Since everyone in here are very smart and full of ideas, lets look into the questions of the universe:



1. What is the meaning of the life?
2. Can we choose the life were living?
3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
5. How big is the universe?
6. Is there a live after dead?
7. Something else.

you forgott THE single most important one; What came first? The chicken or the egg.

Youre right. Thanks.

I can answer that one: Chicken came first. A fish evolved into a chicken.

That one's easy, it has to be the egg; at some point in the evolution of the chicken there has to have been (good luck finding it, though) some creature which wasn't a chicken, but which laid an egg which hatched into a chicken. Hence, the egg came first.

I can answer no 5 to some extent - the universe is infinitely big (and expanding). And probably saddle-shaped.

1. What is the meaning of the life?

The meaning of life is to die, simple as that.

2. Can we choose the life were living?

In some ways we can, in other ways we can't.

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?

I don't fully belive in fate, but then again I do as well, we can control our lives to a point but things happen that are meant to.

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?

mmmm.... free lunch :drool:

5. How big is the universe?

Bigger than your house thats for sure :P

6. Is there a live after dead?

There is life after death, there is a huge amount of proof, just most people don't look at it.

:)

1. What is the meaning of the life?
2. Can we choose the life were living?
3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
5. How big is the universe?
6. Is there a live after dead?
7. Something else.

1. What is the meaning of the life?
To accomplish the goals you set yourself. If you set goals, and can't live up to them, you fail. Bigtime.

2. Can we choose the life were living?
Up to a certain point. We can choose how we look at life, and we can pretty much choose what we study (not everyone can, though), and when we're old enough we can pretty much choose where we live.
But it's pretty much. Take me for an example; next year I'll be forced to leave the country to get the education I want. I don't have a choise. Of course I can choose between studying and not studying, but if I choose not to study, I can't choose between as many carriers later on.
...I don't think I make sense...

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
It doesn't.

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
Yes, someone can offer you lunch. Then it's free for you.

5. How big is the universe?
Big

6. Is there a live after dead?
6. Nope, we rot

7. Something else.
...They're all after us....

what can i say..all those questions...i better dip my hand in The Force and answer later

The more you search for it the more meaningless it's seems, so don't search for it...

Yes. For Example I chose to join abandonia, it wasn't destiny, also of course there are many coincidences in life that happen, but that's just the law of big numbers... (IMO of course)

I believe everyone get's what they deserve in the end, if not by obvious ways then through inner suffering...

No, nothing is free.

It's ever expanding.

Yes. You die. Worms eat you, then those worm, become part of humus, then from that humus grass grows, then a cow eats the grass, and then the cow ends up in your bigmac.

??

I thought hummus was made from chick peas and garlic...

No it's organic waste AFAIK, but hell you can say oil, or whatever, either way you become a part of the earth and then consumed into something that also dies(or rots if it's material) and become a part of the earth...

My brother paid for, and cooked, lunch for me today.

Ah but you probably gave him a favour before, so you've deserve it, it wasn't free.

@Tulac: That was a joke, actually...

All thses free lunches are making me hungry, and reminding me of a terrible lecturer I had trying to teach us about some Markovian statistical analysis or something. He kept going on about free lunches.

As an economist I am qualified to answer:

4) Is there such a thing as a free lunch?

Nothing becuase:
1) You probably did something to deverse that lunch, if it was a favour, being someone's friend or whatever.
2) Becuase in the process of making the lunch, scarce resources are consumed, including, the ingredients of the food, the time of the person cooking the food and your own time eating it all. All are resources, and all are consumed in te process of the lunch. Thye fact that you didn't hand over any cash is immaterial.

So there is no such thing as a free lunch, a free bar though...

I went to a University open day once because they gave me a free lunch, the only reason I went was becuase they gave me lunch.

And dont go on about "using up my time", first of all you got to spend the time to eat the lunch eventually, there is no avoiding that. If I didn't go to the Open Day I just would have sat at home and done nothing. No time was wasted, none at all.

Ahh but you gave your money to the uni, either by taxation, or by paying for it, remember this is a philosophy topic :P

And the point still remains that the food was eaten and scarce resources consumed. And the time you used to go to the uni you could have spent doing something else (that you would have just sat around in your underwear is immaterial, you still missed out on something in order to go).

1. The meaning of life:
You define that yourself, the meaning of life is what you make out of life. If you think your meaning in life is to kill people, than this is your meaning in life, even though not many people will approve it. (Note the absence of any smilies, which means I'm 100% serious here)

2. Can we choose the life we're living:
See 1. The meaning of life

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
It's just there. You can also say How/why does gravity control our live? It's just there, one given force by the universe. Think of a coordinate system with 5 axis. First three the x-, y-, and z-axis for movement, fourth the time axis for movement through time and the fifth is the "fate" axis. You just can't say "10 on the fate axis" or something like that, it's more complicated then numbers.

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
Uh.....

5. How big is the universe?
Let's just say big, but not infinite. It may be still expanding, but someday it will take a quick turn around and collapse again. Easy as that.
My theory: If the universe really was endless, shouldn't the sky at night be totally white of stars? Since it is infinite, there should be an infinite amount of stars visible at the sky. So basically, the place were there aren't stars are the "wall" of the universe.

Ok, now you might say "The light from some stars simply hasn't reached us, yet, due to the big distances", which basically could be right, too. But that's why this is posted in "Philosophy" afterall.

6. Is there a live after dead?
Kinda. But I already posted this somewhere else and don't feel like writing it down again at the moment.

7. Something else
I'm a helicopter!

Um...guys. When i said "Free lunch", it doesnt necessary mean food. :tomato:

Which is why I stated "Uh..." cause I don't have the slightest clue what it could mean :P

Probably as nothhing on the world is free, which is true, but "lunch" can be used metaphorically...

Personally I had never paid taxes before that lunch, I didn't give anything to that Uni, I didn't end up being a student there, the trip there and back was paid for by my school, my school fee's were paid by my dad and they were for the use of school belongings during school classes, I turned up followed some guy around to all different classes, I didnt even listen to him, I ate the lunch, spent another hour or so following and not even listening to the guy and came home, if anything it was a good chance to get some exercise walking all over the university all day.

