Why?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
(Attempting to answer this again).
For me, that is like drawing the Ace of Spades or the Queen of Hearts from a randomized (from your perspective) deck of cards and thinking that there must be a special significance to you having drawing that card.
The very nature of being one individual over another means you have a distinct consciousness.
Potential significance - not in the card my friend but rather in the drawing of it.
Giving the drawing of a card a special significance would it be to attribute it to something transcendent - which is not falsifiable.
The question "WHY?" is not fundamental to human existence. It is a "fallacy," to ask why. It is called "begging the question." The presumption is that there is a reason for existence. I exist because my mother and father had sex. (Do you need a picture?)
Why does the universe exist presupposes a reason for existence. Why does life exist presupposes a reason for life. THERE NEED NOT BE A REASON.
Better questions might be....
Did life have a beginning. (Currently we do not know.)
If life had a beginning, how did it begin. (Currently we do not know.)
If you want to ask a "Why" question, ask yourself why you are here. Only you can answer that question for yourself. You are what you do.
I exist here and now because a sperm swam up my mom's vagina, past her cervix, and into her uterus where it came in contact with one of her eggs that made the journey from her ovary, through the Fallopian tubes and into the uterus. There we clung to the wall or the uterus and grew for 9 months. I am here because I was born. What's your point?
You think your questions are mystical or magical or full of some deeper meaning, they aren't. You are only confused because you do not know how to ask a question without making some sort of assumption within its context.
The asking of WHY to myself, for myself has definite implications for you. That's only logical...yes?
Unless you've taken permanent residence in the aformentioned sand!
"The asking of WHY to myself, for myself has definite implications for you. That's only logical...yes?"
No, not at all, and this just confirms you haven't even a basic understanding of what is and is not rational. As Cog pointed out your question involves two fallacies in informal logic. Begging the question fallacy by presupposing there is a reason for the existence of life, and an attempt to reverse the burden of proof by using an argument from ignorance fallacy, since the lack of an explanation cannot rationally validate anything.
Again it's simply false to claim that having the intellectual integrity to admit there currently is no objective answer, does not in any way imply the question of the origins of life is being ignored.
Life's origins and whether there is some overarching purpose to those origins are two entirely separate fields of inquiry for a start. The first has occurred as an objective fact. No one can demonstrate any objective evidence that the second question has any validity.
The only poster with his head deliberately stuck anywhere is you. Though I'm not sure it's sand you've inserted that appendage into.
I'll just second what Sheldon said. "You haven't even a basic understanding of what is and is not rational." And quote myself once again, "You have no idea how to ask a question without making assumptions in its context."
Would that something similar to me asking, "Why did he ask Why?"
rmfr
How ever could you ever come to the conclusion that the question is not mystical or magical without - at the very least - empirically dismissing the "why".
Seems assumptions abound!
I'm cool with that, are you?
Attributing something to a transcendental origin is an assumption and also not falsifiable. It thus has no value, because it can never be shown to be true or false.
Must everything of value be veritable?
Not enough information to justify an answer. How are you defining value?
Ask Sapp. She broached the the subject.
If something has value, then it is veritable.
Oh FFFS
Not a bloody again.
The wishlist of woo.
FFS.
Well, echo chambers get boring don't they? Don't they?
(Perhaps SPAM chamber was more apropos.) :-)
@ Quip
"Don't they?"
Not as boring as unsubstantiated woo, masquerading as an original post.
I repeat. Oh for FFS.
At least when my kids were two years old and went through the "why" phase they were learning and wanting answers. Not parading their "cleverness".
I reiterate, Oh FFFS. This is not a woo appreciation society for under 14's.
Ahhh. The wonderminds of the young! It's too bad us adults get so smart and reduce ourselves to the banal and inured.
@ Quip
You are an adult? Really?
For the ultimate answer to everything: 42.
rmfr
Meh. Just one of many.....
What's germane exist not in a definitive answer but rather within the inquiry itself.
You a fan of zen?
42
rmfr
Is zen a fan of me?
Exactly!
You're beginning to grow on me....but I won't tell!
@ quip
You a fan of zen?
What is zen?
rmfr
Everything...which includes absolutely nothing!
Instead of asking completely useless "why" questions, you need to do as I have done my entire life.
"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not seeking learning and knowledge in the first place."
That is something I have practiced all my life. Either by attending universities, or seeking the knowledge on university web sites and journal article/paper sites. Try it. You might like it.
rmfr
My mom fucked my dad. One sperm made it in. Hence me! Any more birds and bees questions?
Seems you got it covered. Good job!
That's a how rather than why. Though of course we could easily defer to our parents desires for children as an answer to the latter.
It's the same old specious nonsense offered as if common logical fallacies represent profound inquiry.
We don't fight ignorance by refusing to admit we are ignorant. This admission is the very basis of scientific enquiry. We admit to ignorance of something, and endeavour to change that. We don't start making lazy assumptions based on archaic superstitions no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for, whilst pretending they are stating something profound and have access to some esoteric truth which has foiled empirical enquiry.
In short, same old same old.
Pages