Testing The Christian Apologists

I think you need to spend a bit more time on how memory works.Although most will remember "two planes took out the twin towers"... everything after that is pretty much up for grabs.
Some will remember near perfectly.
Others will get things mostly wrong.
Most will be hit-and-miss for this-and-that.Take a look at this:

quote:

---

The Mind, Explained - Episode 1

​

It begins with a woman named Melanie Mignucci detailing her memories of 9/11. She describes her panicked phone call with her mother, who worked in New York City at the time. Mignucci recalled how smoke from the towers circled outside her classroom window. She continues telling her story from that day, unaware that nothing she knew about her memory was true.

​

The memory this day never occurred it had simply been altered over time, leaving her able to recall something that never happened. After a few more similar stories, the viewer is left in a state of skepticism after realizing memories aren’t necessarily reliable most of what people think they know isn’t completely true. The idea of this unreliability was unsettling, as these are how people remember their entire lives.

---

This entire first episode (about 20 minutes) is available free on YouTube, I think, if you're interested.From what I can remember [ ], the lady learns that her mother was not in the City "at the time" and it's impossible for her to see the smoke outside her classroom window - the school is geographically too far away to even see any smoke, let alone have it circling her school... and the wind was blowing in the opposite direction that day anyway. No smoke from the towers ever got closer to her school - it got further away.That's how memory works - people think it's accurate, but it's not.
That's why we don't rely on memory when something's important. Do you not record important dates/meetings to remember on a calendar? Why would you ever need to do such a thing if your memory was accurate?

First - there are plenty of non-God explanations for the origin of the universe that don't involve God.
And most of them have more evidence behind them then God does.Second - that doesn't even matter. Let's just take the worst case "atheist scenario" here that the atheist's only answer is "I don't know how the universe came about."
Why do you think this supports a God-answer in any way?How would this imply that believer doesn't need to support their argument that God created the universe?Think of a non-God, general situation:We have a problem.
There are two men trying to figure it out.First man: "I don't know what to do."
Second man: "I know what to do - we should all respect my country's president and then everything will be better."
First man: "How will that help?"
Second man: "We just need to do it."
First man: "But the problem is here - what is your country's president going to do about it?"
Second man: "If your answer is 'I don't know' - then obviously we need to respect my country's president."What you're saying is that the second man doesn't need to support his argument because the first man's answer is "I don't know?"
How does this make sense?
Everyone should ignore the problem and start respecting this guy's president just because he said so, with no evidence at all that the president of another country is going to help or provide an answer in any way?The basic premise is that the one providing a claim ("we need to respect my country's president and then everything will be better...") needs to support it.
It's obvious that anyone else saying "I don't know what to do" adds 0 amount of credibility to the unsupported claim that's been made.
It's obvious that any other unsupported claim, say "Do 300 jumping jacks a day! That will solve all problems everywhere!!" has just as much support as respecting the other fellow's president.So - what would you do?
Support the other country's president just because some fool spouted a few words?
Start doing jumping jacks until the problem goes away?
Or continue to look for a solution that actually has some evidence to support it in helping to fix the problem and ignore all the crazy weirdos?Apply this procedure to your statement:

quote:

---

In response to atheists who simply say they lack a belief in God and that the onus is on the believers to support the argument, he challenges by asking them to give their explanation (as far as they believe) as to how the universe came about.

---

Then review this: Does he, though?Because if this is your best example - then he clearly does not.

Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true.
But no one promotes that they do such a thing.People promote that mental processes evaluate whether or not a theory is true.
And mental processes are quite capable of doing such a thing.
No God required.Chemicals don't reason, they react - true.
Mental processes don't reason, they react - false.Did you think about this at all? This doesn't make sense.
Why can't a mental process, made of "nothing but chemical reactions in the brain" do more than a simple chemical reaction on it's own?Why can't a mountain of snow, made of "nothing but snow flakes on a mountain" do more than a simple snow flake on it's own?
Wait - we can hold the Winter Olympics on a snow-covered mountain, but we cannot hold the Winter Olympics on a single snow flake.This idea that a group of things cannot be anything more than what a single aspect is capable of is ridiculous to the point of stupidity? Just as building houses is impossible in a world that has single 2'x4's?
Just as using roads is impossible in a world that has bits of asphalt?
Just as flying over seas is impossible in a world with sheet metal?
Just as talking to our friends and family is impossible in a world where sounds make single notes?
Just as showering every morning is impossible in a world with drops of water?Seriously... the idea is so laughably preposterous I can't believe you're suggesting that anyone take it seriously. 1 - The source or reason is our ability to look at evidence and make judgments due to the chemical processes in our brains.
-The fact that your Apologist says this is impossible is immaterial to it actually being possible - especially when we all do it everyday, without God.2 - We should trust some of the things we think, including the thought that there is no God, because trusting things that are supported with evidence is our best-known-method to knowing things about the world. It's what took us out of the Dark Ages and allowed us to flourish in this Information Age.
-We should trust it because it works - all without God.
-If you want to say it works better with God, I'm all ears - but I'm going to need more than your say-so, and your apologists' saying-so-that-goes-against-what-we-see-in-reality. I'm personally incredibly interested in any method that would be better - why wouldn't anyone? Me too.
Mind-bending, when you think about it.