I spent no money on this lunch(taxes or fees), and as far as I'm concerned I didn't miss out on anything or waste any of my time, and that can only be judged by the holder.

It was free. And it was lunch.

You're thinking about it from purely your point of view, and in terms on money.
There were many costs of that lunch, to the university who supplied it and social costs, such as pollution and the pesticides used on the crops. It doesn't matter that the university's costs aren't your own, it wasn't free. And you do suffer from the social costs, as do we all.

My point of view is all that matters on the subject.

We're talking about a free lunch, I think you're getting too philosophical over such a simple matter.

Erm... Title?

And I'm not getting philosophical, I'm getting economical. This is the way you need to think for A-level Economics.

1. What is the meaning of the life?
42! :D
more to the point, the life doen's actualy have a meaning, it just is. like a table, does a table mean something? the table however has a purpose which you define for it (well you could sleep on it, or you could burn it for heating during a particulary cold winter), and so does life.
2. Can we choose the life were living?
yes, and no. you can't chose to be a duck for example, or to become a musical genuis if you're deaf, but you can change all those little things.
3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
how? why? how about "does it?", the answer is "no". allthough there are some starting conditions, which have ifluence on our life, but one can hardly call it 'fate'.
4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
"free lunch"? no, nothing is really free. a lunch you didn't pay for however is more common.
5. How big is the universe?
about this big <shows>, on a logartihmic scale ofcourse.
6. Is there a life after death?
no. and belive you me that's a good thing.
7. Something else.
I'd like to address the chckien problem:
1)the egg was first- dinosaurs had eggs.
1a(intermission)"but we are only talking about chiken eggs"- someone would usualy say.
2)ah, then it's a question of defenition: i.e. what is a "chicken egg"?
2a)if we say "an egg is called 'chicken egg' then and only then if it was layed by a chicken", then chiken came first.
2b)if, on the other hand, we say "an egg is called 'chicken egg' then and only then if a chicken will hatch out of it", then the egg came first.
it's as simple as that.

Beethoven was deaf, and a musicla genius. About the duck, it is possible to live your life as a duck. So I'd have to say that it is possible to live your life however you like. Even as something like a seagull, thoguh your life expectancy is somewhat limited.

It is impossible that the egg came first becausein the evolution one celular oraganisms did not have eggs, and they were the first live beings on the planet, not dinosaurs...

1. Life is our oportunity to choice between love and lonelyness

2. See answer 1, we can choose how live the life we have. And the life that will come.

3. Probably there aren't such things, but even if they exist, they can't control our feelings, which are the important things.

4. No, I'm sorry. everything costs something (dollars, time, energy, mana, Force...)

5. Dimensions are just a human concept which permits our kind of existence. Space and matter don't exist really, so, who care how big is the universe, if it not even exist?

6. Yes, and we will live according to what we have chosen in life (see answer 1)

7. That question is too difficult for me... I have to reflect about it for a while...


But there cuold be a finite number of stars in an infinite universe!

But there cuold be a finite number of stars in an infinite universe! [/b][/quote]
Or the light is being absorbed by the (also infinite) amount of black holes. As for the universe, I think it's as big as it needs to be. There is an edge to the known universe (around 13 billion lightyears away) but when we go there the edge will have moved further back again.

Also the light from the furthest stars wouldn't have reached us and by the time they do the stars we see now will have all died by then, and their light will have gone and passed us.

Light isn't instantanious.

you got the question a bit wrong, it doesn't ask if life came before eggs:<!--QuoteBegin-Titan@Mar 12 2006, 02:06 PM
you forgott THE single most important one; What came first? The chicken or the egg.[/quote]


and Bethoven was not deaf, he just couldn't use his outer ears to hear (his inner ear was ok)

And that I already stated, too.

And as I also said, I can say nothing against it, this is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

Of course it was the chicken, the first chicken that layed an actual egg, before that they might have layed something that's almost an egg...

And that I already stated, too.

And as I also said, I can say nothing against it, this is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. [/b][/quote]
Oh sorry, I don't read everything. :ph34r:

Tulac, it could be that a creature very similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, layed an egg, and a mutation of that creature, which would be what we refer to as a chicken, hatched from that egg. I hopethis hasn't been stated before.

It could be that a chicken didn't layed an egg first, but then a chicken that hasn't been layed from an egg has layed the first egg :crazy:

did anyone read my take on this problem?

allso, here is some *relevant* material.

hey...dinosaurs layed eggs first... :wall:

Then the aliens came and alterd the DNA of the dinosaur egg into a chicken egg. This hasn't been proven yet though.

Life in itself has no meaning. The life of a human or a life of a fly are both lives and neither has greater segnificanse. But because the human is a homo sapiens sapiens - a creature able to think about one's thoughts (abstract thinking) humans can give some goals to their existence. The fulfilment of those goals can be interpreted as a meaning.

For me personally it is a clear conscience, so if someone would tell me I have to die in 12 hours I could say - no problem, I'm ready. I lived my life to its fulles and I've no guilty conscience.

Depends what you mean. A child can not choose the parents and a child until a certian age is reached can not choose the surroundings it lives in. And because the outside impulses determen how you'll understand the world around you and are an importaint part in making your personality - you can't really choose the life you live, but you can choose to change your lifestyle and try to become a different person if you think the person you are is not who you should be. Maybe you won't succeed, but it's the efford that counts.

If an not bright person is at least trying to learn and understand (instead of just giving up) that's worth much more then if a bright person understands something in an instant (it's just like with the paraolympics - I'm no athlete, but could probably be better then a handicaped person in a sports event - but the handicaped's person efford would be much greater therefore his performance is much more admirable).

I call it random events. There is no logic or will behind the events that affect your life. They simply happen - randomly. There is no being behind it trying to help you, or hurt you, or make you learn a lesson... Things happen and it depends on your personality how you'll see them. If a bad thing happens some would say they are punished, other's will give up, some will see it as a challenge/temptation to overcome - some won't even notice it and will simply go over or around it. It's such events that can shape your life, but as I said - they're completely random.

Everyone can be lucky or misfortunate on a given day and if you're unlucky on a very importaint day it can screw up your whole life (if you can't get over it).

No! Everything you eat used to be alive and is not anymore (from the seeds to animals - weather you're a vegetarian or not). For everything you eat you need to take some lifeforce from another living being - so everything you eat has a price - it just may not be payed for in money.

Huge! More then one can imagine. If you really try to imagine how big it is, think about the biggest thing your mind can still cope with from your personal experiance (like standing next to an ocean liner). Then when you realize how puny you are in comparison, imagine something very tiny - like an ant and imagine how puny it would be compared to the oceanliner. Then imagine that you're the ant and the oceanlier is a grain of sand in Sahara. Sahara would still be only a fracture of the universe we know.

Yes, it's the people who burry the dead and moarn for them.

Have you been into the Hitchikers Guide too much lately?

1. Live it. If it has been given to you, use it.
2. Yes, if there is some kind of a god, he/she has probably a lot better doing than thinking what kind of faiths people have.
3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live? Cause and effect, if you make someone angry, he/she will try to make your life difficult. If you are friendly to other people, they try to be nice to you.
4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"? Not really, you will have to pay for it one way or another.
5. How big is the universe? If it exists, I'd say pretty big.
6. Is there a live after dead? Yes, but mostly for those things which are using your corpse as a source of food.
7. 42

what does that have to do with choice?

Quote:

Originally posted by plague@Mar 12 2006, 08:03 PM 5. How big is the universe? If it exists, I'd say pretty big.

are there reasons to believe otherwise? :blink: I'd sure like to hear them (YaRly, conspiracy theories are a hobby of mine)
<!--QuoteBegin-plague@Mar 12 2006, 08:03 PM
6. Is there a live after dead? Yes, but mostly for those things which are using your corpse as a source of food.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure he meant "life after death", but even as it is, I don't see how this statement answers the question.

If we couldn't make our own decisions in life, our "faith" would be written forehand. And god is the one who's usually believed to be pulling the strings.

Have you watched the Matrix? What if we are just brains and some machines are feeding information about virtual world into us. That's possible, since you can't prove that it isn't.

Simply: I don't believe that there is "life after death".

Must we go through this again???

The first rule of science is: the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim something is!

So you'd have to prove that we're all a part of a computer controling us (like in Matrix) and after you prove it, we may take you seriously, not the other way around.

I could say that an alien civilization apointed me ruler of the world and because you can't prove that it didn't happen, you and everybody else should bow down before me and start massaging my stinking feet with the brests of well developed young virigins, while making sure I never run out of my coctails :sneaky:

actualy, there was a movement in the late 19th century science called 'positivism', it stated that you can hold the most probable thing as true up until it's disproven (we owe all of our quatum theories to that doctrine, for example), and since deferent things seem probable to different people they can hold wierd (but 'non-wrong') ideas as true. :w00t:

returning to the issue at hand, even if the whole world is just a big computer, it will still be inside some universe, no?

What you call the doctrine of 'positivism' is nothing more then stating a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something you think is possible. If a hypothesis can be supported by something it becomes a theory - which still needs to be proven. Only after a good hypothesis plausable enough to be made into a theory is proven, does it become a scientifical fact - or a law.

Example:
The path to the beach branches in three different paths.
I make a hypothesis that the middle one is the shortest way to the beach.
It's very well possible, because the sea should be straight ahead, so we walk down the middle path.
If we don't come to the beach, then my hypothesis was completely faulty.
If we come to the beach, then my hypothesis becomes a theory. This path leads to the beach and it should be the shortest. But only after we take all the paths and disprove any other to be shorter, will my theory become a fact!

And now back to the point about the universe in which the giant computer is in...
Universe (our time-space continuum) is the place where our laws of physics apply. So yes, there is an universe (in every universe some things must apply). And the only possibility that there is no universe would be, that we do not exist! And if we'd just be a part of a progrme, or dreams, or anything of something else, then that entity would have to exist somewhere and so on...

scrap that, I'll just go check.

Must we go through this again???

The first rule of science is: the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim something is!

So you'd have to prove that we're all a part of a computer controling us (like in Matrix) and after you prove it, we may take you seriously, not the other way around.

I could say that an alien civilization apointed me ruler of the world and because you can't prove that it didn't happen, you and everybody else should bow down before me and start massaging my stinking feet with the brests of well developed young virigins, while making sure I never run out of my coctails :sneaky:[/b][/quote]
There wasn't need for going through that. I said that it's possible, not that we are controlled by machines.

Btw, even if you could prove that, I wouldn't let you be my leader just because some useless authority from outer space orders to do so.

1. What is the meaning of the life?
Surviving.

2. Can we choose the life were living?
If we are strong enough to control it.

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
There is some sort of cosmic balance, of that I am sure. It always works, even if it seems otherwise.

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
No. Everything has a price.

5. How big is the universe?
Who cares?

6. Is there a live after dead?
I won't know until I get there. Preferably not - or I'm going to hell.

7. Something else.
Humanity is overrated.

1. What is the meaning of the life?

To live

2. Can we choose the life were living?

You can change it.

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?

Im sure there is something out there. For example, me and a girl always seem to get the same music playing at the same time.

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?

Mm, some things do come back and hit you hard.

5. How big is the universe?

From here to there.

6. Is there a life after death?

Come back and tell me, if you wouldn't mind.

7. Something else.

Regret nothing. Regrets dont work.

Well, I didn't read the rest of the posts yet, so I'll just go ahead and answer the questions I feel I can. Note: most of these are based on my religious beliefs.

1. What is the meaning of the life?
To do what we can to become as much like Christ as possible, so that we may once again return to live with our Heavenly Father and be made as he is.

2. Can we choose the life were living?
Yes, everyone has their agency as a result of the decision made in the premortal existence

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
I don't believe it does. Well, to some extent it does. If we are a jerk here on earth, we will ultimately pay for it after we die. And if you are a jerk to those around you, odds are you will be treated like a jerk because no one will like you (likewise the reverse if you are always nice.)

