Truth about the Golden Compass movie

[PL456]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

PL456, most Christians do not have to state they want others views stamped out, it is implied when Christians want to use government force to enforce their beliefs that are based on the "revelation" of their god. They want to prevent "homosexuals" from having the same rights under the law as "heterosexuals". They want to protect the "rights" of a fetus while undermining the rights of a woman. They want to promote their religion with government schools. And lastly, at the core of the Christian doctrine is the belief that God/Jesus/HolySpirit will stamp out non-conformists for eternity.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, klash, you are now a Christian mind reader, too? Atheists, humanists claim to base much on logic and rationality, as well as evolutionary theories. Well, how logical and evolutionarily beneficial is it to have homosexuality promoted (no reproductive benefit, unnatural act); how logical or evolutionarily beneficial is it to kill your offspring (does not promote propogation of the species)??? Your own naturalistic arguments work against you in these cases. Whats wrong with Christians voting (a right) to place officials in office that have the same views as we do? And finally, you are correct that God will judge hardened souls in the end. What is wrong with God judging souls after death if you do not believe this? Why do you fear this "coercion" theory you have when obviously you are impervious to this as you stated earlier that you fear no god and have absolutely no concern for your eternity? Are you fearful of others that may be "infected" by moral platitudes such as "love your neighbor as yourself"??

I see a lot of fear here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why Christians can be accurately called enemies of free will, they make the phrase "free will" synonymous with term coercion. You believe your idea of god offers free will. When I say your idea of god is coercive. Threats do not constitute free choice and Hell is about as big a threat as someone can conceive. IMO, this flawed thought process is what makes Christians unaware of how much they support coercion on other members of society to conform to their moral code. Christians belief in their God coerces believers to be behave how their god desires them to; Christians attempt to coerce non-believers in the same manner.

I do not support government legislation to silence Christians or any religion, I just look forward to the day when religion is given as much credibility and dread as most people give a cult.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated. I must be doing something correctly. People spew venom such as this when a subject causes fear and doubt within someone. When a subject is feared, it must be put aside, or attacked viciously (see previous posts attacking Jesus). You and your rhetoric only confirm my statement that the world has not changed since the times of Jesus. The same venom was spewed at Jesus and His message and it continues today. This is an honor for me. You are strengthening me as apparently I am stating a point of view that opposes the atheistic, "enlightened" worldview.

You guys wish to silence Christians and marginalize us. Well, Ill tell you, atheism is in the slim minority. A majority believe there is a God and a Heaven and hell, as well as a devil. Good and evil are reality, friends.

You claim that you have no God. Let me tell you, you do have a god. It may be money, your own self-desires, lust, your job, whatever. You get to choose in this life who you serve. You dont get out of life without serving something, period. The world wants you to serve it as a god. Go buy your new i-phone, chase money to get that new car, bigger house, go chase that good looking chick while you leave your wife at home, work like a dog for the boss to chase that promotion. This is worldly, material worship, and the world is evil and befallen by sin and human desire--it looks to drive you away from God. Atheists and humanists fall victim, unfortunately, to this trap every time.

Christians choose to go above this world. We choose to worship the one true God. In the end, it wont matter how intellectual you are (Jesus hung out with the lower classes, not the upper classes); how rich you are (the meek shall inherit the earth); or how right you think you are (Jesus schooled the high priests of His day). Sooner or later, every knee shall bow.

[Phreak]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated. I must be doing something correctly. People spew venom such as this when a subject causes fear and doubt within someone. When a subject is feared, it must be put aside, or attacked viciously (see previous posts attacking Jesus). You and your rhetoric only confirm my statement that the world has not changed since the times of Jesus. The same venom was spewed at Jesus and His message and it continues today. This is an honor for me. You are strengthening me as apparently I am stating a point of view that opposes the atheistic, "enlightened" worldview.

no, no.

the venom and hatred has nothing to do with you causing any kind of fear or doubt-i think the people who have responded here are quite secure in their beliefs. YOU just don't think that can't be possible because they don't believe in the same doctrine as you.

the venom and hatred has to do with the fact that so many of your "organization" cannot shut their mouths about it. they want everyone to conform to their standards. look at the political wing of the religious right and what they have tried to do in this country- they have taken things that should be non-issues and have managed to make them national priorities. instead of challenging the corporate leadership that has led to the huge amount of problems this country faces, we are obsessed with two women getting married in washington state. they have attempted to influence the laws WE ALL must live under, despite the personal beliefs of those they laws will affect.

You guys wish to silence Christians and marginalize us. Well, Ill tell you, atheism is in the slim minority. A majority believe there is a God and a Heaven and hell, as well as a devil. Good and evil are reality, friends.

and as far as marginilization is concerned, thankfully the leaders of the evangelical right have taken care of that for us. thank you ted haggard and co for showing us all what true evil is by putting your personal inability to be who you truly for us all to see, and then attempting to suppress others who are just like you. thank you for demonstrating to the world what true evil is by exposing your personal demons and how they have affected those around you.

you are right pl456, good and evil are quite real.

You claim that you have no God. Let me tell you, you do have a god. It may be money, your own self-desires, lust, your job, whatever. You get to choose in this life who you serve. You dont get out of life without serving something, period. The world wants you to serve it as a god. Go buy your new i-phone, chase money to get that new car, bigger house, go chase that good looking chick while you leave your wife at home, work like a dog for the boss to chase that promotion. This is worldly, material worship, and the world is evil and befallen by sin and human desire--it looks to drive you away from God. Atheists and humanists fall victim, unfortunately, to this trap every time.

Christians choose to go above this world. We choose to worship the one true God. In the end, it wont matter how intellectual you are (Jesus hung out with the lower classes, not the upper classes); how rich you are (the meek shall inherit the earth); or how right you think you are (Jesus schooled the high priests of His day). Sooner or later, every knee shall bow.

you are right about earthly desires and how they can cloud your judgement- however, the ultimate conclusion they divert us from does not necessarily have to be your christian god. if it is for you, then great- i fully support your ability to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't involve harm to others. if your life is better because of JC then i'm all for it. many studies have demonstrated that strong religious beliefs can lead to positive mental health, this is a good thing.

BUT-spirituality/religion/existentialism is a very personal and private thing, and everyone should be entitled to live their lives as the personal doctrine dictates, again so long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

some people think it's weird to worship a god. so what?

in my eyes, your organization seeks to infringe upon this crucial right via it's political wing, and that is what pisses alot of people off.

btw, i don't think you should be stamped out. just kicked out of government policy.

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

So, klash, you are now a Christian mind reader, too? Atheists, humanists claim to base much on logic and rationality, as well as evolutionary theories. Well, how logical and evolutionarily beneficial is it to have homosexuality promoted (no reproductive benefit, unnatural act); how logical or evolutionarily beneficial is it to kill your offspring (does not promote propogation of the species)??? Your own naturalistic arguments work against you in these cases. Whats wrong with Christians voting (a right) to place officials in office that have the same views as we do? And finally, you are correct that God will judge hardened souls in the end. What is wrong with God judging souls after death if you do not believe this? Why do you fear this "coercion" theory you have when obviously you are impervious to this as you stated earlier that you fear no god and have absolutely no concern for your eternity? Are you fearful of others that may be "infected" by moral platitudes such as "love your neighbor as yourself"??

I see a lot of fear here.

If you can ever be specific about how my arguments contradict each other - you'll persuade me. Unlike the theist, that is definitely enough for me to reconsider my position.
I never stated I thought homosexuality was logical or evolutionarily beneficial; I believe just the opposite actually. IMO, it is irrational to define and label yourself by what kind of sex you desire and with whom you desire it. And I actually think it is ridiculous for homosexuals to want to get married but they should have the freedom to do so. I can differentiate between what I believe is rational and irrational, what is moral and immoral and what should be legal and illegal based on the ideal of freedom. They are not all synonymous to each other.

As far as Christians voting for those who have the same views, I agree they should have that right but I have the right to articulate how dangerous those views ultimately are, even for those who think they support them.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is only moral if your neighbor is. I do not fear eternity. I fear those that fear eternity because of a doctrine based on faith (irrationality). As I pointed out earlier they don't seem to be able to differentiate between free will and coercion - so they do not mind coercing others as their god does to them.

As I stated. I must be doing something correctly. People spew venom such as this when a subject causes fear and doubt within someone. When a subject is feared, it must be put aside, or attacked viciously (see previous posts attacking Jesus). You and your rhetoric only confirm my statement that the world has not changed since the times of Jesus. The same venom was spewed at Jesus and His message and it continues today. This is an honor for me. You are strengthening me as apparently I am stating a point of view that opposes the atheistic, "enlightened" worldview.

I will totally agree. I fear the faithful. When someone bases their view of reality on faith, you cannot know on what irrational whim they will justify with faith and you cannot persuade them if they are dedicated to their faith. You cannot persuade those who deny logic. What I find is interesting is you describing my statements as venom, while drastically opposed to your views they are not insulting or malicious but a simple, respectful, precise articulation of an opposing view.