I'm glad we agree on this point. This is your belief - it is only based on belief, and it goes against what evidence we have. You are free to have your belief.
In fact, I hope you hold onto this belief and expand our human knowledge in this area if/when you're able to obtain evidence.However, God not being required to make mental processes possible is based on the available evidence - not belief.
We can look inside the brain - we don't see God.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - we don't see God.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - we don't see God.This is the available evidence so far.Perhaps GDR (or someone claiming "it is all belief" as GDR does) will one day find some evidence that supports that position.
On that day - the available evidence will be in your favour.But today, all of the available evidence shows us that mental processes work without God.
So today - the available evidence is that no God is required.That is not belief.
Therefore - it is not "all" belief.To believe that my conclusion is absolutely true for all time, especially the unknown future - that would be belief.
But to hold this as a confident, tentative conclusion based upon the available evidence - that would not be belief.

What do you mean by this? That he sounds convincing to you?
That doesn't make him "quite good."
That makes him "quite nice for Thugpreacha to listen to and receive consoling feelings from."Although I wish for you to be happy, if we're wondering about how to identify reality - I'm not overly concerned on if Thugpreacha is feeling comfortable or not... I'm more concerned with how reality actually is.In the sense of describing reality, Turek appears to be "terrible." As shown by my above post dismantling the argument of his you chose to describe here. Why would I listen to his podcasts?
You chose to describe an argument that you though was "good."
That argument is clearly quite terrible at describing reality.Again, the argument may very well be "good" for making Thugpreacha feel comfortable.
But I'm not interested in watching a podcast so that Thugpreacha can feel comfortable - although I do want you to feel comfortable: that sounds like a waste of time to achieve that goal.
I am interested in describing reality - something that Turek implies he's doing. But all indications show that Turek is quite terrible at this, and it would be a waste of time to further investigate. My curiosity in describing reality would be much more satiated in watching a cat video on YouTube - at least it would be a real cat responding to real environmental conditions. I do not.
In fact, it seems extremely rude of Dr. Turek to try and use such an emotional event to sway subscribers in another reality-ignoring claim about reality. Why? Did he think about it all?
Think of it this way: Let's say God exists and is super powerful and can create anything at all.
God creates humans.
That's good, mind you, I'm quite pleased. But impressive? Amazing that he made a human with admirable qualities? Not really - God can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to make some good humans?Now, let's say God doesn't exist and we have a mindless world full of mindless processes doing uncontrolled things. By way of evolution, these things slowly develop consciousness and actually gain the ability to have admirable qualities due to their environment and social aspects and eventually make Christopher Hitchens - a man of many admirable qualities. Now THAT is impressive. Yeah - we know that Turek believes a lot of things that are contrary to the evidence. This comes as to no surprise. Perhaps Turek should keep this information-everyone-already-knows-about-Turek to himself for a few moments while Christopher Hitchens' family and friends attempt to focus on Christopher Hitchens for a few days due to his death.

That is not evidence that God created such things.
That is evidence that such things exist.The next question is: How were they created?
Is there any evidence that God did the creating? - The answer to this is "no." As we've looked into such things and never seen anything that would indicate God's presence, only the same regular physics we see in all other things.
Is there any evidence that God was not involved in the creating? - The answer to this is "yes." For the same reason as above. That's right.
You can choose to believe in spite of the current evidence, or choose to move in it's direction.
You can (rightly) say that we do not have all the evidence - there are aspects to life we have yet to understand.
But this doesn't make all the aspects we do understand (where no God is involved) disappear.
And this also don't lend any credibility to one day "finding God" in those yet-to-be-understood areas.
If anything, the pattern shows that it's likely we'll continue to "not find God" the more we learn - as that's what's happened every time we learn something new so far. Your observation is based upon belief.
Mine is based on the facts.Here's one fact I can say where we've looked for God and none is found:
We know chemical reactions happen in the brain.
We can investigate many of those chemical reactions.
We can replicate those chemical reactions in a lab.
No God is found in those chemical reactions when replicated or studied or understood.Can you name one fact that leads us to evidence showing God is present?
My claim is that you cannot - it will always end up being your feelings on the matter, your sense that such a thing "simply cannot possibly be" without God - but no actual, factual evidence.What you call "evidence of God" is simply your feelings.
Feelings are not evidence.
Evidence is facts that cannot be interpreted in various ways according to facts.Like chemical processes being replicated in the lab occurring without God.
You cannot "interpret" this another way according to the facts. - This is evidence.
You can only "interpret" it another way according to your feelings. - This is not evidence.But, you can show me to be wrong.If you think you actually have evidence, all you have to do is provide a single fact that cannot be "interpreted according to the facts" away from God being involved.
If the only way I can "interpret" it another way is according to my own feelings/beliefs... then you will actually have evidence and I will be wrong.Without that, my current argument stands - according to the evidence. Right.
I'm not saying that such a thing is fully understood. (I really don't know - maybe it is? I'm simply not aware.)
I'm saying the following 3 things:

1. I'm saying that there are parts of "the first cause" that provide factual evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way as to show, at a minimum, that there are parts of this "first cause" that do not include God. Like some of the chemical reactions.
   ​
2. I'm also saying that you are unable to produce any parts of "the first cause" that provide factual evidence that cannot be interpreted any other way as to show, at a minimum, that there are parts of this "first cause" that do include God. None at all.
   ​
3. I'm also saying that there are parts of "the first cause" that we do not understand yet.
   -These parts do not lend any more credence to "God must be involved, then" then they do to "God is not involved, then."

#1 provides "some evidence" for God not being involved.
#2 claims that there is "no evidence" for God being involved (you are free to dispute this, if you can, you just have to use facts.)
#3 is no help to either side. You only have #2 - you only have beliefs.
I have #1 - it may not be a final conclusion as there are parts we still don't understand. But it is above "none" as #2 contains, and therefore is more than "just belief." It contains evidence. That is not my belief, actually.
But I'm not talking about my belief here - I'm talking about what the evidence shows.
My belief (just like yours) is unable to change what the evidence says. That's why it's called "evidence" and not "something GDR or Stile wishes were true." Why not?
Why couldn't an intelligent creator come to be and create another universe completely separate from our current one? One with different rules, different inhabitants, and (hopefully) a different moral system that prevents heinous evil? I do not "hold" anything as true. Everything I think is true is tentatively understood. If I got evidence my parents weren't my parents tomorrow - I would accept it. I wouldn't stop loving "those who raised me as my parents" any less - but evidence is evidence. If you can provide any evidence of God, not only would I accept it, I would celebrate it. It would be amazing. That's not true. I am capable of separating ideas in my mind.
I am capable of understanding "what I believe" and also "what the evidence says."
The two do not always align for me.
I just also understand that when these do not align, I am not able to "force" the evidence to say something to match my belief just because I want it to.

