User Tag List

Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8111213141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 214

Thread: Existence: What is the point?

  1. #171
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 99.7%

    OverDrive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    The lush Sonoran Desert
    Posts
    2,962
    Thanks
    1,192
    Thanked: 1,836
    Rep Power
    4971051
    As part of the prolific 'family' of God.......because it "pleases Him"
    Disclaimer: Please excuse my spelling, as have Google Big keyboard on my tablet which doesnt flag misspelled words and has a "lisp", i.e. overlapping keys <sigh>


    For You know Who: http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/94741-Do-s-and-Don-ts-for-Atheists-at-Christmas?p=1637890&viewfull=1#post1637890

  2. #172
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 75.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    13,501
    Thanks
    3,717
    Thanked: 10,317
    Rep Power
    21474853
    The point of existence is obviously procreation. The DNA wouldn't need you at all if it could replicate without you.

  3. #173
    Member
    Overall activity: 6.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked: 42
    Rep Power
    112612
    I know that the word 'Faith' as defined in dictionaries is representative of what most people think it means, which is belief and trust, devotion, allegiance, and it is certainly all of that.

    However, the questions are: What is it based upon? What is the foundation for it? Choice, or Proof.

    Real Faith is based upon KNOWING, not merely believing. Knowing comes first, before believing, and that requires proving prior to acceptance and belief. Real Faith is absolute confidence founded upon Truth, based on Facts proving that God exists, not wishing that He does, not merely thinking that He does.

    People will believe almost anything. And they do. In spite of Facts. Not because of them. And this is readily apparent in a subject such as this.

    I will say this emphatically. Atheists do not care about the Facts. They do not want to believe in God. They have their reasons. False religion, traditional Christianity as practiced, as believed widely, is undoubtedly another due to the Fact that they believe in Christ, in God, but not what He says. Picking and choosing and fabricating a God to fit their beliefs is not an exercise in faith at all.

    I also know this. Only on the most rare occasions will people change their mind. Why? Because the mind of man is enmity towards God. It just is.

  4. #174
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 11.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked: 35
    Rep Power
    429498
    There is no point to human existence. Most human beings need a sense of purpose and that is why we have religions. We are creatures of accident just like all other life forms. What is so bad about that?

  5. #175
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 57.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,964
    Thanks
    12,874
    Thanked: 7,879
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474852
    Quote Originally Posted by SharetheHedge View Post
    Have to disagree as there are at least many variations on those two choices, not to mention the distinct possibility that the ultimate truth may be something we are incapable of even conceiving?
    1. We disagree on something??!! Say it ain't so!!
    2. Variations aside, there are still just these 2 binary possibilities for the explanation of life and the universe.
    God did it, or nothing did it. An Intelligent Cause, or random accident.
    3. How can I list a possibility that is 'inconceivable?' Is that not a logical impossibility? If you cannot conceive of it, how can it be a possibility?

    But I would point out that the "no meaning" club does not need empirical evidence to support their LACK of belief. This does not prove they are ultimately right either, but logically, the theist has more of a burden of proof as he is AFFIRMING the real existence of something/someone that MAY only be a product of philosophic conjecture.
    Ah yes. I almost forgot. Some atheists, who believe, without empirical evidence, in naturalism, do not like to frame their beliefs, opinions, or worldview as a 'personal belief', just a lack of belief in the antithesis.

    We are not discussing 'proof!' here, but beliefs, perceptions, and opinions about the nature of the universe. Although, if you have proof for your beliefs (or non beliefs!), I would certainly love to hear about it.

    I think it simply means we are egotistical. When something makes sense to someone, to the point where they can't see it any other way, they can even be offended that others don't. This is true concerning politics, which sports team or rock group is the best, or anything else we may have a strong opinion on.
    I agree with this. There certainly can be other factors or conclusions, but this one works in its context.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. ~Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #176
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 57.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,964
    Thanks
    12,874
    Thanked: 7,879
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474852
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    The point of existence is obviously procreation. The DNA wouldn't need you at all if it could replicate without you.
    It seems to me that man engages in a lot of pointless procreation.. at least the act of it. Why do so many avoid procreation, if that is the only point in life?

