Yes. The meaning of life is life itself. But then Dawkins is wrong. We don't procreate genes and memes cause they order to, as he implies, but just because to live. But as a physicist I wanna know the reason, the cause of life — EugeneW

No, Dawkins explains the mechanism of life, just as Darwin and many others did.
Living life is what humans can do, due to the mechanisms which allow it or bring it into existence/conscience/awareness.
Dawkins reports no 'reasons' for the establishment of the mechanisms but he himself fervently embraces the wonder of living. He regularly asks 'are the wonders of the Universe not good enough, why do you need god?' He is trying to get people to combat their very strong instinct towards calming their primal fears with pleads for protection from nonexistent supernaturals. especially when such deals normally involve compliance with nefarious religious doctrines, totally invented by humans based on ancient storytelling. The main purpose of such religion is to make the majority serve and maintain an elite few and to f****** fight and die for them when they command us to!

I share and understand your wish to know more about 'the reason, the cause.' So let's keep looking. Science is our best way forward. Anything told you in a dream was just an exchange between YOUR Rcomplex, YOUR limbic system and YOUR cerebral cortex!
Absolutely no external influence was involved unless you ate and drank too soon before sleep. In which case your dream may have had more to do with soup than spirit, unless the spirit was a single malt!
You are clever, you don't need stupid gods.
I bet if you denied their existence for the next second, minute, hour, day, month, year etc
Your life would not change one iota! Especially if you smash any rising fears that manifest by doing so.
Just like a recovering junkie, for some, going through religious cold turkey can be tough but worth it in the end.

:rofl: sorry, I am just laughing as I know your immediate instinct will instruct you to employ the usual reversal on my last comment. :halo: I will save you time so you can just copy & paste:
Just like a recovering junkie, for some, coming back to religion by going through atheistic cold turkey can be tough but worth it in the end.

what would be the meaning of life? — EugeneW

Why not TO LIVE? is that not enough?

I don't think so. He obediently sticks to the dogma... — EugeneW

Stealing/plagerising William Cowper (1773) (keeps old Joe Mello happy):
Dawkins works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
Also stealing from Omar Khyyam:
Dawkins moving finger writes and having writ, moves on.
Or just me, as a fan:
Good job, well done Mr Dawkins, keep doing what you do best.
Just my opinion @EugeneW sorry if it offends.

The cover wouldn't match the content then — EugeneW

Keep the faith man! Dawkins would have found a way!

No. I read the book and when he said that organisms are vessels to secure the procreation of genes (or memes) I just thought, why aren't genes just in our service instead of we in theirs? Altruistic, that is. — EugeneW

Well, I am almost certain that 'The altruistic gene' was one of the titles he thought might have been a better choice.

God might be the same — Mike Radford

I think you summarise the theist/atheist debate quite well.
It's currently at panto stage really.

God exists?
Theist: Oh yes it does!
Atheist: Nah! seriously unlikely that it does!
Ok, so I altered the traditional panto style exchange, just a little!

notably the memory of the USSR and Maoist China, collective atheism ran the show — Dermot Griffin

I agree and I think this was a poorly judged and fear-based reaction to the 'divine right of kings or/and aristocracy' that the few had manipulated from religions historically. People had suffered so much and religion was weaponised against them. This was not the fault of the god posit but was the fault of the nefarious ba****** that manipulated it.

I would personally prefer dialogue with you on this point rather than your further reasoning that leads you to assert god exists, at least for now.

Let me use this forum to thank those little wokkels for their serviced they gave us already billions of years! Thank you wokkel genes! With proud we shuffle you on to next generations, to make your services available to new life! — EugeneW

This is an example of your ability to exclaim wonder and credit for the workings of naturalism. Are you sure such thoughts cannot sustain your humanism? Are you sure you definitely need external gods as the (for me rather boring) source?
I far prefer the profound mystery of not knowing and really not needing to know the absolute truth regarding the source/origin of our Universe. I can live FULLY and HAPPILY without a 'god crutch'.

The Selfish Gene should have been called The Altruist Gene. — EugeneW

I think Dawkins himself actually suggested that this title would have been better. Do you get that title from watching one of his interviews?

The title 'The Selfish Gene' (although the book is genuine science I'm sure) is so atheistic as to put me off. If it's not obvious Dawkings is taking a shot at theism as he does with all titles of his books that I'm aware of. — Gregory A

He himself reports his personal conflict (before, during, and after the date of first publish) regarding his choice of title for this book and if you watch his interviews you will see that overall, he thinks his choice was a bad one but he is (no surprise) nonetheless happy regarding the success of the book.

