dialogue sparked by Dawkins' Delusion

[spid3rboy]

I was talking with LibertyLover76 on a youtube thread about why evolution just doesn't answer 'heart' issues for me. Now, I'll define that right now so you don't think it's just some touchy, feely vague new age clap-trap term. Anytime I use it I'm talking about the spirit or soul of a person which I genuinely believe to exist, and which comes in direct dismissal by Dawkins who purports all morality, emotion and such are created by the brain like anything else.

My last post on youtube was that secular intellects have a problem in that they have a world view that you can't actually live out. Sure it looks good on paper. Thinkers such as Camus with his Existentialism and even Darwin whom Dawkins draws from, came to the conclusion later in life that their particular schema just didn't match up to their heart(there it is again) issues or, how they actually lived and felt about their lives. CS Lewis came to this conclusion and ultimately embraced Christianity.

I'm not arguing anything right now except the fact that athiesm if followed to its logical conclusion should leave one in utter despair. I really don't see why you would want to live, I'm being serious here. If I believed I were nothing more than a hard drive that fills its memory for a certain period of time then simply unplugged, I honestly don't know why I would even get out of bed in the morning.

interested to hear your thoughts and thanks for joining us.

[libertylover76]

Hey!

There you are! I started a thread myself because I did not realize you ahd started this one.

You want to come over there?

It's called Dawkins-Inspired Discussion from YouTube.

It's under the Science and Universe heading.

[shadowman]

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

I was talking with LibertyLover76 on a youtube thread about why evolution just doesn't answer 'heart' issues for me. Now, I'll define that right now so you don't think it's just some touchy, feely vague new age clap-trap term. Anytime I use it I'm talking about the spirit or soul of a person which I genuinely believe to exist, and which comes in direct dismissal by Dawkins who purports all morality, emotion and such are created by the brain like anything else.

My last post on youtube was that secular intellects have a problem in that they have a world view that you can't actually live out. Sure it looks good on paper. Thinkers such as Camus with his Existentialism and even Darwin whom Dawkins draws from, came to the conclusion later in life that their particular schema just didn't match up to their heart(there it is again) issues or, how they actually lived and felt about their lives. CS Lewis came to this conclusion and ultimately embraced Christianity.

I'm not arguing anything right now except the fact that athiesm if followed to its logical conclusion should leave one in utter despair. I really don't see why you would want to live, I'm being serious here. If I believed I were nothing more than a hard drive that fills its memory for a certain period of time then simply unplugged, I honestly don't know why I would even get out of bed in the morning.

interested to hear your thoughts and thanks for joining us.

because life is fun?

sure, maybe life is just fun becuase we evolved the capacity toconsider certain things fun so that we wouldnt become existentialists and kill ourselves, maybe we have fun becase it helps keep society together and society helps keepus safe, and procreating,


hey guess what, if you carry this athiest thing to all its logical conclusions, start thinking about how brainwashed you are (its not as hard as it sounds, ever wonder why you think of time interms of days monday tuesday wednesday, one o clock two o clock, this is all brainwashing that helps society function)

well if you start thiking about this, think about why you consider yourswelf you

who do you have a name?

why did your parents give you that name? why do you have a family?

are you always you

what about when you are angry? are you still you? are you angry you? is it all you?

you exist, and have existed?

you are therefore you are.

you are that you are

jesus was indeed wise.


anyway if you follow all tis to its lofgical conclusions, there is still reason to live.

becuase we are all one.

we arep rotons and electrons that are self aware.

and not everyone is in a good position.

you are lucky, you can help others

and guess what else you are, you have reached a level of buddhist enlightenment

tohughts are just energy

turn that energy into positive enrgy or you wont be happy!

words only exist to help convey ideas.

ideas are only important because tey help us commuicate


communication is important because it helps our community.

[spid3rboy]

hi shadow,

for one, that doesn't satisfy me. and it doesn't satisfy you either(you may not know it, yet).

and let's take it one further. if existence is for existence/experience sake, for 'community' and in say a billion more years our sun goes nova and (for the sake of argument) we haven't gotten to faster than light travel yet, all of us are gone. from your point of view, all the experiencing and fun of life, scientific knowledge, development, history, it's wiped out. completely. you would say you're ok with that because that's how the universe works and it will all start again in some pre-biotic soup somewhere else in the wide world? because if that is the case, it really doesn't matter whether you live another 80 years or die tomorrow.

[shadowman]

the only things that do not satisfy me

the screwed up things people do (including me)

the idea of a hell for ANYONE after they die

even if they do not worship god

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Spider!

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

I was talking with LibertyLover76 on a youtube thread about why evolution just doesn't answer 'heart' issues for me. Now, I'll define that right now so you don't think it's just some touchy, feely vague new age clap-trap term. Anytime I use it I'm talking about the spirit or soul of a person which I genuinely believe to exist, and which comes in direct dismissal by Dawkins who purports all morality, emotion and such are created by the brain like anything else.

I think I know what you mean, I have asked similar questions in the past with wholly unsatisfactory answers (when any were even offered).

One thread was:
morality within evolution

Another:
juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

My last post on youtube was that secular intellects have a problem in that they have a world view that you can't actually live out. Sure it looks good on paper. Thinkers such as Camus with his Existentialism and even Darwin whom Dawkins draws from, came to the conclusion later in life that their particular schema just didn't match up to their heart(there it is again) issues or, how they actually lived and felt about their lives. CS Lewis came to this conclusion and ultimately embraced Christianity.

Yes, I have long pondered the inescapable conclusion that the end result of atheism is fatalism. If there is nothing to live for, why be moral? What compulsion? Why not just do as one damn well pleases and forget about everybody else? Law?

Nah, atheists are moral because society demands a certain degree of morality to coexist with others. There is no other compulsion that binds them to morality.

interested to hear your thoughts and thanks for joining us.

And thank you for a thought provoking discussion.

[shadowman]

thats not true. doing good feels good

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yes, I have long pondered the inescapable conclusion that the end result of atheism is fatalism. If there is nothing to live for, why be moral? What compulsion? Why not just do as one damn well pleases and forget about everybody else?

I'm an atheist. I do as I damn well please. It damn well pleases me to behave in an ethical fashion.

Atheists, in my experience, are no more likely to succumb to fatalism than theists.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Nah, atheists are moral because society demands a certain degree of morality to coexist with others. There is no other compulsion that binds them to morality.

I believe we are moral for the same reasons.

[path_of_one]

I am not atheist, but I am not ethical because I believe in God. I am ethical because I love the other beings on this earth, and so I want to make sure I behave in a way that does not hurt them (or at least minimizes the hurt).

I do not think that theism and social mores alone account for ethics. Lots of people seem to genuinely enjoy ethical action (broadly defined, of course, because what is ethical in some cultures is not in others). The atheists I know, as a whole, are some of the most ethical, humane people I've met. And a lot of them are doing good things only because they feel it to be right or because they genuinely enjoy doing good, not because they feel they will be rewarded or punished, which I find inspiring.

I know quite a few atheists that are pretty happy. I couldn't be happy as an atheist, but then that is because I have always had a mystical personality, so it is at odds with my own experience of life. But I have learned a tremendous amount from atheists, and the chiefest of these lessons has been that life itself brings joy if we let it.

If we focus on our flaws and guilt, or on our afterlife, we can lose sight of the genuine joy that each day can bring. The atheists I know seem to really be intent on living their lives to the fullest- finding joy in the temporary experience of existence. They seem to worry less, and are resigned that death is the end-- but that doesn't mean that they focus on the end. I think in some ways, that resignation to an end brings a certain peace in the face of adversity, and even joy in it. One atheist told me that on his worst days, when everything goes wrong, he still finds joy in it. I asked him how and why. He said that when you consider the alternative to a bad day- that you don't exist at all- a bad day seems pretty interesting, and something for which to be thankful.

I used to think a lot more about the afterlife, and I'd pass up the many blessings God gave me each day because I was despairing that it was not as good as heaven. It was not as good as Eden. I was living life in a comparison to an imagined place with God (not saying these places do/did not exist, but that we can't know what they're like til we're there).

Knowing an atheist very well and asking him all the things I've wondered about atheism, but normally are not polite to ask, really taught me that I wasn't living. I was waiting for death. Now, I still do look forward to death in a way- because I believe it is a transformation. But I try to live now, and not to just wait. Even the worst day is a gift.

[flowperson]

Path of One:

That was a wonderful exposition upon the wonders of "living in the moment". While I too could not live the life of atheism because of my personal experiences, I still find solace in day-to-day living and the knowledge that it will sometime end. Then what I am and have been will be carried into the future by my children's genetics and memories.

While my life has not been trouble free or luxurious by any definitions of the terms, I have found a consistent way to experience it as I believe we were created to experience it...live in the moment and let life surprise you in its forward flow as spontaneity works its wonders in both happy and sad ways. Let whatever may come...and effectively deal with it and its consequences as necessary. Anxiety and worry tend to disappear if this set of disciplines are followed and accompanied with the knowledge that G-d's infinite love is there for you whenever you need it.

peace....flow

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

I was talking with LibertyLover76 on a youtube thread about why evolution just doesn't answer 'heart' issues for me.

Are you saying you disagree with the theory of 'modification with descent' because it does not account for the soul, spid3rboy? Or that you think science should focus on such questions?

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

My last post on youtube was that secular intellects have a problem in that they have a world view that you can't actually live out.

I haven't encountered these discussions, so I am at a bit of a loss here. Why would you maintain this belief?

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

I'm not arguing anything right now except the fact that athiesm if followed to its logical conclusion should leave one in utter despair.

What reason have you for believing this?

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

I really don't see why you would want to live, I'm being serious here. If I believed I were nothing more than a hard drive that fills its memory for a certain period of time then simply unplugged, I honestly don't know why I would even get out of bed in the morning.

Perhaps you should read some more of Dawkins' work. We are hardwired by our genome to seek to reproduce. Any genetic data that encourages people to lie down and die or stay in bed forever would be ruthlessly punished by selection.

Originally Posted by spid3rboy

interested to hear your thoughts and thanks for joining us.

You're welcome. Thanks for starting the thread.

[DT Strain]

Humanists believe that we each have the right and ability to define our own meaning in life. The meaning of life for me may be different from the meaning of life for you - and this is far superior to having your life’s meaning handed to you on a platter.

As naturalists, Humanists believe that our minds and our consciousness arise from the activity of our brains. When this activity stops, we have every reason to believe that our conscious life ceases. This is the very reason why Humanists hold that life is sacred and each day of our lives is priceless. As with the laws of supply & demand, the more limited a commodity is, the more valuable it becomes - so each day of a finite life is of far greater worth than those of an infinite life.

While some may view a finite life negatively, Humanists believe that life should not be viewed as a means to an end - as in, "What did I live for?" Instead, life should be viewed as an end unto itself; to be enjoyed for its own sake. The value in life is in the living of it.

A good illustration of this can be found in the example of other finite experiences: sand castles and ice sculptures. Why do we build these? Neither structure is permanent and yet, for the audience the value is higher because of the transience of the experience. For the artist, the joy is in the creation process, rather than the finished product per se. This is not unlike the Tibetan Monks who go to great lengths to pour colored sand into meticulous elaborate designs. These designs are eventually swept away but, for the monks, it is the process of creating them that serves as a spiritual experience. In life, it is each day we live and the experiences we have that have a value in and of themselves. This is the "now" of Eastern and Stoic thought and it is one way to find great meaning in life.

There are certainly some other common avenues and experiences that tend to yield happy and fulfilling lives, and many philosophers have spent lifetimes exploring good ideas on this. We often find that the positive contributions we make to others can give great meaning to our lives. To many, a meaningful life consists of being a good parent, a good spouse, and so on - contributing positively to the world around us. In this way we live on in the memories of others and the effects we had on the world.

With Compassion,
DT Strain
Humanist Minister