The purpose of life

[Davin]

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.

Maybe, I've never met or seen any one say that though, let alone someone in this thread. I do think that most atheists think there is more purpose than to just breed and survive. However I must concede that I don't know. Maybe I missed that post in this thread, but I still know the majority of posts made by atheists here have not said anything like that. That is the point, he's making a post here, in this thread, and acting as though he's responding to atheists as a whole, while representing something other than what atheists have posted in this thread.

[LegendarySandwich]

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

Maybe, I've never met or seen any one say that though, let alone someone in this thread. I do think that most atheists think there is more purpose than to just breed and survive. However I must concede that I don't know. Maybe I missed that post in this thread, but I still know the majority of posts made by atheists here have not said anything like that. That is the point, he's making a post here, in this thread, and acting as though he's responding to atheists as a whole, while representing something other than what atheists have posted in this thread.

I'm talking about the "any [strike:2qrtssmm]obscure[/strike:2qrtssmm] individualistic purpose we ascribe to ourselves", which existential nihilists believe is the only purpose that life has.

[Davin]

I'm talking about the "any [strike:ugekkpgv]obscure[/strike:ugekkpgv] individualistic purpose we ascribe to ourselves", which existential nihilists believe is the only purpose that life has.

I can see that and am perfectly willing to concede the point if Achronos can manage to represent it properly. I would argue that the part you struck out is a very big meaning changer, I'm sure even existential nihilists would argue that their self ascribed purposes are not all obscure and are often very clear.

[elliebean]

It's really sad to watch someone get beaten up by their own strawman, while they go on pontificating, as if it isn't happening.  

[hackenslash]

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.

You should try levelling that at your magic man, because that constitutes a falsehood, because he doesn't exist.

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

Bzzzzzzzzz. Category error. Atheism is not a truth claim, and therefore the accusation of falsity does not apply. Atheism doesn't even erect any truth claims of its own, other than possibly 'I find your claims cooncerning your deity less than convincing'.

Since your argument is predicated on a category error, it is invalid, and can therefore be dismissed without further comment.

[Sophus]

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

I don't think you're acknowledging the full context of what you're saying. If all false world views sap life of meaning then that leaves us with Christians only having fulfilled lives. Of course psychology has never found that Christians are more fulfilled than muslims, or buddhists, or hindus, etc. But even putting that aside there are still more numbers to cut away at considering the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Given the number of Christians who aren't "true" Christians, well that could end up leaving you and other Orthodox Christians. So what you're saying is you're a part of an elite God Squad that has more purpose and meaning in life than anyone else. Lucky you.

[hackenslash]

So what you're saying is you're a part of an elite God Squad that has more purpose and meaning in life than anyone else. Lucky you.

Not unless he's actually Jewish, according to his book of wibble...

Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles"

Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"

John 4:22 "Salvation is of the Jews"

[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.

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.

I deal with men who are atheists and hold PhD's in philosophy, logic, and an assortment of scientific degrees. I dialogue with them in both respect and mutual understanding. Do you think your little anti-intellectual one-line quips is going to entice me into a dialogue with you? Do you think telling me - someone who has a PhD in Theology (as well as a Master's level in Philosophy) - about the "appeal to ignorance" and then linking me to WIKIPEDIA is going to cause me to sit here and ponder whether or not I have been mistaken?

I see now you are merely attempting to pick a fight. I could go line by line and demonstrate how you're incredibly ignorant to the world around you. For instance, where do I get the idea that we give purpose to our lives? The atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, as well as a cadre of other philosophers and scientists. Or your statement that you don't agree with what I stated about worldviews is laughable as no philosopher would ever say, "So long as your argument is valid, there's no problems with it." For something to work in life it has to match the world around it.

Again, I could go on, but why? You offer me one-liners and links to wikipedia and prove that you're ignorant and proud of your ignorance. So why waste my time with you?

[Ultima22689]

wait, so instead, you fall back on ad hominem attacks and spouting off how amazing you are? I wonder why he should waste his time on you. While real debates happen on forums, this isn't debate in a philosophy class, it's the internet, no one is trying to bring up a research paper, there is nothing wrong with linking wikipedia. If you think there's something wrong with a wikipedia link, why not disprove it by providing better information? If his "one liners" bother you so much and you seem to wonder why you should even bother posting, then why did you? What was the purpose of blasting Davin? Sounds like a chord was struck.

[The Magic Pudding]

Do you think your little anti-intellectual one-line quips is going to entice me into a dialogue with you?

I think that should be - are going to entice me into a dialogue with you?

I can't be sure though, I don't have a PhD.

[hackenslash]

Hang on, guys, maybe we're being a bit too hasty.  After all, Achronos' claim to have a PhD in making shit up about made-up entites and a masters in navel-gazing completely changes things, and means that we should overlook his logical fallacies, such as the category error his last offering was riddled with. After all, the argumentum ad verecundiam isn't a logical fallacy, is it, especially when the authority the arguer is citing is himself? He must a very great philosopher indeed for his qualifications to override the fact that he has no fucking clue about logic, such that he would resort to the cheap schoolboy tactic he has done here in asserting himself as an authority.

All hail the mighty Achronos who is clearly our better and whose utter failure to avoid logical error should be overlooked, because he is just so super.

[Davin]

I deal with men who are atheists and hold PhD's in philosophy, logic, and an assortment of scientific degrees. I dialogue with them in both respect and mutual understanding. Do you think your little anti-intellectual one-line quips is going to entice me into a dialogue with you? Do you think telling me - someone who has a PhD in Theology (as well as a Master's level in Philosophy) - about the "appeal to ignorance" and then linking me to WIKIPEDIA is going to cause me to sit here and ponder whether or not I have been mistaken?

Oh, I didn't know you have a PhD... in thinking about stuff, I'm sure getting a doctorate in thinking about stuff that other people thought up before you (theology) must be incredibly difficult. I still don't know that you have a doctorate, do you know how many times a person on the internet claims to be an expert in something? It's so common and old. However when it comes to honest discussion, it doesn't matter if you have a PhD, as long you keep saying things that are filled with fallacies, you're being illogical. No amount of education or titles will save you from your reliance on fallacies. And the link was more for the audience to compare what you said was an appeal to ignorance with what an appeal to ignorance actually is. You were wrong, no amount of PhDs or PhD holding friends can protect you when you say something wrong.

I see now you are merely attempting to pick a fight. I could go line by line and demonstrate how you're incredibly ignorant to the world around you. For instance, where do I get the idea that we give purpose to our lives? The atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, as well as a cadre of other philosophers and scientists. Or your statement that you don't agree with what I stated about worldviews is laughable as no philosopher would ever say, "So long as your argument is valid, there's no problems with it." For something to work in life it has to match the world around it.

Assume all you want, I'm merely not allowing you to say whatever you want without critique. If you don't like the critique, then I suggest not posting on a public forum. It is funny how you just said how mighty, mighty you are with your PhD and group of PhD holders that you converse with, then continue to commit fallacies. Why do you assume that I do not also hold a PhD? I can give you at least two reasons why I think that your self alleged PhD is in question or at least not even comparable to a high school diploma: not only are you committing several fallacies but relying on them for the basis of your argument and you respond to criticism with ad hominems and touting your "PhD" instead of addressing the points. Finally the statement that you claim I have said, I myself would disagree with that... however that isn't what I said was it? Come on, be honest. Let's compare what you said I said with what I actually said:
Your quote: "So long as your argument is valid, there's no problems with it."
What I said: "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."

I must tremble at the mighty intellect it must take for a person to argue with themselves. I suggest just throwing away your PhD and asking for a refund.

Again, I could go on, but why? You offer me one-liners and links to wikipedia and prove that you're ignorant and proud of your ignorance. So why waste my time with you?

Oh noes! I've been called ignorant while getting straw manned... I think you're confusing your imaginary construction of me with what I actually said. And there were more than just one liners... maybe you should have gotten a PhD in counting stuff.

[Ultima22689]

Who has that sig for crazy shit Achronos has said, I think it could use some updates.

[Sophus]

Who has that sig for crazy shit Achronos has said, I think it could use some updates.

That would be LegendarySandwich: http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic. ... 105#p96219

[superfes]

Who has that sig for crazy shit Achronos has said, I think it could use some updates.

That would be LegendarySandwich: http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic. ... 105#p96219

"Today I observe that even with great matters, when someone asks, before he has even had the time to complete his question, we interrupt him and answer him. This shows that not only do we not seek enlightenment from the Grace of God, but we do not even judge with the reason God gave us. On the contrary, whatever our thoughts suggest to us, immediately, without hesitation, we trust it and consent to it, often with disastrous results.

"Almost all of us view thoughts as being something simple and natural, and that is why we naively trust them. However, we should neither trust them nor accept them.

"Thoughts are like airplanes flying in the air. If you ignore them, there is no problem. If you pay attention to them, you create an airport inside your head and permit them to land!"

I think he forgot the important part of the article he copied and pasted though...

"Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles. Practice patience without judging with the logical mind."

My guess is the reason why he prefers Orthodoxy is that it explicitly tells you not to think about it... just trust us... really.

You can read the rest here: http://www.pravmir.com/article_23.html.

Enjoy!