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
Depends on what you mean. I have bought a meal for a homeless guy I saw once because I felt sorry for him, but I didn't want to give him money incase he would use it to buy booze. In effect, he did nothing for me. A "Free Lunch" is given to others by those who willingly give ane perform acts of service to others.

5. How big is the universe?
This I honestly don't know

6. Is there a live after dead?
Yes, although my belief is probably different than most on this board (except Allyfaucet)

7. Something else
Uh....Food is good!

This is the reason why nearly all of the leaders who authorised and encouraged mass murder (or occassionally even committed mass murder) have been athiests. It is not that athiests are inherently evil (as most people, athiests tend to be basically good), but only an athiest could swallow the Neitschian garbage that anything you have the strength to impose on other people is, by definition, morally right. Philosophy is not bad, but when people actually try to apply it, things can go horribly wrong.

weren't any mass murders commited in the name of g-d? I know many wars were fought in his name, but I can't reall y remeber any examples of mass murder (off the top of my head)

That's the point. Even though it may seem horribly wrong to nearly every person on the planet, it is still correct from his point of view.
What does make our moral any more important or right then his?

Oh, and it's not that I'm encouraging murder here, just in case anybody gets me wrong. I'm just trying to say: Moral, just as the word "normal" for example, can be interpreted in many different ways. And basically nobody can say that one interpretation is more right than the others.

You did it for the sense of self-satisfaction though. Which leads us to another question:

Is there any such thing as a selfless act?

Hmmm, off topic, but you reminded me how everyone who does something heroic-like, they say "Oh, I'm no hero, I just felt it was the right thing to do".

Just once I would like to see someone say "Yeah I'm good, I did it for the glory".

1.What is the meaning of life?

=To live long and get laid someday.

2.Can we choose the live that were living?

=Yes. At the beginning, you will choose a life and balance it with good event and bad events.

3.How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?

=Good deeds are always rewarded.

4.Is there such thing as "free lunch"?

=No. No matter if someone gets something for free, its going to cost someone.

5.How big is the universe?

=Close your eyes.

6.Is there a live after dead?

=Naturally. People go to heaven or hell, depending how good they are.

7.Something else?

=$hit happens!

You mean like it's morally right for non-atheist to try and convert them, because they have the power to do so? :sneaky:

1. What is the meaning of the life?
There is no meaning.

2. Can we choose the life were living?
We can always try.

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
It doesn't.

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
No.

5. How big is the universe?
Big enough.

6. Is there a live after dead?
Probably not, but there sure is death after life.

7. Something else.
Sex, drugs and rock and roll ! :max:

That's sort of impossible, because people do heroic deeds without thinking before, they do them impulsively...

well that again depends on what you mean, if you mean "self" as persoanlity then yes sure- each time a leaf falls, and each time the sun sets- that's a selfless act, beacues there is no personality and no will behind it.
if however you (as myself) mean self as in entity, then no- every act, requires two objects the acter and the actee (both can be the same, but they have to exist), if there is no self (the acter object), there is no act.

well that again depends on what you mean, if you mean "self" as persoanlity then yes sure- each time a leaf falls, and each time the sun sets- that's a selfless act, beacues there is no personality and no will behind it.
if however you (as myself) mean self as in entity, then no- every act, requires two objects the acter and the actee (both can be the same, but they have to exist), if there is no self (the acter object), there is no act. [/b][/quote]
I dunno....I mean, when I've been at a drive through for some food I've paid for the people behind me before, even if I don't know them. Same w/ at toll bridges and stuff. I figure making someone have a good day is worth my two bucks.

That's the point. Even though it may seem horribly wrong to nearly every person on the planet, it is still correct from his point of view.
What does make our moral any more important or right then his?

Oh, and it's not that I'm encouraging murder here, just in case anybody gets me wrong. I'm just trying to say: Moral, just as the word "normal" for example, can be interpreted in many different ways. And basically nobody can say that one interpretation is more right than the others. [/b][/quote]
Without resorting to religeous arguments, denying the sociopath his "right" to kill only infringes the rights of one person. Allowing the sociopath to kill infringes the rights of many, so disallowing serial killers from indulging in their avocation passes the greatest good (right to life) for the greatest number of people.

Moral relativism (anything goes) is so destructive to society, precisely because it provides evil with the most potent weapon in its arsenal-- the willing ignorance of the existence of evil. Remember: all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for all good men to do nothing. That is why Pope Benedict rails against the tyranny of moral relativism, as it saps the ability to confront evil.

what if thos epeople were carriers of a deadly desiese?

You mean like it's morally right for non-atheist to try and convert them, because they have the power to do so? :sneaky: [/b][/quote]
No it is not like that at all, at least for christians (other groups are outside my knowledge). A christian will attempt to lead others to Christ, not because it is in his power to do so, but because he has a moral obligation to offer choice. Becoming a christian is an act of free will. You can make harsh threats to force people to say they are christian, but no display of power can force someone to actually become a christian against their will (we cannot love God if we are not given the choice to turn away from him).


Pol Pot, the brutal dictator of Cambodia, back in the 1970's (?), was a neitschian superman who ordered the execution of nearly one third of Cambodia's population. He got away with it because he told the rest of his people that it was the proper thing to do, and he had enough secret police to add any dissidents to the third of the population being murdered.

Not unless you count cults leaders like the Reverend Jim Jones of the People's Temple (about 400 members were convinced to join him in a suicide pact) or the leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult (Mastermind of the Tokyo subway sarin attacks).

If there are others, I am just as keen to learn about them as you are.

let's see... remeber Paris, august 24th, 1572? St. Bartholomeos night? allthough one has to note that only people of one particular faith were killed.

I would just like to add that I believe there is no such as good and evil, and that the concepts of both are created by religion. All there is only whether something is harmful or beneficial to society. This is why I am opposed to the death penalty, the stimulus that leads to a person commiting such an act (eg, killing somebody) must exist within the society (perhaps due to the way people have been raised or conditioned); therefore, it is society's fault that the act was commited and society's responsibility to look after those affected, including the criminal and the victims.

This is not to say I am without morals, I am opposed to things that harm my society and the societies of others.

However, I am not a utilitarian, "harmful to society" also means "harmful to culture and freedom".

That's sort of impossible, because people do heroic deeds without thinking before, they do them impulsively... [/b][/quote]
Well they don't have to say that exactly, just something along those lines, and besides even if they did just act on instinct doesn't mean they can't just say it anyway.

hmh... considering the shape of universe - it's in a shape of an enormous bum, therefore we're all in...

Oh let's take a little trip down the history lane... How do you think the germanic tribes, the slavic tribes, the entire continent of South America... become CHRISTIAN??? By force - they were forcefully converted and thousends of them died!

Should we continue with the crusades and inquisition? How about religious wars in the time of reformation where christians and protestants were killing each other?

And about killing simply because you have the power to do so - European nobility of the feudal ages was CHRISTIAN and they were torturing, killing, raping... their subjects simply because they were able to - because they had the power, so Pol Pot didn't do anything he couldn't have learned from the best protectors of the CHRISTIAN fate of the history (bad role models those christians and it could be argued that they were the role models for all the dictators to come).

ADMINS - MODS: I think this should be split into a new thread, it's gotten beyond the answering philosophical questions.

you coul allways just start another thread. That's what I usualy do. Except, in this case, I don't see whaich part should have a separte topic, so I can't.

Oh let's take a little trip down the history lane... How do you think the germanic tribes, the slavic tribes, the entire continent of South America... become CHRISTIAN??? By force - they were forcefully converted and thousends of them died!

Should we continue with the crusades and inquisition? How about religious wars in the time of reformation where christians and protestants were killing each other?

And about killing simply because you have the power to do so - European nobility of the feudal ages was CHRISTIAN and they were torturing, killing, raping... their subjects simply because they were able to - because they had the power, so Pol Pot didn't do anything he couldn't have learned from the best protectors of the CHRISTIAN fate of the history (bad role models those christians and it could be argued that they were the role models for all the dictators to come).

ADMINS - MODS: I think this should be split into a new thread, it's gotten beyond the answering philosophical questions. [/b][/quote]
At the time of the conversions of the pagan tribes (not all of it done by force) people were nastier, and the christians were not any more vicious than anyone else (not that this excuses any violence). The more typical conversion method was along the lines of "My God is stronger than your god", with the proof being the lack of flames from heaven or lightning bolts when the missionary chopped down the sacred tree. Other effective measures of conversion was getting the king to become a christian, and having the king order the mass conversion of his subjects. Saint Olaf, king of Norway, went about personally challenging subjects to convert to christianity or face him in single combat. He meant well, even if he may have been wrong.

South America was an odd confluence of events. The spaniards needed the indigenous population as slaves, but could not enslave any native that was baptised as a christian, so the land owners were in conflict with the missionaries. Thus the violence was to prevent conversions.

The missionaries did ruthlessly prosecute the religion of the meso-americans, but they did nothing about meso-americans, themselves. Given that the pre-columbian religion required human sacrifice to ensure that the sun continued to rise each morning, and most of the gods were malevolent entities that required blood sacrifice just to let humanity continue, conversion to christianity had a very strong selling point: One God, who loves you. There was no need to forcibly convert the tribes of central and south america, they were more than happy to abandone their old beliefs. Either to escape malevolent gods, or to avoid slavery at the hands of unscrupulous spanish land owners.

The Spanish inquisition was a political inquisition by people who were afraid that converts to christianity were actually moslem, or jewish spies. After a short period at the beginning, the Church authorities kept trying to get the spanish king to stop it.

The protestant wars were more about the power of european kings than religion, as the crowned heads of europe decided that the pope interfered too much in their internal affairs (as the pope was human, and humans are flawed, they may have been correct). The schism between the Church of England and the Church of Rome was for no less base a reason than King Edward VIII's desire to divorce his second wife.

The crusades were triggered by abuses inflicted on christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, but were probably about christian europe doing something to halt a resurgent islamic empire, before they were swallowed up (there are historians who will argue that the crusades were attempts tp preempt another muslim invasion of christian europe[the muslims still occupied southern Spain]).

I do not have the historical knowledge of the feudal period to confirm or deny that the lords tortured, killed, and/or raped their subjects, but I do know that the church strongly discouraged those kinds of abuse, so any lord that did do those things did it despite their professed religion. That being said, a lord that killed or tortured criminals, as an arbiter of high and low justice within his realm, was not actually doing anything wrong (simpler, nastier times).

Pol Pot did not murder people for the glory of God. He did it to remake Cambodia to match his personal philosophy of a well run Maoist state. City dwellers were forced to become agrarian peasants. Many of them were executed for complaining and others died from the conditions in the farming collectives. Their only crime was not fitting into Pol Pot's ideal society.

A fundamental problem is that people are flawed and the gift of free will allows them to do whatever they damn well please, even if it is wrong.

1. What is the meaning of the life?
2. Can we choose the life were living?
3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
5. How big is the universe?
6. Is there a live after dead?
7. Something else.

1.there isnt one. be glad you have the time to even ask the question.
2. no. you get born.
3. it doesnt , but people will react towards you based on your reputation. and word gets around.
4.gaining anything takes at least the expenditure of energy, so even if you go out and kill a bear to eat it its not free. you paid in energy
5. really big, then it becomes just a mass of black holes as you get towards the reallly old bit
6. is this life?
7. completion

and there you have it. he was rooting out the disloyal element (killing dissidents), not doing some nitschean reformation of humanity. Neither did Satlin or Mao. And Hitler, while he claimed to do just that, was just trying to give his nation a visible enemy, very 1984-ishly by the way.

@rlbell:

Look I'm a historian and trust me, I know how to white wash the nasties pieces of history, or how to smuther the cleanest and purest thoughts (care to try me :sneaky: ), but that's just what you're doint. In your attack on atheism you're trying to blame the absance of religion for the evil in the modern dictatorship regimes. Atheism has nothing to do with that. And that's the whole point of my examples of christians doing acts they shouldn't.

