Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dostf · 03-19-2002, 07:14 PM

laurentius;

You are heading in the right direction. The human being is the key. All the ideas presented in this conversation are products of humans. Unfortunately, ideas such as god, the afterlife, faith ,religious belief, are incorrect and based on historical knowledge of that time and place often to fulfill some need.
more if you wish

John Page · 03-19-2002, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
Let us say then that my belief is that Man can overcome any obstacles, while the information I keep receiving points at his ephemeral condition. Right now I find little chance of reconciliation of these two divergent positions.

Don't worry, death will reconcile all!
(Sorry, was that a little too gloomy?)

Laurentius · 03-20-2002, 07:55 AM

Hi, everyone.
With respect to death. This thread was to be dead by now.
Anyway, let me tell you a biiig reason why I don't see there is much meaning in the world.

When I was young I begged my parents to allow me to have a pet, either a dog or a cat. I prefered a dog, but since the cat seemed less troublesome, I was ready to have cat too, but they never agreed to either of them.

Then one day, I was about 20, I saw how a pack of about ten dogs chased a kitten a killed it. The cat had taken shelter under a cardboard box and the dogs were swarming arounded, barking, growling, crazed and all. Eventually they managed to topple the box and the kitten started to make a dash between them, when the hugest of them just snached its neck in a second and killed it. It held its dangling little body in its tight bite for a few seconds, making sure the poor thing was absolutely inert, and then just dropped it. The second hugest beast in the pack then rushed to sniff what used to be the living kitten a minute before, and when it had made sure it was just a corpse went away too. Several smaller dogs in the pitiful pack did the same, as if in a ritual. They cleared the place soon, heading for another God-pleasing feat. All this time I was on the second floor of an air-conditioned building whose windows did not open. I mean, what kind of "good world" is this? The Bible says that God looked at the world and saw it was good. If this is God's idea of a good world, where living things kill each other just for fun (not for survival or anything) then he can count me out.

Since then I have hated dogs. Since about then I have been trying to find a meaning of my own. I'm oscillating between Nihilism and Humanism. And this is what I mean sometimes by calling myself a Nihilist Humanist.
AVE

dostf · 03-20-2002, 03:24 PM

laurentius:

A very nasty event you described.
However, animals cannot be other than animals-they do what is natural to them.There is no "good or bad" in it. We put those meanings to it as we have reason.
Don't despair-human IS the meaning if we realize the truth that we are.

1sec · 03-21-2002, 05:10 AM

vitae

Quote:

This is possible. But why, Laurentius, do you think one could not one adhere intuitively, rationally and emotionally simultaneously?

Yes, is simulataneous or not? I haven't measured that yet. What difference does it make anyway? (oh, brother_) Rationalization would take longer, though, I think.

Quote:

Define your 'god' 1sec; I am curious.
We all have different 'gods' don't we? Anything can be made into a 'religion' or a 'god' once we start worshipping it above all else, don't you think?

My gods? All of gods were born dead, so I don't really know who they were. All good causes need a "god". I am the god of my own cause.

Kharakov · 03-21-2002, 01:51 PM

Laurentius:

Have you read Arthur Schopenhauer?

Good pessimist if you like that viewpoint.

Laurentius · 03-25-2002, 12:49 AM

I happen to be accustomed to Schopenhauer and can strongly assert that I'm not either a schopenhauerian or a pessimistic at any rate. I'm just disappointed sometimes. (a piece of advice: try to live and make a living where I do and you'll find Schopenhauer quite optimistic)

Jonesy · 03-25-2002, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:

My pseudo-experiment boils down to three questions:

1. To what extent should the discovery of the alleged anti-gravitational force affect our philosophy?
2. What is the rapport between one’s philosophical beliefs and the meaning of one’s live?
3. Why is it necessary that one’s life should bear a meaning in order for one to be able to “tick”?

AVE[/QB]

1. I think our philosophy will change such that we will never use a wheel for anything again, therefore saving the planet. Anti-gravity vehicles will just make our lives easier and pollution free (notice ALL the polution today fights gravity - so, switch off the gravity force and we can eliminate pollution from this planet (one day!))

2. First of all, we have to establish whether a meaning to live actually exists. Everyone has an answer to that - it's either yes or no. THEN, if we decide that life MUST have a meaning, we 'philosophise' with our minds to arrive at some logical (to us) conclusion as to what that meaning/reason is. One such very convincing conclusion, which anyone can reach to a varying extent, (if you think about it for long enough) is under this pdf book:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a> (password :"free")

3. Our lives MUST have a meaning. This fact alone comes from our ability to think and from the use of our intelligence. We are smart and intelligent (i.e. can develop forever). We don't even know what happens to 'CONSCIOUSNESS' when the physical body dies. Clearly, consciousness is not part of the atomic or 'physical' world.

Even though a meaning to life always existed, people were confused about the actual meaning and this created religions and various beliefs.

Finally, you can see a very convincing intellectual proof that life has a meaning. I'm sorry, I will keep letting people know about on these and other forums - people have got to KNOW. While there are many 'cults' and 'weirdos' in the world today, I understand why every new 'idea' or 'account of some experience' is taken to be 'bullshit'. However, intelligent people, when they read the follwing books, realise the 'intellectual' value in them.

Book1: "Thiaoouba Prophecy" - online free pdf book, under:

<a href="http://bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/tp/ulog.html" target="_blank">http://bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/tp/ulog.html</a>

Book2: already mentioned above ("The Freedom of Choice").

I'm sorry if this infuriates some people, but intellectually brilliant sources CANNOT be missed. Anyone must have the right to read these AND THEN, make up their own mind about whether it's bullshit or not.

Try reading the whole two books, no matter how 'bizarre' or 'incredible' the things in them seem

Hans · 03-25-2002, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
The other day I was watching a documentary on the Discovery channel about gravity, the weak force that has such a powerful cumulative effect that it may even be the decisive force as to the destiny of our Universe. I was reasonably familiar with Einstein�s initial attempt to introduce a physical constant (a kind of anti-gravitational force) in his theory in order to prevent the Universe from seeming either to contract or to expand (so that it should fit the astrophysical prejudices of the time), and with his admitting having made the wrong decision as soon it became obvious that the Universe is in full expansion.

You must be familiar too with the dilemma concerning the end of the Universe, whether it will expand forever and die out in a sort of whimper, or it will start contracting and crash in itself � the implosion of the ultimate kamikaze. Now, the documentary shows that scientists have not simply folded their arms waiting for some outcome; no, they have identified a way of actually measuring the comparative speed of expansion throughout eons by observing the behavior of numerous members of a specific class of supernovas called, I think, white dwarfs. Despite scientists� expectations, the expansion pace is neither constant nor diminishing � it is accelerating. So, Einstein may have been (at least involuntarily) right � there is an additional force meddling with gravity, but it does not constrict expansion, it speeds it up.

What the documentary may or may not have explained is that the accelerating expansion of the universe of which they speak is unobserved, it is only implied.

By measuring the aparent brightness of a distant object who's intrinsic brightness is known one can deduce the distance to that object. Then by measuring the doppler shift in that object's light one can deduce the speed at which it is either moving toward or away from us. Combining these two figures gives us Hubble's Constant: X amount of speed per distance. Calculating this constant accurately has been a focus of astronomy since it was introduced. Enter the superior optics of the Hubble Space Telescope.

The Hubble's latest measurements indicate that the constant is higher than previously believed. In other words, objects at a given distance from us are moving away from us a speed greater than previously believed. How does this imply an accelerating expansion you ask?

Because the latest calculations of the Hubble Constant put everything back in one place (The Big Bang) much sooner than other braches of astrophysics would like it to be, branches like stellar evolution, and the preported big bang back ground radiation. The latest calculations would indicate that there would not be enough time for present day stellar evolution to take place and they would also indicate that the back ground radiation would not have enough time to cool to its present day form.

Enter acceleration. If we pressume that the speed at which the galaxies are traveling away from each other is accelerating through time then we can argue that in the past they were not moving as fast as they are today and, therefore, the time at which everything was at one point (Big Bang) is further back in time where it agrees with the rest of astrophysics. What you have is a whole lot of theory based on a whole lot of theory.

The most curious thing is that the introduction of an antigravitational force eliminates the very reason the Big Bang was first introduced, to explain why galaxies are moving away from each other.

If the suggestions made by the latest calculations disturbes anyone's philosophies why not recognize them for what they are, theory based on theory. I don't see how any outcome offered by the Big Bang Theory would offer anyone any comfort.

One can either find fullfilment in the mystery that is existance and accept one's mortality, or one can find fullfilment in suggestions of immortality. To repeat something I read here earlier, the latter seems like going to the drug store and buying a prescription with the label "Plecebo" on it.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]

Bill · 03-25-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
Since about then I have been trying to find a meaning of my own. I'm oscillating between Nihilism and Humanism. And this is what I mean sometimes by calling myself a Nihilist Humanist.

