I am NOT criticizing all atheists. I don't care what some one believes.
I am criticizing atheists who PROSELYTIZE. The point being, at least with religious folk who do it, as fucking annoying as they are, they think that that they are saving you from something real, but an atheist ought to know that it is ultimately irrelevant whether or not some dude honestly believes that Jesus came back to life, because even if they convince him that it wasn't true, his fate remains exactly the same.
Atheism does not necessitate nihilism. Obviously, as despite the non-existence of God, some people believe that He exists, and supplies purpose and meaning. Thus it is apparent that the subjective experience of purpose can exist regardless of an objective or external purpose. Like the illusion of free will, it's a pointless philosophical argument to say that it doesn't really exist. Its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence, and so for all intents and purposes, it does.
And that does not have anything to do with the fact that praying to God to cure your sick baby is not going to be as effective as taking them to see a doctor.
But the individuals I am talking about attempt to claim an objective stance in their disbelief in the existance of a higher power. If they are going to take an objective stance in that matter, wouldn't it be contradictory to refuse to take one in other matters?
The non-existence of God is subjective as well, actually. A universe in which God exists is distinguishable from one in which He does not (for any useful definition of "God"), and the evidence suggests the latter.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
You've mixed something up— I'm saying we can tell the difference, theoretically speaking of course. The evidence which exists strongly implies that there is no God. But that statement is on a par with saying "The evidence which exists strongly implies that massive objects are attracted to other massive objects." Would you call me agnostic on gravitation because I do not believe with certainty that this is the case?
No, I think you don't understand how evolution works.
Our SURVIVAL is a product of evolution. Our EXISTANCE however is thanks to random chance.
No, it's not. Natural selection—the entire shaping process of evolution—is not random.
It was random chance that created life in the first place,
No, it wasn't. It was a factor, but those random chemical interactions were selected on several non-random bases, such as stability and ability to propagate.
and it was random chance which developed each of the mutations that eventually lead to our species.
Correct. But the development of random mutations is not evolution. It's part of evolution.
Evolution does not follow a path.
It depends on your perspective. It's not a teleological process, no. But it seems pretty obvious to me that the process leads naturally to more complexity and intelligence.
In the same way, the individual behaviors of a group of birds lead naturally to a super-behavior of flocking. The individual, genetically programmed behavior of ants leads to the vast societies and structures built by ant colonies. The ants don't know what the fuck their doing, but nevertheless structures emerge, naturally, and are selected for. It's not random.
If our DNA replication process were not as sloppy as it is, we likely would not exist at all (our sloppy DNA replication makes it a lot easier for mutations to occur). Animals don't just evolve BECAUSE a niche exists for them to exist in, that would require evolution itself to have some kind of guiding intelligence. Animals evolve because some members of the species experience random mutation, and that particular mutation proves advantageous for survival.
Correct. But the rubric for determining what is advantageous for survival is not random.
Which is why I pulled out natural selection at the very begining.
Natural selection is not random, but mutations are. Evolution (and therefore us) would not exist without random mutations, hence our existance is through random chance. That doesn't mean that we popped magically in to existance, it just means that our entire existance is predicated on a series of randomly occuring instances (in addition to whatever else.) Again, without those random mutations, we would not exist, natural selection or no.
As for arguing that evolution has some kind of path, a trend is not the same thing as a path. The fact is, it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that evolution's path (in your eyes) could reverse, and organism could become less and less complex, if that was the direction that random mutations started occuring in. Look at seals and dolphins; they left the sea only to return back to it. Look at all of the single celled organisms that still thrive, even today. We like to view evolution as a process towards the complicated, culminating in us, because it makes us feel special, but ultimately, percieving ourselves as the one true ultimate end product of evolution is basically the same as believeing that we were created in the image of some supernatural higher power, only with a different coat of paint.
There is no special path of evolution. It simple works with what it has.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
Not all religions teach blind, unquestioning faith.
Judaism, for instance, emphasizes study and questioning ones own beliefs. Abraham is celebrated for, essentially, talking back to God, and trying to prevent him from killing sinners, because he valued their lives more than he valued unquestioning faith in God.
Nope. You (or rather, the rabbis you're parroting) made that up. It's not in the Bible. It's your dishonest interpretation of the Bible.
Which would be fine if your religion had nothing to do with the Bible. Yahweh specifically demands you to have blind faith, and threatens to torture you if you don't obey his every command. By "torture" I mean inflict you with boils, rape your wife, sell you into slavery, and force you to eat your children (Deuteronomy 28). Such a delightful religion.
Judaism also produces a disproportionate number of influencial individuals, considering its size. Personally, I'd say that to some degree, this can be attributed to the Jewish spirit of refusing to accept authority blindly.
"Jewish spirit"?
Most influential Jews don't give a shit about their stupid religion and their kids will grow up to be outright atheists.
It's all a genetic fallacy, man.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
I can appreciate the view of relativity in the universe. In reality, humans are fairly insignificant on a cosmic scale.
So, I guess that puts me in conflict with the "SCIEEENNNNCCCEEEEE!" crowd, screaming and pumping their fists and other manly things that are distinctly unscientific.
That being said, I'd agree that Science is absolutely crucial to humans, as a species. Until we reach the point where we are blowing up planets and generating complex life that can survive on the harshest of worlds from native elements, our science will likely remain absolutely insignificant in the cosmic scale, but it's still pretty damn important to us. After all, it allows us to communicate like we are now. Our religions are even less impressive, in my opinion--since I don't believe in miracles, I do not believe they can produce the same physical reaction as science can. I can't use religion to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, or combine them--something that happens throughout the universe, and we can do with chemistry. Religion can sway the minds of millions of people to commit great acts of benevolence or horrible atrocities, and that's pretty impressive, but so can any number of similar phenomena--politics, philosophy, entertainment, literature.
Plus, the fact that we can acknowledge our insignificance (and don't lie to yourself--right now, in the universe, we are) is pretty darn cool. It's a degree of self-reflection that we currently have nothing to compare to.
Which is why I pulled out natural selection at the very begining.
Natural selection is not random, but mutations are. Evolution (and therefore us) would not exist without random mutations, hence our existance is through random chance. That doesn't mean that we popped magically in to existance, it just means that our entire existance is predicated on a series of randomly occuring instances (in addition to whatever else.) Again, without those random mutations, we would not exist, natural selection or no.
That doesn't mean our existence is solely the result of randomness.
Similarly, chocolate is a Karma Sutra Ben and Jerry's ice cream. The ice cream's existence is not based on chocolate.
As for arguing that evolution has some kind of path, a trend is not the same thing as a path.
Semantics!
The fact is, it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that evolution's path (in your eyes) could reverse, and organism could become less and less complex, if that was the direction that random mutations started occuring in.
Which would be promptly selected against and would not survive. The path or trend or whatever you want to call it would continue.
Unless I and my descendants all moved to a cave. Even then, eyes are still useful (see pitch-black deep-sea creatures).
Look at seals and dolphins; they left the sea only to return back to it.
It was an open niche with the extinction of the icthyosaurs. Also, it's not the same niche as fish. And seals and cetaceans are much more skilled and intelligent than their evolutionary predecessors.
Look at all of the single celled organisms that still thrive, even today. We like to view evolution as a process towards the complicated, culminating in us, because it makes us feel special, but ultimately, percieving ourselves as the one true ultimate end product of evolution is basically the same as believeing that we were created in the image of some supernatural higher power, only with a different coat of paint.
You have a point here. Judging purely by numbers, single-celled organisms are by far the most "successful" products of evolution. So in this sense, evolution's "direction," if we judge by popularity, is towards eubacteria.
However, I see no reason to make it a popularity contest. If you judge by complexity instead of population, then evolution does indeed seem to have a direction. It is a complexity-generator. It is also, amazingly, a consciousness-generator. Consciousness is the means by which matter becomes aware of itself.
There is no special path of evolution. It simple works with what it has.[/QUOTE]
The evidence which exists strongly implies that there is no God.
Actually, there is no evidence that exists. That is kind of the point.
The lack of any evidence for something which is supposed to be all-encompassing and all-powerful can be construed as evidence against it. I would say with equal certainty that the evidence suggests that gravity is not caused by gravity gnomes, despite having no evidence that it is not.
That aside, you're incorrect: The problem of evil is strong evidence against a classical Abrahamic God.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
Proselytize what? I advocate reason and critical thinking, which just so happens to mean I think all religions are superstition and I am open about thinking that. Am I "proselytizing"?
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
It is impossible for an atheist to proselytize. That would imply you are trying to convert them to some kind of atheist faith. The objective is to simply prove that their faith is based on falsehood/nonsense and that they would be well served to stop believing in it so they can go find something better to derive their morals and beliefs from.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
God damn it, Evander! If you don't like what your idiotic holy book says, throw it out and start a new religion!
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Your Jewish roots have as much to do with you as a random German's "Aryan" roots. In that they are largely mythological and have nothing to do with t he culture you grew up in.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
What Jews happen to believe right now is not a consequence of their religion. It's a consequence of being a relatively well-educated and secular subculture.
Honestly, as both an atheist and someone in the field of biology, I don't find what Evander is saying all of that objectionable. In the sense that while I live and act as though my life has meaning and purpose, I accept that objectively this is not necessarily the case.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
God damn it, Evander! If you don't like what your idiotic holy book says, throw it out and start a new religion!
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Your Jewish roots have as much to do with you as a random German's "Aryan" roots. In that they are largely mythological and have nothing to do with t he culture you grew up in.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
What Jews happen to believe right now is not a consequence of their religion. It's a consequence of being a relatively well-educated and secular subculture.
The real question here is: What exactly is the connection between a religion and its holy text?
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
Which is why I pulled out natural selection at the very begining.
Natural selection is not random, but mutations are. Evolution (and therefore us) would not exist without random mutations, hence our existance is through random chance. That doesn't mean that we popped magically in to existance, it just means that our entire existance is predicated on a series of randomly occuring instances (in addition to whatever else.) Again, without those random mutations, we would not exist, natural selection or no.
That doesn't mean our existence is solely the result of randomness.
Similarly, chocolate is a Karma Sutra Ben and Jerry's ice cream. The ice cream's existence is not based on chocolate.
I was not saying that every single thing that lead to our exisence was a random factor (if that's what you took away, then I apologize for the miunderstanding)
I am saying that we COULD NOT exist without those random factors. They are necesary factors in our existance, and the fact that there are so many of them just illustrates all the more how improbable our existance is.
Similarly, if chocolate didn't exist, That flavor of Ben & Jerry's could not exist either. It's existence is predicated on the existence of chocolate, just as ours is predicated on countless random mutations (and the random chemical reaction that initially turned inorganic chemicals in to organic ones, not to mention the random factors that resulted in the creation of the earth, and of our solar system, and of our galaxy, etc.)
Honestly, as both an atheist and someone in the field of biology, I don't find what Evander is saying all of that objectionable. In the sense that while I live and act as though my life has meaning and purpose, I accept that objectively this is not necessarily the case.
It depends on where you think meaning and purpose come from, and what you mean by "objectively."
"Objectively"—in a purely physical sense, I do not actually touch things. No contact is made between the atoms in my hand and the atoms on my keyboard. There is empty space between an electromagnetic repulsion, and my brain hallucinates the sensation of touch as an evolutionary adaption.
But then, is it right to say the brain's sensation of touch is a "hallucination" or "illusion" that is subservient to "objective" reality? I don't think so at all. That's one of the turds that the Matrix left in our cultural philosophy—the idea that any simulation plays second fiddle to underlying physical reality. I take the opposite view—that simulations can be far more meaningful than their underlying physical reality.
The evidence which exists strongly implies that there is no God.
Actually, there is no evidence that exists. That is kind of the point.
The lack of any evidence for something which is supposed to be all-encompassing and all-powerful can be construed as evidence against it. I would say with equal certainty that the evidence suggests that gravity is not caused by gravity gnomes, despite having no evidence that it is not.
It's interesting that you bring up gravity, because we actually don't know what causes gravity. We have a good understanding of how it works, and we definitely know its effects. We eve have a few theories behind it (some better than others) but ultimately, we simply do not have a full understanding of gravity yet.
If you want to talk about belief in whether or not some kind of high power exists beyond our universe, then the fact that we have no evidence isn't enough to disprove that possibility. It's enough to justify living your life qas though there is not, of course, but to make a declaration based on it is still a matter of taking a leap of faith that there is no evidence that exists that you've simply been unable to find thus far, or that it is impossible for a higher power to exist without evidence to begin with.
That aside, you're incorrect: The problem of evil is strong evidence against a classical Abrahamic God.
Again, Judaism IS NOT Christianity.
The God of Abraham (as oposed to the Christian god) is NOT a benevolent deity. The Jewish god is of a more neutral alignment, doing things that could be classified as both good and evil. The idea of God being the ultimate force of good and battling against evil is one that Christians took from elsewhere.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
Almost the same thing I told my fiance.
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.
Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.
The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
That's how my fiance sold me on it. I told her she had to prove it had some kind of benefit before I would ever consider letting somebody bring a scalpel close to my hypothetical son's penis.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
0
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
Judaism also produces a disproportionate number of influencial individuals, considering its size. Personally, I'd say that to some degree, this can be attributed to the Jewish spirit of refusing to accept authority blindly.
There is a problem with atheism, mainly just one, that I have. If there is no creator, where did creation come from?
It has always existed. Time is part of spacetime. The universe contains all of spacetime. There is no such thing as time "before" or "outside" the universe. There is no point in time in which the universe has not existed.
If this seems strange, consider that you believe the exact same thing about God, but without any evidence that God exists in the first place. We do have evidence the Universe exists, and we also know how spacetime works.
In the context of this question creator is anything that created, be it God, gods, aliens, even matter that we don't know of that somehow formed the matter that created the big bang,
See, this makes absolutely no sense. Because by positing the existence of such beings pre-universe, you're just pushing back the question to "okay, where did the matter/energy that makes up the bodies of these creator gods and aliens come from?"
unless I'm mistaken it its still theory and not proven yet,
In scientific language, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been proven. i.e. the "theory of evolution"'; the "theory of relativity."
but I'm not sure they can fully theorize where the material that created the big bang, or which the big bang came from, came from itself. We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered. So where did matter come from?
Stephen Hawking deals with this more in depth in A Brief History of Time, which you ought to read if you're curious about this stuff.
Let me restate what I said above. The problem with your questions is that you are assuming this thing called "time" that is external to the universe. So, in your mind, the Big Bang works out like this:
1:00 p.m.: Nothing.
2:00 p.m.: Nothing.
3:00 p.m.: Still nothing.
3:45 p.m.: BOOOOOOM! Big bang. Universe pops into existence.
But this is nonsense. There is no such thing as time "before" the big bang. Time does not exist apart from the universe. Einstein proved this—time is the same "fabric" as space.
One way to think about the Big Bang is that it's simply a point in spacetime, like the point you're experiencing right now. If you think of all of spacetime like the surface of the Earth, then the Big Bang would be like the North Pole. Now, you can't go "north" of the North Pole. Similarly, you can't go "before" the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the earliest point in the universe—just like the North Pole is the northernmost point on Earth—but it's not a boundary, it's a point on a smooth surface.
What I'm basically trying to say is that we don't know if there was a before the big bang or not. There wasn't spacetime, but how do we know it's impossible for there to somehow be a pre-spacetime? Obviously we can't look for pre-big bang evidence, but that is no reason to simply say that it wasn't there.
Also, how is it knowable if there is or isn't an "outside" the universe? If this outside is independent of the universe than it too might exist, though we would never know it.
Though I can see how theories of "It could exist, but you can't prove it either way" can get annoying, because well... you can't prove it either way.
So, let me see if I've got my Big bang and beginning of the universe correct. There was matter and the big bang, in lamen terms, at the same time from the same spot which created an ever expanding universe. How do we know there was no before this point? Since there was known universe as it is there, there was no space time, but how is it known that there was no before in some sense or another?
Also, is it possible that the universe and all known existence is in a cycle of Big bang, expand, shrink, finite point, repeat? Though it doesn't explain how something can either always exist or come from nothing, it doesn't explain where our current everything comes from.
I am really having fun in this thread... except I really have no idea what it's about anymore.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
I'm not circumsized for any religious reasons. I'm circumsized because my father did not want me to be changing with him at the pool, or something, one days, and ask why we weren't the same.
Plenty of kids are circumsized for purely secular reasons. It's ratehr common these days.
I'm not interested in arguing for or against circumsizion; that's its own seperate topic.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
I'm not circumsized for any religious reasons. I'm circumsized because my father did not want me to be changing with him at the pool, or something, one days, and ask why we weren't the same.
Plenty of kids are circumsized for purely secular reasons. It's ratehr common these days.
Again, exactly what I'm saying: It's not the religious teachings that are the problem, but the religious thinking.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
Proselytize what? I advocate reason and critical thinking, which just so happens to mean I think all religions are superstition and I am open about thinking that. Am I "proselytizing"?
Not unless you also believe that it is your role to talk other people out of their superstitions, in order to "save" them from being wrong.
Believing that some one is asuperstitious idiot for what they believe is fine. It when you declare that it is your place to make them "see the truth" that you become no better than the folks who go door to door trying to get you to accept Jesus.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
I'm not circumsized for any religious reasons. I'm circumsized because my father did not want me to be changing with him at the pool, or something, one days, and ask why we weren't the same.
Plenty of kids are circumsized for purely secular reasons. It's ratehr common these days.
Again, exactly what I'm saying: It's not the religious teachings that are the problem, but the religious thinking.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
Proselytize what? I advocate reason and critical thinking, which just so happens to mean I think all religions are superstition and I am open about thinking that. Am I "proselytizing"?
Not unless you also believe that it is your role to talk other people out of their superstitions, in order to "save" them from being wrong.
Believing that some one is asuperstitious idiot for what they believe is fine. It when you declare that it is your place to make them "see the truth" that you become no better than the folks who go door to door trying to get you to accept Jesus.
Maybe I've been living in the wrong places, but I've never seen an atheist proselytize in person, or heard of one doing so outside of the internet (where everything possible happens at every moment).
When I was living in a countries full of fellow atheists, it just wasn't something we spoke about. We didn't have a sermon once a week where some middle-aged bald man or woman stood behind a pulpit and informed us of our duty to spread our gospel of cold, rational logic to the believers, less they....die believing in God and be horribly disappointed....I guess?
Then, I started living in a country where there were very few atheists, and we damn well kept that fact to ourselves. Young people are not tolerant of different beliefs. Adults a bit more so, but it's still not something you talk about. Then again, I'm sure that's not the same throughout America.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
Almost the same thing I told my fiance.
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.
Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.
The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
That's how my fiance sold me on it. I told her she had to prove it had some kind of benefit before I would ever consider letting somebody bring a scalpel close to my hypothetical son's penis.
Your fiance is wrong, not that I want to change this into a circumcision thread. The only valid medical argument that is not completely statististically insignificant is that it reduces HIV transmission to men in a hetero situation or in a homosexual situation in the giving partners case. Thats still not a big effect, but it is certainly a viable tool in HIV ridden areas of the world (like say, south africa). The penile cancer stuff is just straight up wrong. And the phimosis , etc. conditions are all easily treatable by the individual through easy non-surgical means.
