I had the pleasure of attending a debate about God with three intellectual heavyweights. My brain is still trying to be put back together after a brief explosion. Years of atrophy followed by intense learning caused the problem. The debate was about God, and it was given from various perspectives.
Offering the Jewish perspective about God was radio talk show host Dennis Prager. Despite much suffering in this world, he believes that God is good.
Dinesh D’Souza offered the Christian perspective. He spoke of salvation, and how it is our responsibility to become worthy of God.
The Atheistic perspective was offered by Christopher Hitchens. In simple blunt language that is too crude for a man of his caliber, there cannot be a God, because if there was, then this God would be an awful wretch.
This debate was simply too brilliant to be summed up in one blog entry. It will take me several days to go over it.
The gentlemen each began with an opening statement. Then each one of them was allowed to cross examine the other two. Then each one was allowed to offer rebuttals to the other two. Then there were closing statements, followed by some questions by the moderator. Audience members were allowed to write down questions, but very few of them were asked due to time constraints. The audience seemed fine with this, and the quality of the debate could have kept people riveted well into the following morning. As a working stiff, for that reason alone, thankfully it did not.
The debate took place at Temple Baht Yam in beautiful Newport Beach, California. For those who have not been, this area is in Orange County, the midpoint between Los Angeles and San Diego. While Orange County is known as a white Christian republican stronghold (I have often joked that I might be only creme or eggshell, and therefore not white enough to live there), even this area has a healthy Jewish community.
The Synagogue was packed to capacity with people who had paid decent money to hear this lecture. Thankfully yours truly was an invited guest, which is a fancy way of saying a nice guy took a liking to me for some reason that is hopefully justified.
No boundaries were left untouched, and nothing was sacred. Even the Holocaust was mentioned and debated as either a reason that God did or did not exist.
After the event, which had plenty of fireworks, I had the pleasure of meeting all three men.
I was introduced to Dennis Prager. He was pleasant as always. I mentioned to him that I had met him a few months ago at an event in San Francisco, and he mentioned how much he enjoyed that event as well. I had approached him in the past about doing an interview. While he is a busy man, he was again gracious, and said he would make the time to do it. He told me to get his information from a mutual friend of ours who has it. Since the mutual friend is the one who introduced me to him and was standing right there, credibility is a non-issue.
I had the pleasure of meeting a friend of Mr. Prager’s, and I told her what I told him. One of his best lines that he has ever said (although not in this forum) was that it would be an absolute shame and a horror if Jews went down in history as the people who opposed President Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein, who paid money to homicide bombers to murder Jews.
Mr. Prager’s passion is matched only by his knowledge and his kindness. He is a mensch.
Mr. D’Souza is a calm man, not one to raise his voice. Then again, compared to Mr. Prager and Mr. Hitchens, most people are calm. Despite a quiet speaking style, Mr. D’Souza has a sharp wit, and several of the funniest remarks of the evening came from him.
He is an amalgamation of Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Prager in the sense that he has a science background, but believes in organized religion. Mr. Prager is a clear Theist, while Mr. Hitchens prefers science over religion, aka reason over revelation. Yet Mr. D’Souza uses science and scientific arguments, all the while staying true to his religious beliefs.
I mentioned to him after the event that I found his remarks brilliant. I told him that while I was still not converting to Christianity, I nevertheless liked him. He laughed. He was the only one of the three not to commit to an interview with me. He said he would try, but conceded his schedule was busy. I absolutely respect his honesty in this manner.
Christopher Hitchens was by far the most provocative of the three. For most of the evening, there was a love fest between Prager and D’Souza. Their disagreements were mild. Both of them sparred with Mr. Hitchens, especially Mr. Prager.
Mr. Hitchens likes to push buttons, and he has a rapier wit. His tongue can be made of acid, and on more than one occasion he pointed out that he did answer the question, the audience understood this, and others were simply not willing or deliberately ignoring the response.
Yet for all of his supposed bluster, I found him significantly less pompous than he even makes himself out to be. When I spoke to him, he was very pleasant and gracious.
I told him that I have never encountered a man I disagreed with so fiercely yet respected and admired so much. He laughed and thanked me. I told him I learn much more from people I disagree with, and that I wanted to read his book just so that I could try and rip his arguments to shreds. That way if I succeeded, I would have stronger reasoned arguments myself.
He responded that we would both benefit since I would be buying his book. He also said that I had given him the “highest compliment” I could have given him.
The last thing I did was thank him for his support on the War on Terror. I told him that I was a conservative, and that while I knew he was on the left on most issues, on the one issue that mattered most…he got it perfectly. He was persuaded by Tony Blair, and he has since persuaded many that being a leftist does not have to mean being an appeaser.
Mr. Hitchens gave me his information, and I look forward to interviewing him.
Whether one believes in monotheism or atheism, and whichever strain they believe, there were two things that were agreed upon during this event.
The first point of agreement, which was the line of the night, was delivered by Dinesh D’Souza in his opening remarks.
All three men found common ground on the issue of dialogue with Islamofacists. In the words of Mr. D’Souza, “Dialogue must come in the form of munitions aimed at all of them.”
The second point of agreement among the participants and the audience was that it was a brilliant debate. among brilliant men.
I look forward to bringing virtually every word of that evening into the blogosphere over the next few days.
I hope reading it provides as much enjoyment and intellectual and philosophical stimulation as I had attending the event.
eric
Hitchens may be gracious, intelligent , and make a ponited arguement.
But it still boggles my mind how some people choose to believe we are all just circumstance by chance.
I have sweet memories of Newport. Especially around Laguna Canyon.
It’s funny that many in western religious society are so put off by Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins (I’ve read them all). Atheists, like these and like myself, usually have a sort of heirarchy of bad religion, and Islam has ranked the worst for more than a century at least. We don’t like religion but we do give it credit where it’s due, and do recognize that some religions, or at least religious thoughts, are more deranged than others. It’s one thing to be a mainstream Catholic or a Born Again nondenominational “Personal Relationship” Christian, it’s another to be convinced of the inerrancy of the literal word of the Books, or of human spokesman for these insane tomes.
By the way, I would LOVE to see that. Was it on C-Span, by any chance? Any YouTubers there???
JMJ
Eric,
Read The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day before you interview Hitchens. I’d love to see his response.
http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens/dp/1933771364/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200445323&sr=1-1
It’s also free at Vox’s website.
Jersey,
If you go to the “Absolutely fascinating” link above, you can see another debate between D’Souza and Hitchens. I just finished watching it., and it really is absolutely fascinating.
Micky,
Hitchens may be very intellectually stimulating, but gracious is not exactly how I would describe him.
Eric,
Thank you for your post, and for the links. While d’Souza and Hitchens both make good points, neither will convince me either. Maybe Spinoza. I lean toward deism. I’m not sure how that differs from theism. I’m not sure I care. I believe God exists. I don’t believe he meddles. I have a problem with people who try to tell me what God wants. It’s too often what they want. That said, I have the utmost respect for rabbinical Judaism. I believe it is the most effective system yet devised for passing a code thru generations that allows people to live and get along with each other and retain their cohesion in spite of horrendous difficulties.
Chris, in your own words, I dare you to argue any of the “irrational atheist” points. I dare you.
A pathetic piece of work indeed.
JMJ
Yeah Charly.
I thought Eric gave him that compliment. Looking back I dont see it anywhere.
Jersey, whats irrational to me about atheism period is the belief that we just “ARE”
I would rather choose that we are here for a purpose rather than just being a fluke.
Either way, what do I have to lose if I’m right ?
My belief is not a saftey net just in case there is a heaven. The maker I believe in knows it would be a false worship if that were the case.
To me it just makes more sense and gives the precense of mankind a higher level of purpose.
We only use 5% of our brain as it is after these thousands of years of evolution.
God has big plans for mankind. Why would he give us all these capabilities, resources and time ?
If you really approach existance from a common sense point of view it makes more sense to believe in an intelligent order than just happenstance
Jersey, I respect your opinions, but I don’t understand why it is such an seemingly emotional thing for you to be an atheist. As an atheist, I have to assume you believe there is no higher power, which means we have no one to answer to but ourselves, because we are the highest power. I can live with that, but I’m not sure I want to die with that. Regardless, if there is no higher power, why is there such a problem with the death penalty or simply eliminating babies who are retarded or physically/mentally incapacitated? What is different between them and a bad litter? If a dog or cat gets rabid, we have not problem shooting them. When a man or woman is perverted and rapes, kills, or maims others, we want to psychoanalyze them…why not just kill them?
Let’s take it back a few years. I believe in evolution. By that I mean each species has evolved over time to cope with current environment. It doesn’t mean i believe we evolved from apes. If so, why are there still apes? I suppose an argument could be made that one-celled critters evolved into two celled critters and eventually became fish, and one flopped onto the beach, grew legs, and eventually turned into a human… hence the term “wetback” because there were no jobs in the Red Sea, but at least we created green jobs for lawn care and pool work…but I’m getting ahead of myself… If we always were, and always will be, then what about dinosaurs? Were there really dinosaurs a couple million years ago? OK, let’s say there were….did we cohabitate, or did we evolve from the fish? How many legged fish besides tadpoles and polywags do we see? Of course, it could be magic. Put all the parts to an automobile in a room and let it sit there for 50 to 100 years and see whether they come together to become a car…and the given is that all the parts are already engineered, specked, and of the same “species”… now apply that same argument to creating flesh and blood with reasoning capabilities…. Bless you, man. Please re-consider.
Some elementary views on the traditional Jewish perspective…
…including an academic and non-denominational approach to atheism.
__________________________________________________________________
Personally, I like this thought.
Evolutionists say that because life exists, it must have a “natural” explanation which not only need not, but must not, invoke G-d, …only “natural” accidents, i.e., chance occurrences.
That approach can be restated as a simple logic statement…
“If life exists, it must have an unintelligent cause.”
The “contrapositive” of that, which must have the same logic value, is…
“if it has an intelligent cause, life does not exist.”
In other words, chaos is more effective in generating order than is intelligence, and the more profound the order, the less intelligence is required.
If any reader doesn’t understand how that makes no sense, then the next time you apply for a job tell them you have no relevant education, experience or interest in the company or it’s product, but, given enough time, you will prove to be a very valuable employee, purely by chance.
Micky,
“Jersey, whats irrational to me about atheism period is the belief that we just “ARE”
I would rather choose…”
Enough said.
Eagle,
“Jersey, I respect your opinions, but I don’t understand why it is such an seemingly emotional thing for you to be an atheist.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
“As an atheist, I have to assume you believe there is no higher power, which means we have no one to answer to but ourselves, because we are the highest power.”
I don’t think in subjective terms like “higher power.” Higher than what? Power of what? It’s not rational thinking.
Eagle, I’m afraid you do not understand “evolution.” It is not some determinitive drive to progress or perfection. It is simply another word for “change over time.” One species does not become another. Each new species eminates from one random genetic mutation in one individual. That’s why “there are still apes.”
I appreciate your want of my salvation, and thank you, but I am in no way convinced by any of the arguments of intelligent design. It is a hypothesis without any scientific merit whatsoever, but rather just more subjective wants – “higher power,” “irreducible complexity,” and the “God gene” are all just purely subjective concepts. “Higher” and “complex” are simply subjective measurements. They aren’t real, tangible things that exist in the universe.
I want real answers about the universe around me. I would never rest on subjective guesses. If we all rested on such concepts, nothing would ever get done. We’d still be in the Dark Ages.
Yonason,
“If life exists, it must have an unintelligent cause.”
“if it has an intelligent cause, life does not exist.”
I have never heard any scientist make such dispositive statements. These are not scientific concepts. Again, they are purely subjective. That’s fine for religion, but useless to any real science.
JMJ
Oh, and Micky,
“Either way, what do I have to lose if I’m right?”
Understanding the universe around you.
JMJ
Jersey,
You haven’t read TIA, so don’t bother. I’m not the least bit interested in discussing yet another book you haven’t read.
And you’re gonna tell me how ?
Man, I just spit coffee on my keyboard, no joke.
I understand it as something much bigger than you do buddy. You just think you’re a germ in a petre dish. And that could explain a host of issues concerning you.
Also, what do I have to lose if I’m wrong ?
What you do in life determines where you go almost all the time.
So why wouldnt I base my morals and ethics on a standard that I could apply to my destination after life also ?
Compiled with my belief in a higher power whom I choose to call God I feel complete.
I believe I will be worthy of extended life in other forms if I show that I cherish this life and make the best of it.
If I piss it off why would any creator be willing to throw me into another arena ?
JMJ:
“Understanding the universe around you”
Einstein barely got it in his whole life and you gonna tell me about it?
Oh thats right, you know what people are thinking and have all the facts without having to prove it.
You also knew for a fact that you had more women than me without ever knowing me.
Please Obe Wan Kenobi, give me a break. Give us all a break.
@JMJ
I don’t know what you mean by “dispositive.” Are you a lawyer?
As to what I quoted (sorry I don’t remember the source, but that’s irrelevant except to assign credit), it is simple and valid logic.
“conditional” …….. If A, then B
“contrapositive” … If not A, then not B
They MUST have the same truth value. If the first is “FALSE” the second MUST be, and if the first is “TRUE” the second MUST be, and vice versa. Many math proofs are solidly based on that method.
The only way the statements I quoted above could both be true, is if chaos is immeasurably superior to intelligence. Since that is absurd, the statements must both be false. It’s not a riddle or a game, but a rigorous mathematical fact.
Just because you don’t want it to be that way doesn’t make it so. And, so what if you have never heard it before? You know everything about the subject? If you think so, think again. None of us do.
Here’s some additional information, according to how I have learned, in case you are interested. The important thing is not to “believe” when you don’t, but, to sincerely search for the best answer, according to your individual abilities. If you reject the question outright, you need to reexamine your motives.
@JMJ
CORRECTION!!!!
I said…
““conditional” …….. If A, then B
“contrapositive” ….. If not A, then not B”
That should have been…
“conditional” …….. If A, then B
“contrapositive” … If not B, then not A”
That’s an important distinction, because the first is NOT correct.
But you would have caught my mistake as soon as you went to the link I gave for it.
Sorry for the confusion.
“I don’t think in subjective terms like “higher power.” Higher than what? Power of what? It’s not rational thinking.” — Jersey McJones
“Higher Power” is really more a relational term. Relative to one thing something is “higher” and to another it is “lower.” To talk about those relations we would need to arrive at mutually agreed on general concepts and definitions, but otherwise there’s nothing preventing us.
There is nothing “irrational” about it, either, because everything is either “superior” or “inferior” or “equal” to something else, when comparing some specific quality. It’s only “subjective” if what I call a “higher power” can be inferior, relative to some other “power.” But, since we are talking about G-d as THE “Higher Power,” then, since He is infinite and there is nothing except for Him, there is no room for subjectivity. Everything is “inferior” relative to Him.
However, when compared with one’s being created “in the image of G-d” all other superiorities and inferiorities are so utterly insignificant that on the level of our humanity all of us are literally “equal.” If someone denies G-d, i.e., says there is no absolute authority, he has to substitute some other infinitely inferior authority in order to make laws to govern society. At that point our human equality is lost, and there is then room for prejudice based on our very real, but spiritually, and ethically irrelevant, human differences.
When man is the measure of man,all manner of insanity can be considered “valid.” Now THAT is “irrational.”
I had no (well, some) idea how many fringe thinkers raomed this blog!
Chris, what the heck is TIA? The Tire Industry Association? If you think you’re going over my head, then you are delluding yourself.
Micky, very simple concept here for you: if you already assume you have the answers, then you won’t look for the real answers, or possible even accept them once presented to you. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is not science. I don;t care if you’re religious, but please don’t pretend that religion and science are the same.
Yonason, please, l get Occams Razor. The problem here is that you are inventing both the “Truth” and the “Untruth.” You are asserting a ostensibly scientific position that does not exist. I didn’t need nor look at the link yet. I’ve dealt with that sort of subjective logic before. It’s a shell game. Psuedo-rationalism. (I’m not a lawyer, the point I was making is that scientists do NOT argue “If life exists, it must have an unintelligent cause” or “if it has an intelligent cause, life does not exist.” They don’t think in those terms. Intelligent causes are not even a remote consideration of mainstream evolutionary science today outside the impact of man on his fellow flora and fauna.)
Try these sets on for size:
1) God exists. God doesn’t exist.
2) The universe started with a Big Bang. The Universe Started with a thought in the mind of God.
3) God made man from mud. All the Earths animals, including man, are a product of organic evolution.
All three of these sets are impossible to prove absolutely either way. And THAT is the problem with applying Occam to this argument. I can’t prove or disprove God or what God does or doesn’t do. However, I’ve never seen any evidence of God other than from the words, written and spoken, of believers. But people believe all sorts of things that are not true, especially those things they really want to believe. I can not prove absolutely either way the entire history of every evolutionary change that has ever occured. I can not be sure exactly how the universe started or what started it. All I, and you, can do is ponder the evidence. The preponerance of the evidence tells us nothing about God. Occams razor is great whan you have specific proffered “facts” at odds, like in a murder trial when the indicted has a questionable alibi. It is USELESS when you do not have all of the facts on at least one side of the issue.
JMJ
As for your last comment, Yonason, it is all subjective relativity.
And “superior” and “inferior,” in your context, are about as subjectively as one could measure anything.
JMJ
Yonason
Excellent conveyance of points that I have made often.
But in my case the points are delivered with less patient methods.
What you say often occurs with my own thoughts. Unlike you i am not as able to put it in print as well.
I’m anxious to see how Mr Mcjones responds in order to look rational.
JMJ;
“Micky, very simple concept here for you: if you already assume you have the answers, then you won’t look for the real answers, or possible even accept them once presented to you. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is not science. I don;t care if you’re religious, but please don’t pretend that religion and science are the same.”
Do you assume that the answers you search for are going to be real, maybe as real as your questions?
I approach everything by my logic. At a point in my life I tossed all pre concieved doctrines of religion out and appraoched the whole thing from a point of logic.
I assumed nothing.
Am I just a germ in a petre dish who just “happens to be here?
Or am I a part of a highly evolved system that for some reason has included a being such as humans that exercise a range of morals, feelings and ethics far more complex that any other creatrure on the planet?
Reason tells me that we were not selected to have the level of conscience that we have as just being attributed to the simple lazy minded concept that we just “ARE”
Everything around us is incredibly spectalur in all ways, and undoubtedly the core of that creation is far far superior to you or I.
You assume that your answers will come in the form of science.
I on the other hand give God thanks for the science that enables us to do so much.
And please, dont ever be so blissfully ignorant to think that science can prove my beliefs wrong , or yours correct
You obviously haven’t read my posts on this thread.
JMJ
Dont have to.
You and I have been through this before. You’re not that complex.
You boiled it down in the last debate to “we just are”
Well are we or aren’t we? LOL! Uh oh, there goes Occam again!
JMJ
We are.
But are not “just” here as you believe.
I believe in given purpose that actually extends those taught by Jesus.
Even if you believe that there is some mad scientist on a far away planet pulling levers making all this happen then you have no choice but to believe in a higher power.
You choose to believe that all existance is not provable by any means.
I choose to believe that we are here to serve purpose. This why I argue that the threat of the end times are simply a method of getting people to comply with doctrine.
But science has proved that we only at this point in our evolution are using 5% of our minds.
I see no reason to be created with so much capabilty and then be wiped off the face of the earth before we are even given a chance to use a small portion of what we have to offer. It defeats logic.
On the other hand I believe that man will exist to a point where when we are actually able to use 100% of our abilities we will be able to accomplish what we were set here to do. This of course will take thousands, maybe millions of generations to accomplish. You and I are just part of the process of handing down knowledge to the next generation and so our offspring will do the same, and so and so on untill we are at critcal intellectual, moral and ethical mass.
We will not know what this accomplishment is supposed to be seeing as how we have not even developed the menatal capcity to even begin to concieve what it is we are here for.
But as man has progressed he has always evolved to be more ethical and discerning in his treatment of his fellow man. And more complex in his deductions as to why we are here.
I find it very rewarding to feel that I am a part of that process as opposed to widdling myself down to nothing but a bug in a dish because I’m to intellectually lazy to actually ponder the thought of greatness more than myself.
This is what drives my conscience. There is something greater than my own conscience to answer to.
If I had it your way I could simply adjust my conscience to justify any of my flaws and BS myself into feeling better
It’s all well and fine to believe whatever you want to believe, Micky, as long as you don’t abuse anyone else with it. It is not okay to call any of it science. Science is the study of the universe. Religion is a belief in a “higher power.” Study/belief. Two different things.
JMJ
You dont get it, do you?
Or you just cant get anything down that has a foundation so you choose to go in circles. This is not a chicken and egg thing.
I give God credit for the science and for giving us the abilty to find and understand it.
It is also a statement as to just how one percieves themselves in order to justify or give purpose to their existance.
It takes alot to actually question and search with the pretense that I am not the center of my universe or anyone elses.
But as in your case its intellectually lazy and convenient to just say ” oh well, I’m just here period. A little bug in a dish not accountable to anything but myself”
No one raised me or told me what I had to believe in. I was not indoctrinated into any structural beliefs. I choose to take on the task of pondering and questioning and searching for higher power that dictates my presence and purpose.