Well, I can only offer up in reply the ultimate observation of an agnostic humanist historian:

Quote:

The historian will not mourn because he can see no meaning to human existence except that which man puts into it; let it be our pride that we ourselves may put meaning into our lives, and sometimes a significance that transcends death. If a man is fortunate he will, before he dies, gather up as much that he can of his civilized heritage and transmit it to his children. And to his final breath, he will be grateful for this inexhaustible legacy, knowing that it is our nourishing mother and our lasting life.
From The Lessons of History, by Will and Ariel Durant, page 102.

That is, of course, an historian's-eye view of "the meaning of life." YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)

The essential thought here is that if you prefer to live a life without meaning, you can choose to be a nihilist, life your life hoping for nothing, and you will probably succeed at that. Will Durant lived his life for writing a series of books that digested, analyzed, and recorded everything of importance from as much of human history as he could manage. He is seen as probably the top historian of the 20th century. I'm certain that, before he died, he knew that sometime in the future, some other historian would pick up the task and do the whole job once again. It has happened every few hundred years for as long as there have been historians. But Will Durant died happy, with a good idea of the meaning of his own life as being one of the links in that chain of historians stretching from mankind's past into our future.

I can't tell you what meaning to pick for your own life. I can't force you away from nihilism. But if you view having some meaning for your life as a valuable thing, you will decide upon some task to perform; a task for which you will be remembered, even if you leave that task uncompleted when you die (as, of course, Durant necessarily did).

The old saying goes, you pays your money and you takes your choice. That could be rephrased in this context to: you lives your life and you choose your own legacy. Your legacy could be a nihilistic one. Or, instead, you could choose to give your life some meaning you personally find to be important. The choice is yours for as long as you remain alive.

== Bill

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2002, 07:14 PM	#31
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	laurentius; You are heading in the right direction. The human being is the key. All the ideas presented in this conversation are products of humans. Unfortunately, ideas such as god, the afterlife, faith ,religious belief, are incorrect and based on historical knowledge of that time and place often to fulfill some need. more if you wish

03-20-2002, 07:55 AM	#33
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Hi, everyone. With respect to death. This thread was to be dead by now. Anyway, let me tell you a biiig reason why I don't see there is much meaning in the world. When I was young I begged my parents to allow me to have a pet, either a dog or a cat. I prefered a dog, but since the cat seemed less troublesome, I was ready to have cat too, but they never agreed to either of them. Then one day, I was about 20, I saw how a pack of about ten dogs chased a kitten a killed it. The cat had taken shelter under a cardboard box and the dogs were swarming arounded, barking, growling, crazed and all. Eventually they managed to topple the box and the kitten started to make a dash between them, when the hugest of them just snached its neck in a second and killed it. It held its dangling little body in its tight bite for a few seconds, making sure the poor thing was absolutely inert, and then just dropped it. The second hugest beast in the pack then rushed to sniff what used to be the living kitten a minute before, and when it had made sure it was just a corpse went away too. Several smaller dogs in the pitiful pack did the same, as if in a ritual. They cleared the place soon, heading for another God-pleasing feat. All this time I was on the second floor of an air-conditioned building whose windows did not open. I mean, what kind of "good world" is this? The Bible says that God looked at the world and saw it was good. If this is God's idea of a good world, where living things kill each other just for fun (not for survival or anything) then he can count me out. Since then I have hated dogs. Since about then I have been trying to find a meaning of my own. I'm oscillating between Nihilism and Humanism. And this is what I mean sometimes by calling myself a Nihilist Humanist. AVE

03-20-2002, 03:24 PM	#34
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	laurentius: A very nasty event you described. However, animals cannot be other than animals-they do what is natural to them.There is no "good or bad" in it. We put those meanings to it as we have reason. Don't despair-human IS the meaning if we realize the truth that we are.

03-21-2002, 01:51 PM	#36
Kharakov Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fidel Posts: 3,383	Laurentius: Have you read Arthur Schopenhauer? Good pessimist if you like that viewpoint.

03-25-2002, 12:49 AM	#37
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	I happen to be accustomed to Schopenhauer and can strongly assert that I'm not either a schopenhauerian or a pessimistic at any rate. I'm just disappointed sometimes. (a piece of advice: try to live and make a living where I do and you'll find Schopenhauer quite optimistic)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.