Topic awaiting preservation: Media Violence, Christians? (Page 4 of 4)

Bug, if you can't see, with your intelligence the hypocrisy and thus the attendant lack of your 'agape', evident in those links, I am at a loss to figure out how to explan to you the obvious.

It is telling too, that you cannot see why someone not infected with religion would have the ability to love his fellow man.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

You, DL, and WS share a very similar world view as well, but you all have your unique ways of communicating it to the rest of us here.

---

Uhhh...no. Bugs, I am personally shocked by this!

I DO NOT share a world view with Ehtheist. I leave the question of a Supreme Being open, as I believe that DL does. AFAIK, Ehtheist does not.

quote:

---

Loving humanity is hard. It is not natural. I believe that seeing some people actually doing it, is evidence of the eternal in us. I'm not talking about screwing anything that moves and maintaining the species from our natural instincts to procreate but rather the type love that goes far beyond that. In the Greek, it is called "agape" love which is the purest and highest ideal of sacrificing for others and serving them out of a true motivation for their benefit. I think it would be safe to assume that you would not put much weight on this sort of behavior. If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others.

---

Blocks are mine.

Though I do not consider myself to be an Athiest, I can fathom a reason to practice that sort of love, Bugs, and I have expressed the reasons for that, before.

The advancement of Mankind.

In that sense, I feel that it is the most natural thing in the world, to pratice "agape". In fact, I feel that only one that is NOT religious, can truly practice this.

Why? Because I do not do it because of the direction of some Being, but because I want to. Because I see the long-term benefits of doing so, out-weight the short-term benefits of not doing so.

Including the direction(s) of a Being in the equation, means that one truly does not wish to do so - that one is only doing so, because a Being directs it.

quote:

---

All Christians before they were even called that were Jewish. There was hardly a distinction at the time

---

It depends on exactly when we are talking about. At the very outset, this is true - it is true primarily because Jesus was in many ways just another radical jewish rabbi, and nobody but the jews cared about jewish prophecy. Towards the end of the first century, when the christian movement had spiraled so far away from Judaism, and the claims of exactly what jesus was and where he came from became more abnormal and esoteric (and became less and less to do with the actual jewish prophecies), the jews wanted nothing to do with the christians. The group became more and more aimed at the pagans, and grew further and further from the jewish traditions.

So the initial group was obviously of jewish origin, but that didn't last long.

quote:

---

If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others.

---

I must honestly say that that would seem to be a personal shortcoming, bugs. To me, the idea that the only reason to be a good person is because we've been told to and we're being watched is a pretty shallow useless reason.

I knew it was going to be difficult to communicate my point without raising the natural defense mechanisms. But the point is one that I am very interested in understanding better.

Please note that I did not say atheists cannot be moral, or do good works, or even be self sacrificing for their fellow human beings. I know for a fact they can.

I chose my words very carefully, "If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others."

I do not understand the "reason" for doing so given a world view that says there is no purpose or meaning to life. Can you please explain your rationale to me? I really would like to know how you each view this personally.

WS, you say your motivation is to benefit humanity for the long run. I can accept that, although I don't fully understand or appreciate that motivation.

I also find it ironic that my questioning this can be seen as a personal shortcoming. I hope that the bold sentence above clarifies things.
[edit]

quote:

---

To me, the idea that the only reason to be a good person is because we've been told to and we're being watched is a pretty shallow useless reason.

---

After reading this more closely, I think I understand the shortcoming comment much better. You're saying that it is a shortcoming to not be able to love for no good reason.

I also think your description of my motivation is a mischaracterization and/or possible misunderstanding. I would ask on what basis were we told to love others? Are you assuming that commandment is an arbitrary one? Assuming God exists and he is watching, then that provides a basis of meaning that is absent without him.

I have often wondered why certain decisions I make matter. There are quite a few decisions that I deal with that no other human being will ever or could ever know about yet how I act will affect others. As soon as you know there is a person who transcends creation that cares what I do and also who will know for eternity the decision I make, then that is the moment you realize meaning.

It is a very common thing to hear people say that our only access to immortality is how we are remembered by friends and loved ones. Why is that said? It is because we place meaning an purpose on our actions based on what others will perceive.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-27-2005 02:42)

Bugs, there is a reason and puprose for the realists, objectivists, and the like. Quite simply: to live and be happy.

