Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence.

Post Reply New Topic

Well then if that's the way you think, then you are automatically canceling out agnosticism as even existing. Because an action or decision can either be based on "god" or "not god". So in actions, you are essentially claiming that no one can be agnostic, because they must perform actions that are either theistic or atheistic.

So, in short, you're suggesting that agnosticism is all in people's heads.

Reality is one of the few things that, aside from the reality generated by human action and interaction, is completely indifferent to what we feel or think. That reality is one where we'll find out, when we're dead we'll find out - no way of really divining it here. I still think that even if someone acts as an atheist but has an agnostic outlook, what they're really choosing is an acknowledgement that they both a) don't know and b) will likely have no different outcome based on that. The thought in most people likely goes that if there is no God - bam, that's the ending and after death comes either eternal r&r or if one is an animist that encompasses falling into another lifeform. If there is a God and there is a design, then just as the big bang was something like matter's insertion into some Byzantine device that controls the cascade of history (time being nothing more than thermodynamic relaxation, a predestined cascade) that we're all part of that cascade and that everything we do is what should be done - meaning that whether your atheist, agnostic, theistic, we'll likely all end up in the same place or falling through other life forms until matter reaches the bottom of the divice - if there is such a thing; and that God would choose whether or not we know or join him after the short chemical cascades we know as selves are ended; that's something that again, is there or isn't.

Some people are drawn to just grab onto observable reality and grip that for the ride, some are driven to speculate about what's hereafter as they may believe there are some possible ways of figuring it out (or at least believing they have for a while), for other people the cascade of destiny will draw them insatiably to the words of Buddha, of the Hindu books, of Judaism, of Christianity, of Islam, Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai as of more recently - its not really a trip of free will which again, makes me seriously question the likelihood of a hell when afterall, not only are our actions predestined since the beginning of time but the actions of those who perpetuated such myths were as well. Time seems to have creepy properties like that; ie. we're not in control, we seem to be but to the extent that the path of least resistance is a fall toward maximal gain (physically, mentally, spiritually - the later being an existential complex; possibly more but that's something that's still part of the debate) and for most whatever the 'right' thing is to them thus gratifying them with the knowledge that they're taking their upbringing, their neurology, and putting it to the best use that they can find possible. As lives fall they can fall against one another, fall into eachother, the former is really not preferred but overriding events can overpower our problem-solving capabilities at times.

What we claim though - theism, diesm, atheism, agnosticism (favoring atheism or favoring non-organized theism of some sort), are simply just labels in terms of our best guesses of what this apparatus is or what it means or, whether it necessarily means anything. If two people do act as atheists but one is an agnostic, the later is gratifying an openness to the impulse (set by knowledge, neurology, etc.) to embrace spirituality as a possibility and to be at peace with their impulses. The atheist may feel that concept foreign do to similar forces within themselves and their own horizon of reality or alternately found some reason where if they had a mystical impulse they realized it purely destructive (which, they may later come to peace with or not - all depending again on how internal or external factors change or don't change). Actions may end up being similar but, when you look at atheists who will donate to charity, fight for a good cause in the face of death, its hard to tell how many atheists may be theists and atheists only in theory, how many church going theists are atheists as soon as they exit into the church parking lot, or once you clump the similarity of our actions together you could come to the conclusion that there is really no difference and that whatever properties that you would assign to a real atheist or real theist (rather than their theoretical beliefs) criss-crosses so often that it barely holds any conceptual value anymore.

Sorry to write you a book, I could have deleted the first few paragraphs but I think they help support the framework of the third.

The only world we each know is in our heads. We take in our perceptions and other people's thoughts about those perceptions and configure the universe as best we can. Reality is different for each of us as it is radically different for bats and bees and jellyfish and grasshoppers. We take from it what we can and do our best to arrange it to keep alive and healthy. There is not only much more out there than we can perceive, what we perceive can be arranged and rearranged in all sorts of variations.

Does anyone else's eyes hurt from reading off the computer screen?

techstepgenr8tion - The cascade of destiny you mention in regards to the words of Buddha at least is certainly not a predestined thing since the beginning of time but rather a destiny TOTALLY governed by our own free will - that the actions we create determine the effects we experience. It is no more mysterious than that. And it's not necessarily cascading either - at least I hope not! Acceptance of this allows us the responsibilty to improve our lives and the world around us.

MrLoony - Did you specify Theravadin Buddhism because you've not read much about the Mahayana tradition - or were you purposely excluding it from your list? I'm aware you included a broader umbrella of possible other faiths, but just wanted to check.

Philotix - I love your "golden rule" - to treat others the way we would like to be treated. I think this rule could be held to by anyone with any consideration - regardless of belief or belief in non-belief, haha! HH the Dalai Lama is actually proposing a form of secular ethics as it's so heart-breakingly obvious that religious ethics are proving to be bullsh it - on a world-scale at least. There's certainly a mind-staggering amount of killing occurring for a world that contains so many so-called 'religious people'. Religion is not important but ethics certainly are. Anyone willing to debate this?

Sand and Philotix - To accurately label our actions requires us to label the intentions that propel them. Whatever theories we adhere to become irrelevant if our actions [EDIT: intentions!] are inconsistent with them.

Sand - I like your openess to the idea of a spectrum - as many of us seem to agree that our perceptions are clouded by our individual conditioning which influences our interpretations of philosophies and thereby affects our engagement of them.

Your comment about the circus (haha - good word!) of religious believers and their practices is misinformed due to an obvious lack of experience with its capabilities to enhance one's existence.

Meaningful religious practice is not designed for observers - neutral or otherwise, and concrete evidence can be known by the practitioner themself - from whether it's a basic tool to help endure the challenges of life, up to the fully-realised state of enlightenment. Whether or not the latter exists doesn't matter because the former certainly does exist for many a faith-based practitioner. Unfortunately it's true that any positive effects are not mirrored on a larger scale than this - but that doesn't totally invalidate its usefulness.

Aside from some of the reasonable ethical recommendations of a few of the religions the morass of idiotic rituals and macabre costumes strike me as so foolishly childish as to be ludicrous rather than impressive and I have much more rational and fascinating ways to enhance my existence than the rote nonsense of basically meaningless procedures of the bulk of religions. I am frankly astounded that people of any intellect at all can even consider cluttering up their lives with such ridiculous stuff but then I am out of sync with most of humanity as it is so this activity remains impenetrable to my reason.

Last edited by Sand on 26 Dec 2009, 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oft gang aglee. Burns wrote many of his poems in Scots dialect.

ruveyn

I was only including faiths that go so much against Sand's generalization that it would be impossible to know the smallest bit about them and think they fit in it. It is my understanding that Mahayana and Vajrayana believe in divine beings that have power and interest in our lives.

Taoists believe in the Tao, which is basically neutral and without a self. Theravada (once again, my understanding) believes that if there are gods, then it's no use dealing with them. Confucianism was a re-founding of the ancient Chinese faith, which centered around ancestor worship.

Keep in mind that this is just one flaw in the caricature, and only the most obvious were chosen.

Yeah Sand I'm not into any rote nonsense either. Meaning can be found beyond all the ridiculous stuff used to mask it - if one bothers to look for it. I guess one would need a reason to bother though.

Cool, thanks. That makes sense. Don't want to take any risks in debate! lol

All that idiocy of gods, worshiping ancestors, or any kind of mental fluff of divine beings fits very nicely within my total dismissal. It's all naive insanity.

Sand, I'm not suggesting you change your opinions, but have you considered the possibility your judgement may be clouded? Just a possibility, that's all. Because I can't say anything for certain either.

I never said anything about Buddha, I simply at this point in my life - by my own observations, don't believe that free will is anything other than illusionary. I could come up with a reason later down the line on why I think that's wrong, for now though I really think everything from the most razor's edge moral decision than picking a time to go to the bathroom is just that - fully predestined. Its not a matter of 'you could have gone a different route', its more like you could keep playing the same stretch of reality, rewinding, playing, rewinding, like a stretch of VHS tape and the results would be exactly the same because not even the slightest input would be altered. To get myself around that I'd have to shake my belief that our exisistential reality is 1:1 (you could freeze time and no one person exists in more than one place), which at this point I can't see a good reason to accept anything else.

As for accepting moral responsibility for our lives yes, we absolutely need to, though I think that happens - though strangely I think free will is also somewhat irrelevant in that regard as well (ie. we know that it has to be done, we impart the knowledge, its part of our collective thirst to move forward and not backward).

And saying that the universe happened to begin in such a way that physical life is possible (something with a near-zero chance of happening) is not naive? I guess shouting "coincidence!" every time someone brings up probability is not naive.

I also like how you completely disregarded everything in my post except for the comment on ancestor worship.

So, Sand, exactly how far do you think the human mind can go? Is it completely limited to the body? Does it only go so far as you absolutely know it goes?

Is it, perhaps, that we are not naive, but, as I've said before, you're arrogant?

My basis for judgment is my regard to the existence of fictitious man-like creatures controlling the monstrously huge forces which create stars and galaxies and whatever else is out there. Any Earth type creature with appendages and digestive systems and breathing apparatus looks like it does because of singular gravity and atmospheric conditions etc. which is particular to this very small totally insignificant planet. The whole fantasy of gods simply cannot exist as they are presented. And the concept of life after death is merely bait for everybody who simply cannot stand the idea that life is short and has a beginning and an end. My judgment is perfectly clear.

haha! I think free will is illusionary as well - but probably not in the same way that you mean. And you did mention the Buddha. I would say that our free will is permitted only within the range of our internal and external conditions - but according to buddhist belief these conditions are actually created by our own past actions. So it's a constant stream of 'free will' in that respect. I understand if that's too unproven to accept. But my motivations for choosing a particular view are governed by what I perceive is going to be of most use potentially. If I allow myself to think that everything is predetermined the effect would be a complacency that doesn't inspire me to explore whether the opposite is true.

Yes it's perfectly clear - as far as your perception allows! But I thought we were in agreement about the subjectivity of our perception?