Do you believe in God, deities, souls, spirits & things like that?

[Tiger]

No

Who are the "parents" (or should I say parent) of the first humans?

If by 'first human' you mean the being with both the biological and spiritual qualities that define humanity—consciousness, morality, and the capacity for relationship with God—the answer isn’t reducible to mere genetics or a parentage of proto-hominids. From a biblical perspective, humanity’s origin is rooted in divine creation: Adam and Eve were directly fashioned by God, making Him the ultimate 'parent' of humanity.

What your question overlooks is that even within an evolutionary framework, science has no consensus on how the 'first human' is defined, let alone who their 'parent' might be. Were the parents of the first 'human' not human themselves? How, then, does one cross the ontological chasm from animal to human? Science cannot explain the emergence of self-awareness, rational thought, moral responsibility, or the concept of the soul—qualities unique to humanity.

If anything, your question inadvertently underscores the necessity of a Creator. Naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the leap from mere biology to beings capable of contemplating their origins and asking the very question you just posed

 

[AN2]

If by 'first human' you mean the being with both the biological and spiritual qualities that define humanity—consciousness, morality, and the capacity for relationship with God—the answer isn’t reducible to mere genetics or a parentage of proto-hominids. From a biblical perspective, humanity’s origin is rooted in divine creation: Adam and Eve were directly fashioned by God, making Him the ultimate 'parent' of humanity.

What your question overlooks is that even within an evolutionary framework, science has no consensus on how the 'first human' is defined, let alone who their 'parent' might be. Were the parents of the first 'human' not human themselves?

How, then, does one cross the ontological chasm from animal to human?

Humans are animals

Science cannot explain the emergence of self-awareness, rational thought, moral responsibility, or the concept of the soul—qualities unique to humanity.

In what way do you think science would "explain" this?

The things you describe are present in other animals, did God do that too?

If anything, your question inadvertently underscores the necessity of a Creator. Naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the leap from mere biology to beings capable of contemplating their origins and asking the very question you just posed

 

[Fishalt]

EXCELLENT POST where did you study this material .

I've been interested in Buddhism for some time. Some aspects of it I agree with, others I can't understand how anybody could possibly disagree with, and others again I think are futile, or even immoral. An example of the latter would be extreme pacifism. At a certain point, pacifism becomes immoral, but Buddhism always advocates for this regardless of the circumstance. A case in point would be a parent brutally beating a child in the street. It would be immoral not to intervene, even if this meant exerting violence. Same deal if a woman was being raped. Doing nothing in such situations is immoral, not moral.

I've never met anybody who has escaped Samsara. But by the same token, I've never met a person who wasn't subjected to it, whether they have realized this or not. In a sense, all of us have died many times before. Unless of course you believe you're the same person you were when you were two. That person no longer exists.

 

[Fishalt]

Still, you don’t respond with any scientific objection to the posts claims. Just infantile retorts.

What needs responding to is the mistaken assumption that genetic concepts like Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam somehow contradict the biblical narrative. They don’t. These terms refer to the most recent common ancestors for specific genetic lineages, but they don’t explain the origins of humanity as a whole—and certainly not the origin of life itself.

Your interpretation of these findings assumes the evolutionary framework is the only lens through which they can be understood, but that’s not a given. These concepts merely highlight the genetic unity of humanity—something the Bible affirmed long before science caught up.

What’s most amusing is that your argument leans heavily on a purely materialistic worldview to dismiss a theological one, yet the very premise of shared human ancestry hints at the intentional design of a single, cohesive human family. If your 'science' can’t explain the existence of life, morality, or consciousness without borrowing meaning from outside its scope, maybe it’s your framework—not the biblical one—that needs responding to, however you are incapable of that type of discussion as will be proven by your response to this post.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. To your first point, why does life have to have a meaning at all? Have you considered the possibility that it simply is? Morality is a human construct, and it is culturally bound. It is not a law, like gravity, and varies from culture to culture. Simply because science cannot provide you with every answer to every possible question about reality does not mean that it as a model of inquiry is lacking. Certainly it is far superior to religious explanations of existence or the phenomenological. The Bible cannot provide one with any demonstrable explanation of reality whatsoever, has no models at all, and cannot be used to make accurate, falsifiable claims and/or predictions about anything at all. The Bible cannot teach anyone anything about how the world or the universe functions.

 

[Professor]

Science cannot explain the emergence of self-awareness, rational thought, moral responsibility, or the concept of the soul—qualities unique to humanity.

Yes it can, (I'm not butting into your argument here) but science does explain that animals have those same qualities and that definitely some people are uniquely without some or all of those qualities.

(Just simply considering the facts for another time another discussion)

 

[jpc]

When you're looking and appreciating the wonder of what is around us from the micro verse to macroverse.
It's wouldn't be impossible to imagine something else afterwards.
Only going to find out ourselves just once.

 

[Tiger]

I think a genuinely right-wing view of life needs to be based in a genuine belief in God, deities, souls & spirits.

For instance you always find Leftists saying they don't mind Buddhism of the religions because there are no deities or concepts of God in this religion which is probably not entirely true.

The only way to return to a more agricultural way of life is through faith in God, I think.

This is probably why Islam places so much emphasis on God but also spirits such as 'djinni'. The more supernaturally you think the more likely you are to build a society based on replenishable agriculture.

I think your assertion is correct and what we’re seeing playing out in front of our eyes everyday, backs this up.

Any worldview purporting to be genuinely right-wing yet divorced from faith in God is an empty shell—a counterfeit conservatism. True right-wing thought begins with submission to divine authority. Without this foundation, so-called "conservatism" becomes nothing more than a secular ideology, preserving the scaffolding of tradition while hollowing out its transcendent core.

When a person or movement claims to be conservative but lacks faith in the Almighty, they inevitably retain one foot planted in liberalism. Liberalism, at its root, is rebellion against God and the natural order, placing human autonomy and material progress above the eternal truths of Heaven. Without the anchor of faith, even the most "conservative" rhetoric will drift toward accommodating the liberal worldview—embracing individualism, relativism, and the idolatry of human reason.

Your observation about Buddhism is particularly astute. The Left often praises Buddhism as a "religion without God," but this is a distortion borne of their own spiritual bankruptcy. Genuine Buddhist traditions recognize a spiritual hierarchy, including devas, spirits, and metaphysical truths that transcend mere human experience.

The Left’s fascination with Buddhism and other forms of Eastern spirituality reveals the "God-shaped hole" in their secular hearts. They have rejected the Christian God but cannot escape their yearning for transcendence.
However, their interest in Buddhism is not a genuine search for truth but a self-serving appropriation. They cherry-pick practices like meditation and mindfulness, stripping them of their religious context, to soothe their restless consciences while avoiding the moral demands and submission to divine authority that true religion requires. This is a tragic irony: their superficial spirituality reinforces the very liberal individualism they claim to transcend. It is a hollow pursuit of peace without the Prince of Peace.

A truly right-wing worldview, by contrast, should be grounded in faith in God, which orders society toward eternal truths and fosters the virtues necessary for a life aligned with natural law. It is only through submission to God that a civilization can sustain itself, maintain harmony with creation, and flourish in accordance with divine justice.

Yet what do we see in the regimes labeled "right-wing" today? We see governments that embrace every liberal precept imaginable: the exaltation of materialism, the desecration of marriage and family, the promotion of endless war, and the subservience to corporate and globalist interests.

These so-called conservatives are little more than collaborators in the liberal project, dressing up their capitulation in the language of patriotism and tradition while betraying the very foundations of a God-centered order.

You can see it in the weak nationalist (so called right wing) movement in Ireland now. It lacks a common underlying (unifying) belief system. It’s a rag tag bunch of some conservatives and lots of Godless liberals.

 

[AN2]

When you're looking and appreciating the wonder of what is around us from the micro verse to macroverse.

It's wouldn't be impossible to imagine something else afterwards.
Only going to find out ourselves just once.

Or not, as the case may be

 

[AUL LAD]

I think your assertion is correct and what we’re seeing playing out in front of our eyes everyday, backs this up.

Any worldview purporting to be genuinely right-wing yet divorced from faith in God is an empty shell—a counterfeit conservatism. True right-wing thought begins with submission to divine authority. Without this foundation, so-called "conservatism" becomes nothing more than a secular ideology, preserving the scaffolding of tradition while hollowing out its transcendent core.

When a person or movement claims to be conservative but lacks faith in the Almighty, they inevitably retain one foot planted in liberalism. Liberalism, at its root, is rebellion against God and the natural order, placing human autonomy and material progress above the eternal truths of Heaven. Without the anchor of faith, even the most "conservative" rhetoric will drift toward accommodating the liberal worldview—embracing individualism, relativism, and the idolatry of human reason.

Your observation about Buddhism is particularly astute. The Left often praises Buddhism as a "religion without God," but this is a distortion borne of their own spiritual bankruptcy. Genuine Buddhist traditions recognize a spiritual hierarchy, including devas, spirits, and metaphysical truths that transcend mere human experience.

