Happy Atheist Forum

I hope this topic hasn't already been posted I would hate to be redundant. Still I would to know What is the purpose of life to you? Why do you believe that is the purpose of life? Does life even have a purpose.

Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

The only purpose that life has is the one we give it.

There is no inherent purpose in life; there is no "ultimate meaning" written in the stars.

The universe does not care about us. We could be wiped off the face of the planet right now and life would continue on Earth; the Earth could be wiped out of the universe right now and the universe would continue as if nothing had happened.

The only way life can have a meaning is if we ascribe one to it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The only purpose that life has is the one we give it.

There is no inherent purpose in life; there is no "ultimate meaning" written in the stars.

The universe does not care about us. We could be wiped off the face of the planet right now and life would continue on Earth; the Earth could be wiped out of the universe right now and the universe would continue as if nothing had happened.

The only way life can have a meaning is if we ascribe one to it.

I think LS pretty much sums up the big picture there.

I would add though that on a day-to-day basis my purpose in life is to enjoy the little things a do no harm to others. I took my dogs for a long walk today, smoked a good cigar while doing so, watched my dogs have a wonderful time failing to catch rabbits and squirrels and making other peoples kids laugh while doing so. I took some photo's while I was out even though the weather was not the best. I quite like this one:-

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg521.imageshack.us%2Fimg521%2F2402%2Fdsc02300dz.jpg&hash=280ea5186fcf54d14158a39e3531977870619e06)

Sally is the little white dog and Katie the grey one.

I didn't fix any of the worlds problems, I didn't add to global warming, I chatted to some of my fellow dog owners as the dogs sniffed each others bottoms. I considered myself lucky not to be living in Brisbane or Brazil. Today was pleasant. I considered how fortunate I am to be who I am, to live where I live and to be born when I was.

gsaint, why does your life have to have a purpose? why is that important to you? What would happen if you found out that your purpose is a fallicy and has been presented to you as an elaborate lie?

Quote from: "gsaint"I hope this topic hasn't already been posted I would hate to be redundant. Still I would to know What is the purpose of life to you? Why do you believe that is the purpose of life? Does life even have a purpose.

I think it's a good question and deserves an answer. If belief in Christ (as I surmise from your information) gives your life what you see as purpose, then more power to you. I'm going to go on the assumption, though, that you're here because you feel that this purpose is a little hollow, and you're looking for something more.

Today I hugged my daughters, kissed my wife, delved deeply into the Pauli Exclusion Principle to try to understand it (still working!), downloaded Macbeth onto my Nook, wrote a blog entry about helium, introduced my younger daughter to one of my favorite movies (Labyrinth with a young Jennifer Connelly - wow!), and now I'm making dinner. I can't imagine a fuller or more purposeful life. I don't need all that other stuff when I've got what I've got.

Carl Sagan constantly inspires me. Here are his words about purpose:

"These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution. It has the sound of epic myth, but it is simply a description of the evolution of the cosmos as revealed by science in our time. And we, we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos, we have begun at least to wonder about our origins -- star stuff contemplating the stars, organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms, contemplating the evolution of nature, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet earth, and perhaps throughout the cosmos.

Our loyalties are to the species and to the planet. We speak for earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos ancient and vast from which we spring!"

Carl also said, "When you're in love you want to tell the world." I'm in love with life and with learning all there is to know about this amazing and mysterious Cosmos. You can join me. It's a great ride.

Here are two.

Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
42

Man I love Carl Sagan, I wish he was alive today, that quote defines it better than I ever could.

It's simple.. The purpose of life is self-attaining.

The purpose of my existence varies on a daily basis (Not including the biological purpose or the "grand scheme" purpose, only the subjective personal one.)

The purpose of my day is whatever I want it to be - from purposelessness to productiveness.

Life is self-justified; no purpose is required. Also, purpose itself is subjective.

Quote from: "elliebean"Life is self-justified; no purpose is required. Also, purpose itself is subjective.

Purpose is automatically applicable to anything that does exist. Purpose doesn't require anything more or less. The level of purpose can always be considered self-attaining. A simple chemical reaction is self-attaining purpose. Two colors merging to form a new color is self-attaining purpose. :)

thank you for your answers. My life isn't hollow. I just wanted to know what you thought and why you think that way.

forgive my generalities but I heard some similar themes. I know you won't hesitate in correcting my assumptions and I don't mind it if you do so in a courteous way.

A couple of you said that it is what you want it to mean.
Some say to enjoy it.
Some said to stay alive and further the species.

So what helped you come to this conclusion? (excuse me if you have already stated it)

Tank very nice picture it looked like a lovely day.

I have never been a believer. I was brought up in a neutral household, Dad an atheist and Mum a Christian. I got taken to Church and was confirmed but it never stuck. So I never felt that I was part of some big plan nor had any purpose other than to exist. I enjoy helping others because I can see them become happy. I think I'm a natural altruist. Until recently I didn't actively ponder that there was any reason to worry about the fact that I was born and I would die, it never mattered. I have considered it of late but only because people have expressed the opinion that they find not feeling they have a purpose is something they worry about.

I have never worried that there is no 'higher purpose' or plan, it never even got on the radar for me.

Quote from: "gsaint"So what helped you come to this conclusion? (excuse me if you have already stated it)

It's a pretty obvious position that all purpose is subjective, in my eyes. I mean, once you become an atheist and reject religion, the concept of objective purpose and morality is naturally next to follow the tossing.

Evolution made us long for a purpose, so that there would be innovation and striving for excellence and significance.  Good for the species.  So it's a little disheartening to some of us when we figure out that there's ultimately no purpose, really.  Others, like me, come to terms with the disappointment and move past it and just try to enjoy life.

Quote from: "Wilson"Evolution made us long for a purpose, so that there would be innovation and striving for excellence and significance.  Good for the species.  So it's a little disheartening to some of us when we figure out that there's ultimately no purpose, really.  Others, like me, come to terms with the disappointment and move past it and just try to enjoy life.

I don't think it's a bad thing that there's no ultimate purpose. It means you don't have to be disappointed with what you do in life, and it means whatever you want to do can be your purpose.

I know it sounds bleak and pessimistic to state, "my life has no meaning or purpose", but the acknowledgement and realization of that fact has been one of the most enriching and liberating developments in my life. I can and do make commitments and have a sense of devotion to things and persons outside of myself, but my mind and my will are not enslaved to any ideal, any concept, any person, or any institution not of my choosing.

Edit: or what the Sandwich said.  

There's a purpose to life?  Really?  Well I'll be a monkey's uncle........

QuoteEvolution made us long for a purpose, so that there would be innovation and striving for excellence and significance. Good for the species.

How do you know what is good for the species?

How do you find fulfillment in your life? When you die do you think it will be a shame if no one remembers you?

Some have expressed a moment of remorse when they realized there their was no meaning. Why the remorse?

If their is not meaning to life then why do we seek to find meaning and put meaning on other things?

Quote from: "gsaint"

QuoteEvolution made us long for a purpose, so that there would be innovation and striving for excellence and significance. Good for the species.

How do you know what is good for the species?

Uh...it's pretty obvious in most cases.

QuoteHow do you find fulfillment in your life?

I find fulfillment by being a good person and doing things I like.

QuoteWhen you die do you think it will be a shame if no one remembers you?

I don't, personally. Some do, obviously.

QuoteSome have expressed a moment of remorse when they realized there their was no meaning. Why the remorse?

I can't speak for them.

QuoteIf their is not meaning to life then why do we seek to find meaning and put meaning on other things?

...What.

Quote from: "gsaint"How do you know what is good for the species?

I think he means it has helped the species to survive and propagate, at least at one time.

QuoteHow do you find fulfillment in your life?

By living it the best I can.

QuoteWhen you die do you think it will be a shame if no one remembers you?

Certainly it would be a shame for them to miss out on such a great memory, but I won't care.  :)

Thanks, Bean and Sandwich.  My answers are much like yours.  gsaint, try to actually think about these concepts instead of just striking out at anything that doesn't fit your belief system.

Quote from: "gsaint"How do you know what is good for the species?

It's good for the species for its members to work hard, to innovate, to come up with new ways to accomplish things, including more food and better shelter and more safety for one's fellow community or tribe members.  Agreed?  If you were God, and didn't want to micromanage, how would you do that?  You'd probably do it by giving people the motivation of striving for significance, of being somebody important, of wanting the respect and applause of your fellow humans - as well as the unselfish motivation of wanting to help those in your tribe or community.  And you'd want them to believe that there was a purpose to life, so that they didn't just satisfy their wants and needs and nothing more.  Well, that's what evolution did - not, of course, by intelligent design, but by natural selection.  Those individuals who strove to improve things for themselves and others had a better chance at survival, and gradually the gene pool shifted so that most people had that drive to succeed, to be important, and to innovate.

QuoteHow do you find fulfillment in your life? When you die do you think it will be a shame if no one remembers you?

Probably the same way that you do - accomplishing stuff, having a good meal, reading a good book, watching a great movie, being with people we love.  The difference is that we atheists don't have a relationship with God, which most of us don't miss, anyway.  As for someone remembering me, I assume that some people will remember me, hopefully fondly.  Probably the same with you.  Personally I don't think about that a lot, certainly don't worry about it, but if I did, it would be because evolution gave me those emotional tendencies.

QuoteSome have expressed a moment of remorse when they realized there their was no meaning. Why the remorse?

As I said, it's because we are progammed by evolution to feel that there's a purpose to what we do.  Just because some of us have figured out that there is almost certainly no God, and that there is no ultimate meaning to life, it doesn't mean that our wishes and desires and emotions suddenly change.  It's like saying that we shouldn't be afraid of flying, it's very safe; some of us know that and still get terrified.  Let me ask you: Why do people who are certain of heaven get so frightened of dying?  Answer: Because evolution programmed them to fear death.

QuoteIf their is not meaning to life then why do we seek to find meaning and put meaning on other things?

I don't quite understand your question.  I'd just say that it seems to me emotionally that there is meaning to life, because it's innate in my DNA and in my brain, even though I'm convinced logically that there is none, ultimately.  I'll just try to live a good and happy life until I die.

