Your religious views and positions on matters such as God and the meaning of life?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Guess that depends on whether your name is Moses or Joseph or Mary....

[Vegita-San]

or a leaky pipe behind a dead wife statue.

[Voltron]

My views on life, the universe, and everything can be summed up in 42.

Also, for everyone who feels the need to proselytize here, remember that the questioned asked for your views, and nothing else. I've never met anyone with the exact same world view as another person, and I'll be floored if someone pulls it off through name calling on a Ninja Turtles message board.

Also also: before I go, here's a bit of light reading on how these discussions are best handled. To make it short: if you can't prove it, there's no point debating it.

Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

[Sumac]

I know someone might be really hurt by this statement.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I know someone might be really hurt by this statement.

I'm pretty self-centered, so I'll assume it's me.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

42, eh? Bet I know why, lol. I think it's actually just 4. Because EVERYTHING can be boiled down to 4. It is the universal #.....

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

42, eh? Bet I know why, lol. I think it's actually just 4. Because EVERYTHING can be boiled down to 4. It is the universal #.....

And it also answers the question:

What is 6 times 7?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Voltron

I'm pretty self-centered, so I'll assume it's me.

No, not you.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Voltron

My views on life, the universe, and everything can be summed up in 42. [/URL]

Funny, considering the member with the most posts in this thread is Commenter 42.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Lol I noticed that too!

Found an interesting article in Scientific American about Alvy's Error (Google it for an explanation) and the meaning of life. Essentially it deals with the assumption that simply because the universe is expanding (entropy) and all things are destined to end, that moral choices have no cosmic significance and are therefore meaningless- an assumption which is erroneous due to assessing meaning at the wrong level of analysis. It is a mistake made by many who assess the meaning of human actions by the billions of years of the universe, rather than the span of human lifetimes.

The argument here was that saying "nothing we do matters" on a cosmic scale assess the value of something based entirely on the wrong category of criteria. The moral accountability of a dictator murdering millions may not "matter" on a cosmic scale, but it CERTAINLY matters to those people and their families or to US. Why? Because we are sentient beings, designed to fight entropy by our very nature. We have evolved a sense of morality and responsibility for our actions. (And science is learning that many other animals have this, too. Many animals will share food or other resources, in return for equal favors later. Or will care for each other's young. And so on.... And they keep track of who owes whom, or who does not help out.) To do nothing, (it's all meaningless) then yes, entropy takes its course and the universe moves toward further disorder/chaos and death. But evolution has given us a moral and purpose-driven life by dint of the laws of nature. So what we do DOES matter, because it can either move toward disorder and death, or toward a better world for ourselves and others. In which case, being kind and helping each other IS our evolutionary purpose, to ensure survival of our own species, just as nature intended.

There was a bit more to it, but the essence was that even if there weren't any higher power, we can still find purpose and meaning in something as simple as whether or not to go to work, do homework, or be kind to others and respect the earth. Which is exactly what the Wiccan Rede teaches. "An it harm none, do as ye will." In other words, live and let live.
Just some food for thought.

[ProphetofGanja]

Spoiler:

[Refractive Reflections]

Originally Posted by Sumac

"World being unjust"...what a laughable argument for, like, anything.

World, objective reality, doesn't give a **** about justice or injustice. Those are entirely man-made concepts. Reality is survival of the smartest / fittest + good dose of chaos.

So...like social Darwinism then? ...Would you consider sociopathy as an evolutionary survival advantage?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

Spoiler:

https://scontent.fatl1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...8c&oe=5B33B97D
https://scontent.fatl1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...9b&oe=5B0289AF
https://scontent.fatl1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...d3&oe=5B02AB2A

Well I might consider those philosophical ideals to be less than ideal in terms of truth but I would be lying if I said they weren't beautifully presented.

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections

So...like social Darwinism then? ...Would you consider sociopathy as an evolutionary survival advantage?

Not necessarily, most Atheists I know are strongly opposed to Social Darwinism, and want to understand evolution more because they believe that it will give them the ability to better humanity.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections

So...like social Darwinism then? ...Would you consider sociopathy as an evolutionary survival advantage?

No.
I believe that humanity managed to go that far, only because, of human ability to empathy and compassion. Without it we would have massacred each other long time ago.

So, as much sociopathy might look as an attractive concept to some, it is really unreliable and not all that productive.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections

So...like social Darwinism then? ...Would you consider sociopathy as an evolutionary survival advantage?

One of the problems of social Darwinism is it doesn't really understand Darwinism.

Survival of the fittest isn't exactly right.
It's more like survival of the just good enough to eek by.
Survival of the C student.

And even that c student is only specific to the environmental conditions on hand at any given time.
Darwin's highly specialized finches are screwed if there specific food source disappears for a season or two.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

One thing I've always found funny in debates of creationism vs evolution is how people always bring up Hitler and the German Nationalist Socialist Party as being for one side or the other, in order to demean said viewpoint..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_Hitler

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/wa...t-like-darwin/

https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011...darwinism/amp/

Perhaps if history had played out differently, people in the debate would've been like: "Our Noble Fuhrer was an ardent defender of God's divine creation plan!", or "Never would the Fuhrer have accepted such superstitious nonsense, surely he was on the side of science!"

[Sumac]

Suddenly Godwin's law?
Suddenly Godwin's law.

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

One thing I've always found funny in debates of creationism vs evolution is how people always bring up Hitler and the German Nationalist Socialist Party as being for one side or the other, in order to demean said viewpoint..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_Hitler

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/wa...t-like-darwin/

https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011...darwinism/amp/

Perhaps if history had played out differently, people in the debate would've been like: "Our Noble Fuhrer was an ardent defender of God's divine creation plan!", or "Never would the Fuhrer have accepted such superstitious nonsense, surely he was on the side of science!"

Seems debates like these are more about human behavior and psychological needs than the actual topic at hand. Both sides sinking low at times.

I’m for whoever holds high ground. Whoever wants to understand the others points more than wanting the other to understand their own point.

[plastroncafe]

What if the highground is being held by someone who's just wrong?
I mean, a polite point isn't always the accurate one, nor is a truth brutishly told suddenly false.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

Seems debates like these are more about human behavior and psychological needs than the actual topic at hand. Both sides sinking low at times.

I’m for whoever holds high ground. Whoever wants to understand the others points more than wanting the other to understand their own point.

Very true, I agree. I don't see Debates as an attempt to persuade someone that my viewpoint is the correct one, nor do I expect myself to be willing to change my firmly held beliefs because of what an opponent would say.

Rather, I just see debates as an opportunity for both sides to express their arguements, and for the audience to decide who won/lost. So above all, politeness and courtesy takes precedence over all others.