RE: The Pursuit Of Meaning....and Origins of the Universe...and so forth....

CrazyHorse4

HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......................
Hola, Bonjour.....

I recently realised that I am an atheist...or an agnostic...or whatever those people who dont believe in God are called.....
but I still feel that....in this vast, expanding Universe...I have some sort of purpose.....
Well actually I dont think I have a purpose....
In fact...I just think humans are insignificant beings who like to think that they are special....so special, in fact, that a 'higher being' is constantly looking over them, watching their every move.
But thats just a load of s**t.....right?

P.S. As most people dont understand just how f***in enormous the Universe is and how many galaxies (containing countless numbers of stars and planets) it contains, they dont realise the substantial possibility...if not probablility that alien life exists somewhere in this incomprehendably (is that a word?) large Universe or ours.
(now I know Im crazy)


For more examples of articles by insanely paranoid androids.....send me a message or reply to this thread.

o sleep

you're an atheist. agnostics believe in something out there, but they're not sure what. as for UFO's and aliens, it's the new religion. you can't say whether there is or isn't aliens so what is the ****ing point? in short religion = belief in aliens = bull****

PiE

UFO's and aliens, it's the new religion

religion = belief in aliens = bull****

Is that not a contradiction? Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

poobags

I completly agree with o sleep. Who cares about whether or not thers the possiblity of aliens or if god exists or not.

Dont waste your time thinkin about it. It will seriously **** you up. US humans cant graspe another meaning of time. WE have this notion that everything has a start and a finish. It mightn't be like that. Ther could be another way we just haven't come up with it yet and until we do we'll never understand life.

Look into budhism, its mainly about spirituality not a higher existance. They dont bother with all that ****e.

o sleep

no it's not a contradiction. ufos are (as far as we can say) mythical somewhat supernatural beings who take us up and away and offer us enlightenment or anal probes - exactly what religion has been offering us for the past 5000 years (or thereabouts). ufoism (i have no idea whether that term exists) is like religion for idiots ... now that's a scary thought. so, no pie, you didn't read it wrong, it's just that i think that when i fell on saturday i actually did some serious damage. i think there may be blood on my brain. no, really.

the fnj

Purpose?

I feel as an atheist that the my purpose in life and everybody else is to do something positive that in some way makes life for the next generation of humans better. I feel that when I am about to die I should be able to look back and be sure that I did something that in someway makes things better for people when I’m gone. It doesn’t have to be something amazing but once I’ve done more good then bad to this planet then I’ll die happy.

This should be everybodies goal in life in my opinion, there are too many people who are doing whatever it takes to try and make there years of living as comfortable and as easy as possible despite the consiquences to others.

And you thought you were crazy!

(Shameless attempt to pull this away from a UFO versus God debate)

PiE

Humans have hugely over-estimated their importance, any way you look at it.

Damien.old

Originally posted by o sleep
you're an atheist. agnostics believe in something out there, but they're not sure what.

An agnostic is someone who thinks themselves not arrogant enough to belive in the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.



The universe is known to consist of billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars. And it is expanding. Who is arrogant enough to say that life does not exist elsewhere in this universe?

TONY MONTANA

THIS REALLY IS ONE BIG CAN OF WORMS.IN MY VIEW ITS NOT A MATTER OF GOD GOOD,UFO BAD,IT BOILS DOWN TO FAITH...FAITH IS A VERY PERSONAL THING.SOME PEOPLE FIND IT EASY TO BELIEVE IN GOD BUT NOT UFO,S AND VISE VERSA...ALL IN ALL ONE MANS MEAT IS ANOTHER MANS POISON:p

PiE

Originally posted by Damien
Who is arrogant enough to say that life does not exist elsewhere in this universe?

The Catholic Church.

TONY MONTANA

good call pie......i like it:D

Vladimar

the ammount of *hit that religion causes.

What i don't get is how people still apply the words right and wrong to religion.

But the point is that all religions are open to interpretaion, any real god would have to allow for that.
----
anti-dogma statement: (based on the catholic church)

it is a given that those who go to heaven are people of good concience.

it is said (in the bible) that those in hell can see those in heaven, and therefore, vice versa (if vice versa isn't true then god is a liar by denying the existance of hell to those in heaven).

it is also said that you will go to hell if you have not confessed and asked forgiveness from god prior to your death, regardless of your lifestyle as a whole.

My conclusion: those in heaven would feel sorry for those in hell, (as any human of good concience would). Therefore; they would not be eternally blissful, and therefore not be in 'heaven'.

Thus disproving the existence of Heaven as an eternally happy place.----

A good friend of mine said this;

humans are created in god's image.
humans are flawed.
Therefore, god is flawed.
Therefore god cannot be devine.
And therefore, does not exist.

That's my spiel, do with it as you wish.

---

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

PiE

"Made in the same image" not necesarily made of the same...uh... space dust

Good point about heaven seeing into hell though.

Theres one thing I always wondered about, does it say, in the Bible loike, that you must repent your sins to a PRIEST? Somehow or another I doubt that Jesus, God whatever if they do exist would leave such an important role in the hands of mortals.

o sleep

you're repenting your sins to jesus christ/god/the holy spirit, but it's done through the body of their representatives on earth.

as for man being made from the same image as god, that was before the fall of adam, therefore before man was inherently flawed. therefore, god *is* divine.

PiE

Yes, but was that a "specific instruction" in the Bible or did the church just decide to take it upon themselves?

Tom E Brown

Here's an interesting point for you. Im not sure if its true but it makes a great story even if its not;


Aparently, the vatican commisioned a study on the existance of extra terestrial life, so as to be able to know weather jesus died for their sins as well as ours...


fact can be stranger than fiction...

poobags

GOD MADE US IN HIS OWN IMAGE>

The Catholic church has accepted Darwins theroy.
Darwin says humans are direct descendants of apes.


IS GOD A GIANT MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PiE

Originally posted by poobags
The Catholic church has accepted Darwins theroy.
Darwin says humans are direct descendants of apes.

Er...they have?

Wouldn't that make every claim of God creating man redundant?

o sleep

Originally posted by PiE
Yes, but was that a "specific instruction" in the Bible or did the church just decide to take it upon themselves?

although i don't know for certain, i'm presumming it was something the church made up later, as christianity wasn't a seperate religion from judaism until well after jesus had died (and *not* resurrected). but christianity, while being a religion of christ, is also a religion of the church. what the church says becomes dogma.

PiE

Originally posted by o sleep
but christianity, while being a religion of christ, is also a religion of the church. what the church says becomes dogma.

and is THAT a specific instruction?

Because isnt "Worshipping False Idols" (ie. people praying to the Pope, Mary, Joseph and the Saints) a sin?

So many questions...

Beany

I believe that I know nothing, and if I did, I wouldn't understand it anyway.

I find it strange how some people can get so passionate and defensive about theories and hearsay (not the pop group)

o sleep

when you pray to mary etc (i've never heard of anyone praying to the pope, although nothing practising catholics do would surprise me) you're not worshiping them ... but i admit it's a fine line. apparently when the christian missionaries were trying to introduce christianity to the irish (pre-st. patrick) the irish just didn't get it at all. they couldn't understand that the deity was a male, as the highest deity in most celtic worship was female. so the christians decided to elevate mary's importance, not to deity level (of course) but accorded highly (later) problematic names such as mother of god etc. scholars say that that's why people in ireland are devoted to the figure of mary so much. before this elevation, mary was probably viewed in much the same way as she is in islam; important for who she conceived but nothing more. and PiE's last point is one of the many objections that protestanism had against christianity (along with paying money to get in to heaven etc etc). it's all about interpretation (or rather misinterpretation in the protestants case).

as for whether the what the church says is dogma and is that a specific instruction, as far as i know, yes it is. when the christian church became the church of rome they had some conference (of chalcea?) where that was written in to the newly formed idea of 'christianity'.

Thomas from Presence

Its an interesting debate. THe church was splintered into a myriad of gnostic sects up until the Roman sect made poltocal alliances with the Roman Empire. This insured a romanised christianity was installed throughout the Roman Empire prior to its down fall and the onset of the dark ages. The Celtic church was practically a seperate entity at this stage.

Roman Christianity at this stage was not very militant and, besides the the heirarcial structure, was quite a sensible religion in so far as the whole idea of love was sacred and turn the other cheek and all that was held highly.

But as Barbarian incursions climaxed with the Visigoths sacking Rome, ppl blamed Christianity for softening ppl and dividing loyalty between state and religion.

Saint Augustine used certain biblical and scriptoreal proofs to show that was ok to kick the crap out of your enemies and anihilate heatens. He also lead the way for the Roman church to become the Crowner's of Kings. A couple of Dynastic alliances later and we have the roman church as the dominant religion in Europe.

From this point on though it went **** ways as Millions of deaths were now justified in the name of God, the Cathars, The Incas, witch burnings, the inquisition etc. Culminating (argubaly) with the anihilation of 6000,000 jews in World War 2.

TO SUMMARISE
Roman Church has tepid claim to legitamacy as it only dominates because of political manouvering and laissez-faire interpations of the Bible to justify military conflict. (Earliest Gospels date from 3oo years after Christ and have been proven to be edited to challenge the claims of certain Gnostic Sects)

I don't think it as bad in the same way today. The Roman Church is decidedly more pacifistic and is not really as involved in secular politics as it once was.

Further Reading: St. Augustine - City of God (and Confessions

o sleep

of course the roman catholic church has only risen due to alliances with rome etc, but it was more a case of rome using catholicism to unite their far flung empire. christianity simply agreed as it meant power and an end to persecution. and it's no suprise that christianity was divided and sub-divided into little sects seeing as it was originally a jewish revolt sect (if that). jesus never said anything about starting a new religion, although i suppose that when they started considering him the messiah, it was inevitable.

and the catholic church does have a right to claim legitimacy as it was the particular strain of christianity that won out in the end (in the west, that is, don't forget the greek and russian orthodox churches). this is how all religion develops. gnosticism could never have developed beyond a sect due to its reliance on 'secret' knowledge and its central belief that jesus wasn't man.

as for the catholic (and protestant) church being responsible for so much evil, i'd have to agree. anyone who claims communism is the greatest evil known to man hasn't really looked at christianity and added up the figures. as for the church not involving itself in supposed secular matters, what about ireland up to about 1970 (or even later): we're still debating whether we should have abortion in this country, for ****s sake. if that isn't catholic influence on secularism then i don't know what is.

PiE

I was waiting for that point to be brought up. It has to be said that even though religions may be founded on the principles of "Love Thy Neighbour" etc, the major churches have encouraged and been responsible for more wars, death and suffering than anything else. All in the name of a God, so it doesn't matter of course :rolleyes:

To be honest, if *I* was God, I'd have given up on this little project a long, long time ago.

Thomas from Presence

I disagree, the abortion debate is not relevant to catholic political influence in Ireland today.

Its an ethical debate that only has religous implications for those of a religous disposition. Its a widely held idea that to be against abortion is to be a devoutly religous individual. False.

Its a debate about from what stage you become a fully right entitled human indiviual. Or what right does a woman have over her offspring to be.

Is there any evidence of catholic-political influence in Ireland today in 2001?

My argument about legitamacy refers to the true upholders of the message of Christ. Its very Aristotelian of you to suggest that through might that the Roman church claims its legitamacy. My point is that from a historical theological point of view it is potentially illegitamate.

o sleep

Originally posted by Thomas from Presence
Or what right does a woman have over her offspring to be

what right does a woman have over her *offspring*??? i think that should read over her body. if you don't believe that the abortion debate isn't related directly to church influence, think about what countries have abortion (america, england, holland, germany) and then think about what countries secularised first (hmm. let's see. that'd be america, england, holland, germany). then let's look at what groups traditionally support abortion (that's groups, not individuals): the church and right wing political groups (although what the difference there is hard to fathom). abortion is a woman's rights issue in much the same way that the the burka, for some women in afghanistan, was a woman's rights issue.

the roman catholic church claims it can trace back its pope's directly to peter (?), although this would seem a little hard considering they had three popes one year way back when. the catholic church is the closest to the orginal church simply because it kept the gospels much as they were: they didn't amalgamate them into one gospel and take out all the contradictions (which is what the gnostics did). of course there were revisions, there always is. for example they made paul in to (more of) a woman hater (than he already was) nor did they include gospels of dubious christological value (which the gnostics did).

Thomas from Presence

In hindsight I should have said over her body and her offspring.

I'm not entering a debate over wheter or not abortion is right or wrong. I do think that the argument that the so-called civilised wealthy nations of the world legalised it so we should too is incredibly wrong and unwise. If we were to follow those nations on every issue we'd be a nuclear infested, war raging, internationally intefering kip. I still maintain the churches political influence in Ireland today is non-existent. Too many scandals, too many scientific and historical discoveries for them to be taken seriously by a substantial amount of ppl. I could be wrong though, is there any other interference into secular law by the church that I've missed? (maybe pubs closing on Good Friday and Christmas day but I doubt thats for religous reasons anymore).


As I say, I will not poffer an opinion on abortion at this stage as it is too sensitive a debate. Perhaps unsolvable by debate.
As yet I am undecided as to what way I will vote. When I make my decision I will consider the right of a woman over her body and the right of the child to be.

I could well vote no. I am not a papist. I am not conservative. Its like saying every man with long hair is a hippy. The church want us to vote no but if I vote no it will not be because of them or any other right wing organisation. Abortion is not the secular world versus the religous, it is a medical ethical debate.

As regards the Gospels;
There is no way I'd stand up and say that the gnostics are the true heirs of Christianity. The point I will make is that they could have as much legitamacy as the established church because both are guilty of altering scripture.
There are a multitude of historical inconsitensies that where probably instigated to make the religion more palatable to the Roman audience. I'll post up details of a historically proven ommissions from Mark excised by Bishop Clement of Alexandria to quell the spread of Gnostic sect known as The Carpocrations on request but know sleep beckons and academic philosophical/ethical/theological debate can resume tommorrow.

o sleep

if you vote no in the abortion referendum (i have no idea what way it's going to be worded, but i presume no indicates stricter abortion measures from what you've implied) and it has nothing to do with any right wing institutions, then, while i'd disagree with you, obviously you should vote whichever way your mind is telling you to. i'd never even attempt to interfere with that.

as for the gospels, you could argue that the christian church only omitted/added certain texts *because* of gnostic interference and their own altering of texts and misinterpretations (especially of Paul). despite what the catholic church became (not so much now, but especially during the middle ages) i think it was far better that we followed augustine's path rather than marcion or valentinus (sp?). think about what sort of world we'd be living in ... well, it'd be much worse than the one we're living in now.

another thing that pisses me off about the catholic church is some sections advocating to dismiss the 'one true church' claim. if they were to actually do this (and i'm not sure if they have or not) then any sort of redemption through the resurrection of christ becomes invalid ... then what exactly is the point of christianity?

ever get the feeling it's just me and you, thomas, arguing the same point? everyone else seems to have left this topic ...

Thomas from Presence

If they dismiss the one through church claim they void themselves oimmediatley. I'm not so sure if the Augustinian path was the right one for mankind myself. Any independant writing and archeological evidence showed the Cathars in the Languduc to be fairly advanced and civilised (ie tolerant and scientifically advanced because of their openess) for a people living in Dark-age barbarian Europe.

Its quite lonely on this topic but what the hey, its gotten more interesting and more profoundly fun. Are you a philosophy student or something out of interest?

o sleep

i am a philosophy student, but i won't say exactly what i study, bcos then it might make it easier for other people to guess who i am (beneath the stupid nickname)