The purpose of life

[defendor]

Jesus is supposed to be fully god, while being fully human; so if he's the same as god, then he cannot logically exist either.

Take a look at your existence, you see your body, but you can't see your personality, intellect, will, etc..  2 completely different entities that come together in unison for your existence
 

If God interacts and intervenes in the universe, then he has to be in at at least some of the time; but he cannot logically exist in our universe.

I said the Father, did not make mention to Jesus or the Holy spirit, both of which are God

But I thought you said meaning was based on opinion?  So the fact that this statement is based on truth bears no weight.

What? That makes no sense.

Let me quote you

I've said it again, and I've said it before...meaning is not the same as truth. The statement "there is no objective meaning" has to be true to be "meaningful".

but earlier you said, meaning is based on opinion.  How can meaning be based on opinion, if you are giving truth to the statement "there is no meaning"?

[LegendarySandwich]

Jesus is supposed to be fully god, while being fully human; so if he's the same as god, then he cannot logically exist either.

Take a look at your existence, you see your body, but you can't see your personality, intellect, will, etc..  2 completely different entities that come together in unison for your existence

Uh, no. The only reason I can't see my personality and intellect is because I can't see my brain. If I were to take a picture of my brain and look at it, I would be looking at my very essence.
And you didn't answer the question.
 

If God interacts and intervenes in the universe, then he has to be in at at least some of the time; but he cannot logically exist in our universe.

I said the Father, did not make mention to Jesus or the Holy spirit, both of which are God

So, Jesus doesn't have any of God's powers, traits, or abilities?

I've said it again, and I've said it before...meaning is not the same as truth. The statement "there is no objective meaning" has to be true to be "meaningful".

but earlier you said, meaning is based on opinion.  How can meaning be based on opinion, if you are giving truth to the statement "there is no meaning"?

I don't understand your argument.

[Achronos]

You are making objective claims to meaning and truth, which defies your philosophy as being subjective.  For many people are making objective claims to truth assuming the objectivity of the claim there is no truth

Due to the faulty nature of our reasoning, we have to define what we mean by 'objective.' I made a mistake in bringing up "objective morality'" because "objective morals" is a loaded statement, mostly because it's based upon reason rather than revelation. So going off of morality, If we mean, "are there metaphysical truths that exist independent of human thoughts and interactions," then yes, these exist. if we mean, "there are truths independent of human thoughts and acts that all humans can epistemically discover with absolute precision," then no, this does not exist.

[hackenslash]

What if a god designed the world to work in a specific manner and revealed that in a holy book?

And if my Aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. Your point? In any event, your particular cosmic curtain-twitcher did no such thing. What he did, according to your pet fantasy, is to write a book that bore no resemblance to reality. I defy you to show anything other. This wil be quite an achievement, since not only do I know how the universe works better than you do, I bet I also know your puerile fantasy better than you do too.

Assuming that you have an infinite knowledge of the universe, and be everywhere at once, so if a god shows up you can see him,  Thus you would essentially have to be god to know if there is a god or not.

Errr, no. If your celestial peeping-tom intervenes in the cosmos, the evidence is there. Omniscience is not necessary.

basing this on what evidence?

On the evidence that we weren't created. Fairly simple. Perhaps you've heard of this thing: It's called evolution. Your book of wibble bears no resemblance to reality, and I can demonstrate that quite easily. Indeed, I have already done so in this thread, but if you want more, say the word, and I will deliver it.

[hackenslash]

I'll use the law of non-contradiction

This should be a laugh.

For example, when you pull up to an intersection you see a mack truck barreling towards you.  That mack truck can't "be there and not be there" at the same time.
thus you are basing logic on what you see and can interpret as logical truth.

No, but it can 'be there and somewhere else' at the same time, with no contradiction. Indeed, such superposition is the bread and butter of the technology you are employing to spout your guff.

Snipped stuff already dealt with.

[pilchardo]

Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

[Ultima22689]

Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

You seem to get your jollies from flaming, go back to your bridge.

[hackenslash]

Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

Don't mistake bluntness for emotional content.

[pilchardo]

Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

Don't mistake bluntness for emotional content.

Sorry if I offended you.

[hackenslash]

You didn't.

[pilchardo]

You didn't.

  I'm glad to hear it. Life's too short for getting angry.

[Whitney]

pilchardo, if you can't add constructively to a thread don't even post in it.  If I see this again I'll stick you in with the newbies and leave you there till I'm convinced you aren't trolling.

[Achronos]

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is it's a matter of truth. If one's worldview begins with a falsehood, then one's view of other things (such as epistemology, ethics, government, etc) is equally going to be skewed.

However, I would argue that atheism, because it is false, robs meaning and purpose from life. One cannot be an atheist and believe in an intrinsic purpose in life; the only "purpose" we have is breeding and survival and any obscure individualistic purpose we ascribe to ourselves, but even those ultimately mean nothing. So we look at a great work of art and rather than admiring the beauty, we say, "This artist only did this because he wanted to get laid." We rob art by applying sexual selection to it, but because sexual selection is false is unnecessarily turns us into cynics who cannot appreciate beauty, or at least appreciate beauty to the extent we should.

In robbing us of purpose, it robs us of morals. In the end, there really are no morals, there is only the will. The will to shape our environment to aid in our survival is the only thing that matters. Thus, if a society where every second child born must be sold into slavery somehow benefits my survival, then I will do what I can to beget such a society. We look to the atrocities of Stalin or Mao and ask "Why?" and, in their atheism, they answer "Why not?" We say, "But by killing you lessen our chances of survival." They smile back at you and say, "Ah, but these people hampered further human evolution in their ignorance; by killing them, we have strengthened the gene pool and provided an environment better suited for survival." Round and round you will go with them, but in the end the argument doesn't matter; at the end of the day the stars will look down upon such atrocities, the cosmos will yawn, and in 4.5 billion years we will have faded into oblivion. No memory of us, nothing. So what is the purpose in anything? Do we face the great abyss of nihilism that atheism begets with some blind naive mentality about how we can still make life matter because life, being rare, is precious?

Now, most assuredly the atheist will sit here with massive objections to everything I've said. They'll say that just because the consequences are unpalatable doesn't mean we should reject atheism, or they'll argue that atheists can be moral and artists just as much as Christians can, so I'm wrong. To both of those arguments I'll say that you've missed the point, but proven my own.

As I stated at the beginning, atheism is false, and in being false is creates a false picture of the world in which we live. This means it robs us of things that are essential and things that are a part of what define us as humans. It cannot explain these things - at least not in any cogent fashion or logically palatable way - so in its failure to explain these things (and that it is at odds with these things shows that it will never explain them) it creates a skewed view of the world.

Christianity, however, offers a plausible explanation. Why is it that you choose not to murder babies even when beneficial, or you stand in awe at the top of the mountain when in reality that mountain top will be gone in a million years? Why do you live with purpose when you teach you don't have a purpose? Because you were created in the image of God and therefore innately know you have a purpose; it is in your subconscious that you have a purpose, and this is something evolution cannot touch. We know this because we do not see it duplicated in any other species. Evolutionary traits can only be detectable if we see such traits in other species; in the absence of such traits we are left without suitable evidence that something is an evolved trait. Thus, the human sense of purpose or the human appreciation for art and beauty is truly sui generis to our species. My ability to hammer a nail or use a paint brush is not unique, thus showing we shared common evolutionary traits with certain animals. But my ability to conceive of an artistic building or to paint what I can see only in my head is not duplicated by any animal.

So what causes this? Naturalism is left without an answer and any hope of an answer in the future - an appeal to ignorance, saying we don't currently know - is blind faith.

So whether or not Christianity stands above any other religions is, for you at this point, irrelevant. What matters is that Christianity is a better place to stand than atheism, or theism is more tenable than atheism. You may not be convinced of Christianity, which is fine, but even Deism is preferable and closer to the truth than saying there is no God.

"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA...It is every living object's sole reason for living." says Richard Dawkins. It's too bad he was refuted, I don't know nearly 100 years ago by Chesterton: "It is as if a man were asked, 'What is the use of a hammer?' and answered, 'To make hammers'; and when asked, 'And of those hammers, what is the use?' answered, 'To make hammers again'. Just as such a man would be perpetually putting off the question of the ultimate use of carpentry, so all the rest of us are by these phrases successfully putting off the question of the ultimate value of the human life."

[Davin]

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is it's a matter of truth. If one's worldview begins with a falsehood, then one's view of other things (such as epistemology, ethics, government, etc) is equally going to be skewed.

I don't agree. As long as the logic is valid and the premises can be shown true, then it doesn't matter what world view a person has. Otherwise you must think that everything an atheist says is skewed, which is ad hominem.

However, I would argue that atheism, because it is false, robs meaning and purpose from life.

In order for you to make the bold claim that atheism is false, please at the very least provide the reason why a god should be proposed to exist.

One cannot be an atheist and believe in an intrinsic purpose in life;

False dichotomy, one can be an atheist and believe in intrinsic purpose, just as a theist can believe there is no intrinsic purpose. All these options are available and reasonable.

the only "purpose" we have is breeding and survival and any obscure individualistic purpose we ascribe to ourselves, but even those ultimately mean nothing.

Straw Man because I've yet to see a person actually say this (other than theists claiming that is what atheists believe), let alone the majority of people here. In short, you've constructed this instead of actually addressing the points made.

So we look at a great work of art and rather than admiring the beauty, we say, "This artist only did this because he wanted to get laid."

And who would that be?

We rob art by applying sexual selection to it, but because sexual selection is false is unnecessarily turns us into cynics who cannot appreciate beauty, or at least appreciate beauty to the extent we should.

Who is doing this?

In robbing us of purpose, it robs us of morals.

Nice, this conclusion doesn't even follow from your straw manning.

In the end, there really are no morals, there is only the will. The will to shape our environment to aid in our survival is the only thing that matters. Thus, if a society where every second child born must be sold into slavery somehow benefits my survival, then I will do what I can to beget such a society.

Wow, that sounds like a dickish thing for you to do, I wouldn't sell any of my children into slavery.

We look to the atrocities of Stalin or Mao and ask "Why?" and, in their atheism, they answer "Why not?"

Who does?

We say, "But by killing you lessen our chances of survival." They smile back at you and say, "Ah, but these people hampered further human evolution in their ignorance; by killing them, we have strengthened the gene pool and provided an environment better suited for survival."

Now I'm kind of lost, they look like quotes, but it's not anything close to anything anyone has said.

Round and round you will go with them, but in the end the argument doesn't matter; at the end of the day the stars will look down upon such atrocities, the cosmos will yawn, and in 4.5 billion years we will have faded into oblivion. No memory of us, nothing. So what is the purpose in anything? Do we face the great abyss of nihilism that atheism begets with some blind naive mentality about how we can still make life matter because life, being rare, is precious?

Now it just sounds like your babbling with no direction.

Now, most assuredly the atheist will sit here with massive objections to everything I've said.

I think anyone with even basic critical thinking skills would've objected to everything you've just said.

They'll say that just because the consequences are unpalatable doesn't mean we should reject atheism, or they'll argue that atheists can be moral and artists just as much as Christians can, so I'm wrong.

I say neither, I just say don't accept something that doesn't have sufficient empirical evidence.

To both of those arguments I'll say that you've missed the point, but proven my own.

Ok, clearly straw man, good work at "defeating" your own arguments.

As I stated at the beginning, atheism is false, and in being false is creates a false picture of the world in which we live. This means it robs us of things that are essential and things that are a part of what define us as humans. It cannot explain these things - at least not in any cogent fashion or logically palatable way - so in its failure to explain these things (and that it is at odds with these things shows that it will never explain them) it creates a skewed view of the world.

Repeat it as much as you want, without demonstrating that you're correct, it's just baseless speculation.

Christianity, however, offers a plausible explanation.

It does now does it?

Why is it that you choose not to murder babies even when beneficial, or you stand in awe at the top of the mountain when in reality that mountain top will be gone in a million years? Why do you live with purpose when you teach you don't have a purpose? Because you were created in the image of God and therefore innately know you have a purpose; it is in your subconscious that you have a purpose, and this is something evolution cannot touch. We know this because we do not see it duplicated in any other species. Evolutionary traits can only be detectable if we see such traits in other species; in the absence of such traits we are left without suitable evidence that something is an evolved trait. Thus, the human sense of purpose or the human appreciation for art and beauty is truly sui generis to our species. My ability to hammer a nail or use a paint brush is not unique, thus showing we shared common evolutionary traits with certain animals. But my ability to conceive of an artistic building or to paint what I can see only in my head is not duplicated by any animal.

Maybe you're getting to an answer to all these questions...

So what causes this? Naturalism is left without an answer and any hope of an answer in the future - an appeal to ignorance, saying we don't currently know - is blind faith.

I think you need to read what "an appeal to ignorance" is, because saying "I don't know" is not it, saying "you don't know, therefore god did it" is. Saying "we don't currently know" is only blind faith if we currently know, like saying, "evolution isn't true because god created the animals and plants."

So whether or not Christianity stands above any other religions is, for you at this point, irrelevant. What matters is that Christianity is a better place to stand than atheism, or theism is more tenable than atheism.

Bullshit, that is hilarious. It truly is, maybe you're going to back this up...

You may not be convinced of Christianity, which is fine, but even Deism is preferable and closer to the truth than saying there is no God.

Nope, no backing up. Look, you can't go around saying things without any evidential support are true, this is what is known as untenable. It's untenable because if you used that reasoning with anything else, you create a contradiction: there is the same amount of evidence for subatomic robot creators of everything as there is for your god. You must accept the truth of subatomic robot creators of everything using the same reasoning you use to accept your god.

"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA...It is every living object's sole reason for living." says Richard Dawkins. It's too bad he was refuted, I don't know nearly 100 years ago by Chesterton: "It is as if a man were asked, 'What is the use of a hammer?' and answered, 'To make hammers'; and when asked, 'And of those hammers, what is the use?' answered, 'To make hammers again'. Just as such a man would be perpetually putting off the question of the ultimate use of carpentry, so all the rest of us are by these phrases successfully putting off the question of the ultimate value of the human life."

I don't see how that refutes what Dawkins said, it doesn't even come close to the same planet.

[LegendarySandwich]

the only "purpose" we have is breeding and survival and any obscure individualistic purpose we ascribe to ourselves, but even those ultimately mean nothing.

Straw Man because I've yet to see a person actually say this (other than theists claiming that is what atheists believe), let alone the majority of people here. In short, you've constructed this instead of actually addressing the points made.

Really? Because what he's trying to describe is existential nihilism, which a lot of atheists here are, I think.