Welcome to Gaia! ::


Hello and welcome, this is my thread about religion and life. I'm going to be updating and replying to those posts I find intelligent or relevant, I'm not giving up anytime soon. I've had this thread in mind for a long time.

Please please PLEASE read the first post before posting.


A brief introduction: This is not another "I can disprove God!" thread. Well, at least not in the same way. I promise. When it comes to philosophy and religion, you can't really prove or disprove anything like you can in science, or other observable fields. So, I'm not going to "prove" anything. I'm just going to present my theory/belief because as far as I know I'm the only one who understands/believes it (to it's fullest extent).

I'm not sure to where to start, so I'll start with human nature:

1.The Human tendency to "Believe"
All throughout history different civilizations and different cultures have all had varying religious beliefs. From polytheistic Olympus to trickster semi-gods, to Pharaohs who are both man and god. Every single culture has believed itself to have the correct system, to understand things as they really are. We all scoff at anyone else (maybe not out loud) who believes differently then us. Considering how many people have been "wrong" before us, how can anyone think that they have finally got it right?

If you're reading this thread, chances are you believe in a god, or a higher purpose, or are religious/spiritual in some way. In other words, you don't worry about a lack of meaning to life (at least not in the same way I do). I don't see any meaning to life. You can kinda make your own, but it's still not the same thing as, say, heaven. This often leads me to the thought "Ok, since there's no meaning, and humanity is just uselessly repeating the same mistakes over and over with no hope of ever changing, why don't I just get it over with and kill myself?" The answer, of course, is that I'm a coward. Also, there is a chance that I'm wrong, or that my feelings will change later, so I might as well keep going. Death is final. Now, obviously these thoughts are not helpful for a human being who is trying to reproduce and survive. So, by the theory of evolution, the majority of humans are programmed not to. We have a mental tendency to enjoy living and to not want to die. Why shouldn't this extend into our belief systems as well? I can't imagine that atheistic beliefs have helped us survive more easily in the past. However, when your belief system says that you can't use contraceptives, and that heaven is waiting for you, you will tend to persevere and prosper. Therefore, believing in religion, in one form or another, is of benefit to human beings to survive and continues to be passed down as a mental tendency.

animalsrox77
If there is no meaning of life, then why are we living it?


In order for us to survive in the first place, we have to be sure that there is one, otherwise we wouldn't have the mental stability to go on. We are designed to fear death, and to really believe that there is a meaning, because otherwise we would kill ourselves, and that's a disadvantage looking at things from an evolutionary standpoint. Therefore, the only humans that live to breed are those with the mental defense of believing in a meaning of life.

Well, that's a real positive start, don't ya think? The next part is confusing and probably won't make much sense, but please do try to understand what I'm explaining.

2.Why we don't need a God as an explanation

The one question pointed at atheists that seems to go unanswered is, "If there isn't a God, how/why are we here?" Well, I have an answer. You won't like it much, though.

I was talking with a friend of mine a long while back, about sentient life on a planet. He couldn't get past how slim of a chance there is of a species basically taking over a planet and becoming sentient. You have to admit, nature does a fine job of staying balanced. I told him that it wasn't about statistics, or that it just happened to happen here. I told him that in order for us to even being having this conversation, you have to already be sentient. It's assumed that if you can think about it, you are sentient. So of course it happened here, since we're talking about it. It wasn't until a while later that I realised that this applied on a much larger scale. The universe, as a whole, exists because we perceive it. Think about it: A million existences can come and go, but if a planet somewhere in them doesn't have life, (or something similar which might be outside of our understanding) then nothing really takes notice, and they don't really exist. In order for us to ask the question "Why do I exist?" you have to exist. Similarly, for you to ask "Why am I awake?" you have to be awake. We exist in the first place only because we have to in order for the universe to exist, and because we have to in order to ask the question.

3.Conclusions, and more very depressing thoughts
Warning: #3 is simply my interpertation and personal opinion of 1 and 2, I'm not making an argument for it. Stop calling me depressed. I'm not.


Edit: Since my friend has been bumping the thread (I would ask him very kindly to STOP IT), I feel it is best to insert an update here. People seem to have some misguided view that I'm emo, or that I'm going to kill myself or something. People also think that I make a very sudden an illogical jump from #2 to #3. This is understandable. If you take #2 literally, than there doesn't need to be a God or any other high power. I see this as meaning these isn't any objective meaning to life. Thus, what follows:

So, there is no meaning to life, but humans will continue to forever believe so, because it is advantageous to them. Many will remain convinced because they "have faith!", or they can "just feel that I'm right". These are mental defenses which let people continue to believe what they do, because otherwise their systems would fall apart, and they would probably get depressed. Human nature isn't going to change anytime soon, technology is only getting more and more deadly, so I'm won't be surprised if we kill ourselves one day. Since time destroys everything, humans won't be around forever, and I don't care when we all die, I just hope it isn't during my lifetime.



OK! there it is. I would appreciate comments/debate about #s 1 and 2, 3 is just personal opinion. I will try to update and keep the thread alive, this isn't just some recent issue I wanted to hear opinions about. I'm in for the long run, especially if you have something to contribute to the conversation.

8,050 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Somebody Likes You 100
so all we got left is ethical egoism?

Wily Leaf

16,875 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Informer 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Statement 1: I have read, understand, and agree. One cannot simply accept that they are a meaningless footfall in the throes of time, there must be a greater purpose, a greater goal.

Statement 2: I would like to discuss this, but would first like to make certain I understand your statement. For a planet to exist without lifeforms to support, that planet's existence is innately futile, and for a lifeform to exist without a definite goal to pursue, that lifeform's existence is innately futile? I'm not sure I entirely understand what your second paragraph has to do with there being no meaning to life.
Viscount

Statement 2: I would like to discuss this, but would first like to make certain I understand your statement. For a planet to exist without lifeforms to support, that planet's existence is innately futile, and for a lifeform to exist without a definite goal to pursue, that lifeform's existence is innately futile? I'm not sure I entirely understand what your second paragraph has to do with there being no meaning to life.


That's just it: There is not point in a planet existing without life, so the only universe that really exists in the one we (or some other life form) percieve. However, since this means that a god or greater purpose isn't invovled, life is meaningless, and only exists because it has to. It's a very hard concept to grasps, so far only be friend has come to understand it. (I had more time to explain it to him face to face.)

Wily Leaf

16,875 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Informer 100
  • Conversationalist 100
ThePhilosopher


That's just it: There is not point in a planet existing without life, so the only universe that really exists in the one we (or some other life form) percieve. However, since this means that a god or greater purpose isn't invovled, life is meaningless, and only exists because it has to. It's a very hard concept to grasps, so far only be friend has come to understand it. (I had more time to explain it to him face to face.)

Esse est percipi, am I right? That which confirms existence is the experience of that object's existence. So your statement is that, because we do not see God, there is no God? We can "percieve" of a God, as Anselm might have argued, but because we cannot actively experience God in person, we cannot confirm the existence of God, and to be an existence that is not experienced is to be a nonexistence?
Viscount
Esse est percipi, am I right? That which confirms existence is the experience of that object's existence. So your statement is that, because we do not see God, there is no God? We can "percieve" of a God, as Anselm might have argued, but because we cannot actively experience God in person, we cannot confirm the existence of God, and to be an existence that is not experienced is to be a nonexistence?


After looking up "Esse est percipi" on Wikipedia, I can confidentially say that is not my point. Sorry, try again. I am only "disproving" god through a lack of necessity.

Edit: Wait, that last sentence there. "To be an existence that is not experienced is to be a nonexistence" That is somewhat in line with my theory.

Wily Leaf

16,875 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Informer 100
  • Conversationalist 100
ThePhilosopher
Viscount
Esse est percipi, am I right? That which confirms existence is the experience of that object's existence. So your statement is that, because we do not see God, there is no God? We can "percieve" of a God, as Anselm might have argued, but because we cannot actively experience God in person, we cannot confirm the existence of God, and to be an existence that is not experienced is to be a nonexistence?


