However, when a person rises to the level of questions about the meaning of life, he begins to research what this life is for. He wants to know why he started researching, why he is living, why he was given an opportunity for an analysis, who set this up, and what will the result be like. The person is not just curious; he is searching for purpose.

This does not refer to philosophy or fantasies, but to the highest evaluation of our lives, an evaluation that takes place in vessels above our body. It is these vessels that we must develop, new vessels where it is really possible to study cause, destiny, and consequence.
These vessels are called”vessels of bestowal” ,and the mean to attain them is called”The wisdom of Kabbalah”.
[http://www.laitman.com/crisis-kabbalah/]

I don’t see your comment here for some reason. Nevertheless I respond:

Best not to advise other how to use their minds lest you invite same in return. Better YOU should pick and practice a form of spirituality that you may have an experience beyond the five senses, beyond science, as it were.

Further, your response is typical of those often engaged in these discussions–you attack religion because it does not give you what science does. Shocking! Of course not. The great value of “science” is that it is based on reason, experiment, observation, etc. etc. . . Religion, or any true practice of spiritual beliefs, cannot employ those methods. The results of the proper practice of spirituality is beyond “reason,” and, “knowing.”

Embarrassing, really.

i think when we ask “why are we here?” or “what is our purpose?” is like asking “what is north of the North Pole?” i dont think it makes sense.

I think Dawkins is in love with his own brain, his ego is colossal, and in love with the concept of ‘REASON” as the answer to all of life’s mysteries, like the “philosophes,” of the Enlightenment. He has simply substituted a religion centered on a Supreme Being with a religion centered around his own intellect, in a sense, himself.

Nevertheless and notwithstanding, I was hoping that Dawkins would indeed provide a scientific explanation for existence. He did not.

As they say, “Epic FAIL.”

okay i agree.

I think I understood the doc very well. The concepts here are not very complex and are presented clearly by Dawkins. So, what I meant about Darwin, is that the documentary is not a defense or explanation of Darwin, that has to be accepted as FACT in order to grasp the full meaning of Dawkin’s position and Darwin’s explanation of the “purpose” of human existence.

Wish I could write clearer on this. Sorry.

I’m not implying anything one way or the other about existence or God or Darwin or evolution. I’m simply trying (in a convoluted way, perhaps) that Dawkins does not deliver what he promises. He states that religion fails but that Darwin does not. But what he (Dawkins) claims Darwin has shown us is that we (humans) can ask questions about our existence — that “explains” our existence.

To which I say, “Huh?”

He has elevated our own minds (his own ego, I say) to something worthy of woshipping. Again, Dawkins seems to be celebrating his own ability to use his brain. That’s how I see this.

Thanks.

and what did you mean by: “The scienitific validity of Darwin’s theories have been rendered irrelevant here.”

are you implying that there MUST BE A PURPOSE for our existence?

im very confused by your point.

So, Dawkins, essentially is attempting to create a new “religion,” the religion of the human brain. How ridiculous.

The scienitific validity of Darwin’s theories have been rendered irrelevant here. What is important seems to be that the great DAWKINS (ALL KNEEL) has figured it out. His ego is unfathomable. His lack of creative and intuitive thinking is inversely proportionate. Conclusion: he’s a twit.

So here’s an appropriate prayer in Dawkin’s new religion:

“Oh, great human mind (Dawkin’s ego)” “You (I, Dawkins) are truly the greatest thing to ever exist. You (I) seek out the answer to everthing! You forward-plan. You know the purpose of the Universe (Me). Oh, how great are you! (am I, Dawkins).”

How ridiculous.

So, by logic, Dawkins has no explanation. Yes? No?

Is this what I’ll see if I watch the doc?