I can't understand the desire to have a purpose that's not your own.

Why would one let their purpose be dictated by anyone else, let alone a god?

Don't subsist on divine table-scraps, grab your own purpose.

Quote from: "dloubet"Why would one let their purpose be dictated by anyone else, let alone a god?

There are lots of reasons for someone to choose that; having children, joining the military, BDSM, working for minimum wage (though, I guess that's not so much a choice, either, when you consider the alternatives available to those most likely to do that)... the thing is, if one believes in a god, other than a deistic one, one believes their purpose is predetermined by their god, thus leaving them with no choice in the matter. Many never even get to ponder whether one could choose to determine their own purpose (hence their assumptions about atheists being morally inferior, etc.), though they still do so in practice, in spite of their belief. The difference is merely a lack of acknowledgement of who's reponsible for that determination. Theists attribute to gods what they really, ultimately, have decided for themselves.

Purpose? I doubt there is any such thing in any real sense. What most have described here is function, which is not the same thing. I certainly don't think I have any purpose, so I behave in the way I choose to behave, and in a way that makes me feel good, and not in a way that makes me feel bad. Simple really. I suspect that the same is true of everyonr, regardless of what they do or do not believe.

The purpose of life is to grow and learn and experience and evolve. That's my paradigm.

Quote from: "pilchardo"The purpose of life is to grow and learn and experience and evolve. That's my paradigm.

Agreed.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "pilchardo"The purpose of life is to grow and learn and experience and evolve. That's my paradigm.

Agreed.

You mean I used the word "paradigm" in the correct context? I must admit, I wasn't sure. I just like that word. See what I mean? You live and learn.

Quote from: "pilchardo"

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "pilchardo"The purpose of life is to grow and learn and experience and evolve. That's my paradigm.

Agreed.

You mean I used the word "paradigm" in the correct context? I must admit, I wasn't sure. I just like that word. See what I mean? You live and learn.

I meant that I agree with your point of view.

We are here, brought in this world to grow in morals, to understand, to investigate, to experience the good and bad sides of life and to see what it does
with us and how we deal with it and how it shapes us.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "pilchardo"The purpose of life is to grow and learn and experience and evolve. That's my paradigm.

Agreed.

These seem to be things that happen to us each and everyday, like breathing and going to the toilet, but not a purpose as such.

BTW did you mean to say that the purpose was to "evolve". Don't you mean to "be created"?

Quote from: "Stevil"BTW did you mean to say that the purpose was to "evolve". Don't you mean to "be created"?

Wouldn't the purpose of LIFE imply life exists already for the individual or are you looking at it from the Evolution from the Big Bang to humanity?  One can and does evolve in character as they mature.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"BTW did you mean to say that the purpose was to "evolve". Don't you mean to "be created"?

Wouldn't the purpose of LIFE imply life exists already for the individual.

No. If we are trying to find a universal purpose for human beings we need to include all humans, those that have been and gone, those that are here today and those that are yet to come. I personally don't believe there is such a purpose. We do not need a universal purpose, nor does such purpose add to our lives on the contrary it detracts and means that some people maybe wasting their time chasing goals that aren't really there.

We are just simply here (for a very short amount of time)
It's your one shot at life now deal with it however you deem best
Just remember that for others around you, it is their one shot at life too

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"BTW did you mean to say that the purpose was to "evolve". Don't you mean to "be created"?

Wouldn't the purpose of LIFE imply life exists already for the individual.

No. If we are trying to find a universal purpose for human beings we need to include all humans, those that have been and gone, those that are here today and those that are yet to come. I personally don't believe there is such a purpose. We do not need a universal purpose, nor does such purpose add to our lives on the contrary it detracts and means that some people maybe wasting their time chasing goals that aren't really there.

I find this confusing.  If you include humans, then humans are already created, or in the evolutionary view, have already evolved.  What comes next might not be "human" as defined today (unless the definition of human evolves also). If evolution is correct, then the evolutionary process continues and humanity may or may not exist as we know it in a few million years.  So in context, yes, we are already "created" and cannot therefore insert "be created" into something that has already happened and simply IS.  Furthermore, how can one being, in mid-evolutionary process, presume to think there is no purpose, that a purpose is not needed, nor does it add to our lives?  If we don't know WHAT, if anything, started it all in motion, then we don't know WHAT, if anything, will stop the motion.  We are simply pawns on a universal scale who's purpose we may never understand or know since the playing field is quite large and beyond our vision, our seemingly insignificant moves and subsequent death on the field may not be known until after we are gone.

It's far more honest to say Purpose cannot be known at this point, in this context.

Quote from: "Stevil"

We are just simply here (for a very short amount of time)
It's your one shot at life now deal with it however you deem best
Just remember that for others around you, it is their one shot at life too

I tend to more agree with this.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's far more honest to say Purpose cannot be known at this point, in this context.

For an Atheist it is honest to say there is no universal purpose.
For a Theist, maybe they could say "Purpose cannot be known at this point", I can't speak for a theist as I can't think like one in this instance, maybe their scriptures tells them what their purpose is?