After looking up "Esse est percipi" on Wikipedia, I can confidentially say that is not my point. Sorry, try again. I am only "disproving" god through a lack of necessity.

Edit: Wait, that last sentence there. "To be an existence that is not experienced is to be a nonexistence" That is somewhat in line with my theory.

Well, my interpretation was that it was along the lines of esse est percipi, but not necessarily of the exact nature. It seems to me that you're arguing the empirical route, but you've also argued that, unlike science, one cannot disprove or prove, so I feel pretty much square oned.
Ok, I haven't read your whole thing yet but I read the number 2. It makes sense up until you get to the last sentence, where you suddenly conclude that it means that there is no meaning to life. Where the hell did that come from? What you said before that had nothing to do with meaning of life. How do you draw that conclusion?
I respect other people's beliefs and all,but relgion is just not my thing. sweatdrop
WildBirdy
Ok, I haven't read your whole thing yet but I read the number 2. It makes sense up until you get to the last sentence, where you suddenly conclude that it means that there is no meaning to life. Where the hell did that come from? What you said before that had nothing to do with meaning of life. How do you draw that conclusion?
The one, sole reason you are here is because you percieve yourself to be.

Do you call that a point to life?
THe meaning of life is to give your life meaning.
So if your whole stance on life is- "There is no point, there is no meaning" then you are the most boring person in the world.
Alliecat
THe meaning of life is to give your life meaning.
So if your whole stance on life is- "There is no point, there is no meaning" then you are the most boring person in the world.
I don't quite see how being boring makes him wrong.
Vapris Vite
Alliecat
THe meaning of life is to give your life meaning.
So if your whole stance on life is- "There is no point, there is no meaning" then you are the most boring person in the world.
I don't quite see how being boring makes him wrong.


Yes, this is no argument.

Well, I do not share The Philosopher's opinion, I simply can't, but I respect it. Because it is declaimed calmly and considered.

1. That's right. But it does not keep me from believing. ^_^

2. We truly do not need God as an explanation. Yes. But the whole thing works als with God. It has more to do with believe than with pure rationality. (Somehow on both sides. whee )

3. With or without God: Try to belive in the possibilities of mankind. We are a depressing lot, sure, but also surprising sometimes. The meaning of life? Just try to progress. Not in a technological way but in a cultural. This is much work for the rest of your life. ^_^

Dangerous Genius

4,700 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Quote:
The universe, as a whole, exists because we perceive it. Think about it: A million existences can come and go, but if a planet somewhere in them doesn't have life, (or something similar which might be outside of our understanding) then nothing really takes notice, and they don't really exist


Wrong. This is almost the same argument as, "If a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Because no one observes something doesn't invalidate that something's existence.

Quote:
In order for us to ask the question "Why do I exist?" you have to exist. Similarly, for you to ask "Why am I awake?" you have to be awake.


Right. Descartes said this, although he did it in a more succint manner. "I think, therefore I am." Look him up. It should help.

Quote:
Basically what this boils down to is that there is no meaning to life.


You got lazy here. Either that or so eager to get to your next point that you cut this one short. You haven't made an argument for this point, you just jumped to it.

If you are not religious, then there is nothing out there, i.e. God (a sentient being), to tell you what the meaning to life is. Existence, outside of your own mind, is an inorganic concept that you can't interact with on a conversational level. Thus, it is simply elementary that mere existence can not tell you what life is about.

Therefore, the responsibility of finding and defining meaning falls to you. At this point I will direct you towards the philosophy of existentialism. You seem like a very smart kid, I won't deny you that. But, you've just not had enough experience. I highly recommend the works of Sartre, Camus, and Dostoevsky to start.

If you do decide to take a look at the work of those men, I then suggest you read into the opposition. Rationalism and empiricism are fascinating subjects by which you may find help in determining the order of existence.

By the way, your first section was pretty interesting. On that subject, please read Nietzsche.
I believe there is a god his name is jesus christ and no one can change my mind!!!!!!!!!

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum