Difficult question...

[triforce_keeper]

I hate the thought of dying

 

I'm only 13 so hopefully I don't have to worry about it too much yet XD

 

I either wish we become spirits roaming the land (nice spirits) or we go to a place like heaven.

 

I doubt it though. Its probably just like a sleep but not waking up.

[Katie]

Why do you think we feel good about helping others Odwin?

[Haden]

I agree a lot with what Athriller has said but from a completely different angle. I think many people who don't leave a mark on teh world have lived moral lives that would put to shame some more famous people. Having said that I really enjoy some of the culture that famous people have left but this doesn't nesceraly make them better people.

 

I disagree with all the people saying you should just be what you want to be or do what you want to do. This is a nice kinda beauty queen esque speech but as a human if your a religious person or not you do have responsibiities to society etc even I would admit that and poltically im quite libertartian.

[ShadowV7]

I once thought a few years ago about heaven and hell.Dying is like sleeping but you can't wake up subcouncisley (spelt wrong I know XD) so your body decomposes ,heaven is good dream that you have and to have a 'good' dream you need to die happy and feel good about your life (helping people etc) and hell is just a nightmare you never wake up from because of the bad things you done coming back to haunt you.

 

But I often ask myself why are we here,it's to much of a coincidence to be alive because of the things that have happened.Like everyone else I have theories(some unrealistic too),but I never find a suitable answer.Like what was the big bang,how did it happen.Is the universe infinite and if so how is it? But if it's not what's at the end.These questions will play around the humans lives untill a time where we can freely be in space.

[Supergrunch]

To the thread creator:

You appear to work on the philosophy that "everything happens for a reason", implying that you have a very external locus of control. Yet you also say you are an atheist. If you believe in no "higher being", then where does the control originate? Thus, everything only happens for a reason if you subscribe to at least some form of spiritual identity.

 

I am an agnostic tending towards an atheist, and as far as I'm concerned, humans have no real purpose; the very idea of a "purpose" as such seems pretentious. Humans are in no way different to any other animal- the fact that we are intelligent is as arbitary as the fact that wasps are black and yellow. However, perhaps the presence of this intelligence puts the onus on us to use it- not because it is our responsibility, but for purely selfish means: to avoid the destruction of our species, and indeed our habitat, at all costs.

[Haver]

Basically, the West Wing is over, so kill yourselves.

[Minihobbsch]

To the thread creator:

You appear to work on the philosophy that "everything happens for a reason", implying that you have a very external locus of control. Yet you also say you are an atheist. If you believe in no "higher being", then where does the control originate? Thus, everything only happens for a reason if you subscribe to at least some form of spiritual identity.

Although I do not agree there is a "higher being", there has to be something (don't know what) for it to happen. I am really confused now.

[Supergrunch]

Although I do not agree there is a "higher being", there has to be something (don't know what) for it to happen. I am really confused now.

Well... Why should things happen for a predetermined (or determined at all) reason? Surely everything could merely depend on the freewill of individual people, and before that by other factors which have to happen, such as evolution (without it, there could be no animals) and simply random occurences.

 

I don't necessarily hold such an extreme view of this, but I'd imagine that as an atheist, it would be hard to hold different views.

[Minihobbsch]

Well... Why should things happen for a predetermined (or determined at all) reason? Surely everything could merely depend on the freewill of individual people, and before that by other factors which have to happen, such as evolution (without it, there could be no animals) and simply random occurences.

 

I don't necessarily hold such an extreme view of this, but I'd imagine that as an atheist, it would be hard to hold different views.

It's just that if things did happen for a reason, then somebody would have to prove it. Such as Darwin proving his theory of evolution.

[Supergrunch]

It's just that if things did happen for a reason, then somebody would have to prove it. Such as Darwin proving his theory of evolution.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Evolution didn't really happen for a reason (in my opinion), it merely happened because it did- as soon as organisms reproduce, they are bound by the constrains of natural selection. Also, if Darwin hadn't discovered evolution, then it wouldn't mean that it didn't exist.

[Minihobbsch]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Evolution didn't really happen for a reason (in my opinion), it merely happened because it did- as soon as organisms reproduce, they are bound by the constrains of natural selection. Also, if Darwin hadn't discovered evolution, then it wouldn't mean that it didn't exist.

What I meant to say is that if something did happen for a reason, then someone would have to prove why and how it happened.

[Roostophe]

kurt left his mark on the world alright, rather a colourful mark too.........

 

You're right, the Nevermind sleeve has a very beautiful blue colour if I'm not mistaken. :wink:

 

Also, I knew there would be somebody who would shit over my theory. There always is. (Gives Athriller the 'V' sign!)

[The Bard]

There are three things that are important in life, Work, Friends and Love.

 

I don't think we should be here to serve some god, even though the chances are reasonable that he does exist besides, if he is the all knowing all powerful, loving jackass that a lot of people believe him to be, then why s he so egotistical that he needs our constant worship? Fuck it, that's not the god I'm going to believe in, if I doinfact believe in him at all.

 

At the end of the day, all we are is sentient beings, we are mammals, and we live, we die, and we are remembered only through the influences we spread, and the people whose lives we affect in some way. So we should go the fuck ahead and do what the hell we want, because I doubt that were going to ge the chance again.

 

 

Humans have no purpose, they are a result of the universe.

 

Big bang > Stars > Planets > Life conditions > Primitive life > Evolution > Intelligent life

 

The only reason why we think we have purpose is because having purpose is a motivation to survive, which in turn is a logic result of evolution.

 

I have to say, looking at current evidence, evolution is an almost entirely implausable theory.

 

[CooInTheZoo]

I like to think that, like flinky said, we live and we die. The time we have is what we make of it. I know its not a sensible motto to live from but i try to live for the moment, and make the most fun i can out of situations because every second we are on this planet, we are lucky. Fuck saving for my retirement right now (granted, im still a teenager) i could get cut down my a sword tomorrow. I think lifes purpose is.. to live.

 

And at the same time i believe death isnt the end. Hmm.

[Roostophe]

I like to think that, like flinky said, we live and we die. The time we have is what we make of it. I know its not a sensible motto to live from but i try to live for the moment, and make the most fun i can out of situations because every second we are on this planet, we are lucky. Fuck saving for my retirement right now (granted, im still a teenager) i could get cut down my a sword tomorrow. I think lifes purpose is.. to live.

 

And at the same time i believe death isnt the end. Hmm.

 

I do kind of think that as well. You live and die, make the most of it, do what you want to do and die knowing you somehow had an impact on the world.

[Haden]

I think Dostoyevsky was right when he saw that without god men would be capable of doing anything. In russia where communism came to the fore it meant purges etc and in our society of consuermarism it means hedonism and ego.

 

I still find it hard to explain that humans are consious of the universe and themselves in a way no other being is. CS Lewis points to the development of the eye and how it wouldn't have developed in a universe without light and the development of the mind and inqury into existence as prrof that we may have a purpose in this universe.

[Supergrunch]

I have to say, looking at current evidence, evolution is an almost entirely implausable theory.

Care to explain why? (and if I were you, I wouldn't make judgements if you haven't read on the Origin of Species... although you may have, it's likely that you haven't)

[Blue_Ninja0]

I always thought and still think our purpose is to reproduce ourselves, like every single form of life. Some micro organisms like virus, have a lifespan of just 6 seconds. They reproduce in 6 seconds and just die, we just happen to have a lifespan of 70/80 years or more (or less).

 

I have to say, looking at current evidence, evolution is an almost entirely implausable theory.

 

I would like to know why it's implausable too. If evolution is not the way they say it is, could you explain why the f*ck am i able to write you this and you can understand it? We were not just spawned like this in random places of the world.

[The Bard]

I should have made myself more clear. I meant evolution on the scale on which Darwin thought it happened. I mean, fair enough, Horses adapt to different typed of land with different sorts of hooved etc, and there are fossils to prove this also...(Also, to Supergrunch, yeah, I read the origin of species about a year and a half ago, albeit not all at once, a bit fragmentedly, but I understood it all, and I know that there are gaping holes in the theory, so much so, that scientists are now starting to abandon it).

 

There is absolutely no way that an amoeba can evolve into something with complex organ systems such as mammals, birds, reptiles etc. For example, we humans, have semilunar valves in our hearts, and valves in our veins that prevent the backwards flow of blood. If these weren't there then we wouldn't be able to survive, as our blood wouldn't circulate. Now you can't tell me that, the heart, the liver, intestines, kidneys, veins, arteries, the brain, all simultaneously managed to evolve instantaneously? Because none of those components can work on their own. How is that possible?? How do birds have such an intricate aerofoil structure to their wings so they can increase in altitude without having to flap their wings? How is it that spiderwebs are structually stronger than Kevlar (the strongest man made material there is, and is used in bullet proof vests).

 

And the biggest hole in the theory of them all: If there were transitions in between species, such as winged mammals that eventually evolved into birds, or basic lifeforms from amoeba, then why the fuck aren't there any excavated skeletons and fossils to prove this? There should be thousands upon thousands of these, yet, not a single one has been found, surprising, considering the fact that such a huge amount of dinosaur fossils have been excavated, dinosaurs, which lived before the existance of animals that even neared human sentience.

 

The only remotely plausible evidence of evolution is bacteria that change by sheer fluke so that they are invulnerable to antibiotics etc. But this doesn't even near the absurd scale on which that Darwin joker was thinking.

 

But I don't care either way, If there is a sentient creator, it can go fuck itself, I don't give a shit, because, firstly, it would be responsible for all human suffering (of which there is a lot more than human joy) and secondly, If he IS powerful enough to create the universe and us, then why does the egotistical fucker need our worship? And, why should he ban us from doing certain things, like having sex (and even in some religions looking at a member of the opposite sex), or drinking, or so many other things? How is us not doing these things going to help him? How is it going to help us? It isn't. All it's going to do is make us more miserable. Religion to me was just something set up to control the masses, and it's gotten way out of hand.

 

And here's my obligatory, angsty "FUCK THE WORLDQ!!!!!!11!!!THREE!!."

[Supergrunch]

that scientists are now starting to abandon it

Which ones would they be?

For example, we humans, have semilunar valves in our hearts, and valves in our veins that prevent the backwards flow of blood. If these weren't there then we wouldn't be able to survive, as our blood wouldn't circulate.

Yes we could. it could work (for example) entirely on pressure.

Now you can't tell me that, the heart, the liver, intestines, kidneys, veins, arteries, the brain, all simultaneously managed to evolve instantaneously? Because none of those components can work on their own. How is that possible??

This is the idea of "irreducible complexity", isn't it... Why should they have to evolve simultaneously- for instance, the current balance could have evolved after they were all present. Also, part of an organ is a lot better than no organ... eg. a kidney with shorter nephrons still "cleans" the blood to a degree. This argument has been proved wrong for different cases many times. (eg. what use is half an eye/half a bacterial flagellum etc.)

How do birds have such an intricate aerofoil structure to their wings so they can increase in altitude without having to flap their wings? How is it that spiderwebs are structually stronger than Kevlar (the strongest man made material there is, and is used in bullet proof vests).

Why shouldn't this be true? Millions of years of evolution can easily beat the amout of time man has been experimenting for, even if evolution is a blind process. Spiders web is (I assume) a fibrous protein with huge numbers of disulphide bridges, a structure which is mimicked by vulcanisation, with is not as efficient. As for birds' wings, a small advantageous change in shape helps the bird huge amounts... by natural selection this is amplified to large changes.

then why the fuck aren't there any excavated skeletons and fossils to prove this?

I've yet to see the skeleton of an amoeba, as they don't have bones.

 

I haven't done some of the arguments justice- I'll explain in more detail if you want.

[mariosmentor]

Isn't it quite ignorant to think that in the mass of the universe that we alone have a sole purpose? If anything we are part of some larger cycle where through the process of living and dying we contribute to some fundemental cause the universe strives towards. If there was a purpose we'd probably be too insignificant to be of serious impact anyway.

 

But thats "if anything" in reality I do believe its just a load of balls, existence doesn't have to have a point and in our biggest example (us) a purpose is not apparent and in fact seems incredibly pointless. We just exist, we don't need a reason just the knowlege that its a load of balls is suffice for me.

[Shorty]

The fact that there's no real answer to "why" is what makes me agnostic. But if there was no question at all, I would be an atheist (which I would find even more depressing, and never come to accept).

 

I don't have an answer to your question, but I wonder about it a lot. Not just why we exist, but why birds and animals exist, why water exists, why bees make honey, why there are planets and stars and a universe. Why we think things, why we get happy, sad, fall in love. Why music exists. Why we have the mental capacity to be creative. If the universe was based solely around science, evolution and efficiency, then the most rational thing we could do, would be to stop existing.

 

If I wasn't able to ask "why does anything exist?" - then I wouldn't even be able to have hope, nevermind faith.

[Minihobbsch]

Woah! There have been quite a lot of good answers posted, and some not so good. Another question that has me baffled: "What if the coloured red that I was seeing, was the colour blue that you were seeing?"...and no, I'm not colourblind for your information.

