Atheists: What is the mean of life?

[Seeks_God]

SamCA:

Do some reading on experiments in dolphin intelligence sometime. Dolphins are smart. Really, really smart. As in, “So smart they’ve been witnessed displaying organized shows of altruism for other species,” rescuing pods of beached whales and such at no benefit to themselves. They also have a tendency to save any drowning humans they come across.

You referenced Carl Sagan. Did you ever read his thoughts on dolphin intelligence?

“It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English – up to 50 words used in correct context – no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese.”
– Carl Sagan

(Since Sagan’s death, several dolphins have learned quite a bit more English than that.)

I question the experimental procedures of the results. They are also not considered definitive…I have read about these dolphins. I also know some human beings that speak English quite well, but calling them intelligent might be an overstatement. You misunderstood my assessment - I realize animals have the ability to display characteristics that are the same as humans. This, in no way, equates them to human beings. The point I was making, that was taken to an extreme, is that there are NO animals that have the same capacity for intelligence as human beings. This is not to be mistaken for “No animals are intelligent.”

Carl Sagan was known for his ability to reason science and explaqin it to the masses. He was a philosopher as well as a scientist. But I would not consider him an expert on the meaning of life - his final book was grim and sorrowful to read. There did not seem to be much meaning to himself when he was on the verge of death - he felt that at the end there was no importance to his life other than his legacy of “billions and billions.” A person can be right about a lot of things but still wrong about others.

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

SamCA:

Speaking for myself – Because I’d feel guilty if I hurt someone (either physically or by taking their things or whatever.) Not because I think I’ve sinned against my Creator or anything like that. It has nothing to do with my Creator. I’ve sinned against my victim, which is bad enough.

If you can empathize with the people around you, it’s difficult to hurt them, even if there’s no big meaning. Even if I could get away with it, I’d still have to live with myself.

There are plenty of people who don’t give a hoot what they do to others. How do you explain it? What is the purpose of feeling good about doing what’s right if in the end it doesn’t matter? I know some people that would rather lie, cheat, murder, rape, etc for their own self interest. The only reason some of them don’t is because they are worried what the after-life will bring.

According to your reasoning, though, doing good is only right because it makes you feel good. What about those people who do not feel guilty for their actions?

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

AnAtheist:

No, of course not. Some people don’t play by the rules, so the society has to do something about it.

Why should society have anything to say about it? And how are rules decided? Is society the meaning of life? Live by societies rules? What if I don’t like societies rules? What then? How do you know when a society is good or bad?

Living according to society’s rules seems too arbitrary. One of the many reasons I left law enforcement is because human justice is never blind nor can it be - it is flawed by “human nature.” There is also no compassion in human justice - i.e. no love or understanding.

And what about differing societies? What if I like living on American soil becuase of the shear beauty of America but prefer Canadian laws? Should I be required to move so I can be “good” by societal standards? Again too confusing and arbitrary…

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

Darn.

Just popped into this thread hoping I’d really get a chance to dialogue with atheists about their philosophies, but instead found a debate going on.

How do you dialogue without debating. Isn’t debate and dialogue really the same thing. I offer something to discuss, you respond, then I reply. So on and so forth…

YinYangMom:

It is not fair to ask the question: What is the meaning of life?

getting a response and then countering the response with our philosophy.

Let the person respond.
Then ask another question you have regarding their philosophy, and so on.
Why can’t we just listen to the responses so we can learn more?

Wait??? Isn’t that dialogue? I’m certainly not in agreement with atheists and value thei opinions although I disagree. What is the point of a discussion if it is one-sided. Allow me to discuss my points as I allow you to discuss yours…isn’t that fair? Besides, isn’t the purpose behind understanding to challenge modes of thought?

YinYangMom:

Based on conversations I’ve had with a few atheists, there certainly are consequences to one’s actions, but they are determined by natural law.

This notion that atheists do whatever feels good to them regardless of what it does to others or the environment is bogus from what I’ve heard.

The atheists I’ve spoken with are quite conscious and respectful of social and environmental responsibility.

What exatly do you mean by “natural law”? The concept of natural law that most Catholics have is somewhat different, though similar, then what most atheists see it as.

I’m also no in disagreement that there are wonderfully good-hearted individuals that do not beleive in God. I don’t think, as I think most Catholics agree, that atheists are inherently evil people capable of monstrous acts or would not feel guilty for hurting another person. But regarding this argument, however, explain what makes a person good or bad without a basis? and where does the basis come from? This is the difference in natural law perceptions I mentioned above. There is a difference…

YinYangMom:

I’d still like to learn why it is they are so in tuned with everything around them and how they got that way, without G-d.

I’d like to know this as well. I’d also like them to explain why it is some good people have bad “luck” and bad people have “good” luck?

I’d also like to know why they think they are “in tuned” with everything around them. That is not a quality I place on atheists, catholics, muslims, buddhists, etc. - I place it upon individuals.

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

Yet you accept that Jesus is God because He said so.

There is no scientific proof that humanity began with Adam and Eve.
There is no scientific proof that all humanity was wiped away in a flood except for the family of Noah.
And yet you believe, no?

Yes I do, but you are addressing issues that are at a theological level that most priests have a difficult time addressing.

But let’s address these issues:
1.) The argument was made that there is no scientific proof that God exists. Fair enough, but there is also no scientific proof that he doesn’t. My point was in dealing with the scientific and “real” issue most atheists deal with and that there is no way with 100% validity they can prove to me that all we see, all we touch, all we hear and all we sense exists in reality. It cannot be done in scientific terms and be 100% correct. Unless you understand the Heisnburg Uncertainty Principle, then you cannot grasp the reality of this statement. Now some people argue that the principle addresses only time and position, yes but it’s implications extends to ALL measurements. With that in mind there is uncertainty in every measurement we make. Why is that? Can you realize the implications? A proposition I made was that based upon this, any scientific measurement of God is flawed. We will never be able to measure God to 100% certainty. This is where faith comes in. I beleive I exist and I beleive science says there is a chance I don’t; which do I accept?

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

Yet you accept that Jesus is God because He said so.

There is no scientific proof that humanity began with Adam and Eve.
There is no scientific proof that all humanity was wiped away in a flood except for the family of Noah.
And yet you believe, no?

Next point: Adam and Eve
2.) There are currently studies in DNA that suggest a beginning family. There is a current scientifc study that has traced human DNA to 230,000 years ago. Imagine that implication! Do I think that science will eventually discover Adam and Eve’s existance through DNA? Here is a link that is interesting creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html

There is another discussion floating around that is not christian based - oh and several that refute it. (as if…?)

I don’t know, but there was also a time where science was so limited we thought the earth was flat and only consisted of Mesopotamia. I’m a huge fan of science, but don’t beleive humanity will know everything through science. There are so many different ways to think about the world and everything around us that all are needed for a picture that can be comprehended.

But, as I mentioned before, isn’t it really pointless when even science has a flawed characteristic to it?

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

Yet you accept that Jesus is God because He said so.

There is no scientific proof that humanity began with Adam and Eve.
There is no scientific proof that all humanity was wiped away in a flood except for the family of Noah.
And yet you believe, no?

Furthermore: Noah
3.) Many people accept that in ancient Mesopotamia, the world (i.e. all existance) only consisted of that area. When an autheor or storyteller discussed the eradication of humanity, then it could have very well happened in their frame of reference - Mesopotamia. Scientfically speaking (since it’s the field we’ve chosen), I’ve heard it 6 one way and half dozen the other. Science has both supported and denied the Great Flood of the Bible. So it is really a weak arguement for either side to make in arguing the existance of God.

Theologically, some scholars accept that many stories of the Old Testament may have other implications to them than if they were physical occurrences. Remember “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”? Some scholars suggest that there is the potential to have morals to a story. I also wonder if the authors of the story thought that they better keep articles from the boat in order to prove that Noah existed and there was a Great Flood - or did they know their God would take care of the details for them?

SG

 

[YinYangMom]

Seeks God:

The very fact that there is a *natural *law telling people to be good because it the “only rule” is proof in and of itself of a moral absolute.

