• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  TeChNoWC
  August 10, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  there is nothing awe inspiring about the fact that your whole is meaningless.
• 
  nanoinfinity
  August 10, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  I'm assuming you ment to put, "whole life is..."
  
  And, that's a point that religious folks will never understand.
  Personally, I am more stunned and awed that the whole universe, especially Earth, exists, in all it's intricacy, by following simple rules of physics and chemistry. I am fascinated by the micro workings of macroscopic objects in a way that would shame most religious folks.
  
  That some people have to impose a blunt and dull "entity" so they can be comfortable with the world angers and puzzles me to no end.
  
  But, that's why religion was born, isn't it? So people could blindly believe something without having to think too hard, and therefore could get on with their lives with a false sense of purpose.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  August 10, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Yeah, sorry about that, thankyou for correcting me.
  
  Unfortunately though, those feelings are defined by that chemistry and physics that you speak of, and the ensuing environment. This means that the awe is not fixed; it is a reaction to your environment synonymous only in accordance with its benefit to your survival and eventual reproduction. Evolutionary process has brought you to 'happiness' due to the benefit it maintains. There is no real 'awe', it only occurs as is of benefit to the organism, in some mentally deluding, decieving, controlling fashion.
  
  This is, seemingly meaningless.
• • 
    nanoinfinity
    August 10, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    " those feelings are defined by that chemistry and physics that you speak of, "
    
    And how do you define your own feelings?
    That is not a valid point, I'm afraid to say.
    
    " This is, seemingly meaningless. "
    
    Ah, and that's how I view religion!
    As I said before, people who have grown fond of a religious ideolgy will not be able to understand someone who does not subscribe to one.
    Although, I DO understand why people remain religious, even though religion has served it's main purpose of explaining the world. I was raised a Christain, after all. I respect people who are religious, because that sort of devotion takes a great amount of effort, but
    in truth, I do not trust religion because it can be an evil, controlling forcewhich destroys rationality and attempts to discredit science.
    
    But now, religion has begun to be a burden on the scientific world. Where once an answer of, "God made it that way" was sufficient to explain away anything, now it only brings up more questions which are harder to explain away than the truth: that god probably doesn't exist.
  • • 
      TeChNoWC
      August 24, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      "And how do you define your own feelings?
      That is not a valid point, I'm afraid to say."
      
      As meaningful because of a meaningful God and not because of meaningless chemistry.
      
      "Ah, and that's how I view religion!
      As I said before, people who have grown fond of a religious ideolgy will not be able to understand someone who does not subscribe to one."
      
      I was a nihilistic malist solipsist. You will never understand why I choose to be an existentialist. I have tried and tried to get through to atheists but it never works. They love trusting flawed and defeatist concepts.
      
      "But now, religion has begun to be a burden on the scientific world. Where once an answer of, "God made it that way" was sufficient to explain away anything, now it only brings up more questions which are harder to explain away than the truth: that god probably doesn't exist."
      
      Religion seeks to give meaning. Spirituality increases vitality and health. It is essential to human development. Atheism is a blight to the human race.
    • • 
        nanoinfinity
        August 25, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        The rest I can deal with in a "let's agree-to-disagree manner, but this I must address, at least from my own personal perspective.
        
        " Religion seeks to give meaning. Spirituality increases vitality and health. It is essential to human development. Atheism is a blight to the human race. "
        
        I would classify myself as an Athiest, however this is for no other reason then that I am absolutely convinved that the god of organised religion doesn't exist.
        
        I still allow for the possibility of some sort of god-like being or force, however I will not go into detail.
        
        I know how important spirituality is to humans. I recongise all the benefits; however, organised religion has destroyed the world more thoroughly than any thing else.
        
        I do not object to personal, private belief. I object to organised, propaganda-based, ill-informed, ignorance-breeding (etc) religions, because they have a terrible habit of snowballing - no matter how well-intentioned they may have seemed in the beginning.
        
        I agree with you that official Atheism would a terrible state for us to descend into. But, that is not my ideal. I wish for the world to be done with organised, cult-like religions, and to let every individual develop their own subtle spirituality without the falsehoods and props.
      • • 
          TeChNoWC
          August 25, 2007
          Edit | Reply
          Your admonition is then towards not belief, but rather organization. I agree in part, however, you fail to see the benefits of such organization. You pin-point how religion can become movements and how movements can become bad. Unionism, government, family are all units of organization. There are positives and negatives to any of these. Religion has positive effects in that it encourages that individual spirituality, while also appropriating a moral code. You may not be happy with all the particulars of the moral code presented by each and every religion, but this does not make it 'despicable', just imperfect (supposedly).
          
          
        • • 
            nanoinfinity
            August 26, 2007
            Edit | Reply
            " I agree in part, however, you fail to see the benefits of such organization. "
            
            I am of the opinion that the benefits remain the same, while the ill-effects grow and snowball so that eventually the bad far outweighs the good. At this moment, there are almost no "organized religions" that I have seen that are still evenly balanced. (Except for those that focus on the individual. These are the ideal "religions" in my opinion.)
            
            And, it's not even the Organized part I have problems with. It's just that one of the many goals of these religions is to spread and dominate - meaning, they have strong, irrational opinions and force them on the world, their children, their schools, government, sciences, etc.
• 
  Jackymania
  August 21, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  agree with that theory

  Hi nano...
  
  I tend to agree with that theory...... or is it still an hypothesis.
  
  Anyway, it appears that there is no other approach to study the origin except conjectural method. But Dawkins ( I have not read him excpt online reviews), i opine, has usd a traditional linear approach, based on the evolutionary theory and the natural selection process of cells, to assert his supposition of the right time, right environment format. This seems logical but still may need further evidence.
  
  Thanks
• 
  Jackymania
  August 21, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  And 'spontaneity' may also be way off the mark. Why can't it be gradual?
• • 
    nanoinfinity
    August 21, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    The "sponataneous" part is when an organic something-or-other (It's really just a group of (supposidly) amino acids at this point) is arranged in such a way that it becomes a catalyst for creating more of itself. (IE: reproduction at an elementary and non-sexual level) This is the only true "random" event in most of the evolutionary-darwinian theory, other than "random" mutations of genes.
  • • 
      Jackymania
      September 22, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      Hi....
      
      Thanks for that... i had a slightly miskewed idea of what sponteneous meant..... u see i saw it as something 'sudden'.... i checked my dictionary again, thanks to your clarification.... and i think i have cleared some notions in my mind. thx

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Jackymania
  October 3, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  causes for aging....
  
  that takes us into an entirely different and opposite path...... lets stick with birth only.
  
  Is it a possibility that bacteria and virus both co-existed in space. If so your meteor theory merits consideration.
  
  Moreover how does inorganic materials become sponteneously organic,? how far deep we can go within a cell to unravel the mystery of the DNAmitochondrian or the organelles of the cell....? how far deep have we probed or experimented both by the principles of deduction and reduction?
  Besides these nanomicroscopic questions, one also wonders whether energy (solar) play a role in the minutest living cell or organelle.... and is sun the giver of life.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free