However if purpose is unknown then wouldn't it make sense to live life as if there is no purpose?


With regards to definition of "human" does this only include Homo sapiens?
The actual distinction between what a homo sapien is or is not with regards to degree of evolution is a man-made distinction, if you believe in the evolution theory then all life is constantly evolving from generation to generation. I was actually trying to include all human evolution links (homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, etc) but was not sure of the word for the collective group.

Quote from: "Stevil"For an Atheist it is honest to say there is no universal purpose.

Isn't this [kind of] point discussed and debated between Atheists?  The meaning of Atheist/Atheism?  Strong vs. Weak Atheism?
If so, then I would argue that this is only for the Strong Atheist and so not for all of Atheism.  Only the Strong Atheist can say this...
How many Strong Atheists exist?  How many on this forum?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"For an Atheist it is honest to say there is no universal purpose.

Isn't this [kind of] point discussed and debated between Atheists?  The meaning of Atheist/Ateism?  Strong vs. Weak Atheism?
If so, then I would argue that this is only for the Strong Atheist and so not for all of Atheism.  Only the Strong Atheist can say this...

I would classify myself as a weak atheist, I live my life as if there is no deity simply because there is no proof to suggest otherwise. I have never seen any proof as to a universal purpose for me and my kind. Hence no purpose. If some proof comes up then I will be willing to say that there is a purpose.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"For an Atheist it is honest to say there is no universal purpose.

Isn't this [kind of] point discussed and debated between Atheists?  The meaning of Atheist/Atheism?  Strong vs. Weak Atheism?
If so, then I would argue that this is only for the Strong Atheist and so not for all of Atheism.  Only the Strong Atheist can say this...
How many Strong Atheists exist?  How many on this forum?

It depends on what god we're talking about.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"For an Atheist it is honest to say there is no universal purpose.

Isn't this [kind of] point discussed and debated between Atheists?  The meaning of Atheist/Ateism?  Strong vs. Weak Atheism?
If so, then I would argue that this is only for the Strong Atheist and so not for all of Atheism.  Only the Strong Atheist can say this...

I would classify myself as a weak atheist, I live my life as if there is no deity simply because there is no proof to suggest otherwise. I have never seen any proof as to a universal purpose for me and my kind. Hence no purpose. If some proof comes up then I will be willing to say that there is a purpose.

Mmm...I'm still not quite convinced, as a Weak Atheist, you can even promote "no purpose" not having enough knowledge to make that statement.  I would again simply say that you, being a Weak Atheist, acknowledges you do not posess the required knowledge to make a dogmatic statement.  It would therefore be better to say;

Quote from: "Weak Atheism"I have never seen any proof as to a universal purpose. -full stop-

...IMHO.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"For an Atheist it is honest to say there is no universal purpose.

Isn't this [kind of] point discussed and debated between Atheists?  The meaning of Atheist/Atheism?  Strong vs. Weak Atheism?
If so, then I would argue that this is only for the Strong Atheist and so not for all of Atheism.  Only the Strong Atheist can say this...
How many Strong Atheists exist?  How many on this forum?

It depends on what god we're talking about.

True.  I will disregard so as not to derail the thread.  

why are some of you so defensive? if you were not offend by my questions then you need not reply. If I have offend most of you with my line of questioning then I apologize.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Weak Atheism"I have never seen any proof as to a universal purpose. -full stop-

...IMHO.

OK, fair enough. I'm happy with a stance of I have never seen any proof as to a universal purpose.

Quote from: "gsaint"why are some of you so defensive?

Who's defensive?

Quoteif you were not offend by my questions then you need not reply.

... Are you telling us that if we responded to your questions, we were offended?

QuoteIf I have offend most of you with my line of questioning then I apologize.

There's nothing offensive about it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "gsaint"why are some of you so defensive?

Who's defensive?

Quoteif you were not offend by my questions then you need not reply.

... Are you telling us that if we responded to your questions, we were offended?

QuoteIf I have offend most of you with my line of questioning then I apologize.

There's nothing offensive about it.

I think she's referring to that post specifically LS.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FV5llr.jpg&hash=a7b1c69aacd1379dad302e8984759b1e014e2ff8)

Quote from: "gsaint"why are some of you so defensive? if you were not offend by my questions then you need not reply. If I have offend most of you with my line of questioning then I apologize.

I don't think you've offended anybody. Trust me, you'll know when we're offended. Addressing guff with scorn is not a sign of offence.

Quote from: "gsaint"why are some of you so defensive? if you were not offend by my questions then you need not reply. If I have offend most of you with my line of questioning then I apologize.

Note that while I don't think anyone was offended this is an open forum and if you do offend someone expect them to reply to tell you why what you said was offensive.

If you did offend someone wouldn't you want to know why so you could ask in a more understanding manner in the future?

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

so why do you still want to live?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

so why do you still want to live?

Why wouldn't she?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

so why do you still want to live?

Why wouldn't she?

If we are simply a product of chaos and chance, there is no value in her being, so her life is meaningless, and if there is no logical purpose for her existence why wouldn't she end her life ?

