Re: The Meaning of Life

by Pedro Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:58 pm

Ms.Thang wrote:Michelle Duggar is part of the *Quiverfull movment. The meaning of life is probably pretty simple for them, but they have a way of simplifying just about everything to justify their ways. ..like with overpopulation.
They are making an army for Jesus.

From Urban Dictionary:

Quiverfull Movment

A branch of evangelical Christians who take the Bible literally. They believe that one of the most important of God's commands is to "be fruitful and multiply" (it's written twice!). Quiverfull families have as many children in the least amount of time that is humanly possible. The quiverfull mission is to repopulate the world with white Christians, and the movement is one of the fastest growing segments of Dominionist Christians."

it figgers-deliver us from eviljellycoals-SNORK!

by Rubia Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:17 pm

I think Hawking's question was "Is there meaning to life" not "What is the meaning of life". If you answer "yes, life has meaning" then I believe that meaning is unequivocally personal.

by gringomojado Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:50 pm

papa chango wrote:
The Meaning of Life

I think of myself as a scientist. I'm not an expert or a professor at some prestigious College. I'm a retired guy enjoying my retirement in Mexico. I do have some professional experience in science. My degree in college was a BA with a major in zoology and a minor in chemistry. I attended the University of California at Los Angeles Medical School and I have worked in medical research laboratories, epidemiology and computer science (amongst other things).

I enjoy learning about and trying to understand many areas of science, such as cosmology, biology, astronomy, physics, particle physics, genetics, evolution, string theory, chemistry and robotics.

A few days ago, I was watching one of the Discovery Channels and watched one of Stephen Hawking's programs about the meaning of life.
After the program was over, I thought to myself what does perception and the nature of reality have to do with the meaning of life? Stephen Hawking is a brilliant physicist but I think the subject of the meaning of life should have been handled by a geneticist, biologist or maybe a philosopher.

Socrates and and Aristotle had thoughts on this subject and later on Nietzsche and Monty Python. However, their thinking was mainly about the meaning of life for human beings and not the meaning of life in general. I mean to propose an answer for the meaning of life for all life from bacteria and viruses to plants and all animals.

I think the answer to the question about the meaning of life is to reproduce and pass your DNA genome to the gene pool for succeeding generations. Perhaps there is something in your DNA genome that will contribute to the evolution of the human species to the next species that will supersede Homo sapiens.

The Meaning of Life

by JayBear Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:00 pm

Oh, give me a break! We were posting about the MEANING OF LIFE, which is subjective, is it not??? Personally, I have not found any, except to help others, which has been rather a burden of late. "We are here to help others." "And what are others here for?" Was this Monty Python???

by ra27 Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:26 am

When thoughts stop permanently--via grace, spiritual practices, etc----this is self realization, the true purpose or meaning of life.

by Pedro Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:42 am

why would a woman named grace stop your thoughts?

by ltollefs Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:54 am

ra27 wrote:When thoughts stop permanently--via grace, spiritual practices, etc----this is self realization, the true purpose or meaning of life.

Damn, I almost stepped in that!

by gringal Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:24 am

I am wondering why anyone who is familiar with this forum would pose such a question. It naturally leads to smartass remarks, and inevitably heads for the subject of religion. Religion gives people the answer to that question. For those who are agnostics or atheists, it's most likely a mystery..........never to be answered.

by halcon Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:58 am

it stirs shit up, perhaps that's the purpose, but not meaning, to some. i see these threads as some bizarre form of multi-faceted excersize that i really can't define.

by ltollefs Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:59 am

gringal wrote:I am wondering why anyone who is familiar with this forum would pose such a question. It naturally leads to smartass remarks, and inevitably heads for the subject of religion. Religion gives people the answer to that question. For those who are agnostics or atheists, it's most likely a mystery..........never to be answered.

Well, there is the smartass remarks, and there's the passive-aggressive kind. Just like your last sentence. I want to know what's true, not what's comfortable, not what some pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers would have us believe.

by viajero Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:17 am

ltollefs wrote:

Well, there is the smartass remarks, and there's the passive-aggressive kind. Just like your last sentence. I want to know what's true, not what's comfortable, not what some pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers would have us believe.

"pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers"?
Is that a smartass remark or the passive-agressive kind?

by Lady Otter Latté Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:18 am

"For those who are agnostics or atheists, it's most likely a mystery..........never to be answered."

I do not see how that is considered passive-aggressive. Unless you have some religious answer that satisfies you, there is no answer. People have been making up answers since there were people. Some believe the religious explanations are just that--answers made up to satisfy those who can be made to believe.

by Lady Otter Latté Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:19 am

""pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers"?
Is that a smartass remark or the passive-agressive kind?"

I would say both. Good job!

by viajero Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:29 am

gringal wrote:I am wondering why anyone who is familiar with this forum would pose such a question.

