Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence.

Page 7 of 25 [ 390 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 25 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

26 Dec 2009, 5:54 am

Sand wrote:

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.

To my knowledge, there's no such belief in any of the major religions except perhaps in Mahayana and Vajrayana (I don't know how they view their gods). Judeo-Christians reject an image of God because that would betray His nature. Taoists reject even a name for what could be seen as God. Hindus have a complex belief system about their "deities" that is beyond the scope of this post, but does not fit with your claim. Theravadans reject worship of gods altogether, and Confucians believe in ancestor worship. Once again, I'm not going to go into the details of it, but once again, your point is completely wrong. It's not even flawed. It's just flat-out wrong.

Edit: Oh, and about Shintoism: The gods of Shintoism originated on Earth, so having a "man-like creature" isn't the issue you make it to be.

_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.

Last edited by MrLoony on 26 Dec 2009, 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2009, 5:57 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

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.

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 the stimulus, your neurochemical set, all input would be exactly that - the same. Yes, a slight deviation could change path but we're talking about the absence of any deviation of input.

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.

According to accepted current cosmological theory the universe is a four dimensional structure. That means it exists in four dimensions, the fourth being time. Our sense of moving through time is an illusion. The future is all there. Our consciousnesses are merely moving within this preset structure. What is indeterminate is our ability to foresee the future and we can only guess at it from comprehending the four dimensional shapes of events and understanding how they existed in the past and how likely the same patterns will re-occur.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 6:17 am

Sand wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

I think time itself is an illusion because it's a conceptual structure only. The future is an imaginary concept and doesn't actually exist until it's in the present. (And by then it's not the future anymore!) And it's the actions of the present combined with actions from the past that determine it in a definite way. That is - it definitely happens, and there are no other causes for it than past and present actions. The patterns are probably far too complex for someone with an ordinary mind to be able to utilise in a reliable way - though there would be varying degrees of this.

_________________
happily reclusive

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2009, 6:28 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

Sand wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

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.

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

Any other perceptions make no sense to me. I cannot get into anybody else's head but my own.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2009, 6:31 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

Sand wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

I cannot deny you your cosmological theories but merely note it does not have any relationship to accepted theory which I subscribe to.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 6:32 am

We can stay in our own head and still gain new perspectives though.

_________________
happily reclusive

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 6:34 am

Oh, not SF enough for you then?

_________________
happily reclusive

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2009, 6:34 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

We can stay in our own head and still gain new perspectives though.

Only by putting them into our heads.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 6:35 am

Sand wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

We can stay in our own head and still gain new perspectives though.

Only by putting them into our heads.

haha! You're right! lol

_________________
happily reclusive

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 6:47 am

MrLoony wrote:

Sand wrote:

In Mahayana and Vajrayana gods are viewed with compassion - not worshipped at all.

_________________
happily reclusive

MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

26 Dec 2009, 6:59 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

In Mahayana and Vajrayana gods are viewed with compassion - not worshipped at all.

They are humanoid in appearance, though, are they not? What I meant is that, say, Hindus view the various gods as not really as they are. Shiva or Krishna or whatever are just manifestations of Brahman, which has no form and thus is not man-like, but can take the form of a man or a woman or a platypus or a Hutt, if it so chose. What I'm saying is this: Does Mahayana and Vajrayana view their gods as actual beings like the Romans did? Do they view them like the Shintos do (humanoid in appearance because they come from Earth)?

_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2009, 7:07 am

The universe ( which is not only all those stars and galaxies but also our toenails and our bone marrow and our nervous system) is not a Christmas tree on which to hang glass baubles and tinsel and candy canes and gods and magic and miracles. It is a working machine where the same forces that creates black holes and cosmic dust and interstellar particles also makes earthworms and banana trees and you and me. It's all the same machinery and there is no place for an afterlife and hell and never never land and Oz. Those very amusing things are simply not a part of the puzzle.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 7:15 am

MrLoony wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

In Mahayana and Vajrayana gods are viewed with compassion - not worshipped at all.

Not necessarily from Earth - but yeah, no different to humans in that they all share the same delusions. Just different realms that can be interchanged whenever conditions allow.

The only Mahayanist/Vajrayanist concept that could be perceived as an external higher being is a created image of one's own potential to achieve an ultimate state of mind. It doesn't create us though. We create it.

_________________
happily reclusive

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 7:21 am

Sand wrote:

But why not? Because it's not proven? What if some beings with a higher level of perception are able to prove it by direct perception and can't tell you because you just wouldn't believe it. And there's no way to prove things like this unless we directly see indications of it, at least, for ourselves.

EDIT: And this requires effort - I can't see any possibility of seeing anything beyond what we already see if we refuse to allow for the opportunity.

ANOTHER EDIT: Those who use this investigative approach could more easily be defined as 'scientists' than those who refuse to accept any possibility beyond the notions they already have of what could be possible.

_________________
happily reclusive

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Dec 2009, 7:33 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

Sand wrote:

I would rather not get involved with meaningless terminology like higher perceptions (why not lower perceptions or sidewise perceptions or plaid perceptions or perceptions that taste like tomato sauce?) or ultimate states of mind or perfect whtchamacallits.
If there are other perceptions we will either find them or not but we can deal with them when we do so. Until then, like unicorns and vampires, they are out of bounds in this universe.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

26 Dec 2009, 7:36 am

I agree - we will either find them or not.

EDIT: And I don't see how a perception of tomato sauce could not necessarily lead to profound consequences.

ANOTHER EDIT: And you say religions impose too many restrictions?! ! It's no wonder the unicorns and vampires have to get around in the dark. They don't want to get in trouble for being out of bounds in your universe! lol

_________________
happily reclusive

Page 7 of 25 [ 390 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 25 Next

Jump to:

Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence. Post Reply New Topic

Sum up the meaning of life in one sentence.