Life for the atheist.....random or fate

stevejazzx

I tend to think sometimes that life is just completely random, particulary in terms of who dies and who lives etc.
Obviously I take into account that those who put themselves in vicarious situations put themselves at greater risk therefore more likely to encounter a serious accident etc.
What I'm actually talking about are things like freak accidents etc., just random events happening to random people or do some of you still believe in fate even in the abscence of a god?

Funsterdelux

stevejazzx wrote:

I tend to think sometimes that life is just completely random, particulary in terms of who dies and who lives etc.
Obviously I take into account that those who put themselves in vicarious situations put themselves at greater risk therefore more likely to encounter a serious accident etc.
What I'm actually talking about are things like freak accidents etc., just random events happening to random people or do some of you still believe in fate even in the abscence of a god?

Thats a good one,

What I think, well the universe its laws of physics, even them we dont understand at the quantum level to well, so I do think that everything is random,
the only thing i think that has fate, is the universe itself.

Beruthiel

I met my ex husband on the 17th of March.
I had my daughter on the 17th of March.
I met my second long term relationship on the 17th of March.
I met my current partner on the 17th of September.
I met him in a night club, which I had went to with my ex second long term b/f (we were just friends at that stage)
He met his wife at the same night club on the same night I met my partner.

I put all the above down to sheer coincedence, though it's a good one

At the end of the day, you make your own fate, stuff is put in front of you all the time, you are the one who decides which to go for and which to ignore.

stevejazzx

Funsterdelux wrote:

Thats a good one,

What I think, well the universe its laws of physics, even them we dont understand at the quantum level to well, so I do think that everything is random,
the only thing i think that has fate, is the universe itself.

What i'm reading at the moment is Jung,

extract - overview wrote:

Synchronicity is an explanatory principle, according to its creator, Carl Jung. Synchronicity explains "meaningful coincidences," such as a beetle flying into his room while a patient was describing a dream about a scarab. The scarab is an Egyptian symbol of rebirth, he noted. Therefore, the propitious moment of the flying beetle indicated that the transcendental meaning of both the scarab in the dream and the insect in the room was that the patient needed to be liberated from her excessive rationalism. His notion of synchronicity is that there is an acausal principle that links events having a similar meaning by their coincidence in time rather than sequentially. He claimed that there is a synchrony between the mind and the phenomenal world of perception.

wiki wrote:

It differs from coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic that is being expressed through meaningful relationships or events.

This is a heavily criticised theory but I for one believe in it at least partly.
There seems to me in life to be a the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting a governing dynamic. Essentially some overriding design. Not from a god and a complete and perfect design, but maybe the ability of the mind to sense situations therefore make connections, not empty connections like a meaningless coincidence though, something intuitive.

aidan24326

stevejazzx wrote:

This is a heavily criticised theory but I for one believe in it at least partly. There seems to me in life to be a the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting a governing dynamic. Essentially some overriding design. Not from a god and a complete and perfect design, but maybe the ability of the mind to sense situations therefore make connections, not empty connections like a meaningless coincidence though, something intuitive.

It's worth remembering that the human mind loves pattern. We tend to look for pattern and some meaningful regularity in almost everything. This is for the most part a very good thing. It has given us science and mathematics. However we do unfortunately have a tendency to take this too far sometimes, to see some connection in everyday events where really there is just blind random coincidence. Sometimes a simple probabilistic analysis will show that what we believed to be an amazing coincidence did in fact have a much better probabilty of happening than we had imagined. Carl Sagan has an excellent discussion of this in his book 'The Demon Haunted World'.

'Intuition' is just making a connection based on some past experience(s) and/or one's own perception. We often think of 'intuition' as being something strange and ethereal but it isn't really. What is making you feel something intuitively could be just the manifestation of an unconscious mental process. How exactly do you propose that it has anything to with 'some overriding design' ?

Dades

Good post aidan24326, and respect for quoting one of my heros.

I wouldn't describe life as "random", as everything that occurs does so because something caused it to occur - albeit unknowingly for the most part.

IMO we are in charge of our own (infinite) destinies, insofar as our brains are lumps of organic material that control our behavior. Of course our destinies are also linked to things outside of our control like illness or other people's stupidity.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Consider the number pi

Assign each of the letters of the alphabet a number i.e. A=1, B=2

Convert the bible into numerical form using the above rule.

It will be found that the exact numerical series found from the bible will appear in pi. This is not some intrinsic element of religion in maths, it is purely due to the fact that pi extends infinitely. Every possible combination of numbers will be found if you search long enough. even 1,000,000 zeros in series.

The same is true of the universe. For every person born on a leap year day, thousands will not. For every person unlucky enough to be hit by a falling piano, millions will not. There are so many combinations, that pattens have to occur. For instance, people being hit by lightning multiple times

Scofflaw

sean_keevey wrote:

Consider the number pi

Assign each of the letters of the alphabet a number i.e. A=1, B=2

Convert the bible into numerical form using the above rule.

It will be found that the exact numerical series found from the bible will appear in pi. This is not some intrinsic element of religion in maths, it is purely due to the fact that pi extends infinitely. Every possible combination of numbers will be found if you search long enough. even 1,000,000 zeros in series.

The same is true of the universe. For every person born on a leap year day, thousands will not. For every person unlucky enough to be hit by a falling piano, millions will not. There are so many combinations, that pattens have to occur. For instance, people being hit by lightning multiple times

Given billions of people to choose from, and a 70 year lifespan, it's easily possible for people to lucky or unlucky all their lives - plus the person who thinks themself lucky will remember preferentially the "lucky" things that happened, and ignore the "unlucky". None of which has any real bearing on whether they will be lucky or unlucky next time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

aidan24326 wrote:

It's worth remembering that the human mind loves pattern. We tend to look for pattern and some meaningful regularity in almost everything. This is for the most part a very good thing. It has given us science and mathematics. However we do unfortunately have a tendency to take this too far sometimes, to see some connection in everyday events where really there is just blind random coincidence. Sometimes a simple probabilistic analysis will show that what we believed to be an amazing coincidence did in fact have a much better probabilty of happening than we had imagined. Carl Sagan has an excellent discussion of this in his book 'The Demon Haunted World'.

'Intuition' is just making a connection based on some past experience(s) and/or one's own perception. We often think of 'intuition' as being something strange and ethereal but it isn't really. What is making you feel something intuitively could be just the manifestation of an unconscious mental process. How exactly do you propose that it has anything to with 'some overriding design' ?

I knew this reply was coming and indeed it's logic perfectly defuncts Jungs ideas of synchronocity, Freud had some word for it also, something like apophenia, making meaning where there is none.
And logically I accept this explanation as statistically it is shown there is an infinite number of outcomes to any situation, so a coincidence or apparently meaningful outcomes are happening all the time. In terms of intuition though, I was talking about how the brain was managing to sense a design pattern just before it happened and then wonder if the result is again mere coincidence or actual pattern.
I don't accept that intuition is based solely on past experiences, I believe an individual can have an inspired moment which derives from nothing but that persons spirit.
Jungs idea is quite bold and you can argue that he is naive for interpretating the events that way, given what statistical data sets can pre determine, or that he is brilliant in trying to decipher the events in a much more grand way.
Just because you can debunk something on statistical level doesn't mean that you have covered the completeness of that event, just that you have shown that the said event has a stronger probabilty of being explained within the confines of already known science.

monkeyfudge

Nature also loves a patern and will always try and organise itself into one. And humans are part of nature.

I've always liked the idea of the 100th Monkey (and not just for the obvious reason that the thought of a 100 monkeys makes me giddy).

But the 100th Monkey idea suggests that there might be some sort of underlying collective conciousness.

Colonies of monkeys on different islands were given dirty coconuts. Now they found these hard to eat as they'd invariably get dirt in their mouth. Eventually one monkey worked out that he could wash the coconuts in the water, he then taught this skill to other members of his tribe. Once a criticial number had learned all the monkeys were able to do it, even on other islands were no single monkey had learned to start washing the coconuts first.

It's not exactly proof of a collective conciousness, but is absolute proof that monkeys are great! As if we needed proof anyway?

lostexpectation

Beruthiel wrote:

I met my ex husband on the 17th of March.
I had my daughter on the 17th of March.
I met my second long term relationship on the 17th of March.
I met my current partner on the 17th of September.
I met him in a night club, which I had went to with my ex second long term b/f (we were just friends at that stage)
He met his wife at the same night club on the same night I met my partner.

I put all the above down to sheer coincedence, though it's a good one

At the end of the day, you make your own fate, stuff is put in front of you all the time, you are the one who decides which to go for and which to ignore.

so you always go out for paddies night *does spooky noise* :rolleyes:

Crucifix

lostexpectation wrote:

so you always go out for paddies night *does spooky noise* :rolleyes:

She gave birth on a night out? :eek: I'm never going to a boards beers now!

Myksyk

Sorry Monkeyfudge but the 100th monkey phenomenon is bunkum - though I'm sure monkeys are still great!;)

Go here for an overview.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

I don't accept that intuition is based solely on past experiences, I believe an individual can have an inspired moment which derives from nothing but that persons spirit.

Then what is a spirit, if it is not just a manifestation of brain-power, as a result of intelligent guesswork based on past experience?

That monkey "critical mass" business sounds dubious to say the least!

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

Then what is a spirit, if it is not just a manifestation of brain-power, as a result of intelligent guesswork based on past experience?

Well mostly yes I would agree with you, in what is quantifiable by human understanding.
But I am open to the idea that a spiritual state that 'transcends' beyond the physical and emotional elements of ourselves is possible. It has been scientifically shown in yoga for example that practioners were able slow heart rate and breathing, produce sweat, reamain without sustinance for periods longer than 2 months etc, etc.
So essentially accessing the untapped resources/potenial of the human mind and consciousness and using them to control the body, transcending experience.



That monkey "critical mass" business sounds dubious to say the least![/QUOTE]

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

So essentially accessing the untapped resources/potenial of the human mind and consciousness and using them to control the body, transcending experience.

I've seen the whole yoga thing alright. That documentary on "Buddha Boy" was interesting to say the least.

I'm a huge believer in mind over matter - but only insofar as the mind is matter too. It's fine to be open-minded about there being a "spiritual state that 'transcends' beyond the physical" one - always good to have an open mind. I just feel that because we have everything still to learn about our grey matter that we have no reason or necessity to make the logical leap to suggest a spiritual state of which we have zero knowledge.

Isn't that kind of like the leap involved with saying "we don't understand how the universe came to be, so it must be God?"

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

I've seen the whole yoga thing alright. That documentary on "Buddha Boy" was interesting to say the least.

I'm a huge believer in mind over matter - but only insofar as the mind is matter too. It's fine to be open-minded about there being a "spiritual state that 'transcends' beyond the physical" one - always good to have an open mind. I just feel that because we have everything still to learn about our grey matter that we have no reason or necessity to make the logical leap to suggest a spiritual state of which we have zero knowledge.

I was going to mention the buddha boy in my post, it was a fascinating documentary alright...
It is very hard to quantify anything about spirituality, as logically we can resolve it to a contrived hauman condition.

atheist wrote:

Isn't that kind of like the leap involved with saying "we don't understand how the universe came to be, so it must be God?"

Not really. We can say, albeit cautiosly, that the world was created from an explosion. Noone can answer how the matter that exploded got there in the first place though! But at least we seem to have an understanding of how physically such a thing as our world exists.
Throughout evolution the idea of a God has become weaker and weaker, that is a fact, as science progresses it explain s to us completely some of things that were once seen as Godly, like the weather for example.
The notion of spirtuality however hasn't recieved the same blow from modern science. Logically science attributes all human action to the brain but in doing so sets boundaries for the brains operation based on what has been achieved thus far by humans.
It is acknowledged that we don't appear to use our brain to the fullest capacity and science is at loss to quantify it's pysicality completely.
Spirituality may well be a creation of the mind, built from experience, but it may also become an independant entity going forward. It might be something that once it is established, lives. This might explain transcendentalism etc. and is certainly a more worthwhile consideration than that of a mythical, all seeing all knowing God, with a long white beard sitting in heaven watching us on a3000 inch lcd screen.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Spirituality may well be a creation of the mind, built from experience, but it may also become an independant entity going forward.

It may be, but in reality we don't have any grounds (that I can see) to base this suspicion on.
When I hear hooves, I don't think of zebras.

stevejazzx wrote:

watching us on a 3000 inch lcd screen.

I gotta get me one of those.

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

It may be, but in reality we don't have any grounds (that I can see) to base this suspicion on.
When I hear hooves, I don't think of zebras.
.

You have nailed this down to cold hard fact, but remember everything in life is subjective.
This is my way of saying yeah, you're probably right.

Beruthiel

lostexpectation wrote:

so you always go out for paddies night *does spooky noise* :rolleyes:

No
But perhaps I should, though that would make it self fulling then

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

You have nailed this down to cold hard fact, but remember everything in life is subjective.
This is my way of saying yeah, you're probably right.

Maybe someone with more than a neuroscience degree from the University of Google will prove us both wrong.

CiDeRmAn

Just finished a book on superstring theory, the elegant universe, and given that what the book speaks of is true, or at least the basis for the actual way the universe works we are tantalisingly close to understanding the way that it all began, how matter has arranged itself into families of particles, how all of this fits together into a micro and macro scopic existence, unfortunately for gods this leaves precious little room for them to operate, they must be beings subject to the same rules as the rest of us, so pop goes any earth notions of godhood right there.
As for Fate vs Randomness, its random, with our decisions to deal with the world being formed by what we imagine to be the worlds emotive responses to our transgressions or support of our chosen moral framework, the christian "if I am sinful I will be punished and bad things will happen" and "If I work hard I will be rewarded", that kind of bull.
Truth of it is that sinning is simply behaving in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the group and so can lead to punishment, either directed by the group itself as the results of the trangression are mae public or by the actual results of the act itself as the individual is forced to face the problems he/she has created.
The work/heavenly reward is simply the common work/reward mechanic, as those who contribute to the group are rewarded with the smoother functionong of the group as a whole, not the results of this hard work may well be on a scale that is not readily apparent to the individual so a personal reward or incentive should be provided, either in early education as you are mentaly trained to feel pleasure at your good works or in the case of religion the notion of some future reward in "heaven".
With these things in mind we shape our futures by responding to different stimuli, death, life, good things, bad things, in either a constructive way or not, these leading to a better outcome or not, leading to a belief in luck or not. Half empty or half full.
We are just animals with language and the ability to imagine the abstract, we would then be arrogant and foolish to imagine the universe has some special relationship with us, I guess its us trying to antropomorphisise the world around us, make it less uncertain, less scary.

aidan24326

The Atheist wrote:

It's fine to be open-minded about there being a "spiritual state that 'transcends' beyond the physical" one - always good to have an open mind. I just feel that because we have everything still to learn about our grey matter that we have no reason or necessity to make the logical leap to suggest a spiritual state of which we have zero knowledge.
Isn't that kind of like the leap involved with saying "we don't understand how the universe came to be, so it must be God?"

Methinks of Richard Dawkins dinky little quote, 'it's good to have an open-mind, but not so open that your brain falls out' hee hee

You are quite in saying that to invoke something as intangible and unknowable as a 'spirit' is not really answering anything, and is effectively the equivalent of saying 'I just don't know'. Which of course we don't.

aidan24326

CiDeRmAn wrote:

Just finished a book on superstring theory, the elegant universe, and given that what the book speaks of is true, or at least the basis for the actual way the universe works

Superstring theory is still pretty speculative. Just one of a few theories knocking around at the minute. It's far from certain that it is 'the basis for the actual way the universe works'. Maybe it is, but it could also be completely wrong.

CiDeRmAn

Perhaps but it certainly points to a series of serious avenues of investigation where the true scale of reality becomes apparent and the whole arguement of the existence/non-existence of god seems more and more like a school yard debate on whether Santa is real or not.

aidan24326

CiDeRmAn wrote:

Perhaps but it certainly points to a series of serious avenues of investigation where the true scale of reality becomes apparent and the whole arguement of the existence/non-existence of god seems more and more like a school yard debate on whether Santa is real or not.

Here I agree with you. There is as much evidence of Santa as there is of this God that people pray to.

However whether superstring theory will ultimately provide any answers remains to be seen. The only thing we currently know is that we just don't know, if you know what I mean. Though Physics has certainly stripped away many of the of layers of BS laid down by Theological teaching, and continues to do so.