Atheists: What is the mean of life?

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom,

1.) you are arguing semantics with debate and dialogue concepts. Yes, the free exchange of ideas is involved in dialogue, but it also occurs in debate. Like I alluded to before, I respect counter points equally and encourage anyone to offer their opinions on the statements I make. Debate and dialogue for all essential purposes are really the same. It’s no different then “movie” vs. “motion picture”… What you considered a debate, I assumed was dialogue…it’s a matter of perspective.

2.) To understand you have to question. You have to get people to explain. If I ask my 15 year old what his intentions were for some action and all I get was “because…” from him, then I have not understood. I have to challenge his ability to explain. I cannot hardly feel sorry for offering positions that someone might not engage in the conversation. Besides what you are suggesting is that I not offer my point of view because my opinion is not near as important as the next person’s. I reject the notion and seek to engage in dialogue - which I understand as two parties offering different opinions. What you indicate were attacks on my part were really my understanding of the issues that would counter the arguements. How can dialogue occur if I’m not offering the opposing views and instead said “I see” or “go on”, etc. I exchanged ideas, nothing less nothing more.

3.)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.

You call something faith and say it is not fact. That is the problem right there.Faith is not an abstract opinion, it is a matter of truth and to claim such as “not fact” destroys any dignity of faith a person has, which again, goes to what I’m saying - facts need proving and to state our Catholic case without proof cannot be taken as fact. Right?

4.) As to “Good vs bad” for an atheist not being important and the meaning of life not having importance - I realize it really isn’t important to atheists and agnostics. My point in arguing the issue, which I think you missed is that good, bad and meaning of life are real and authentic, regardless if it is important to them or not.

All in all, I could have the attitude that “it doesn’t matter to me what they think”, but I don’t. It does matter to me and when many of them [atheists] bring the argument “Oh they [Christians] are just worried about loosing their cultural beliefs to science” it is a battle I am willing to engage. Maybe I will convince some that there is a God, maybe I will gain understanding about atheistic though so to curb my own doubts. There are so many different reasons to engage in the debate you mentioned that it does not go unnoticed…

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

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…

I’m sorry…maybe I’m still hung-up on dialogue vs debate…
You mentioned to me that there was no scientifc proof that Adam & Eve didn’t exist…your response involved more than a simple…“neener neener yes they do”

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

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 was in the context of what the meaning of life is? I answered an atheists replies…challenge? Absolutely, but I would expect a forum (with free ideas, right?) to have some challenging questions to make it interesting…

 

[Seeks_God]

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.

It was quite simple: I used a method of reasoing that they used to disprove God’s existance…it really isn’t an issue of science or not.

YinYangMom:

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.

We beleive Science cannot completely explain God, but I think it’s completely fair to use science to disqualify their scientific claims that God does not exist.

 

[Seeks_God]

AnAtheist:

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.

I totally understand this. Although I have always considered myself a beleiver in God (Catholics consider the God of Christianity, the God Judaism and the God of Islam to be the same), I have struggeld with the “Why so many religions concept” and have researched and researched for a deeper understanding of what/who/why of the nature of God. Although faith shouldn’t be questioned, there are times when a deeper understanind is needed. But ultimately the confusion and arbitration is human made - the smae as that of societies. To me, even not fully accepting God and having a concept of intelligent design would tell a person there is an origination…

AnAtheist:

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).

How can something that originates from one person be subjective? The interpretation can be, but the message itself is not. And to truly understand the idea behind the New and Old testament is to realize the New did not replace the old, but basically enhanced it, or clarified it if you will. I’m already quite familiar with the arguments that show the incongruity [assumed] of the old and new testaments. There really isn’t but then again as keeps getting pointed out to me that would be a topic for another thread…

SG

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*What connection is there between the “meaning of life” and morals?
*

If life has no meaning, if there is no purpose for our being here, we are travelers without any stars to guide us. Lacking a sense of purpose, we feel lost and obliged to invent “meanings” of a lower order. Without a blueprint from above, we become the architects of our own destiny. No one is up to that job by himself … and one man’s destiny is another man’s disaster.

Hence the chaos in morals, most notable among the young who haven’t the psychological or spiritual equipment to rise above their animal instincts.