    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    There is no point to human existence. Most human beings need a sense of purpose and that is why we have religions. We are creatures of accident just like all other life forms. What is so bad about that?
    Maybe. Maybe not.
    How do you 'know' the motivations of 'most people?' Perhaps that is projection, or just your motivation. Maybe some people have information that you are unaware of. How can you base this belief about humanity in such dogmatic certainty?
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. ~Robert A. Heinlein

  7. #177
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 57.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,964
    Thanks
    12,874
    Thanked: 7,879
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474852
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    I know that the word 'Faith' as defined in dictionaries is representative of what most people think it means, which is belief and trust, devotion, allegiance, and it is certainly all of that.

    However, the questions are: What is it based upon? What is the foundation for it? Choice, or Proof.

    Real Faith is based upon KNOWING, not merely believing. Knowing comes first, before believing, and that requires proving prior to acceptance and belief. Real Faith is absolute confidence founded upon Truth, based on Facts proving that God exists, not wishing that He does, not merely thinking that He does.
    But this is obviously not the universal experience of every human. Many claim that they have no proof or evidence of God, which explains their lack of faith.

    How does one 'know' about God, if they have no facts or evidence? Why should they believe your opinion or claim about this critical information?

    People will believe almost anything. And they do. In spite of Facts. Not because of them. And this is readily apparent in a subject such as this.

    I will say this emphatically. Atheists do not care about the Facts. They do not want to believe in God. They have their reasons. False religion, traditional Christianity as practiced, as believed widely, is undoubtedly another due to the Fact that they believe in Christ, in God, but not what He says. Picking and choosing and fabricating a God to fit their beliefs is not an exercise in faith at all.
    Broad brushes do not paint good detail. I know of too many people with very diverse beliefs to make this generalization.

    However, I have noticed a trend in groupthink loyalty among the New Internet Atheists, and many do fit this stereotype. But if some skeptics are not just identity politics, groupthink loyalists, but sincerely lack facts or evidence to believe, how can you fault them for their skepticism?
    I also know this. Only on the most rare occasions will people change their mind. Why? Because the mind of man is enmity towards God. It just is.
    I can accept that you believe this, and it certainly may be your experience. But people have been known to change their minds and embrace ideology they were once hostile toward. Atheists become theists, and theists, atheists. Many other examples of changing ideology and beliefs are common to man.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. ~Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #178
    Member
    Overall activity: 6.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked: 42
    Rep Power
    112612
    Once again, the point is not what people become and not what they choose to hang their belief on. The point is truth. I did not say that people don't change their mind. My point was that it is rare in respect to the subject of all of the evidence available that reveals the existence of the Creator. An atheist may indeed become a theist, but even that is beside the point. Not believing in God and jumping to accepting one is not necessarily a leap towards understanding.

    What IS necessary is to KNOW God exist, not merely believe that He does. Faith is founded upon knowledge, and knowledge is not obtained by denial (Atheism) or adopting some form of religiosity as simply another choice.

    "Prove ALL things, and hold fast to that which is good." And good means the Truth, not lies and deceit.

    There are more religions, cults, religious conjuring and fable fabrications concerning gods, or the lack of them, that it seems they are endless. Christ Himself was believed by only a hundred or so people even after all of the miracles that thousands had witnessed. They came to Him for a show, as if He were some sort of great entertainer who didn't charge admission. Not only that but He might provide a free lunch as well. They had God in the flesh standing before them and still did not believe . Is it any wonder that Atheism is a belief?

    We have ample evidence for God. Absolutely none to oppose God. How much evidence does one need? What is common to man is not seeking Truth. And the condition of the world demonstrates this with all of the confusion rampant, and the idiotic idea that it is enlightenment at work.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CWF For This Useful Post:

    potlatch (01-14-2018),usfan (01-13-2018)

  10. #179
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    SharetheHedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    5,516
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked: 4,468
    Rep Power
    7583372
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    1. We disagree on something??!! Say it ain't so!!
    2. Variations aside, there are still just these 2 binary possibilities for the explanation of life and the universe.
    God did it, or nothing did it. An Intelligent Cause, or random accident.

    Pantheism is enough of a variation to qualify as a 3rd choice?


    3. How can I list a possibility that is 'inconceivable?' Is that not a logical impossibility? If you cannot conceive of it, how can it be a possibility?

    Simple. You list it as...

    3) A possibility we haven't thought of or may be incapable of imagining.