Quote from: "defendor"If we are simply a product of chaos and chance, there is no value in her being, so her life is meaningless, and if there is no logical purpose for her existence why wouldn't she end her life ?

P1: Life is a product of chaos and chance.
C1: Therefore, there is no value in her being.
P2: If there is no value in her being, then life is meaningless.
P3: There is no logical purpose for her existence.
C2: Therefore, there's no reason why she shouldn't end her life.

I think I did that right. Anyways, that's a very poor argument.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

so why do you still want to live?

Quote from: "Whitney"Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

thanks for asking a dumb question.

Quote from: "Whitney"Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

thanks for asking a dumb question.[/quote]


That's a demeaning remark intended to incite emotion, is it not?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"If we are simply a product of chaos and chance, there is no value in her being, so her life is meaningless, and if there is no logical purpose for her existence why wouldn't she end her life ?

P1: Life is a product of chaos and chance.
C1: Therefore, there is no value in her being.
P2: If there is no value in her being, then life is meaningless.
P3: There is no logical purpose for her existence.
C2: Therefore, there's no reason why she shouldn't end her life.

I think I did that right. Anyways, that's a very poor argument.

It may be shallow logic at first glance, but you haven't made any claims to how it's a poor argument, so its the only logic we can assume

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

thanks for asking a dumb question.

That's a demeaning remark intended to incite emotion, is it not?[/quote]

If you imply I ought to want to kill myself what do you expect?

Must be a full moon out tongiht, stupid seems to be in full force.  :crazy:

P1: Life is a product of chaos and chance.
I have no disputes with this premise.

C1: Therefore, there is no value in her being.
How do you draw there there's no value just because she's ultimately a product of chaos and chance?

P2: If there is no value in her being, then life is meaningless.
How do you draw there if there's no value in her being, then life is meaningless?

P3: There is no logical purpose for her existence.
I'm not sure what "a logical purpose for her existence" means. Do you mean an ultimate purpose?

C2: Therefore, there's no reason why she shouldn't end her life.
Even assuming that all other premises and conclusions are true, I still don't see how this is a valid conclusion to draw.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Must be a full moon out tongiht, stupid seems to be in full force.  :crazy:

;)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

thanks for asking a dumb question.

That's a demeaning remark intended to incite emotion, is it not?

If you imply I ought to want to kill myself what do you expect?[/quote]
 

I never implied you wanted to, all I merely asked, if life is meaningless, why live?

I mean if life is meaningless, what is there to enjoy?

Quote from: "defendor"I mean if life is meaningless, what is there to enjoy?

is there meaning in a cookie?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"I mean if life is meaningless, what is there to enjoy?

is there meaning in a cookie?

Idk you're the one attaching meanings to it, you tell me

Who here has said that life has no meaning at all?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

I would like to highlight that first line

Whitney said there is no purpose

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"I mean if life is meaningless, what is there to enjoy?

is there meaning in a cookie?

Idk you're the one attaching meanings to it, you tell me

you don't get the point of the question.

regardless of if the cookie has meaning or not that doesn't take away from your ability to enjoy it.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

I would like to highlight that first line

Whitney said there is no purpose

I'm pretty sure Whitney is on the same side of this issue as I am -- there is no objective, ultimate purpose to life. However, there obviously is subjective purpose, which all of attach to it.

Idk you're the one attaching meanings to it, you tell me[/quote]

you don't get the point of the question.

regardless of if the cookie has meaning or not that doesn't take away from your ability to enjoy it.[/quote]

Well, what about if it had poop in it?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"Generally, there is no purpose.
Biologically, the 'purpose' of life is to survive.
Personally, the 'purpose' of life is to enjoy it.

Whitney said there is no purpose

so what? I very obviously stated that I make up my own purpose.

And even if I didn't...again, so what?

There is no need to have some grand goal in order to enjoy existing.

Quote from: "defendor"Idk you're the one attaching meanings to it, you tell me

you don't get the point of the question.

regardless of if the cookie has meaning or not that doesn't take away from your ability to enjoy it.[/quote]

Well, what about if it had poop in it?[/quote]

if it had poop in it it would probably be from you not getting the point.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"Idk you're the one attaching meanings to it, you tell me

you don't get the point of the question.

regardless of if the cookie has meaning or not that doesn't take away from your ability to enjoy it.

Well, what about if it had poop in it?[/quote]

if it had poop in it it would probably be from you not getting the point.[/quote]

I got the point, you want to try and make a small philosophical statement and then expanding it to a worldview,
either way you enjoying the cookie is meaningless

Quote from: "defendor"I got the point, you want to try and make a small philosophical statement and then expanding it to a worldview,

...?

Quoteeither way you enjoying the cookie is meaningless

You're missing the point...again. Whitney just asked why enjoying the cookie has to have meaning. Isn't it enough that it's enjoyable? Who the fuck cares if there's no meaning to it?

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"I got the point, you want to try and make a small philosophical statement and then expanding it to a worldview,

...?

Quoteeither way you enjoying the cookie is meaningless

You're missing the point...again. Whitney just asked why enjoying the cookie has to have meaning. Isn't it enough that it's enjoyable? Who the fuck cares if there's no meaning to it?

No i see the point, you're saying its because of the meanings we attach to it that make it enjoyable.  So first for something to be enjoyable you have to have someone enjoying it.  If someone is able to enjoy something, he or she must assume that there is intrinsic value within themselves that they need or desire something special to then enjoy.  So if you are gonna make that assumption, you cannot have a worldview which principally states that there is no meaning for this illustrations makes the assumption that the figure doing the enjoying, has value on which he can enjoy something simple as a cookie to fulfill some worth that is intrinsic

Quote from: "defendor"No i see the point, you're saying its because of the meanings we attach to it that make it enjoyable.

Uh, no, I'm saying that enjoyment and meaning are unrelated. You can enjoy something without it having meaning, and vice-versa.

QuoteSo first for something to be enjoyable you have to have someone enjoying it.

Well, yeah, that's pretty simple logic.

QuoteIf someone is able to enjoy something, he or she must assume that there is intrinsic value within themselves that they need or desire something special to then enjoy.

Uh, no.

QuoteSo if you are gonna make that assumption,

Which I don't.

Quoteyou cannot have a worldview which principally states that there is no meaning for this illustrations makes the assumption that the figure doing the enjoying, has value on which he can enjoy something simple as a cookie to fulfill some worth that is intrinsic

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"No i see the point, you're saying its because of the meanings we attach to it that make it enjoyable.

Uh, no, I'm saying that enjoyment and meaning are unrelated. You can enjoy something without it having meaning, and vice-versa.

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what enjoying really means?

Quote

QuoteSo first for something to be enjoyable you have to have someone enjoying it.

Well, yeah, that's pretty simple logic.

Glad we agree, now we can be friends

Quote

QuoteIf someone is able to enjoy something, he or she must assume that there is intrinsic value within themselves that they need or desire something special to then enjoy.

Uh, no.

If someone, in themselves have no meaning attached to them, how can they 1. find meaning, even so much as subjective meaning 2. find pleasure, for the essence of enjoying something is to indulge in something meaningful that reiterates the meaning that is already intrinsically within them.  That's a tough one, think about it

Quote

QuoteSo if you are gonna make that assumption,

Which I don't.

It's unspoken, you're assuming that even as you speak, that what you have to say is meaningful, how can you do something meaningful if you yourself have no meaning

Quote

Quoteyou cannot have a worldview which principally states that there is no meaning for this illustrations makes the assumption that the figure doing the enjoying, has value on which he can enjoy something simple as a cookie to fulfill some worth that is intrinsic

I really don't know how to respond to this one

Quote from: "defendor"But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what enjoying really means?

Why would it?

QuoteIf someone, in themselves have no meaning attached to them, how can they 1. find meaning, even so much as subjective meaning

Why would a person have to have attached meaning to themselves to find meaning in other things?

Quote2. find pleasure, for the essence of enjoying something is to indulge in something meaningful that reiterates the meaning that is already intrinsically within them.  That's a tough one, think about it

No, it isn't. You're just making up definitions now.

QuoteIt's unspoken, you're assuming that even as you speak, that what you have to say is meaningful,

Not necessarily.

Quotehow can you do something meaningful if you yourself have no meaning

First, my assumption that I'm doing something meaningful would have to be correct. Second, I don't see how I wouldn't be able to do something meaningful if I myself didn't have meaning. Third, what do you define as "meaning"?

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"But doesn't that defeat the purpose of what enjoying really means?

Why would it?

How can someone enjoy something meaningless, on what grounds does their enjoying occur?

Quote

QuoteIf someone, in themselves have no meaning attached to them, how can they 1. find meaning, even so much as subjective meaning

Why would a person have to have attached meaning to themselves to find meaning in other things?

Or else it would be meaningless

Quote

Quote2. find pleasure, for the essence of enjoying something is to indulge in something meaningful that reiterates the meaning that is already intrinsically within them.  That's a tough one, think about it

No, it isn't. You're just making up definitions now.

Then please correct me

Quote

QuoteIt's unspoken, you're assuming that even as you speak, that what you have to say is meaningful,

Not necessarily.

you are in this case

Quote

Quotehow can you do something meaningful if you yourself have no meaning

First, my assumption that I'm doing something meaningful would have to be correct. Second, I don't see how I wouldn't be able to do something meaningful if I myself didn't have meaning. Third, what do you define as "meaning"?

Meaning as ultimate or absolute purpose or value

The cookie is enjoyable because it contains high levels of sugars and fats. Both are food types we have evolved to seek out because of their high and concentrated calorific value and in the case of the fats our body's ability to transfer to storage with the minimum of energy loss.

Enjoyment is an intrinsic behaviour that humans experience when satisfying a requirement of our evolved nature. Meaning, in its ultimate sense, is derived from 'parent worship'. As children we crave attention and appreciate/enjoy positive reinforcement of our behaviours by our parents. For the formative part of our lives we exist to satisfy our parents desires. As we grow older we realise that we are independent individuals capable of deriving satisfactions from our own actions. Some people appear to need to continue 'parent worship' on into there adult life, either because they have been given no reason to do otherwise or because they are forced to by the culture they have been brought up in. It is perfectly reasonable for any individual to make up their own mind about what gives their own life meaning once they are capable of comprehending their own individuality.