Your remark about Olaf the Saint is the perfect example.
One may say the same about people such as Lenin or Mao... They wanted to bring opressed masses out of their misery and provide them with warm homes, but made some grave mistakes in the proces.
Stalin, Ho Shi Min, Pol Pot,... were all comunist leaders who spelt a vast amont of inoscent blood - true. But not because they were atheists - because they were obsesed maniacs (just like Torquemada the grand inqusitor did). The reasons of Pol Pot or Stalin were different, but in their own minds they all found justification for what they did - and apearently among the people who tolerated their behaviour and even helped them carry out the plans.
Even Hitler did some good things - although they can't even begin to outweigh for all the horror and suffering he brought to the world.

I'm just saying bad is all over the world - regarthless of race, gender, faith or absance of it.

And by the way - Nitzche was a philosopher. His works were never ment to be taken literary - just like the bible shouldn't be either. When fanatics do that, there's always the danger of bloodshead!

I know the meaning of life, the meaning of life is too search for the meaning of life =)

wait...
how can you be searching for it, if you know waht it is? :sneaky:

I did not say that athiests are evil, but that only an athiest can believe himself to not be answerable to anyone for their actions. A sincere belief in a judgement after death seriously limits what one will do to accomplish one's ends.

If philosophers did not mean for anyone to actually put their theories into practice, what was the point?

Philosophy is all about reasoning how the world works, or how the world should work. If Nitzche did not mean for people to actually exercise the power to define right and wrong, why did he write what he did? Marx was a philosopher, he certainly meant for the proletariate to wrest the levers of power from the bourgeoise.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! :Brain: Intelligent people, YAY! :D

The real question is: Is there life BEFORE death?

I don't have time to properly reply but I will do ASAP... :ok:

Hmm and I see it stops religious people to do bad things on a daily basis too, right?

After all you can do all the nasty things in your life and then "redempt" for them, and you'll still go to heaven...
Well by your logic religious people are the more evil ones, because they can find excuses to do bad things anytime...
An atheist with a good sense of moral is much better than a christian with a bad sense of moral...

1 Being religious doesn't transform us in infallible gods... we still remain humans ;)

2 Not to mention that who reasonss in THAT way, actually isn't religious and has not understood the principles of his religion!

3 What is moral? Who could decide it? It's like me saying "I have a good sense of humor and you have a bad one"!
You know, the moral depends from many cultural factors...

Now that's such a materialistic point of view it actually hurts the intelegence!

It's like saying great artistc (not only painters) create for the audience! People are born with passions to create, to discover, to hypotesize... and they do so.

Ever seen a MGM movie? Take a good look at what it says above the lion at the opening titles: Art gratia artist - art for art's sake.
The same is with science and philosophy. It doesn't need to have any practical dimention at all. And if someone else misused Nietzche it's the same as someone misusing the bible. But only religious people can misuse the bible. Was therefor the bible written so people could comence the crusades? Start antisemitism? Slaughter each other for the right to have service in their native language rather then latin?
If your answer to Nietzche is YES, the by the same logic your answer to bible has to be YES as well - it was created so people would kill eachother off.
If you however claim the bible isn't here so religious people could go kill everyone under the false godly guidence, then you'll also have to admit that Nietzche is just a theoretical philosopher and people respecting his philosophy don't have to be evil (some were, but then again, there were so many that never read Nietzche - I'm more thn convinced Pol Pot never read any of Nietzche's works).

1. True, nut nor does being atheist, which was my point...

3. Exaclty so church also isn't a measure of moral...

I was not posting this to insult the church, just to prove that there as many evil atheist people as there are religious no matter what the cultural norms are...

That's not offensive ;)

In some way, I agree that "church also isn't a measure of moral" because religion should show the right way, and how to reach good, happiness and truth: moral isn't all these things, it's just a convention!

I disagree.

Church/religion should be one of the mirrors for morality.
But taken away the religious element.

After all if you do good to please a god, is it then really moral? On the other hand if you do good, because you believe in doing good - and you're not religious at the same time - is that then immoral? Like in Dante's inferno, when all the ancient Greek philosophers were in hell, simply because they weren't baptised (and they lived before Christ, so there was no way in "hell" they could be baptised).

Actually, there is a getout clause invented byu the Catholic Church that means that all the people who they think are worthy of getting in heaven can without breakikng any rules. It's called "Baptism by Desire" basically it means that if a person could have got baptised, then they would have done. They therefore get into heaven even thoguh they were around before baptism was invented.

Whether Dante knew of this when he wrote the Inferno, I don't know.

Now that's such a materialistic point of view it actually hurts the intelegence!

[/b][/quote]
Nietzche was a materialist.


No it is not the same at all. People who set themselves out to be Nietzchean supermen are not MIS-using his philosophy, but putting his philosophy into practice. People misusing the bible are indeed a problem, but the problem is that they are NOT putting it into practice. If everyone who claimed to be christian actually USED the bible, there would be none of the problems that you described. The New Testament does not advocate antisemitism, nor does it advocate going to war or using bloody conflict to resolve debate.

According to most christian sects;

There is actually little to differentiate your two scenarios. They are arguably one and the same. God is good. Anything that you choose to do, because it is a good thing to do, is also pleasing to God. Things that are good are not good merely because God says so, but because they are intrinsically good. Also, God is the Father. Doing something good to please a parent is good, so pleasing God is good.

1)No such

2)Heck no

3)Go remote controls

4)For me? Yes!

5)Big

6)Yes

7)Why garfield is fat? Cause he is! :cheers:

What's the meaning of life?

Just think: what's the thing more important to you? then you will have your answer. If the most important think to you is your life, then your meaning will be survive. After you reach or fail your goal, then you will/should die. If you don't, then it was not your goal. Ther's no living without goal.

Can we choose the life were living?

I belive we are just organic processors that react to the world, so if you have two twins that born and grow in two separate small rooms with every thing controled and every thing the same, then these two persons should act and think exactly the same and at the same time. If you could put in a big computer the whole world and simulate in programs the minds of peoples and start the program with every thing the same with the real word at a given time, and then speed up the computer, you could see every thing happening and see the future. Wow! It's hard to put a simple thing in words! :help:


How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?

see above

Is there such thing as "free lunch"?

Every thing is relative. In a restaurant, if the guest pays the launch, then it was, at certain poit, free for the restaurant. If the restaurant gives the launch to the guest, then the restaurant pays the launch, but it was free to the guest.