Nice ! We using the ordinary 'magic' of language for that right now. Amazing ability we've evolved biologically, culturally, and technologically (given the help of the screens and wires.) — lll

I think this will only grow in the future possibly even exponentially, but do you think there is anything in this that speaks for the posit of an emerging panpsychism?

a replacement of God by an awakened humanity who realizes that God was its dream of what it should/could be. — lll

All the curent evanhellical ba****** use this exact subterfuge to convince duped theists to contribute many millions to their personal bank accounts.

My metaphor is misleading, I see. The 'ghost' just refers to the popular idea of a solitary consciousness. One philosopher (Ryle) called this 'the ghost in the machine.' The far out version would be : how do you know that you are a singular person? Why are you an 'I' and not a 'we' or a 'this' ? We inherit ways of talking and thinking, and we take them as if they are more than that. — lll

Yeah, 'ghosts in the machine' became a song title, movie title as well I think. It's a good emotive phrase when I remove my 'literalist' hat.
I can only answer the personal existence question with my personal view. I think therefore I am is enough for me and I reject solipsism as nonsense.

It really as something as simple as science or literature or music or philosophy. — lll

Fair enough.

God, for him, was just a projection of the best parts of ourselves — lll

Yeah, I just don't subscribe to the association.
I think its a valid approach to try to 'reconstruct' certain cultural terms.
Homosexuals tried it with 'gay.' I think it has had a mixed success but perhaps, overall it was successful.
Black folks attempted it with how the 'n' word is employed amongst themselves. I don't think this has been successful and I think it does them no favours to do that.
I don't think it can be done with a word like Nazi. Although the memory of one attempt (if you could call it such as a 'tongue in cheek') A couple I was friends with in my 20's. They loved humour and always 'wound each other up.' The held great house parties. They had a very angellic looking son and hen he was about 5, his mother taught him to say 'daddy is a nazi,' whenever she prompted him.
She did so during some parties, depending on the form of windup she was getting from her husband.
I and others at the party found this hilarious at the time but those who were new invites offered a more shocked or perplexed look. I still smile about it but I still think it will always be a rejected label.
I think the sooner we reject the god label the better for the progression of our species. We should not give it the association this Feuerbach did, in my humble opinion.

building Heaven on earth — lll

I note the 'traditional' context within which you use this term but again I consider my literal understanding of 'heaven on Earth,' as an inaccurate and undesirable goal for the human race. Humans cannot exist without comparators, the hungrier we are the more we enjoy eating. To a limit of course, those close to death due to hunger are incapable of displaying pleasure when they are given some food. If heaven is a place of no pain/stress/suffering/want then it would soon become a hell for humans.
It would be like having no more questions to ask. What would our purpose be then?

The Feuerbach stuff can be summed up by saying that 'God' is just the good stuff in us, our thoughts and feelings, and that that is enough. We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on. The great geniuses leave a stain in the 'tribal memory.' I also like the idea of a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle. Our bodies are the candles, and the flame ,which we think of as ourselves, is just as much made of all the people who came before. After all, who invented the very language we think in ? It was developed over time, with individuals leaving little 'stains' of their minds to become parts of the minds of those not yet born. To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling. The box is something like an illusion. To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this. It all boils down to thought and feeling. It doesn't big us the big answers. It doesn't save us from death. But it connects us in life. — lll

Thanks for your translation, I appreciate your time and effort, spent on my behalf.
I don't agree with crediting that which I am convinced does not exist as the source of any personal good I may be judged by others as possessing or as something I regularly or sporadically demonstrate.
I think he aids the theist posit of associating 'good' with 'god,' and he ignores the many storytelling traditions which also assign such words as evil/jealous/vengeful/angry etc to god(s).

We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on.

For you, what is this 'something bigger,' is sounds like panpsychism to me. I have posted before that I don't utterly reject the posit of some kind of emergent panpsychism but I would need much more evidence of such before I could give more credence to it than 'yeah, well.....but.....'

To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling.

I agree, the term ghost has no significance for me as a 'physicalist,' and I agree that we are not 'trapped in a box' due to any limitation of our existence within the Universe, I do think that our species is currently trapped on this glorious planet but we have the potential to leave the nest. I certainly feel and almost 'know' the 'linkage,' between all of us that you infer.

To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this.
I soooooooo agree, supernatural is nothing more than a theistic plug for a human gap in knowledge as is god.

Oh, I see it now:

The Feuerbach stuff can be summed up by saying that 'God' is just the good stuff in us, our thoughts and feelings, and that that is enough. We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on. The great geniuses leave a stain in the 'tribal memory.' I also like the idea of a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle. Our bodies are the candles, and the flame ,which we think of as ourselves, is just as much made of all the people who came before. After all, who invented the very language we think in ? It was developed over time, with individuals leaving little 'stains' of their minds to become parts of the minds of those not yet born. To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling. The box is something like an illusion. To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this. It all boils down to thought and feeling. It doesn't big us the big answers. It doesn't save us from death. But it connects us in life. — lll

I couldn't spot anything marked 'EDIT' in your last few posts but I did 'like' all you have typed in your last few posts. :smile:

:wink:

I often find a lot of your typing to be rather cryptic and you have to toil a little to follow your meaning but that's just down to my own preference for 'plain talk'. I do however fully accept that plain language often lacks the emotive power needed when discussing significant issues or the 'big questions.'
I do glaze over when reading the 'in-house' terminology or turn of phrase associated with subject-specific publishings but I have necessarily done so myself in the past when writing computing science educational materials for use in schools. I also think storytelling would lose its 'heart' if the choice of language was restricted in any way. I suppose I will just have to persevere, regardless of my perceived frustration with the language approach of others.
So, carry on my cryptic friend! Your good heart seems to shine through anyway.

I'm genuinely concerned that you might be troubled in some way. From my perspective, you are worried about something that's as unlikely as aliens attacking the planet. Please seek help if you are having violent fantasies. Seriously. I know women, lots of 'em, and they aren't scheming against us ! They love us more than we love ourselves sometimes.

Also seems unfortunate that your theism isn't more of a comfort. Personally I've never been tempted to mess with beliefs that seem to be working for people. I'm only critical of others' beliefs on philosophy forums, since that's why we're here, or at least philosophy includes for many people — lll

You have a strong imperative towards what I would consider 'humanism.'
You add to my hopes for a better future for all of us by such typings!

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity — Gregory A

I think this just about sums up your logic.
I am sure we all await more such 'pearls of wisdom' from you.

How about:
I am not religious but thank god for Islam.
I am not religious but thank god for religion.
I am not political but thank providence for Politics.
I am not scientific but thank providence for Science.
I am not a thinker but thank providence for Thinking.

And ...
Grandpa Joe is a foreman and owner of a painting company, can work twice as fast as any of his workers, does all the dangerous high (60' sometimes) work, and has this little game he plays with people where he offers them $100 if they can guess his age. At Sherwin Williams today, while he was checking out a large order of paint, he grabbed a can of paint from an elderly customer he was talking to and said he would pay for it if he could guess his age. The old guy said, "45". Grandpa Joe replied, "I'll be 70 this year". The old guy then said, "You're lying".
Grandpa Joe enjoys playing this game and has gotten guesses from 40 to about 55, and never in the 60s.
Grandpa Joe is a living Dúnedain Ranger. His grandsons, who have worked on his crew, call him "The Ninja" — Joe Mello

This reminds me of a short extract from a conversation in a crematorium.

Employee 1: Wow, what a beautiful corpse!
Employee 2: Certainly is!
Employee 1: Guy must have really looked after himself.
Employee 2: Yep, well, do you want to take some final photo's (ha ha) or will we just cremate it?
Employee 1: Yeah, let's get on, lots more to do today!

I hope your personal maintenance efforts award you long long life but nothing you have said above has any relevance AT ALL, to the existence of your god.
When I read your comments above, I saw an image in my head, of the horse from the animated movie of George Orwell's Animal Farm, go figure...
You sound too 'bulky' and too much of a 'heavy lifter' to be 'Ninja like.'
I would have lost the $100 bet as well because I have read your typings about your life viewpoints so I would have guessed your age as much, much younger than 40.
I am amazed that after 70+ years living as a human. Your own (humble?) opinion of yourself and your 'in your head' life achievements have the significance to you and others that you suggest above.
A very poor, small, weak, hungry person working as a cleaner in a big tent which passes as a hospital, on the outskirts of a poor village in a 3rd world country is more significant to the human condition on this planet than you could ever EVER be!

:rofl: :rofl:
That's exactly how that conversation would go down! :rofl:

I dig the humor, though I'm 25 years deep into my first real relationship. We evolved together, paid some serious dues, and now it's a fairly smooth ride — lll

:grin: Always glad to hear about long-lasting and in the main, 'beneficial,' and positive human relationships. I have very good friendships but I have always chosen badly when it comes to a female partner. Never been married and no kids (thankfully). I have been engaged twice but both of those long term (well, only around 4 years each actually) turned out bad. So, since I was around my late twenties, I only indulge in sporadic visits to lady land, I tend to run from anything more and the offers have reduced to close to zero as I am now closer to 60.

