Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Needs" to be appreciated why? If appreciation is merely brain chemistry, it's no different from hunger or hate, none of which have any moral value at all, because there is none to be had. Murder and charity and the blowing of the wind: all are meaningless accidents in a purely material universe.

And your description of an afterlife is not at all how I think of it; it sounds quite mercenary. It's more like "spend your time painting as if someone will see it, not as if you will burn it immediately upon finishing."



Ah, so it comes down to this: morality. As if human beings themselves aren't inherently good enough to figure things out for ourselves. Instead we need a mythical super-being to tell us what is right or wrong. This is where a religion based on the appreciation of life conflicts with a religion based on controlling others via morality.

I have no problem if you want to believe that there is a super-being in the sky or that we are all made of stars or that there is some inherent order to the universe and life that we do not yet understand. But don't pretend that you are right and others are wrong. Your version of a God with his omnipotent powers and everlasting love has just as much cause to communicate with me personally as he does with you or the Pope or your preacher. No one can tell me that they know better than I do what lies beyond this life.

Why do we have to keep our eyes closed to the beauty of life here on earth for it to have "meaning"? Life is awesome, devastating, amazing, heartbreaking, and wonder-filled. Every moment is a gift. Knowing that one day it will all come to an end makes it all the more beautiful for me.


I'm not trying to force you to believe anything. I'm merely observing that meaning exists in minds. If you believe that all minds will cease to exist, you must believe that all meaning will cease to exist.

I'm just asking for consistency.


I'm merely observing that meaning exists in minds. If you believe that all minds will cease to exist, you must believe that all meaning will cease to exist.

I can't speak for the parent post, but personally I'm fine with that. All meaning, and indeed morality, exists in minds. Which is why it's so incredibly important to me that we not squander it while it does exist in the name of something that doesn't.


As your mind ceases to exist, the effect of your existence is not lost. Meaning does not cease to exist after I die. I can care about the world, human beings and life beyond my own life without believing in one of the many thousand-year-old religions. In choosing to appreciate and enjoy my life as much as possible right now, I honor all those who come after me. I am part of that future. My appreciation for life inspires me to contribute as meaningfully as possible.


    There's a Straaaaaw Maaaaan [1]
      waiting in the sky;
    He'd like to come and meet us, 
      but he thinks he'll blow our minds 
Seriously, not believing in god doesn't mean you don't acknowledge your own subjectivity and your feelings.

Jesus was probably the first to emphasize how much the humans are social beings, that they need one another, and that there's actually a lot to enjoy and to win by being nice towards each others.

Some biblical teachings are remarkably insightful, but you don't need the full package to make sense out of it.

BTW, assuming that god (whatever it is) is transcendent, by definition, it is impossible to conceive it. As a consequence any attempt at conceptualizing it is doomed to fail. You're only ever relating to your flawed mental representation of it. It can provide wonderful experiences, but you can get similar ones in totally different settings [2].

[1] David Bowie, Starman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5iOiLX5ppA#t=00m52

[2] http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html


> "Jesus was probably the first to emphasize how much the humans are social beings, that they need one another, and that there's actually a lot to enjoy and to win by being nice towards each others."

That first bit is a rather bold claim in the face of Confucius.


That's why I said probably. It was to the best of my knowledge.

I'll refine it as "Jesus was probably, in western philosophy history, the first to emphasize...". But I may still be wrong...

I know nothing about Confucius. I guess it's Wikipedia time :-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: