Happy Atheist Forum

Hi everyone,

Is there a purpose of the existence of the universe? or is there a goal in the existence of the universe in this way? I think this is the question that could differentiate between an atheist and a theist regardless of the deity that the theist would claim to be responsible for that.

Practically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife. I mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

Likewise, when it comes to the purpose of the universe. An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. People who like to call themselves agnostics don't prefer to be called atheists because they don't share the same degree of certainty that atheists have about the universe and the afterlife.

As agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also. I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

Thank you,

Quote from: "Exponential"Is there a purpose of the existence of the universe?  

I very much doubt that there is. Nope, no purpose. Anyway I find that it's a lot more interesting that way.

Everybody lives as an atheist, everybody. It's just that some people, from time to time, remember that they're dancing in what may be considered by some to be a no-dancing zone.

Quote from: "Exponential"Hi everyone,

Is there a purpose of the existence of the universe? or is there a goal in the existence of the universe in this way? I think this is the question that could differentiate between an atheist and a theist regardless of the deity that the theist would claim to be responsible for that.

Practically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife. I mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

Likewise, when it comes to the purpose of the universe. An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. People who like to call themselves agnostics don't prefer to be called atheists because they don't share the same degree of certainty that atheists have about the universe and the afterlife.

As agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also. I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

Thank you,

Strange, I do not know too many atheists who are certain about the non-existence of an afterlife, including myself. Such concepts were created by human beings without evidence to support such claims, so I just disbelieved it. That doesn't mean that I know that it doesn't exist.

On another note, reality does not care about a person's feelings. For instance, I or any beloved family members of mine can die at any time. Will the death of a family member discomfort me? Sure. Will the universe suddenly stop expanding because my mother dies? Nope. I accept this as a reality, nothing I can really do to change that. Many atheists can and do continue to live on without such a purpose because there are things they still care about and cherish in their lives. A grand purpose isn't needed.

Quote from: "Exponential"Practically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife. I mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

Many, however, do.  Atheism ≠ rationality.

QuotePeople who like to call themselves agnostics don't prefer to be called atheists because they don't share the same degree of certainty that atheists have about the universe and the afterlife.

This isn't always true.  I am an agnostic atheist.  I do not claim to know that there is/are no god/s; however, I have absolutely no faith that there are any at all, and I am unconvinced by the "evidence" I've been presented thus far.

The problem with what you're saying is this: Gnosticism/Agnosticism addresses the state of a person's knowledge, or lack thereof.  Theism/Atheism addresses the person's belief, or lack thereof.  I've met a couple of agnostic believers before, believe it or not.  

QuoteAs agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also. I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

Because my life is here already, and I've grown fond of breathing, no matter what happens when that breathing stops.  As I've said elsewhere, the period at the end of a sentence is part of what gives the sentence meaning.

Quote from: "Exponential"I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

First, some people find mechanisms fascinating.  Such people will take a toaster or a radio apart out of sheer curiosity.

Next, there are plenty of mysteries available for empirico-logical investigation.  Science is exploring them.

Next, hope from beyond-self is available by focusing one's attention on the activities of heroic others, such as scientists, for example roboticists.

Finally, hope from within-self is also available, by taking on challenges, a great many of which are available for the attempting.

I think that most people are more concerned about the legacy they'll leave behind and whether people will remember them (after they died) than whether an afterlife exists or not.  The idea that I took good care of my loved ones and that they'll think about me when I'm gone, is much more important to me than the (non-)existence of an hypothetical afterlife.

Quote from: "Exponential"I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

I do think the universe is mechanical and meaningless but that doesn't mean I am.  I see it as I who assigns meaning and purpose, and just because that meaning doesn't go beyond me, it does not make it any less of an experience to enjoy.  I see beauty in the universe, I feel wonder when I look at the stars and I feel awe at the mystery of life on earth.  Just because the universe isn't emotional, that doesn't steal our experiences away or make them any less painful or pleasurable.  I can say with quite certainty that my emotions are alive and kicking.

I really don't care about a legacy because I won't be around to care about anything once I'm dead. I'll never be immortal in any sense of the term so there's no sense in trying. Might as well enjoy this life.  

Forty-Two.

Quote from: "trexshinigami"I do think the universe is mechanical and meaningless but that doesn't mean I am.  I see it as I who assigns meaning and purpose, and just because that meaning doesn't go beyond me, it does not make it any less of an experience to enjoy.  I see beauty in the universe, I feel wonder when I look at the stars and I feel awe at the mystery of life on earth.  Just because the universe isn't emotional, that doesn't steal our experiences away or make them any less painful or pleasurable.  I can say with quite certainty that my emotions are alive and kicking.

 

What in the hell does "after" have to do with "life"?

Quote from: "Exponential"Hi everyone,

Is there a purpose of the existence of the universe? or is there a goal in the existence of the universe in this way?

None that we can discern. That's not to say that there is none, just that there is no evidential support for the postulate that there is.

QuoteI think this is the question that could differentiate between an atheist and a theist regardless of the deity that the theist would claim to be responsible for that.

No, the only question that could differentiate between an atheist and a theist (or more properly, the answer to which) is 'do you have an active belief in a deity?'

QuotePractically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife. I mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

Still making that category error, I see. Oh, and an agnostic what? Agnosticism says nothing about whether or not you believe in a deity, but is a position concerning the possibility of knowledge. Even if you label yourself agnostic, you're still either a theist or an atheist, which is a true dichotomy.

QuoteLikewise, when it comes to the purpose of the universe. An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. People who like to call themselves agnostics don't prefer to be called atheists because they don't share the same degree of certainty that atheists have about the universe and the afterlife.

What degree of certainty? The only thing I, as an atheist, am sure of, is that I have no active belief in a deity. That says nothing about the actual existence postulate. Moreover, atheism is not a position on the purpose of the universe. Indeed, it isn't even a position. It's the absence of a position with regard to one specific class of claim. This is the most common category error I come across, and it is fallacious.

I don't believe that there is an afterlife (which is not the same as believing that there is none) but that is not a function of atheism, which is simply absence of belief in a deity.

QuoteAs agnostic,

Agnostic what? Do you have an active belief in a deity? If so, you are a theist. If not, you are an atheist. It's really that simple.

QuoteI am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also. I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

No gap for mystery? Are you sure?

Again, this ia a category error. Atheism is nothing to do with 'mysteries' or 'hope' but is the absence of a single class of belief, and nothing more. In that light, the answers you will get to any question will vary from atheist to atheist, since the only thing they all have in common is the absence of belief in a deity. Sorry to keep beating you around the head with this simple fact, but it's a pet niggle of mine that nobody seems able to grasp it.

If you want mystery, there is mystery aplenty. In my view, the real mysteries are not those that theists fantasise about, but the real mysteries, such as why we can't get Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to play nice together. None of that has anything to do with atheism, however.

QuoteThank you,

You're welcome.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Exponential"I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

First, some people find mechanisms fascinating.  Such people will take a toaster or a radio apart out of sheer curiosity.

Yep, those might see themselves as reading the mind of god, other than pointlessly speculating over what they don't know.

As for what others have said before, OP, you're doing two things: confusing the labels agnosticism (which is not weak atheism/theism) and atheism.

Thirdly, I believe that purpose is what we make it, but that does not mean expecting the universe to be what I want it to be.

Quote from: "Exponential"An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I don't like this kind of nihilistic view of atheism. I've been an atheist most of my adult life; and my reality is as richly tapestried in meaning as any theist's.

The cosmos is beyond full comprehension, we are but small temporary fragments of order within it. All that we know is the cosmos as experienced by us. And the human experience has design, purpose, good, bad, and even pity.

Quote from: "Exponential"Practically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife. I mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

No...for example, atheistic Buddhists believe in an after life.

The only fact you can apply to the atheist label is that they don't believe in a god.  It has nothing to do with how certain they are about not having a belief.

edit:  just noticed that OP posted back in Nov 2010 and is probably long gone by now.

Quote from: "penfold"

Quote from: "Exponential"An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I don't like this kind of nihilistic view of atheism. I've been an atheist most of my adult life; and my reality is as richly tapestried in meaning as any theist's.

The cosmos is beyond full comprehension, we are but small temporary fragments of order within it. All that we know is the cosmos as experienced by us. And the human experience has design, purpose, good, bad, and even pity.

