|
Why
|
Worst.Beat poem. EVER!
LOL just kidding, there are some good questions in there but the title of this thread reminds me of a Louis CK bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJlV49RDlLE 
I really hate this long winded list of questions when "why" is so loaded around our species self centered narcissism.
To answer the simple question "what does it all mean", Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5 "flurry of activity, full of sound and furry, signifying nothing". In scientific reality there is no reason to all this, other than "all this" is merely like a weather pattern and seasons changing. But there is no magical altruistic divine handed down reason. Nature simply does. And any answer we have found and any answer we might find is based in science. But the planet and the sun and the universe are not concerned with us nor are capable of being concerned. However, all the other lists of things you mention in this list are a result of biological evolution. If we did not evolve with emotions like love, or fear of harm, we would not have evolved to seek cooperation, seek to find resources, seek safety in numbers, or seek to defeat anything that threatens our resources. I hate your list(not you personally), but I hate this list because having to answer it in such non magical context which reality is causes some people to think that means we as atheists have to be void of emotions or are robots incapable of compassion. The why is simple, nature. 
Easily the most uplifting feedback I have ever received vs my thoughts. This: "Nature simply does. And any answer we have found and any answer we might find is based in science. But the planet and the sun and the universe are not concerned with us nor are capable of being concerned." Might be the greatest sentence I've ever read.
Thank you for replying (and again sorry for the long list...like I said I just wanted to capture a rush of thoughts I had) (December 19, 2012 at 11:06 am)DoubtingThomas Wrote: Easily the most uplifting feedback I have ever received vs my thoughts. This: "Nature simply does. And any answer we have found and any answer we might find is based in science. But the planet and the sun and the universe are not concerned with us nor are capable of being concerned." Might be the greatest sentence I've ever read. Thanks, but I am not saying anything new in life. You are merely responding to new packaging, but the message is the same, no matter how the words are arranged. My formulation that lead you to say "wow" is the same "wow" when I first understood the implication of Macbeth act 5 scene 5, and the same reaction I had to Epicurus when I first understood his problem with evil argument. My thoughts are a product of thinking, but they are still based on the thoughts and science of those prior. If people didn't think, we wouldn't evolve and give up on bad data.
Right, I hold the same opinion of Epicurus. Thanks
RE: Why
December 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm by Brian37.)
(December 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm)DoubtingThomas Wrote: Right, I hold the same opinion of Epicurus. Thanks Well, lets also keep in mind law of probability. Scientific method NEVER says "never", but at the same time, once you realize something is crap scientifically speaking, you don't bet on the pink unicorn in the Kentucky Derby. I am with you, I have yet to see any credible argument that has refuted Epicurus. The only conclusion I can come to be logically consistent is such a god doesn't exist, or if it does, is a fucking prick. I'd be more understanding of a "lab rat" type god. Because scientist do use other life and have to inflict pain to understand how something clicks. But even in this case, humans increasingly know that animals feel pain and have emotions. In either case though, there is no demonstrable, testable and falsifiable case of a thinking brain with no physical material, no neurons, or location. So "good god" or "lab rat god" makes no sense to me. What we do have plenty of evidence of is that humans are capable of concocting stories and or falling for myth as fact. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
