This whole concept of "Life is Precious" that is the only basis of the Pro-life position that I can see is so irrational and contradictory to me. As far as I can see this concept is based entirely on the premise that a SOUL actually exists. The clip in the post at the bottom of the "Present your evidence here" thread so aptly portrays the irony in this. But presuming we had a soul then the next question is "where did it come from". In which case the answer would have to be either it already existed or there is some ongoing process in which souls are still being created. But since we are the only animal with a soul this is where it gets really tricky. So if these souls already existed what have they been doing for the last 20 billion years waiting for us to come around?? But if these souls are still being created then considering the very limited prospects of having a good life, why would a soul want to inhabit a human body at all? Just so they can take a chance at living and then end up going to heaven or an eternity in hell?? Now the Mormons have an interesting idea. Hell is just a place you will exist in the absence of god yet you will still be able to see all that you are missing out on for all eternity again. I guess this is why the Catholics have purgatory. But with the Mormons you can become a god yourself and then rule your own universe. Sheesh!!! I had a Mormon try to recruit me a while back. He didn't know I was an atheist so he asked me if I believed in the search for truth? I replied " No. People are just looking for something to believe in."
(http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/176/9/5/wall_of_text_by_zach205-d54tmj1.png)
Soulllllllllllllllll train!
(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1108744/16356521/1328114615557/Soul+Train.jpg?token=fXiYXVDZh%2Bu0l70X6gLu%2FnlRH1E%3D)
Warning : white guys can't dance.. :eek:
So ... life isn't precious?
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 13, 2015, 02:50:46 PM
So ... life isn't precious?
That would depend on your point of view. It certainly is not from mine.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 13, 2015, 03:04:13 PM
That would depend on your point of view. It certainly is not from mine.
It's certainly the only life you'll ever get so why not treat it as precious?
The weird thing are anti choice that are at the same time pro death penalty, like George W. Bush.
Cognitive dissonance...
Quote from: Conradine on May 13, 2015, 03:11:08 PM
The weird thing are anti choice that are at the same time pro death penalty, like George W. Bush.
Cognitive dissonance...
There are just to many examples of this.. Inmates on death row who become suicidal and put on suicide watch..
The fact that if you go to the hospital with no insurance you're likely to be turned away, but if you tell them your condition is making you suicidal they'll sell a wing of the hospital to fix you right on up then toss you back to the wolves.. The hospital and doctors can kill you, but try it on your own and you'll be deemed mentally incompetent..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 13, 2015, 03:08:00 PM
It's certainly the only life you'll ever get so why not treat it as precious?
I need to elaborate a bit. From my point of view, it again is probably better to have never lived at all. So from that point of view you could be doing the fetus a favor when you abort it. Though individuals are not precious our species may well be. I would like to hear more on what you are saying.
SmOn Because life can be unbearable sooner or later. You haven't lived much for an old coot have you? Solitary
Givemeareason, have you took a good shit today?
Quote from: Solitary on May 13, 2015, 04:13:04 PM
SmOn Because life can be unbearable sooner or later. You haven't lived much for an old coot have you? Solitary
Empty barrels make the loudest noises.
Quote from: Desdinova on May 13, 2015, 04:48:09 PM
Givemeareason, have you took a good shit today?
I think not. Givemeareason needs a good laxative.
I'm gonna go microwave some popcorn......
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 13, 2015, 01:54:56 PM
1) But presuming we had a soul then the next question is "where did it come from".
2) So if these souls already existed what have they been doing for the last 20 billion years waiting for us to come around??
3) But if these souls are still being created then considering the very limited prospects of having a good life, why would a soul want to inhabit a human body at all?
O dear. Let's see if we can't straighten out this mess! :biggrin:
1) We shouldn't really presume we ever had a soul. A 'soul' is only a construct of spiritual/religious nonsense. Since there is no evidence that a soul exists, we can reject the notion.
2) The souls never existed. Souls are just constructs of spiritual/religious nonsense.
3) Souls are not being created. Souls are just constructs of spiritual/religious nonsense.
Anyone who believes in this 'soul' crap is spiritual and a believer in the paranormal and woo-woo.
I suppose its possible to be spiritual and still not believe in gods.
Quote from: SkyChief on May 13, 2015, 09:33:45 PM
O dear. Let's see if we can't straighten out this mess! :biggrin:
1) We shouldn't really presume we ever had a soul. A 'soul' is only a construct of spiritual/religious nonsense. Since there is no evidence that a soul exists, we can reject the notion.
2) The souls never existed. Souls are just constructs of spiritual/religious nonsense.
3) Souls are not being created. Souls are just constructs of spiritual/religious nonsense.
Anyone who believes in this 'soul' crap is spiritual and a believer in the paranormal and woo-woo.
I suppose its possible to be spiritual and still not believe in gods.
We are discussing things at hypothetical levels. You don't need to contradict the hypothetical premises.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 13, 2015, 10:19:37 PM
We are discussing things at hypothetical levels. You don't need to contradict the hypothetical premises.
This whole concept of "Life is Precious" that is the only basis of the Pro-life position that I can see is so irrational and contradictory to me. As far as I can see this concept is based entirely on the premise that a SOUL actually exists.
How did you come to this conclusion?
I can tell you with 100% certainty that for someone to believe that 'Life is Precious' (as I do) one does not need to accept that spiritual beings (souls) were grappling with the notions of heaven and hell 20 billion years ago. Or even existed at all, for that matter. For someone to be 'Pro-Life' doesnt require spirituality. Both my wife & I believe that life is precious. We are atheist.
You're trying to connect dots which are just too far apart.
Quote from: SkyChief on May 14, 2015, 10:19:44 AM
How did you come to this conclusion?
I can tell you with 100% certainty that for someone to believe that 'Life is Precious' (as I do) one does not need to accept that spiritual beings (souls) were grappling with the notions of heaven and hell 20 billion years ago. Or even existed at all, for that matter. For someone to be 'Pro-Life' doesnt require spirituality. Both my wife & I believe that life is precious. We are atheist.
You're trying to connect dots which are just too far apart.
I would be happy to explain, but can you explain why you think it is precious so we can compare the two?
Quote from: SkyChief on May 14, 2015, 10:19:44 AM
How did you come to this conclusion?
I can tell you with 100% certainty that for someone to believe that 'Life is Precious' (as I do) one does not need to accept that spiritual beings (souls) were grappling with the notions of heaven and hell 20 billion years ago. Or even existed at all, for that matter. For someone to be 'Pro-Life' doesnt require spirituality. Both my wife & I believe that life is precious. We are atheist.
You're trying to connect dots which are just too far apart.
I would love to be convinced by you. The only reason I say life is not precious is because I see the seeming insignificance of so many lives. Yet I do think our species may be significant and maybe even precious. Please explain.
I think rather than arguing that life is or isn't precious because of or in spite of the presence of a soul, it bears commenting that life has worth. With life comes responsibilities, regardless of your ideology, or even your species.
Even stripped to its most basic components, life is a commodity. I think for that reason alone, life is precious, even if it's just by relation to the lives of others.
Quote from: TomFoolery on May 14, 2015, 11:36:11 AM
I think rather than arguing that life is or isn't precious because of or in spite of the presence of a soul, it bears commenting that life has worth. With life comes responsibilities, regardless of your ideology, or even your species.
Even stripped to its most basic components, life is a commodity. I think for that reason alone, life is precious, even if it's just by relation to the lives of others.
I don't care to argue it either as I am just asking to be convinced. The idea that life is not precious is not a very pleasant observation on my part. I base that on the observation that most people don't contribute much from being here and don't get much out of living. I am not passing judgement on them but rather attempting to understand what I am observing..
I feel the need to reference Carl Sagan here:
Quote
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.
Taking the matter statistically, we're beyond precious. Change one 'bit' of your DNA, and you're not you. You might not even be viable, if the right bit is flipped.
And at the same time, we're insignificant -- of the billions upon billions of ways to arrange a DNA molecule, there are certainly ways that make a smarter, stronger, more efficient entity than we.
There's a danger in 'we are precious'. We
are... but we're also only a waystation on evolution's road. We're not the endpoint, and while we're precious as a life form, as
any life form (though we give ourselves special privileges since as far as we know we're the only life form capable of full self-awareness), we're not necessary as far as the universe is concerned. We're not even necessary as far as the Earth is concerned. We don't
need to be here, the planet has done just fine for four and a half billion years (less a few hundred thousand) without
h. sapiens gumming up the works.
I would say that we are
precious, but that we are not
special.
I consider my life precious, so I consider life precious.
I don't consider gestating blobs of cells to be life.
I also don't consider a life of abject suffering with no hope of recovery to be precious: if someone is suffering terribly with no hope of recovery and wishes to die, I support them in that wish.
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2015, 01:36:14 PM
There's a danger in 'we are precious'. We are... but we're also only a waystation on evolution's road.
And possibly not a way station, but a dead end. I recently read a book on the evolution of man that traces our heritage back through the various hominids as best we can. I was surprised that what I thought of as a constantly evolving chain from Lucy through the well known fossil finds, many of those well known hominids are not our ancestors at all, but dead ends on limbs that branched from our own path, and some of which existed far longer than Homo Sapiens' brief history on Earth. And there are probably hominid species that weren't around long enough to leave a fossil behind, which could turn out to be our own fate, which is actually likely because most species go extinct before they have a chance to evolve further.
I should have known all that, because it seems rather obvious, but I guess I never thought about some of it.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 01:05:48 PM
I base that on the observation that most people don't contribute much from being here and don't get much out of living. I am not passing judgement on them but rather attempting to understand what I am observing..
Were you asking if life was precious of if
human life was precious? The life of a gazelle is precious to a cheetah in that the cheetah needs to consume it for its own life to continue. The life of a parent is precious to a child that depends on it for sustainment.
That's why I said all life is precious, valuable, and sacred in its own way. Besides, all people contribute, even if it's only to serve as a bad example. :)
In terms of the abortion argument, as to whether a fetus is precious, I'd have to say that it is, on a biological level. Producing offspring is a factor that contributes toward sustaining life for future generations. Make no mistake, I'm pro-choice and though I can appreciate the potential life of a fetus, embryo or blastocyst, that does't mean I don't think the life and rights of said unborn should supersede that of the mother. It's mother was once a fetus too, after all.
Well, I think life is precious for one reason against others; which is the opportunity to make a difference in the world.
Quote from: SGOS on May 14, 2015, 01:57:24 PM
And possibly not a way station, but a dead end. I recently read a book on the evolution of man that traces our heritage back through the various hominids as best we can. I was surprised that what I thought of as a constantly evolving chain from Lucy through the well known fossil finds, many of those well known hominids are not our ancestors at all, but dead ends on limbs that branched from our own path, and some of which existed far longer than Homo Sapiens' brief history on Earth. And there are probably hominid species that weren't around long enough to leave a fossil behind, which could turn out to be our own fate, which is actually likely because most species go extinct before they have a chance to evolve further.
I should have known all that, because it seems rather obvious, but I guess I never thought about some of it.
Yeah, a dead end. I hadn't thought of it that way. But that is entirely too correct. I don't think evolution of our species cares much about what we think of it or of ourselves. We will simply keep evolving as natural selection carries us along. But we tend to think that we are the be-all, end-all and not really in the middle of an ongoing process. I do wish I could pop back up for a few minutes about 100,000 yrs. from now just to see what has changed. :)
Quote from: TomFoolery on May 14, 2015, 02:05:44 PM
Were you asking if life was precious of if human life was precious? The life of a gazelle is precious to a cheetah in that the cheetah needs to consume it for its own life to continue. The life of a parent is precious to a child that depends on it for sustainment.
That's why I said all life is precious, valuable, and sacred in its own way. Besides, all people contribute, even if it's only to serve as a bad example. :)
In terms of the abortion argument, as to whether a fetus is precious, I'd have to say that it is, on a biological level. Producing offspring is a factor that contributes toward sustaining life for future generations. Make no mistake, I'm pro-choice and though I can appreciate the potential life of a fetus, embryo or blastocyst, that does't mean I don't think the life and rights of said unborn should supersede that of the mother. It's mother was once a fetus too, after all.
I was saying no individual life appears to be precious. Even great thinkers are of no individual importance. If some complex theory comes into existence and it provides great understanding it says nothing about its creator. The fact that it can be understood indicates it could just as easily been created by the person's understanding it. Thus our species appears important but not us individually.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 02:34:01 PM
Yeah, a dead end. I hadn't thought of it that way. But that is entirely too correct. I don't think evolution of our species cares much about what we think of it or of ourselves. We will simply keep evolving as natural selection carries us along. But we tend to think that we are the be-all, end-all and not really in the middle of an ongoing process. I do wish I could pop back up for a few minutes about 100,000 yrs. from now just to see what has changed. :)
You would probably reopen a whole new debate about Sasquatch.
Quote from: SGOS on May 14, 2015, 01:57:24 PM
And possibly not a way station, but a dead end. I recently read a book on the evolution of man that traces our heritage back through the various hominids as best we can. I was surprised that what I thought of as a constantly evolving chain from Lucy through the well known fossil finds, many of those well known hominids are not our ancestors at all, but dead ends on limbs that branched from our own path, and some of which existed far longer than Homo Sapiens' brief history on Earth. And there are probably hominid species that weren't around long enough to leave a fossil behind, which could turn out to be our own fate, which is actually likely because most species go extinct before they have a chance to evolve further.
I should have known all that, because it seems rather obvious, but I guess I never thought about some of it.
Another several good points you make here. Ironically, our intelligence may be precisely that which makes us an evolutionary dead end -- we are the first species to develop (on this planet) which is capable of driving itself extinct through deliberate action or inaction, rather than through the blind forces of natural selection. So in the long term (for us; short term evolutionarily), intelligence may be a self-limiting development.
This is another good argument for a vigorous SETI program -- finding another civilization would suggest that technological infancy is survivable... unless the signal suddenly and inexplicably stopped. And it does provide one explanation as to why we haven't spotted any yet. The real explanation, of course, is that we have only seriously been looking for about 20 years, we don't know what we're looking for, and we don't know where to look for it, so the idea that we should have found something already is statistically highly implausible. SETI is a project for centuries, not a single professional lifetime.
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2015, 06:31:17 PM
Another several good points you make here. Ironically, our intelligence may be precisely that which makes us an evolutionary dead end -- we are the first species to develop (on this planet) which is capable of driving itself extinct through deliberate action or inaction, rather than through the blind forces of natural selection. So in the long term (for us; short term evolutionarily), intelligence may be a self-limiting development.
This is another good argument for a vigorous SETI program -- finding another civilization would suggest that technological infancy is survivable... unless the signal suddenly and inexplicably stopped. And it does provide one explanation as to why we haven't spotted any yet. The real explanation, of course, is that we have only seriously been looking for about 20 years, we don't know what we're looking for, and we don't know where to look for it, so the idea that we should have found something already is statistically highly implausible. SETI is a project for centuries, not a single professional lifetime.
I tend to think we will not go extinct but we may drive everything else extinct. There simply is no way to evaluate our future survivability and there is just as much if not more reason to think we will survive as not. Our planet has never encountered aanything as survivable as us before.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 06:51:23 PM
I tend to think we will not go extinct but we may drive everything else extinct. There simply is no way to evaluate our future survivability and there is just as much if not more reason to think we will survive as not. Our planet has never encountered aanything as survivable as us before.
If we drive too many other things extinct, we go with them. When they say all life is interwoven, that includes us, and if we unravel one thread too many, we go with them. The weft's no good without the warp to support it. Outside of a couple major asteroid strikes and the Siberian Traps, our planet has never encountered anything as destructive as us, either.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 11:13:33 AM
I would love to be convinced by you. The only reason I say life is not precious is because I see the seeming insignificance of so many lives. Yet I do think our species may be significant and maybe even precious. Please explain.
Im not trying to convince you to hold any particular belief. You lean strongly toward nihilist values, which is fine.
Its kinda ironic, but if Id want to convince you of
anything, I would like to convince you that humans are only one of tens of thousands of sentient beings scattered throughout the cosmos. Alas, this would only serve to make life even more insignificant to you. :sad2:
As cosmology advances, we are finding that the likelihood of alien beings is quite high. Theres a formula postulated which roughly calculates the number of planets which would be home to (intelligent) sentient beings capable of radio communication:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--tOMf4Y_j--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18riprhjte0wgjpg.jpg)
Hey, its all greek to me too. I have no idea what that stuff means.
And there are just so many unknowns that can’t be quantified. But the consensus among most cosmologists is that there are thousands of them.
Still, life is precious. All of it. (imo)
actually life is precious because you don't have a soul that lives on. This is the only life you get so live it well.
Also I think if you presume that a fetus will have a bad life as an excuse to kill it is just that an excuse. You can't predict what type of life that fetus will have any more than you can predict your own future. I sure as shit couldn't have predicted my future! It was a crazy one. I still can't predict my future. Once you think you know every thing or 've seen every thing life will prove you wrong.
Based on that premise alone than why do we try to save the lives of people who try to kill themselves? Who are we to stop them then? their life only causes them misery right? So jump off that bridge, tie that not tight, and sharpen your blades! Or better yet have a doctor help them exit this world in a peaceful painless manor. Actually I do support assisted suicide for elders who are sick and terminal. If it is their choice to die rather than suffer or cause a burden you should respect that. Obviously I wouldn't force any one to die against their will. That would be unethical.
Quote from: SkyChief on May 14, 2015, 07:47:39 PM
Im not trying to convince you to hold any particular belief. You lean strongly toward nihilist values, which is fine.
Its kinda ironic, but if Id want to convince you of anything, I would like to convince you that humans are only one of tens of thousands of sentient beings scattered throughout the cosmos. Alas, this would only serve to make life even more insignificant to you. :sad2:
As cosmology advances, we are finding that the likelihood of alien beings is quite high. Theres a formula postulated which roughly calculates the number of planets which would be home to (intelligent) sentient beings capable of radio communication:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--tOMf4Y_j--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18riprhjte0wgjpg.jpg)
Hey, its all greek to me too. I have no idea what that stuff means.
And there are just so many unknowns that can’t be quantified. But the consensus among most cosmologists is that there are thousands of them.
Still, life is precious. All of it. (imo)
Nihilism is not me and is as much a leap of faith as religion is. The problem we have is that we are always wanting something to believe in even if it's nothing at all and so we put a name on that as well. That's why I think atheism is a first step in shedding beliefs. Though I am not convinced of what you are saying about sentience I suspect you may be right. The question is then when and where. I am sure life exists elsewhere but how sentient might it be. And if that is true why is our universe so attuned to the formation of life. And if sentience exists in the quantities you say and if such sentience gains knowledge as we do then the question I would see is why is all this knowledge available at all. Next thing you will have me thinking is that maybe the universe itself is sentient. Wait! That's starting to sound too much like religion!
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 06:51:23 PM
I tend to think we will not go extinct but we may drive everything else extinct. There simply is no way to evaluate our future survivability and there is just as much if not more reason to think we will survive as not. Our planet has never encountered aanything as survivable as us before.
We don't know that we are all that survivable. For one thing we have almost a zero track record. The existence of our species is in a range from 50,000 to 150,000 years, and that is a pittance compared to other hominids, now extinct who lasted on the order of a million years. The existence of all hominids combined is nothing compared to dinosaurs, which were the grand masters of survivability between the last two major extinctions, and they are all gone. Well, it's possible that turtles have faired better, now that I think about it, but I'd have to double check.
Second survivability is owned by non specialized species during major extinctions. Specialized species do very well for the short term as they are specialized to very specific environmental conditions, but when things change, they are the first to go. In addition, our current environment over the last two million years, the one we evolved to survive in, even considering the ice ages, is more an anomaly than anything, and it appears to be about to change drastically.
There aren't many good reasons to bet on mankind's ability to survive, even though our egos would like to think otherwise. Yes we own the planet right now, but it may be short term. But for survivability? There just isn't enough data to support that.
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2015, 07:18:21 PM
If we drive too many other things extinct, we go with them. When they say all life is interwoven, that includes us, and if we unravel one thread too many, we go with them. The weft's no good without the warp to support it. Outside of a couple major asteroid strikes and the Siberian Traps, our planet has never encountered anything as destructive as us, either.
I used to be an engineer so I lean toward the view that technology can solve anything. This whole universe is just one big system. An everything else are just subsystems within it. All we have to do is reverse engineer it. Short of some planet destroying event we can control it all. There is nothing we cannot manage. We would see anything if it started to unravel and would correct it once again. Civilization could even be destroyed but we would only rebuild it again.
Quote from: SGOS on May 14, 2015, 08:56:54 PM
We don't know that we are all that survivable. For one thing we have almost a zero track record. The existence of our species is in a range from 50,000 to 150,000 years, and that is a pittance compared to other hominids, now extinct who lasted on the order of a million years. The existence of all hominids combined is nothing compared to dinosaurs, which were the grand masters of survivability between the last two major extinctions, and they are all gone. Well, it's possible that turtles have faired better, now that I think about it, but I'd have to double check.
Second survivability is owned by non specialized species during major extinctions. Specialized species do very well for the short term as they are specialized to very specific environmental conditions, but when things change, they are the first to go. In addition, our current environment over the last two million years, the one we evolved to survive in, even considering the ice ages, is more an anomaly than anything, and it appears to be about to change drastically.
There aren't many good reasons to bet on mankind's ability to survive, even though our egos would like to think otherwise. Yes we own the planet right now, but it may be short term. But for survivability? There just isn't enough data to support that.
I know what you are saying but I don't think we need a track record any longer. They only tell us that to ingrain caution in public opinion. The present can no longer be viewed in the light of the past. We have surpassed the past. We understand it we use that knowledge to form the present and the future as we choose. Again short of some planet destroying event we are indestructible.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 13, 2015, 05:28:40 PM
Empty barrels make the loudest noises.
So do empty heads when the win blows. Will you quit whistling! Good habits, which bring our lower passions and appetites under automatic control, leave our natures free to explore the largest experiences of life. Too many of us divide and dissipate our energies in debating actions which should be taken for granted. I wanted to insult you, but I knew you wouldn't understand. Solitary
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 09:10:04 PM
I know what you are saying but I don't think we need a track record any longer. They only tell us that to ingrain caution in public opinion. The present can no longer be viewed in the light of the past. We have surpassed the past. We understand it we use that knowledge to form the present and the future as we choose. Again short of some planet destroying event we are indestructible.
Can you support these claims?
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 09:00:49 PM
I used to be an engineer so I lean toward the view that technology can solve anything. This whole universe is just one big system. An everything else are just subsystems within it. All we have to do is reverse engineer it. Short of some planet destroying event we can control it all. There is nothing we cannot manage. We would see anything if it started to unravel and would correct it once again. Civilization could even be destroyed but we would only rebuild it again.
I couldn't disagree more. Look at the problems we have even convincing a significant portion of the population that anthropogenic climate change even
exists, much less a concerted effort of applied research to remediate the damage.
Is it in principle possible to apply technology to solve a number of our ongoing issues on this planet? Yes. Is it likely under current social circumstances? Quite frankly, no. Given the behavior of humans as masses, I expect that once we reach the stage that only the clinically delusional could deny climate change is happening, we will miss our opportunity to repair the damage because the same sort of people who currently deny change will be wasting our time trying to affix (avoid) blame rather than trying to resolve the problem.
Most people who are faced with imminent death do not want to die. If given the choice, they would rather live than die. They attach value to their lives. Life is precious.
Quote from: Atheon on May 14, 2015, 11:22:39 PM
Most people who are faced with imminent death do not want to die. If given the choice, they would rather live than die. They attach value to their lives. Life is precious.
While your assertion is correct, it is not in my life. My mother, father, grandfather and grandmother all chose to die when faced with imminent death. My dad had to commit suicide because he was in the last stages of copd and felt he had no choice. My mom died of ovarian cancer and begged to have it ended in the end. My grandmother refused to take any medication with her advanced diabetes and my grandfather fought off the ambulance personal who were trying to transport him to a hospital. All of them, when faced with imminent death chose death--and if we had a merciful system would have chosen it sooner. And I assure you that all of them loved life. Life is very precious, but at a certain point death can be preferred.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 08:51:29 PM
Nihilism is not me and is as much a leap of faith as religion is.
The question is then when and where. I am sure life exists elsewhere but how sentient might it be. And if sentience exists in the quantities you say and if such sentience gains knowledge as we do then the question I would see is why is all this knowledge available at all.
Next thing you will have me thinking is that maybe the universe itself is sentient. Wait! That's starting to sound too much like religion!
The definition of nihilism is: The rejection of all religious and moral principles,
often in the belief that life is meaningless. This is why the reference was made.
True, nobody can quantify the
amount of sentience in the universe, but we can be reasonably certain that it
exists (elsewhere).
I would imagine that (intelligent) alien beings get their information the same way we do; scientific method; i.e., systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. This process functions on the planet Remulac (480,000 L.Y.s from Earth) as well as it does here. I would be very surprised to learn that they believe in gods. ha hah... Hey that might be an interesting topic for a thread.... Could aliens believe in gods? Nahh,, aliens would be smarter than that.
I would never suggest the universe itself is sentient. Agreed, that would be a spiritual and religious belief.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 11:42:14 PM
All of them, when faced with imminent death chose death--and if we had a merciful system would have chosen it sooner. And I assure you that all of them loved life. Life is very precious, but at a certain point death can be preferred.
Someday, hopefully, we can (collectively) grow up and accept euthanasia as a humane and dignified method to end the suffering of terminally ill people (should they choose that).
Most folks fear euthanasia because they think it would be administered for nefarious reasons. But thats just silly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2015, 11:42:14 PM
While your assertion is correct, it is not in my life. My mother, father, grandfather and grandmother all chose to die when faced with imminent death. My dad had to commit suicide because he was in the last stages of copd and felt he had no choice. My mom died of ovarian cancer and begged to have it ended in the end. My grandmother refused to take any medication with her advanced diabetes and my grandfather fought off the ambulance personal who were trying to transport him to a hospital. All of them, when faced with imminent death chose death--and if we had a merciful system would have chosen it sooner. And I assure you that all of them loved life. Life is very precious, but at a certain point death can be preferred.
Or course, which is why I used the word "most". Quality of life is also an important consideration, and there is a point where death is preferable to continued suffering. The wishes of the sufferer are paramount, however: if I were suffering from Stephen Hawking's illness, I would have wanted to die long ago, but Hawking chose to remain alive, and we are all the richer for it.
This issue can get into some very tricky territory when the sufferer cannot communicate or has diminished mental capacity, and I'm no expert in the nuances of this murky area. In general, I support the concept of death with dignity.
Quote from: Solitary on May 14, 2015, 10:53:31 PM
So do empty heads when the win blows. Will you quit whistling! Good habits, which bring our lower passions and appetites under automatic control, leave our natures free to explore the largest experiences of life. Too many of us divide and dissipate our energies in debating actions which should be taken for granted. I wanted to insult you, but I knew you wouldn't understand. Solitary
An insult would have been just fine if I could have gained something constructive from it. Otherwise you would have become the empty barrel from my point of view. I am here to interract. So please feel free to insult me and I will trust you to make certain I understand.
Quote from: SGOS on May 14, 2015, 11:03:14 PM
Can you support these claims?
No. Do you have reason to not support them.
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2015, 11:07:58 PM
I couldn't disagree more. Look at the problems we have even convincing a significant portion of the population that anthropogenic climate change even exists, much less a concerted effort of applied research to remediate the damage.
Is it in principle possible to apply technology to solve a number of our ongoing issues on this planet? Yes. Is it likely under current social circumstances? Quite frankly, no. Given the behavior of humans as masses, I expect that once we reach the stage that only the clinically delusional could deny climate change is happening, we will miss our opportunity to repair the damage because the same sort of people who currently deny change will be wasting our time trying to affix (avoid) blame rather than trying to resolve the problem.
And I couldn't agree more. But that is only in the short term. We are also becoming more aware as a species. And while we are squabbling amongst ourselves which is a good thing in my view we ultimately will come to the correct decisions even though we will never agree on them.
Quote from: SkyChief on May 14, 2015, 11:52:19 PM
The definition of nihilism is: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. This is why the reference was made.
True, nobody can quantify the amount of sentience in the universe, but we can be reasonably certain that it exists (elsewhere).
I would imagine that (intelligent) alien beings get their information the same way we do; scientific method; i.e., systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. This process functions on the planet Remulac (480,000 L.Y.s from Earth) as well as it does here. I would be very surprised to learn that they believe in gods. ha hah... Hey that might be an interesting topic for a thread.... Could aliens believe in gods? Nahh,, aliens would be smarter than that.
I would never suggest the universe itself is sentient. Agreed, that would be a spiritual and religious belief.
I view nihilism on a scale and existing with no purpose. One is purpose. Zero is no purpose. Myself and most people here probably exist as a fraction. The religious exist ssomewhere one or below zero depending on what they believe in. I guess we will have just till we encounter aliens before we can know they believe in.
QuoteCan you support these claims?
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 15, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
No. Do you have reason to not support them.
Not at all. The problem is that I can't find anything that actually supports their validity.
Quote from: SGOS on May 15, 2015, 03:02:04 PM
Not at all. The problem is that I can't find anything that actually supports their validity.
Well let me know if you find something
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." - Steven Weinberg
I think life is, in general, completely meaningless. From the perspective of that life, though, it is perceived as precious. Each of us considers our own puny lives to be full of meaning, and precious, but nature couldn't care less whether we exist, or are suffering excruciating pain, or even if the planet Earth even exists.
We can each try to make some sort of meaning in our lives, but it's only our meaning, and our lives. Outside of our local circle of people, no one cares about us, personally, anyway. We're just consumers who consume in order to further enrich the already wealthy.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 06:51:23 PM
I tend to think we will not go extinct but we may drive everything else extinct.
I'm pretty sure we could
not survive the extinction of everything else. We need oxygen, which we get from many of the other species, like plants and phytoplankton. If they go, we go.
I just absolve to the fact that one day the sun will go supernova and wipe out this planet along with every other one. Of course by then I'll be long dead and turned to ashes scattered somewhere, so I'll not really care.
Quote from: SkyChief on May 14, 2015, 07:47:39 PM
Theres a formula postulated which roughly calculates the number of planets which would be home to (intelligent) sentient beings capable of radio communication:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--tOMf4Y_j--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18riprhjte0wgjpg.jpg)
Yeah,
very roughly! All anyone can do with most of those terms is pure guesswork and wishful thinking, especially those toward the right side of the equation. We're just beginning to get a handle on a the number of habitable planets in the galaxy, but only just.
Here's a Drake equation calculator:
http://www.as.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/drake.pl
Quote from: Munch on May 15, 2015, 06:53:56 PM
I just absolve to the fact that one day the sun will go supernova and wipe out this planet along with every other one. Of course by then I'll be long dead and turned to ashes scattered somewhere, so I'll not really care.
Well, the good news is that our Sun won't be going supernova, which would require a much bigger Sun. That bad news is it will become a red dwarf (the fate of the smaller stars), which will ultimately have the same effect as the sun expands to the edge of the solar system and fries everything in-between.
Humans are wonderfully ignorant and arrogant. The few that study the sciences and understand the frailty have already sounded the horn but the masses will have none of it, believing quite comfortably that either they or their god will come to the rescue. But as we have seen, even the humble bee, natures pollinator is at risk to our daily ignorances and we will suffer that consequence soon enough. The idea that humans are special is proof of a religious foundation, that anyone not religious believes such stupidity is proof the humans may not indeed, be the most intelligent animals on this earth.
I'm pro choice and I still think life is precious. Why would life not be precious?
Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 15, 2015, 10:35:17 PM
I'm pro choice and I still think life is precious. Why would life not be precious?
We should consider it precious amongst ourselves anytime self awareness is involved. But on a cosmic scale individuals certainly don't appear important but I am wondering about the importance of our species.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 15, 2015, 11:56:46 PM
We should consider it precious amongst ourselves anytime self awareness is involved. But on a cosmic scale individuals certainly don't appear important but I am wondering about the importance of our species.
Well when you show me someone who exists on a cosmic scale then that'd be relevant. Our lives our relative. We don't exist for the universe and neither it for us. We have only one difference in that one will continue and hasn't been shown to not be able to do so.
So thinking on a cosmic scale is pointless. Which invalidates alot of "meaning of life" observations
Cosmic scale is varied. Galaxy size, Earth size, Seed size, or Bacteria size. I am also cosmic scale. Am I and the universe different?
Quote from: SkyChief on May 16, 2015, 01:39:56 AM
Wait.. What??? :doh: Oh dear.
Expanding our horizons is what we should strive for. By observing only what occurs on the front porch means our scope of knowledge can only reach as far as... uh... the front porch.
What I mean is, what's the point of trying to reason your existence relative to the universe or a cosmic scale?
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 15, 2015, 01:52:45 PM
And I couldn't agree more. But that is only in the short term. We are also becoming more aware as a species. And while we are squabbling amongst ourselves which is a good thing in my view we ultimately will come to the correct decisions even though we will never agree on them.
I wish I could believe that, but large groups of humans do not behave intelligently, and are generally easily manipulated by those in power (not necessarily political power), whose interests are not those of the planet as a whole.
It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways here. The problem with that is that we may not have a long term if we cause too much damage in the short term. Our societal advances lag well behind our technological ones; generally speaking, it's always been that way.
These are all things that we could have started doing something about years ago, and we still haven't started, and there are some lessons that our species dare not learn through experience because by then it will be too late. If we cross a climatic tipping point in the next 50 years, we won't have another 500 to get our collective shit together to fix it. If we don't bust a hump over the next ten years working out a viable planetary defense in case of asteroid strike, we don't get a do-over if we get clobbered in eleven. Putting faith in long-term growth is not meaningful if we can't take care of our immediate, short term problems.
Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 16, 2015, 12:17:53 AM
Well when you show me someone who exists on a cosmic scale then that'd be relevant. Our lives our relative. We don't exist for the universe and neither it for us. We have only one difference in that one will continue and hasn't been shown to not be able to do so.
So thinking on a cosmic scale is pointless. Which invalidates alot of "meaning of life" observations
I try to do both.
Quote from: Aupmanyav on May 16, 2015, 01:32:31 AM
Cosmic scale is varied. Galaxy size, Earth size, Seed size, or Bacteria size. I am also cosmic scale. Am I and the universe different?
I don't think you are. Please continue. I would like to hear more.
Quote from: trdsf on May 16, 2015, 05:47:24 AM
I wish I could believe that, but large groups of humans do not behave intelligently, and are generally easily manipulated by those in power (not necessarily political power), whose interests are not those of the planet as a whole.
It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways here. The problem with that is that we may not have a long term if we cause too much damage in the short term. Our societal advances lag well behind our technological ones; generally speaking, it's always been that way.
These are all things that we could have started doing something about years ago, and we still haven't started, and there are some lessons that our species dare not learn through experience because by then it will be too late. If we cross a climatic tipping point in the next 50 years, we won't have another 500 to get our collective shit together to fix it. If we don't bust a hump over the next ten years working out a viable planetary defense in case of asteroid strike, we don't get a do-over if we get clobbered in eleven. Putting faith in long-term growth is not meaningful if we can't take care of our immediate, short term problems.
I see it all sort of averaging together. Sure it's bad there and good over there but it all works out in the end. On a cosmic scale it is good that we have our own little pocket of order in a universe seemingly in a state of increasing disorder.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 16, 2015, 10:28:10 AM
I see it all sort of averaging together. Sure it's bad there and good over there but it all works out in the end. On a cosmic scale it is good that we have our own little pocket of order in a universe seemingly in a state of increasing disorder.
I don's see the universe in any kind of 'disorder' or chaos. It never was and never will be. There have been and always will be the physical laws of the universe; they don't change. Just because it appears disorderly to us, doesn't make it so. As we learn more and more, we see that there is not disorder--only our ignorance of how this actually work. And we are working on that ignorance.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2015, 10:36:30 AM
I don's see the universe in any kind of 'disorder' or chaos. It never was and never will be. There have been and always will be the physical laws of the universe; they don't change. Just because it appears disorderly to us, doesn't make it so. As we learn more and more, we see that there is not disorder--only our ignorance of how this actually work. And we are working on that ignorance.
Read up on entropy.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 16, 2015, 10:28:10 AM
I see it all sort of averaging together. Sure it's bad there and good over there but it all works out in the end. On a cosmic scale it is good that we have our own little pocket of order in a universe seemingly in a state of increasing disorder.
Again, you're presupposing that there's going to be a long term in which things
can average out. There are some things that can't wait for us to grow up as a species to eventually get around to fixing. We need to take action on the environmental damage we're causing
now. We need to arrange a space defense system
now. We need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels
now. If we wait until the Arctic and Antarctic caps melt, or a large asteroid obliterates Atlanta, or we completely exhaust coal and oil, that's it. We're out of time and can't wait for things to 'work out in the end' or 'average together'.
Quote from: trdsf on May 16, 2015, 07:51:19 PM
Again, you're presupposing that there's going to be a long term in which things can average out. There are some things that can't wait for us to grow up as a species to eventually get around to fixing. We need to take action on the environmental damage we're causing now. We need to arrange a space defense system now. We need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels now. If we wait until the Arctic and Antarctic caps melt, or a large asteroid obliterates Atlanta, or we completely exhaust coal and oil, that's it. We're out of time and can't wait for things to 'work out in the end' or 'average together'.
Wiping out Atlanta doesn't sound to ba....... never mind. No seriously though shit is going to happen and all bases can't be covered. All I am saying is that we will do whatever is necessary to survive. And I don't think any of those require action now. It would all be just fine but neither the leftists nor the rightist will ever be happy.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 16, 2015, 12:03:49 PM
Read up on entropy.
