Atheists... Your life is pointless

@spendius,

Bet you can't wait till your God enforces the religious to be running the UK ... This most likely will happen in the future ~~~by what I read about the Muslims over there, that's of course if you "Believe" they have the same God as your mob.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't agree... I never went to a church and didn't have parents who were atheists they were "Christians " who didn't go to a church. I have 3 sons who never went to church.. who married 3 girls who never went to church, have 7 grandchildren over 20 ,who never went to church, and one great grandchild who I bet will never go to church.
This makes what?.. 14 plus, what, we never even talk about religion none of us know anything about it, other than other people go to church and other than they say the exclamation word "Jesus Christ".. (why did you do that you dimwit). or the extremely surprised one " Oh my God " (what a beautiful sunset). Now that doesn't make them or I a Atheists.

1 Reply

@tenderfoot,

You are a minority; that's the reason why the majority of humans on this planet belongs to one religion or another. The numbers tell me I'm correct.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Well I think a lot of this boils down to a problem of assigning many different opinions regarding the existence of something with only 3 labels [atheist,theist,agnostic].
Richard Dawkins has proposed scale to categorize this:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

I would fall at 6 on this scale.
On a similar scale for the existence of free will I would place myself at 5.

I might "mine" the rest of your post for more things at a later time.

Quote:

Thanks a lot Matt! BTW...I grew up with a kid named Matt Davis...

You're welcome.
Yeah, being named Matt Davis is like being named John Doe, only more so. Wink

0 Replies

Apparently I must have typed in the wrong buzz words into this post because this is the ad-sense ad that has been triggered for me:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/17259429749729471495

0 Replies

@tenderfoot,

tenderfoot wrote:

Bet you can't wait till your God enforces the religious to be running the UK ... This most likely will happen in the future ~~~by what I read about the Muslims over there, that's of course if you "Believe" they have the same God as your mob.

You must read a right load of old bollocks, because that isn't going to happen.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

If there is no substantial reason for existence to even occur, then why would it actually happen?

Quote:
Do you feel your existence is more meaningful as a domino in the chain set up by (presumably) God,
or do you feel your existence is more meaningful as a domino in the chain that might just happen to be.

I am basically saying that whatever way I exist in the "domino effect" interpretation of what QM says, there is no real significant reason why the "domino" would ever exist in either interpretation, if there was no creationist who was interested in creating "dominoes" even in chance theories...I will explain...

Whether dominoes just exist by random chance, or are created with a special reasoning intended, I am saying I can not see a logical reason as to how a domino can self create itself, rather than choosing not to self create dominoes by itself, by chance, or intended purposes...Which points to either a creator of dominoes, Or some other force capable of somehow choosing to create them or choosing not to create them, by chance, or for intended purposes, even in the random chance theories...And it even points to this force knowing why it is creating dominoes...Or it comprehends it is not meaningful otherwise...

So how could anyone logically argue that created for an intended purpose over chance is not more logical, meaningful, and significant?

I understand that many will say that by chance and from nothing is more special because an intended purpose means someone or thing already had the self notions to create each person, where by chance makes life itself that much more significant, and special...but I disagree with that logic, because if there is a creator of life and he gave life for an intended purpose to someone, then you know you were meant to actually be by a significantly higher, incomprehensible, being's thinking. Not just our own flawed ways...And are not a creation just because of some sort of random creational action by something that does not even comprehend what creation even is, or why it is creating anything at all...And if one is created by chance, and the creator does not even comprehend it is creating anything, Why would someone think that that is meaningful at all? You could have just as easily been passed over and not been created by something that does not even comprehend it is creating anything...there isn't anything meaningful about that...compared to a creationist with intended purposes...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

...I can not see a logical reason as to how a domino can self create itself,...

Which to you would make more sense? :

Code:A domino has always existed.

Code:

A domino was brought into existence 

by something else (that always existed).

How are those options fundamentally any different in asking how can something "just be"?
One begs the question of how can the universe "just be".
The other begs the question of how can the creator "just be".
Neither answers the question how can something "just be".
Assuming a creator tells us nothing in regard to if it is logical for something to just exist.

Spade wrote:

... because if there is a creator of life and he gave life for an intended purpose to someone, ...

If (as you imply) only this creator has the ability to grant purposes, what does this lead us to?
Option 1

Code:

The creator is the original thing to exist 

and he has NO PURPOSE, 

then whatever he does such as 

creating the world and you and I 

has no ultimate reason(purpose) to have existed, 

much less to have happened to grant you or I purposes.

Option 2

Code:

The creator is the original thing to exist 

and he DOES HAVE PURPOSE, 

then this purpose must be self-granted, 

by virtue of the creator being the only thing in existence.

So, disregarding the situation in which their are no purposes (which is not what you or I want). Wink

In one situation a creator can self-grant purposes.
In the other situation a creation can self-grant purposes.
Neither answers the question of how can something self-grant purposes.
Assuming a creator tells us nothing in regard to whether it is logical for something to "just have" a purpose.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Use the quote bar Matt.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

First question...The second one makes more sense...Because if the first example is true...then that means that the second one "can be"...If something always existed, then something that always existed bringing other things into existence is plausible...It does not equate the other way around...You can't make something always exist, by trying to make a comparison that something that has always existed, can not bring other things into existence, if it can exist on its own...if your example is somethings always exist...Because if they do, they so too could this being, and it could bring other things to exist as well...If we have always existed, we could not bring other things to existence forever on our own...

Second question...third option...this creator does exist, and is the original creator, and has a purpose...then this purpose must be self-granted, and his own fulfillment is to one day serve us?

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Spade wrote:

Second question...third option...this creator does exist, and is the original creator, and has a purpose...then this purpose must be self-granted, and his own fulfillment is to one day serve us?

Lets leave out for the moment any speculation about what the creator's purpose is.

Leaving:

Quote:

This creator does exist , and is the original creator, and has a purpose...then this purpose must be self-granted.

Is this any more or less logical than:

Quote:

This universe does exist , and is the original universe, and has a purpose...then this purpose must be self-granted.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

I will try to avoid speculations or subjective opinions, but I am not sure if I fully can in regards to your questions...but I will try...

It would all come down to what this creator actually is, if he/she/it/they exist...

If this creator does exist, does it have the ability to create this universe and give it purpose? If this universe does exist and has purpose, can it create a creator?

If the second one is true, then the first one is possible...Correct? (from an objective view, not personal) If the second one is true, and this universe has created itself, and has a purpose, can it create a creator if it is the creator? If it is the creator, as in a creator can exist...Does that not mean that it "proves" the first example can be true again?

You can only rebuttal the first argument if you attempt to prove a creator can exists, but is not capable of doing anything that just existing...but why would a creator create itself, if this was the case? And I would think that most would think that there was never nothingness, if the universe does exist...Because nothing can only do nothing, and if the universe can do something, and not nothing, then that means the universe before the big bang was not nothing, and was something...since nothing can only do nothing, and not something...And our universe can do something...

1 Reply

I am so confused!!!!!!! Why does Creasy think his life is "pointy", is that better than a Buick?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Then, if the argument goes...It would only be more meaningful from a creator if the creator came from nothing himself to prove the meaning of both scenarios...than I disagree with that logic, even if God always was. Because if he always was, then that means he gave it much contemplation before creating each thing into existence rather than a whimsical inanimate reaction without comprehension...

And if the argument then proceeds, it would be more meaningful if it had self-created itself from nothing and gave itself contemplation for existence. I disagree, and the chain dies there...if a creator does exist and is a creator, then the most meaningful is always existing (or thinking about the notion as fast as possible) to give it as much contemplation as you can in order to understand the comprehension of existence...And then choosing to create others into existence...And from nothing, while "he/she/it/they" already existed, exists, and will exist....