I see your statements as irrational and dogmatic revolving around your fundamentally opposing philosophical belief. Your belief in a supernatural reality is what has lead you to not only view my arguements as wrong but poisonous to ones soul - no matter how much sense they make.

You guys wish to silence Christians and marginalize us. Well, Ill tell you, atheism is in the slim minority. A majority believe there is a God and a Heaven and hell, as well as a devil. Good and evil are reality, friends.

I believe this is a side effect of a rational animal. We can reason that we will die but that contradicts our desire to survive - thus most of us make believe that we don't die.

You claim that you have no God. Let me tell you, you do have a god. It may be money, your own self-desires, lust, your job, whatever. You get to choose in this life who you serve. You dont get out of life without serving something, period. The world wants you to serve it as a god. Go buy your new i-phone, chase money to get that new car, bigger house, go chase that good looking chick while you leave your wife at home, work like a dog for the boss to chase that promotion. This is worldly, material worship, and the world is evil and befallen by sin and human desire--it looks to drive you away from God. Atheists and humanists fall victim, unfortunately, to this trap every time.

No, I do not have a god. I serve something bigger than myself but it is not a god, some who don't want to be called atheists call it pantheism but it is an independent reality separate from man's wishes and desires.

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

After reading Phreaks post, I realized I forgot to respond to this:

Good and evil are reality, friends.

Atheists can believe in good and evil. I know some that don't but their wrong. Good and evil do exist but the standard is man's life, not religious dogma. Anything that takes away man's life or the productivity of a man's life is evil. The initiation of Force (also threat of force) and Slavery at any degree against another man is evil. Thus, why your god is evil and why I am such an advocate for freedom - it is the expression of good.

[CNIZZ]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

I agree with Klash here but I also strongly believe that good and evil are completely subjective depending on social norms. There is a specific primitive society that I remember studying that values unloyalty, betrayal, lying, and murder the way our society values truthfulness, loyalty, and preservation. The highest level of acheivement for a member of this tribe is to befriend a member from another tribe under false pretenses, invite them over for a feast, murder them, and consume their flesh. This is evil by our standards, but in this particular society it is considered good and promoted. I believe the terms "right and wrong" are easier to apply, because those are values that can more easily be compared to a social norm than "good and evil," which seem to imply a universal understanding by all cultures.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

May I make a case for God? My basic line of reasoning is this: we humans are personal beings. This means, I believe, that we are constituted by a mind which is self-aware and is rational, a heart which is free and can love and which is, therefore, morally responsible, and a soul (or call it what you will) which longs for meaning and significance. Consciousness, rationality, love, morality, and meaning: these, I maintain, constitute the essence of what it is to be a person in the full sense of the term.

Now the dilemma we face is this: either we exist in an environment which is compatible with these attributes, or we do not. Either our environment is congruous with these attributes-it renders them intelligible and answers them-or it does not. To illustrate, we hunger, and behold there is food. We thirst, and there is water, we have sex drives and sure enough there is sex. Our environment, then, is congruous with our natural hunger, thirst and sex drives. And given the kind of world we live in, we can understand why we hunger, thirst and have sex drives. Our cosmic environment “answers” our natural drives and thereby makes sense of them.

Well, the question is, does our cosmic environment answer to the basic features of our personhood outlined above? My contention is that unless our environment is ultimately itself personal, unless the ultimate context in which we live is self-aware, rational, loving, moral, and purposeful, then our cosmic environment does not at all answer to our personhood. In other words, unless there is a personal God who is the ultimate reality within which we exist, then we humans can only be viewed as absurd, tortured, freaks of nature; for everything that is essential to us is out of place in the universe. This, on the one hand, renders human nature completely unexplainable. How can brute nature itself evolve something so completely out of sync with itself? And, on the other hand, it means that human existence, if we face up to our real situation, is extremely painful, we are the product of a cruel, sick cosmic joke.

So, for example, we humans instinctively assume that reality should be rational, and that reasoning, gets us closer to truth (science even says this assumption is valid) but in the end nature is irrational. There is no overarching mind to it.

We humans instinctively assume that love is a reality, this it is the only ideal worth living and dying for. But nature seems to be an indifferent, loveless, brute process of colliding chemicals-and so our ideals ore reduced to reacting hormones.