The OP considers himself to be a scientist,if he chooses to pose such a question on Insidelakeside who are we to question it?

by halcon Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:32 am

well, let's break it down...there is "whats true" "THE TRUTH" etc. and on and on.
"meaning" has a different connotation. subjective or objective? and on and on.
and the "muti-universe" concept, which rings true wit me, really throws sand in the gears.
TOWER OF POWER wrote "whats hip today, may later be passe".
as for the goat herders......ef dem.

by ltollefs Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:36 am

Lady Otter Latté wrote:"For those who are agnostics or atheists, it's most likely a mystery..........never to be answered."

I do not see how that is considered passive-aggressive. Unless you have some religious answer that satisfies you, there is no answer. People have been making up answers since there were people. Some believe the religious explanations are just that--answers made up to satisfy those who can be made to believe.

Well, my take was that gringal sees agnostics/atheists as having a deficit in the meaning-of-life department. For the record, my life has sufficient meaning. I find her statement passive-aggressive because the inference we are to make is that without religion one's' life's meaning can't be known because we reject the source (in her opinion) of that meaning.

I have a bad cold today. Maybe I'm just being mean.

by Pedro Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:39 am

viajero wrote:
ltollefs wrote:

Well, there is the smartass remarks, and there's the passive-aggressive kind. Just like your last sentence. I want to know what's true, not what's comfortable, not what some pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers would have us believe.
"pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers"?
Is that a smartass remark or the passive-agressive kind?

it's to the point so it's not passive/aggressive. which means it ain't smart ass either. it's merely smart.

by Lady Otter Latté Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:40 am

Hahahahaha. You do not know Gringal do you? Also, not familiar with her posts, I take it? You TOTALLY misread her meaning. We'll blame the cold.

by viajero Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:46 am

Lady Otter Latté wrote:Hahahahaha. You do not know Gringal do you? Also, not familiar with her posts, I take it? You TOTALLY misread her meaning. We'll blame the cold.

Whoosh!!!

by gringal Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:46 am

ltollefs wrote:
Lady Otter Latté wrote:"For those who are agnostics or atheists, it's most likely a mystery..........never to be answered."

I do not see how that is considered passive-aggressive. Unless you have some religious answer that satisfies you, there is no answer. People have been making up answers since there were people. Some believe the religious explanations are just that--answers made up to satisfy those who can be made to believe.

Well, my take was that gringal sees agnostics/atheists as having a deficit in the meaning-of-life department. For the record, my life has sufficient meaning. I find her statement passive-aggressive because the inference we are to make is that without religion one's' life's meaning can't be known because we reject the source (in her opinion) of that meaning.

I have a bad cold today. Maybe I'm just being mean.

Yes, you're having a "mean cold" moment and are not reading my post literally. It will pass. I'm an agnostic close to atheism from away back. I don't expect an answer to the "meaning of life" but I enjoy having one to live. For people who are religious, they believe that their religion gives them an answer and they are probably much more comfortable than those of us who don't.
Peace, and hope you get well soon.

by Pedro Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:47 am

viajero wrote:
Lady Otter Latté wrote:Hahahahaha. You do not know Gringal do you? Also, not familiar with her posts, I take it? You TOTALLY misread her meaning. We'll blame the cold.
Whoosh!!!

SNORK!

by papa chango Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:51 am

gringal wrote:I am wondering why anyone who is familiar with this forum would pose such a question. It naturally leads to smartass remarks, and inevitably heads for the subject of religion. Religion gives people the answer to that question. For those who are agnostics or atheists, it's most likely a mystery..........never to be answered.

The reason I made this post here on insidelakeside was to hear from others what their take on this subject would be. I realize that it seems that most posts here seem to generate comments that are meant to be funny. However, I have been pleasantly surprised that there are many thoughtful comments on this subject.

Surte

by viajero Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:54 am

Pedro wrote:
viajero wrote:
ltollefs wrote:

Well, there is the smartass remarks, and there's the passive-aggressive kind. Just like your last sentence. I want to know what's true, not what's comfortable, not what some pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers would have us believe.
"pre-scientific goat herders and olive stompers"?
Is that a smartass remark or the passive-agressive kind?
it's to the point so it's not passive/aggressive. which means it ain't smart ass either. it's merely smart.

IOW you're saying that passive/agressive remarks can't be smartass remarks,that they're mutually exclusive?

by Pedro Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:00 pm

passive aggressive can indeed be smart ass. i was referring to a particular statement not generalizing-capish? i suggest you re-read what i said until it becomes clear to you. that shouldn't be hard because you quoted me.

by gringal Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:01 pm

From Wikipedia:
Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.

For research purposes, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder as a "pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations".

IMO, the term is widely overused. Amateur shrinkage.
I'm with the notion that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and we should be hesitant to read too much into anyone's posts.

by Pedro Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:07 pm

the person that used that phrase passive/aggressive in regards to a post misused that diagnosis as you have described gringal and as i have pointed out earlier. this afternoon i will light up a puro at the usual time.

by Sponsored content