Atheists... Your life is pointless

If your team wins you got to go home... and ill send you a bill, so what?

Hi All,

Why does everyone fell the need to attack or criticise what other people believe?
If you divide the world population into groups i.e. All believers on one side - All non-believers on the other, then divide the side you are on into groups i.e. All right wingers - All left wingers, then again - All democrats, all republicans, etc.

Eventually we will all be on an island, on our own, wondering why we have only ourselves to talk to, just because the guy on the next island doesn't like brussel sprouts.

All seems pointless to me guys.
Have a fantastic day EVERYONE
Mark...

Well if those beliefs are not trying to dictate how I should be then I have no problem with it. It's when there are political views or religious views (which often times are linked) that try to force me into being a certain way because those people feel they have some sort of connection to their invisible friend of divine authority, which allows them to dictate how others should act. Then I should have the right to criticize and critique what they have to say.

Hi Krumple,
I agree with that entirely. But is any denomination, at present, where you live actually controlling the way you live? Other than govt, of course.

Mark...

Well they try to persuade lawmakers in the state all the time. Much of the crime in my opinion is due to firmly held religious views which keep many of the laws from being overturned which would reduce much crime.

I'm not adamant about the nonexistence of God, you're adamant about the existence. Science is solely based on doubt, religion on faith. I simply doubt God's existence. Religion in itself does this, look at the differences between the old and new testament. But the whole idea is, the fact they are of no consequence does not matter either. They have a consequence to you, and you exist, so they have a consequence. Who would you prefer as a friend, the guy who doesn't steal you're bike because you'd stab him, or the guy who wouldn't steal your bike because it's a dick move? First of all, evolution requires us to progress as a species, and for us that requires unification, which requires morals. As a species, I say we have grown beyond evolutionary morality, but even so, evolutionary morality values the survival of the fittest SPECIES, not individual, so unless you're vegetarian, you really can't say anything here. Of course it means something. It's enjoyable, and life is short and there is nothing after it, and without humanity the universe is without meaning. We must whatever we can to ensure the meaning of the universe. Of course it will be remembered. Our actions will effect the future of the universe, even past the death of all sentient beings. You can be remembered past your death, and even then, once you die, it doesn't matter whether you were remembered or not.

Why does lack of an afterlife give you these ideas? If we go to heaven, why must we fear death?

I find it odd that theists would consider the life of people who do not need to presume the existence of a diety that is the only source of meaning. It seems to follow from this that theists believe their own lives have no point, no meaning, without the existence of a diety. Non-theists, on the other feel no need for this fictional foundation of meaning; they believe they can create their own.

Ii is not "odd" on the basis of a re-definition of "existence" as "relationship".
For the theist "self" existentially requires "God" and vice versa.

Fresco, it seems that to consider one's self to be an absolute--totally self-sufficient independent entity--may leave one with the notion that without a god to relate to one is left a very lonely (alienated) being indeed. But to consider a self to exist only by virtue of its participation within a grand network (i.e., the Hindu notion of Indra's Net) of relationship . Frankly, I take more comfort in relating to--identifying with--the Universe (the total network of dynamic on-going relationships) than to a single, albeit devine, being. Do you agree?

Silly that I should ask you if you agree, when my statement was little more than a paraphrase of yours.

Apologies for not replying earlier. I think we need to differentiate different levels of "consciousness" in these discussions. "Effective communication" requires "same level" of discussion. But of course, ultimately no discussion is "required" because the holistic principle merges all "communicators" and dissipates "time" as a medium for communication.
(Hopefully not too cryptic )

No, I got it--I think.

No, I got it--I think.

JL Nobody

I think I got it

It just occurred to me that the statement, atheists, your life is pointless, implies that human life is pointless and that the only point is god.

That means, to me, that the lives of believers are pointless.

I agree.

I don't know if anyone else mentioned, but you know spirituality and religion are different, right?

yep, when youre spiritual you dont have to give large sums of money to maintain a house of worship.

There was a restaurant in Detroit in the late 60s and early 70s, situated on the northern end of the Wayne State University campus, called, "Formerly Alvin's Deli." It was known for hosting poetry readings, for the best bathroom graffiti in the city and as a place where "all the ex-Catholics gathered on Sunday morning to exercise their new ritual, reading the NY Times while eating bagels."

So, atheism provides people with the time to be better informed, and, therefore, better citizens.

Nobody "has" to fm. They choose to. Presumably they find a value in having a house of worship and wish to maintain it. Why did you say "have to" when it is not true? Why do you promote falsehoods?

The sacred space is common to all societies. The vestments and ritual words and actions are vital to the authority of the House of Commons.