Perpetual Czech Actually Discovers the Meaning of Being Perpetual

"Either way, denying some type of supernatural entity also requires a meaningless existence."

Well, obviously I disagree with this and so do many other people who don't believe in a supernatural existance and don't throw themselves off a cliff tomorrow.

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "meaning". That is a very broad term. Does a dog's existance have "meaning"? A mosquito's? A bacterium? If not, what are the specific characteristics of a person that requires him to have this property of "meaning" and not any of the other organisms (which came into existance via the same replication process as humans did)?

If you really believe the above quote, then what do you think God thinks about his own existance? Does he need to believe in a Creator for himself to find "meaning"? If not, why do you? Nobody believes that whatever supernatural entity they happen to believe in had a creator itself. Why not? Why does the process necessarily have to stop at only one Creator, wouldn't one or more MetaCreators be perfectly plausible entities to believe in? Again, what is the specific characteristic of humans that requires them to have this "meaning" in their lives whereas the God they believe in does not?

I realize all I am doing is asking questions and not answering them. I am just hoping the path they lead to when one thinks about them might help understand how atheists think. That's it for now.
So you imply that a human life has the same amount of significance as a bacterium and you still feel there's value to our individual existences? Sure bacteria do some good things here and there but I don't think they have an eternal calling.

So does the time between birth and death for us create change, improve the universe, lead to a next life, or otherwise have anything to do with anything relvant? Or are we simply confined to seeing our death before us with no escape and no significance?




Quote

Originally posted by: PerpetualCzech
"Either way, denying some type of supernatural entity also requires a meaningless existence."

Well, obviously I disagree with this and so do many other people who don't believe in a supernatural existance and don't throw themselves off a cliff tomorrow.

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "meaning". That is a very broad term. Does a dog's existance have "meaning"? A mosquito's? A bacterium? If not, what are the specific characteristics of a person that requires him to have this property of "meaning" and not any of the other organisms (which came into existance via the same replication process as humans did)?

If you really believe the above quote, then what do you think God thinks about his own existance? Does he need to believe in a Creator for himself to find "meaning"? If not, why do you? Nobody believes that whatever supernatural entity they happen to believe in had a creator itself. Why not? Why does the process necessarily have to stop at only one Creator, wouldn't one or more MetaCreators be perfectly plausible entities to believe in? Again, what is the specific characteristic of humans that requires them to have this "meaning" in their lives whereas the God they believe in does not?

I realize all I am doing is asking questions and not answering them. I am just hoping the path they lead to when one thinks about them might help understand how atheists think. That's it for now.


this guy's so far out of touch and whacked out that he must have to babble this junk to himself 8 hours a day in order to function. there's a child coming from this misfit?
Quote

Originally posted by: keithbarker
Quote

Originally posted by: PerpetualCzech
"Either way, denying some type of supernatural entity also requires a meaningless existence."

Well, obviously I disagree with this and so do many other people who don't believe in a supernatural existance and don't throw themselves off a cliff tomorrow.

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "meaning". That is a very broad term. Does a dog's existance have "meaning"? A mosquito's? A bacterium? If not, what are the specific characteristics of a person that requires him to have this property of "meaning" and not any of the other organisms (which came into existance via the same replication process as humans did)?

If you really believe the above quote, then what do you think God thinks about his own existance? Does he need to believe in a Creator for himself to find "meaning"? If not, why do you? Nobody believes that whatever supernatural entity they happen to believe in had a creator itself. Why not? Why does the process necessarily have to stop at only one Creator, wouldn't one or more MetaCreators be perfectly plausible entities to believe in? Again, what is the specific characteristic of humans that requires them to have this "meaning" in their lives whereas the God they believe in does not?

I realize all I am doing is asking questions and not answering them. I am just hoping the path they lead to when one thinks about them might help understand how atheists think. That's it for now.


this guy's so far out of touch and whacked out that he must have to babble this junk to himself 8 hours a day in order to function. there's a child coming from this misfit?




D.


Quote

Originally posted by: david matthews
So you imply that a human life has the same amount of significance as a bacterium and you still feel there's value to our individual existences? Sure bacteria do some good things here and there but I don't think they have an eternal calling.

So does the time between birth and death for us create change, improve the universe, lead to a next life, or otherwise have anything to do with anything relvant? Or are we simply confined to seeing our death before us with no escape and no significance?


Well again, I'm having problems understanding what you mean by "value". Value is about as subjective a term as you could possibly have. So are many of the other terms you use, like "improve", or "relevant", or "significance".

I'm still having trouble getting past "denying some type of supernatural entity also requires a meaningless existence.". You paint yourself into a corner with this one. Does God deny a supernatural entity? If so, doesn't that make His existance meaningless?

I think the Buddhists are on the right track. Things aren't better or worse than other things, they just ARE. Self-reference is the root of all evil
here in kingman us real men who've worked hard and have a great deal of success all believe in the same trinity: god, country and our right to carry a magnum. who is this pussy with the warped ideals about there being no god and faggot buddists just "being" and all that crap hippie stuff? man would i love to meet this chump at the tables in vegas, he'd be a dead giveaway with that empty unholy look of despair all over his probably pock-marked face.

i do recognize this dreamer wimp as his husband though.
Quote

Originally posted by: keithbarker
here in kingman us real men who've worked hard and have a great deal of success all believe in the same trinity: god, country and our right to carry a magnum. who is this pussy with the warped ideals about there being no god and faggot buddists just "being" and all that crap hippie stuff? man would i love to meet this chump at the tables in vegas, he'd be a dead giveaway with that empty unholy look of despair all over his probably pock-marked face.

i do recognize this dreamer wimp as his husband though.




D.
congratulations pc, having a child must be an incredible experience.. seeing that we are back on this theist/atheist debate I remember you referred me to a website about evolution.. I think it was howstuffworks.com. The article did explain how the bacteria evolved and gained immunity from certain antibiotics, however the main question i was asking you was how the bacteria evolves into a higher life form, something other than a bacteria.. that wasn't answered in that article and I was wondering if you could refer me to anything which will explain this for me.. thanks and congratulations

I also have my doubts about how life spontaneously came about through some sort of "primordial soup" which then interacted with the early atmosphere and spawned simple life forms. I remember hearing about an experiment in which scientists attempted to recreate the early atmosphere and unfortunately the attempt wasn't very successful because not enough useful substances or amino acids were created to build living matter. this is something that concerns me as I try to figure all of this out
Bacteria evolves into "higher" life forms (maybe "more complex" might be a better phrase) the same way all new species get created, through random mutation and the fittest mutations survive. A lot of people get confused and think that means evolution is a random process (how can something as complex as an eye evolve randomly?). The mutations themselves are random, but the ones that end up surviving most certainly are not.

It's hard to imagine how much time is needed to travel the long road from bacteria to mammals but it's been demonstrated that the Earth's been around long enough to accomodate it. Given enough time there really is no limit to the level of complexity evolution can create. "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins would probably be as good of an explanation of this as you could hope to find.

There's no good answer yet for the origin of self-replicating organic reproduction but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Scientists aren't afraid to say "I don't know". It may not be satisfying, but it's a helluva lot better than concluding it was all done by magic.
Three years from now....at a remote outpost somewhere in New Zealand...

"Daddy, will you read me a bedtime story?"

"Certainly, my child. Tonight I'd like to to read to you about evolving bacteria and random mutation."