A life following God as the one and only true meaning is a life wasted.

(January 6, 2012 at 3:44 pm)amkerman Wrote: We could try it this way:

Do you believe in reality?

I don't have to believe in it. It is real and verifiable.

Quote:Where do you form your belief?

It's not a belief, but if it makes you feel better, from observation.

Yes, consciousness is real. No, I do not "believe" it to be so.

I'm not going to converse with you unless we make it a formal debate with rules. It is a waste of time discussing things with you if there are no parameters. If you are here to just spew things that you know you cannot prove nor strive to prove, then I am done anyway.

(January 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm)Shell B Wrote: Only in my opinion for me to identify it as real, it has to be observed by myself or by a trustworthy source who conveys it to me. However, all that is real does not fall under my conscious observation nor does it require my observation to be real.

I like the thought style - objective reality amazes me, the idea that something can exist without me knowing it is what drives me to explore, childish I know

(January 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yes, for the simple fact that it exists, not because someone believes it exists.

Alright cool, I'm going to re-post Ack's argument just so I don't have to keep flipping back pages.

Quote:1)All of reality is experienced through consciousness.
2)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.
3)Things that are real must exist apart from our observation of or ideas about what they are.
4)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it.
5)The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants.
6)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real science believes it is a universal constant.
7)Universal constants are believed to be responsible for the creaton of the universe and everything within it.
8)THEREFORE: if consciousness is real it is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it.
9)If consciousness is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it, it could be called "God"
10)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must necessarily believe in "God".

So, setting aside his 'must's and other objective claims - let's start fresh. We've now established parts one and two. We experience reality through the use of our consciousness and our conscience exists therefore it is real.

To address number three I will do my best, but I'm not sure if I can fully support the claim. One must support the idea of objectivism to firstly believe this claim is true. In order for things to exist outside of our consciousness they are defined to be real, this can be reversed and said as: things that are defined as being real exist outside of our conscience. From this we can then say that our observations and ideas are comprised within our consciousness - thus within ourselves and they do not effect the real existence of things around us. Finally, we can restate number three: Things that are real exist apart from our observation of or our ideas about what they are.

Let's see how flawed this statement of support and explanation is

Quote:

(January 6, 2012 at 3:38 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

Quote:Can life have meaning w/o God?

Clearly, we can find examples of atheists who claim to have lives with purpose. If you can find one counterexample, you void the right to utter this sweeping statement.

Alright, excellent. When I say meaning I mean a real meaning not an illusory one. I will explain shortly.

Quote:

Quote: I mean I understand how we could perceive it to be have meaninb w/o God, but that perception is just illusory isn't it?

And it's impossible for meaning with God to be illusory because? And what is the difference between a real and an illusory sense of meaning?

God is usually interpreted to be a universal standard of rightousness and goodness, the perfect being. God's will or purpose would be considered a "real" meaning. People could still form beliefs about what the meaning of life is, whether or not thoses perceived meanings were illusory would depend on how closely they coincided with God's will.

Quote:

Quote:Without God aren't life and death ultimately meaningless?

I honestly think that the idea of God makes life and death even less meaningful. Life because, in many theistic worldviews, man is brought into existence primarily to populate God's cult of personality. Death because, in many cases, belief in God comes with a belief in an afterlife, which, the way I see it, reduces death to just a change of venue, and life to a game of "catch the soul."

Without God, without a "real" meaning to life, all meaning is illusory. You can percieve how ever much or little meaning in your life, but in the end it doesn't matter. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow after murdering some children or live a philanthropic life to old age it makes no difference. One life is not a better choice than the other because "good" and "bad", "right", and "wrong" are merely personal subjective perceptions. They are not real outside your mind. With God, on the otherhand, there IS actual purpose and meaning to life. One can judge one persons life to anothers and that judgement actually means something more than just opinion. Even with God, we are still able to perceive meaning, whether the meaning we perceive is correct in reality is a different story.

Quote:

Quote:As far as I can understand EITHER life has real meaning and there must be something real which we call "God" or "meaning" OR any "meaning" in life is illusory and people choose to believe in the illusion of God to give their life meaning.

So why is "meaning" something that must be equated with God? Why can't it just be a sense like "I have to go on. I must tell the world about my experiences and the ideas I've developed as a result."?

It can just be a "sense". If it is just a sense though, the meaning is illusory. If all meaning is illusory a belief in "meaning" is identical to a belief in "God". They would just both be beliefs in illusory things which we make up to give our lives purpose. However, you can't say that the "meaning" is real but that "God" isnt. They are both equally real to those who believe them, and equally nonexistent in reality.

Quote:

Quote:Believing that meaning is real but that "God" is illusory doesn't make any sense. It's exactly the same belief. It would just be another unverifiable belief for which the word "God" has been replaced with the word "meaning".

And why is it?

-Above

Quote:

Quote:If someone could explain how life has real meaning without "God" I am all ears. Honestly I'm not trying to get into an argument I just want to hear the rationalization.

Here's a collection of writings by nontheists about how life can have meaning without God.
Come to think of it, even Victor Frankl, the writer of Man's Search For Meaning, a book anyone interested in questions of life's meaning should read, admitted that, for all his talk of God (as transcendental and far removed from that of organized religion as it was), meaning could be found even without giving it the name "God."

Quote:Furthermore, since all of our understanding of reality is based upon our perceptions, isn't the belief in the validity of human "perception" exactly the same as a belief in "God"? They are both ultimately beliefs in the unverifiable.

If we have anything else that's more verifiable, I'd like to hear it.

Thanks. Ill look into them. I posted an argument for why belief in reality necessitates a belief in "God" a few pages back. I'll repost it and maybe you wouldn't mind taking a crack at it.

Well, the problem perhaps is that he is misunderstanding what a universal constant is. The definition of universal constant is not "exists outside of science's observation of it."

A Christian's notion of a "universal constant" is whatever pueril fatuousness that would make him feel less stupid for believing the Christian god.

Shell maybe I am misstating universal constants. I know of nothing which science believes exist without observation besides universal constants. If you are claiming that scientific discoveries dictate reality I would suggest you have just replaced "God" with "Science".

I believe there are forces which created the universe and everything within it. Science attempts to explain the universe in purely mechanical terms yet offers little speculation on how physical forces were able to create a nonphysical consciousness. It just says, after a certain number and type of complex physical interactions something nonphysical, that is consciousness, magically pops into existence. That theory is not acceptable to me. I am of the opinion that the nonphysical, or some combination of physical and nonphysical must have always existed. I am attempting logical proofs which support my hypothesis because the science is not readily available for me to test.

---

Quote:
1)All of reality is experienced through consciousness.
2)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.
3)Things that are real must exist apart from our observation of or ideas about what they are.
4)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it.
5)The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants.
6)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real science believes it is a universal constant.
7)Universal constants are believed to be responsible for the creaton of the universe and everything within it.
8)THEREFORE: if consciousness is real it is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it.
9)If consciousness is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it, it could be called "God"
10)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must necessarily believe in "God".

You don't understand science at all, do you?

apparently not frankiej. explain it to me.

(January 6, 2012 at 4:44 pm)amkerman Wrote: Shell maybe I am misstating universal constants. I know of nothing which science believes exist without observation besides universal constants.

If you do not know what a universal constant is, why the hell would you claim something is a universal constant that is not categorized as a universal constant? I would mention how much of my time you just wasted, but I'm afraid that was your intent.

Quote:If you are claiming that scientific discoveries dictate reality I would suggest you have just replaced "God" with "Science".

Nothing I said even hinted at that. I didn't even graduate from high school and my reading comprehension exceeds yours.

Quote:I believe there are forces which created the universe and everything within it.

Finally. A little intellectual honesty. I fucking love it. That is what you believe. Bully for you. That does not mean everyone else has to believe it or they are being illogical. You are making progress.

Quote:Science attempts to explain the universe in purely mechanical terms yet offers little speculation on how physical forces were able to create a nonphysical consciousness.

Ah, but consciousness has only been established as physical. Small steps, padawan.

Quote:It just says, after a certain number and type of complex physical interactions something nonphysical, that is consciousness, magically pops into existence.

It says no such thing.

Quote:That theory is not acceptable to me.

It's your theory. You just made it up now. No one in the scientific community is claiming any such thing, to my knowledge.

Quote:I am of the opinion that the nonphysical, or some combination of physical and nonphysical must have always existed.

I love this. Are you seeing how a turn of phrase completely changes the conversation? "I am of the opinion . . . " I feel like I just taught a monkey sign language. No offense. I really like monkeys.

Quote:I am attempting logical proofs which support my hypothesis because the science is not readily available for me to test.

That you admit it is a guess is logical. Everything else from there is not. You should have never asserted it as truth and demanded that others see it your way by way of belittling them for disagreeing with what is arguably a very wild claim.