His statement shows more knowledge than your response. Indeed please re-read his response and read up on it. You may be the one behind the times lad.
Hey! My fucking wind chimes are spiritual..They make pretty metallic noises!
Giveme..The point is that you in fact are alive. You don't get a mulligan with it and it's the only chance you get..End stop..
My simple philosophy about life is to A. Get old or B. Die.. Hopefully you get to do both at some point in time..
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 16, 2015, 12:03:49 PM
Read up on entropy.
I am not really knowledgeable about entropy. So I looked it up. Below is from one site. This seems to be to be telling me that disorder does not equal chaos. I think much of the universe looks chaotic, but that is deceiving in that this disorder is not chaotic. And the more we learn the less chaotic is all seems.
Entropy and Disorder
If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes. So if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.
Some care must be taken about how you define "disorder" if you are going to use it to understand entropy. A more precise way to characterize entropy is to say that it is a measure of the "multiplicity" associated with the state of the objects. If a given state can be accomplished in many more ways, then it is more probabable than one which can be accomplished in only a few ways. When "throwing dice", throwing a seven is more probable than a two because you can produce seven in six different ways and there is only one way to produce a two. So seven has a higher multiplicity than a two, and this gives some insight why systems in nature like the molecules of a gas would spontaneously tend toward states of higher multiplicity or higher "entropy".
For a glass of water the number of molecules is astronomical. The jumble of ice chips may look more disordered in comparison to the glass of water which looks uniform and homogeneous. But the ice chips place limits on the number of ways the molecules can be arranged. The water molecules in the glass of water can be arranged in many more ways; they have greater "multiplicity" and therefore greater entropy.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 16, 2015, 09:15:51 PM
Wiping out Atlanta doesn't sound to ba....... never mind. No seriously though shit is going to happen and all bases can't be covered. All I am saying is that we will do whatever is necessary to survive. And I don't think any of those require action now. It would all be just fine but neither the leftists nor the rightist will ever be happy.
You miss my point -- you seem to be saying essentially "don't worry, be happy" and that's just not going to fix anything, and there are some things that simply can't wait.
NASA reports today that they expect the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica to collapse within five years. This has existed for at least 10,000 years, and its disappearance is just in the last
twenty. It was nearly 4500 square miles in 1995. Today there are barely more than 600 square miles, and there are expected to be
none left in
five years. This is not a geological time scale. This is a human one.
This required action years ago -- and we took none. Even though we probably can't stop the Larsen collapse now, we're still doing nothing to stop the melt at both poles, and the more ice shelves that collapse in Antarctica and Greenland, the faster the glaciers will empty out into the seas. The less ice there is at the North Pole, the less sunlight is reflected back into space and the faster warming occurs.
And the tragic irony is, when we took action -- banning CFCs, for example, in response to the weakening of the ozone layer -- it
worked. The takeaway lessons from that -- that a) human activity affects global climate and b) humans can take effective steps to remediate the damage -- is so painfully obvious that it should cause testicular torsion to
not see it, and yet here we sit, doing fuck-all.
"[D]o whatever is necessary to survive"? There's no evidence for your rosy outlook.
Can we do something about it? Absolutely.
Will we? Barring a sudden and collective social
satori, probably not until it's so undeniable there's a problem, it will be too damn late.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 13, 2015, 01:54:56 PM
This whole concept of "Life is Precious" that is the only basis of the Pro-life position that I can see is so irrational and contradictory to me. As far as I can see this concept is based entirely on the premise that a SOUL actually exists. The clip in the post at the bottom of the "Present your evidence here" thread so aptly portrays the irony in this. But presuming we had a soul then the next question is "where did it come from". In which case the answer would have to be either it already existed or there is some ongoing process in which souls are still being created. But since we are the only animal with a soul this is where it gets really tricky. So if these souls already existed what have they been doing for the last 20 billion years waiting for us to come around?? But if these souls are still being created then considering the very limited prospects of having a good life, why would a soul want to inhabit a human body at all? Just so they can take a chance at living and then end up going to heaven or an eternity in hell?? Now the Mormons have an interesting idea. Hell is just a place you will exist in the absence of god yet you will still be able to see all that you are missing out on for all eternity again. I guess this is why the Catholics have purgatory. But with the Mormons you can become a god yourself and then rule your own universe. Sheesh!!! I had a Mormon try to recruit me a while back. He didn't know I was an atheist so he asked me if I believed in the search for truth? I replied " No. People are just looking for something to believe in."
I always thought the concept of life being precious came from the idea that life is a gift, you only have one, it's fragile, and your life does not ultimately belong to you. I suppose the existence of a soul is related, but I'm not sure its primary.
I suppose the easiest way to find out just how precious your life actually is is to stop eating. If your belly bloats out with agonizing pain and you're fine with that then it's not all that precious. If, on the other hand you continue to eat and maintain a normal healthy lifestyle then it's a bit more precious than you think.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 05:15:01 AM
I always thought the concept of life being precious came from the idea that life is a gift, you only have one, it's fragile, and your life does not ultimately belong to you. I suppose the existence of a soul is related, but I'm not sure its primary.
lots of assertions, no real bona fide proof.
Just who does your life ultimately belong to? The big invisible wiskered one in the sky? Hmmmmm?
Quote from: aitm on May 24, 2015, 08:10:28 AM
lots of assertions, no real bona fide proof.
So you believe that you have more than life, that your life isn't fragile? And you must have brought yourself into being, right? And since you brought yourself into being, your life actually does belong to you then, huh?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 24, 2015, 08:12:48 AM
Just who does your life ultimately belong to? The big invisible wiskered one in the sky? Hmmmmm?
Your life would belong to the one ultimately responsible for creating it, and I'm sure you didn't create yourself. That would entail a logical contradiction in that you would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 09:06:56 AM
So you believe that you have more than life, that your life isn't fragile? And you must have brought yourself into being, right? And since you brought yourself into being, your life actually does belong to you then, huh?
Nope, these is nothing beyond 'life' and this one life is indeed, fragile. No, I did not bring myself into being. What we call nature did. Since nature is not a thing or a person, but a process, my life actually does belong to me. It is up to me to run it as I see fit. There is no soul, no inherent internal guidance system--just me and the society I grew up in. From that I craft my life and live it best I can. I like what Joseph Campbell says about the purpose of life--the purpose of life is life. That's why we live.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 09:13:47 AM
Nope, these is nothing beyond 'life' and this one life is indeed, fragile. No, I did not bring myself into being. What we call nature did. Since nature is not a thing or a person, but a process, my life actually does belong to me. It is up to me to run it as I see fit. There is no soul, no inherent internal guidance system--just me and the society I grew up in. From that I craft my life and live it best I can. I like what Joseph Campbell says about the purpose of life--the purpose of life is life. That's why we live.
You have only one life (We Agree). Life is fragile (We Agree). Your life was given to you (We Partially Agree). Your life belongs to you (We Disagree). Well, from your perspective that makes sense. There is a sense in which it does belong to you. You're given freedom in which to exercise your will in this life. However, from the Christian perspective, the fact that you've been allowed to drive the car doesn't mean it's yours'. Hehehe... I tend to think that the idea of purpose goes beyond mere existence or merely possessing life or living. Why we live is to live? There's probably something deeper to it than that. I think the profundity of our feelings, desires, and thoughts are pointers or indicators of that reality. I think our uniqueness in that regard is also a possible indicator.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 09:23:19 AM
You have only one life (We Agree). Life is fragile (We Agree). Your life was given to you (We Partially Agree). Your life belongs to you (We Disagree). Well, from your perspective that makes sense. There is a sense in which it does belong to you. You're given freedom in which to exercise your will in this life. However, from the Christian perspective, the fact that you've been allowed to drive the car doesn't mean it's yours'. Hehehe... I tend to think that the idea of purpose goes beyond mere existence or merely possessing life or living. Why we live is to live? There's probably something deeper to it than that. I think the profundity of our feelings, desires, and thoughts are pointers or indicators of that reality. I think our uniqueness in that regard is also a possible indicator.
I think your perspective makes sense to you too. I do not think you are insincere or dishonest in your postings about your belief. And believe me, I've tried to shove myself into you world view. I just have not been able to do so, for it does not make sense to me on any level. If our life is ours, but yet it is being critiqued by a creator, then it is not ours. I think we agree with that. If so, then that creator you make it quite plain what it is we have to do to maintain our status of okay or not okay. If I am okay, then all is good for eternity. If I am not okay, then there will be problems--to hell with me for eternity, where I will be reminded each moment that I failed a test that I did not ask for--and for all eternity for flunking such a short test. It seems I am a captured 'soul' that cannot bail out even if I wanted to. And I am not sure of what the rules are, for if I were born in the middle east, my god would be different, or if I were born in the depths of the Amazon jungle, my god(s) would be different. That I was born in a christian area was accidential--well, maybe not in your worldview. The christian instruction book cannot be said to be easy to read and follow, it is not clear and concise. And if you look at it's history it is difficult, if not impossible to know which book called the bible is the real one--there are literally hundreds of them out there. So, for those reasons I reject christanity (oh, there are really many, many more reasons to reject it, but that is for a later post).
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 09:06:56 AM
So you believe that you have more than life, that your life isn't fragile? And you must have brought yourself into being, right? And since you brought yourself into being, your life actually does belong to you then, huh?
Oh stop with the blather already. Brought yourself into being…what kind of stupid crap is that? No, "your" life does not belong to you, that would suggest you get to control it and there is no control, for anyone or anything. Your life is the sum from birth to death, for many, very many it is taken from them by people or things beyond their control, usurping the idea that life belongs to them. You are trying to romanticize life and it is not romantic for the vast majority, it is a mean, vile and wretched existence. And for those how wish to attribute this to a god, how horrible this god must be to allow it.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 09:23:19 AM
You have only one life (We Agree). Life is fragile (We Agree). Your life was given to you (We Partially Agree). Your life belongs to you (We Disagree). Well, from your perspective that makes sense. There is a sense in which it does belong to you. You're given freedom in which to exercise your will in this life. However, from the Christian perspective, the fact that you've been allowed to drive the car doesn't mean it's yours'. Hehehe... I tend to think that the idea of purpose goes beyond mere existence or merely possessing life or living. Why we live is to live? There's probably something deeper to it than that. I think the profundity of our feelings, desires, and thoughts are pointers or indicators of that reality. I think our uniqueness in that regard is also a possible indicator.
At the very foundation of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) has always been about life and existence and meaningfulness of said life. So what about other animals? I say "other" because humans are animals, too. Why are we different than the animals we kill and eat? The pets we keep in the house? The birds and the bees and all that?
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 09:06:56 AM
So you believe that you have more than life, that your life isn't fragile? And you must have brought yourself into being, right? And since you brought yourself into being, your life actually does belong to you then, huh?
My parents brought me into life. Their parents brought them to life. And so on. Because biology.
Are the lives of other animals just as fragile?
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 05:15:01 AM
I always thought the concept of life being precious came from the idea that life is a gift, you only have one, it's fragile, and your life does not ultimately belong to you. I suppose the existence of a soul is related, but I'm not sure its primary.
I would say that life is precious because we only get one chance at it. Out of all those billions of years and billions of cubic parsecs, I get one brief breath of a chance to do something with myself for the betterment of my species. That's remarkable; the number of possible humans (
i.e. the number of viable combinations of DNA it's possible for a member of our species to have: estimated to be on the order of 6×10
9632959) who don't get that chance, and who won't have existed by the time we evolve into something else (if we don't drive ourselves to extinction) is so much vaster than not just the number of humans who have ever existed (around 1.08x10
11), or the total number of subatomic particles in the universe (roughly 10
89), but
the number of Planck volumes in the universe (estimated 4×10
185) that you can get vertigo just contemplating it.
These are the things that give me a sense of awe: the statistics are breathtaking. However, the assumption that I somehow
need to be here is an incorrect reading of things. The metaphorical dice came up in my favor; if the genetic combination made by my parents had differed, then I -- in the sense of the person who is first-born child of my parents -- would be someone else entirely in makeup, although I might well be philosophically, intellectually, and to a certain extent physically similar. But
I -- the person typing the sentence you are reading right now -- wouldn't be here.
I accept that I am not the point of the universe; it doesn't care that I'm here. I'm just a byproduct of what chemistry and physics can do given enough time to evolve complex systems we call 'living'. I'm not 'special' in any real, concrete sense.
And I find that a surprisingly optimistic way of seeing myself in the universe: I am able to make of myself what I can, rather than being forced into something by an outside entity. I don't have unrealistic expectations about myself, or the people around me.
And yet, the idea that stars died to give me the opportunity to be here... wow.