Before I can be a fascinating individual, I have to learn how to talk (welcome to the jingle!), and if I want to be 'logical' or 'rational' then I have to go 'where the thoughts lead me' and be 'coherent' and 'consistent.' — lll

I think the majority of people demonstrate such intentions. Good people do it with humility and balance,

To participate in philosophy is (ideally) to think without bias — lll

It's a very interesting word, 'bias.' in my opinion it is no less relevant in politics or in science than it is in philosophy. Your sentence is in general, good advice as a MEASURE of the difference between skewed thinking and good thinking. I have my preferred approaches to problem-solving but I will try not to merely 'hate' all that I find 'evil,' from racists to billionaires to evanhellicals to autocrats. It's really easy for me to hate each of them. I try to search for evidence of some good in each person on a case-by-case basis. I feel a strong bias against people I consider to be 'bad,' but I can get past it if they demonstrate an ability to learn how to treat others better. I am a strong advocate of the golden rule as the prime directive, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

'Spirit' is the fancy version for philosophers who were transforming a (pessimistic) Christian theology into an optimistic humanism — lll

A good goal, which I subscribe to. An old description of 'spiritual' is merely to be 'animated' or to move about. Carl Sagan often used the term in this way to pour cold water in its association with 'supernatural' but I think most people today DO still associate the term with the supernatural.

Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'. Why not let Google decide everything for us. We are here to present our own interpretation of what motivates relevant groups. To me, for example, atheism is an element of the Left. Does Google agree. I don't think so. But they do at the same time take the 'Christ' out of their doodle leading up to and including Dec.25 their own atheism on display, and a show of solidarity with the Left. — Gregory A

Your comments about the 'political left' remind me of the world view of Maggie Thatcher.
You, like her, do a great service for 'lefties' like me. You create more of us than my best efforts ever could.

Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello

No!

Why are you silly uneducated people on a philosophy forum when all you do is pull shit out of your asses and plagiarize the Internet?
Look up the word “philosophy”.
It isn’t defined as “love of bullshit”. — Joe Mello

:rofl: Stay Mello Joe. Your Mr Angry tattoo shows when your shirt sleeve rides up as you throw your old arms in the air in frustration. It's an ugly, ungodly tattoo that might earn you a place in Satan's playpen.
As gods enforcer, he also watches you and can set up a commlink. Your lucky that it doesn't exist either.

Experience, in other words, is essentially fleeting and transitory, and its contents are incommunicable

A fairly accurate description of love in my opinion.

Pure spirit is nothing but this thinking activity, in which the individual thinker participates without himself (or herself) being the principal thinking agent. That thoughts present themselves to the consciousness of individual thinking subjects in temporal succession is due, not to the nature of thought itself, but to the nature of individuality, and to the fact that individual thinking subjects, while able to participate in the life of spirit, do not cease in doing so to exist as corporeally distinct entities who remain part of nature, and are thus not pure spirit......

I didn't want to waste space by quoting the whole article.

I wish the turn of phrase used by these people was a little less 'flowery' and more 'layperson' friendly.
Or perhaps I am just making excuses for my own limited comprehension of such wording.
Perhaps you can assist me @III After reading some of this, I thought it supported a panpsychist position, then I thought it was more duelist, and finally, I thought it may actually be in support of naturalism.
Is my thinking anywhere near what it is actually saying?

I had a look at the link you offered, I will add it to my ever-growing 'things I should read' list.

:naughty:

And I do accept the magic bullet theory — Gregory A

Even though physics shows that such a bullet path is impossible, hence the use of the word magic?

Your stupidity is (an effect) brought on by a zealous nature intellectual arrogance allows — Gregory A

Now there's a good example of the boiling pot calling out the frothing kettle!

In all fairness what would we do with these 3 Dawkins books : The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene & The God Delusion if evidence of a god were shown. How does he get away with 'The Magic of Reality' anyhow — Gregory A

Dawkins does not believe in magic! But yeah, he is allowed to reference the word, just like you reference words like 'science'.
What will we do with the bible, the quran, the torah etc if the god posit is proved false?
God would seem to have the easier route. Science may never be able to disprove god, yet all god has to do is appear and submit itself to scientific scrutiny. Should be easy for an it that manifests all the omnis.

Bruno Bauer is one of the people like this that interests me. He was a left Hegelian, and he was part of the attempt to transform Christianity into something modern and rational. David Strauss has some great passages too. — lll

I don't know those guys but they sound interesting. So much I would like to read, Just not enough time.
Come on you wonderful science geeks, get that transhuman stuff moving a lot faster. We need a lot more than this max of around 100 years to work stuff out properly!!

I've been an atheist for about 20 years, so I feel pretty neutral on this issue. Maybe there was such a guy. Maybe not. Some of the words in the book are nice. Others not. I consider myself influenced by some Christian ideas, but I guess many of us must be — lll

Sounds like a pretty well-balanced approach to me, although I think the influences are from more ancient storytelling as all the Christian stories are rehashed from earlier ones.

Sometimes Internet trolls are legitimately mentally ill.

Do not give Eugene any personal information — Joe Mello

I don't think you are mentally ill Joe, just a little confused about 'what it's all about.'
Spend a couple of weeks back with the monks. Your God might re-establish a commlink with you and help calm you. I think you over-estimate @EugeneW's personal interest in you or anyone else on TPF. I am sure REAL internet trolls can pick much more interesting targets than you Joe. They tend to go for people who are currently in the public eye.

Question: Would the recent scientific discovery of dark energy, which is the mysterious force behind our universe expanding outward from a single point at an ever-increasing speed, be more logically an energy originating from an omnipotent power or from a finite power? — Joe Mello

Dark energy is posited as a reason for why the expansion is accelerating not as a reason for the initial singularity starting to inflate and then expand. Dark energy may or may not exist. You don't need a god as the origin of the singularity. The singularity may be the result of interacting branes creating a multiverse or it may be a result of a Universe bounce between time epochs. These are just scientific posits but for me, any of them are more likely than your god posit. A god who only chatted to you when you were in one of its monasteries and cut you off afterward. You choose to accept that as reality? and you dismiss all the posits of Cosmologists as they muse about possible alternatives to the god posit and you are convinced that you occupy the intellectual high ground? Really?

You can check out The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to discover that Christianity was originally an offensive heresy that refused to tolerate the other religions already in place, like an only child who just would not share its toys — lll

Just as a point of interest, have you read Caesar's Messiah by Joeseph Atwill, or Creating Christ by J Valliant and W Fahey. Both these books posit that Christianity was invented by the Romans as was Jesus etc.
Another road is those who don't agree with the posit that the Romans created Christianity but still posit that Jesus Christ was a made-up character, such as the works of Dr Richard Carrier. Professor Robert Price is also another interesting road or Professor Bart D Ehrman. Most of these individuals have spent most on their lives in the study of theology and religion. Most were believers and some even held religious ministerial posts. Now they are amongst the strongest voices against organised religion.
These people are experts in theology as they now reject it.

Ok, sorry about the crossed wires, I don't think our positions are changed by your update.

Don't take Mello seriously, my friend! We both know better! — EugeneW

I don't, I think he is hurting, who knows why? I am sure he will reject my suggestion due to pride.
So don't be surprised if I get an 'aw f*** off!' response.

Anyway, again, thanks for the interesting extension to our initial exchange.
I will make room for @Tom Storm as he can take you on a more philosophical direction than I can.

That people can arrive to the concept of theism, but also spirituality, without death. They can use love or sex (as in tantric sex which is spirituality development through sex from the Hindu tradition) — Shwah

An interesting viewpoint Shwah. I cant perceive the path you suggest myself without the 'termination'/oblivion threat. I remember a line from a poem.

'It was the sweetest berry he had every tasted.'

That was because he was hanging of the edge of a cliff and was about to plunge to his death.

Another was a scene from Babylon 5, which portrayed a character who was 'the first one.' The first thinking lifeform ever created in the Universe and he was an or thee Immortal. In the scene he makes the comment.

"Only those who have a short lifespan can perceive that love is eternal, you should enjoy that wonderful illusion as it is transitory."

I know this came from the mind of a writer but it rings true to me.

I think it's definitely possible — Shwah

What exactly are you saying is definitely possible? That gods may not be considered/needed if we were immortal (which transhumanism and future technologies may take us a lot closer towards) or if humans had no primal fears? or are you saying something else? I didn't understand your sentence about sex.

Ok then let me try another angle. Do you think humans would consider the existence of gods if we did not die (immortal, if you like) or do you think gods would still be posited if humans had no primal fears such as a fear of death or more importantly, personal non-existence?