SG

Yes, but don’t you see that the moral absolute itself is undefined?

For us, **we define **the moral absolute as having been revealed through the prophets and Christ who attribute all things to God.

To athiests, the moral absolute just ‘is’ - as a matter of physics and science and other factors they can’t begin to comprehend - and don’t feel the need to explore. They don’t have a need to assign origination of the ‘great plan’ to any deity but are comfortable being in awe over how everything just is interconnected and they respect their role in that cycle of life.

 

[YinYangMom]

Seeks God:

How do you dialogue without debating. Isn’t debate and dialogue really the same thing. I offer something to discuss, you respond, then I reply. So on and so forth…

No. Dialogue is the free exchange of ideas - just sharing, putting them out there, neither side trying to ‘win over’ the other.

Debate is challenging each position to determine which is more ‘sound’, and yes, trying to convince the other of that.

Wait??? Isn’t that dialogue? I’m certainly not in agreement with atheists and value thei opinions although I disagree. What is the point of a discussion if it is one-sided. Allow me to discuss my points as I allow you to discuss yours…isn’t that fair? Besides, isn’t the purpose behind understanding to challenge modes of thought?

But the question raised was suggesting the poster was interested in hearing from atheists some of their philosophies on life.

By challenging each philosophical point you effectively cut off other participants who might otherwise have considered opening up a bit.

And, no, the purpose of understanding is not to challenge anything. The purpose of understanding is to listen and try to comprehend. That doesn’t mean you have to accept and adopt the other point of view, just comprehend it.

What exatly do you mean by “natural law”? The concept of natural law that most Catholics have is somewhat different, though similar, then what most atheists see it as.

Yes, Catholics have a ‘concept’ of natural law, but it’s not the only concept in existence. We believe ours to be the absolute, but that really is a matter of faith, not fact.

I’m also not in disagreement that there are wonderfully good-hearted individuals that do not beleive in God. I don’t think, as I think most Catholics agree, that atheists are inherently evil people capable of monstrous acts or would not feel guilty for hurting another person. But regarding this argument, however, explain what makes a person good or bad without a basis? and where does the basis come from? This is the difference in natural law perceptions I mentioned above. There is a difference…

I’m not certain ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are concepts atheists ascribe to, that’s just the point. It is difficult for us Christians to fathom life without ‘good’ and ‘evil’…it’s all we know. But athiests and agnostics don’t have that same vision.

Even the question posed - “What is the meaning of life” may not matter to them…They could just as much ask us “Why does life have to have meaning?”…and if they did ask such a question, then we’d come into the thread and ‘share’ our point of view - not in a manner trying to convince them that we’re right…but just to share the information.

I’d like to know this as well. I’d also like them to explain why it is some good people have bad “luck” and bad people have “good” luck?

I’m not sure they believe in ‘luck’ either. Things just ‘are’…and things just ‘happen’ as a matter of natural consequences.

I’d also like to know why they think they are “in tuned” with everything around them. That is not a quality I place on atheists, catholics, muslims, buddhists, etc. - I place it upon individuals.

Perhaps a ‘gut feeling’. It will be interesting to find out though.

SG

 

[YinYangMom]

Seeks God:

Yes I do, but you are addressing issues that are at a theological level that most priests have a difficult time addressing.

But let’s address these issues:
1.) The argument was made that there is no scientific proof that God exists. Fair enough, but there is also no scientific proof that he doesn’t. My point was in dealing with the scientific and “real” issue most atheists deal with and that there is no way with 100% validity they can prove to me that all we see, all we touch, all we hear and all we sense exists in reality. It cannot be done in scientific terms and be 100% correct. Unless you understand the Heisnburg Uncertainty Principle, then you cannot grasp the reality of this statement. Now some people argue that the principle addresses only time and position, yes but it’s implications extends to ALL measurements. With that in mind there is uncertainty in every measurement we make. Why is that? Can you realize the implications? A proposition I made was that based upon this, any scientific measurement of God is flawed. We will never be able to measure God to 100% certainty. This is where faith comes in. I beleive I exist and I beleive science says there is a chance I don’t; which do I accept?

SG

That’s all good and fine, but honestly, what does any of that have to do with the original question: “What is the meaning of life”…

You see, you took a response and immediately ‘challenged’ it as compared to our concept of there being a God - scientifically proven or not…that’s just an entirely different question.

If there’s a thread which reads: What’s the best color in the rainbow? and I pop in to say “Blue” and another poster comes in to tell me “Blue can’t possibly be the best color because of X, Y, Z” then I’d leave the thread and not return. I wasn’t expecting to have my answer challenged. I thought someone wanted to know, I answered, I would want to know what other people thought, but instead the thread becomes this philosophical debate…

 

[YinYangMom]

Seeks God:

Next point: Adam and Eve
2.) There are currently studies in DNA that suggest a beginning family. There is a current scientifc study that has traced human DNA to 230,000 years ago. Imagine that implication! Do I think that science will eventually discover Adam and Eve’s existance through DNA? Here is a link that is interesting creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html

There is another discussion floating around that is not christian based - oh and several that refute it. (as if…?)

I don’t know, but there was also a time where science was so limited we thought the earth was flat and only consisted of Mesopotamia. I’m a huge fan of science, but don’t beleive humanity will know everything through science. There are so many different ways to think about the world and everything around us that all are needed for a picture that can be comprehended.

But, as I mentioned before, isn’t it really pointless when even science has a flawed characteristic to it?

SG

And I ask, what does the existence of Adam and Eve have to do with the question “What is the meaning of life?”

AnAtheist responded that life just is. period.
You then ‘challenged’ him to explain "why humans are the only form of life that “is” and able to think as well. Does thought just exist? Does self-realization come form somewhere? "

It’s my impression that athiests don’t ask ‘why’…
it just doesn’t matter why…the fact that it ‘is’ is enough for them to remain balanced and true to what ‘is’ - the forces of nature and science around them…

and doesn’t the term ‘self-realization’ imply it 'comes from oneself"?

 

[YinYangMom]

SeeksGod,

I get that the Adam and Eve and Noah posts were in response to my post…but my point was science isn’t the end all to any rational. Particularly, as you pointed out, science sometimes supports both ends of an argument…and the methods by which the results were determined.

To ask an athiest to prove or deny with science certain concepts is a bit hipocritical coming from a ‘believer’ in God since everything we believers consider Truth cannot be proven or disproven by science either.

 

[buffalo]

If the meaning of life is not important to them then why waste time debating here. I believe it is one of two reasons:

1. The atheist wants safety in numbers
2. The atheist is reall searching and the atheist mind wants scientific proof

The atheist should use inductive reasoning.

Now we Catholics have been told the meaning of life through Revelation - that is - to know God, to love God and to serve God, so that we can be happy with Him forever in heaven

 

[AnAtheist]

Seeks God:

And what about differing societies? What if I like living on American soil becuase of the shear beauty of America but prefer Canadian laws? Should I be required to move so I can be “good” by societal standards? Again too confusing and arbitrary…

And how does this situation differ from divine revelations of absolute morality? There are thousands of religions all claiming to know that absolute. Again confusing and arbitrary.

Besides, Christianity does not really teach an absolute morality. Its morality is totally subjective, as it originates from one person (God). And if God changes the rules, then you have a new morality. And don’t tell me, that hasn’t happened. According to the Bible it has happened at least twice (1st when the old covenant was established, 2nd when the new was).

 

[reen12]

Hello, AnAtheist,

Would you please give me your thought on the following:

St. Paul, in one of his letters, makes the claim that,
since human beings can see the intricacy, complexity
and the sheer beauty of creation, “…they have no excuse…”
in terms of not accepting a Creator God.
[20 centuries ago.]

I listened to a talk given by a professor from Berkeley, I
think, in which he claimed that creation, as an accidental
phenomenon, would have the liklihood of something
on the order of 10 raised to the 26 billionth power…
[Intelligent Design movement.] [modern estimate.]
I heard the talk on television.

When I put the two paragraphs above together, I say:
Hmmmmm.

May I have your thought, please?

Thanks,
reen12

 

[wcknight]

What is more arbitrary than believing that the universe started from nothing, in a spontaneous massively humongous explosion from no source ???

Every thing in science has a casue and effect, so what caused the big bang ???

IS it more reasonable to conclude that the universe started from absolute nothingness or is it not far more reasonable to say that some powerful entity made the explosion happen ?

And what about all the evidence of miracles and testimony of hundreds if not thousands of folks who have experienced supernatural events.

Is it reasonable to conclude that all of these folks are delusional or all of the ones who are not delusional are lying or just wishy washy ?

At several sites in Europe there are the incorrupt bodies of several saints (ST. Rita, St Bernadette, St Catherine of Sienna, and St Catherine of Bologna). IS it just mere coincidence that these folks who just happened to live very holy lives have been supernaturally well preserved (one for over 400 years) ?

It is easy to say that all of things are just freaks of nature or maybe dismiss them as hoaxes, but what about hundreds of documented cases of healings, what about eye witness accounts from hundreds of witnesses… mass hysteria and mass deception just doesn’t quite wash in each and every case.

When stable minds, professional medical folks, and impartial scientists make these assertions, the claims can not be so easily dismissed. There becomes a point when it is more foolish and more incredulous that the truth is ignored than it is to say it is all nonsense.

I can see not believing because one thinks an event is mass hysteria or mass deception. But when the physical evidence is present, when many events and many reliable witnesses are available, it is far more foolish to reject the truth when it is right in front of you.

 

[AnAtheist]

reen12:

Hello, AnAtheist,

Would you please give me your thought on the following:

St. Paul, in one of his letters, makes the claim that,
since human beings can see the intricacy, complexity
and the sheer beauty of creation, “…they have no excuse…”
in terms of not accepting a Creator God.

I listened to a talk given by a professor from Berkeley, I
think, in which he claimed that creation, as an accidental
phenomenon, would have the liklihood of something
on the order of 10 raised to the 26 billionth power…

May I have your thought, please?

Thanks,
reen12

Gladly.
First I like to know how this likelihood is calculated. And to what creation is refers, the big bang or the origin of life or both combined. I seriously doubt that this calculation is more than a wild guess.
And then, how are we to interpret a likelihood of 1:x, x being an awfully huge number? Does it mean, in one out of x universes life does occur by chance? Then it doesn’t matter, whether x is 1 or a bazillion, we have only one universe to check. If there are y >> x universes, life will occur in some of those universes with near certainty.

And even if there was a creator, how does that imply a meaning behind it or an afterlife? A hypothetical creator could have created the universe and life but no afterlife. He could have had a plan or some hidden purpose that does not include an afterlife.

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

Yes, but don’t you see that the moral absolute itself is undefined?

For us, **we define **the moral absolute as having been revealed through the prophets and Christ who attribute all things to God.

To athiests, the moral absolute just ‘is’ - as a matter of physics and science and other factors they can’t begin to comprehend - and don’t feel the need to explore. They don’t have a need to assign origination of the ‘great plan’ to any deity but are comfortable being in awe over how everything just is interconnected and they respect their role in that cycle of life.

WE don’t define the moral absolutes…thjat is where you are wrong. (At least from the Christian standpoint.) You are giving the atheistic point of view - the observe humanity defining the moral absolutes.

My point was that you cannot define a natural law without recognizing this act IS an absolute. The ambiguity is this: Either there is or there is not an absolute. If there is no absolute, then the atheist natural law is farce. If there is an absolute then the absolute cannot be defined by the always changing whims of mankind.

SG

 

[SamCA]

Seeks God:

Then where does it begin?

My best bet? In the complex interaction of chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain.

 

[Seeks_God]

SamCA:

My best bet? In the complex interaction of chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain.

We can go back and forth looking for the “beginning” but it will end up you telling me about a recycling beginning and end for the universe, but I will also poihnt out that science cannot predict the exact moment of the universe’s beginning…explain that one.

SG