"I just can't believe this is all there is"

[Silent3]

Or...

"I just can't believe there's no purpose for all of this."

Has anyone here ever used one of these phrases, or something similar? Either as a introduction to stating your own beliefs, or as a retort to some else's skepticism?

If so, why can't you believe these things?

If so, why do you imagine that the purpose is a purpose that fits with what you want to believe, that the "more than this" somehow backs up a belief in gods or afterlives or whatnot?

Do you think that your trouble believing these things is a compelling argument to believe otherwise? To believe in any particular alternative?

[patrice]

1. My problem with it: What the HECK do you mean by "all"??????

What absolute and utter conceit to look at the universe and say "This is not enough."

[unpossibles]

2. seriously!

Personally, I would never say that because I am constantly amazed at how wondrous and HUGE the universe is, not to mention that we've barely managed to scratch the surface of understanding it or ourselves, as far as I am concerned.

I think wanting humanity to be some special creature created in the image of an all-powerful god is the height of egotism.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Not all faiths see it as that, though

In some pantheistic faiths, EVERYTHING is created in God's image because everything is God. The Lakota people call it Wahkan Tankan, The Great Mystery, and honor all beings, each of whom have their special medicine.

[patrice]

8. That is so beautiful it almost makes me jealous. nt

[patrice]

7. "...wanting humanity to be some special creature..." KILLS the glorious mystery that is the Truth.

That's what Nietzsche meant when he said that God is dead and we killed him with our ignorant smallness.

[unpossibles]

11. Ok, I just happen to disagree completely

that "we killed him in our ignorant smallness."

We created him as well, so I guess I see killing god as a service - we're killing something which we do not really need. Then again, for a "dead" "entity" god sure has a lot of followers still, so I don't think we've done any such thing, sadly.

For what it's worth, I find the universe to be full of infinite Mysteries and infinite Truths that do not need any mythology to make them more palatable.

[Silent3]

9. To play devil's advocate...

What I think people sometimes mean by "all" is "all we are currently aware of", "all that we can see and feel directly", "all that science knows".

Of course there's more to the world than directly presents itself to our senses, and much more than we've yet discovered via technologically enhanced senses and the power of logic and deduction applied to our observations. The problem is not in recognizing the scope of our collective ignorance, which is likely to be vast, but the implication that the unknown must therefore contain all any given believer wishes or fears than it contains, and that the skeptic is somehow obligated to make a large allowance for the possibility that the unknown will turn out to contain the truth of those things the skeptic doubts.

Another possible "all" that I think some people mean is the apparent scope of our human lives, to be born into and to die in this world and nothing more, with no afterlife, no divine purpose, no personal gain gathered from this life in knowledge or experience or grace or wisdom to carry forward into another life, no guarantee of reward for the good or punishment for the bad to make up for the injustices in this life.

[uberllama42]

22. What more could you possibly hope for?

Don't think about the vastness nor the incomprehensible beauty of outer space. Don't even consider the natural world around us. Just think about the human race and all we have accomplished. How could anyone look at all the beauty and all the terror, all the joy and suffering, brought on by human achievements, and wish that there were something more out there?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I believe that whatever there is out there is something beyond

my belief system. I've had glimpses enough of a larger reality that I know that there is more than what one usually observes.

Basically, I view religion as part of the evolution of thought. In earlier times, religion was a way of explaining the unknown as a way to list and codify behavior that allows society to function in a more or less ordered fashion. I bring up these two points because I think they are the root of those questions. Many people are fearful of the unknown, or fearful that without some moral structure such as provided by religion society will break down into chaos.

[stopbush]

4. It's been my experience that the people who say such things

are the people who have the least going on in their lives, at least outside of the mundane aspects of living that we all experience.

[MineralMan]

6. Interesting...

Why should there be a purpose for anything?
Why should there be more than there is?

I never understood these questions, either. Of course, I can see that the purpose of life is to create more life, similar to the one you have. And there is certainly more than one's present life. There is past and future, although the person thinking about those may not experience either.

For me, what there is is fascinating enough to make life more than worth living. I don't really need anything else. I was born. I live. I will die. There's a fine beginning, present, and ending.

So, while I'm here, I will do whatever it is I do. Whether that is meaningful or not depends on what I do and my perception of what I do. Nothing more.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Very well stated

My experience is different than yours, but I appreciate your very clear answer. I especially liked the fact that you said meaningfulness comes from not only actions but perception of actions. It's perceptions that I have found can change--and by changing, change actions. Right now I feel we are in the midst of a global perceptual change. We must change our perceptions about the world and about living with each other in order to survive. The idea of changing perceptions has gotten a lot of people scared, and they run to fundamentalism in the notion that its dogma will keep them safe. Trouble is, actions occur that shatter long held perceptions until such a time that whole groups come to the conclusion that their perceptions were wrong and that they must find new ones that fit the circumstances.

[MineralMan]

12. Perceptions are an individual thing, but

may be influenced by other individuals and by entire cultures. For myself, I have no desire to change the perceptions of others, but am always willing to change mine should a superior perception present itself.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Me too

What I was trying to explain was the rise of fundamentalism as a response to people unwilling to change their perceptions over things that are obviously changing, like global warming, a pluralistic society, etc. etc. I'm not one proposing that anyone force a perceptual change--it just doesn't work that way--but there are times, usually of great change, when those unwilling to change their perceptions wind up in dire straits.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. "I can't believe..." is just a shorthand way of saying

"I don't want to believe".

People are scared of not existing. The idea of not existing - of the death of their own self - is simply terrifying. So they choose to believe, instead, one of the hundreds of fairy tales that currently exist that say they will continue to exist after death because it makes them feel better.

Me, I'm not too happy about it either, and sometimes I wish I could believe there was a continued existence, that there was a purpose higher than simply passing on my genes to the next generation.

But I just can't believe.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. I think you've summed it up nicely

This is the reason so many follow a religion--fear of non-existence. That is one of the great mysteries that religion has sought to explain since pre-historic times. The other function of religion in times past was to set out codes of conduct so that society stays relatively orderly.

Which brings up the other fear of many believers--if there is no God, then why should anyone behave in a way that allows for an orderly society? Would the good of society in general be enough of an incentive for most, do you think? I feel that many believers think this wouldn't be enough incentive. (Not speaking for myself here, btw, just a general observation.)

[dmallind]

14. Not me, but heard them many times

The irony is that it actually requires no belief at all to accept that this is all there is. We will certainly find out more about "this" as we get new data and techniques, but that doesn't mean there is more "this" out there or things that are outside "this" completely.

This is human history. We have millennia of precedents. Finding out that lightning was an electrical discharge not an angry god lobbing fiery bolts did not mean lightning stopped and nor did it mean that there was ever anything BUT electrical discharges going on. It just meant we knew more about it.

Instead abandoning Occam and imagining some kind of supernatural intelligence or design or influence is exactly what takes some effort to believe, since you have to either make it up or take the word of people who did.

[laconicsax]

17. Ah, argument by lack of imagination.

I can't imagine a scenario where I could be wrong, therefore, I must be right. Sometimes it goes by the clever moniker of "irreducible complexity," but it tends to be the same flawed, egocentric argument.

[John Gauger]

27. There's a name for that.

In logic, that's a classified phenomenon. It's a name with a fallacy, but I can't remember what it is.

[laconicsax]

30. From the limited knowledge I have, it's

either a Converse Fallacy of Accident or Denying the Antecedent. I breezed through the intro to logic course I took 5 years ago and consequently, don't remember the formal names for much of anything.

[holograms r us]

18. I think it's because we DO have a soul that we know that this is not IT

I just feel that everything is so meaningful (like our relationships, for example), that to imagine that when others die we will never see them again is just beyond any logic for me. It's not that I find the thought unpleasant so I am constructing a lala land of eternity. I simply weigh the possibilities and it adds up to me that if I feel so strongly that these ties are very strong, then there must be some sort of eternity.

[dmallind]

20. So those of us who are happy to accept this is IT have......? NT

[Silent3]

23. What does logic have to do with what you're saying?

And what "possibilities" are you weighing?

There's no logical necessity for a connection between strong feelings and eternity. There's no reason a finite being with a limited lifespan can't have very intense emotions. There universe bears no obligation to provide an eternal life for beings with strong feelings.

Do you imagine strong feelings being tied to some sort of large investment of "effort" on the part of the universe, an effort which is somehow necessary to create the intensity you feel, and from that follows, as if the universe must seek some sort of return on investment, that there must be a big "pay off" like eternal life or the universe wouldn't "bother" with the supposed effort required for creating your strong feelings?

[angryfirelord]

19. Lack of evidence makes it difficult

Science can't prove God, nor disprove God. Unless you're into the astral project/out-of-body experience type of deal, we simply don't have enough information to make a clear statement. I'm a Christian, but my beliefs are just that, mine. As long as everybody can respect other viewpoints and work together for a more progressive society, then I'm sure that would be more than adequate for humanity. If we don't know our purpose, then let's make a purpose for ourselves.

[dmallind]

21. The one issue though

Is that an inability to prove and an inability to disprove are by no means equal in either meaning or complexity, or burden.

Any number if things from the IPU to Russell's teapot have been used to illustrate this. I can't prove they don't exist either, but the conclusion that I should the base my life on the idea that they do exist is completely invalid, regardless of this lack of proof of absence. Not only that, but the burden is on the person making an assertion. If all atheists do (and most atheists are weak atheists I would remind you) is say "we don't believe you" about gods that's NOT making an assertion that they do not exist, simply saying you, collectively of course, have done a lousy job of providing support for the contention that they do. Finally, while I of course know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is at least far more inductively supportive of an argument that wanted to bet on non-existence than an argument that sought to establish existence. We haven't found anyone over 10' tall yet. Such a person may exist, but the extreme rarity of people over 8' or even 7' and the extrapolated likelihood are far more conducive to the idea that ten footers are not to be found than the idea that we just need to look in the right place. How much less precedent do we have for things approaching gods than for humans approaching 10'?

[skepticscott]

25. And there is nothing inherent illogical

about declaring that something doesn't exist and being as sure about it as it's possible to be. I'm as sure as I am of my own existence that there is no Santa Claus, no guy who flies around in a magic sleigh on Xmas Eve, comes down chimneys and leaves presents for kids all over the place. This despite the fact of considerable evidence that such a being DOES exist (far more evidence than for the existence of any god, frankly).

[dmallind]

31. True, as long as "as possible" does not technically include certainty

The only things we can be sure about the nonexistence of are those that are internally contradictory. Married bachelors being the usual example. Santa Claus we can be so sure of that the remaining probability becomes so minuscule as to be completely irrelevant, but not quite certain if we are intellectually honest

Now herein lies a technical nicety not often fully explored. While no atheist with a respect for logic can say they are 100% sure gods do not exist, we CAN say specific ideas of specific gods which are internally contradictory do not exist.

The typical Xian mainstream theology could very easily be argued to be one of those, as the typical description of such a god is one which is an all powerful all knowing and all loving creator. While these are not internally contradictory, such traits can be shown to not fit with observed facts by the simple example of tooth decay, with millions of more examples possible both more and less significant. There is nothing gained by having our teeth rot and not be replaced long before our natural life span, and silly apologetics about sin causing this themselves show a god who is either not all loving or not all powerful, since either he decided to be cruel, or he was forced to be by our sin somwehow.

So a very strong argument could be made that while we cannot outright claim gods do not exist, or even claim with certainty that the god of the Bible does not exist, we CAN, and I do, assert with confidence that such a god cannot be a triple-omni god and so anyone who conceives of God as this type of god is indeed worshipping one that does not, and can not, exist.

[Canadiana]

34. YES

excellent explanation. I try to boil it down to this: I am an atheist and there being no god is the null hypothesis. One can never prove the null hypothesis, one can only disprove the null, in fact that is the point of the null. It is there only to be disproven.

A good example my sattistics prof used is that there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a null hypothesis. You can never prove this...you can only disprove this. The same goes for the presumption of innocence in a criminal court.

My believe, as an atheist, is that the null will never be disproven.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. Really loved your last sentence

For isn't this what is needed so that our world can continue to exist? A common purpose so that we as a species can survive?

[John Gauger]

28. That's what Carl Sagan said.

He wrote in "Pale Blue Dot" that he was perturbed by humanity's, or at least America's, lack of a mission statement. We had one from 1959-69 ("Put a man on the moon,") but we haven't had one since.

[John Gauger]

26. Why the hell not?

This universe existed for billions of years not knowing or caring that we would come along on one tiny, infinitesimal speck of it. Why the hell would an afterlife exist, just sitting vacant for all those billions of years, waiting for only us out of the whole universe to come along? That's ridiculous beyond my ability to express. So you didn't exist for an infinite amount of time, then you exist for a finite amount of time, and then you will exist in a different way for an infinite amount of time. Makes perfect sense.

There is no such thing as purpose. Purpose is a peculiar incident of the way our brains model the world around us. The concept makes it easier for us to make decisions.

[Odin2005]

29. It's denial. People want there to be a supernatural daddy to tell them what to do.

It seems that many people can't function unless they think there is an authoritarian parent-like figure watching over them, ordering them around, and telling them what the meaning of their lives should be. I, on the other hand, agree with Mikhail Bakunin, who said, "If God existed we would have to abolish Him".

[Taverner]

32. What? Supernovas and Dark Matter aren't enough for you?

Speculation on String Theory too boring?

I mean - how can you NOT wonder at the Universe?

[Crunchy Frog]

33. If I want to fantasize that my life has some kind of purpose

I don't see why anyone else should have a problem with it.

[Silent3]

37. If I want to question why someone would offer a flawed argument...

...which attempts to limit that which is or is not possible to the emotional comfort zones of their limited imagination, I don't see why anyone else should have a problem with it.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. If I want to obsess over your personal sex life...

I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

[Silent3]

40. Go ahead. Be my guest.

I just wish you'd stop doing it while standing in front of my house and spooging in my mail box, however.

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Nice try, but I'm not physiologically capable of spooging.

And anyway, that's the exact habit of yours that I was referring to, and I'm obsessed with it because it's just so damned disgusting.

[Silent3]

42. You fail to appreciate the spiritual side of this.

I can't imagine that you can't imagine that I'm not imagining that there's more than this to imagine. Or spooge on, for that matter. Spiritually.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. Alright, alright, you win.

I simply cannot keep up with your impeccable logic.

[Evoman]

35. We have as much "purpose" as a rock hidden under a meter of dirt.

Or a speck of ice circling Saturn. Or a star with no planets circling a distant galaxy.

We are bags of organic molecules. There is no ulimate purpose. If we weren't here, the universe would not notice.

That people think there is some mystical purpose for a bags of replicating organic molecules that will have an almost infinitismally brief time of existence in the galaxy and will then disappear astounds me.

[yonisareyin]

36. So what of synchronicity? What about flashes of intuition? Why are you so sure of yourself?

I think some people cannot wrap their brains around the idea that perhaps a Creator can be formless and not connected to some organized hustle to control us; that there is something more to us than bags of molecules.

You must be a hoot at parties, by the way...

[Silent3]

39. What's such a big deal about synchronicity or intuition?

And just who is having problems here "wrap(ping) their brains" around any particular idea? There's a big difference between considering the idea of a "Creator" and then rejecting that idea as implausible or of little explanatory value, and not being able to consider such an idea at all.

And what the hell does this have to do with parties? You think only the woolly-minded are fun?

[Evoman]

44. I am a fucking hoot....when I party, I do it like it may be my last.

Because it may very well be. I'm not ashamed to dance up a storm. I sing like shit but I'll be the first guy up to karoake. I don't sit on my hands and act shy when there is a girl I want to talk to. I take solace that the fucking universe doesn't care about me...it means I can be me with complete freedom.

The universe is almost 14 billion years old...we have been here for less than a 100 000. Looking around, I doubt we are going to last more than a million if we are lucky. And you think that your brief, meaningless life matters to some formless "creator" out there? Even if he existed, and he was aware of you, what makes you think he gives a fuck about you? What makes you think that he cares more for your human intuition than he does the much better bags of molecules that probably exist in one of the other billion galaxies out there?

Screw that noise, man.

[cosmik debris]

45. I like that warm feeling of surprise I get when I click on the profile

and see a tombstone.

buh-bye.