This is the one thing I struggle with as an atheist. I tend to get into the mindset sometimes that life is a pointless series of repetitions â€" I work so that I can afford food and shelter, but the only reason I need food and shelter is so that my body will survive another day to work. Excessive repetition gives me anxiety, and I have a very pessimistic outlook about the future.

I hope to be able to convince myself otherwise eventually, but I usually just try not to think about it. Camus would shake his head with disappointment.

One could easily argue that there is no afterlife, but rather an eternal life beyond consciousness. Your life did not begin at birth it began at the inception of life, the molecular chain reactions that started life are still in motion and we have the unique experience of being able to directly influence future of this chain reaction. I am talking about intellectual evolution, or knowledge building. If you look at the development of man, major advances are telescopic, each of our major intellectual breakthroughs happens at an increasing rate. If you look at the time between fire and agriculture, between agriculture and industry and between industry and technology, each of these major revolutions has happened in increasingly shorter increments. This is due to  knowledge building, each generation passes on their successive knowledge and breakthroughs onto the next generation so in essence, anything that was ever taught from one human to another has an everlasting effect. Our knowledge, in particular the knowledge we share gets passed on and becomes the foundation for the next generations breakthroughs. With this understanding it’s hard to not see a purpose in life. That purpose is better served in discovery, and not the regurgitation of centuries old rhetoric.

I believe in an after (my) life.  I am no solopsist, so I believe that after I die, other people will continue to exist, and therefore my contribition to humanity has an effect on those who will outlive me.

If the universe does not have a supernaturally ascribed direction and meaning, isn't that the perfect oportunity to devise one's own meaning.  Doing something creative, hedonistic or alturistic can define a world view, give ownership of life and fill the void.

QuoteAs agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also. I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

Personally, I don't see how the addition of a supernatural, or of any kind of God, could add meaning to a meaningless universe. Worship? If I took that seriously as a 'purpose' in life I'd worship a person; someone with lots of nice, juicy flaws. Conversely, I don't see how the lack of a God could detract it, if any objective meaning were possible. So to me the two questions "can there be a God?" and "can there be meaning?" are totally irrelevant to each other.

As for getting by with the meaninglessness of it all, I think children have the right idea. You don't see them playing in a sand boxes asking themselves "But this castle I just built has no objective, definable purpose! No serious meaning within the grander scheme of things! All is grey and hopeless!" They don't care, they just do things and think things and mess about. I try to see life as play. It doesn't need some epic meaning. We don't need to take it so damn seriously.

Also, I'm not sure what 'a hope from beyond-self' is, but mystery there is aplenty. Again, I don't see how God, present or absent, affects this.

Quote from: Exponential on November 22, 2010, 02:52:08 AM
Hi everyone,

Hi.

QuoteIs there a purpose of the existence of the universe?

Excepting existence for the sake of existence, probably not.

QuotePractically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife.

No. In many cases, like mine, it is not an active belief. Thus, I do not believe in afterlife, as opposed to believing in its absense.

QuoteI mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

No to the second point. I do not live my life "as if there were no afterlife" - I just live my best and will die like the rest. The end. Except discussions like this one, I don't give the prospect of afterlife any thought at all, thus, it does not affect the way I live.

QuoteLikewise, when it comes to the purpose of the universe. An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

No design: No. The universe is tsubject to natural laws. Within those laws, there are patterns. A culmination of such patterns may well be called design. And no, the word design does not presuppose an intelligent or even living (past or present) designer. No purpose: Outiside existence, probably correct. No good/evil: There is good and evil. They are highly subjective human constructs, but humans are a part of this universe. Indifference: Depends on the scale. If you are looking at our entire universe from the outside, then indeed it is completely indifferent to for instance me making this comment right now.

QuoteAs agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also.

Are you a true agnostic then..? Not leaning either way..?

QuoteI might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

I just... Live. The "beyond self" is usually annoying anyways...

How about this?
The stuff of thought or everything the brain does, becomes a particular energy. It blends with a collective upon departure of its origin. Man has grown in intellect and population thus strengthening this energy. Notions and perceptions of deities or spirits have become possible simply because this stuff is knocking at the back door.

