Evidence

[Thief]

"Greater" in what sense?
Again, I don't know what that means. "Top of the line"? In the evolutionary sense that, in order for me to be sitting here right now my ancestors had to manage the "survival of the fittest" to reproduce and pass on their genes, I suppose so... But then again, the same is true of any organism- any organism that exists is "top of the line" in that its ancestors were more successful in surviving and passing on their genes than the ones which did not get naturally selected for...

Other than that, and I'm guessing this is not what you had in mind, I'm not sure what you mean.

You really need to be more clear... "More than" chemistry how?

Say what you mean, for Chrissakes!

Step up.....
You are here to learn all that you can before you die.
Your body is clearly made to do that....you learn.....you die.....THEN what?

No One standing over you when you breathe your last breath?

Seems to me.....life after death would be greater than this life.

And anyone already there will have the advantage.
They will know the territory, the language and the scheme of things.

We leave this world naked.

 

[Willamena]

Humanity is an illusion we have created with our vast imaginations. However it is functional and allows us to live together in great numbers.

Then "our" prime function should relate to that useful and functional illusion that is us.

Purpose does not exist in the natural world beyond our own creation of it.

Then it should exist for that useful and functional illusion that is us.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This reduces all of life on this planet to an extreme exercise of chemistry.
And it all will end.

In essence organic life is chemical. We are carbon based molecules working together as a complex system. Its arrogance that causes us to assume more.

So on a more personal level.....
You intend to do your chemistry.....and fail (continued existence).

What?

So much for the obvious design of your....chemistry.

Again what?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then "our" prime function should relate to that useful and functional illusion that is us.

What? You are going to have to claify. Function is what we do. Our pirmary funciton is the core of what we have been born to do. Live only survives because it passes on its genes. I don't see what you are getting at further beyond this.

Then it should exist for that useful and functional illusion that is us.

This is like the 4th statement in a row that just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Either I'm far more tired than I realize or something....

Please clarify what you are trying to say here.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right. And it does not follow that nothing can be known, from the fact that nothing can be known with apodictic certainty.

Knowledge does not preclude the possibility of error.

Actually I have to backtrack. I have confused you for theif. My apologies for the earlier response. I think more or less we are on the same page after re-reading your posts.

What I was getting at was this idea that some people have for god. That we can't know for certain that he doesn't exist and then they get into this idea that there is no possible way of knowing anything is "true" for sure. And I was attempting to cut that argument off well before it started by stating that its a useless notion to base an argument on. Not that I was ever arguing from that point.

I never said anything to this effect; I was basically saying the exact opposite.

Again I owe you an apology. I confused you with another poster.

 

[Willamena]

What? You are going to have to claify. Function is what we do. Our pirmary funciton is the core of what we have been born to do. Live only survives because it passes on its genes. I don't see what you are getting at further beyond this.

Well, the core of my illusive self isn't procreation. Why should I believe anybody else's is?

This is like the 4th statement in a row that just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Either I'm far more tired than I realize or something....

Please clarify what you are trying to say here.

If we're the creators of purpose, that doesn't deny a purpose. It certainly doesn't deny our illusory self a purpose.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, the core of my illusive self isn't procreation. Why should I believe anybody else's is?

Your confusing your biological function in the scope of our species with your personal ambitions.

If we're the creators of purpose, that doesn't deny a purpose. It certainly doesn't deny our illusory self a purpose.

Again your talking something else. As a human being who is alive your primary function is to pass on your genes. If you so choose to spend your efforts elsewhere that doesn't change your biological function. It is your personal ambitions.

 

[Willamena]

Your confusing your biological function in the scope of our species with your personal ambitions.

Actually, I think I'm failing to confuse it.

Again your talking something else. As a human being who is alive your primary function is to pass on your genes.

Not mine. :no:

That's life's function, not mine.

If you so choose to spend your efforts elsewhere that doesn't change your biological function. It is your personal ambitions.

I'm not the biological being, I'm the illusive creator of purpose.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, I think I'm failing to confuse it.

I think you'll both have to justify and clarify what you mean.

Not mine. :no:

That's life's function, not mine.

Are you alive?

I'm not the biological being, I'm the illusive creator of purpose.

Your the world's first non biological being?

 

[Willamena]

I think you'll both have to justify and clarify what you mean.

How so?

Are you alive?

Incidentally, yes.

Your the world's first non biological being?

I'm not the world's first life-form.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How so?

You are not being clear. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I think your being to vague. But if what I think you are saying is in fact what you are saying you will then have to justify it. You cannot simply state it as "truth" and move on.

Incidentally, yes.

Then my point still stands.

I'm not the world's first life-form.

Are you the world's first non-organic or non-biological lifeform? Are you a robot or sentient being comprised of energy or a talking rock? If not and you are bound by the charictaristics that bind you to the title of "biological being" then you are in fact also bound with the primary purpose of procreation. If you fail to procreate then your genes will be "forgotten" and taken out of the gene pool. You can live your life how you choose and that is not something I've argued against. You seem to think that I am arguing from a point that all of us are here to simply have sex as much as possible and nothing else.

That is not what I"m saying. Your primary biological function is to live and produce offspring. If you choose not to on the basis of your personal choices then thats fine. You are not "incorrect" to do so and I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it. But it doesn't change the fact that your most basic and vital biological function is to reproduce. It doesn't change who you are. It doesn't mean that sex has to define you as a person. It simply means that in the scope of the gene pool and our species everyone has a purpose to attempt to produce more offspring. Only the sucessful survive and the process repeates over and over and over. Anything we do within these parameters weather it be art, science, learning acheivement, failure, sadness, joy, love, hate, ect ect ect is all the means to the end. Filling in the blanks of what happens between teh time we are born and the time we die. Nothing about our biological function requires us to spend it any particular way on the individual level. But as the sucess of the whole species and what will be in the future and what is now because of the past, all relates to sucessful procreation.

 

[Thief]

You are not being clear. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I think your being to vague. But if what I think you are saying is in fact what you are saying you will then have to justify it. You cannot simply state it as "truth" and move on.


Then my point still stands.


Are you the world's first non-organic or non-biological lifeform? Are you a robot or sentient being comprised of energy or a talking rock? If not and you are bound by the charictaristics that bind you to the title of "biological being" then you are in fact also bound with the primary purpose of procreation. If you fail to procreate then your genes will be "forgotten" and taken out of the gene pool. You can live your life how you choose and that is not something I've argued against. You seem to think that I am arguing from a point that all of us are here to simply have sex as much as possible and nothing else.

That is not what I"m saying. Your primary biological function is to live and produce offspring. If you choose not to on the basis of your personal choices then thats fine. You are not "incorrect" to do so and I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it. But it doesn't change the fact that your most basic and vital biological function is to reproduce. It doesn't change who you are. It doesn't mean that sex has to define you as a person. It simply means that in the scope of the gene pool and our species everyone has a purpose to attempt to produce more offspring. Only the sucessful survive and the process repeates over and over and over. Anything we do within these parameters weather it be art, science, learning acheivement, failure, sadness, joy, love, hate, ect ect ect is all the means to the end. Filling in the blanks of what happens between teh time we are born and the time we die. Nothing about our biological function requires us to spend it any particular way on the individual level. But as the sucess of the whole species and what will be in the future and what is now because of the past, all relates to sucessful procreation.

Well fine....you seem to have a handle on this life....as you see it....
And the rest of your effort is simple denial of a possible life after death.

If you insist.....
Eternal darkness is physically real.
You can and probably will....follow your denial into the box and into the ground.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

But I think several billion copies of a learning device that will render a fresh perspective on each occasion......
is clear indication that we might very well survive the last breath.

Not a chance?.....billions to none?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well fine....you seem to have a handle on this life....as you see it....
And the rest of your effort is simple denial of a possible life after death.

If you insist.....
Eternal darkness is physically real.
You can and probably will....follow your denial into the box and into the ground.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

But I think several billion copies of a learning device that will render a fresh perspective on each occasion......
is clear indication that we might very well survive the last breath.

Not a chance?.....billions to none?

Why all of the (..........) in your sentences? Are you trying to pause for dramatic effect?

But yes I am an atheist. I don't have sufficent evidence to base a belief in the afterlife. I was a devout christian for many years (13) and believed in whole heartedly. Then after that I was a Pagan and fairly devout for 6 years. However through personal spritual growth I found I believed in neither.

The rest of your post is just...rambling and jabber? Unless there was another point in there that I missed.

 

[Thief]

Why all of the (..........) in your sentences? Are you trying to pause for dramatic effect?

But yes I am an atheist. I don't have sufficent evidence to base a belief in the afterlife. I was a devout christian for many years (13) and believed in whole heartedly. Then after that I was a Pagan and fairly devout for 6 years. However through personal spritual growth I found I believed in neither.

The rest of your post is just...rambling and jabber? Unless there was another point in there that I missed.

Yes.......................................you missed it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes.......................................you missed it.

Mind pointing it out in a clearer way with less periods and less beating around the bush?

 

[Thief]

Mind pointing it out in a clearer way with less periods and less beating around the bush?

Ah yes...
How about a burning bush?

No doubt you are waiting for God to say something?
Or perhaps an obvious deviation of reality as you know it?

There isn't going to be any 'evidence'.

So we have ourselves to consider ....first.
And you are nothing more than a very complex chemical accident?
Going nowhere but to the grave....
and you are comfortable with that notion of fatality?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ah yes...
How about a burning bush?

No doubt you are waiting for God to say something?
Or perhaps an obvious deviation of reality as you know it?

There isn't going to be any 'evidence'.

So we have ourselves to consider ....first.
And you are nothing more than a very complex chemical accident?
Going nowhere but to the grave....
and you are comfortable with that notion of fatality?

I'm not waiting for anything. If he was gonna say something I would only assume he would have said it by now and in a way that was undeniable. Not in a way that conflicts with himself all over the globe.

And if there isn't going to be any evidence how does that strengthen your case? More or less you just stated that there isn't a reason to believe you and there never will be.

Accident? No. Evolution and the complex series of events that happened to create "us" is more than an accident. Its a finely tuned natrual process. Just because our sun is amazing, or our ecosystems of our planet are complex doesn't mean that god made it. It just shows us how awesome the universe is.

And as far as my acceptance and comfort of the notion? Its irrlevant. For the record I think it makes life more precious and beautiful. I rather an ugly truth than a pretty lie. And even if I was incapable of accpeting the notiong it wouldn't make it any less tru.e

 

[Thief]

I'm not waiting for anything. If he was gonna say something I would only assume he would have said it by now and in a way that was undeniable. Not in a way that conflicts with himself all over the globe.

And if there isn't going to be any evidence how does that strengthen your case? More or less you just stated that there isn't a reason to believe you and there never will be.

Accident? No. Evolution and the complex series of events that happened to create "us" is more than an accident. Its a finely tuned natrual process. Just because our sun is amazing, or our ecosystems of our planet are complex doesn't mean that god made it. It just shows us how awesome the universe is.

And as far as my acceptance and comfort of the notion? Its irrlevant. For the record I think it makes life more precious and beautiful. I rather an ugly truth than a pretty lie. And even if I was incapable of accpeting the notiong it wouldn't make it any less tru.e

Without intent driving it....chemistry is an accident.
And I have reason to believe.....just no evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Without intent driving it....chemistry is an accident.
And I have reason to believe.....just no evidence.

No. Intent is not needed.

Reasons and evidence are not the same.

 

[Willamena]

You are not being clear. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I think your being to vague. But if what I think you are saying is in fact what you are saying you will then have to justify it. You cannot simply state it as "truth" and move on.

Perhaps if you tell me what it is I'm to justify, I can give it a crack.

Then my point still stands.


Are you the world's first non-organic or non-biological lifeform? Are you a robot or sentient being comprised of energy or a talking rock? If not and you are bound by the charictaristics that bind you to the title of "biological being" then you are in fact also bound with the primary purpose of procreation. If you fail to procreate then your genes will be "forgotten" and taken out of the gene pool. You can live your life how you choose and that is not something I've argued against. You seem to think that I am arguing from a point that all of us are here to simply have sex as much as possible and nothing else.

That is not what I"m saying. Your primary biological function is to live and produce offspring. If you choose not to on the basis of your personal choices then thats fine. You are not "incorrect" to do so and I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it. But it doesn't change the fact that your most basic and vital biological function is to reproduce. It doesn't change who you are. It doesn't mean that sex has to define you as a person. It simply means that in the scope of the gene pool and our species everyone has a purpose to attempt to produce more offspring. Only the sucessful survive and the process repeates over and over and over. Anything we do within these parameters weather it be art, science, learning acheivement, failure, sadness, joy, love, hate, ect ect ect is all the means to the end. Filling in the blanks of what happens between teh time we are born and the time we die. Nothing about our biological function requires us to spend it any particular way on the individual level. But as the sucess of the whole species and what will be in the future and what is now because of the past, all relates to sucessful procreation.

You already said I'm an illusive construct called "humanity," and I accepted it. I'm good with that. My point also stands. Humanity's function and life's function need not be the same, especially as humanity can cease even while the biological life-forms that we are continue to thrive.