No, why do you like to paint me as a demon? Do I have horns on both sides of all of my posts?
I'm saying that the concept of God in and of itself is very impressive - equally impressive as the concept of a universe without God in and of itself.
To me, it is equally impressive that "something" (a God-universe or a non-God universe) exists instead of "nothing."Now, let's step into those existing universes:Once we've established that we live in a God-existing universe, and God is all-powerful because He created the universe... once that's already accepted... only THEN is it "not all that impressive" that God is capable of creating good humans. Why would it be? Why would it be impressive that an all-powerful God can create something? Wouldn't that sort of be an expected trait of a God that's all-powerful? Kind of like being impressed that Usain Bolt can run 100m faster than Stile, no? Usain Bolt being fast is very impressive (like God existing). But Usain Bolt being faster than Stile is not very impressive (like God creating humans) - this is to be expected.Once we've established that we live in a non-God-existing universe, we have a dead, sterile universe - with lots of chemicals and reactions and things, but nothing alive.
All kinds of physical things happen - stars exploding, plants forming, atmospheres forming... Do we "expect" life? Do we "expect" humans? I don't think we do. I think it's quite possible that such a universe could continue for billions of years without ever forming life. Maybe forever (given the "wrong-type" of universe...)
But... then something crazy happens. Life does form! And that life, by whatever-other-unintelligently-guided-proccesses... creates humans! And some of those humans are good people with good morals!!!
Now THAT's impressive. Something amazing happening when it's not expected. Like me beating Usain Bolt in a 100m race. Basically, yes. But with more flair and trumpets!! I don't think you understand.You seem to have this idea that "the things Thugpreacha believes are true are an accurate reflection of reality."
I think that because you hold this idea: You think that Stile holds this idea as well.
But, you're wrong. I hold no such idea.I understand that "our description of the world according to evidence" is not "an accurate reflection of reality." It is only "our best approximation of what we think reality is like."
That is - no matter how many times apples fall from trees and hit the ground - I do not believe that apples fall from trees and hit the ground. I believe this:"Something we think of as apples" - "goes through a process we partly understand and currently call falling" - "from things we think of as trees" - "and has the possibility of being prevented from further linear movement as an entity through" - "what we think of as the ground."Now, in order to walk and talk with the rest of us humans - I just say "Apples fall from trees and hit the ground." But I don't hold any of that statement as an "accurate reflection of reality." Only our "current approximation due to our limited understanding of reality."Because I hold this core paradigm so strongly, and you do not - I think you're having a really hard time understanding my side of this.
(Note: This paradigm is not unique to Stile by any means... almost all scientists and all skeptics-who-aren't-scientists understand this paradigm very well, it began hundreds of years ago as we left the Dark Ages.)Because of this way-Stile-thinks-of-things: I do no think that "because there is no evidence of God" means that "there absolutely is no such thing as God."
However, even if God exists - if there's no evidence of God, then there's no evidence of God and because "evidence" is (so far) our best way to know things and understand reality - it would then be foolish to believe that God exits - even if He actually does.Just like driving your car to work every morning.
If there is no evidence that your car isn't safe to drive - it is foolish to spend an hour going over all the safety systems of your car every morning - even if one of the systems is actually out.
(If you don't believe that's accurate, you will be spending an hour every morning going over the safety systems of your car before you drive for the rest of your life.)God actually existing even though there's no evidence of Him doesn't make my claim moot - it actually makes my claim even more pertinent.
We all do it for most things in our lives. I just understand it, and apply it to God, too. Agreed.
And this is evidence that God does not exist.
It is not "as accurate reflection of reality" - but, really, nothing ever is.
Your confusion on this matter is the heart of your problem. Yes. Sure. Not possible.
His existence may be assumed under such circumstances. But not "known." We (humans) have attempted this method of "knowing things" and it is full of extremely large pitfalls and failures. We called it "The Dark Ages." You are free to try it again, and if you find a way to actually "know things" in a confident way - I will be extremely interested. But your claim that you can "know things" this way is exactly the problem with such a method: I can just as easily claim to "know" that God does not exist according to your same qualifications - and then what? Not at all.
More: fulfillment of a personal need.

This very first sentence shows that you really, really don't understand.Have another read of my explanation:

quote:

---

I understand that "our description of the world according to evidence" is not "an accurate reflection of reality." It is only "our best approximation of what we think reality is like."
That is - no matter how many times apples fall from trees and hit the ground - I do not believe that apples fall from trees and hit the ground. I believe this:

​

"Something we think of as apples" - "goes through a process we partly understand and currently call falling" - "from things we think of as trees" - "and has the possibility of being prevented from further linear movement as an entity through" - "what we think of as the ground."

​

Now, in order to walk and talk with the rest of us humans - I just say "Apples fall from trees and hit the ground." But I don't hold any of that statement as an "accurate reflection of reality." Only our "current approximation due to our limited understanding of reality."

---

What part of that do you think can be interpreted to say "Stile thinks that No God is a part of all truth?"
What you should be understanding is that "Stile does not think anything at all can be said to be a 'part of all truth.'"You're missing this huge paradigm shift between us.
Without understanding this - you're not going to be able to understand anything about me.
This is why everything you ever claim about "Stile thinks this..." is always wrong.
You don't understand the foundation I base things off of - you think it's similar to the foundation you use yourself. It is not. It is very, very different. Also incorrect.
Evidence has been proven to be the "best way to know things" (and is therefore not a 'belief.') It's why we have computers and no longer fear the Black Death. First - that is not my core belief.Second - This is you projecting again.
You hold "whatever Thugpreacha holds" as your core belief and that has no room for any other possible idea.
You then apply this concept to me.But that's not how I work:I hold "whatever Stile holds" as my core belief - but it is fundamental to this core system that I must have room for ALL other possible ideas.
Therefore, what you claim about me cannot possibly be true. Why do you say I worship science?
I am begging you to show me something that's better than science. It is one of my strongest held desires that we discover something "better" than science for knowing things.Do you wish for God to be replaced? I don't think you do. That's because you worship God.
I do, however, wish for science to be replaced. That's because I do not worship science.Let's try an analogy here:I drive my car, it's a modern Hyundai Elantra.
An acceptable car. It's actually pretty good - but it's far from perfect.I wish for a replacement. I am begging for someone to give me a better car.
But - this doesn't mean I don't drive my existing car.
My existing car works - it gets me to work and home and to fun places. It is the best-possible-way I have to commute.
No one's given me a better car, yet. But if they did - I'd replace my old car with it and use it immediately.Science is like this.
Science is an acceptable reality understand-er. It's actually pretty good - but it's far from perfect.I wish for a replacement. I am begging for someone to give me a better way to understand reality.
But - this doesn't mean I don't use science in the mean time.
Existing science works - it gets us out of the Dark Ages and into the modern Information Age. It is the best-possible-way I have to understand reality.
No one's given me a better way to understand reality, yet. But if they did - I'd replace science with it and use it immediately.Does that help at all?
Would you compare God to a shitbox like the Hyundai Elantra - where there are obviously many, many vehicles that are "greater" or "better?"This is one of our differences:
You worship God and do not want Him to be replaced.
I do not worship science/empiricism/materialism, and I definitely do want to replace them all. I do not have faith in empiricism. I am stuck with empiricism. I have faith that something better will replace empiricism and give us things even greater than supercomputers and the eradication of many diseases. I have faith in more. Not from what you just posted.
Please try again. Maybe read that car/science analogy a few times. I think it's a really good analogy for what I'm attempting to describe to you about how I think (and many, many other "empiricism-types" you encounter.)Edited by Stile, : Added section calling my car a shitbox

This line of argument is very easily shown to be wrong.Take anyone you know (possibly yourself?) who has ever felt "the highest value of love" in this universe - even if only for a fleeting moment.Then ask them if they could have had that same moment if the possibility of child rape was removed from this universe.There are only two outcomes:
1. Either they could very well have experienced the same moment, the same feeling of "the highest value of love."
OR
2. What they felt was dependent on some children being raped.. in which case, it's obviously not any value of love let alone "the highest value."Which means: The possibility and actualization of child rape in our universe is not required for humans to have freedom, be human, hate and love and also be able to reach "the highest value of love."
I cannot decide to condemn someone else's soul to hell - can I?
Does that mean I don't have freedom? Not human? Do I have "less freedom" than some God who could do that?Or... are you no longer talking about "freedom" here, and just hoping your audience gets confused as you actually discuss "abilities?"
Humans lack many abilities.
That doesn't mean they have "less freedom" than other creatures who have those abilities.
I think you're simply very confused on what "freedom" actually means.The idea that "evil must exist for love to exist" is extremely immature, dualistic and silly. I mean - it reads like it's been pulled straight out of a not-very-good young-adult fiction book.Love is more powerful than that.

Nah fam. Atheism = someone who doesn't believe in any gods.That's the only common factor.

All this says is that you don't know how meaning works.Subjective meaning is better than objective meaning.It's simple to show:Let's take two highly skilled professional baseball players.
One wants to play baseball, the other wants to be a dentist.
Their skill, however, is exactly the same... both just as reliable, productive and an asset to the team their on.The one who wants to play baseball, and is playing baseball, will have high feelings of happiness and satisfaction with their life.
The one who wants to be a dentist, and is playing baseball, will have feelings of frustration and discontentment with their life.Different people want different things - and the secret to having meaning is to identify the things that are important to you and make sure you're making progress on those goals in your life. It can be very difficult to do for some, but it's not a big secret on how to do it.Because different people want different things, having an "external" or "objective" meaning is, well, useless.If the "time independent" meaning is to be a baseball player - the one who still want to be a dentist will still feel frustrated.
It doesn't even matter what the external meaning is... as soon as it's one single thing... this just isn't going to work for everyone because people are different. And, it's only going to work for those who's subjective meaning happens to coincide with it anyway... which, again, means the external meaning is useless.Subjective meaning, however, can work for everyone - identify what's important to you and make sure your life includes making progress on those goals.
And - bam - your life has meaning that's greater than any possible external meaning that could exist.Subjective meaning is better than objective meaning.
Simply because that's how meaning works.

Okay, and let's see your explanation: Um...
You just described subjective meaning. "..identify the thing(s) that are/is important to you..."That's the very definition of subjective.
So you claim that objective meaning is better than subjective, and then go on to explain how meaning works subjectively?I understand you may want the words "objective meaning" to mean something... but they don't. Because meaning is subjective... as you just described.

Sure - you just described subjective meaning again.One thing (church) doesn't work for everybody.
Another one thing (let's say: self actualization) also doesn't work for everybody.Because meaning is subjective.If meaning was objective - then the objective meaning would work for everybody. Just like objective tape measures work for everybody. Yes - again, that's exactly what subjective meaning is. You have yet to explain any "objective" meaning. All you've explained is some meaning from an external source (subjectively chosen by that external source) and called it objective. That's like mixing up the usage of their, there and they're... similar in a superficial way (at first glance,) but very different in actual functionality.It seems like you don't understand what is intended by the definition of the word 'objective:'

quote:

---

OBJECTIVE: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

---

Which means, if you're attempting to say that something from God is objective, that something has to not be influenced by God's feelings or opinions and be external to God as well.
If you want to claim that nothing is external to God... then nothing from God is objective. It's all subjective - according to God.
Something that's subjective, but from God doesn't turn into "objective" for us... it's simply external to us. But it's still subjective - according to God. That's not true. Perhaps you and I are. Perhaps most at this webpage even are. But not everybody. Many people couldn't care less about what you and I described as "greater truth." Almost true. Not more exciting. I actually find God more exciting than science. What's more exciting than magic and mystery?
I would say, though that science is more accurate and better at describing reality.
Religions tried it for thousands of years... and got basically no where.
Science tried it for a few hundred years... and created the Industrial Age and the Technological Age... which is pretty impressive. I would say church can be welcoming and safe for those who want to feel welcomed and safe as a priority.
However, if you know yourself and want stability and guidance in life and want to know the truth about reality as a priority - then church has shown itself to be very, very wrong and counter-productive. Science isn't "right" - but it is the best currently know about for getting as close as we can. And has shown itself to be way better than church at identifying the truth about reality. Where do you think your computer came from? Not "move on" but "allow reality to define reality as opposed to our personal opinions and biases." If you ever think that's nothing left to be discovered - then you must think you have an answer for everything.What sounds more like something who thinks they're a god?
-someone who thinks they have an answer for everything and there's no need to discover anything else?
-someone who thinks there's always more to be discovered, and they could be wrong?Careful - your arrogance is showing.

This sounds like you're attempting to use similar sounding words to make a point that doesn't exist. A King has subjects.
The people are subjective to the King.
The people have their own subjective meanings regardless of whatever the King wants.
That is, even if the King demands his subjects all dig the moat - the subjects that would rather be building bridges or creating paintings will find the King to be meaningless.Subjective meaning is still better than objective meaning.
Objective meaning still doesn't exist.I don't understand your line of thinking here, other than attempt to muddy the waters with similar sounding words without actually making a coherent point. We didn't so much "become" this way as we've "always been" this way for as long as we've been around.
And, again - all you've done is describe subjective meaning. "Determining our own objectives" is the exact definition of subjective meaning.Objective meaning would be, like "everyone wants to play baseball!" and, if everyone actually did want to play baseball, always and forever... then this meaning would be objective. Can you think of anything like that? Yeah. I know God doesn't exist just as I know magic doesn't exist.
We looked, and saw that it doesn't exist.
Everytime we investigate "magic" or "God-did-it" all we find are natural processes doing things naturally - no magic, no God, nothing to hint that magic might exist, nothing to suggest that God could exist. No one's asking you to put all your eggs in any basket - I don't.
All I do is observe reality - and, realistically, science has a way better track record than religion does for identifying reality and making progress.
So - if I want to identify reality and make progress - why would I go anywhere else?Just like when you drive anywhere - you don't shut your eyes and let Jesus take the wheel. You look as best you can to drive as safely as possible. See? Even YOU use science - when it matters. I'm not sure what you're attempting to say with this.
I'm not asking you to toss away data.
I'm asking to look at all the data you're ignoring.
I'm asking you to stop gambling on your feelings that you're about to "hit the big one!" (church/religion) and take a look at the actual odds you're ignoring that the house is always going to win (reality.)