Has anybody come across any "good" religious reason for our existence?
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.
Completely and utterly wrong.
In the case of the opening post, the word 'good' is quite clearly a shorthand for 'establishing the requisite assertions in a rigorous manner'. That you did not understand this, speaks volumes.
I and numerous other persons here, understood clearly that this is what the OP was referring to, namely, a reason emanating from religion, that provides an explanation for our existence that is conceptually robust, and consonant with observational reality.
It seems you have much to learn about the nature of proper discourse.
@Everyone on the site: Get a gander at who is asserting something is subjective.
Wow! That comment was as hypocritical as the Pope's.
It was recently reported by CNN that more than 300 hundred predator priests had been credibly accused of sexually abusing over a 1000 children in Pennsylvania. “Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For decades. Monsignors, auxiliary bishops, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have mostly been protected; many, including some named in this report, have been promoted.”
The Pope began blaming journalists for “promoting an atmosphere of guilt” according to The Atlantic.
The form catholicray in this form is subjective. It defeats the purpose of a debate forum as its answers are inane, unproductive, ambiguous, and puerile.
To be fair when you're holding an empty bag as catholicray is, you have no choice but to try and cheat if you wish to indulge in the pretence of debate, but yes your assessment is wholly accurate.
Try asking him if as a catholic he believes that transubstantiation is real? That's always fun, a lot more fun than a tasteless wafer and a sip of communion wine at around 4%.
One explanation I got was that god did not create us, we occurred naturally. When our brains developed the ability to imagine god, he appealed to this 'spiritual' component in an attempt to rescue us from our inevitable demise (created us spiritually). The bible and other texts are a written collection of our failed attempts to respond to this appeal; playing out in us twisting this spirit to fit our carnal needs by for example naming this spirit (burning bush incident), attributing characteristics to it and making it what we needed...a tool. (God of war, love etc.)
Every now and then came along some individuals in societies with diverse faiths and worldviews who responded to the truth of the spirit and its contrast and isolation from this reality. They tried to relay the truth but were rejected by our carnal nature that seeks to define and measure; going so far as to reject and kill some of them.
It just gets more and more abstract and 'spiritual' from there. Whatever that means.
Oh Oh Oh!!!! I got it! The best reason for..... aw hell..... what was I talking about? It was right on the tip of my tongue. Ummmmm Well, never mind!
Any explanation for reality existing is impossible within reality, thus no explanation can be good: further, there is no reason to think reality was created with a purpose, or indeed, was created at all.
For anyone familiar with Sartre - the for-itself of the world is the attempt of the in-itself to become in-itself-for-itself. Ie. perception is an attempt by the world to establish itself as for-itself.
It fails at this. And thus we have perception and the human condition - forever gazing at the appearance of the in-itself without ever for a moment being able to truly grasp it.
The world in itself isn’t explained by Sartre. However our perception of the world is explained as a nothingness on the face of reality which occurred as the in-itself of the world made an upsurge to become for-itself. As mentioned, that upsurge immediately failed - and annihilated itself upon the moment it was meant to become a foundation for the world to (essentially) know it self (or be present to itself).
Take your meds rat spit.
I was unaware that the "world" had an "itself." From Being and Nothingness, there are two types of reality which lie beyond our conscious experience: the being of the object of consciousness and that of consciousness itself. The object of consciousness exists as "in-itself." Where is this "world" that has consciousness that you speak of?
Well. If I remember correctly. Sartre called the world a “plenum of being” - a pure “in-itself” unknowable to Consciousness.
And he stated (with or without a compelling argument - I don’t recall) - he stated that the “plenum of being” commits a double annihilation. It attempts to establish itself as the basis for which it must exist.
It’s not enough for the plenum of being to exist - it must establish its self as its own basis. This fails. The very self establishment of the plenum strips it of it’s in-itself status. And thus we arrive at consciousness - which is the nothingness on the face of being.
Now. Why that occurs in living beings is a jar of worms. I don’t know. Maybe I’m remembering the text incorrectly.
But as best as I can recall, that was the original “upsurge” of consciousness which brought knowledge of being into the world. And of course this being is in a mode of being what it is not - and not being what it is - to use Sartre’s dialect.
Rat Spit - Beyond me too.
It’s uhh ... it’s very existential.
Q: Has anybody come across any "good" religious reason for our existence?
I ain't reading the rest. Too many replies to catch up on. 63? In just one day I spent at Drs offices? And then that other with over 150? I ain't reading that many. 40 is about my limit to play catch-up on.