You're talking about agnosticism there, more than atheism. An atheist is not standing there saying "we can't tell the difference", an atheist is standig there saying "there is no god".
Then no one's an atheist, and everyone I've ever met who shares my views is an agnostic atheist.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
Proselytize what? I advocate reason and critical thinking, which just so happens to mean I think all religions are superstition and I am open about thinking that. Am I "proselytizing"?
Not unless you also believe that it is your role to talk other people out of their superstitions, in order to "save" them from being wrong.
Believing that some one is asuperstitious idiot for what they believe is fine. It when you declare that it is your place to make them "see the truth" that you become no better than the folks who go door to door trying to get you to accept Jesus.
Maybe I've been living in the wrong places, but I've never seen an atheist proselytize in person, or heard of one doing so outside of the internet (where everything possible happens at every moment).
When I was living in a countries full of fellow atheists, it just wasn't something we spoke about. We didn't have a sermon once a week where some middle-aged bald man or woman stood behind a pulpit and informed us of our duty to spread our gospel of cold, rational logic to the believers, less they....die believing in God and be horribly disappointed....I guess?
Then, I started living in a country where there were very few atheists, and we damn well kept that fact to ourselves. Young people are not tolerant of different beliefs. Adults a bit more so, but it's still not something you talk about. Then again, I'm sure that's not the same throughout America.
I live in an area where you get a good mix of both.
What ends up happening is that the atheists in question are often emulating the religious proselytizers who drive them crazy (often their own parents/relatives) and really just being big old hypocrits about the whole thing.
To be fair, though, is it any better for some one to do it online? I'm not talking about deconstructing religion when the topic is relevent, but I've seen plenty of cases online of folks who seem to think it is their god0given purpose (pardon the pun) to disabuse others of their religious beliefs, as though they are some kind of righteous crusader. How is that any better than when a cristian does the same thing to atheists?
The evidence which exists strongly implies that there is no God.
Actually, there is no evidence that exists. That is kind of the point.
The lack of any evidence for something which is supposed to be all-encompassing and all-powerful can be construed as evidence against it. I would say with equal certainty that the evidence suggests that gravity is not caused by gravity gnomes, despite having no evidence that it is not.
It's interesting that you bring up gravity, because we actually don't know what causes gravity. We have a good understanding of how it works, and we definitely know its effects. We eve have a few theories behind it (some better than others) but ultimately, we simply do not have a full understanding of gravity yet.
If you want to talk about belief in whether or not some kind of high power exists beyond our universe, then the fact that we have no evidence isn't enough to disprove that possibility. It's enough to justify living your life qas though there is not, of course, but to make a declaration based on it is still a matter of taking a leap of faith that there is no evidence that exists that you've simply been unable to find thus far, or that it is impossible for a higher power to exist without evidence to begin with.
I am comfortable with making leaps of faith such as, "the sun will rise tomorrow", "a weight, when dropped, will fall down", or even something so tenuous as "the moon orbits the earth", each of which are incredibly more likely to be false than the non-existence of God. I make these declarations with the implicit understanding that I do not believe them unquestioningly, and if opposing evidence appears which approaches in magnitude the mass of evidence which supports them, I will reconsider them.
evander, are you sure these atheists you're talking about exist?
yup
they're far from the majority of atheists, but there are enough of them that they can get pretty annoying.
I want to punch Bill Maher in the face every time religion comes up.
Have you seen Religulous? It was very well done.
nope, from what I heard he focused on christianists though, so I dont really care to watch it. Plus you know, he's an insufferable cunt when he starts talking about religion.
Honestly, as both an atheist and someone in the field of biology, I don't find what Evander is saying all of that objectionable. In the sense that while I live and act as though my life has meaning and purpose, I accept that objectively this is not necessarily the case.
evander, are you sure these atheists you're talking about exist?
yup
they're far from the majority of atheists, but there are enough of them that they can get pretty annoying.
I want to punch Bill Maher in the face every time religion comes up.
Have you seen Religulous? It was very well done.
nope, from what I heard he focused on christianists though, so I dont really care to watch it. Plus you know, he's an insufferable cunt when he starts talking about religion.
He wasn't an insufferable cunt. He was pretty much reasonable. And it was a very good movie.
What I'm basically trying to say is that we don't know if there was a before the big bang or not. There wasn't spacetime, but how do we know it's impossible for there to somehow be a pre-spacetime?
Because if something came before spacetime, it would be a point in time. In which case it wouldn't be before time. The concept literally makes no sense. It's like talking about a square triangle.
Also, how is it knowable if there is or isn't an "outside" the universe?
Definitional. THe universe is defined as all of spacetime.