I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 03:41:05 AM
I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who believes our perception of life is largely illusory, perceiving an afterlife seems a bit wishful.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 06, 2011, 06:27:32 AM

Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 03:41:05 AM
I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who believes our perception of life is largely illusory, perceiving an afterlife seems a bit wishful.

Have you evidence to support the belief that our perception of life is largely illusory? Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life? Perhaps this question, taken to a logical conclusion, is posing the ultimate question............can we know everything?

Of course, you may see it as drawing a very long bow to relate these points.

Extropian

Quote from: Extropian on July 07, 2011, 08:25:47 AM

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 06, 2011, 06:27:32 AM

Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 03:41:05 AM
I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who believes our perception of life is largely illusory, perceiving an afterlife seems a bit wishful.

Have you evidence to support the belief that our perception of life is largely illusory? Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life? Perhaps this question, taken to a logical conclusion, is posing the ultimate question............can we know everything?

Of course, you may see it as drawing a very long bow to relate these points.

Extropian

By illusory I was alluding to the shortcoming of our senses, this may have been a clumsy thing to do.

From a wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body)

QuoteThere are many species of bacteria and other microorganisms that live on or inside the healthy human body. In fact, 90% of the cells in (or on) a human body are microbes, by number[6] [7] (much less by mass or volume).

I've heard these sorts of figures before, are they accurate? Maybe, there's little chance I'll verify it.
I don't really think about myself any differently knowing this then I did previously.
We only see part of the electromagnetic spectrum and no doubt we miss or misinterpret a lot of that.  
The brain and conciousness is beginning to be understood, memory is fallible and probably doesn't works as most people imagine.
This stuff doesn't really bother me, I just get on with what I have.  
I have no idea by what sense I could perceive an afterlife, I very much doubt it's there.
If someone suggests they perceive an afterlife I suspect its just our fallible senses and brain to blame.

I don't think we can know everything, enough might be possible.

QuoteDo you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life?

Yes, you may be able to limit it a bit though.

I'm going to quote Clint Eastwood, (weren't expecting that were you?)

QuoteA man's got to know his limitations

I thinks Clint's advice is good.

The Magic Pudding writes,
                                   By illusory I was alluding to the shortcoming of our senses, this may have been a clumsy thing to do. 

                                       Forgive my persistence if you would, but I can accept that you intended something similar and the "shortcomings of one's senses" presents no significant deviation.

                                       I would like to know then, what shortcomings do our senses have, what is their nature, and in addition, how do you know thay actually suffer any shortcomings?

                                       For shortcomings to exist, it must be presumed that there are manifestations beyond our senses and the technology that enhances those senses. What could these manifestations be and how do we know they exist?

                                       Perhaps you refer simply to new knowledge that previously had been beyond our ken, that vast realm of stuff we are yet to "know". But then, maybe not.

Biggles, Prime     

The Magic Pudding writes further,

We only see part of the electromagnetic spectrum and no doubt we miss or misinterpret a lot of that.
Nothing "sees" the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We know its limits, its composition and much of its properties. Our senses, enhanced by technology, communicate this information to us. That we may not know everything about it yet is no valid reason to presume we never will know.

I don't think we can know everything, enough might be possible.

Why do you think so? Could it be just your personal incredulity or is there a sound basis for your opinion?

Quote
Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life?

Yes, you may be able to limit it a bit though.
I'm going to quote ClinEastwood, (weren't expecting that were you?)
A man's got to know his limitations
I thinks Clint's advice is goodt .

What evidence have you that we, as Homo sapiens sapiens, are condemned to an illusory existence as part of life?
I'd be the first to confess that our knowledge is limited to our senses and technology etc. But I'm most interested in why you must presume there is stuff we'll never know? How do you "know" that?

Would you define your understanding of the word ILLUSORY for me please?

Biggles, Prime             

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 05:52:13 AMI would like to know then, what shortcomings do our senses have, what is their nature, and in addition, how do you know thay actually suffer any shortcomings?

Memory is one shortcoming.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

QuoteSeveral studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects' propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party's introducing false facts into memory.4  Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 05:52:13 AM
For shortcomings to exist, it must be presumed that there are manifestations beyond our senses and the technology that enhances those senses. What could these manifestations be and how do we know they exist?

