Random rant on US perception of religion

Pages: 12345
Well, if nothing matters, then what's the point in living?
There is none. Duh.

And if we all are matter and only matter, why don't tree's have rights?
Why don't viruses, or air?
If both trees and I are organic life forms, why can't I **** the ground to make more of me?
Well, if nothing matters, then what's the point in living?
You're basically asking "What's the meaning of life?".
Superdude wrote:
A question for chrisname: What does crime mean?

A crime is an action or attempted action which contravenes the law of the jurisdiction in which the action is performed or attempted.
There is also this interesting point. Where do laws like "Do not murder" come from? Secularists? No, religious people put that in place. I highly doubt that that will be abolished in the near future.


this is an argument i never understood. ignoring all the wars and pointless crusades that religions have caused ( which counts as murder in my book ), the notion that religion is the reason we have laws always baffles me.

along with the thought that if there was an Armageddon that the world would be shot into anarchy with everyone killing each other. what would really happen is people would band together and create laws and new communities. thats what humans do.

And if we all are matter and only matter, why don't tree's have rights?


tree's do have rights in most areas, they just don't have a voice. i can't go cut down a forest any time i want. and many people a giving the amazon rain forest a voice by protesting the removal of that. so i would say they do have "rights" they are just different as trees and humans have different needs
What do you feel like when you just get down off a high of "Happiness". Where you are no longer "happy".


What is a society if not a tangible thing?
The meaning of life is 42. Duh.

Also, in my opinion, the meaning of life is entirely subjective to the entity that is living. For me it is to learn, and to understand. I LIVE for science.


edit: it's one of the reasons I'm an agnostic atheist. Atheist because there is no evidence, agnostic because being a Gnostic atheist would imply I knew for fact that there isn't a higher power. There is no evidence contrary.
Last edited on
I believe that there is greater entity though in a figurative form, not a deity such as a God or superhuman. I mean the universe as a whole. I hate the label 'atheist'. I just view myself as someone who exists on the planet, acknowledges my surroundings and, as a result, wants to learn, understand and work with the nature of things, in a similar fashion to Cheraphy. I don't need a name to satisfy who I am.
I just like to classify things. ^^
^Oh, I wasn't directing it at you specifically, just in general context.
Oh, well. Still :P
Wow, that went very far in 5 hours.


What can you learn? You can learn about your surroundings. What are your surroundings? That depends on how you define yourself. If you define yourself as just your human body, and nothing else, your body can learn nothing beyond its self and it's surroundings.

What ever YOU learn, it will be wrong in 1000 years. Do you want to commit yourself do doing something that will end up wrong?

From the athiest's POV:

We evolved from a simpler life form, which, at one point, had no knowledge of its self. Try to explain the process that a lifeform could
possibly
start learning.

Example: Our PC's. Which would you say would be more advanced. A bleeding edge computer, or a single cell? You may say a single cell, but disregarding extra-computational parts, (Example, the computer case/Cell Wall) the computer is obviously more advanced. If you set a computer with reproductive abilities in a hospitable environment, would that computer ever become self conscious?
Last edited on
If you set a computer with reproductive abilities in a hospitable environment, would that computer ever become self conscious?


Computers as they exist today don't grow. So no, it wouldn't.
You don't get my point. I am using the processing power of a computer as an example.

Superdude wrote:
If you set a computer with reproductive abilities
@superdude - You are looking way too far into my post, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please can you clarify what you are trying to address? Your post seems rather ambiguous.
Last edited on
Superdude: What are you getting at? I'm not following.
I mean, how long would it take for a single cell organism to evolve into a self-conscious human? A computer (with reproductive abilities) with larger processing power than a single cell, could never become self conscious no mater how long it took.
Well clearly, since computers today are nothing more than coordinated electrical pulses and switches. 'Processing power'? How does that relate to a cell? I still don't see how that relates to what I have said (if that part was in fact addressed to me). *EDIT - assuming this is a computer without 'reproductive capabilities'. Though I guess it depends on what you define as a computer.
Last edited on
A computer (with reproductive abilities) with larger processing power than a single cell, could never become self conscious no mater how long it took.
Why not? All that has allowed organic life forms to evolve is mutation. To duplicate that in an artificial life form you just need a molecular assembler capable of introducing imperfections into the copies. Cells are merely self-replicating, chemical-based automata (i.e. their programs are encoded in the structure of molecules) with faulty molecular assemblers. There's nothing magical about them, certainly nothing we can't do better and faster.
That's like would be like us saying "There is a God." Then you say"Prove it." "Well there could be. "
Last edited on
I don't understand how that relates to anything.
Pages: 12345