well...I'm stunned..I never saw that coming, Perilous and CJ :)

No specific intention to insult but I have to agree.. from your mindset.. to say such things would seem "insulting".... Of course in your self understanding you would feel you have meaning, but honesty would require you to admit that in the big scheme of things... a blob of protoplasm which spontaneously 'occured' over a long period of evolution... does not have 'purpose'...it just has 'existence'.

The only 'meaning' such a life has, is the immediate goals ones self consciousness sets for oneself. But the life "itself"...... has no purpose..it just 'is'....which is a horrifying thought when we consider such things as 'morality'.

BUDDHISM.. just a point (to keep Pericles here for a while)

I was listening to a talk on Zen.. and Buddhisms various incarnations.. and one aspect which came out was the idea to escape the 'rational'..... to achieve enlightenment.

I don't know if anyone sees it...but if you escape the 'rational'..how in the world would you know if you have been 'enlightened' ?

If anyone has a thought feel free to offer it.

I'm amazed no one picked me up on the SPELLING of Frankl's name.."Viktor".

CJ..ur slipping mate.

Perhaps this is an encouraging sign ? Critics are maybe looking at the essense of an argument rather than the crosses on 't's and the dots on 'i's ?

OK, we can be philosophical if you really want to, Boaz.

>>in the big scheme of things... a blob of protoplasm which spontaneously 'occured' over a long period of evolution... does not have 'purpose'...it just has 'existence'. The only 'meaning' such a life has, is the immediate goals ones self consciousness sets for oneself. But the life "itself"...... has no purpose..it just 'is'....which is a horrifying thought when we consider such things as 'morality'.<<

Well, quite.

But many of us are perfectly at ease with the fact that it is not necessary to invent a purpose in order to lead "happy fulfilled meaningful lives".

The problem with your position is that for it to be at all tenable, you have to first accept the premise that God exists, and secondly that he has divined some sort of purpose for us.

In contrast, the most useful aspect of my position is that it only requires the precondition that we exist, in order for our lives to have meaning and purpose. It is simply that these meanings and purposes are intrinsic, rather than extrinsic - people who think the way I do don't need the external stimulus of an imagined "God".

Contrary to the way you think, this does not mean that I am automatically a paedophile, that I condone paedophilia or even that I can imagine situations where paedophilia is OK. I, and many like me, have a strong personal moral code that simply does not need reference to an external entity.

In a sense, I would suggest, my approach requires greater strength and determination than that of someone who believes in a spiritual mentor who lays down the law. That's not a boast, just an observation. It also seems to hold that having such a spiritual mentor doesn't significantly alter human behaviour - there are just as many transgressors in the religious camps, to be sure.

As I have said before, I have absolutely no problem with you relying upon religion to sustain you. In return, you could try adopting the same position with other religions.

I've been both christian and agnostic. Frankly for me life is much better without the christain god. A freedom to live by worthwhile values without the horrid contortions required to try and fit the twisted decrees of the christain god and later additions and interpretations of various churches.

Whilst many non believers probably do live fairly meaningless lives so to do many believers, that is a reflection of what they value and rather than an intrinsic meaning to their belief system.

Someone who craves absolutes and detests uncertainty may well find their life has more meaning following a religious belief, that does not mean the experience is the same for all. Religion has been a common and sometimes useful tool throughout human history to provide a framework for people to have a sense of meaning in their lives, a replacement for those animal instincts refered to in the original post on this tread.

A tool that may have outlived it's usefullness and become the cause of more harm than help. Probably fairly harmless and maybe helpful in the majority of adherants but dangerous in the hands of those with a bent for extremism.

Many experience a much more meaningful life when freed from the belief in a god and the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives.

R0bert

Hi Rob..and Pericles.

P... if you are at peace with your situation.. then that is your own self assesment..and who am I to do anything other than 'my bit' here.. to offer alternative views.
At least.. you don't have to slam a door in my face after I drop by uninvited and with glazed eyes offer you 'the truth'.

I think that your position is rather perilous though, because you don't seem willing to admit that it is irrational. Indeed you 'select' values and morals which feed your sense of identity, and this is fine.. and might even attract the praise of Thucydides :)...but...as you realize.. any other person, may choose contrary values with equal validity, though not equal fairness.

The way you rip into me when I criticize dehumanizing practices in a particular religion.. makes me wonder why you have not ripped into Robert when he has repeatedly attacked me on Christianity ? (not in this thread, but others)
Not that I hope you would.. I don't mind Robs critique, but it seems inconsistent on your part.

ROB.. I understand your position.. and cannot do other than point to Christ.

RECOMMENDED LISTENING.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Let_My_People_Think/archives.asp?bcd=8/26/2007

Some excellent material here.. easy to listen to, interesting speaker.

-Christs answers for mans questions.
-The Search for absolutes in a pluralistic society.
-The uniqueness of Christ among world religions.
-Convictions which conquered the world.

and much much more.

You have a very strange interpretation of "rational and "irrational", Boaz, if you brand my position as being the latter.

>>I think that your position is rather perilous though, because you don't seem willing to admit that it is irrational.<<

You proceed to illustrate this by pointing out - quite rightly, of course - that:

>>as you realize.. any other person, may choose contrary values with equal validity, though not equal fairness.<<

Yes, I do. What is irrational about that?

What you fail to point out is any connection between what someone else considers "fair" - be they christian, buddhist or atheist - and my own morality.

I am happy to be judged by my fellow-man on my morals and ethics, which sets me way apart from those who - when they are caught, mark you - excuse themselves by saying that "God will judge them". The subtext being, of course, that their fellow-travellers on earth should automatically forgive them, because God would be giving them a good whacking on Judgement Day.

Here's Marion Jones, who has finally admitted that she is both a drug cheat and an embezzler:

"I have asked Almighty God for my forgiveness."

So, how would you feel about that, if you had been cheated out of a medal, seven years ago? Wouldn't you feel even more enraged, that she couldn't even take responsibility for her own contrition, but happily passes it off on "Almighty God".

Whom, she presumably believes, will forgive her, being altogether merciful and all that.

By their deeds shall ye know them, Boaz.

Where's the "existential vacuum" in doing the right thing?

It cynically crosses my mind that having this emotional prop called religion actually encourages people to cheat on their fellow-man, safe in the knowledge that "God will forgive them".

That's called being contemptuous.

And it is contemptible.