THE MEANING OF LIFE (positive thought)

[mustafhakofi]

knife:
There are two broad categories of atheism -

"Positive" (or "strong" or "hard") atheism and "Negative" (or "weak" or "soft") atheism.

A "Positive atheist" will say "God X does not exist", whereas a "Negative atheist" will say "I do not believe God X exists" - there is a subtle but important difference.

Some (if not all) agnostics may also be considered "negative atheists", as they are not theists (there is an overlap between agnosticism and weak atheism). Agnostics (it means "without knowledge") consider the question of God to be unanswerable - there may be a God, or there may not, but we have no way of ever determining the truth of the matter. Occasionally atheists will refer to themselves as agnostics - the term is often more socially acceptable in a strongly religious region, as some theists have an extremely negative view of atheism and automatically assume that all atheists are "positive" atheists.

Depending on the definition of the God in question, the atheist may be either "positive", "negative" or agnostic. Many theists will also have the same reaction towards the deities of other religions. For example, if you give a self-contradictory definition of your God, I will say that it certainly does not exist (like a square circle), but if some group on the other side of the world has a God that I have never even heard of, I am still atheistic towards it as I simply have no belief in it. In that sense, many Christians are also atheists - they just believe in one more God than I do.

as for atheist who dont respect life, I would find that very hard to believe, as atheist come to there conclusion's, about life by sense, reason, and intellect, and therefore would believe life to be sacred, to be atheist is to be humanist.
the next is a quote from the atheist/humanist manifesto:We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.
and this, critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.
the law you talk about, is in the mind of an atheist, I'm sorry to repeat myself however, we are controlled by our own sense, reason, and intellect, that all life is precious.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

Ah yes, as I suspected - you know little about evolution. Thanks.

Well seeing as you know about (Darwinistic) evolution to the point where you accept it as fact, please enlighten me How did we evolve all by ourselves?

Farenheit 451,

Science is proof without certainty; Religion is certainty without proof.

When we talk about science on this board, we refer to the method of obtaining a particular type of knowledge, not a way of life.
Religion is a way of life teaching the human animal how to attain good human qualities, who/what we are, where we came from, who/what God is, who/what we are in relation to God, how we came to be in this position, what we can achieve in the light of this knowledge. How we should conduct ourselves in this world with regard to the application and receipt of social, economic, political and gratification of senses.
To sum up, if a man is digging a hole to plant potatoes, the part of that whole action which comprises of the “scientific method” is very small and limited in comparison to the way he chooses to live his life.
Therefore you cannot, in all seriousness compare the two subject matters.

Cris,

It is a fact that I consider my life to be precious

Okinros,

but it's also fact that people believe in God. If neither provide evidence, then what is the difference between your belief and theirs

Cris,

Mine is a fact not a belief. Your comparison is not valid

The fact that you consider your own life more valuable than anything you can imagine is purely a subjective belief, as you cannot prove to anyone, including yourself, that it is so. Thus it is no different than the fact that someone believes in God or considers God to be real.
The comparison is, in my opinion, valid

Jan Ardena.

 

[(Q)]

How did we evolve all by ourselves?

Good. I'm glad you got around to reading that link I provided and understanding how it works.

We evolved all by ourselves without the need of gods. Simple, huh?

 

[786]

Go read the Cell Theory. It clearly states that living cells come from pre-existing living cells. This is a proven theory.

So what? Are you trying to tell me that cells of today are the same as cells which formed billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the environment on Earth is the same today as it was billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that DNA today contains the same blueprint it had billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the chemical composition of Earths oceans were not filled with protein chains and enzymes that no longer exist?

So if a living-cell comes from another living-cell then where did the first cell come from?

I already told you - pay attention.

Here, lets have a look at the previous cells. What came first bacteria or humans? What came first bacteria or monkies? What came first fish or bacteria? All of us know the answer is bacteria.

The cell theory applies to the bacteria aswell.

 

[(Q)]

Cell theory only applies to cells that exist today, not billions of year ago.

And besides, the formation of cells back then was of a chemical evolution, not cellular evolution.

 

[786]

Cell theory only applies to cells that exist today, not billions of year ago.

And besides, the formation of cells back then was of a chemical evolution, not cellular evolution.

Got proof! (like Got Milk, just a joke)

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Farenheit 451,



When we talk about science on this board, we refer to the method of obtaining a particular type of knowledge, not a way of life.
Religion is a way of life teaching the human animal how to attain good human qualities, who/what we are, where we came from, who/what God is, who/what we are in relation to God, how we came to be in this position, what we can achieve in the light of this knowledge. How we should conduct ourselves in this world with regard to the application and receipt of social, economic, political and gratification of senses.
To sum up, if a man is digging a hole to plant potatoes, the part of that whole action which comprises of the “scientific method” is very small and limited in comparison to the way he chooses to live his life.
Therefore you cannot, in all seriousness compare the two subject matters.

Jan Ardena.

your arguement is not with me but the originator of the quote

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof".
A Quotation by Author Professor Ashley Montague, Ph.D. who wrote Frontiers of Anthropology, and touching, also The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity and here's another quote "the deepest personal defeat suffered by human beings is constituted by the difference between what one was capable of becoming and what one has in fact become".

I am only guilty, of the using the wrong word, but that was how I picked it up.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q)

Good. I'm glad you got around to reading that link I provided and understanding how it works.

That link has nothing to do with my question;

You said;

Laboratory experiments show that phospholipid molecules can spontaneously assemble into membrane structures; cells - natural selection weeds out the cells with the least efficient systems of replication

That is not entirely correct. The reason spontaneously assembling occurs is to due to the thermodynamics,if the phospholipids are in a water (or other polar solution), not all by themselves.

We evolved all by ourselves without the need of gods. Simple, huh?

This answer is not satisfactory, could you please answer the question. How did we evolve all by ourselves?

Jan Ardena.