My search has not narrowed it down tio any specific entity. But it has made me realize that there is something more powerful and superior to me.
Usually those who are too moraly bankrupt or intellectually lazy will not take on this task.
I’m sick of God.
JMJ
How would you know ?
“The problem here is that you are inventing both the ‘Truth’ and the ‘Untruth’.” — JMJ
No, I’m deducing one from the other, logically.
“You are asserting a ostensibly scientific position that does not exist”” — JMJ
One can say there are two positions in Science.
A. One subgroup of scientists asserts what I say they do. For them, my argument holds.
B. The other subgroup is unwilling to say that life is an “accident” as opposed to the result of some external intelligence. With them I have no argument, as their position doesn’t contradict mine.
So, neither case disproves my argument, and since there are no other cases, you have merely dismissing the problem by attempting to confuse the issue. Just because some scientists agree with me does not disprove my logic, which is really what you seem to be trying to get away with saying.
Science cannot investigate G-d, but science also cannot honestly claim that He doesn’t exist based on that inability.
And it is NOT Ockham’s razor.
ASIDE: since group A has no ethical constraints to speak of, (if one has no moral compass, that’s no problem), they have no qualms about masquerading as group B, you know like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. The intro is long, but what follows is fascinating.
Micky, I’m just getting tired of arguing religion. It’s so pointless.
Yonason, on your first point, follow me here – you are framing the arguments in a way that express things your opponent, here me, never would. Therefore, you are simply inventing, for your own subjective cause, both the pro, “contrapositive” (I guess?), and con, oh, and cono f that pro, and the answer! You’re are arguing with yourself! Does that even count as angrument? Now go ahead and propose what you see as an easy razor line and let me give the alternative. Then you can see if your (800 year old) logic really works. ;)
And no, one can NOT “say there are two positions in science,” just right and wrong, or provable or unprovable. Unprovable does NOT mean real. And arguing that something is either so or unprovably not so is as worthlessly obvious as to say “Hey, it’s raining” after standing two hours in a downpour. What’s the point? There are plenty of possibilities in the universe. Only when you get down to singularities are you dealt with this simple “yes/no” dicovery. Everything else, until then, is open to many possible anwsers to the vast majority of questions. We still have a lot to learn about the universe around us. We should not be so arrogant as to think we already have all or even a fraction of the answers.
And please stop with the goofball thought experiments. I’ve read them, heard them, seen them, smelled them all before and from guys that really knew their stuff. You have it down, okay? You lay it out very well. I get it. Please stop wasting it on me. There’s a whole world out there without the logical skills to see through it. Either propose something and let me argue it, or let it be. Watching you argue with yourself is like grass grow, and at a wierd angle.
Please don’t take offense. I mean none. I’m still just waiting for you to actually argue with me instead of the Two Sides of Yonason.
JMJ
If its so pointless jersey then why do you bother ?
If you somehow convince me that I am a bug in a dish like you what will you have accomplished ?
Do you think it will improve my life and concept of its worth ?
Will I become any more or less of a human ?
You may be tired of this discussion for obvious reasons that I apply to arguements I have with my wife whom is also a christian.
I give more credit to the capabilities if man than all her indoctrinated fire and brimstone beliefs will in 2000 years.
I get incredibly angry everytime she says the
end is near” or “its another sign of the end times”
I especially dont like it when its said in front of my boy.
Do you mean to tell me that you think you are greater or equal to the acheivements and future purpose of man whatever it may be?
Do you not believe that every generation of man is just a little better in many aspects that the preceding one ?
Are we not a progressive species ?
Do you actually think that we are all here just to eat, procreate sh** and die ?
Why do we humans out of all other animals have the ability to reason with logic and think with schematics.
Why arent gophers building supersonic jets and computers and going to the moon ?
Whats the point of existance itself if there is no point or determined end product or result?
You go right ahead and believe that we are all just “HERE”.
But I’m gonna tackle this one with a few more brain cells than you are willing to spend and give my existance purpose and meaning by giving man and his progression the most credit I can ever drum up by believing that we are of a greater calling than just to simply exist.
We are all part of a process that is miraculous when you look at all other scientific aspects around us. Human beings are the least understood and scientifically explained phenomenon there is besides the universe itself.
I’m gonna make a suggestion here thats not meant to belittle you.
Start getting to know yourself before you try to pin down the creation of the universe.
If its so easy for you to believe that we just “are” what do you have to lose by exploring the other possibilities and give credit to something more than your own conscience ?
Wow. You threw a lot at me there. And hey man, I feel for you. That whole end times thing strikes me as dangerously fatalistic and nihilist. If a person thinks the end is coming at any time soon, what might they be capable of???
“If its so pointless jersey then why do you bother?” Well, that depends on what you call “pointless.” I don;t think life is pointless just because there is no God. Life is a wonderful thing. I think the “point” is just to make the best of it.
“If you somehow convince me that I am a bug in a dish like you what will you have accomplished?”
I don’t see myself as a bug in a dish – YOU DO. You see God creating us, you see Him looking after us – basically, to the religious, God is a mad scientist and we are all his multi-a$$ed (thank you, South Park) creations.
“Do you think it will improve my life and concept of its worth?” Well, you have to decide that for yourself. I love my life and feel it’s as worthy as any other.
“Will I become any more or less of a human?” Again, that’s up to you.
“Do you mean to tell me that you think you are greater or equal to the acheivements and future purpose of man whatever it may be?” I’m not sure what you mean by this.
“Do you not believe that every generation of man is just a little better in many aspects that the preceding one?” No. Not as a rule. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But I see no refined rule there.
“Are we not a progressive species?”
No. There’s no such thing as a “progressive species.” There are those that survive and those that don’t. If you call survival “progress” then fine. But it’s a subjective notion.
“Do you actually think that we are all here just to eat, procreate sh** and die?” I don;t think we’re here to do anything. We have to figure out for ourselves what to do.
“Why do we humans out of all other animals have the ability to reason with logic and think with schematics.” That isn’t true. We just have bigger brains, so we put a lot more thought into many things. I only wish it made us more logical. Really, the smarter we get, often the less logical we become.
“Why arent gophers building supersonic jets and computers and going to the moon?” They did not evolve large brains. Why don;t humans build massively complex underground homes and eat roots? Who cares?
“Whats the point of existance itself if there is no point or determined end product or result?” There doesn’t have to be a point.
“You go right ahead and believe that we are all just “HERE”.” Well, aren’t we?
Look, I’m just not insecure, narcissistic, arrogant, and vain enough to think I’m some special child of God – nor would I want or need it.
JMJ
JMJ;
“you see Him looking after us ”
Not at all.
I was givin many capabilities so as to look after myself. If I fail to use my gifts my demise is justified.
Like the guy on the roof in the flood. He died and went to heaven and told God ” I prayed and you did nothing”
God said:
” I sent you a log, a boat and a front door and you watched it all float by while praying to me.”
JMJ;
“Again, that’s up to you.”
Yup, God gave man free will.
JMJ:
“No. There’s no such thing as a “progressive species.”
BS. We are taller, smarter, healthier and more compassionate and more civilized than we ever have been. We are part of evolution, evolution is progress. Please. Its not subjective, as you love to use that word as an escape.
JMJ:
“Look, I’m just not insecure, narcissistic, arrogant, and vain enough to think I’m some special child of God – nor would I want or need it.”
You’ve never had it . So could you possibly know. so if anyone is self centerd and narcissitic its you.
Its about humbling yourself. And one attribute of humility is to accept the fact that you are never too good to learn a lesson, or accept that you are not the sh*t.
When I die I may be shot into nothingness as you believe.
But as I believe I will not.
If I’m wrong, which I believe I’m not. At least my ass is coverd because I am offering respect to the fact that “I” am not the reason for my being here. And my purpose is far greater than the simplistic notion that I have to make “the best of it” while I’m here.
I am part of a process that will carry for generations to come. I have handed down my wisdom and lessons to my son and he will do the same with his kids and on and on. That is called progress. Each generation is just a little more humane, healthier, smarter and elevated, morally, ethically, and intelligently.
I am by no means insecure at all. I have reason and purpose for my existance as oppsed to just “making the best of it”
Thats what you do in prison
Believing that there is something intelligent and meaningful behind your existance is the exact opposite of narcissim and vanity. It actually gives cdeedance to us not being a singular entity as oppsed to the arrogance that thinks he
JMJ
“Then you can see if your (800 year old) logic really works”
It’s quite modern, as you would realize if you looked at the links I provided.
You haven’t a clue what you are talking about, do you? (Either that or your dishonest. But I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
g’bye.