We humans instinctively assume that our moral convictions are true to reality, do we not? There are, of course, some people who say that moral convictions are “just a matter of taste” but cut them off at an intersection and their convictions change. You did a gross injustice!

And we humans instinctively hunger for meaning and purpose. You can see it all around in the way people behave. We strive to infuse our lives with some sort of significance, some sort of meaning. But if our cosmos is ultimately indifferent and purposeless, all we are, all we do, all we believe in, all we strive for is “dust in the wind”. After we exist, it matters not whether anyone has ever, or ever will again, exist. Everything is ultimately meaningless.

So, if the ultimate source of all existence is at least as personal as we are, my contention is that who we are is both unexplainable and extremely hard to swallow.

This is just something to think about. Sorry it's so long but its a complicated but viable arguement. And I haven't even gotten into Cause and Result but that will be next time.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

So, if the ultimate source of all existence is at least as personal as we are, my contention is that who we are is both unexplainable and extremely hard to swallow.

That should have read: So, unless the ultimate source of all existence is at least as personal as we are, my contention is that who we are is both unexplainable and extremely hard to swallow.

I got a little ahead of myself.

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

I agree with Klash here but I also strongly believe that good and evil are completely subjective depending on social norms. There is a specific primitive society that I remember studying that values unloyalty, betrayal, lying, and murder the way our society values truthfulness, loyalty, and preservation. The highest level of acheivement for a member of this tribe is to befriend a member from another tribe under false pretenses, invite them over for a feast, murder them, and consume their flesh. This is evil by our standards, but in this particular society it is considered good and promoted. I believe the terms "right and wrong" are easier to apply, because those are values that can more easily be compared to a social norm than "good and evil," which seem to imply a universal understanding by all cultures.

So because there is not a universal code of morality, there is no morality? Because moral relativists are implying morality essentially doesn't exist except to those who claim it does but sense there is no objective standard - how can it. If someone believes god tells them to kill and it is moral because it is in his name; are they moral for going through with it? This belief requires the premise that all cultures are morally equal, even if one culture is more irrational than another.

If you believe a culture that is based on logic has a superior morality code, then you believe morality can be based on reason and when it is, it is superior to a morality that is based on faith, pragmatism, mysticism, etc. If you believe morality based on reason is superior then you also believe that there are moral absolutes, even if we are unaware of them.

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Nice to see this discussion still going. Well now morality.....very hard to define as it is a individual idea. We are not born with morals, these are acquired through social interaction, and it can be argued that morals, like all culture, are evolutionary necessity that allow groups of animals, complex ones at that, to exist among eachother. Laws are simply extensions of these morals. Now there is no universal morals, we all know that, each culture has developed its own set of standards, but overall there are common ones shared throughout many cultures, ie. murder. This is logical as any society that embraces such practices would eventually cease to exist, as many societies have done so over the course of history.

Compare if you will grains of sand falling to the earth and wind pushing them into seeminly distinctive patterns, there is no over reaching conciousness doing this, just natural physics, this holds true of the human condition as well. We have advanced feelings, emotions etc, yet the universe that we inhabit is cold and devoid of such occurances, if anything the study of the universe illistrates that there is no omnibenevolent God, so the fact that humans have developed something that is unique does not insinuate that there is a god, just that we are distinct compared to other creatures (all this I would argue is due to a highly developed brain). We know that feelings of love, hate, etc are all manifestations of the mind and we have even seen people with electrical stimulai on certain parts of the brains having feelings of love etc. It is not all that mysterious.


Scalleywag your arguement can be summed up in, if there is no god then human existence has no meaning. Why should our existence be defined by an idea of a supernatural being? Why does the fact that we exist not give us meaning in and of itself? When the meaning of your life is centered on "life after death" then you have failed at living this life to its fullest, and thus short changed yourself in this life.

PL456 it is awesome that you think of yourself as a modern day christ, all us evil athiests are persecuting you and making a martyr of you......I beleive the term is delusions of grandeur! I have yet to see one athiest start a thread saying, there is no god etc, instead we are responding to your threads which challenge us (athiests can't be thankful, any book written by an athiest is evil....), and so we respond, and you take this as us going after you? don't ask a question if you really don't want an answer.

[CNIZZ]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

So because there is not a universal code of morality, there is no morality? Because moral relativists are implying morality essentially doesn't exist except to those who claim it does but sense there is no objective standard - how can it. If someone believes god tells them to kill and it is moral because it is in his name; are they moral for going through with it? This belief requires the premise that all cultures are morally equal, even if one culture is more irrational than another.

If you believe a culture that is based on logic has a superior morality code, then you believe morality can be based on reason and when it is, it is superior to a morality that is based on faith, pragmatism, mysticism, etc. If you believe morality based on reason is superior then you also believe that there are moral absolutes, even if we are unaware of them.

I'll have to stress the 'If' in that argument, I do not believe that cultures with advanced knowledge and logic are superior. Damn I had to read this at the end of the day, have so much left to contribute but Im out of the office in two minutes.. I am going to think this through so I can try to bring a cohesive argument back next week, I promise!!

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Scalleywag your arguement can be summed up in, if there is no god then human existence has no meaning. Why should our existence be defined by an idea of a supernatural being? Why does the fact that we exist not give us meaning in and of itself? When the meaning of your life is centered on "life after death" then you have failed at living this life to its fullest, and thus short changed yourself in this life.

My argument is that since we have these innate needs and our environment caters to these needs instead of opposing them there has to be something behind it, a “force” if you will. Since our environment is nourishing and caring then the cause (God) must be at least as great as the effect (reality).

Cosmologists now agree that the universe and time itself came into existence at some point in the finite past. The logic is inexorable: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore the universe has a cause. It makes sense that this cause must be immaterial, timeless, powerful and intelligent. This is what most cosmologists conclude.

Physicists have discovered over the last 50 years that many of the laws and constants of the universe-such as the force of gravity and the cosmological constant- are finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision in order for life to exist. This exactitude is so incredible that it defies the explanation of mere chance. This, coming from physicists.

The existence of biological information in DNA also points toward a Creator. Each of our cells contains the precise assembly instructions for every protein out of which our bodies are made, all spelled out in a four-letter chemical alphabet. Nature can produce patterns, but whenever we see information-whether in a book or a computer program- we know there’s intelligence behind it. Furthermore, scientists are finding complex biological machines on the cellular level that defy a Darwinian explanation and instead are better explained as the work of an Intelligent Designer.

I would like to elaborate on this last part pertaining to mathematical formulas but that will have to be the next installment. Its bed time for me. I’m not asking anyone to conform to a belief, I am simple asking you guys to think about this.

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

My argument is that since we have these innate needs and our environment caters to these needs instead of opposing them there has to be something behind it, a “force” if you will. Since our environment is nourishing and caring then the cause (God) must be at least as great as the effect (reality).

Do all the barren worlds that are inhospitable for the most basic of life, suggest that no god exists. We can observe and question our existence because the prerequisites for our existence have already been met. We can't debate with intelligent life that has not met the prerequisites, because they do not exist. Life conforms to its environment - not the other way around. Life as we know it is dependent on the laws of the universe. We exist because the parameters for life were met here in our solar system, on this planet. They have not been met on many other planets around many other solar systems. So yeah, it takes precise parameters to create intelligent life but our reality is so big those parameters are met at times.

Cosmologists now agree that the universe and time itself came into existence at some point in the finite past. The logic is inexorable: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore the universe has a cause. It makes sense that this cause must be immaterial, timeless, powerful and intelligent. This is what most cosmologists conclude.

Yeah, our universe and time came into existence in the finite past but it is not known whether we are the only universe. I particularly find the multiverse theory interesting. There are different theories on the existence of multiverses but there is a theory that the energy absorbed by black holes would be a point of singularity for another universe. Energy's got to go somewhere right?

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Good points scalleywag, and thanks for making this a reasonable discussion.

As already mentioned by clash, the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable and without life so if one is to infer anything from the state of the universe it would be that life, especially intelligent life, is an abnormallity but due to the enormous number of galaxies/planets etc the chances of life existing elsewhere is plausible although not common. The universe does not nurture our needs, we and all other life adapts to the environment or we perish.

It is a leap of faith to go from physical existence to meta-physical creation, the need for a creator is absent as if we use the first tenent of physics we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed so perhaps everything has always been (in one form or another), it matters little anyways as these are precepts we have trouble understanding due to our finate nature. What we do know is that we do exist (I think therefore I am) now that fact that we are complex creatures does not mean we must have a creator, that is using our limited human knowledge to assume that anything that is complicated must be designed (intelligent design is a long standing creationist arguement that has never held water). We could not be here if we did not adapt and become complex.

Now through the study of nature we learn the old expression red in tooth and claw (darwin of course) meaning that nature in itself is not very nice or caring. One must kill and consume in order to exist, how is that a nice situation? If we have to infer that there is a creator behind nature then we must assume it is a harsh being to creat such a situation. Nature proves that there is no "nice" god making things, it shows that the strongest survive, period!


The wonderful thing about science is that it is always adapting, that is what makes it so important. A scientist can always gain new knowledge which will lead to new conclusions, they should never assume anything is static, and therein lies the advantage of the scientific method over any other method of aquiring knowledge. Something that is a mystery today is understood tomorrow and although somethings may seem beyond our understanding, they are slowly getting solved. To say that a god is behind it because we don't understand it, is just as valid as saying superman did it or santa claus. To me it is a cope out, and that line of thinking leads to stagnation of thought. We would be no where as a species if all difficult aspects of life were still explained as supernatural. When one beleives in a creator where does one draw the line of discovery? Once we encounter a currently misunderstood discovery we assume it is the work of God ad look no further, whereas an person that has shed this idea continues to look for the answer, and I might add eventually finds it.

[Phreak]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

May I make a case for God? My basic line of reasoning is this: we humans are personal beings. This means, I believe, that we are constituted by a mind which is self-aware and is rational, a heart which is free and can love and which is, therefore, morally responsible, and a soul (or call it what you will) which longs for meaning and significance. Consciousness, rationality, love, morality, and meaning: these, I maintain, constitute the essence of what it is to be a person in the full sense of the term.

Now the dilemma we face is this: either we exist in an environment which is compatible with these attributes, or we do not. Either our environment is congruous with these attributes-it renders them intelligible and answers them-or it does not. To illustrate, we hunger, and behold there is food. We thirst, and there is water, we have sex drives and sure enough there is sex. Our environment, then, is congruous with our natural hunger, thirst and sex drives. And given the kind of world we live in, we can understand why we hunger, thirst and have sex drives. Our cosmic environment “answers” our natural drives and thereby makes sense of them.

Well, the question is, does our cosmic environment answer to the basic features of our personhood outlined above? My contention is that unless our environment is ultimately itself personal, unless the ultimate context in which we live is self-aware, rational, loving, moral, and purposeful, then our cosmic environment does not at all answer to our personhood. In other words, unless there is a personal God who is the ultimate reality within which we exist, then we humans can only be viewed as absurd, tortured, freaks of nature; for everything that is essential to us is out of place in the universe. This, on the one hand, renders human nature completely unexplainable. How can brute nature itself evolve something so completely out of sync with itself? And, on the other hand, it means that human existence, if we face up to our real situation, is extremely painful, we are the product of a cruel, sick cosmic joke.

So, for example, we humans instinctively assume that reality should be rational, and that reasoning, gets us closer to truth (science even says this assumption is valid) but in the end nature is irrational. There is no overarching mind to it.

We humans instinctively assume that love is a reality, this it is the only ideal worth living and dying for. But nature seems to be an indifferent, loveless, brute process of colliding chemicals-and so our ideals ore reduced to reacting hormones.

We humans instinctively assume that our moral convictions are true to reality, do we not? There are, of course, some people who say that moral convictions are “just a matter of taste” but cut them off at an intersection and their convictions change. You did a gross injustice!

And we humans instinctively hunger for meaning and purpose. You can see it all around in the way people behave. We strive to infuse our lives with some sort of significance, some sort of meaning. But if our cosmos is ultimately indifferent and purposeless, all we are, all we do, all we believe in, all we strive for is “dust in the wind”. After we exist, it matters not whether anyone has ever, or ever will again, exist. Everything is ultimately meaningless.

So, if the ultimate source of all existence is at least as personal as we are, my contention is that who we are is both unexplainable and extremely hard to swallow.

This is just something to think about. Sorry it's so long but its a complicated but viable arguement. And I haven't even gotten into Cause and Result but that will be next time.

i absolutely see where you are coming from. life being utterly meaningless and insignificant is a bleak thought. i think it's very human to not only search for meaning, but long for it as well. this is what leads to spirituality, and when someone puts it like you have it makes me realize that life actually does have meaning (if that makes sense). and you do it without hitting me with the "btw you need to believe this or you are going to hell" business. i also don't feel like you are coming at me from a moral high ground either

i think you make a great case. i may not come to the same ultimate conclusion as you, but the way you put it is really impressive IMO.

must be the orange drank

[Phreak]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

there are some really great posts here. klash, mandarb11, cnizz, and scalleywag in particular thanks for your insightful posts.

i also want to re-state that i don't feel anyone or any group should be stamped out; if i did then i would be exhibiting the same characteristics as the group i feel so diametrically opposed to.