I'll avoid the word "manifestations" and just say there are things our senses don't accurately or fully perceive.  Some are revealed by technology.  Gravity isn't fully understood, the nature of the Earth say 50kms down, is still in doubt I think.  

Some people may understand time, I don't really.  A day where the sun comes up goes down and nears rising again is the basis of time for me.  The idea of slowing the time I experience by travelling near the speed of light doesn't really influence my life, it makes for interesting stories though.  

We know there are things we don't perceive directly because we see their influence on other things, gravity for Newton, dark matter perhaps for his successors.  Dark matter may not exist, I'm in no position to judge and it doesn't make much difference to me anyway.  

If someone claims they perceive vibes from an after life I would just dismiss it as crap.  I have observed people believing superstitions, because it's fun, it makes life less scary, it makes them feel important.  It seems born of a desire for more than an a brief scared animal existence.

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 05:52:13 AM
Perhaps you refer simply to new knowledge that previously had been beyond our ken, that vast realm of stuff we are yet to "know". But then, maybe not.

Some things previously unknown, some perhaps known now to science but not necessarily known to the average person.  And then you've got those remaining known and unknown unknowns.

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 06:32:40 AM
Nothing "sees" the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We know its limits, its composition and much of its properties. Our senses, enhanced by technology, communicate this information to us. That we may not know everything about it yet is no valid reason to presume we never will know.

QuoteMP: I don't think we can know everything, enough might be possible.

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 06:32:40 AM
Why do you think so? Could it be just your personal incredulity or is there a sound basis for your opinion?

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 06:32:40 AM
Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life?

QuoteMP: Yes, you may be able to limit it a bit though.
I'm going to quote ClinEastwood, (weren't expecting that were you?)
A man's got to know his limitations
I thinks Clint's advice is good .

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 06:32:40 AM
What evidence have you that we, as Homo sapiens sapiens, are condemned to an illusory existence as part of life?
I'd be the first to confess that our knowledge is limited to our senses and technology etc. But I'm most interested in why you must presume there is stuff we'll never know? How do you "know" that?

Everything would equate to the infinite for me, I can't conceive of such a thing.
Enough may include recognising the limits of our memories and not convicting an innocent, or knowing enough about the universe not to create gods.

Quote from: Extropian on July 08, 2011, 06:32:40 AM
Would you define your understanding of the word ILLUSORY for me please?

This definition of illusion works for me: "An erroneous mental representation"

  
The Magic Pudding writes; Memory is one shortcoming.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
Quote
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects' propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party's introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image.

Extropian replies; What you write is true insofaras it is relevant. People can be convinced by others to believe all sort of bunkum and equally to behave in the strangest most despicable ways. This is manifest in anything from commercial advertising to the evangelising of religions to the rantings of Goebellsian propaganda. As such, it is a direct assault on our minds and is not filtered through our five senses. A different part of our brain is being influenced. Every day we read in groups such as this some interlocutor trying to convince another that black is white.

Your quote in bold-face above is a classic demonstration of the scientific method showing how we can be deceived which in fact demonstrates that in applying the scientific method we can identify the deceit, the propaganda, the nonsensical. It's true that our memories are imperfect and may vary vastly from individual to individual but in the end the scientific method is the arbiter and a conclusion closest to the truth will emerge. The one quandary we suffer gladly is that so far we are unable to honestly proclaim that any conclusion is the full and final truth. BUT, should we, in contradiction of this glad suffering, choose to believe unquestioningly that this is a permanent, eternal condition?  

The Magic Pudding writes;........there are things our senses don't accurately or fully perceive. Some are revealed by technology. Gravity isn't fully understood,

Extropian replies; I rejoice in granting you this. Our senses are not infallible. But, recognising this, what would you prefer to be our approach to the future conduct of science.........[1] Burden our minds with the notion that all is but a feeble and corrupt facade of the truth? Or [2] Penetrate every cranny of Nature's mysterious ways fearlessly and admitting of no limit to our seeking of knowledge?

The Magic Pudding writes; How gravity is propagated is indeed still a mystery.