If I can remember, I'll expound later.

My reason is terribly simple, achieve the most long term happiness possible.

I believe this to be true of everyone.

I also do not believe that anything is selfless. Anything one does that can bring happiness to another can bring happiness to the person performing the action.

Dan @ Code Town

The best reason in the world for treating others well, loving others and being thoughtful of others...and the reason I do it...selfishness...it makes ME feel good to make others feel good.

One does not need direction from a myth to arrive at this conclusion.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Cool, thanks very much for those. Some follow ups if I may:

warjournal, is that purely self based happiness you're referring to? If hurting other humans added to your happiness, how would you choose your actions? Do you see practicing "agape" love on a regular basis consistent with your world view?

WarMage, I suppose I would like to ask you the same questions since it sounds like your motivations are similar to warjournal's.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Yes, selfishness or self-based happiness. Self-sacrifice is an illusion that is actually selfishness. I 'sacrifice' a lot for my daughters, but only because it makes me happy.

Each person is responsible for self. I'm responsible for myself and you are responsible for you. It's not up to me to make decisions about you. If I were to punch you in the nose, I would be making a decision about your body and that's wrong. Hurting others, or initiating force, is bad.

Some people get a kick out of hurting others against their will (rape comes to mind). In my experience, this kind of bad happiness is empty and doesn't last long (not that I've raped anybody or anything). These people are actually looking for something else and don't know what it is.

Then there is the survival slant on hurting others. Some people are just too lazy to be productive, so they resort to hurting others for a living. Again, short-lived survival happiness and back to baddie square one.

Ah, loosing my train of thought.

If caring for others is your thing, go for it. "Agape" all you want - just don't do it against anybody. Like mugging people to put change in the church's tithe or something. That's just plain rude.

Hurting people is bad.
Living life is good.
That's the bottom of it.

quote:

---

"Agape" all you want - just don't do it against anybody.

---

I would like to add, who doesn't want it.

Bugs, the long term view matches the purpose that I believe in. Evolution and advancement of Humanity.

One quick interjection about self-sacrifice.

It does make one happy, to an extent, but it also would have the potential to make one unhappy as well, true? For instance giving someone a dollar. You are happy that you could allow that person a sandwich for the day, but now you are out your dollar for a sandwich.

Unhappines for happiness? Which is greater? Which serves the self more?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

Unhappines for happiness? Which is greater? Which serves the self more?

---

Depends on whether or not one holds a short-term or long-term worldview, IMHO. In the long run, one dollar will not make a diference to me. But for that short period of time, it might just make that other person a bit happier.

I'll point out an example that happened yesterday.

I was sitting in a Cafe with my Father-in-Law, enjoying a coffee with him in the sun - a very nice, relaxed atmosphere.

An old woman (ca. 70) came by on a bicycle, and lost control, and crashed.

We jumped up without a thought and rushed over to help her, along with about 5 others. We tended her injuries, sat her in some shade (too much sun, she was overheated), and ordered her a nice, cold water (which the Cafe put on the house).

Now, why did we all spring up to help? We certainly didn't have to. And why was the cold drink offered, without cost? That certainly wasn't necessary (the old woman offered to pay, and was politely refused).

What benefit did any of us get out of all this? Why did we help?

It was pure un-selfishness. We helped, because someone NEEDED help and we were the nearest to provide it (at least, that was my motive, after I thought about it afterwards).

So the happiness in the situation of helping the woman out, out-weighed the unhappiness of your afternoon with your father-in-law being disrupted?

Do you think this same scale is always used to determine decisions, or sometimes does doing something that results in a net unhappiness actually get priority over that of one with a net happiness?

For instance, the sacrifice of something larger: a car, a job, or a life?

Do things like that happen, and if so, why would someone go against the selfishness of self elevation to help out another at the risk of self diminuation?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

That's real nice of you to help her out BTW, WS. A really noble thing to do.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

So the happiness in the situation of helping the woman out, out-weighed the unhappiness of your afternoon with your father-in-law being disrupted?

Do you think this same scale is always used to determine decisions, or sometimes does doing something that results in a net unhappiness actually get priority over that of one with a net happiness?

---

I don't tend to analyse the situation as it is happeneing, Gid. There is normally no time for such (especially in the example I gave). Either one feels impelled to help, or one does not.

It didn't really disrupt my afternoon with my father-in-law. We were both active in helping the woman. We had something new to talk about afterwards, as the adrenaline let up. In fact, it gave us both something that we could share between us.

WHEN I have time to actually analyse and think before making a decision, then I usually weigh all the factors that I can and decide based on my results. When I don't have time, then I act first, and analyse later.

quote:

---

That's real nice of you to help her out BTW, WS. A really noble thing to do.

---

I don't really think of it as noble. It is one human helping another, that needs help. I find that a natural response.

Bugs, I believe that hurting other can lead to a whole lot of happiness. Beating up the person who cut me off, kicking the individual who looked at me funny. I am sure I could get a lot of enjoyment out of that.

But this happiness would be very temporary. It would be short sighted, and would most likely result in a whole lot more negative backlash than the enjoyment was worth. There are much easier and much less costly ways to get happiness.

I think that Eetheist's selfishness motivation is pretty much the same motivation I have. If you are intelligent about it, it works out smoothly.

Gid, helping out the woman provided so many different types of happiness it is hard to know where to begin. I don't want to speak for WS, but were I in his shoes it would provide:

1. A bonding experience with my father
2. The gratitude of the woman who fell
3. A great story to be able to tell to others

This falls into what the three areas that I think are important. Love, Happiness, and Respect. In the above situation by offering that little service to the woman you would be getting all three of those. It was a great trade, for 10 minutes of your life you will have an experience that might last you years.

The natural response thing, is IMO, just your conditioning. I do many things without thinking, per se, but I have developed patterns of response over the years that allow me to make quick decisions without performing active thought. This is your super-ego, and I know I haven't quashed mine so I doubt many others have quashed theirs.

Dan @ Code Town

WM I worry about someone who would get pleasure, or contemplate getting pleasure, out of beating some-one up for cutting them off or "looking at me funny".

These are not the reactions of a balanced, rational individual...one of which you seemed to be, up to now.

Where do you live that cafes charge for water?

Give up on gid, I don't share WS belief that he is progressing. I am not even certain he mentates, more like the 10,000 monkeys with typwriters.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Again my failure to appropriately use the english language raises its ugly head.

When considering myself as a whole individual the statement in question is a false statement. I was writing that when thinking only in terms of my id.

Second, the above statement is used as an exhageration to highlight the innumerable number of ways in which such emotions are put in check by other overriding emotions.

So I don't think you need to worry about anything other than my lack of communication skills.

Dan @ Code Town

WB. I just was going back thru the thread and wanted to post a response to this one sentence and I think the rest of what you listed will be answered in this response as well.

You posted:

quote:

---

As to the reasons why Jews do not believe in Jesus as the true Messiah .

---

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

I believe the Jews are looking for a literal temple. Christians believe the third temple is the Lord Jesus Christ The third temple in the OT describes a central place, of gathering, celebration, and prayer, whose physical structure will serve as a sanctuary. (Does this sound like Christian Churches already in existence?)
What we learn from biblical teaching is that the temple referred from the OT is the Lord Jesus Christ who fulfills this prophecy. I make references:
In John verse 19, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.'" The people are flabbergasted by such an outrageous response. (20) "The Jews therefore said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?'" Then the writer, John, comments in verse 21 "But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
Yes, but don't miss the point and the meaning of shifting from the temple in Jerusalem to the temple of his body. He had just purged the temple in Jerusalem with a whip. He had called it his Father's house. The disciples had recalled Psalm 69:9, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." They want a sign for this behavior. Jesus does not say, "I have nothing to say about your temple. I have only a word about my body. No. No. He does have something to say about their temple. He says, Destroy this temple . . . this temple, the one I just purged, the one you have turned into a market place. The one for which I am consumed with zeal.
But how? How will they destroy it? How will they bring the entire sacrificial system of the OT, centered in the temple to an end? How will they bring the entire OT priesthood ministering in the temple to an end? How will they destroy the meeting place with their God?
The answer is by rejecting Jesus, the Messiah, and putting him to death. When Christ died, Judaism as it was practiced in the temple died. The final sacrifice was made. The sacrifice of Jesus ended all sacrifices. The final high priest offered himself for the sin of his people. Forty years later the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. But the decisive end came at Calvary when Jesus was destroyed. "In three days I will raise it up." Now Jesus, himself speaks only of his body. After the of day of the destruction in my death he says, I will be the temple. I will be the way to meet God. I am the sacrifice needed to cover sin. I am the priest, the only mediator between God and man. I am the dwelling place of God.
From this time on. wherever men and women and little children want to meet God they may come to me - anywhere, anytime. The forgiveness they need, they find in me. The God they need, they find in me. I am the new temple, and there will be no other. Jesus gave this response to the question in John 2:18, "What sign do you show to us, seeing that you do these things?" What sign? What evidence? That you take such authority and make such claims? His answer: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."