Look around you. If you don’t see a lost generation of youth, if you don’t see more and more prisons being built for more and more young men … you are being disingenuous about not seeing a connection between “the meaning of life” and Christian morals.

 

[RobNY]

Seeks God:

How can something that originates from one person be subjective? The interpretation can be, but the message itself is not. And to truly understand the idea behind the New and Old testament is to realize the New did not replace the old, but basically enhanced it, or clarified it if you will. I’m already quite familiar with the arguments that show the incongruity [assumed] of the old and new testaments. There really isn’t but then again as keeps getting pointed out to me that would be a topic for another thread…

SG

I think what he’s saying is, morality is subjective because God can change it at will. In other words, if God so willed, He could make murder moral. That’s the type of thing I think he’s saying. (I could be off base, of course.)

Personally, I don’t see that though. I think that you have to view the Law (the ultimate law-- divine, I suppose) and God to be one and the same. When God changes things, he doesn’t change the law (i.e., look at the Ten Commandments), but the lesser and minor rules required of you can shift (i.e., the circumcision issue). That’s my view, on a quick glance.

My question would just be why there is any absolute reason why anything such as murder is wrong-- why human life has worth, worth that makes murder a heinous crime. I understand that prohibiting murder is very helpful for the development of society, but the convenience of something doesn’t make the difference between right and wrong (and that itself presupposes that society is a good thing, too). I just don’t see how *right *or wrong can exist without God. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, AnAthiest (as well as anyone else that would like to contribute).

-Rob

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

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.

If its more than 10 to the 150th it is no longer chance.

 

[Seeks_God]

RobNY:

I think what he’s saying is, morality is subjective because God can change it at will. In other words, if God so willed, He could make murder moral. That’s the type of thing I think he’s saying. (I could be off base, of course.)

Personally, I don’t see that though. I think that you have to view the Law (the ultimate law-- divine, I suppose) and God to be one and the same. When God changes things, he doesn’t change the law (i.e., look at the Ten Commandments), but the lesser and minor rules required of you can shift (i.e., the circumcision issue). That’s my view, on a quick glance.

My question would just be why there is any absolute reason why anything such as murder is wrong-- why human life has worth, worth that makes murder a heinous crime. I understand that prohibiting murder is very helpful for the development of society, but the convenience of something doesn’t make the difference between right and wrong (and that itself presupposes that society is a good thing, too). I just don’t see how *right *or wrong can exist without God. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, AnAthiest (as well as anyone else that would like to contribute).

-Rob

Most, if not all, of the laws in the old Testament were to set the jewish people aside. The laws were designed to culturally distinguish jews from others. At the time of Christ, who died for all (not just jews) there was no longer a need to have laws that were culturally distinctive - i.e. the law didn’t change, the needs of the people changed.

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist

What connection is there between the “meaning of life” and morals?

If life has no meaning, if there is no purpose for our being here, we are travelers without any stars to guide us. Lacking a sense of purpose, we feel lost and obliged to invent “meanings” of a lower order. Without a blueprint from above, we become the architects of our own destiny. No one is up to that job by himself … and one man’s destiny is another man’s disaster.

Hence the chaos in morals, most notable among the young who haven’t the psychological or spiritual equipment to rise above their animal instincts.

Look around you. If you don’t see a lost generation of youth, if you don’t see more and more prisons being built for more and more young men … you are being disingenuous about not seeing a connection between “the meaning of life” and Christian morals.

that is the point!

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:
Hi AnAtheist-

Did you forget about the “Atheism and the Christian God” thread or are you running for cover?

Your buddy,

Philthy

 

[reen12]

Hi, AnAtheist,

quote: AnAtheist

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.

You’re exactly right on this. I think the Intelligent Design
movement is geared toward removing any reasonable doubt
as to the existence of an outside agency as creative
intelligence. I don’t believe this group is trying to posit
any attributes to a Creator, other than intelligence.

As to the earlier part of your reply to my post, all I
can tell you is he “spoke” to me. In no way did I sense
that this was a “wild” guess on his part, based on his
presentation.

See, AnAtheist, I could live out the remainder of my
life in an “OK place” if there were no God. If the end
were the end…fine, no problem.

For me, it’s a question of my own intellectual integrity.
If you arrive at a different conclusion than me, and
this constitutes intellectual integrity for you, I sincerely
wish you well.

The odd thing is, when I was told at age 6 that
God was the Supreme Being Who made all things,
it made sense to me. It still makes sense.

All best regards, and thank you for your kind reply,

reen12

 

[AnAtheist]

reen12:

For me, it’s a question of my own intellectual integrity.
If you arrive at a different conclusion than me, and
this constitutes intellectual integrity for you, I sincerely
wish you well.

All best regards, and thank you for your kind reply,

reen12

Now that’s a nice and friendly statement to close a debate. Subscribing to that, all the best from your fellow atheist.

 

[YinYangMom]

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 ???

To be perfectly honest, who cares?
Or WHY should one care?

HOW life began XXXX number of years ago does not have an affect on what I do with my life from the time I entered the already existing cycle of life until I leave it…

As Catholic as I am, the ‘meaning of life’ has never been an issue for me. It’s a nice philosophical question and all, but goodness, who has time to reflect on something so ‘out there’ when I’ve got bills to pay, people to care for and answer to.

My Catholicism gives me purpose, but even without it, I’d find purpose just because it’s the way society works. One’s forced to jump into the game and go with the flow and there really isn’t much time to think about it.

How often have I just wanted to shout “STOP!” so I can jump off this cycle long enough to catch my breathe, but that is impossible. That’s what ‘vacation’ is for…that’s what spiritual retreats are for. Some of us go to religious ones, others go to physical spas and such.

 

[YinYangMom]

Seeks God:

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.

SG

Yes, we DO…from a Christian standpoint.
We are taking the written word of some human documenting what supposedly happened when we weren’t around to witness it ourselves. Based on that revelation, we take ‘on faith’ the accuracy of the document for bonifide Truth.

All the moral absolutes we accept at Truth are handed down to us from the Catholic Church…but they got it over time from man. It is faith which allows us to accept that it was indeed ‘revelation from God Himself’…

but for an atheist or agnostic…can’t you see how it looks like man-defined?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

but for an atheist or agnostic…can’t you see how it looks like man-defined?

Yes, I can see the atheist’s point of view. But the atheist can never prove that God does not exist, and so from his own point of view … which is to agree only with that which is provable … he cannot even prove his own position.

Why then is he an atheist?

 

[YinYangMom]

but for an atheist or agnostic…can’t you see how it looks like man-defined?

Yes, I can see the atheist’s point of view. But the atheist can never prove that God does not exist, and so from his own point of view … which is to agree only with that which is provable … he cannot even prove his own position.

Why then is he an atheist?

I was not under the impression that athiests had to have proof of anything…

It was my impression they accept what ‘is’ outright…without feeling the need to have an explanation as to ‘why’.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

[YinYangMom]

“neener neener yes they do”

SG

Too funny!
Haven’t seen that in a long while.

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

Yes, we DO…from a Christian standpoint.
We are taking the written word of some human documenting what supposedly happened when we weren’t around to witness it ourselves. Based on that revelation, we take ‘on faith’ the accuracy of the document for bonifide Truth.

All the moral absolutes we accept at Truth are handed down to us from the Catholic Church…but they got it over time from man. It is faith which allows us to accept that it was indeed ‘revelation from God Himself’…

but for an atheist or agnostic…can’t you see how it looks like man-defined?

I absolutely see how an atheist or agnostic sees it as man defined, but for Christian Faith (which I’m assuming is to be taken as trueth for christians), then we DO NOT define the faith. The faith was given to us from God. (again assuming that faith is THE truth)

I can also see how faith and beliefs can be corruptible, but even from a worldly non-God beleiving perspective - corruption is man made. And I completely understand that atheists and agnostics take it as it “just is.” Then if everything just is, then why have a sytem of justice at all. If it “just is” then it is a moot point to have a system of justice and reform, because the “just is” cannot be changed, right?

SG

SG

 

[Seeks_God]

YinYangMom:

I was not under the impression that athiests had to have proof of anything…

It was my impression they accept what ‘is’ outright…without feeling the need to have an explanation as to ‘why’.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

Then why do they not accept God as “just is”…? It seems to me if they didn’t need anything proven to them the God would just be, right?

SG