I want to hear ohmy's answer.

Is meaning obtained through your obligation to "God"?

If so, can an atheist not obtain meaning through an obligation to his fellow man?

11/24/2013 11:57:00 PM

He claims he's done with this thread so it probably ain't happening.

I defined truth like 3 times and he never acknowledged it. He think's he's high and mighty but in reality he's an intellectually dishonest putz. I hope those Columbia folks keep his feet to the fire, but I bet he'll just let that feed his persecution complex.

11/25/2013 12:30:25 AM

He should have been aborted at birth, right?

11/25/2013 10:09:34 AM

You've been sorely missed.

11/25/2013 10:26:38 AM

You misunderstand, I agree with you, he just shouldnt have been aborted at birth with one of those messy decapitations or anything illegal/unsavory.

11/25/2013 10:36:20 AM

i would like to know why Christianity is the particular flavor of religion that he chose as "the truth". did he study all the others? or was it just so compelling to him that he knew it had to be the one and the others were lies.

11/25/2013 10:41:31 AM

Because Jesus loves him this he knows, for the Bible tells him so.

11/25/2013 10:45:37 AM

Saw this comment on YouTube and I think it describes ohmy's position (and many other apologists') beautifully.

Quote :

"P1: I am an ethical/moral/logical/epistemological cripple. P2: A cripple needs a crutch. P3: An all-powerful, all-knowing genie from beyond space and time into whose mouth I can put any words I like is a fucking awesome crutch. C: Therefore God."

11/26/2013 8:57:44 AM

i'm going to chime in here....

let me just say that it absolutely blows my fucking mind that despite all the evidence we have to support evolution and how life on earth evolved to what we see today, it’s easier for some people to believe that some all-powerful super natural god figure just appeared out of nothingness. For me it’s much easier to believe that a microscopic life form, who would be much less complex then and omniscient god, appeared on earth billions of years ago due to just the right mix of amino acids and energy. Yes it’s a very very unlikely scenario, buts it’s much more likely than an all-powerful god appearing out of nowhere and we have evidence for the former to boot.

11/26/2013 9:42:12 AM

Quit phone posting or get better at it.

11/26/2013 10:01:43 AM

^^
The answer to why people believe in nonsense is also Evolution. We've evolved traits that make us both prone to irrational thinking and highly susceptible to indoctrination. It probably was highly beneficial for our ancestors to implicitly trust what their parents/elders said. And figuring out our surroundings (even making shit up) was almost certainly crucial in our survival and domination of the natural world.

Finally, fear of oblivion is extremely powerful (for most people).

11/26/2013 10:33:34 AM

Still going strong I see.

And by strong I mean still avoiding any of my questions of how a materialist derives meaning. You guys keep saying relationships, fellow man, etc. And I keep saying "remember, according to your materialist views, they are just atoms and cells, so why should you care more about a relationship with a human finger?" (to borrow from the pro-choicer argument)

And the only way you can justify these things is to constantly pull out metaphysical or supernatural value judgments, which according to your empiricist, materialist views- DO. NOT. EXIST. So stop it.

So again I ask, will you...for the first time... tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism?

The reason I quickly realized I was in over my head in this thread is because all of us are trying to nitpick minor issues which all ultimately amount to red herrings, and becomes the equivalent of he said, she said. There are so many assumptions underlying all of our positions, and none of us are addressing them. You guys just want to point out some flaw you find in Christianity, which really just shows a flaw in your misunderstanding of Christianity. But I do admit that there are flaws in my understanding of Christianity, and even reality- that's a central point in all of Scripture actually. That is what makes God, God (a pre-existing "essence" that gives meaning to reality and everything science finds out) God by the way, and what makes man, fallible man. Truth doesn't change. Our understanding of truth changes. Just as it does the for scientist. For example, evolution, even if fact, doesn't change my understanding of God. Some people, for example, largely due to poor exegesis of the Bible, thought the day in Genesis must be a 24 hour day. The fact that we now know that the world is much older, doesn't mean we have to throw out our entire understanding of God, it means we have a better understanding of God. The religion vs. science debate is nonexistent. Like I said before "There is no logical conflict between describing and explaining natural mechanisms, and describing and explaining the plans and purposes of natural mechanisms".

The problem, though, is that empiricist, materialist, pragmatist scientists only address what is have to throw out the notion of caring about truth altogether (pleeeease see previous posts before you try to refute this with GRAAAARH! blah blah blah...I've addressed this ad nauseum and no one else has).

Most reasonable Christians are not opposed to science at all. We must find out more about the universe! We're only opposed to people like Dawkins who leave the realm of science and venture into bad philosophy.

Which brings me back to my original point in this post. Let me show it this way. This is the line of reasoning for most of you guys. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Empiricism -> materialism -> moral relativism (or no absolute right/wrong)-> pragmatism -> define morality as what is useful for the here and now or preservation of the species, etc -> discuss how we put this fickle morality into law -> abortion laws

I tried to address abortion in that thread with ideas of personhood, which brings us all the way back to the original assumptions we hold about life.

And if you start with empiricism as your philosophical a priori, we have a major difference. Not just me, but most people everywhere. And that's why you have the ever ongoing debate between Rationalism and Empiricism. If you don't see the connection: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/philosophical-battles-empiricism-versus-rationalis.html

So then we BOTH start with either two assumptions. Mine- Rationalism. Yours- Empiricism. Think of them as theories if you will. And to test them, we do science and live life, etc, and have to constantly revisit our understanding of the theory. But due to empiricism's biggest flaws, I don't think (from a rational perspective) it holds up. Neitzsche, you see, set out to test empiricism, and you see where that got him. But you can't even address that empiricism might be faulty as an a priori if you can't even acknowledge it is your a priori. So our argument has gone nowhere. Thus what I've been trying to do is to point out flaws in your line of reasoning, which no one is even attempting to address or acknowledge.

Now if you do acknowledge that empiricism is your giant a priori without justifiable, rational cause, then we can have a discussion. You will say "Ok, there are problems with my worldview, but the ones with Christianity are even worse." I will ask for examples, and you will tell me about how evolution has disproved Genesis (as if the Big Bang excludes God as a cause), or the angry God of the OT (as if humanity isn't so messed up we don't deserve hell and judgment), to the crappy things Christians do (we're humans, not Jesus), to the problem of evil and suffering, to the apparent nonexistence of "miracles", and so on, each of which to be discussed fairly would deserve its own thread. I admit they are all fair questions, and really tough ones that don't have easy answers, much less succinct ones. Unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to all of them (which is why this thread was sort of dumb), but for anyone is actually interested in examining these claims, and not just disproving them, maybe I could point you to resources. I know so many of you will see this as a copout, but I'd just reiterate that if you think we can solve what's been debated for 2000+ years in a Tdub thread, you're delusional and intellectually dishonest, demanding succinct answers to rebuff a position you've never cared to really understand in the first place.

So this brings me back to a question I have seriously been wondering. One that makes me believe empiricism and all its natural conclusions doesn't hold water, and so we must develop a different theory. And I have asked it ad nauseum and not gotten a real reply. If you don't have one, I honestly would prefer you point me in the right direction of a resource that might (even if it means I don't get my answer in a single block of text).

First, let me restate that the road from "everything is just cell clumps" to existential nihilism shouldn't be one I have to spell out. I've already linked to resources on that, and any reasonable mind should be able to follow that train of thought. If not, just google it.

Second, I think I know the answer, but the answer must admit that what is useful for the preservation of the species (or whatever pragmatic appeal to instincts you incite) is concerned with what is useful, not with what is true. (this goes back to the Rationalism vs. Empiricism debate, and links I've included on page two of this thread). Being aware that you are not concerned with truth at all is enough to drive someone to despair (which then is not at all helpful for the species).

So again I ask, will you...for the first time... tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism? And if you openly admit there is no meaning or purpose, I genuinely am curious as to how you find fulfillment or happiness or anything at all that you claim is worth enjoying if every relationship, or motivation, or love, or fulfillment, or however you define anything worthwhile or meaningful...is just cell-clumps.

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 12:44:34 PM

Church is for casseroles.

That is all.

11/26/2013 12:53:10 PM

Quote :

" tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism"

Physical parameters.

Quote :

"The reason I quickly realized I was in over my head in this thread is because all of us are trying to nitpick minor issues which all ultimately amount to red herrings, and becomes the equivalent of he said, she said. There are so many assumptions underlying all of our positions, and none of us are addressing them. You guys just want to point out some flaw you find in Christianity, which really just shows a flaw in your misunderstanding of Christianity. But I do admit that there are flaws in my understanding of Christianity, and even reality- that's a central point in all of Scripture actually. That is what makes God, God (a pre-existing "essence" that gives meaning to reality and everything science finds out) God by the way, and what makes man, fallible man"

My overarching problem with this statement is that it's a HUGE leap from "God" to Christianity.

If we assume that a God exists, that doesn't by any stretch mean any religion is accurate or "right".

If you're trying to prove God, that's a nebulous enough concept that it could be feasibly made to work, but to no real purpose. But trying to prove Christianity (or any 1 religion) is impossible for various reasons (chief amongst those reasons is the fact that religion-specific miracles can't be reproduced or verified).



[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 12:57:00 PM

Quote :

"So again I ask, will you...for the first time... tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism?"

I'm an agnostic, but I think that if there is "something else" it's material. Anything else doesn't make sense. The universe is material. What would "immaterial" be? So I guess you can call me a materialist.

Quote :

""remember, according to your materialist views, they are just atoms and cells, so why should you care more about a relationship with a human finger?"

Are you just assuming every materialist is, de-facto, a solipsist as well? That's the only way I can see you coming to that conclusion. Are you a sociopath? Do you not feel joy from associating with others? This makes no sense.

Quote :

"tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism? And if you openly admit there is no meaning or purpose, I genuinely am curious as to how you find fulfillment or happiness or anything at all that you claim is worth enjoying if every relationship, or motivation, or love, or fulfillment, or however you define anything worthwhile or meaningful...is just cell-clumps."

Conscious cell-clumps. You've been given an answer. You just aren't satisfied with it because the idea makes you, personally, uncomfortable.

The meaning of life is this: it goes. Does that make me existentially uncomfortable sometimes? Sure. But it doesn't prevent me from enjoying life and the company of people.

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 1:01:21 PM

^^You're right. I know it's a huge leap. I'm not making that leap without any justification (in this thread I am, though). Because the Christianity vs. other religion debate is perhaps worthy of a lengthier debate than empiricism vs. rationalism, or God vs. atheism, etc. So I figured best to not open yet another can of worms.

^You've practically admitted in that post that you're concerned more with what's useful and not what's true. That there are all sorts of problems that you guys admit, but you're just willing to do the best we can (without following the logical conclusions to their logical limits, because that wouldn't be healthy for any of us). And this is because materialism- all of meaning in life is because some cell clumps are conscious- is not meaningful. And humans innate desire meaning, despite materialism's failed attempts to explain that.

So I'm proposing that Christianity does have room for all of this- deep intellectual rigor and the scientific findings of the past 200 centuries. I know you guys want evidence and this is where I admit I am letting you down. But I would point you to the works of C.K Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Tim Keller. They are admittedly more philosophical, rational, and anti-empiricism-as-source-of-all-truth, but I hope you would see why empiricism as a philosophy is empty. At the same time, their understandings of the Christian faith, following a long tradition of rigorous Christian thinking, has plenty of room for all of the scientific truths we now know.

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 1:05:04 PM

Quote :

"You've admitted in that post that you're concerned more with what's useful and not what's true."

Where did I admit that?

Quote :

"So I'm proposing that Christianity does have room for all of this- deep intellectual rigor and the scientific findings of the past 200 centuries."

Why Christianity? Eastern religions have the same good parts and less (or none) of the bullshit.

11/26/2013 1:17:04 PM

Have you ever practiced any other religion? Were your parents Christian?

11/26/2013 1:17:26 PM

Quote :

"And by strong I mean still avoiding any of my questions of how a materialist derives meaning. You guys keep saying relationships, fellow man, etc. And I keep saying "remember, according to your materialist views, they are just atoms and cells, so why should you care more about a relationship with a human finger?" (to borrow from the pro-choicer argument)"

Your usage of "meaning" is poorly defined. To me, "meaning" is whatever purpose a person determines for their own life. We all decide subjectively what our "meaning" is and goes from there.

Quote :

"And the only way you can justify these things is to constantly pull out metaphysical or supernatural value judgments, which according to your empiricist, materialist views- DO. NOT. EXIST. So stop it."

Subjective meaning that we create ourselves requires no supernatural crutch.

Quote :

"So again I ask, will you...for the first time... tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism?"

Again...for the first time? Any any rate, I just did above.

Quote :

"Now if you do acknowledge that empiricism is your giant a priori without justifiable, rational cause, then we can have a discussion. "

I'll admit that it's a giant a priori that's justifiable inductively through countless experiments and technological devices including the computer you're posting your bullshit from. Did you rationalize it onto the Internet or did your god put it on there for you?

No, you used the device that's the product of the one methodology that works in demonstrable reality.

Quote :

"You will say "Ok, there are problems with my worldview, but the ones with Christianity are even worse.""

I think that is what I just said.

Quote :

"I know so many of you will see this as a copout, but I'd just reiterate that if you think we can solve what's been debated for 2000+ years in a Tdub thread, you're delusional and intellectually dishonest, demanding succinct answers to rebuff a position you've never cared to really understand in the first place."

Isn't that fucking convenient? "Your position is flawed, but mine is so complex we can't possibly talk about it."

11/26/2013 1:23:32 PM

Quote :

"The meaning of life is this: it goes. Does that make me existentially uncomfortable sometimes? Sure. But it doesn't prevent me from enjoying life and the company of people."

I guess I assumed as to why you might feel existentially uncomfortable. The reason I know it makes people uncomfortable is based on what I've read about existential philosophy and its out workings in our lives. (back to what I've already said in previous posts)

Quote :

"Isn't that fucking convenient? "Your position is flawed, but mine is so complex we can't possibly talk about it.""

I'd love to. But in the context of real relationships or learning contexts, because they're more productive than responding to your shortsighted, heavily biased (more than me even) vitriol (I'm not including moron and adultswim in that indictment).

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 1:24:26 PM

go on

and what about this?

Quote :

"Why Christianity? Eastern religions have the same good parts and less (or none) of the bullshit."

11/26/2013 1:27:52 PM

11/26/2013 1:29:02 PM

^proof you know nothing of rationalism and empiricism

11/26/2013 1:30:23 PM

how many other religions have you and your parents practiced?

11/26/2013 1:32:06 PM

Quote :

"You guys just want to point out some flaw you find in Christianity, which really just shows a flaw in your misunderstanding of Christianity"

Statements like this are why i can't take you seriously at all.

11/26/2013 1:33:08 PM

Quote :

"^proof you know nothing of rationalism and empiricism"

that comic is dumb but how can you call yourself a rationalist while believing in a God that hasn't been proven to exist?

which is the point of this thread i guess, except you're only telling us why we SHOULD be religious, not why you ARE

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 1:34:54 PM

Quote :

"how many other religions have you and your parents practiced?"

2 more or less. How much have I had to defend and vet my religion? Probably a lot more than you've had to vet your postmodern skepticism.

You're only a postmodern secularist skeptic because you were born into a postmodern secularist skeptical society.

/where you were likely headed

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 1:34:56 PM

Count how many of your replies responded to the central claim of my post. My point proven about the incessant red herrings? I think so.

And with the effort to not get bogged down responding to red herrings myself...peace! (I know...I said that before lol)

V no, please don't trust me. Not saying that at all. Instead, I'm saying...READ A FREAKING BOOK (beyond something from your own secularist camp even)

VV even if they are red herrings and my original point was never addressed? Ok!

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 1:37:11 PM

Quote :

"How much have I had to defend and vet my religion?"

well when we get to the the " obligation to find out what it is which "God" is true -> Christianity" part of the argument your response is "trust me guys!" so its important to know why you are an authority

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM. Reason : fyi: i grew up in a christian household with two missionary parents]

11/26/2013 1:38:35 PM

^^
it's intellectually dishonest to avoid questions you don't want to answer

so as long as you're okay with leaving on that note, peace out

Quote :

"even if they are red herrings and my original point was never addressed?"

what original point?

Quote :

"READ A FREAKING BOOK"

so what happens when i read it and still disagree?

you'll either say "read more" or "you didn't read it with an open mind"

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 1:39:16 PM

full of shit

11/26/2013 1:42:10 PM

Quote :

"what original point?"

And by strong I mean still avoiding any of my questions of how a materialist derives meaning. You guys keep saying relationships, fellow man, etc. And I keep saying "remember, according to your materialist views, they are just atoms and cells, so why should you care more about a relationship with a human finger?" (to borrow from the pro-choicer argument)

And the only way you can justify these things is to constantly pull out metaphysical or supernatural value judgments, which according to your empiricist, materialist views- DO. NOT. EXIST. So stop it.

So again I ask, will you...for the first time... tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism?

The reason I quickly realized I was in over my head in this thread is because all of us are trying to nitpick minor issues which all ultimately amount to red herrings, and becomes the equivalent of he said, she said. There are so many assumptions underlying all of our positions, and none of us are addressing them. You guys just want to point out some flaw you find in Christianity, which really just shows a flaw in your misunderstanding of Christianity. But I do admit that there are flaws in my understanding of Christianity, and even reality- that's a central point in all of Scripture actually. That is what makes God, God (a pre-existing "essence" that gives meaning to reality and everything science finds out) God by the way, and what makes man, fallible man. Truth doesn't change. Our understanding of truth changes. Just as it does the for scientist. For example, evolution, even if fact, doesn't change my understanding of God. Some people, for example, largely due to poor exegesis of the Bible, thought the day in Genesis must be a 24 hour day. The fact that we now know that the world is much older, doesn't mean we have to throw out our entire understanding of God, it means we have a better understanding of God. The religion vs. science debate is nonexistent. Like I said before "There is no logical conflict between describing and explaining natural mechanisms, and describing and explaining the plans and purposes of natural mechanisms".

The problem, though, is that empiricist, materialist, pragmatist scientists only address what is have to throw out the notion of caring about truth altogether (pleeeease see previous posts before you try to refute this with GRAAAARH! blah blah blah...I've addressed this ad nauseum and no one else has).

Most reasonable Christians are not opposed to science at all. We must find out more about the universe! We're only opposed to people like Dawkins who leave the realm of science and venture into bad philosophy.

Which brings me back to my original point in this post. Let me show it this way. This is the line of reasoning for most of you guys. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Empiricism -> materialism -> moral relativism (or no absolute right/wrong)-> pragmatism -> define morality as what is useful for the here and now or preservation of the species, etc -> discuss how we put this fickle morality into law -> abortion laws

I tried to address abortion in that thread with ideas of personhood, which brings us all the way back to the original assumptions we hold about life.

And if you start with empiricism as your philosophical a priori, we have a major difference. Not just me, but most people everywhere. And that's why you have the ever ongoing debate between Rationalism and Empiricism. If you don't see the connection: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/philosophical-battles-empiricism-versus-rationalis.html

So then we BOTH start with either two assumptions. Mine- Rationalism. Yours- Empiricism. Think of them as theories if you will. And to test them, we do science and live life, etc, and have to constantly revisit our understanding of the theory. But due to empiricism's biggest flaws, I don't think (from a rational perspective) it holds up. Neitzsche, you see, set out to test empiricism, and you see where that got him. But you can't even address that empiricism might be faulty as an a priori if you can't even acknowledge it is your a priori. So our argument has gone nowhere. Thus what I've been trying to do is to point out flaws in your line of reasoning, which no one is even attempting to address or acknowledge.

Now if you do acknowledge that empiricism is your giant a priori without justifiable, rational cause, then we can have a discussion. You will say "Ok, there are problems with my worldview, but the ones with Christianity are even worse." I will ask for examples, and you will tell me about how evolution has disproved Genesis (as if the Big Bang excludes God as a cause), or the angry God of the OT (as if humanity isn't so messed up we don't deserve hell and judgment), to the crappy things Christians do (we're humans, not Jesus), to the problem of evil and suffering, to the apparent nonexistence of "miracles", and so on, each of which to be discussed fairly would deserve its own thread. I admit they are all fair questions, and really tough ones that don't have easy answers, much less succinct ones. Unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to all of them (which is why this thread was sort of dumb), but for anyone is actually interested in examining these claims, and not just disproving them, maybe I could point you to resources. I know so many of you will see this as a copout, but I'd just reiterate that if you think we can solve what's been debated for 2000+ years in a Tdub thread, you're delusional and intellectually dishonest, demanding succinct answers to rebuff a position you've never cared to really understand in the first place.

So this brings me back to a question I have seriously been wondering. One that makes me believe empiricism and all its natural conclusions doesn't hold water, and so we must develop a different theory. And I have asked it ad nauseum and not gotten a real reply. If you don't have one, I honestly would prefer you point me in the right direction of a resource that might (even if it means I don't get my answer in a single block of text).

First, let me restate that the road from "everything is just cell clumps" to existential nihilism shouldn't be one I have to spell out. I've already linked to resources on that, and any reasonable mind should be able to follow that train of thought. If not, just google it.

Second, I think I know the answer, but the answer must admit that what is useful for the preservation of the species (or whatever pragmatic appeal to instincts you incite) is concerned with what is useful, not with what is true. (this goes back to the Rationalism vs. Empiricism debate, and links I've included on page two of this thread). Being aware that you are not concerned with truth at all is enough to drive someone to despair (which then is not at all helpful for the species).

So again I ask, will you...for the first time... tell me how a materialist derives meaning, withOUT using any sort of language referencing ANYTHING that exists beyond the realm of empiricism? And if you openly admit there is no meaning or purpose, I genuinely am curious as to how you find fulfillment or happiness or anything at all that you claim is worth enjoying if every relationship, or motivation, or love, or fulfillment, or however you define anything worthwhile or meaningful...is just cell-clumps.

11/26/2013 1:45:25 PM

How does my original response to that not satisfy your question?

11/26/2013 1:47:30 PM

Guess I need you to spell it out some more. You just said conscious cell clumps. Why does that give you purpose or meaning?

11/26/2013 1:49:15 PM

Why can there not be a material explanation for consciousness?

Because we don't know the mechanism doesn't mean it's immaterial.

And why does your definition of "meaning" seem to only include intrinsic, universal meaning?

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 1:51:33 PM

Because I haven't heard of another. That's why I'm getting frustrated that my legitimate desire to hear about one keeps getting twisted into some 100% proof. I would like the existentialists to tell me how they find meaning outside from something universal or at least supernatural/supermaterial- with a rational awareness and desire for truth and staying within the context of materialism- or at least tell me what influential works/belief systems do explain this.

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 1:56:22 PM

http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013/03/can-science-explain-consciousness/#.UpTvocRyHaA

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM. Reason : read that and now you have heard of an argument]

11/26/2013 2:00:21 PM

^^
Why don't you accept this?

Quote :

"Is meaning obtained through your obligation to "God"? If so, can an atheist not obtain meaning through an obligation to his fellow man?"

And for the other part of your question: psychedelic drugs and eastern philosophy

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 2:00:54 PM

Why do we have to find meaning? Why is that a requirement?

11/26/2013 2:07:41 PM

I'll check it out. Thanks. Consciousness and meaning though are not one and the same. Why obligation to consciousness and not something else? Goes back to arguments I made earlier about favoring one instinct over another, but trying to use the instincts (the judged) as the judge itself.

The Christian response is God is God and man is definitely not. Thus he as the creator and designer is the pre-existent essence. We are obligated to fulfill our purpose as he laid out, which is to glorify him. We do this best by doing what Jesus said: Love God and love others. All sorts of reasons- for the individual, the collective, God- to do that. That ridiculously ambitious summation of all the OT and NT is overly reductionist and raises all sorts of questions I know. But most of those questions will be in an effort to disprove, not understand, and so will misrepresent, which is why I posted all of that other stuff I posted.

But the Christian worldview has the meaning, the backbone, the rationale to support obligation to fellow man. I don't think materialism does (which I've pointed out over and over).

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2013 2:08:31 PM

I told you where I derive meaning and all you do is say "how can you find meaning without appealing to the supernatural!"

Meaning comes from within. We choose ourselves what is meaningful to us simply from our life experience.

Now, for all of your asking us to tell us where meaning comes from you haven't even begun to explain where yours comes from. (hint, it's really all in your head, just like with us).

Quote :

"The Christian response is God is God and man is definitely not. Thus he as the creator and designer is the pre-existent essence. We are obligated to fulfill our purpose as he laid out, which is to glorify him. We do this best by doing what Jesus said: Love God and love others. All sorts of reasons- for the individual, the collective, God- to do that. ."

Facts not in evidence.

Quote :

"But the Christian worldview has the meaning, the backbone, the rationale to support obligation to fellow man."

No, it doesn't. It wants to and it believes REALLY HARD that it does. But it doesn't. Prove that it does.

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 2:09:27 PM

How do you know we don't favor one instinct over the other because of the physical biology of our brain?

11/26/2013 2:09:35 PM

Sorry, way too much text and philisophical masturbating, but why does there have to be "meaning" to life? Just like for monkeys and dophins and elfphants and dogs, there is no "meaning". You're born, you live, you die. Like all living things. No real meaning.

11/26/2013 2:10:33 PM

Quote :

"But the Christian worldview has the meaning, the backbone, the rationale to support obligation to fellow man. I don't think materialism does (which I've pointed out over and over)."

What about the joy you get from being kind to others?

Or that generally, being kind to others results in kindness returned.

You don't need to read it in a book for it to be true.

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 2:13:18 PM

^^

Quote :

""P1: I am an ethical/moral/logical/epistemological cripple. P2: A cripple needs a crutch. P3: An all-powerful, all-knowing genie from beyond space and time into whose mouth I can put any words I like is a fucking awesome crutch. C: Therefore God.""

11/26/2013 2:36:03 PM

damn, i misspelled "dolphins" and "elephants"

11/26/2013 2:45:22 PM

Quote :

"So I'm proposing that Christianity does have room for all of this- deep intellectual rigor and the scientific findings of the past 200 centuries. I know you guys want evidence and this is where I admit I am letting you down. "

This is only true if you make assumptions/positions about Christianity that most Christians don't (save for maybe UUs).

11/26/2013 3:04:32 PM

Is believing that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened congruous with science?

NO.

So unless your definition of Christianity is completely different than what I think it is, I have no idea how you think they fit together.

How is it that many scientists can continue to be Christians? Compartmentalization, pure and simple.

11/26/2013 4:12:39 PM

or that he was born to a virgin and his father is god.

11/26/2013 4:18:44 PM

none of that is incongruous with science

what is incongruous is blind faith in something that is not proven

11/26/2013 4:21:50 PM