but what necessity is for us being here even just once? — TiredThinker

The million dollar question. Life can be rewarding with all its positive moments and experiences, though I and many religions call it something of the opposite. A journey or perhaps even penalty as opposed to a destination or reward. Of course, one may simply call this a kind of metaphysical pessimism.

Why are we seemingly so much more intelligent than the next animal well beyond what is needed to thrive? — TiredThinker

I don't see many animals 'thriving' by typical definition of the word.. some take longer to get eaten or otherwise suffer horrible deaths in the harshness of the elements but other than that.. unless you want to count animals so tiny their suffering is either nonobservable or subconsciously dismissable/non-occurring other than "wow look how many they are, they must be thriving."

And what does our existence accomplish? Don't we merely convert food into other chemicals? — TiredThinker

From an atheistic viewpoint (ie. the idea we're nothing more than animals developed as a result of random, chaotic systems for no real purpose whatsoever) there's really not too many options to pick from is there? I'm sure we do other things. Agriculture and permanent civilizations seem to be unique. Sure bees pollinate flowers and beavers build dams but that's hardly on par.

A little tongue-in-cheek but who knows maybe we are here to serve the other animals with our advanced abilities. No joke either that's what some people dedicate their lives to lol. To live each day under the philosophy that the purpose of one's life is to look after and benefit life in general is just as good and profound a purpose as any now isn't it. "My purpose is to give meaning to the meaningless and purpose to the purposeless". Now if you don't go around scamming everyone in the process, that sounds like a good person in my book. Any book really.

Can't microorganisms do that just as well, maybe better? — TiredThinker

What is life? Many serious philosophers and related thinkers accept the idea that a machine can be "alive" that is to say have consciousness. May sound silly but it's a theme of many movies and people have written entire theses on the idea. A more general consensus would be an organic being that breathes and thinks. But, a ventilator with an advanced AI technically does this minus the organic part.. which in theory is possible. So one might wish to add self-awareness or self-recognition to the criteria. But what about lesser animals of much less capability that are indisputably alive? Say birds, squirrels, slugs, etc.

So what 'master criteria' can there be for what is 'alive' and what is 'not alive'?

My humble theory is that the planet itself is alive and is a living being. Does it breathe? Yep. Does it have a biologic system that undergoes cellular functions to restore or otherwise affect all conceivable areas of its makeup? Yep. Does it think? Well what is advanced thought in humans? Some say it's just a bunch of cells and neurons firing responsively in learned configurations and patterns thus powering something incredible, a fully functioning organism. What if we humans and other organisms are the cells or microorganisms and the planet is the real being?

Is the question of afterlife permanently intertwined with the question of our purpose and self awareness? In my view we are painfully insufficient at pretty much everything. Our mind alone must be the point? — TiredThinker

Probably. Of course even more probable than that is that these fine folks are simply trying to avoid paying their taxes. 'Religiously', of course. :grin:

they are much more science based and since they can't prove either in a conscious existence after death, or a next physical existence after death that it isn't a concern of theirs. — TiredThinker

:up: I like that attitude. Life is so much simpler that way! The question is, is it the truth? That said, I don't like the fact that science was chosen to prove the point. Science, despite its emphasis on reason which I like, is a "wholly-owned subsidiary of materalism." You can't expect Palestinians to be fair when it comes to Israelis.

science was chosen to prove the point — TheMadFool

Science and the 'cult of science' are two starkly differently things. One is a process of discovery and acknowledgement of said discoveries. The other is a system, more religious than scientific, one which places human beings last and if not stopped will actually be the end of discovery if not the entire world.

Don't like being one of them cheerleading folk, but I don't have anything significant to add. Yours is a very nicely expressed post.