So, let me see if I've got my Big bang and beginning of the universe correct. There was matter and the big bang, in lamen terms, at the same time from the same spot which created an ever expanding universe.
No. The Big Bang didn't "create" anything. Think of the universe like a movie. The first second of the movie doesn't "create" the rest of the movie.
How do we know there was no before this point?
There could be (multiverses or whatever), but that just pushes the question back.
Also, is it possible that the universe and all known existence is in a cycle of Big bang, expand, shrink, finite point, repeat?
That's one hypothesis, yes. We don't really know, and may never know.
Though it doesn't explain how something can either always exist or come from nothing, it doesn't explain where our current everything comes from.
It didn't "come from" anywhere. It's always existed.
As to the question "why does something exist, rather than nothing"—that's because nothing doesn't exist by definition.
Honestly, as both an atheist and someone in the field of biology, I don't find what Evander is saying all of that objectionable. In the sense that while I live and act as though my life has meaning and purpose, I accept that objectively this is not necessarily the case.
It depends on where you think meaning and purpose come from, and what you mean by "objectively."
"Objectively"—in a purely physical sense, I do not actually touch things. No contact is made between the atoms in my hand and the atoms on my keyboard. There is empty space between an electromagnetic repulsion, and my brain hallucinates the sensation of touch as an evolutionary adaption.
But then, is it right to say the brain's sensation of touch is a "hallucination" or "illusion" that is subservient to "objective" reality? I don't think so at all. That's one of the turds that the Matrix left in our cultural philosophy—the idea that any simulation plays second fiddle to underlying physical reality. I take the opposite view—that simulations can be far more meaningful than their underlying physical reality.
I don't completely understand what you are getting at here. I don't really see how you can go about equating something like the way our minds interpret "touching" something to beliefs about meaning and purpose. To put things into the terms you are using, I would say that the underlying physical reality and the simulation are both meaningless as there is no greater purpose for them to serve. However, as individuals we give them a sort of false meaning because it makes life more enjoyable.
Posts
You've mixed something up— I'm saying we can tell the difference, theoretically speaking of course. The evidence which exists strongly implies that there is no God. But that statement is on a par with saying "The evidence which exists strongly implies that massive objects are attracted to other massive objects." Would you call me agnostic on gravitation because I do not believe with certainty that this is the case?
Which is why I pulled out natural selection at the very begining.
Natural selection is not random, but mutations are. Evolution (and therefore us) would not exist without random mutations, hence our existance is through random chance. That doesn't mean that we popped magically in to existance, it just means that our entire existance is predicated on a series of randomly occuring instances (in addition to whatever else.) Again, without those random mutations, we would not exist, natural selection or no.
As for arguing that evolution has some kind of path, a trend is not the same thing as a path. The fact is, it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that evolution's path (in your eyes) could reverse, and organism could become less and less complex, if that was the direction that random mutations started occuring in. Look at seals and dolphins; they left the sea only to return back to it. Look at all of the single celled organisms that still thrive, even today. We like to view evolution as a process towards the complicated, culminating in us, because it makes us feel special, but ultimately, percieving ourselves as the one true ultimate end product of evolution is basically the same as believeing that we were created in the image of some supernatural higher power, only with a different coat of paint.
There is no special path of evolution. It simple works with what it has.
What's your point?
I tire of this semantic nonsense. You can't prove a universal negative, yadda yadda, whatever. Understand your opponent's position before spouting this crap.
Actually, there is no evidence that exists. That is kind of the point.
my point is about atheists who proselytize. If that is not you or anyone you know, then I'm not talking about any of you.
It's all a genetic fallacy, man.
Just because Judaism said one thing five thousand years ago doesn't mean that it can't say another thing now.
Just because you somehow feel that you were taken advantage of because you were circumsized at 8 days old doesn't mean that all other individuals of Jewish birth who don't believe in god also refuse to identify with their Jewish roots.
Judaism has developed and promoted a certain set of values over the last, say, 2000 years. One of the key ones is that it is okay to question authority when it is necessary to serve a greater purpose. You don't have to believe that Moses thought that way back when, but you can't deny that it is what Jews believe right now.
So, I guess that puts me in conflict with the "SCIEEENNNNCCCEEEEE!" crowd, screaming and pumping their fists and other manly things that are distinctly unscientific.
That being said, I'd agree that Science is absolutely crucial to humans, as a species. Until we reach the point where we are blowing up planets and generating complex life that can survive on the harshest of worlds from native elements, our science will likely remain absolutely insignificant in the cosmic scale, but it's still pretty damn important to us. After all, it allows us to communicate like we are now. Our religions are even less impressive, in my opinion--since I don't believe in miracles, I do not believe they can produce the same physical reaction as science can. I can't use religion to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, or combine them--something that happens throughout the universe, and we can do with chemistry. Religion can sway the minds of millions of people to commit great acts of benevolence or horrible atrocities, and that's pretty impressive, but so can any number of similar phenomena--politics, philosophy, entertainment, literature.