Why would this creator not be capable of knowing it all right away? God could have been, but to be God or this creator = as much contemplation as existence actually needs, in order to comprehend the ramifications of creating existence from nothing, while already existing...If God never existed, then if it created itself, it could be said that God creating others, was a compulsion of itself, and not what this creator actually wanted to do...Or creating existence without comprehension, though it has comprehension regarding the meaningful comprehension of existence from nothing. And we can all see why it does...If it created itself from nothing, then people from nothing, it implies it has no comprehension regarding the ramifications of existence, Or knows no other ways than to create things from nothingness...Or has no ability to do so...Or it can not...etc...

But if it was, and chooses too...Then it shows it understands why it does, and why it had, and why it will...And the most meaningful reasons to ever do so...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Sorry for the delay in answering. Sad

I think we are now left with two logically defensible options that you and I both find acceptable.

#1 "Something", no matter how simple, has always been and has therefor not been created. Let's call this the "ever-verse".

#2 A creator comes into being (by creating itself) and then subsequently also creates a something else (the universe). With the result of a self-created creator and a creation. Lets call this (God + universe) or "creator-verse".

Is this your understanding so far?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Does your ever-verse include the existence of God? Or does it not include the existence of God?...

If it does not....I would like to just use 4 "verses" to make it easier for me...I think we can lump the other 2, into those 2...but it will be easier if I use the QT, and propose 4 total...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Assume that there is something (which there obviously is) since we are aware.

Assume that something CANNOT "just come into existence" ie "for no reason",
Then we must assume either:

'Something' (anything) must have always been. [possibility #1]

-or-

'Something' (anything) must have come into existence for a reason, and that reason must be self-granting by that 'something'. That is, the reason must come after the coming into existence, or in other words the reason for coming into existence is granted "after" the fact of existence. [possibility #2]

Assume that something CAN "just come into existence" ie "for no reason",
let us then look at "purpose" and if it can be self-granting:

Assume reasons cannot be self-granting:

'Something' (anything) did come into existence for no reason, and there is no purpose for or in existence. [possibility #3]

-or-

'Something' (anything) did come into existence for no reason, but there are now reasons in that 'something', but they are not the reasons for that something to exist. There are reasons but they are self-granted reasons. [possibility #4]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven't yet gotten into the many of the properties of each 'Something', but here are what is kinda the breakdown.

[possibility #1] "Ever-verse"
A "universe" that may be very simple (at least at some point in its perpetual existence). May be a universe with or without a "Being" but if there is a "Being" this is not the creator of the "universe", because this "universe" has always been.

[possibility #2] "Create-verse" (Creator + Creation = everything)
A "Being". This "Being" has the power to create itself. This "Being" has the power to impart reasons both before and after an event takes place. This "Being" also has the power to create things that are not this "Being", because presumably we are not this "Being".
(If we assumed that God did not create something other than himself, we would have to conclude that we are God.)

[possibility #3] "Nihi-verse" (A nihilistic universe)
A "universe" that has no purpose.
There is no purpose to the "universe" coming into being.
There are no other purposes since after coming into being.
If a "Being" exists this "Being" is purposeless and is unable to grant anything else or anyone else purpose.

[possibility #4] "Emergent-verse" (An emerging universe)
A "universe" that can just happen. Once something happens there can still be purposes, these purposes are created by the "universe" itself. Purpose is not initial but it develops as the "universe" develops.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Thank you mate!...Yes, that is much better...I am sorry but I have got to run...my friend lost a family member on his B-day...Sux... Crying or Very sad

...I will hit your replies up later...Or maybe tomorrow depending on what I do later tonight...See you later mate!

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Matt you seem to be more deserving of my user name than myself, Thanks for sharing the logic. Very Happy

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

...my friend lost a family member on his B-day...Sux...

I am very sorry that happened.
I am glad that you are able to be there for him.
I wish him and you all the strength you need to get through it.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know