The Meaning of Life?

[GenghisKhan44]

no animal has ever produced art or poetry even in a crude way. They might be induced to, again, by human intervention. Or perhaps with billions of years of evolution, maybe. But not as they are.

That's because animals don't need to do that kind of thing in order to get laid.

Most human beings don't need to draw or paint or make art, either, to have a family.

no animal has ever produced art or poetry even in a crude way

I forgot to address this earlier.

They may have.

That's interesting. A little further research shows no small amount of scepticism on the part of the "scientific" community - such as the lack of a body. Although the Geological Society of America is a respectable non-profit group dedicated to geology, and not a tin foil hat group.

However, two things come to mind. First is what the man behind this hypothesis thinks of his hypothesis. Quote: "When you consider that all other explanations for the Ichthyosaur death assemblage have failed, the plausibility goes up. It is currently the leading hypothesis, and none of the critics so far has proposed a fatal or even relatively significant objection."

This reminds me very much of the arguments that N.T. Wright and Peter Kreeft make for the Resurrection, from an historical standpoint. If what Mr. McMenamin says is true - and it seems he's whittled down some counter-arguments - so far, it seems an intelligent octopus's grandad may have arranged these spinal discs linearly, maybe even purposefully. Simili modo, the Resurrection of Jesus has many counter-hypotheses which have significant weaknesses that the Resurrection does not.

Second - a much smaller note, but I will add it as a footnote - there may be some conjectural similarity between the patterns of those vertebrae and, say Cro-Magnon hand patterning. I am, nevertheless, somewhat less compelled to believe a linear arrangement of vertebrae is artistic when compared with beehive honeycombs, and contrasted with other Cro-Magnon art.

[Jalpha]

It is admittedly a pretty big may, but it certainly provides some interesting thought.

[GenghisKhan44]

Aye, both.

[Granger]

In case the religiots are right (there is only one eternal god) Occams Razor hints that:
- god is alone
- has gone mad because of this
- developed multiple personalities (fragments that interact with themselves) to counter the boredom
- continues further down that road every time all possible interactions with the current amount of fragments is exhausted
Read this as: 'god' is floating in the nothingness, wanking himself off to pass the time.

Religion is bullshit, made up by people to extort resources from and execute control over other people for personal gain, believed in by stupid and/or (both helps) brainwashed people. And it is that successfull because these followers brainfuck their offsprings in an age where they can't defend against such bullshit till they're broken enough to continue the cycle.

For intelligent ramblings about this topic there is plenty of fun stuff to make that point, like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSneoRXvpFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW6Izhogdtk

And the question somewhere back in this thread (free will or not) is, while interesting to explore on an interlectual level - and good reasons exists to believe that there isn't one, like advertising actually working (and the only thing which is saving us is that it is executed by competing groups so they block themselves) or that modern brain imaging technologies showed that 'decisions' are made way before you can actually rationalize them since the neural network running your consciousness is more (or less, that part stems from the quantum fluctuations in the matter composing you) deterministic - quite irrelevant for your daily decision making.

So Bottom line is:
Religion is, nor has, an answer but every kind of it is cureable through open minded thinking and questioning the authorities.
And reconcile yourself with the very good possibility that you actually don't exist but should you (and everyone else) do you're completely irrelevant given the scale of the universe. Do that and you can relax and enjoy whatever may (or may not) be...

[GenghisKhan44]

Thank you, Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens, for your contribution.

[Jalpha]

In case the religiots are right (there is only one eternal god) Occams Razor hints that:
- god is alone
- has gone mad because of this
- developed multiple personalities (fragments that interact with themselves) to counter the boredom
- continues further down that road every time all possible interactions with the current amount of fragments is exhausted
Read this as: 'god' is floating in the nothingness, wanking himself off to pass the time.

One theory I like the most is that God was bored knowing everything and had reached a point where there was no more potential for personal growth and learning. Bored, he shattered himself into fragments, none of which knew everything anymore. Those fragments are a part of us, maybe all living things. On our death we return to be a part of that consciousness, taking our experiences with us. Romantic, I think.

or that modern brain imaging technologies showed that 'decisions' are made way before you can actually rationalize them since the neural network running your consciousness is more (or less, that part stems from the quantum fluctuations in the matter composing you) deterministic - quite irrelevant for your daily decision making.

Some decisions. Some. I also believe this is still a developing area of science and just because they haven't been able to isolate the area of the brain where thoughts and actions truly originate doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And reconcile yourself with the very good possibility that you actually don't exist but should you (and everyone else) do you're completely irrelevant given the scale of the universe.

This is a very important point, and the main reason I argue against humans as a "special" species. All your life matters to is you. Nothing and no-one else cares one whit.

[GenghisKhan44]

I'm glad y'all like myth. Narrative. I suppose even the guys who say we're just here to reproduce, eat, drink, be merry, and die - we all have a narrative of some kind.

The question is: does any of our narratives, viscerally satisfying though they are, have any basis in fact?

Whether you buy it or not, I would say the narrative Jesus offered is the only one that can be tested objectively, in the lens of history. Everything else is either from a morass of unverifiable narratives (such as y'alls'), or a prophecy of one man that is also unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Whether it's true or not, well, go learn, because you have no reason to believe me.

[MagicManICT]

I'm not sure how to put what I want to say without potentially drawing this conversation further into a discussion about religion, but a discussion about the meaning of life is as much that as it is a purer philosophy. So many views of what life is about really is extracted from a religious point of view, even dating back to the earliest of mankind's attempts to rationalize that there may be more to life than hand-to-mouth survival. And all we can do is make best guesses as to that as it significantly predates the written word.

I think I'm just going to keep what I want to say to myself for now as both sides on the religion debate just piss me off. It's like a couple of toddlers fighting over a toy.

[GenghisKhan44]

I'm not sure how to put what I want to say without potentially drawing this conversation further into a discussion about religion, but a discussion about the meaning of life is as much that as it is a purer philosophy. So many views of what life is about really is extracted from a religious point of view, even dating back to the earliest of mankind's attempts to rationalize that there may be more to life than hand-to-mouth survival. And all we can do is make best guesses as to that as it significantly predates the written word.

I think I'm just going to keep what I want to say to myself for now as both sides on the religion debate just piss me off. It's like a couple of toddlers fighting over a toy.

The religion debate on the forum here, or in general? Because in general, I can agree very much with you.

I am, unapologetically, convicted by the Catholic faith. (Catholic. Not evangelical. Not Protestant. Not "Bible". Catholic.) But I, and the Catholic faith as well, impute responsibility to individuals only in this respect:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

I am not anti-science, and I appreciate the devotion atheists and materialists have for the natural, empirical sciences. But they are no different from the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist who, though he wants to do God's will, puts the blinders on when it comes to Our Lord's words: love thy enemy. But neither of them really want to understand each other, nor do they enthusiastically seek to understand objective truth. It's politics.

If I give the impression of being one of these fundamentalists, I hope it is only on account of my doctrine and conviction rather than my attitude. I want to learn more about the world around me, as well as impart the wisdom I have gained from God, the Catechism, and the good teachers from all walks in the Catholic Church.

If you'd like to talk in private, MMICT, I wouldn't be opposed.

[Jalpha]

Jesus was a real person. I don't doubt that at all.

Did he perform miracles, come back from the dead and is he my only pathway to an eternal afterlife? That's open to interpretation. Furthermore is the Old Testament actually a Christian or Jewish history, or was most of it poached from other, older religions? Also open to interpretation.

That's all I have to say about that.