Plus, the fact that we can acknowledge our insignificance (and don't lie to yourself--right now, in the universe, we are) is pretty darn cool. It's a degree of self-reflection that we currently have nothing to compare to.
Similarly, chocolate is a Karma Sutra Ben and Jerry's ice cream. The ice cream's existence is not based on chocolate.
Semantics!
Which would be promptly selected against and would not survive. The path or trend or whatever you want to call it would continue.
Unless I and my descendants all moved to a cave. Even then, eyes are still useful (see pitch-black deep-sea creatures).
It was an open niche with the extinction of the icthyosaurs. Also, it's not the same niche as fish. And seals and cetaceans are much more skilled and intelligent than their evolutionary predecessors.
You have a point here. Judging purely by numbers, single-celled organisms are by far the most "successful" products of evolution. So in this sense, evolution's "direction," if we judge by popularity, is towards eubacteria.
However, I see no reason to make it a popularity contest. If you judge by complexity instead of population, then evolution does indeed seem to have a direction. It is a complexity-generator. It is also, amazingly, a consciousness-generator. Consciousness is the means by which matter becomes aware of itself.
There is no special path of evolution. It simple works with what it has.[/QUOTE]
The lack of any evidence for something which is supposed to be all-encompassing and all-powerful can be construed as evidence against it. I would say with equal certainty that the evidence suggests that gravity is not caused by gravity gnomes, despite having no evidence that it is not.
That aside, you're incorrect: The problem of evil is strong evidence against a classical Abrahamic God.
It is impossible for an atheist to proselytize. That would imply you are trying to convert them to some kind of atheist faith. The objective is to simply prove that their faith is based on falsehood/nonsense and that they would be well served to stop believing in it so they can go find something better to derive their morals and beliefs from.
Your Jewish roots have as much to do with you as a random German's "Aryan" roots. In that they are largely mythological and have nothing to do with t he culture you grew up in.
What Jews happen to believe right now is not a consequence of their religion. It's a consequence of being a relatively well-educated and secular subculture.
The real question here is: What exactly is the connection between a religion and its holy text?
You're gonna have a hard time convincing me of this one, as after a series of arguments I've almost come to the point of convincing my girlfriend that cutting off a piece of our (hypothetical) son's penis might not be a good idea just because it's what her parents would have done.
Come to think of it, that is exactly what I'm talking about. She isn't even religious, but she's still suffering from religious askepticism.
I was not saying that every single thing that lead to our exisence was a random factor (if that's what you took away, then I apologize for the miunderstanding)
I am saying that we COULD NOT exist without those random factors. They are necesary factors in our existance, and the fact that there are so many of them just illustrates all the more how improbable our existance is.
Similarly, if chocolate didn't exist, That flavor of Ben & Jerry's could not exist either. It's existence is predicated on the existence of chocolate, just as ours is predicated on countless random mutations (and the random chemical reaction that initially turned inorganic chemicals in to organic ones, not to mention the random factors that resulted in the creation of the earth, and of our solar system, and of our galaxy, etc.)
"Objectively"—in a purely physical sense, I do not actually touch things. No contact is made between the atoms in my hand and the atoms on my keyboard. There is empty space between an electromagnetic repulsion, and my brain hallucinates the sensation of touch as an evolutionary adaption.
But then, is it right to say the brain's sensation of touch is a "hallucination" or "illusion" that is subservient to "objective" reality? I don't think so at all. That's one of the turds that the Matrix left in our cultural philosophy—the idea that any simulation plays second fiddle to underlying physical reality. I take the opposite view—that simulations can be far more meaningful than their underlying physical reality.
It's interesting that you bring up gravity, because we actually don't know what causes gravity. We have a good understanding of how it works, and we definitely know its effects. We eve have a few theories behind it (some better than others) but ultimately, we simply do not have a full understanding of gravity yet.
If you want to talk about belief in whether or not some kind of high power exists beyond our universe, then the fact that we have no evidence isn't enough to disprove that possibility. It's enough to justify living your life qas though there is not, of course, but to make a declaration based on it is still a matter of taking a leap of faith that there is no evidence that exists that you've simply been unable to find thus far, or that it is impossible for a higher power to exist without evidence to begin with.
Again, Judaism IS NOT Christianity.
The God of Abraham (as oposed to the Christian god) is NOT a benevolent deity. The Jewish god is of a more neutral alignment, doing things that could be classified as both good and evil. The idea of God being the ultimate force of good and battling against evil is one that Christians took from elsewhere.
Almost the same thing I told my fiance.
That's how my fiance sold me on it. I told her she had to prove it had some kind of benefit before I would ever consider letting somebody bring a scalpel close to my hypothetical son's penis.
only because all the slow ones got picked off
What I'm basically trying to say is that we don't know if there was a before the big bang or not. There wasn't spacetime, but how do we know it's impossible for there to somehow be a pre-spacetime? Obviously we can't look for pre-big bang evidence, but that is no reason to simply say that it wasn't there.