Extropian replies; Would you prefer it remain a mystery forever so humankind can wallow in self-doubt and appease that condition with fantasies about the supernatural? Or would a continued search for an explanation, admitting of no defeat, be a more beneficial course of action?

The Magic Pudding writes; We know there are things we don't perceive directly because we see their influence on other things, gravity for Newton, dark matter perhaps for his successors. Dark matter may not exist, I'm in no position to judge and it doesn't make much difference to me anyway.

Extropian replies; I note a tendency toward indifference here and can appreciate that not everyone considers pursuing questions to their limits to be a fulfilling exercise.

I suppose the ultimate issue as I see it emerges in the observation that simply by our conduct of science we are automatically taking the view that nothing will remain a mystery forever, that for as long as Homo sapiens sapiens exercises his/her independent intellect nothing is sacred or hidden beyond our understanding. Thus the question of where the division between the natural and the supernatural is resolved to a metaphysical concept that religious faith can never admit to exist.

Only by defining the supernatural as unknowable can the supernatural exist. Humankind, by its very nature, will never admit that anything is unknowable. We can't conduct science upon any other basis. Never, never, will a morsel of supernaturality become natural to us with a tag attached stating that it had once been supernatural.

Lastly, we face a question for all humankind that goes directly to what we can ultimately achieve.............Is the chemical combination of our DNA infinitely diverse? Will humankind eventually reverse our Universe's ultimate entropy, the cold death of the Universe? Religious faith falls by the wayside a long time before this kind of scenario approaches. As I see the issue, without us the death of everything is inevitable. But of course, we must allow that ET may entertain a different view. Should we then hopefully and prayerfully rely on ET to do the hard work or should we take on the task ourselves?

I'm inclined toward the latter............but that's just me.



 

Could you please try using the quote system, please..?  8)

Quote from: Asmodean on July 10, 2011, 08:38:51 AM
Could you please try using the quote system, please..?  8)

I'm a regular contributor to around 6 groups and a member of twice that number [some of these latter are almost inactive by any measure]. None has complained about my method of posting.

It seems that management and a few supporters have difficulty making sense of the method I resort to sometimes. If I knew how to use the quote system in place here I might be persuaded to go that way. But I don't and I'm of a demeanour that disinclines me from taking the trouble to do so. It is a puzzlement to me exactly why management is so grotesquely committed to uniformity. Do the rules of membership demand it? No other group, of which I am a member, does.

If the membership in general finds my posts unintelligible then kindly advise me. If my contributions are unworthy and fail to meet the esoteric demands of management kindly advise me. If the layout of my posts arouses high moral dudgeon and offends management's notion of good order and freedom of expression kindly advise me.

If it is necessary to the continuing prosperity of HAF that I depart from your excellent group then kindly advise me. No single member can be more important than the group. So if your decision is to dispense with my contributions kindly advise me. All I ask is that you allow me to depart voluntarily.  

quote author=Extropian link=topic=6230.msg118808#msg118808 date=1310336164
quote author=Asmodean link=topic=6230.msg118763#msg118763 date=1310283531
/quote

For a long post I find it easiest to use the quote button and then cutting the whole thing into Word, the reply box is a bit small.

I've removed these brackets from the above [ ], once you have the quote with "quotee" named you can just copy and paste it as required, remebering to add the /quote when the quote is complete.

Control C, Control X and Control V are your friends, I recommend getting to know them.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 11, 2011, 02:35:56 AM
quote author=Extropian link=topic=6230.msg118808#msg118808 date=1310336164
quote author=Asmodean link=topic=6230.msg118763#msg118763 date=1310283531
/quote

For a long post I find it easiest to use the quote button and then cutting the whole thing into Word, the reply box is a bit small.

I've removed these brackets from the above [ ], once you have the quote with "quotee" named you can just copy and paste it as required, remebering to add the /quote when the quote is complete.

Control C, Control X and Control V are your friends, I recommend getting to know them.

Indeed, the standard quote box is too small for extensive C&P. After so many lines of type it seems to protest at expanding and jumps all over the place. I've never encountered this feature in any other group. It is a gross discourtesy of management that they should expect members to endure this restrictive measure.