quote:

---

WM I worry about someone who would get pleasure, or contemplate getting pleasure, out of beating some-one up for cutting them off or "looking at me funny".

These are not the reactions of a balanced, rational individual...one of which you seemed to be, up to now.

---

You can't stop emotions. If you get mad, then you get mad. The rational/irrational part is how you act on such emotions. There is a big difference between thinking about smashing someone's nose out of anger and actually doing it.

Just a quick note:

There is a *huge* difference between pleasure and happiness.

What you might get out of taking out your anger against the person who caused it is pleasure. Pleasure is always temporary, and of course there are far better ways to attain pleasure which are not harmful to others.

Happiness is far more elusive.

Haven't read the most recent few posts, and I will be back, Bugs, to respond to your post!

quote:

---

Give up on gid, I don't share WS belief that he is progressing.

---

I sure as HELL never said that!!

As for you post Jade, GO BACK and read what I posted. Even if you "rationalize" the building of the temple, examine ALL the other points that Jesus did not fulfill. Good luck with the Prophetic one. The Jews have very streng rules governing when one can become a Prophet, and under what conditions.

Jesus COULD NOT fulfill the one requiring that a certain amount of the Jewish population be in one area. Not at that time.

Good luck.

Blimey! You could go mad thinking about stuff like that (and taking it too seriously)!

Short version of a loooooong story:

I was the passenger in an awful crash in Ireland. It took three hours to cut me out. During my time in the wreckage, I told the driver to get out of the car and wait - she seemed to be fine, as it was my side of the car that had become intimate with a tree.

She was a recent acquaintence, and I was starting to wish I hadn't got into the car with her.

I smacked one would-be rescuer in the head and told him to wait for the fire and ambulance services when he started trying to pull my legs clear. I was trapped from the thighs down, spitting blood and tooth fragments through what was left of the door frame. A few too many American movies had me worrying about explosive petroleum and car collisions, and I certainly didn't want anybody else going up with me. On top of that, if I had injuries I couldn't momentarily detect, I certainly didn't want some idiot pulling me around and making things worse.

...but I felt okay, and I told the driver this - it stopped her crying quite so loudly.

I had no idea that they thought I had a broken back. I couldn't see the fifty-kilo sack of coal that had been occupying the boot, but was now where I had been before my seat had been torn from the vehicle floor. It wasn't until they'd finally cut enough metal away that I could move tht I even realised my back was injured.

The worst thing was the pins and needles after three hours of reduced blood-flow to the feet.

When it turned out that I had no broken bones (just several torn muscles, ligaments and tendons, and my legs, back and ribs were all bruised horrifically) and no concussion or internal injuries, they couldn't stop me from crawling out of the hospital. I discharged myself within twelve hours of arriving. I knew I wasn't badly injured enough to warrant their care when others in the same ward were in far worse condition.

People die in hospital - so I spent forty-five minutes struggling to pull my boots back on (with the steel toe-caps that had saved my feet from severance) and hobbled from the compulsory wheelchair to a waiting car.

When the dust had settled (and I'd had my fifteen seconds of fame rising from the rumoured paralysis and leg amputation that so many in the nearby town had heard about) I made the decision not to claim for compensation - it would have made things impossible for the driver, my friend, with automatic liability for the huge fireman's bill, raised premiums on her insurance, etc, at a really crucial time in her life.