Also, how is it knowable if there is or isn't an "outside" the universe? If this outside is independent of the universe than it too might exist, though we would never know it.
Though I can see how theories of "It could exist, but you can't prove it either way" can get annoying, because well... you can't prove it either way.
So, let me see if I've got my Big bang and beginning of the universe correct. There was matter and the big bang, in lamen terms, at the same time from the same spot which created an ever expanding universe. How do we know there was no before this point? Since there was known universe as it is there, there was no space time, but how is it known that there was no before in some sense or another?
Also, is it possible that the universe and all known existence is in a cycle of Big bang, expand, shrink, finite point, repeat? Though it doesn't explain how something can either always exist or come from nothing, it doesn't explain where our current everything comes from.
I am really having fun in this thread... except I really have no idea what it's about anymore.
I'm not circumsized for any religious reasons. I'm circumsized because my father did not want me to be changing with him at the pool, or something, one days, and ask why we weren't the same.
Plenty of kids are circumsized for purely secular reasons. It's ratehr common these days.
I'm not interested in arguing for or against circumsizion; that's its own seperate topic.
Again, exactly what I'm saying: It's not the religious teachings that are the problem, but the religious thinking.
Not unless you also believe that it is your role to talk other people out of their superstitions, in order to "save" them from being wrong.
Believing that some one is asuperstitious idiot for what they believe is fine. It when you declare that it is your place to make them "see the truth" that you become no better than the folks who go door to door trying to get you to accept Jesus.
Why?
Why should I have to throw it out? I think there's plenty of decent wisdom in there, between the batshit stuff.
Not all religions think alike.
yup
they're far from the majority of atheists, but there are enough of them that they can get pretty annoying.
Maybe I've been living in the wrong places, but I've never seen an atheist proselytize in person, or heard of one doing so outside of the internet (where everything possible happens at every moment).
When I was living in a countries full of fellow atheists, it just wasn't something we spoke about. We didn't have a sermon once a week where some middle-aged bald man or woman stood behind a pulpit and informed us of our duty to spread our gospel of cold, rational logic to the believers, less they....die believing in God and be horribly disappointed....I guess?
Then, I started living in a country where there were very few atheists, and we damn well kept that fact to ourselves. Young people are not tolerant of different beliefs. Adults a bit more so, but it's still not something you talk about. Then again, I'm sure that's not the same throughout America.
Your fiance is wrong, not that I want to change this into a circumcision thread. The only valid medical argument that is not completely statististically insignificant is that it reduces HIV transmission to men in a hetero situation or in a homosexual situation in the giving partners case. Thats still not a big effect, but it is certainly a viable tool in HIV ridden areas of the world (like say, south africa). The penile cancer stuff is just straight up wrong. And the phimosis , etc. conditions are all easily treatable by the individual through easy non-surgical means.
I want to punch Bill Maher in the face every time religion comes up.
I live in an area where you get a good mix of both.
What ends up happening is that the atheists in question are often emulating the religious proselytizers who drive them crazy (often their own parents/relatives) and really just being big old hypocrits about the whole thing.
To be fair, though, is it any better for some one to do it online? I'm not talking about deconstructing religion when the topic is relevent, but I've seen plenty of cases online of folks who seem to think it is their god0given purpose (pardon the pun) to disabuse others of their religious beliefs, as though they are some kind of righteous crusader. How is that any better than when a cristian does the same thing to atheists?
I am comfortable with making leaps of faith such as, "the sun will rise tomorrow", "a weight, when dropped, will fall down", or even something so tenuous as "the moon orbits the earth", each of which are incredibly more likely to be false than the non-existence of God. I make these declarations with the implicit understanding that I do not believe them unquestioningly, and if opposing evidence appears which approaches in magnitude the mass of evidence which supports them, I will reconsider them.
I'm still an atheist.
nope, from what I heard he focused on christianists though, so I dont really care to watch it. Plus you know, he's an insufferable cunt when he starts talking about religion.
Thank you. That is all that I'm saying.
Definitional. THe universe is defined as all of spacetime.
No. The Big Bang didn't "create" anything. Think of the universe like a movie. The first second of the movie doesn't "create" the rest of the movie.
There could be (multiverses or whatever), but that just pushes the question back.
That's one hypothesis, yes. We don't really know, and may never know.
It didn't "come from" anywhere. It's always existed.
As to the question "why does something exist, rather than nothing"—that's because nothing doesn't exist by definition.
I don't completely understand what you are getting at here. I don't really see how you can go about equating something like the way our minds interpret "touching" something to beliefs about meaning and purpose. To put things into the terms you are using, I would say that the underlying physical reality and the simulation are both meaningless as there is no greater purpose for them to serve. However, as individuals we give them a sort of false meaning because it makes life more enjoyable.