The Left’s fascination with Buddhism and other forms of Eastern spirituality reveals the "God-shaped hole" in their secular hearts. They have rejected the Christian God but cannot escape their yearning for transcendence.
However, their interest in Buddhism is not a genuine search for truth but a self-serving appropriation. They cherry-pick practices like meditation and mindfulness, stripping them of their religious context, to soothe their restless consciences while avoiding the moral demands and submission to divine authority that true religion requires. This is a tragic irony: their superficial spirituality reinforces the very liberal individualism they claim to transcend. It is a hollow pursuit of peace without the Prince of Peace.

A truly right-wing worldview, by contrast, should be grounded in faith in God, which orders society toward eternal truths and fosters the virtues necessary for a life aligned with natural law. It is only through submission to God that a civilization can sustain itself, maintain harmony with creation, and flourish in accordance with divine justice.

Yet what do we see in the regimes labeled "right-wing" today? We see governments that embrace every liberal precept imaginable: the exaltation of materialism, the desecration of marriage and family, the promotion of endless war, and the subservience to corporate and globalist interests.

These so-called conservatives are little more than collaborators in the liberal project, dressing up their capitulation in the language of patriotism and tradition while betraying the very foundations of a God-centered order.

You can see it in the weak nationalist (so called right wing) movement in Ireland now. It lacks a common underlying (unifying) belief system. It’s a rag tag bunch of some conservatives and lots of Godless liberals.

This is a great post --i am very impressed with fishalts post and yours --it is really uplifting to read very considered and deeply held views by people who understand that their spirituality is at the core of their existence and not an occasional hobby .
it is lovely to to read your material and i am going to re read it tonight as it will take a bit of horsepower to reply to it properly . thanks again .

 

[Tiger]

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. To your first point, why does life have to have a meaning at all? Have you considered the possibility that it simply is? Morality is a human construct, and it is culturally bound. It is not a law, like gravity, and varies from culture to culture. Simply because science cannot provide you with every answer to every possible question about reality does not mean that it as a model of inquiry is lacking. Certainly it is far superior to religious explanations of existence or the phenomenological. The Bible cannot provide one with any demonstrable explanation of reality whatsoever, has no models at all, and cannot be used to make accurate, falsifiable claims and/or predictions about anything at all. The Bible cannot teach anyone anything about how the world or the universe functions.

It doesn’t surprise me that you think your life has no meaning. That’s probably what I would have expected.

Your claim that “life simply is” amounts to intellectual nihilism masquerading as profundity. If life truly has no meaning, then your argument—and indeed, every action you take—is rendered meaningless by your own logic.

Humans universally seek meaning because it’s woven into the fabric of our being, not because of some evolutionary glitch. By denying meaning, you deny the very framework that makes rational discourse possible, including this exchange. If you’re comfortable living in that philosophical void, so be it, but don’t drag the rest of us down there with you.

As for morality being a mere “human construct,” that’s as self-defeating as it is shallow. If morality is subjective, then any atrocity, from theft to genocide, is defensible depending on the cultural context. Yet, even you tacitly rely on objective morality every time you argue that your worldview is “better” or “superior.” If morality is relative, what makes your materialist framework inherently preferable to a theological one? Materialism strips humanity of dignity and purpose, reducing us to cosmic accidents with no more intrinsic worth than a grain of sand. The biblical worldview, on the other hand, grounds morality in the unchanging character of God, providing a basis for justice, love, and human flourishing that relativism can never match.

Your dismissal of the Bible’s explanatory power reveals a modern hubris that pretends science is the sole arbiter of truth. Science explains how, not why. It cannot account for the existence of the universe, the origin of the laws it studies, or the human capacity for reason itself. The Bible addresses these ultimate questions with a coherence that materialism lacks, offering a vision of humanity as imago Dei—created with purpose and dignity. Ironically, your passionate rejection of this truth only underscores its power; you can’t deny God without first borrowing from His framework of meaning, morality, and reason to do so.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Your observation about Buddhism is particularly astute. The Left often praises Buddhism as a "religion without God," but this is a distortion borne of their own spiritual bankruptcy. Genuine Buddhist traditions recognize a spiritual hierarchy, including devas, spirits, and metaphysical truths that transcend mere human experience.

The Left’s fascination with Buddhism and other forms of Eastern spirituality reveals the "God-shaped hole" in their secular hearts. They have rejected the Christian God but cannot escape their yearning for transcendence.

What do you mean by the Left here?

 

[Tiger]

What do you mean by the Left here?

Anything on the broad spectrum which would typically be regarded as ‘the left’. From moderate progressives to radical socialists. They seem to be universally a Godless bunch too.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Anything on the broad spectrum which would typically be regarded as ‘the left’. From moderate progressives to radical socialists. They seem to be universally a Godless bunch too.

Outside of moderate progressives can you give examples of anyone on the Left praising Buddhism?

 

[jpc]

Or not, as the case may be

Absolutely correct!

 

[Tiger]

Outside of moderate progressives can you give examples of anyone on the Left praising Buddhism?

Huh?

Did you get a bang on the head recently Swords? You’re starting to ask a lot of silly questions.

How about almost every rock band and musician from the Beatles, Tina Turner, Alanis Morisette, David Bowie, K.D. Lang, Courtney Love to Leonard Cohen

Or Hollywood actors like Richard Gere, Orlando Bloom, Keanu Reeves, Goldie Hawn, Uma Thurman to Sharon Stone.

Or Tech guru’s like Jack Dorsey and Steve Jobs.

Have you never noticed how popular the Dalai Lama is with so called ‘progressives’?

Do you live under a rock?

 

[AN2]

It doesn’t surprise me that you think your life has no meaning. That’s probably what I would have expected.

Your claim that “life simply is” amounts to intellectual nihilism masquerading as profundity. If life truly has no meaning, then your argument—and indeed, every action you take—is rendered meaningless by your own logic.

Humans universally seek meaning because it’s woven into the fabric of our being, not because of some evolutionary glitch. By denying meaning, you deny the very framework that makes rational discourse possible, including this exchange. If you’re comfortable living in that philosophical void, so be it, but don’t drag the rest of us down there with you.

As for morality being a mere “human construct,” that’s as self-defeating as it is shallow. If morality is subjective, then any atrocity, from theft to genocide, is defensible depending on the cultural context. Yet, even you tacitly rely on objective morality every time you argue that your worldview is “better” or “superior.” If morality is relative, what makes your materialist framework inherently preferable to a theological one? Materialism strips humanity of dignity and purpose, reducing us to cosmic accidents with no more intrinsic worth than a grain of sand. The biblical worldview, on the other hand, grounds morality in the unchanging character of God, providing a basis for justice, love, and human flourishing that relativism can never match.

Your dismissal of the Bible’s explanatory power reveals a modern hubris that pretends science is the sole arbiter of truth. Science explains how, not why. It cannot account for the existence of the universe, the origin of the laws it studies, or the human capacity for reason itself. The Bible addresses these ultimate questions with a coherence that materialism lacks, offering a vision of humanity as imago Dei—created with purpose and dignity. Ironically, your passionate rejection of this truth only underscores its power; you can’t deny God without first borrowing from His framework of meaning, morality, and reason to do so.

This is between you and @Fishalt but I'm quite familiar with your eh, discourse style.

You were asked -

To your first point, why does life have to have a meaning at all? Have you considered the possibility that it simply is?

To which you replied -

It doesn’t surprise me that you think your life has no meaning.

Is that your answer?

Or perhaps this? -

Humans universally seek meaning because it’s woven into the fabric of our being.

 

[Tiger]

This is between you and @Fishalt but I'm quite familiar with your eh, discourse style.

You were asked -

To your first point, why does life have to have a meaning at all? Have you considered the possibility that it simply is?

To which you replied -

It doesn’t surprise me that you think your life has no meaning.

Is that your answer?

Or perhaps this? -

Humans universally seek meaning because it’s woven into the fabric of our being.

My life is full of meaning James. I guess we’ve all considered everything, fleetingly or otherwise at some point. I can confirm that I don’t think life has no meaning.

What about your life James, do you think it has meaning?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Huh?

Did you get a bang on the head recently Swords? You’re starting to ask a lot of silly questions.

How about almost every rock band and musician from the Beatles, Tina Turner, Alanis Morisette, David Bowie, K.D. Lang, Courtney Love to Leonard Cohen

Or Hollywood actors like Richard Gere, Orlando Bloom, Keanu Reeves, Goldie Hawn, Uma Thurman to Sharon Stone.

Or Tech guru’s like Jack Dorsey and Steve Jobs.

Have you never noticed how popular the Dalai Lama is with so called ‘progressives’?

Do you live under a rock?

None of those I would consider Left- nor would I think most people, certainly globally. Some clearly belong to the Right.

I also said outside of moderate progressives.

The Left has a particular, and understandable and legitimate, hatred for the Dalai Lama who has been praised by European Rightist figures.

 

[AN2]

My life is full of meaning James. I guess we’ve all considered everything, fleetingly or otherwise at some point. I can confirm that I don’t think life has no meaning.

What about your life James, do you think it has meaning?

I'm just trying to get you to answer the question you were asked (instead of being a pompous ass)

 

[Tiger]

None of those I would consider Left- nor would I think most people, certainly globally. Some clearly belong to the Right.

I also said outside of moderate progressives.

The Left has a particular, and understandable and legitimate, hatred for the Dalai Lama who has been praised by European Rightist figures.

We have very different ideas of the right and left so.

You seem to have a fetish for categories and obsess about tiny details that others may consider to be a little - ‘on the spectrum’.

Anyway, I’m just going to head off and listen to everyone’s favourite right wing musician - David Bowie.

 

[Tiger]

I'm just trying to get you to answer the question you were asked (instead of being a pompous ass)

Sure. Which I answered.

Then I asked you the same question, which you didn’t answer.

I’m interested in the answer, as it may point to a trend in the Godless thinking that life has no meaning.

Do you think your life has meaning James?

 

[AN2]

You're never going to get anywhere with Jambo, who is deeply involved in the invention of a new "religion"; anymore than you are ever going to get anywhere with the crowd of traditional catholics. Particularly in the internet age, as below.

The two of you are really very similar. Your Soapbox Dunce twin

 

[Tiger]

You're never going to get anywhere with Jambo, who is deeply involved in the invention of a new "religion"; anymore than you are ever going to get anywhere with the crowd of traditional catholics. Particularly in the internet age, as below.

I see.

Anyhoo, what about you, do you think your life has meaning?

 

[AN2]

Sure. Which I answered.

Where?

Why does life have to have a meaning? That's the question

Then I asked you the same question, which you didn’t answer.

I’m interested in the answer, as it may point to a trend in the Godless thinking that life has no meaning.

Do you think your life has meaning James?

 

[AN2]

None of those I would consider Left- nor would I think most people, certainly globally. Some clearly belong to the Right.

I also said outside of moderate progressives.

The Left has a particular, and understandable and legitimate, hatred for the Dalai Lama who has been praised by European Rightist figures.

You're probably talking about when he said something against white genocide?

 

[Tiger]

Where?

Why does life have to have a meaning? That's the question

Why does life have to have meaning? Because without meaning, even your question is an exercise in futility. The very act of asking assumes that truth is worth pursuing and that existence itself has value—both of which are impossible in a meaningless framework. Meaning isn’t some optional garnish on the plate of life; it’s the foundation of everything—our thoughts, our morals, our purpose.

To deny it is to embrace absurdity, where nothing matters, not even your denial. Yet, ironically, even the staunchest nihilist lives as if life has meaning, proving the truth they so desperately try to escape.

Do you think your life has meaning James? Do you live your life as if it has meaning?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

You're probably talking about when he said something against white genocide?

He was a personal friend of Miguel Serrano for instance. I am thinking about stuff from further back than the recentish thing I assume you are talking about.

 

[AN2]

Why does life have to have meaning? Because without meaning, even your question is an exercise in futility. The very act of asking assumes that truth is worth pursuing and that existence itself has value—both of which are impossible in a meaningless framework. Meaning isn’t some optional garnish on the plate of life; it’s the foundation of everything—our thoughts, our morals, our purpose.

To deny it is to embrace absurdity, where nothing matters, not even your denial. Yet, ironically, even the staunchest nihilist lives as if life has meaning, proving the truth they so desperately try to escape.

Could you summarise your answer in a sentence or two?

Do you think your life has meaning James? Do you live your life as if it has meaning?

I'm not sure why you're asking everybody that question or making a pronouncement about it as you do with yourself and as you did with @Fishalt

Do you think that meaning of life is subjective?

 

[Tiger]

Yes.

On this, everyone needs to find meaning in their lives. Most find it after forty odd years or so.

Those that don't manage to, become faced with neurosis and other illness.

You apparently found it in catholicism, even after what we witnessed in that institution in this country and all around the world. So there are very few left of our generation who would be like you.

Whereas meaning in life can be found in many general ideas and convictions. It can be found in living the symbolic life, believing you are actors in the divine drama etc.

Granted the unconscious always wants and needs to find a god, and in the absence of the catholic god, it will find another god or gods (as we heavily witness in Jambo for example).

I suppose in this regard if you examine the type of strongly held convictions and beliefs that someone actually holds, such as Jambo, or yourself as an acolyte of a religious institution that perpetuated such horrors as the catholic church did, someoe might judge from outside the type and character of their discovered meaning.

But to the holder of these convictions and beliefs themselves, it is inevitably going to appear different to themselves, subjectively.

That reply is a textbook example of postmodern relativism masquerading as wisdom. You admit life has meaning but reduce it to a self-constructed illusion, ignoring that such subjectivity renders meaning incoherent. If everyone invents their own 'truth,' the word itself becomes meaningless—a hollow crutch to stave off existential despair. Yet, the human yearning for ultimate meaning refuses to be satisfied with cheap, self-serving fabrications. This isn’t about comfort; it’s about reality.

The attempt to discredit Catholicism by parroting tired scandals is both lazy minded and blind to the real problem. I’m more critical of the Church’s failings than you could ever hope to be, but unlike you, I understand where the blame truly lies. The infiltrators who hijacked the Church in the 1960s gutted its human structures, twisting it into the modern-day charade you naively equate with Catholicism. I owe no allegiance to this current Vatican circus; my faith rests on the unbroken wisdom of the Saints and the Church’s eternal truths, forged over 2,000 years. Your critique is hollow, born of borrowed outrage, while mine comes from deep understanding and fidelity to what the Church was meant to be, not what its enemies have tried to make it.

Your admission that the 'unconscious always needs a god' is far more damning to your argument than you realize. That universal longing doesn’t point to an invention of the human mind but to a divine imprint on the soul—a God who calls us to seek Him. You can scramble to fill the void with subjective idols or cultural platitudes, but in the end, only the one true God can offer the meaning you can’t live without but pretend to deny.

 

[Tiger]

Could you summarise your answer in a sentence or two?


I'm not sure why you're asking everybody that question or making a pronouncement about it as you do with yourself and as you did with @Fishalt

Do you think that meaning of life is subjective?

Why do you always answer questions with questions? You never answer anything. It’s like you think that every question is a trap.

Are those two marbles rolling around in your head incapable of formulating any kind of a response to anything?

 

[AN2]

Do you think that meaning of life is subjective?

That reply is a textbook example of postmodern relativism masquerading as wisdom. You admit life has meaning but reduce it to a self-constructed illusion, ignoring that such subjectivity renders meaning incoherent. If everyone invents their own 'truth,' the word itself becomes meaningless—a hollow crutch to stave off existential despair. Yet, the human yearning for ultimate meaning refuses to be satisfied with cheap, self-serving fabrications. This isn’t about comfort; it’s about reality.

The attempt to discredit Catholicism by parroting tired scandals is both lazy minded and blind to the real problem. I’m more critical of the Church’s failings than you could ever hope to be, but unlike you, I understand where the blame truly lies. The infiltrators who hijacked the Church in the 1960s gutted its human structures, twisting it into the modern-day charade you naively equate with Catholicism. I owe no allegiance to this current Vatican circus; my faith rests on the unbroken wisdom of the Saints and the Church’s eternal truths, forged over 2,000 years. Your critique is hollow, born of borrowed outrage, while mine comes from deep understanding and fidelity to what the Church was meant to be, not what its enemies have tried to make it.

Your admission that the 'unconscious always needs a god' is far more damning to your argument than you realize. That universal longing doesn’t point to an invention of the human mind but to a divine imprint on the soul—a God who calls us to seek Him. You can scramble to fill the void with subjective idols or cultural platitudes, but in the end, only the one true God can offer the meaning you can’t live without but pretend to deny.

Never mind

 

[AN2]

Why do you always answer questions with questions? You never answer anything. It’s like you think that every question is a trap.

Are those two marbles rolling around in your head incapable of formulating any kind of a response to anything?

I'm an atheist. You know full well that any meaning of life I might have would not be the meaning of life according to your Catholic dictatorship so why bother asking me?

 

[Tiger]

I'm an atheist. You know full well that any meaning of life I might have would not be the meaning of life according to your Catholic dictatorship so why bother asking me?

Nobody asked for it to align with anyone’s beliefs. Just to express your own, which you seem incapable of doing.

 

[AN2]

Yeah those catholic priests that I pass by every day at the Capuchin centre on Bow Street, tending to the down and outs, and doing so with remarkable warmth and care, are the bad guys.

You really are an ugly, prejudiced fuckwit.

R u talking about Drooper? I agree

 

[AN2]

Anyway, I find it disturbing that people think life has no meaning.

What's yours?

 

[AN2]

Nobody asked for it to align with anyone’s beliefs.

Did I say that anybody did?

Just to express your own, which you seem incapable of doing.

You seem incapable of reading

 

[AUL LAD]

Yes.

On this, everyone needs to find meaning in their lives. Most find it after forty odd years or so.

Those that don't manage to, become faced with neurosis and other illness.

You apparently found it in catholicism, even after what we witnessed in that institution in this country and all around the world. So there are very few left of our generation who would be like you.

Whereas meaning in life can be found in many general ideas and convictions. It can be found in living the symbolic life, believing you are actors in the divine drama etc.

Granted the unconscious always wants and needs to find a god, and in the absence of the catholic god, it will find another god or gods (as we heavily witness in Jambo for example).

I suppose in this regard if you examine the type of strongly held convictions and beliefs that someone actually holds, such as Jambo, or yourself as an acolyte of a religious institution that perpetuated such horrors as the catholic church did, someoe might judge from outside the type and character of their discovered meaning.

But to the holder of these convictions and beliefs themselves, it is inevitably going to appear different to themselves, subjectively.

you are on a journey --you presently think you have your destination --however you have a long way to go --you must be curious and generous or you will blind your own eyes to what they see in front of them .
your mistake is scale and subtlety you have neither .
your thoughts are typed on a computer the electrical messages between your brain cells are subtle in the millivolt range -but you could not piss without thousands of brain-cells agreeing how and when you should do it .
you are not aware of the enormity of this subtly .
from your writing you do not realize either that there is at least 5 of us --at the very least .
left side brain =Joe right side = Seamus.
conscious = Richard sub-conscious =Michael soul/spirit/consciousness= Bill.
Joe and Seamus are very different people and they have a chat and come to an agreement in the cortex and you swing into action -hopefully .
during the day Richard and Michael do not say a word to each other but at night they are all chat as your brain commences a beat which manifests itself in REM rapid eye movement and this beat unlocks the doors and connects Richard to Michael and the expression ""i will sleep on it "" comes from letting these two wise people have a discussion and when you wake up "" from somewhare "" comes the advice .
if you return from a war and have witnessed things which your mind cannot handle and the presence of all these engines running in you brain allows only a small portion of your brain to function badly --you can submit yourself to EMDR --this replicates the beat and combined with suggestion and hypnosis the doctor can access Michael and Michael is taken for a walk around the problem and he brings it into full view and then he is walked away from it while being asked does he still see it until he states he cannot see it any more .
this is how you delete terrible shit from your hard drive =Michael = subconscious .
there is a lot more and you are presently blinded by your own poor vision --but as time passes you will see more .

 

[Fishalt]

It doesn’t surprise me that you think your life has no meaning. That’s probably what I would have expected.

Your claim that “life simply is” amounts to intellectual nihilism masquerading as profundity. If life truly has no meaning, then your argument—and indeed, every action you take—is rendered meaningless by your own logic.

Humans universally seek meaning because it’s woven into the fabric of our being, not because of some evolutionary glitch. By denying meaning, you deny the very framework that makes rational discourse possible, including this exchange. If you’re comfortable living in that philosophical void, so be it, but don’t drag the rest of us down there with you.

As for morality being a mere “human construct,” that’s as self-defeating as it is shallow. If morality is subjective, then any atrocity, from theft to genocide, is defensible depending on the cultural context. Yet, even you tacitly rely on objective morality every time you argue that your worldview is “better” or “superior.” If morality is relative, what makes your materialist framework inherently preferable to a theological one? Materialism strips humanity of dignity and purpose, reducing us to cosmic accidents with no more intrinsic worth than a grain of sand. The biblical worldview, on the other hand, grounds morality in the unchanging character of God, providing a basis for justice, love, and human flourishing that relativism can never match.

Your dismissal of the Bible’s explanatory power reveals a modern hubris that pretends science is the sole arbiter of truth. Science explains how, not why. It cannot account for the existence of the universe, the origin of the laws it studies, or the human capacity for reason itself. The Bible addresses these ultimate questions with a coherence that materialism lacks, offering a vision of humanity as imago Dei—created with purpose and dignity. Ironically, your passionate rejection of this truth only underscores its power; you can’t deny God without first borrowing from His framework of meaning, morality, and reason to do so.

Existence has no intrinsic meaning nor point, We embroider meaning on the world, as a species. The natural state of the world and man is not orderly, nor moral. We apply value judgements and moral systems to chaos. It is artificial reasoning. Morality is subjective. It is culturally bound. You have the moral code you do because of the culture and time in which you live, and have lived. If you were born in the Amazon basin to an uncontacted tribe four hundred years ago, you would have a completely different set of moral standards, value judgements, and beliefs and customs.

I agree that the biblical world view of humanity venerates humanity and offers the individual purpose, and meaning. But it does not follow that this makes it true. Every religion and indeed cult offers those things. And quite the contrary; I fully accept that every breath I draw as an atheist is miraculous. I do not hate life., or existence. It is not vacuous. I am extremely grateful for it.

 

[Fishalt]

It doesn’t surprise me that you think your life has no meaning. That’s probably what I would have expected.

Your claim that “life simply is” amounts to intellectual nihilism masquerading as profundity. If life truly has no meaning, then your argument—and indeed, every action you take—is rendered meaningless by your own logic.

Humans universally seek meaning because it’s woven into the fabric of our being, not because of some evolutionary glitch. By denying meaning, you deny the very framework that makes rational discourse possible, including this exchange. If you’re comfortable living in that philosophical void, so be it, but don’t drag the rest of us down there with you.

As for morality being a mere “human construct,” that’s as self-defeating as it is shallow. If morality is subjective, then any atrocity, from theft to genocide, is defensible depending on the cultural context. Yet, even you tacitly rely on objective morality every time you argue that your worldview is “better” or “superior.” If morality is relative, what makes your materialist framework inherently preferable to a theological one? Materialism strips humanity of dignity and purpose, reducing us to cosmic accidents with no more intrinsic worth than a grain of sand. The biblical worldview, on the other hand, grounds morality in the unchanging character of God, providing a basis for justice, love, and human flourishing that relativism can never match.

Your dismissal of the Bible’s explanatory power reveals a modern hubris that pretends science is the sole arbiter of truth. Science explains how, not why. It cannot account for the existence of the universe, the origin of the laws it studies, or the human capacity for reason itself. The Bible addresses these ultimate questions with a coherence that materialism lacks, offering a vision of humanity as imago Dei—created with purpose and dignity. Ironically, your passionate rejection of this truth only underscores its power; you can’t deny God without first borrowing from His framework of meaning, morality, and reason to do so.

Love, Tiger? Well, It's not worked for you. You are possibly the most embittered and hateful person on the entire forum. I cannot imagine you being beneficent in any capacity whatsoever. Your problem, I think, is that you imagine that everybody is the same standard of person that you are--which is someone who needs the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to prevent you from being an unmitigated sociopath and general piece of shit. This is how we are different.

I need neither incentive nor threat of punishment to be a good person. You do.

 

[Tiger]

Existence has no intrinsic meaning nor point, We embroider meaning on the world, as a species. The natural state of the world and man is not orderly, nor moral. We apply value judgements and moral systems to chaos. It is artificial reasoning. Morality is subjective. It is culturally bound. You have the moral code you do because of the culture and time in which you live, and have lived. If you were born in the Amazon basin to an uncontacted tribe four hundred years ago, you would have a completely different set of moral standards, value judgements, and beliefs and customs.

I agree that the biblical world view of humanity venerates humanity and offers the individual purpose, and meaning. But it does not follow that this makes it true. Every religion and indeed cult offers those things. And quite the contrary; I fully accept that every breath I draw as an atheist is miraculous. I do not hate life., or existence. It is not vacuous. I am extremely grateful for it.

Debating atheists is always repetitive. The same tired examples trotted out ad nauseum. It’s like you’ve all been given the same memo.

Atheism is the intellectual equivalent of staring into a void and calling it profound. The belief that we are cosmic accidents, the product of blind chance and random forces, is the dullest form of thinking imaginable—nothing more than a self-imposed prison of meaninglessness.

Your assertion that existence lacks intrinsic meaning, and that humanity “embroiders” meaning onto chaos is a philosophy of despair, not reason. If the world were truly chaotic and devoid of order, how do you account for the human mind’s consistent ability to discern universal truths, construct systems of reason, and intuit moral laws that transcend time and culture? Chaos does not produce coherence; it produces fragmentation. The very act of your argument—using logic to defend a worldview of purposelessness—undermines your premise. Reason itself requires a foundation beyond chaos, and your position is a house of cards, collapsing under its own contradiction.

Your Amazon basin analogy, though popular with armchair anthropologists, fails to grapple with the reality of universal moral intuitions. Yes, customs and practices vary across cultures, but the core principles—valuing life, rejecting cruelty, seeking justice—are strikingly consistent. These are not arbitrary cultural artifacts but evidence of an objective moral order written on the human heart. If morality were as subjective as you claim, then no act, no matter how heinous, could be condemned. Yet even you cannot escape the instinct to make value judgments—ironically proving the very moral law you deny.

Conceding that the biblical worldview offers purpose and meaning, while denying its truth, reveals your intellectual schizophrenia. If the biblical framework provides the coherence, purpose, and meaning that you claim to admire, why reject it for a worldview of purposeless chaos? You marvel at the “miraculous breath” of life, yet your atheistic framework reduces that miracle to a meaningless chemical reaction. Your awe is borrowed from a worldview you profess to despise. Without God, your miracle is a delusion, your morality is fiction, and your argument is nothing more than an elaborate act of self-deception.