[The Bard]

Which ones would they be?

 

Yes we could. it could work (for example) entirely on pressure.

 

This is the idea of "irreducible complexity", isn't it... Why should they have to evolve simultaneously- for instance, the current balance could have evolved after they were all present. Also, part of an organ is a lot better than no organ... eg. a kidney with shorter nephrons still "cleans" the blood to a degree. This argument has been proved wrong for different cases many times. (eg. what use is half an eye/half a bacterial flagellum etc.)

 

Why shouldn't this be true? Millions of years of evolution can easily beat the amout of time man has been experimenting for, even if evolution is a blind process. Spiders web is (I assume) a fibrous protein with huge numbers of disulphide bridges, a structure which is mimicked by vulcanisation, with is not as efficient. As for birds' wings, a small advantageous change in shape helps the bird huge amounts... by natural selection this is amplified to large changes.

 

I've yet to see the skeleton of an amoeba, as they don't have bones.

 

I haven't done some of the arguments justice- I'll explain in more detail if you want.

 

I want to believe it, believe me I do, but I just can't.

 

Firstly, the heart could not work on pressure alone, it is impossible. You realise that that the amount of cardiovascular muscle alone required to push the blood around the body would be insustainable due to the amound of oxygen it itself would require? So that is out of the question.

 

You are dodging the question of fossils, (you really think I don't know that amoeba don't have a skeleton?) There are no fossils, which is the biggest flaw of them all, and you really can't dismiss it, because it alone is the biggest reason why this theory is not sound. The many millions of transition phases there must have been, the many that must have failed, where is the evidence? Especially seeing as we have uncovered many fossils of Dinosaurs. Does it not trouble you, that on current evidence, for evolution to have occured, species must have instantaneously spawned entire organ systems??

 

You speak of organs not having to evolve simultaneously, how is that so? The organ systems all depend on each other, for fucks sake, The liver removes toxins, the kidneys reabsorb water etc, it would be ineffective any other way. C'mon, you see people in hospital everyday because their liver is unable to store glycogen, or produce enough insulin etc, which are very small and intricate things, you're telling me that if we can't survive without these small functions, that we can do so without full organ systems?? I call bullshit.

 

Also: "the current balance could have evolved after they were all present." Could it? Could it really? And what are the chances that that is the case? And why would (if that were, by some freak of nature, the case), they evolve to be in that condition in the first place? Seeing as natural selection dictates that the fittest specimen survives, well I find it hard to hee how an organism with incomplete, uncooperative organ systems would be in any better position to reproduce than the average asshole. Well, it seems now that by citing natural selection you voided your own argument.

 

Aaaand that leads me to my next point, how the hell did the Reproductive system evolve? Seeing as Amoeba reproduce asexually, this seems a bit of an odd development. Oh wait a second, it seems that we need to reproduce to survive, and funnily enough, the brain releases endorphins when we do have sex, no how could that be a coincidence? To make a task that we need to do in order to survive, enjoyable?? Seems wierd to me.

 

Then there is: "part of an organ is a lot better than no organ" no shit, but part of an organ is still unable to sustain a living creature of proportional size to the organs to fully function. Sure it could go ahead and not move, ever, and eat, breathe and relieve itself through a tube of some kind, but that kind of state hardly lends itself to reproduction now does it?...and for it to occur for so many species, well it's a ridiculous notion that it's possible, not to mention, scientifically unsound.

 

I think millions of years of random change would be comparible to a few years of intense experimenting and analysing don't you, besides, Kevlar mimics exactly the structure of the keratin that makes up spider webs but it still isn't quite as proportionally stong?

 

I don't know, but it just doesn't add up. I'm not saying that I believe in god, man even if he was there, I'd not believe in him just to spite the fucker, but you can't deny the evidence.

 

Anyway, heres to you for being able to put up a cracking argument, can honestly say it's the first decent conversation I've had at R-E (I kid, I kid, Don't you point those pitchforks at me...)

[Supergrunch]

Woah! There have been quite a lot of good answers posted, and some not so good. Another question that has me baffled: "What if the coloured red that I was seeing, was the colour blue that you were seeing?"...and no, I'm not colourblind for your information.

Yes... I know the question you mean. I don't think there is any way to prove it wrong by traditional methods, but scientifically I don't think there's any plausible way for it to be true. This question is generally used to open peoples' minds up to more complex philosophical ideas.