To the Magic Pudding; I thank him for taking the effort to explain. But the instructions are as clear as mud to me. I've had no similar difficulties with any other group, and am surprised somewhat that members put up with a management so niggardly in providing services to members. There is a strong impression that management see their rules and restrictions as more important than fostering the exchange of ideas and opinions by whatever means the writer chooses.

I'm not contrite over whether Asmodean et al are offended by my method of posting. But I do regret that they find it next to impossible to understand what I write simply because it is in a slightly different format.

I thank members for their fellowship during my brief sojourn here and wish everyone well for the future.

Extropian

Quote from: Extropian on July 11, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
Indeed, the standard quote box is too small for extensive C&P. After so many lines of type it seems to protest at expanding and jumps all over the place. I've never encountered this feature in any other group. It is a gross discourtesy of management that they should expect members to endure this restrictive measure

There is nothing wrong with the way quotes work here; it is the standard method used on all internet forums [quote]qutoed text [/quote].  

It's not anyone's fault other than your own if you can't figure it out.

Anyway, consider this a warning for being uncivil towards 'management'; you need a big attitude change.

Quote from: Extropian on July 10, 2011, 11:16:04 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on July 10, 2011, 08:38:51 AM
Could you please try using the quote system, please..?  8)

I'm a regular contributor to around 6 groups and a member of twice that number [some of these latter are almost inactive by any measure]. None has complained about my method of posting.

It seems that management and a few supporters have difficulty making sense of the method I resort to sometimes. If I knew how to use the quote system in place here I might be persuaded to go that way. But I don't and I'm of a demeanour that disinclines me from taking the trouble to do so. It is a puzzlement to me exactly why management is so grotesquely committed to uniformity. Do the rules of membership demand it? No other group, of which I am a member, does.

If the membership in general finds my posts unintelligible then kindly advise me. If my contributions are unworthy and fail to meet the esoteric demands of management kindly advise me. If the layout of my posts arouses high moral dudgeon and offends management's notion of good order and freedom of expression kindly advise me.

If it is necessary to the continuing prosperity of HAF that I depart from your excellent group then kindly advise me. No single member can be more important than the group. So if your decision is to dispense with my contributions kindly advise me. All I ask is that you allow me to depart voluntarily.  

I think you're exaggerating here. The quote system is to help visually organise a post and makes for easier reading. Otherwise it looks a bit like a wall of text.

I don't have any problems with people not using the quote system, but those are just my 2 cents.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFJmyX.jpg&hash=f7fc31c1f248656bef37af88048471289ebe1c35)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0CASN.jpg&hash=2ac2284200af3c07d011bcfb59bdd79e5b50fe99)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfWfLJ.jpg&hash=d175b3abe0a847e84d6ab88bdb96767e6f65ca81)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvEIYu.jpg&hash=5a18fd42595333d3c79722f9c7050c5cb1db759f)

Quote from: Extropian on July 11, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
Indeed, the standard quote box is too small for extensive C&P. After so many lines of type it seems to protest at expanding and jumps all over the place. I've never encountered this feature in any other group. It is a gross discourtesy of management that they should expect members to endure this restrictive measure.

Do you notice the long red line with brackets is copied to break the quote in two, allowing me to address a bit at a time?  The /quote text also needs to be copied.

Quote from: Extropian on July 11, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
To the Magic Pudding; I thank him for taking the effort to explain. But the instructions are as clear as mud to me. I've had no similar difficulties with any other group, and am surprised somewhat that members put up with a management so niggardly in providing services to members. There is a strong impression that management see their rules and restrictions as more important than fostering the exchange of ideas and opinions by whatever means the writer chooses.

When you finish select the whole document by pressing Ctr A then Ctrl C
Then it can be pasted via Control V into the browser text box, ready to be posted.


Oh and another thing, I think its poor form, rude and bad manners to criticise people who provide a gift of their time, frustration with technology only excuses so much.

Quote from: Extropian on July 10, 2011, 11:16:04 PMNone has complained about my method of posting.

This statement is demonstrably wrong due to at least one person (the person you're replying to), complaining about your method of posting. Not to mention that people had previously complained about your method of posting. Perhaps many other people complained and you ignored and/or forgot like you had on this forum.