Was God a Man or Woman?

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-style: italic">Quodlibet: </span>
BTW, as an atheist, are you automatically nihilist?
-----------------
<span style="font-style: italic">Monk:</span>
why do you think that Quod?

Do you feel that for one to have meaning in their life they must believe in a higher Being who imbues their life with some meaning or purpose?
--------------------
<span style="font-style: italic">Quodlibet:</span>
Fair enough... then from an athiest's perspective - what <span style="font-weight: bold">would</span> constitute the meaning or purpose in life?
---------------
<span style="font-style: italic">johnnycakes:</span>
As an atheist I would answer that life just IS.
It neither has nor needs a purpose or meaning.
It has whatever purpose or meaning we choose and that is usually based on the prevailing thinking of the time.
</div></div>

JC, then isn't that nihilist?

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Fair enough... then from an athiest's perspective - what <span style="font-weight: bold">would</span> constitute the meaning or purpose in life? </div></div>
I would imagine there are tons of different answers. large segments of the earth's population declare no belief in a god and i am sure that many of them lead happy, fulfilling lives.

My short answer would be that life has purpose unto itself which are more than sufficient to give it meaning.

95% of all creatures when faced with death struggle for life, I would say. Maybe more.

If life were not worth living, why would they struggle to continue. </div></div>

&quot;Life has purpose unto itself&quot;. So the meaning of life is life itself? Isnt that the same basis of circular reasoning that people of faith use to explain their beliefs?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

Q:
&quot;Life has purpose unto itself&quot;. So the meaning of life is life itself? Isnt that the same basis of circular reasoning that people of faith use to explain their beliefs? [/quote]


People of faith assign magic as the cause of life. Closed case.

Atheists do not assign anything as the cause. It remains a mystery that science is closing in on steadily. It's an open ended thing..

[johnnycakes]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?



JC, then isn't that nihilist? [/quote]


In one sense of that word, yes.
Life has no intrinsic meaning.
It is as meaningful as one makes it.
It has only the purpose to which it is applied.
IMO

[H_O]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

yes,,but even when science lays down the proof,,heck a Big UFO could show up in the sky,,and another race living life from another dimension appears and tells us religion is bunk, that they brought us here
and religion will find a way to tell them they r wrong.

People who believe in God are ULTIMATELY conditioned and brainwashed.theres no telling them otherwise. they wont even listen.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H_O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes,,but even when science lays down the proof,,heck a Big UFO could show up in the sky,,and another race living life from another dimension appears and tells us religion is bunk, that they brought us here
and religion will find a way to tell them they r wrong.

People who believe in God are ULTIMATELY conditioned and brainwashed.theres no telling them otherwise. they wont even listen. </div></div>

that's not entirely true, even long established religions are often forced to concede scientific advancements in knowledge- the catholic church being a prime example.

they continually reform in the wake of scientific advancement.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

JC, then isn't that nihilist? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In one sense of that word, yes.
Life has no intrinsic meaning.
It is as meaningful as one makes it.
It has only the purpose to which it is applied.
IMO </div></div>

i would suggest a slight modification- wouldn't it be better to say that atheists hold that life has no meaning imbued to it from an all powerful, all knowing supernatural force. that is extrinsic meaning.

however, even many religious hold that life has intrinsic value which can be discovered naturally, through natural human inquiry, observation, introspection, without there being an idea about a God.

which is how some christian sects get away with accepting the ethical and moral necessity of admitting that some people will get into heaven without a belief in jesus, so long as they are good people.

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H_O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes,,but even when science lays down the proof,,heck a Big UFO could show up in the sky,,and another race living life from another dimension appears and tells us religion is bunk, that they brought us here
and religion will find a way to tell them they r wrong.

People who believe in God are ULTIMATELY conditioned and brainwashed.theres no telling them otherwise. they wont even listen. </div></div>

Remember that some time ago - flight was magic, and repairing your eyesight with laserbeams was just plain stupid.

Scientific fact today is the magic of yesterday, and the fiction of times long gone.

Ultimately, we believe now what science says in the same way people then believed what their science said - for example that bloodletting was the way to rid onself of diseases.

So to claim science as a kind of constant of truth is itself a moving target...

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

JC, then isn't that nihilist? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In one sense of that word, yes.
Life has no intrinsic meaning.
It is as meaningful as one makes it.
It has only the purpose to which it is applied.
IMO </div></div>

i would suggest a slight modification- wouldn't it be better to say that atheists hold that life has no meaning imbued to it from an all powerful, all knowing supernatural force. that is extrinsic meaning.

however, even many religious hold that life has intrinsic value which can be discovered naturally, through natural human inquiry, observation, introspection, without there being an idea about a God.

which is how some christian sects get away with accepting the ethical and moral necessity of admitting that some people will get into heaven without a belief in jesus, so long as they are good people.

</div></div>

I may claim in rebuttal that the authority by which one may claim an extrinsic value or purpose to life may be as equally false as the claim denying it.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H_O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes,,but even when science lays down the proof,,heck a Big UFO could show up in the sky,,and another race living life from another dimension appears and tells us religion is bunk, that they brought us here
and religion will find a way to tell them they r wrong.

People who believe in God are ULTIMATELY conditioned and brainwashed.theres no telling them otherwise. they wont even listen. </div></div>

Remember that some time ago - flight was magic, and repairing your eyesight with laserbeams was just plain stupid.

Scientific fact today is the magic of yesterday, and the fiction of times long gone.

Ultimately, we believe now what science says in the same way people then believed what their science said - for example that bloodletting was the way to rid onself of diseases.

So to claim science as a kind of constant of truth is itself a moving target... </div></div>

not exactly. scientific knowledge is cumulative, and converges across independent streams of inquiry. so we would expect there to be major advances and for understanding to change as these independent streams arrive at testable, and more importantly, falsifiable, converging consensus.

it is science, as well, that self corrects, by the very nature of its process. it is science which eventually showed that bloodletting did not reduce disease.

from the perspective of pure science, one can not say that to science flight was considered magic. it was just not properly understood. until it was.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

JC, then isn't that nihilist? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In one sense of that word, yes.
Life has no intrinsic meaning.
It is as meaningful as one makes it.
It has only the purpose to which it is applied.
IMO </div></div>

i would suggest a slight modification- wouldn't it be better to say that atheists hold that life has no meaning imbued to it from an all powerful, all knowing supernatural force. that is extrinsic meaning.

however, even many religious hold that life has intrinsic value which can be discovered naturally, through natural human inquiry, observation, introspection, without there being an idea about a God.

which is how some christian sects get away with accepting the ethical and moral necessity of admitting that some people will get into heaven without a belief in jesus, so long as they are good people.

</div></div>

I may claim in rebuttal that the authority by which one may claim an extrinsic value or purpose to life may be as equally false as the claim denying it. </div></div>

that depends on the details of the claim.

if one claims that the intrinsic value of life was established extrinsically, then one would need to provide proofs.

however, to claim that life has intrinsic value, all one need to do is provide proof that there are people who present such intrinsic values without reference or claim of those values descending from an extrinsic source. of which I can say, there are plenty of examples.

[jah_yout]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Q</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
&quot;Life has purpose unto itself&quot;. So the meaning of life is life itself? Isnt that the same basis of circular reasoning that people of faith use to explain their beliefs? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">People of faith assign magic as the cause of life. Closed case</span>.

Atheists do not assign anything as the cause. It remains a mystery that science is closing in on steadily. It's an open ended thing</span>.. </div></div>

very disingenuous...
if it is a mystery then how can one possibly just categorically dismiss any plausible explanation (for example 'intelligent design')...
atheists/ spontaneous originators also believe life started as 'magic' since they can't chart &amp; reproduce it...

i always maintain that until they can produce life from non-life, they have no grounds to insist their theory is the correct one;
belittling others' theories without proving your theory does not make one more intelligent...

claiming science is 'closing in' on the great mystery changes nothing...
you know no more than the faithers &amp; this is the sad truth you must swallow;

no matter how you slice it, life is magical and we can't yet produce it despite our inflated sense of our own intelligence &amp; importance

[jah_yout]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H_O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People who believe in God are ULTIMATELY conditioned and brainwashed.theres no telling them otherwise. they wont even listen. </div></div>


too sweeping &amp; generalised;
there is no one universally agreed upon concept of what 'god' or a 'creator' is...

i could substitute your sentence as follows;

<span style="font-style: italic">People who believe in <span style="font-weight: bold">NO</span> God are ULTIMATELY conditioned and brainwashed.theres no telling them otherwise. they wont even listen.</span>

and it would seem to ring true as well...
the real debate is much more nuanced than is usually projected in the usual faith/non-faith debates

[jah_yout]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My short answer would be that life has purpose unto itself which are more than sufficient to give it meaning</div></div>.

i wish it were possible to know the beliefs of those who have committed suicide-- as far as percentages of believers (in 'god' or 'devil') vs atheists/ agnostics

[johnnycakes]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Q</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
&quot;Life has purpose unto itself&quot;. So the meaning of life is life itself? Isnt that the same basis of circular reasoning that people of faith use to explain their beliefs? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">People of faith assign magic as the cause of life. Closed case</span>.

Atheists do not assign anything as the cause. It remains a mystery that science is closing in on steadily. It's an open ended thing</span>.. </div></div>






very disingenuous...
atheists/ spontaneous originators also believe life started as 'magic'...

i always maintain that until they can produce life from non-life, they have no grounds to insist their theory is the correct one;
belittling others' theories without proving your theory does not make one more intelligent...

claiming science is 'closing in' on the great mystery changes nothing...
you know no more than the faithers &amp; this is the sad truth you must swallow;

no matter how you slice it, life is magical and we can't yet produce it despite our inflated sense of our own intelligence &amp; importance </div></div>


jah_yout,

It is most often beyond our ability to grasp how long hundreds of millions of years are.
Even a hundred thousand years is too difficult to fathom.
.
If you cannot wrap your head around that, then of course you will be unable to grasp the concept of evolution which took that long to get where we are today.
Man did not evolve overnight. The form we have today took that hundreds of millions of years to get here.

It's not magic as God, Immaculate Conception, bringing back the long dead, angels, demons all are. None of which have any basis in fact.
It's a very, very, very ,very, very, very. very. very (add a few million very here) long time.

It is science that is coming up with the DNA proofs of where we all came from (southwest Africa) and tracking humanity's spread across the world. It is science that is discovering the building blocks of life, the chemicals, the RNA, DNA that makes so many determinations in what we will be.
Science builds on the knowledge that came before and is constantly evolving.


Religions because they are faith based, remain rutted in whatever scriptures created them in the first place. They are rigidly held to doctrine and cannot and do not change with the times. They cannot be changed by scientifically proven facts because faith not only does not require fact but must ignore it in order to maintain the faith.

That science has not yet developed the ability to create life is no grounds for declaring that it will not.

Science,indeed humanity is still in its infancy.
Neither you nor I will be alive hundreds of years from now when the things that are discovered and created will appear to us as magic as things only a God could do..

Indeed, what would the people of Jesus' time think of an airplane, a television, a phone? They'd think it could only be something God could be capable of producing.

Indeed, &quot;Science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic&quot;/God