Besides, being a dental nurse, she got my teeth fixed for nothing, and if I had sought compensation, I would most likely have lost her friendship.

About eight months later, I was visiting her to congratulate her on some good news, when she collapsed in front of me. Head pain, violent purging, losing consciousness, convulsions, and heart-rate and body temperature soaring so high that her flesh turned bright red.

I thought it could have been poisoning or cerebral haemorrhage.

I wrapped wet towels round her head and shoulders, carried her into the bathroom (to continue vomitting blood into the bath), made her drink water and annoyed her into consciousness while I phoned an ambulance. I'm no doctor, but I did what seemed obvious, then kept her talking.

It took nearly two hours for the ambulance to turn up, whereupon they waited for her doctor to arrive too (another hour) who agreed with my desperate assertion that she should have been at hospital already. It took another two hours to get to the nearest hospital with decent facilities.

It turned out to be a haemorrhage that caused hydrocephalus. The bizarre symptoms were secondary to the pressure on her brain-stem.

I was told by the doctors that she would most likely have slipped quietly into a coma within an hour of the initial bleed, and died long before either of her daughters had arrived home that evening. Such was the severity of her condition.

It was apparent later that it had nothing at all to do with the crash eight months before. She was just one of many who had a genetic propensity for vessel weakness in the brain, and one of the few unlucky enough to have it realised.

We're still long-distance friends. A scar hidden by facial hair, the odd back-ache, a knee that cracks constantly, and a couple of high-maintenance teeth - these are a small price to pay for still having her around... even if she's hundreds of miles away across the Irish channel.

In light of all that's been said here, I could go completely schizo thinking too deeply on the motivations behind the interactions in my life. I think about the choices I make, and I just hope that they all lead to such happy consequences, even if I don't always know what they are or who they benefit.

Also, sometimes, I can't help thinking that luck favours the kind from time to time - perhaps that is selfish in a superstitiously benign way.
__

And yes, I lost track completely of what I wanted to post about then... sorry.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

WH, regardless, what an awesome story you just shared with us... I very much appreciate it

Knowing and understanding the why we act the way we do is not an easy thing. I believe that few people ever really get to that point and the ones that do, understand only in part.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I knew it was going to be difficult to communicate my point
without raising the natural defense mechanisms. But the point is one
that I am very interested in understanding better.



Please note that I did not say atheists cannot be moral, or do good
works, or even be self sacrificing for their fellow human beings. I know for a fact they can.

I chose my words very carefully, "If I were an atheist, I cannot fathom any reason to practice that sort of love for others."

---

I need to state that I did certainly realize what it was you were saying, and to point out that the reaction received is not entirely a defensieve one.

quote:

---

I do not understand the "reason" for doing so given a world view that
says there is no purpose or meaning to life. Can you please explain
your rationale to me? I really would like to know how you each view
this personally.

---

First of all, let me reiterate that an atheistic view is not necessarily a view that there is no purpose, and most certainly is not a view that there is no meaning.

I do not personally subscribe to any view that incorporates a higher purpose in some grand scheme the like of which christianity espouses. I do not beleive in fate. I do not beleive that we will punished or rewarded in some grand eternal afterlife (and, for the record, that view is one that was not initially present in christianity either - it was a somehwat later construct).

I have said many times that we, as a species, exist for one purpose: to recreate and die, just like every other species of plant or animal.

I have also been explicit in stating that our true purpose here is of our own making.

As for meaning - it goes hand in hand I suppose, that life has whatever meaning you ascribe to it. You ascribe such meaning not by stating "this is the meaing of life". You ascribe such meaning by living your life in a way that exerts a particular meaning. Actions most definately speak louder than words.

quote:

---

I also find it ironic that my questioning this can be seen as a
personal shortcoming. I hope that the bold sentence above clarifies
things.

---

Again I have to say - I understood your statement. I want you to realize that you are a person I hold in high regard, and when I speak of shortcomings, I do not imply that such a shortcoming is your downfall, or in some way invalidates the positive qualities you posess.

But I do view the statements you have made in this regard (on several occasions) to be one of your shortcomings. To not be able to understand what motivates humanitarian behavior in someone who lacks your concept of god and heaven is something that I can see no other way.

To me, if it takes your diety to tell you that you should behave in this way, then it loses something.

At the same time, I have most certainly always stated in concurrance with the views expressed by WM and WJ - all seemingly 'selfless' acts are in fact selfish on at least some level.

Any time any person does something for someone else, the ultimate motivation is selfish.
There are many people who will instictually refute this blindly and ineffectually.

There are several ways in which this selfishness presents itself.

The first is blatant and overtly phony. We have all seen the person who, always (exclusivley) in the presence of others will feign at some charitable act, with the obvious goal of looking good in the public light. There are many many variations of this type, and I'm sure you've seen them all.

The second is less blatant, more effectual in the real world. This is the type of person who feels obligated to such things - who does it willingly, but if there was not the presence of the obligation (whether of religious or purely social origin), would not think twice about it.

The third is less noticacble, and many people would object to using the word 'selfish', but connotations aside, that is exactly what it is.

It becomes important at this point to single out the word empathy. Empathy motivates a very large amount of charitable behavior. Empathy allows us to understand the plight of another person, and to respond in a way that is helpful to the person in need.

But empathy is purely a statement of selfishness. We see a person in duress. We understand the way it would feel to be that person. We feel guilt, we feel compassion. In order to ease the guilt, in order to rid the thoughts of how awful it must be to be the person in question, we act to alleviate the predicament.

Is our action positive? Yes. Is our action beneficial? Yes. Are we to be viewed in a good light for behaving this way? Overall, I say yes.

Is it still selfish to act this way?

YES!

The fact that a person beleives that eternal reward belings to them for behaving in this way (and that eternal punishment is theirs for *not*) is *obviously* not something that stops it from being a selfish act - it does nothing but reinforce manyfold the fact.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:To me, the idea that the only reason to be a
good person is because we've been told to and we're being watched is a
pretty shallow useless reason.

---

e]
After reading this
more closely, I think I understand the shortcoming comment much better.
You're saying that it is a shortcoming to not be able to love for no
good reason.

I also think your description of my motivation is a mischaracterization
and/or possible misunderstanding. I would ask on what basis were we
told to love others? Are you assuming that commandment is an arbitrary
one? Assuming God exists and he is watching, then that provides a basis
of meaning that is absent without him.

---

Hm. This is a rather good point. One that I have not before considered on the level that you present it. While I would not characterize such a 'commandment' as arbitrary, I would say that the majority of people still do such things only because they feel they are being watched. The idea that you ascribe a higher meaning to such behavior because you view such commandments as deeper in meaning than simply 'commandments' is intriuging. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be plenty of christians who will agree with on a verbal level.

I would not buy this argument from the majority of such people - it carries some meaning, however, coming from you.

quote:

---

As soon as you know there is a person who transcends creation that cares what I do and also who will know for eternity the decision I make, then that is the moment you realize meaning.

---

This, however, I just cannot buy.
There are 2 people who's existence forces me to scrutinize my decisions.

1) ME. I have to live with me. I know that whether or not anyone else ever knows about something I have done, that I have done it.

2) My daughter. I am, anythign and everything else aside, a role model for my child. If she is to learn what I think is important for her to learn, it will be from my behavior. I live with this understanding at every moment, and must try to be successful in my role.

Neither myself nor my daughter "transcends creation" in the manner you purport.

No such entity exists for me. No such entity is required to make me look closely at my behavior.

No such entity is required to find meaning.

quote:

---

It is a very common thing to hear people say that our only access to
immortality is how we are remembered by friends and loved ones. Why is
that said? It is because we place meaning an purpose on our actions
based on what others will perceive.

---

I agree for the most part in this assessment.
We live as long as we are remembered.
It is true that we place meaning based on the perception of others.

Some go by the perception of the public at large. Some, like yourself, go by what you see as the perception of your creator. Some, like me, go more on the perception of someone close to them.

All of these views are still ultimately selfish and exist for the sake of personal satisfaction.

That is the motivation, no matter what you beleive in.

So, the *real* answer to your question - what is the motivation for us athiests?


The same as yours.

^A-fucking-Men!!!!!!

Well said, DL! Nice post.

Brilliantly put. Nice one DL.

My kudos as well DL.