How big is the universe?

It's big enough to we never reach it end, so we will not know nor afect ours lives. So why to think about it?

Is there a live after dead?

I can't say. I never seen it.

Something else.

sometimes what looks difficult is easy and vice-versa.

When I was refering to you I didn't have materialistic as a philosophical category in mind.

That's not true! You're only judging by some people that actually claimed to do so. It's like judging the bible (As a christian philosophical basis) by the lifestile of Torquemada (the grand inquisitor). Just because Nazis tried to use Nietzche's works as a justification for their own genocidal philosophy, doesn't mean that Nietzche actually intended it that way. It was misused.

It's almost like the Alfred Nobel and the invention of dinamite! He made an explosive, but when he saw how people misused it, he was ashamed.
Or the earlier researchers of the nuclear energy (after Hiroshima they felt guilty for it).

You're right, it doesn't! But tell me then, how come people were able to use the Christian religion to justify so many wars? How could they with the very same bible (that doen't advocate going to war) in one hand and a weapon in the other hand, go slaugthering, butchering, slashing and even raping (which has nothing to do with war even) other fellow men?
They were clearly breaking the "Thous shalt not kill!" commandment. Yet they found justification in the bibile itself for their actions.

So the bible must be an evil book, no mater what you say... OR were maybe those people the ones who misenterpreted it? Misused the words? Broke the very rules that are in the bible?

Same with Nietzche - he never states: go and start a genocide, because it's in your power.

I'd also like to say that the whole "übermensch" (I have no idea what the Alt code is for a capital 'u' with an umlaut) idea was not intrinsically racist/anything to do with Aryans.

It was actually just Nietzsche's idea of what the best form of person could be.

Having a serious discussion in english is so frustrating... why don't you all start to write in Italian?... Well, let's continue...

I was just saying that some moral conventions could agree with church principles, but they are different things (you know, human principle<-->God revelation...)
God is a bit more powerful than us, so I think that we can't force Him to send someone to hell just without baptizing that one ;) He knows what way we have chosen in our heart :angel:
And I'm sure you know that Dante's Inferno is not a "religion book", and in any case it reflect an old (and passed) way to intend the religion...

Are you seriously judging the catholic/christian religion, looking at fanatics, ignorant and the ones who promoted wars for economical and political reasons? :blink:
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you...
Anyway, Bible was misinterpreted. Jesus teached how to intend the Bible.

I think he meant that noth Bible ad Nietzcshe got misinterpreted, and that neither of them are the cause of genocide and wars, but human stupidity...

Because Rlbell states that atheist made genocide because Nietzsche's writings, explicitly told them too, unlike the Bible which is supposedly misinterpret, that is of course a pretty hypocrate point of view...

Thank you Tulac, for explaining it.

Yes - I don't judge the christians by some fanatics that misused christianity. In fact, I don't judge other people at all, I'm only stating my opinion about institutions. When I'm talking about christianity I'm not talking about people - I'm talking about institutions (including saints and pedophilics priests alike). And if there are negative sides to the institution of christianity - it's only a part of it, just like fanatical dictators are only one part of what atheist world is.

That's right, guys!
That's what I was suspecting :ok:

1. What is the meaning of the life?
To enjoy life to the fullest

2. Can we choose the life were living?
Hell yes!

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
It doesn't

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
No

5. How big is the universe?
Smaller then human stupidity

6. Is there a live after dead?
Not life as such, but something - yes

7. Something else.
You can't make popcorns without corn LOL

I am not so sure. To quote the man, himself (from "Beyond Good and Evil" [translated by Helen Zimmern]):

Nietzche only advocates what we would consider moral behavior among your equals, and your superiors. He also advocated a stratified view of society with slaves at the bottom and covered with layers of nobility of increasing worth as one approached the top. Anyone below you can be treated as a slave and anyone above you can treat you as a slave, there is no necessity for malice, it is just an imperative of the Will to Power.

Also in "Beyond Good and Evil", he explains how the nobility are usually the descendants of successful conquering barbarians, and that these conquests are necessary for the success of the human race.

Nietzche also wrote that sympathy and compassion should be held in low regard, as they are nothing more than necessities of a slave mindset, so he either had little regard for his own intellectual musings, or would not care a farthing for how anyone applied his philosophy.

Alfred Nobel is in another category, altogether. The amazing thing about dynamite is that it is every bit as explosive as the nitroglycerine that went into its manufacture, but it will not explode at the drop of a hat. His discovery of dynamite saved many lives of people who would otherwise have had to carry nitroglycerine around blasting sites or transport it from the manufacturer to the job site. Nobel made huge pots of money, while saving people's lives. He has my respect.

People who misused the bible to justify their actions, unlike nietzchean supermen, actually felt the need to justify their actions. Not all wars are unjustifiable. From the allied perspective, WWII was very much a just war. They were defending against a known evil and the pain and suffering inflicted by fighting the war were proportional to the evil being fought, and final victory was very likely, if not certain. The christian doctrine of a just war can also explain France's surrender, as France had little means of continuing the fight, after the blitzkrieg of spring 1940 put their army in such disarray.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL is a misinterpretation. However, that interpretation really gets the point across and does it in a mere four words. The less impressive, but more accurate, interpretation is thou shalt not murder. It is important that the jewish faith was something to live by, not die by, so killing in self defence is allowable. That interpretation of the commandment carried over into christianity. It is also allowable to kill in the defence of others and there is still room for accepting capital punishment.

All you proved thus far is, that Nietzche is describing the human society the way he found it (meaning the society was that was before his philosophy - not because of it) and he's still not telling people to go and commit mass murder.

He's saying people are doing such things are trying to explain reasons why. He's describing the society, explaining it and trying to figure out the theoretical basis why the society is the way it is (or better yet - was the way it was).


And about: Thou shell not KILL - the first bible was written in Greek. If you wish to go back to Thou shalt not murder, you're not quotin the bible, but the Tora, so you're not christian, but jewish! Bug difference! Or are you suggesting the bible should be re-written?

The Bible is the union of many books and that books wasn't written in greek for sure!
It's so easy that in translating and hand-copying during cenuries someone made little errors... If we find those errors we have to correct them!

Sometimes a catholic commission make a new edition of The Gospel to correct those errors and follow the changes in the modern languages. I think that even the others christian religions make something similar...

I think that I've read that last part of the Bible was writen in Greek and/or on an Island in Greek. But I might be wrong.

Thus far the oldest known BIBLE (as the fundamental work of christianity) was writen around 80AD in Greek language. The comandment given is Thou shalt not KILL (don't know how to say that in Greek).

Now how can you claim that it was wrongly translated from Hebrew? What if they WANTED to make the CHANGE? After all, it never states the christianity must fully except the jewish religion. Jesus himself (I will not even open the discusion of his existance, which still hasn't been 100% prooven) was trying to change the Jewish ways. So what gives you (or anyone else) the right to say. WHAT WAS or what wasn't a mistake?

After all, great changes were made from the judeism to christianity. The god of the old testament is also known to help out in war. He would say - do not murder.
But the god of the new religion teaches TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. So don't you think it's possible, that it was really ment to be DON'T KILL (not even in self defence)?

Use Toiletpaper on both sides, and the Sucsess is on your hand!!!! LOL LOL LOL

I cannot agree. Nietzche does not just describe his observations of human nature. He does not say that this is what happens, he says that this is what is supposed to happen and anyone who willingly puts limits on what they would do to further his own interests should be a slave.

Unless the translation of "Beyond Good and Evil" that I base my opinions on is seriously flawed, you do not need to find an explicit statement "Genocide is a noble thing, if the noble man decides it to be so" to determine that Nietzche put no limits on what the noble man can allow himself to do. He already endorses acts of theft, conquest, acts of tyranny, suppression, enslavement and exploitation by the "noble man", so you would have to provide a quotation from his writings that explicitly put a limit on what the noble man was allowed to do, or that Nietzche disapproved of the noble man.

It does not actually matter if Nietzche approved of genocide. His morally bankrupt philosphy prevents anyone sharing the world view presented in his writings from arguing against it.

As for the bible. . .

The pentateunch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were first written in the language of the jews. The first complete canon of the Torah was the septuagint, which was written in greek. When St. Jerome compiled the first latin bible, he sought the earliest extant versions of each book, so the Ten Commandments would have been translated from hebrew, or aramaic, not greek. The standard protestant edition of the bible was also compiled from original sources, so as to differentiate it from the catholic bible

That is why I agree that some moral standards need to be set and that'0s where I see the role of religion (As an institution) in the society. It should be a moral mirror telling the people that their doin is either right or wrong. But that is only one of the mirrors of morality.

But it's a fact that certain people tend not to consider morality, not to consider anything for that matter. Thos people are the ones who do misuse power. And they don't consider Nietzche either. Nietzche himself was - and let me say this again - a man of theory. There were always people who commited genocide before and after Nietzche and such people do not really care for any philosophy at all. They simply want power. They have been turning to different things to try and gain support and yes, Nietzche's works were also used to justify some of the happenings in the world. Still the responsibility for those events is on the shoulders of the people who commited it - NOT on Nietzches, neither is Nietzche the cause for their behaviour. Those people would have acted the same reading or not reading Nietzche (some dictators have and some haven't read his works).

That is why I agree that some moral standards need to be set and that'0s where I see the role of religion (As an institution) in the society. It should be a moral mirror telling the people that their doin is either right or wrong. But that is only one of the mirrors of morality.

[/b][/quote]
I selected Nietzche as a poster boy for my rant against what one poster described as the meaning of life. He suggested thatthe meaning of life was whatever the individual chose it to be, nor matter what those choices were. I claimed that that principle of amorality is what allows ruthless strongmen to unfetter themselves from their conscious, and backed it up with a list of ruthless leaders who let nothing hinder their aims, even at the cost of millions of their citizen's lives.

I am glad that we agree on the importance of morality.

Well, morality is something a society needs. It's the thing that lets you do the right thing, the descent thing (regarthless the laws, agreements, contracts,...). Because people need to function on the case to case basis. We are all individuals, thus there are exceptions to every rule.

The meaning of life is (in my opinion) undetermened. Every person should look for the thing that gives that person the individual meaning. But there should be also aded, that you have certain responibility to fellow men as well. So if you find your purpose in delivering hardship to others - then your moral compas is off and something is wrong with you - in such a case you should not be permited to further follow your life goals.

Simply because you're capable of doing something, doesn't mean you should do it as well. So if you made your life goal something, that is harmful to others - you have a wrong goal and you should be perhibited to try and reach it. This is where morality comes in. It should give you a direction - so that your goal is not harmful to anyone. This is a problem in the modern society as well (look at the people who gain money by expliting others - that's a wrong goal).

If Nietzche was simply to state an example - OK, as people could really use his work to find excuses for their misbehaviour and even tirany. But that is one of the reasons, why some ideas were never ment to be given to the general public. There are certain things that only responsible people are able of handling (otherwise there'd be a world wide chaos, anarchy - the destructive kind, panic, violence...). The only problem with this is - who is to decide on that? Unfortunately it's usually one or the other form of buerocracy that decides which information can be accesed and which not - but this is going away from the original point.

1. To achieve more for oneself - to please oneself.

2. In terms of the choice of what body we were to inhabit, no one knows. In terms of what the choices were can make in this life, choice exists.

3. To escape responsibility for our actions, we place our trust in fate or destiny.

4. Yes. As long as the concept of "free lunch" exists in our minds, there is a such thing.

5. As big as the limits of one's mind.

6. Life after death, real or imaginary, is insignificant. Though I'm inclined to say that one never truly dies. Our memories and experiences cannot die, in that way, one can never die.

Actually, I'd like to respond with something I personally believe in. Humanity - or better yet - nature is naturally chaotic. Different lives, objects, and forces are constantly interfering with the goals of another, but we also see nature's strive for order (creation of societies and heirarchies in many forms of life, the tendency for gases or liquids to move from a place of high pressure to low pressure, and possibly, if the theory holds water, maximum entropy). Humanity - which I believe to be a part of nature - will also be predisposed towards chaos, though it will also strive for order.