotions etc., but I promise you it felt and feels very real to me and has changed my life. Human love can do the same thing and it too can't be analysed and scrutinised, but it is still powerful. I don't believe because of what some folk have told me - it's far more personal and real than that.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Body & Soul6 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Who Do You Think Is The Least Hated...
Music18 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