    Ah yes. I almost forgot. Some atheists, who believe, without empirical evidence, in naturalism, do not like to frame their beliefs, opinions, or worldview as a 'personal belief', just a lack of belief in the antithesis.

    You are still attempting to switch the burden of proof onto naturalists to prove that there are no exceptions to natural law, i.e. to make them have to prove a negative. The one whose belief rests on the premise that the supernatural or miraculous DOES exist is the one who needs empirical evidence to back his claim. This is one of the oldest "card tricks" in the logical fallacy deck.

    We are not discussing 'proof!' here, but beliefs, perceptions, and opinions about the nature of the universe. Although, if you have proof for your beliefs (or non beliefs!), I would certainly love to hear about it.

    I don't claim to have the ultimate answers, and I sometimes think it may be presumptuous of us to imagine any of us do, or even CAN? I think there are sound, logical arguments for the existence of a God, but as to the nature of such an entity, or as to the possible intentions and personality, if any, I think we are pretty much limited to speculation. That is, there is no religion, belief-system, LACK of belief-system, or concept I have yet come across, that makes sense to me on ALL levels, that answers ALL the questions of why our reality is what it seems to be. I am currently not convinced there is, OR is not, a "plan" behind all this? Most of my posts in these discussions are just reactions to the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality
    "If you think they hate Trump now, wait till his policies start working." (Dennis Miller)

    "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." (Benjamin Franklin)


    "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." ​(Aristotle)

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to SharetheHedge For This Useful Post:

    usfan (01-13-2018)

  12. #180
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 57.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    10,964
    Thanks
    12,874
    Thanked: 7,879
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    21474852
    Quote Originally Posted by SharetheHedge View Post
    Pantheism is enough of a variation to qualify as a 3rd choice?
    Simple. You list it as...
    3) A possibility we haven't thought of or may be incapable of imagining.

    You are still attempting to switch the burden of proof onto naturalists to prove that there are no exceptions to natural law, i.e. to make them have to prove a negative. The one whose belief rests on the premise that the supernatural or miraculous DOES exist is the one who needs empirical evidence to back his claim. This is one of the oldest "card tricks" in the logical fallacy deck.

    I don't claim to have the ultimate answers, and I sometimes think it may be presumptuous of us to imagine any of us do, or even CAN? I think there are sound, logical arguments for the existence of a God, but as to the nature of such an entity, or as to the possible intentions and personality, if any, I think we are pretty much limited to speculation. That is, there is no religion, belief-system, LACK of belief-system, or concept I have yet come across, that makes sense to me on ALL levels, that answers ALL the questions of why our reality is what it seems to be. I am currently not convinced there is, OR is not, a "plan" behind all this? Most of my posts in these discussions are just reactions to the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality
    1. That depends on the way pantheism is defined. If 'the natural universe is God, then it is just a variation of naturalism. If it includes an intelligent, creative God, then that is closer to supernaturalism. I can think of no variation that does not have a root belief in one of these basic, binary possibilities. Perhaps you could provide an example of a belief about origins of life and the universe that is not one of the 2 I listed?

    2. Logically, we can only compare and define concepts that we can conceive. Once you inject dream and absurdism, or include abstractions that are inconceivable, you have left the realm of empirical reasoning. And you can always include unimaginable concepts, you just can't define them. So how do they have relevance in a philosophical discussion, if they cannot be compared or defined? Functionally, it is a useless philosophical category. So why bother including It? How is it valid in a comparative philosophy discussion? It is more along the lines of '42', as the Answer for all the mysteries of the universe.

    3. Burden of proof, is irrelevant, in a discussion about beliefs about the nature of man and the universe. Nobody can empirically 'prove' their beliefs, they just hold them, in a worldview that makes the most sense to them, or what they have been indoctrinated to believe. Can you 'prove' YOUR beliefs/opinions/ speculations about the nature of the universe? It is hypocritical for a person to demand 'proof!' from others, when they have none for their own.

    4. I always enjoy exchanges between true believers in opposite camps. Dogmatism is the rule, and they talk past each other, stuck, as they are, in their respective worldviews. I found the 'reasoning' in the other thread very amusing. It is a waste of time to discuss abstract concepts with true believers, trapped in a groupthink echo chamber, and having only caricatures and canned responses to 'debate' with. Oh, I still do it, but it is maddening and destroys brain cells.
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. ~Robert A. Heinlein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •