Dan Barker, There is no meaning to life.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Dan Barker, There is no meaning to life.

 I agree, in the cosmic scale of a 14 billion year old universe, for humans to think their species is the center of the planet, much less the universe, is absurd. But he isn't the first Sagan said it in his Pale Blue Dot speech, and even Shakespeare, without knowing scientifcally right he was in MacBeth act 5 scene 5 "flurry of activity signifying nothing". Now is what should matter.

 

 

http://www.alligator.org/news/campus/article_c058fc0e-cee4-11e5-b38e-ab280e25228d.html

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
kinda think

I disatree (disagree too) on this one. Meaning "of" or meaning "in" isn't the same thing. In the article it points to "purpose". Purpose gives meaning, but wouldn't that depend upon the "person". I can't go along with the idea that someone can make a definite statement and apply it to everyone. The presenter has made a definite statement with options. If there's options them there's meaning, somehow. Ok, so now that I spoke up and disagree--I need to esplain, right. To me---life means happiness. I can (via much practice over a span of time and events) be happy because I want to be, I don't need a reason.

But, does the presentation mean to say that life evolved to have meaning, I don't think so mas it looks the article is bout the present. I can't comprehend my ancestors in the ocean (or where-ever) happy to be a fish. But there had to come a time and event that happiness came into play at some time in the forming of life. As best I know life didn't come about for a reason or particular mission. I'd say it came about spontaniously and there was no plan that it should. (depends upon how one defines plan).

I think there's a flaw in a presentation that appartently states fact, and speaks for everyone else, or inferes truth. . I've probably done it myself quite a number of times during my "Happiness" Smiling  .  I can';t say that life has no meaning because if it means happiness to me it can mean that and something else to another. To a wall streeter life can mean money, but I'm not saying money necessarily means greed.

At one point in the artical the presenter point to purpose, and I'm taking it that he means purpose equals meaning. If I'm right on that it seems hypocritical. If purpose equals meaning, or brings meaning to life---almost everyone has a purpose--so nearly everyone has meaning. But ther original statement is---life has no meaning. Apparently --there is a cause for meaning---that would be purpose, if I understand the article properly.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
One doesn't have to have

One doesn't have to have profound effect on the universe to matter. And on the flip side, the universe really doesn't matter to us either. So the whole subject is stupid.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I agree there is no

 I agree there is no meaning to your life. My life has significant meaning to me and at least a few loved ones.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:...MacBeth act 5 scene

Quote:
...MacBeth act 5 scene 5 "flurry of activity signifying nothing". Now is what should matter.

Misquoting Einstein is easy.  Misquoting Shakeapeare takes effort.

Especially from a fellow poet...

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
science should stay on its

science should stay on its side of the fence and philosophy on its side, especially since the scientists insisted so goddamn much on breaking away from philosophy in the first place. why are they trying to intrude on its territory now? questions of "mattering" have no place in science at all.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 What are you going to do,

 What are you going to do, move to a cabin in the woods, mail packages to people?

What a load of bullhisht. Scientfic method doesn't give, nor has any duty to give one shit what our personal bias are. Scientific method isn't a philosphy moron, it is a tool. North Korea has scientists too. Humans have philisophies about politics and economics, but there is not one coutntry friend or foe who doesn't have sceintists to some degree.

 

Sceintists as human individuals can be ethical or unethical. It is up to scientists to be ethical. I don't see how Barker or Sagan for that matter are hurting anyone by telling them the truth. It is true no magical puppetteer  is pulling our strings, and humans are not the center of the planet. Just like we now know the earth is not flat. You want to coddle human's insecurities out of some stupid sense of nostalgia because some want to keep pretending Santa is real? I thnk my speices is quite capable of looking to the future with better tools to gain knowledge. 

Why the fuck are you even using the product of science? You sound like a fucking fundy.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian is unsurprisingly too

Brian is unsurprisingly too stupid to comprehend that science has no place in an unscientific discussion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Scientfic

Brian37 wrote:
Scientfic method doesn't give, nor has any duty to give one shit what our personal bias are.

thank you for restating my position. yet you presume, supposedly on the authority of sagan among others, to use scientific findings about the immensity of the universe to make philosophical judgments about what "matters" or who is the "center of the planet" (just what does that even mean?). i'm not attacking science, and certainly not technology, you incredibly stupid person. i'm saying it's fallacious to use scientific data to make judgments about something's subjective worth, and it is fallacious whether you do it or carl sagan does it.


Brian37 wrote:
Scientific method isn't a philosphy moron, it is a tool.

did i not state clearly enough, even for an utter mental fucking deficient like you, that science and philosophy are completely separate things? so in which fucked up, dead cluster of brain cells did you come to the conclusion that i think science is a philosophy? science is the child of philosophy, sure, but that child long since grew up and left home. science and philosophy are BOTH tools, which you'd understand if you knew thing one about philosophy. they are tools that do entirely different jobs. so when a natural scientist (or, for that matter, a shit-for-brains like Brian37) says "humans don't matter because the earth is nothing more than a speck in the universe," he's trying to use the tool of science to do philosophy's job--and doing a clumsy, shitty job of it.


now, my craaaaazy idea is, let people like sagan and dawkins keep searching for black holes and mapping genomes, and leave the value judgments and problems with human communication to the philosophers and social scientists who are trained to deal with them. i wouldn't trust roger scruton or richard f. gombrich, for example, to explain aeronautics to me. no doubt their explanation of aeronautics would be as inept, oversimplified, and just plain wrong as dawkins' explanation of religion is.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Having given this more thought-

Brian37 wrote:

 I agree, in the cosmic scale of a 14 billion year old universe, for humans to think their species is the center of the planet, much less the universe, is absurd. But he isn't the first Sagan said it in his Pale Blue Dot speech, and even Shakespeare, without knowing scientifcally right he was in MacBeth act 5 scene 5 "flurry of activity signifying nothing". Now is what should matter.

 

 

http://www.alligator.org/news/campus/article_c058fc0e-cee4-11e5-b38e-ab280e25228d.html

People thinking they're universally special may be part of why we have extensive social problems. I don't see where or how the universe created anything special. The universe has no understanding of "special", so, there can't be anything created as "special". The concept of special puts us at odds with each other, as one can thiunk he/she is special over others.

This speciality seems to also be over other inhabitants. The idea is-- people are special over the others refered to a animals. But, I can't find anything that makes us people special over a dog other then, we think so and believe something we've been handed down from a previous generation. All bodies serve the same funtion, but each is a modification of the original. We came from the original the same as all other so, we can't be special. The only difference I see is the addition of higher intellect, But that dosen't make us special, We seem to be worse off because of it. We're the only ones that have the ability to run ourselves extinct by the use of it. Intelligence hasn't changes us for the better, we use it to make better material things, but in all the time gone by we don't relate to each other better then the dogs do each other.

So, we're not anything special because the universe doesn't create anything special. We've become a "victim" of intelleligence rather then speciality. People have the tendancy to create themselves into something they're not in the pursuit of greatness, where by what ever they think makes them great does nothing but undermine the idea of speciality, and then, we think being able to destroy others faster and better then thay can destroy--makes us special. The only thing special could be applied to would be not being like the other animals and be as they be. Intellect has made us worse then they. We've used it mostly to destroy rahter then change the self to non-destructive. It's what the Smurfs refer to as --intellectual stupidity. Intellect has caused people to try and perfect stupidity.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth