Intresting. Thanks for posting, Chansen.

Cute sloth.

It's an awesome sloth.

Our life Is meaningless and the universe doesnt care about us?

:(

Not only that, but this is the only life we get. Enjoy it. The world is pretty amazing, and you're one of the most improbable things to happen in it.

I see a big hole in this donut story.

To be clear, what this is saying is that our life is meaningless on a cosmic scale. On the scale of our community, our family, and our own lives, our life can be immensely meaningful. We just have to make it so and think is so.

Let me put it this way. If the Earth were to spontaneously explode today, someone orbiting the nearest star wouldn't even know we were gone for a bit over 4 years and someone on the nearest known (found to date) Earth-like planet wouldn't know for a little over 20. And the next galaxy over? Any folks who happen to exist there don't even know we exist yet, given that it takes light from here 2 million years to reach them, let alone about the explosion.

However, if I were to spontaneously explode today, my family, friends, co-workers, fellow church members, and so on would know quite quickly and be very affected by my loss (I hope).

I see our place in the universe in two ways:

• Our smallness against the immensity of space and time is very humbling. We are a tiny part of it all, not the centre of it all. This would correspond to a Christian being humbled before the immensity of God.

• While we may be a small part of this universe, we are a part of it. All of the wonder and beauty that we see as we look out at that immensity is also within us and a part of us. While we are right to be humbled by our place in Existence, we should also see ourselves as reflective of all that beauty and wonder and marvel at the wonder of our own existence. This is largely what I see myself celebrating through worship.

So, there is meaning to be derived from seeing us in the cosmic context, but it is not inherent or based on a "plan". Rather, it is based on how we see our place in it all.

Mendalla

PS. Sloths are so cuuuuute.

I'm sorry your sky daddy doesn't have anything to do with it.

The recent developments in mapping human genomes (not just ours but related species like Neanderthal and Denisovan) has produced some exciting results.

We (meaning Homo Sapiens, our species) definitely interbred with both of those and they definitely interbred with each other. Exactly what humans have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA and what specific traits have been inherited is still under investigation.

There is also new evidence that Neanderthals were interbreeding with a fourth, currently unknown genome. SInce we don't currently have any genetic material for Homo Erectus, some speculate it could be Erectus but it also raises the possibility of another offshoot in the human family tree that we don't have fossil evidence for yet.

It pretty much kills the whole Adam & Eve thing for good. There were multiple human species co-existing for several thousand years with sexual contact between them. We are not pure Homo Sapiens as originally thought but have small amounts of other human genomes on board. Our success is not purely the product of some kind of Sapiens superiority but of successful intermingling and evolution among multiple lines.

Mendalla

Hi chansen,

That statement implies meaning though does it not?

By stipulating it is the only life we get are you not suggesting significance?

By suggesting that it be enjoyed are you not investing meaning?

This statement suggests that you are attributing value of some sort to the uniqueness of an individual.

Doesn't all of that actually defeat the notion of meaninglessness?

Grace and peace to you.

John

We create our own meanings. We are not toasters, created for a purpose. We're here, we live, we love, we get drunk on occasion.

And, as creators of meaning, do we not deploy stories by which meaning may be communicated?

"Meaningless" and "meaningful" are human concepts that have evolved with thinking and contemplative Homo sapiens.

We create meaning. Whatever meaning we create for us is meaningful to us. I, for instance, do see and feel meaning in the universe.

But was there a supernatural humanoid creator ghost who thought in terms of human motivations and concepts before there were humans, or even before there was a universe?

Highly unlikely. But the universe created or evolved, by itself and out of itself, a thinking and contemplative form of energy self-named Homo sapiens sapiens. That's quite something, eh?

The words of true poems give you more than just poems,

They give you to form for yourself poems, religions, politics, war, peace, behaviour, histories, essays, daily life, and everything else,

They balance ranks, colours, races, creeds, and the sexes,

They do not seek beauty, they are sought,

Forever touching them and close upon them follow beauty, longing, fain, love-sick.

They prepare for death, yet they are not the finish, but rather the outset,

They bring none to his or her terminus or to be content and full,

Whom they take they take into space, to behold the birth of stars, to learn one of the meanings,

To launch off with absolute faith, to jump through the ceaseless rings, and never be quiet again.

-from SONG OF THE ANSWERER by Walt Whitman

Hi chansen,

That being the case meaningless does not apply.  And if we create our own meanings . . .

Well the people part of us aren't toasters per se.

Since we create our own meanings and you seem okay with that why can we not create our own purposes?

Not arguing against any of that.  Just wondering how it constitutes meaninglessness if we create our own meaning?

Grace and peace to you.

John

It's a simple cartoon, meant to convey the best, most honest explanation we have to a questioning child, about the meaning of life and why we value life, and why we can be sad, but shouldn't despair in the face of loss.

There is no meaning behind our existence. To the best of our knowledge, and without being so self-important as to assume we're better or somehow more favoured than every other species that ever existed, we just happened, relatively recently, because we evolved this way.

These are the sorts of questions that religion attempts to answer, and many religious people are not going to like this message. I get that. You are going to need to show that even atheists have "meaning", but we're talking past each other. No meaning has been passed down to us. For each of us, our meaning (or purpose) is personal and chosen, or left unconsidered. I don't think there is a correct answer.

And perhaps the most charitable thing I can say about religion is that choosing one as the source of your meaning or purpose is not incorrect, either. It is incorrect, however, to say your religious meaning or purpose is the correct one, or the only one, or will save you from something. That's where religion goes off the rails into the absurd. That's where we need to push back and not just accept bad explanations and idiotic theology just because it's comforting to some.

Hi chansen,

You mean no meaning beyond the ones we create right?

And there is no purpose for evolution right?

Meaning beyond what we create?

Whereas the "no meaning" has.

No correct answer that is "atheist" or no correct answer held by anyone?

Fair enough.

I think that also is fair.

I think this is unfair if we are creating meaning.  It might be more technically correct to say it cannot save others from something if they have not bought into that something.

Possibly.  However if we create meaning it would be difficult to categorize what is and isn't absurd.  If we stick to definitions being what they are.

If we do create meaning then bad explanations and idiotic theology are meanings we assign to various explanations and theologies and not necessarily correct, beyond ourselves.  No matte how many might agree with us.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think the most difficulty for kids comes from trying to function as an atheist or agnostic in a world where religion is a given. Kids usually don't care to be different from their peers, so depending upon their circle of peeps, they might want to conform.

Another critical thing is to allow kids to explore and draw their own conclusions, trusting that you've equipped them with the critical skills to do that, and also know that interests will invariable change. Rather than shutting them down when they want to explore other ways of viewing life, encourage questions and try not to hover too much. If you've done your job, they'll come through with the capacity to make informed choices.

This is valuable regardless of what you think is true.

When I went to school, it was morning prayers, Gideons bibles, bible verses read over the PA every morning, god save the queen, a whole period of singing hymns -- you get the picture. And this was a public school. I hope it's different now.

IMO if religion is taught in school, it should be in the context of academic social studies.

Other than that, there should be no religion or assumptions of religion in public, tax-funded schools. 

Hi chansen...

In the first quote I hear you stating that the cartoon is simple, conveying the best, most honest explanation available. Choosing comparative words, best and most honest, you set the cartoon's story above other stories. In this you make manifest the implicit tendancy of all story tellers to consider their preferred story as superior to all other stories. Perhaps going so far as to suggest that the cartoon's story saves us from lesser, dishonest stories?

George

It's not a claim that goes beyond what we know, George. It's the most honest answer we have. Further, it doesn't point to any dogma or superstition for it's source or inspiration.

Here's what I think: I think this sort of reasoning is increasingly resonating with people, and especially young people. I think it explains in simple terms how we don't need a god to live our lives. Of course the religious are going to attack something so simple and honest as this, because it demonstrates concisely why their beliefs and their religious instructions are not necessary (at best), and it threatens the popularity and very survival of the religions they've invested their lives in.

I bet you dollars to donuts that being is like a donut: A circle without beginning and end, with a black hole in the middle.

So what is the truth about the donut? The circle? Or the hole? Or both?

WHAT AM I?

A something or a nothing?

A circle or a dot?

I really don't know what I am,

And what I know, I'm not.

-Angelus Silesius

Okay, Arm wins the thread. He managed to make a popular, diabetic-unfriendly snack food into a profound spiritual metaphor.

Mendalla

Lol! Love it.

We do. It is one of our most powerful tools for such communication. I, for instance, do not take the Nativity literally but find the story packed with meaning (I plan to do a reflection on some of that in church on Sunday).

However, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that they are just stories (metaphors) and start treating the stories themselves as "the truth" rather than as pointers to "truth".

Even secular society is not immune. "Big Bang" is a metaphor at best and no longer a very good one based on our current understanding of cosmology. However, many still take the image of a massive explosion erupting out into space as reality which is often the strawman that opponents of the theory attack.

To put it differently, I commended Arm for his donut metaphor above, but I do not believe for one minute that existence is literally a donut.

Mendalla

Agreed.

Hi chansen....

It certainly resonated with me as a young person, becoming a key element in my critical investigation of the religious tradition into which I was born. In my emergent maturity, I am dedicated only to being free, responsible, creative and courageous. These are the primary values I communicate in all my relations with seekers young and old met along my way. Doing so I make use of a wide diversity of stories, drawn from a wide diversity of human experience.

For me, Jesus, along with many other characters in many other stories, is deeply critical of both religion and politics. For bringing his objections into clear view, while present to a population suffering political and religious oppression, as a compassionate teacher and friend, Jesus is first ignored, then resisted and finally murdered. As you say:

"Of course the religious are going to attack something so simple and honest as this, because it demonstrates concisely why their beliefs and their religious instructions are not necessary (at best), and it threatens the popularity and very survival of the religions they've invested their lives in."

I am not at all interested in the popularity or survival of the Christian religion. I am deeply interested in the survival and flourishing of human being in and through the natural order.

George

I would never give a child or anyone really such a negative and pessimistic view of life

Nor would I, though ultimately I agree with everything that is said there. I tend to spin it in a more positive way. In death we return to the universe that gave us life so that there is always a bit of us there in it. It is an implication of us being part of that greater whole and it being a part of us. I would not, however, try to sell any kind of personal survival after death because I simply do not believe in it. I do not see that as being negative if it is paired with a philosophy that death is a natural and normal part of the process that is life/existence.

It hardly matters in my household, though, because Little M is more or less of chansen's mindset while I am rather more spiritual even if I do not believe in a traditional personal Deity or afterlife. IOW, it's the kid who's the atheist materialist.

Mendalla

Not if it's a boston creme, Canadian maple, apple fritter, banana creme, apple cobbler, etc. This raises an interesting question. If we are going to say that life is like a donut - exactly what kind of donut is it? chansen has suggested that the donut has no value. Hence, it's safe to accept that it isn't a Timmy's donut, as they do have value - in deliciousness.

Here is what I know by the practice of discrimination between what hinders and what helps, a research of some forty years.

Every person met along the way we each go has a story to tell. These stories offer opportunity for insight into the interplay of fear and love in and through human being. We are much diverted by appearances and much frustrated by hidden assumptions about meaning and purpose. Hidden from ourselves and yet determining much of what we say and do.

It is in careful understanding of stories encountered that we discern the difference between the helpful and the hurtful in our experience of human being. With disciplined practice, we may intervene in service to what helps by notice and refusal of what hinders.

We inhabit two worlds. The story (inner dialogue) we repeat to ourselves all along the way is a world of our creation. The world as it is, through which we make a brief passage, is the place where stories meet.

Where fear prevails, stories compete. Where love prevails stories cooperate. We are now tending to the prevalence of fear. Remedy consists in the decision for love over fear, cooperation over competition. It is a matter of evolving or perishing.

This is simply language. It has no purpose other than be present as opportunity for insight. What I know cannot be made present in any rational way. That is, these sentences are not set to make something clear. They are nothing more, or less, than the expression of my interest in making genuine connection across defined boundaries of difference.

I am neither right nor wrong, though some will take me as the one and some as the other. I simply am, as I simply have been and as I simply will be, the one who faces you here as a particular manifestation of universal being.

George

Actually, a big blob of rich creme in the centre of existence would make life more appetizing (not to mention expand the market for glucometers considerably).

Mendalla

Chansen, I am unsure if you still don't get many of the folks on this site, or just feel like being goofy.

Honestly, the idea of a "guy in the sky" God is nowhere near my understanding of God.

The idea that I was placed here for a reason is also far from my understanding.

for me, our life has meaning in how we relate to others how we relate to the world and to the least among us and ourselves.  (I am far from perfect on this one, but, when I do my best is when I pay most attention to what I have learned through my time in attendance and with those who attend a faith acommunity.)  For me, this is in the united church of canada, but, i have found wise folks at many interdenominational events (Kairos for example) and interfaith ...and I hope to continue to do so.  

I know that I spend a signfiicant amount of time  in  corporate world. It is when I lose my balance between my teachings and "no meaning" that I am the least happy and the least positive to be around.  ..and ultimately the least successful.  

I thought it was quite a positive message.

I think I've shown that I do. I make one "sky daddy" crack, and all that goes out the window?

ok, we will go with just being goofy.

This cartoon fits nicely into existentialism.....

Life has no meaning. (Part A)

Thus, to escape this absurdity,  and not suffer from (gulp) - the dreaded existential angst - we have to create our own meaning. (Part B)

And, this is where I may differ from chansen,   - you are free to choose your own meaning - and this may include a belief in God, if you so desire.

Hey, if it works for you, you can even believe in a spaghetti monster......

I've experienced something other that I don't understand operating in my life. I choose, for want of a word, to use God as that word.

It centre's me and gives my life direction and meaning.

Is it real?

Does it matter?

Is it possible that the God I believe in I have created - rather than God creating me?

Not to me....

I believe it's part of the human condition to believe in SOMETHING, ANYTHING.

It's what we humans do......

My one suggestion is to choose a meaning that centres on love, harmony and simple human kindness.

Why?

Because others will be happier -and I strongly suspect, so will you.

It's really empty. Like the difference between surviving off of the ingredients that go into a recipe, or believing in putting ingredients together, that there's an important reason to do so, so you can experience the fullness of the recipe when you get there, and enjoy the experience of striving to get there- even if it's painful, trial and error at times- we strive to improve as we go along. Logically, we know we're getting the vitamins needed to simply exist without bothering to think about a recipe, but not the same fullness of experience. We believe the fullness of experience is better. Life without faith (and I'm not specifying, just saying faith), and with faith, IMO, is like the difference between a multivitamin pill and a creatively inspired gourmet meal.

IF WE ALL END UP DYING, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF LIVING?

The consensus, so far, seems to be that we ourselves create purpose and meaning, or purposelessness and meaninglessness. The emphasis, I think, is on "create." The self-creative universe has created, or evolved, self-aware and self-creative organisms who are, like it, self-creative, and continue to create. The purpose of life, then, is to create.

This applies only if we regard the universe as self-creative. If we regard it as a chance outcome, an astronomical accident, then we are an accidental outcome of the cosmic accident. Even then it is still we who create this particular cosmic interpretation and the meaning of life, or the lack thereof.

If we believe in an external, supernatural  creator, who conferred purpose and meaning on us, then it becomes more complicated. Then it is up to us to discern what purpose and meaning the supernatural creator created for us, or created us for.

If we go by Genesis, then the supernatural creator created us in its image, as creators. The oldest spiritual scriptures, the Vedas, echo this. According to the Vedas, the first man created was "manu." But "manu" is also a Sanskrit verb meaning "to create," and the noun "manu" also means "creator."

The self aware and doubly sapient earthly species self-named Homo sapiens sapiens appears to be as creative, or nearly so, as either the self-creative universe or the supernatural creator that created it. And, as I said, even if we regard the universe as accidental, then we are the creators of this particular view.

So, the answer to the above question is: 

THE PURPOSE OF LIVING IS TO CREATE!

Carry on, co-creators!

chansen,

merry Christmas, you beautiful bastard :3

never stop being you and being full of it (life etc)