stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/09/86)
In article <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) writes: > This is because many people have always felt insecure without final > meaning to their life. . . . > . . . People have invented religion to give their lives > meaning, to assuage their fear of death. Finally we have a statement from a consistent atheist. There is just no way to poke holes in a position that denies real meaning. This outlook is even Biblical! In the book Ecclesiastes, the teacher concludes after extensive observation costing his nation billions of equivalent dollars that either a) God does not exist and everything is meaningless. b) God does exist and it is best to seek Him early in life. Actually, Pascal's argument can be used here: If life is meaningless, why not obey God just in case it isn't? Because, man, there are things I wanna do [ "...created for good works..."], pleasures I haven't experienced [ "...at thy right hand are pleasures forevermore..."], I wanna be free [ "...if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed..."]. I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket [ "...no man can serve two masters..."]; I want to be my own boss [ "...a slave to sin (entropy)..."]! Besides, I don't want to look stupid [ "...the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God..."] . . . etc. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/10/86)
In article <194@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >In article <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) writes: > >> This is because many people have always felt insecure without final >> meaning to their life. . . . >> . . . People have invented religion to give their lives >> meaning, to assuage their fear of death. > >Finally we have a statement from a consistent atheist. There is just no >way to poke holes in a position that denies real meaning. This >outlook is even Biblical! In the book Ecclesiastes, the teacher >concludes after extensive observation costing his nation billions >of equivalent dollars that either > >a) God does not exist and everything is meaningless. > >b) God does exist and it is best to seek Him early in life. > I would like to see somebody prove that God implies "real meaning". To my way of thinking, God would just be yet another set of arbitrary "meanings"...after all...he defines them, and if he does, they are arbitrary...if he does not define them, then something exists apart from God, and you don't have much of a God then, do you...same argument also applies to the moral argument for the Diety... >Actually, Pascal's argument can be used here: If life is meaningless, >why not obey God just in case it isn't? Because, man, there are things >I wanna do...[more bunk deleted] I would have thought that no INTELLIGENT Xian would have attempted to use Pascal's wager, but then SDG is a special case. Pascal's wager ASSUMES there are only 2 choices...(a) belief in the Xian God or (b) disbelief in the above...having only 2 choices, it is easy to see that one should believe (a) because it does not hurt you, and if you believe (b) it will possibly hurt you...this is a VERY fallacious argument...there are MANY MORE THAN TWO choices.. for instance...(a) belief in the Xian God, (b) disbelief in the Xian God, (c) belief in the Judaic God, (d) belief in the All-Father Odin, (e) belief in the Sky-Father Zeus (Jove), (f) belief in Quetzalcoatl, (g) belief in Shintoistic reincarnation....etc...you get the picture...SDG would have us believe everything is in black&white, where everything, at least to my eye, seems to be shades of grey! Pascal's wager is an overquoted maxim which is a favorite of those Xians who refuse to think things thru, and is easily debunked by a 3 year old, with half a mind of his own... >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| ! "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." ! ! -- Aldous Huxley ! \-----------------------------------------------------------/
kaufman@nike.UUCP (09/10/86)
In article <194@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >This >outlook is even Biblical! In the book Ecclesiastes, the teacher >concludes after extensive observation costing his nation billions >of equivalent dollars that either >a) God does not exist and everything is meaningless. >b) God does exist and it is best to seek Him early in life. GAAK! Beg to differ! What it says is: a) Life sucks; b) God MAY exist, but don't wait around for a handout; c) Get what you can, while you can. Seems pretty sensible to me, no? -Annoyingly, Bilbo. ___________________________________________________________________________ / DISCLAIMER: If I had an opinion, do you think I'd let my employers know? \ |E-MAIL: kaufman@orion.arpa or kaufman@orion.arc.nasa.gov | |FLAMES: There are no flames. Re-check your opinions. | |QUOTE: "Ask yourself, What would RANDOLPH SCOTT do?" - Black Bart. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (09/11/86)
In article <194@BMS-AT.UUCP>, stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > In article <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) writes: > > > This is because many people have always felt insecure without final > > meaning to their life. . . . > > . . . People have invented religion to give their lives > > meaning, to assuage their fear of death. Also, man created God is his own image. > a) God does not exist and everything is meaningless. Why does the non-existance of God imply everything is meaningless. I can believe everything will seem meaningless to the true believer when s/he learns the truth but not all is meaningless to the true atheist. For him, the meaning of life is what he makes of it.
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/12/86)
In article <194@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > In article <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) writes: > > > This is because many people have always felt insecure without final > > meaning to their life. . . . > > . . . People have invented religion to give their lives > > meaning, to assuage their fear of death. > > Finally we have a statement from a consistent atheist. There is just no > way to poke holes in a position that denies real meaning. This > outlook is even Biblical! In the book Ecclesiastes, the teacher > concludes after extensive observation costing his nation billions > of equivalent dollars that either > > a) God does not exist and everything is meaningless. > > b) God does exist and it is best to seek Him early in life. Mr. Gathman misses the point. The people who needed religion derived it in order to give their lives meaning. Other people ALREADY HAD meaning to their lives, and thus did not need the externality of religion. The most likely state of affairs is neither of the above, but instead that God does not exist, and everything is NOT meaningless. In which case Pascal's advice is not useful. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/12/86)
In article <3683@hplabsb.UUCP> bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes: >In article <194@BMS-AT.UUCP>, stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >> In article <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) writes: >> >> > This is because many people have always felt insecure without final >> > meaning to their life. . . . >> > . . . People have invented religion to give their lives >> > meaning, to assuage their fear of death. > >Also, man created God is his own image. > Quite...this seems to point out yet another shortcoming in the Xian religion....its amazing hubris in assuming that there is a God who looks after them, and indeed, created man in His own image... >> a) God does not exist and everything is meaningless. > >Why does the non-existance of God imply everything is meaningless. I can >believe everything will seem meaningless to the true believer when s/he >learns the truth but not all is meaningless to the true atheist. For him, >the meaning of life is what he makes of it. I quite agree...Xians tend to assume that without a God, everything is meaningless...what we have here, I believe are differing definitions of meaning. I hold that while there can be no ABSOLUTE meaning in the universe (with or without God!), there can be meaning relative to other things. (By the way, the reason why I believe that meaning WITH God is no more absolute than sans God is through the following chain of reason: If God created values and meaning, than they are arbitrary, and thus are not ABSOLUTE, as He can change them, or reset them, or anything...on the other hand, if meaning IS capable of existing w/o God, ie, he did not create it, then you do not have yourself an omnipotent God there, and there must be yet another layer behind it...either you have an infinite cycle, or meaning is relative!) I quite agree with the last statement...to an atheist, meaning is what you give life, and nothing more. /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions, | | expressed or implied, including this disclaimer. | | Flames ---> /dev/null | \-----------------------------------------------------------/
vis@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Tom Courtney) (09/12/86)
In article <20852@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >The most likely state of affairs is neither of the above, but instead >that God does not exist, and everything is NOT meaningless. In which case >Pascal's advice is not useful. > Oh really? How do you figure the odds? I haven't found anything in life that required god to make it work right, but that doesn't mean I can make a good estimation of the probabilty of it (them?) existing. It might be like looking for a Unified Field Theory: you can do physics problems without it, but it sure would be interesting to find.
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/14/86)
In article <1145@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> vis@trillian.mit.edu writes: >In article <20852@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >> >>The most likely state of affairs is neither of the above, but instead >>that God does not exist, and everything is NOT meaningless. In which case >>Pascal's advice is not useful. >> >Oh really? How do you figure the odds? I haven't found anything in life that >required god to make it work right, but that doesn't mean I can make a good >estimation of the probabilty of it (them?) existing. It might be like looking >for a Unified Field Theory: you can do physics problems without it, but it sure >would be interesting to find. Precisely my point. I haven't found anything in life that needs a god to make it work right either, and on that basis conclude that the most likely nature of reality is that there is no God. I do not attempt to assign a numerical probability of this being correct, but merely note that it is, based on a lifetime of observation (:-) and the reported observations of others and of trusted instruments, more probable than other hypotheses as to the nature of reality. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/21/86)
In article <20852@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > The most likely state of affairs is neither of the above, but instead > that God does not exist, and everything is NOT meaningless. In which case > Pascal's advice is not useful. This discussion of "meaning" is becoming a little meaningless. :-) What kind of "meaning" are we talking about? Here are some suggestions: A. A meaningful life is working towards a goal. Some goals: 1. Maximize pleasure. 2. Maximize wealth. 3. Maximize knowledge. 4. All of the above. Solomon succeded at all three and it didn't satisfy. It wouldn't satisfy me either. 5. Maximize my human potential. 6. Maximize the well-being of humanity as a whole. 7. Maximize the well-being of all living creatures. 8. All of 5 - 7. This sounds a lot better, like maybe I could be worth something if I succeded. However, I know myself better than to imagine that I am really that good on my own. B. A meaningful life results in ceasing to exist. (Whatever turns you on.) C. Life is meaningful because it is improving: we are all evolving and becoming better and better. My thoughts: 'A' and 'C' represent striving for 'Good'. 'B' represents loss of all hope of becoming 'Good'. The whole concept of evolution is interesting: we are evolving to higher and higher states. This implies some 'high state' toward which we are moving. There must be some ideal to which we achieve closer and closer appoximations. Where did this ideal come from? Why is this ideal 'better' than the way we are now? If you define 'higher state' as that toward which we are evolving, I will find such a definition highly circular and unsatisfying. (9. Maximize satisfaction? :-) This is like saying: "We have arrived at our destination. Our destination is where we are now." This is true but doesn't *mean* anything! (To me, at least.) Are all you meaningful types out there (HASA & SASA included) in agreement with me on this: we are striving (or long) to become "better"? Perhaps we disagree primarily on the best (!?) way to accomplish this. It is consistent to deny that anything can be "better" or "worse", but simply is. This is my definition of existentialism. P.S. I noticed that distribution for this discussion is 'na'. Does the rest of the world not want to hear our drivel? -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>