The purpose of life

[superfes]

I disagree with this. Like it or not, what's "stupid" is a matter of opinion. Somebody could just as easily say that atheistic belief systems are stupid, and they have the power of numbers on their side.

The rights of parents behaviour toward their children is circumscribed by government in many ways. I merely feel that this should be included, as it is, in my opinion, among the worst of abuses.

I find myself in agreement with the both of you, though I personally do not believe that indoctrination helps our world in any way and sometimes what parents do to their children for the sake of religion is very much abusive in nature, this is not always the case.

Outside of the fact that in America it's pretty common to teach our children about Santa Claus, we teach our children what we believe is right or what we feel can benefit our children, it is natural for us to want our children to have the best we can provide for them, and if we were religious as parents we would believe that providing our children with our beliefs is the right thing to do.

Though I believe that religion is one of the most destructive forces on this planet and I want people to mature and learn why we should be ridding ourselves of this primitive belief system that was used to describe things we didn't understand.

It seems more likely that we'll just have to wait for religion to lose it's strength over time as is want for the world.

I feel that punishing those that intend to do the right thing for their children, misguided or not, is wrong.  The world already lacks in good parents, much less loving ones.

Our best option is to provide very reasonable information at all times for anyone, be it young or old, to provide answers that any persons may have about life and its meaning.

And to sort of round this topic back toward the original subject, is it not the purpose in life to further ourselves from our parents in the ways we can in order to provide for ourselves and others to make this world a better place anyway?

;-)

Sorry for the diatribe.

[LegendarySandwich]

I disagree with this. Like it or not, what's "stupid" is a matter of opinion. Somebody could just as easily say that atheistic belief systems are stupid, and they have the power of numbers on their side.

Except, of course, that they'd be making a category error, because there are no 'atheistic belief systems',

Uh...yeah, there are. I think you mean that atheism isn't a belief system in and of itself. Of course belief systems can be atheistic.
 

and the rest is an argumentum ad populum.

No. I'm saying that they have the majority, so if we were able to make it illegal to teach certain things to children because we think those beliefs are stupid, us atheists would soon be unable to raise children, because we're in the minority.

Nonsense. Firstly. children are not property.

Are they property of the government?

Not only that, this lends weight to the cretinous assertion that we should worship magic man because he allegedly created us, making us his property.

Irrelevant.

In any event, governments intervene in all sorts of ways, so why should the stunting of the education of children in things that are demonstrably not true, or at the very least, not demonstrably true, be any different?

Do you think it should be illegal for parents to not teach safe sex education? Creationism? Homeopathy?

Do you think that parents should only teach children that which is scientifically verified?

The rights of parents behaviour toward their children is circumscribed by government in many ways. I merely feel that this should be included, as it is, in my opinion, among the worst of abuses.

As I implied earlier in this post, you're saying that children aren't property, yet the government has the right to take them away. Parents teaching things that you think are untrue constitutes as making the child property, but not when the government is taking away the child because they're teaching it things it doesn't like?

[Achronos]

Back to what I was discussing earlier...

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.

So much for you attempting to be cordial. Let me say five things before writing you off:

1) When I brought up the PhD my intent was not to say, "I am the authority here," but to point out the absurdity of linking a Wikipedia article to me on a logical issue. Furthermore, you continue to act as though I am some bible-thumping good ole' southern boy who thinks an atheist is also a Communist. My Master's degree was in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and I have studied under (and studied) atheists, agnostics, and a whole breed of other beliefs. Do you really think they would have let me progress that far in my degree, attaching their name to my degree, if I was as far off as you seem to suppose? I am not questioning whether or not atheists live with purpose in life, I am simply asking why, why is purpose assumed? This question is not one that Christians came up with, but instead one that has consistently been asked by atheists themselves (at least those who dare to think).

2) Along the same lines as what I said above, I am not doubting that you live with purpose; my question is why? If nothing continues, then why live with purpose? Because it'd be "depressing" not to? So what?

3) Look up the problem of logical positivism/evidentiary epistemology. You said that God has to demonstrate Himself in a natural way, which is a contradiction plus a false epistemic method (because it's self-refuting). I'll leave it to you to look it up. I don't waste my time on anti-intellectuals who are more interested in a fight than learning.

4) Should you desire to take up communications with me you need to learn a bit about civility first. I expect a certain level of discourse when talking to people and if you treat me like some uneducated idiot (when it's painfully obvious to me that the majority of your understanding comes from articles on the internet, Youtube, and Wikipedia) though I am far more educated than you and have debated atheists far more educated than you and I combined doesn't sit well with me. Now, I'm not saying this to say, "I'm right because I'm more educated," but merely to say that when you treat me like an idiot, that's extremely disrespectful. Furthermore, you can question my claims all you want, I don't care. My ego isn't tied to whether or not some high school kid believes me.

5) If you really want to talk to me, read the following books in order and get back to me:

"Socratic Logic" by Peter Kreeft

"Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"The Genealogy of Morality" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"Against Ethics" by John Caputo

"The Stranger" by Albert Camus

"No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre

"Why I Am Not a Christian" by Betrand Russell

"Christianity For Modern Pagans" by Peter Kreeft

"The God Who is There" by Francis Schaeffer

"Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer

"God and Other Minds" by Alvin Plantinga

"A Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig

"The Recalcitrant Imago Dei" by J.P. Moreland

These should give you a good back and forth on the issues of purpose concerning atheism. I am even willing to help you through these books should you have any questions.

Understand that I don't approach you thinking I'm superior, nor do I say any of the above out of disdain. In all honesty I actually hurt for you because I sense a lot of bitterness and a false sense of superiority in your writings. I sense a lot of uneasiness and pseudo-knowledge and, what is more, I think you realize it's pseudo-knowledge.

Judging on how you approach the debate, my guess is you are currently a high school debater or used to be (assuming you are out of high school, but I don't think you are, and that's not meant as an insult). If this is so, remember that it is always better to study both sides of the issue. And also understand that debate doesn't help you one iota in real life, at least the structure of debate, and that in the real world debates are never formulated like a policy debate (and for good reason).

[hackenslash]

As I implied earlier in this post, you're saying that children aren't property, yet the government has the right to take them away. Parents teaching things that you think are untrue constitutes as making the child property, but not when the government is taking away the child because they're teaching it things it doesn't like?

Guff. I never said anything about taking the children away, but sanctioning the parents. Certainly, this will often mean that the children are separated from their parents, but the way are treating it is a very sneaky treatment formulated to attempt to show a symmetry between sanctioning parents and their children being property.

You can do better than that.

[hackenslash]

So much for you attempting to be cordial. Let me say five things before writing you off:

1) When I brought up the PhD my intent was not to say, "I am the authority here," but to point out the absurdity of linking a Wikipedia article to me on a logical issue. Furthermore, you continue to act as though I am some bible-thumping good ole' southern boy who thinks an atheist is also a Communist. My Master's degree was in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and I have studied under (and studied) atheists, agnostics, and a whole breed of other beliefs. Do you really think they would have let me progress that far in my degree, attaching their name to my degree, if I was as far off as you seem to suppose? I am not questioning whether or not atheists live with purpose in life, I am simply asking why, why is purpose assumed? This question is not one that Christians came up with, but instead one that has consistently been asked by atheists themselves (at least those who dare to think).

2) Along the same lines as what I said above, I am not doubting that you live with purpose; my question is why? If nothing continues, then why live with purpose? Because it'd be "depressing" not to? So what?

3) Look up the problem of logical positivism/evidentiary epistemology. You said that God has to demonstrate Himself in a natural way, which is a contradiction plus a false epistemic method (because it's self-refuting). I'll leave it to you to look it up. I don't waste my time on anti-intellectuals who are more interested in a fight than learning.

4) Should you desire to take up communications with me you need to learn a bit about civility first. I expect a certain level of discourse when talking to people and if you treat me like some uneducated idiot (when it's painfully obvious to me that the majority of your understanding comes from articles on the internet, Youtube, and Wikipedia) though I am far more educated than you and have debated atheists far more educated than you and I combined doesn't sit well with me. Now, I'm not saying this to say, "I'm right because I'm more educated," but merely to say that when you treat me like an idiot, that's extremely disrespectful. Furthermore, you can question my claims all you want, I don't care. My ego isn't tied to whether or not some high school kid believes me.

5) If you really want to talk to me, read the following books in order and get back to me:

"Socratic Logic" by Peter Kreeft

"Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"The Genealogy of Morality" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"Against Ethics" by John Caputo

"The Stranger" by Albert Camus

"No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre

"Why I Am Not a Christian" by Betrand Russell

"Christianity For Modern Pagans" by Peter Kreeft

"The God Who is There" by Francis Schaeffer

"Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer

"God and Other Minds" by Alvin Plantinga

"A Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig

"The Recalcitrant Imago Dei" by J.P. Moreland

These should give you a good back and forth on the issues of purpose concerning atheism. I am even willing to help you through these books should you have any questions.

Understand that I don't approach you thinking I'm superior, nor do I say any of the above out of disdain. In all honesty I actually hurt for you because I sense a lot of bitterness and a false sense of superiority in your writings. I sense a lot of uneasiness and pseudo-knowledge and, what is more, I think you realize it's pseudo-knowledge.

Judging on how you approach the debate, my guess is you are currently a high school debater or used to be (assuming you are out of high school, but I don't think you are, and that's not meant as an insult). If this is so, remember that it is always better to study both sides of the issue. And also understand that debate doesn't help you one iota in real life, at least the structure of debate, and that in the real world debates are never formulated like a policy debate (and for good reason).

The hubris in this post is on such a galactic scale, I thought it necessary to save it for posterity. Rarely have I seen Dunning-Krüger on this scale. And you want to lecture us on fucking civility? The cheek!

[Davin]

So much for you attempting to be cordial. Let me say five things before writing you off:

Oh no, I did attempt it, but that ended when you clearly made a mistake and tried to play the "I can haz PhDz!!!!11 UR IGNORANTZ!!1!" internet argument card instead of just admitting it, correcting it and moving on.

1) When I brought up the PhD my intent was not to say, "I am the authority here," but to point out the absurdity of linking a Wikipedia article to me on a logical issue.

The absurdity was you committing several fallacies and claimed something was a fallacy when it wasn't, then instead of correcting your errors, you bring up your alleged PhD and alleged Masters degree and all your alleged discussion partners box of assorted scientific degrees and doctorates. While being in error, you continue to attack me (saying I'm ignorant, not as educated as thou, etc.) and straw man me, instead of admitting that you were wrong.

Furthermore, you continue to act as though I am some bible-thumping good ole' southern boy who thinks an atheist is also a Communist.

No I don't, if your going to assert that I'm doing this, then explain what in my language made any mention of thumping bibles or your assumptions about atheists. Or at least where I made any mention of your religion.

My Master's degree was in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics and I have studied under (and studied) atheists, agnostics, and a whole breed of other beliefs. Do you really think they would have let me progress that far in my degree, attaching their name to my degree, if I was as far off as you seem to suppose?

If someone who I absolutely knew had 10 different doctorates including philosophy, mathematics and and computer information systems were making the same errors you were making, I'd still correct them. Getting a doctorate doesn't have the "get to spit out bullshit without being checked" pass you seem to think it does. I may have never ever attended any school or had any education at all and you may have 30 years of intense education under your belt, but it doesn't matter, because you were wrong. Even if I was five years old and grew up with wolves, it doesn't correct your error even if you were more educated than I. You made an error, if you want to fix it, then address the error you made and not your alleged PhD, alleged Masters degree and alleged scientific friends. Is this sinking in yet? It doesn't even matter if my statement was just a random sentence from a bowl of alphabet soup and you were the most educated man on earth, you committed fallacies and incorrectly called something a fallacy. The issues are your errors, not some education pissing contest. Shiny?

I am not questioning whether or not atheists live with purpose in life, I am simply asking why, why is purpose assumed? This question is not one that Christians came up with, but instead one that has consistently been asked by atheists themselves (at least those who dare to think).

Purpose doesn't matter, it's not necessary. Those who need purpose can choose their purpose, those that don't need purpose can get by without it.

2) Along the same lines as what I said above, I am not doubting that you live with purpose; my question is why? If nothing continues, then why live with purpose? Because it'd be "depressing" not to? So what?

I have a purpose to things I do, I sometimes have a purpose for not doing things, however I have no principal guiding purpose that's behind everything I do because it is unnecessary.

3) Look up the problem of logical positivism/evidentiary epistemology. You said that God has to demonstrate Himself in a natural way, which is a contradiction plus a false epistemic method (because it's self-refuting). I'll leave it to you to look it up. I don't waste my time on anti-intellectuals who are more interested in a fight than learning.

No I don't say that a god must demonstrate itself in any way, yet another straw man. I say that those that wish to be taken seriously who claim something, need to provide evidence for their claim. This is the same standard I hold for everything that I accept as true, I make no exceptions.

4) Should you desire to take up communications with me you need to learn a bit about civility first. I expect a certain level of discourse when talking to people and if you treat me like some uneducated idiot (when it's painfully obvious to me that the majority of your understanding comes from articles on the internet, Youtube, and Wikipedia) though I am far more educated than you and have debated atheists far more educated than you and I combined doesn't sit well with me. Now, I'm not saying this to say, "I'm right because I'm more educated," but merely to say that when you treat me like an idiot, that's extremely disrespectful. Furthermore, you can question my claims all you want, I don't care. My ego isn't tied to whether or not some high school kid believes me.

I politely showed you your error, you responded with personal attacks, straw manning and attempting to make yourself an authority that you appealed to, I responded to that with the contempt your dishonest and vile response deserved. If you don't like it, then by all means back the fuck down. Otherwise I will hold you to your errors no matter how vile you become.

5) If you really want to talk to me, read the following books in order and get back to me:
[spoiler:2ns2dtw2]"Socratic Logic" by Peter Kreeft

"Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"The Genealogy of Morality" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"Against Ethics" by John Caputo

"The Stranger" by Albert Camus

"No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre

"Why I Am Not a Christian" by Betrand Russell

"Christianity For Modern Pagans" by Peter Kreeft

"The God Who is There" by Francis Schaeffer

"Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer

"God and Other Minds" by Alvin Plantinga

"A Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig

"The Recalcitrant Imago Dei" by J.P. Moreland[/spoiler:2ns2dtw2]
These should give you a good back and forth on the issues of purpose concerning atheism. I am even willing to help you through these books should you have any questions.

I don't need to ask any questions, you cited William Lane Craig... I'm sorry but he's just as pathetic at logic while being just as patronizing as you. It's really hilarious but I'm not currently in the mood to read a comedy. I'm not going to spend a few hours to read these books just for the "privilege" of talking to you. I will keep pointing out your errors so long as you keep posting errors. Whether or not you want to respond, I don't really care.

Understand that I don't approach you thinking I'm superior, nor do I say any of the above out of disdain.

That's good for you because I can show you many places in your posts that shows that your thinking is in error when I doubt you can do the same with my posts (at least not without your straw manning and demonstrating that you're ignorant of fallacies).

In all honesty I actually hurt for you because I sense a lot of bitterness and a false sense of superiority in your writings.

That is rich, oh man, this actually was a good laugh with the people I showed it to. The irony.

I sense a lot of uneasiness and pseudo-knowledge and, what is more, I think you realize it's pseudo-knowledge.

In yourself? I sensed that as well, which is why I showed you your errors and your errors in response to me showing you your errors. You have seven layer error burrito my friend.

Judging on how you approach the debate, my guess is you are currently a high school debater or used to be (assuming you are out of high school, but I don't think you are, and that's not meant as an insult). If this is so, remember that it is always better to study both sides of the issue. And also understand that debate doesn't help you one iota in real life, at least the structure of debate, and that in the real world debates are never formulated like a policy debate (and for good reason).

Haha, and you accused me of having a false sense of superiority. "Both sides" is often a false construction of simplistic thinking, if you're wrong about the Christian god creating the universe, that doesn't mean that I am right. In fact I have nothing to be right about when it comes to a god because I'm not asserting anything. Because I'm not making any claims about god, I cannot be right or wrong about god. If you can't understand that concept, then don't ever again try to claim that I'm less educated thou art because that shows a very limited comprehension ability.

I noticed how instead of addressing your errors as they were pointed out to you, you again avoided the discussion, committed more fallacies and made more baseless accusations. I'll make no assumptions as to your age, intelligence and/or education (other than either your PhD isn't real or it's a waste of paper), only that your arguments that I have pointed out to you, are wrong. You were wrong. And you're ever more wrong for avoiding the criticism. Please stop preaching and trolling: start discussing.

[McQ]

The back and forth, playground arguments need to cease, folks. You guys want to challenge one anothers' credentials, do it by PM. This thread has become derailed by pettiness. It is no longer appropriate in the open forum. Done.

[Sophus]

5) If you really want to talk to me, read the following books in order and get back to me:

"Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"The Genealogy of Morality" by Friedrich Nietzsche

"The Stranger" by Albert Camus

"No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre

The purpose of citing these is?

[NaturaLCalamity]

The purpose of life is reproduce, and survive. Like any other species on Earth, we're suppose to pass our genes to our offsprings, and so and so on.

Other than that, our purpose in life is what we make it out to be. We have one life, and with this life, I hope that we're all capable in doing what we want to do before we die. To me, it's to be the best human being that I can be, be successful and happy with my future career, and to have a family one day.

[DJAkuma]

As a side note I've known quite a few people with advanced degrees who had the street smarts of a cartoon princess and would lose a battle of wits with a stuffed iguana. Having money and the ability to retain, rearrange and regurgitate information doesn't require any sort of special level of intelligence (though advanced degrees in real sciences tend to require critical thinking skills, I would tend to think that an advanced religious degree would require a lack of critical thinking skills).

[defendor]

I would like to apologize to everyone on this forum for apparently disregarding the formal etiquette on which this board was proposed.  I do wish to still be an active member, but in more of conformation of the standards of this site.  If I am out of line as seemingly as I was, I do wish to abide by the rules and would ask for an explanation so I know not to address the same mistakes again.  Thank you

[LegendarySandwich]

I would like to apologize to everyone on this forum for apparently disregarding the formal etiquette on which this board was proposed.  I do wish to still be an active member, but in more of conformation of the standards of this site.  If I am out of line as seemingly as I was, I do wish to abide by the rules and would ask for an explanation so I know not to address the same mistakes again.  Thank you

From what I've seen so far, we're a pretty laidback forum. We just like actual intelligent debate. If you can manage that, then you'll be fine here.  

[AverageJoe]

The purpose of life is simple.

Avoid dying for as long as you can.

[Tank]

The purpose of life is simple.

Avoid dying for as long as you can.

It's simpler than that. Reproduce yourself successfully. An un-reproductive life is effectively a failure as life exists to reproduce itself. Once you have successfully reproduced and can no longer reproduce most organisms are simply redundant. Humans are unusual, although not unique, in the respect of multi-generational input to reproductive success.

[LegendarySandwich]

The purpose of life is simple.

Avoid dying for as long as you can.

If that's your purpose, that's fine, but I want my purpose in life to be a little more...fulfilling.