Edit: For clarity

Quote from: "defendor"How can someone enjoy something meaningless, on what grounds does their enjoying occur?

Our brains evolved to like certain things and dislike certain things. Certain things give us pleasure.

QuoteOr else it would be meaningless

QuoteThen please correct me

Pleasure is the feeling you get when you do something your body likes.

Quoteyou are in this case

Why?

QuoteMeaning as ultimate or absolute purpose or value

Wait...that's the definition you've been operating with this entire time?  

QuoteThe cookie is enjoyable because it contains high levels of sugars and fats. Both are food types we have evolved to seek out because of their high and concentrated calorific value and in the case of the fats our body's ability to transfer to storage with the minimum of energy loss.

So how does this result in pleasure?

QuoteEnjoyment is an intrinsic behaviour that humans experience when satisfying a requirement of our evolved nature. Meaning, in its ultimate sense, is derived from 'parent worship'.As children we crave attention and appreciate/enjoy positive reinforcement of our behaviours by our parents.

Sounds like freud

QuoteFor the formative part of our lives we exist to satisfy our parents desires. As we grow older we realise that we are independent individuals capable of deriving satisfactions from our own actions. Some people appear to need to continue 'parent worship' on into there adult life, either because they have been given no reason to do otherwise or because they are forced to by the culture they have been brought up in. It is perfectly reasonable for any individual to make up their own mind about what gives their own life meaning once they are capable of comprehending their own individuality.

This is just Freud, and so by what mechanisms does our conscience not only exist, but decide and on what grounds is not just meaning, but what is the correct response to meaning?  If you want to take this back further, if we realize that we have no meaning, are essentially a culmination of atoms, why is necessary to attach meanings to things? isn't that just meaningless?

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"How can someone enjoy something meaningless, on what grounds does their enjoying occur?

Our brains evolved to like certain things and dislike certain things. Certain things give us pleasure.

so pleasure replaces purpose?

Quote

QuoteOr else it would be meaningless

QuoteThen please correct me

Pleasure is the feeling you get when you do something your body likes.

So what is purpose of pleasure, but satisfying someone meaningless, essentially making the whole thing meaningless. If you're meaningless, nothing you do will change that

Quote

Quoteyou are in this case

Why?

You're assuming that what you have found for yourself to be true, but not only that, worthwhile to talk about, if you have no meaning, then it doesn't matter what you say for nothing that comes out has any value whatsoever

QuoteMeaning as ultimate or absolute purpose or value

Wait...that's the definition you've been operating with this entire time?  

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteThe cookie is enjoyable because it contains high levels of sugars and fats. Both are food types we have evolved to seek out because of their high and concentrated calorific value and in the case of the fats our body's ability to transfer to storage with the minimum of energy loss.

So how does this result in pleasure?

QuoteEnjoyment is an intrinsic behaviour that humans experience when satisfying a requirement of our evolved nature. Meaning, in its ultimate sense, is derived from 'parent worship'.As children we crave attention and appreciate/enjoy positive reinforcement of our behaviours by our parents.

Sounds like freud

QuoteFor the formative part of our lives we exist to satisfy our parents desires. As we grow older we realise that we are independent individuals capable of deriving satisfactions from our own actions. Some people appear to need to continue 'parent worship' on into there adult life, either because they have been given no reason to do otherwise or because they are forced to by the culture they have been brought up in. It is perfectly reasonable for any individual to make up their own mind about what gives their own life meaning once they are capable of comprehending their own individuality.

This is just Freud, and so by what mechanisms does our conscience not only exist, but decide and on what grounds is not just meaning, but what is the correct response to meaning?  If you want to take this back further, if we realize that we have no meaning, are essentially a culmination of atoms, why is necessary to attach meanings to things? isn't that just meaningless?

What we are made of is irrelevant to our behaviours. The fact that our ancestors ascribed 'meaning' to their existence because they had an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of why they existed does not mean that there is any 'meaning' to anything. It also has no influence on my world view that I am here and will do what I like that does no harm to others and is within the laws of the UK so I don't suffer any societal punishment for my behaviour.

As I have stated elsewhere I do not feel we has sufficient common ground to carry on a meaningful ( ) discussion. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Regards
Chris

QuoteWhat we are made of is irrelevant to our behaviours. The fact that our ancestors ascribed 'meaning' to their existence because they had an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of why they existed does not mean that there is any 'meaning' to anything.

What we are made of has everything to do with meaning

QuoteIt also has no influence on my world view that I am here and will do what I like that does no harm to others and is within the laws of the UK so I don't suffer any societal punishment for my behaviour.

thats a fair set of objective standards for a subjective world view

QuoteAs I have stated elsewhere I do not feel we has sufficient common ground to carry on a meaningful ( ) discussion. I hope you enjoy your time here.

its your choice and thank you, maybe one day we will be able to chit chat a bit more

Hello and welcome to HAF, defendor.  I hope you don't mind if I join this particular conversation, especially since Tank has said he feels that carrying it any further would not be meaningful...
 

Quote from: "defendor"thats a fair set of objective standards for a subjective world view

The objective world, with other people and laws exists, no one but a solipsist would deny that.  How one assigns value to existence is a subjective choice. What Tank described sounded to me like a reasonable way of charting a course in view of those facts.

As for your repeated assertion that since we're "essentially a culmination of atoms" (in your picture of the atheist view) and therefore ultimately meaningless, you may be correct.  However we are also thinking, feeling social animals who have been formed by billions of years of evolution to derive satisfaction from certain modes of behavior. One of the things which seems to be a constant in the human psyche is the drive to assign meaning.  People generally find life much more satisfying if they feel it has meaning.  That meaning does not have to be derived from any particular viewpoint.  It's arbitrary, and as far as I can see is not based on nor given to us by a deity of any kind.  People can choose to believe in such a deity, and believe that the deity has given meaning to their lives, but that isn't the only route to meaning there is.  An extremely wide range of things can be used to give meaning to people's lives. That there may be no ultimate or supernatural meaning is not really a problem, because many many people are quite content to derive meaning from such things as family, friends, art, discussion, politics, etc, etc.  The people who do so are not living empty lives. Quite the contrary.  If you choose to view them as living empty lives because they don't happen to subscribe to the thing which you believe gives ultimate meaning to your life, you're entitled to take that view, but don't expect them to agree with you.

Quote from: "defendor"the thing I simply do not understand is that how can you, with an atheistic philosophy, make assumptions like this, that all of the people you listed, have some sort of intrinsic value that is not simply just a culmination of atoms and product of chance

People have intrinsic value to me because I choose to give it to them. Is there a reason why I can't do this?

Quote from: "Recusant"Hello and welcome to HAF, defendor.  I hope you don't mind if I join this particular conversation, especially since Tank has said he feels that carrying it any further would not be meaningful...
 

Quote from: "defendor"thats a fair set of objective standards for a subjective world view

The objective world, with other people and laws exists, no one but a solipsist would deny that.  How one assigns value to existence is a subjective choice. What Tank described sounded to me like a reasonable way of charting a course in view of those facts.

As for your repeated assertion that since we're "essentially a culmination of atoms" (in your picture of the atheist view) and therefore ultimately meaningless, you may be correct.  However we are also thinking, feeling social animals who have been formed by billions of years of evolution to derive satisfaction from certain modes of behavior. One of the things which seems to be a constant in the human psyche is the drive to assign meaning.  People generally find life much more satisfying if they feel it has meaning.  That meaning does not have to be derived from any particular viewpoint.  It's arbitrary, and as far as I can see is not based on nor given to us by a deity of any kind.  People can choose to believe in such a deity, and believe that the deity has given meaning to their lives, but that isn't the only route to meaning there is.  An extremely wide range of things can be used to give meaning to people's lives. That there may be no ultimate or supernatural meaning is not really a problem, because many many people are quite content to derive meaning from such things as family, friends, art, discussion, politics, etc, etc.  The people who do so are not living empty lives. Quite the contrary.  If you choose to view them as living empty lives because they don't happen to subscribe to the thing which you believe gives ultimate meaning to your life, you're entitled to take that view, but don't expect them to agree with you.

I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself, so I'll just let Recusant's answer be mine as well.

Quote from: "defendor"I simply do not understand is that how can you, with an atheistic philosophy, make assumptions like this, that all of the people you listed, have some sort of intrinsic value that is not simply just a culmination of atoms and product of chance

How does a lack in belief of a god mean that their is a lack in understanding the value of other people? It doesn't really matter where we came from or what we are made up of, we are here, we mutually exist, we have feelings, we matter. Belief in a god doesn't matter.

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

I personally do not hold hostility to a being I do not believe exists - you are correct, that would be equally ridiculous. However, I am concerned about the actions of those who DO believe their God exists (or pretend to).....the Inquisitions, witch hunts, televangelists who rob people of money, the Catholic Church covering up pedophilia by priests while parents gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were "holy men of God", then providing refuge in the Vatican for many involved in the acts themselves or the cover up, the bombing of abortion clinics, the ostracization of atheists by their family, friends, co-workers because they think atheist = immoral, etc.

Islam has now stepped it up another level with their outright evil activities in the name of their faith.

Here's another example: What would be the chances today of the USA electing a President who was openly atheist even if he was a man of integrity and presented a platform that appealed to most Americans? Answer: Either Zero or close to Zero.

So my friend, atheists / agnostics like myself speak up because of the harm religion has done throughout the ages up to the present, not because we have a "hostility" toward any particular God we do not believe exists.

QuoteI'm getting tired of having to repeat myself, so I'll just let Recusant's answer be mine as well.

Ha I can handle that, but i will continue to reiterate my points until I feel there is a solid answer, i will try and number them out to so we're working with a set standard   .  I believe people have intrinsic meaning and a set of moral standards, but coming from an Atheist world view (which everything is meaningless) 1. How can you (being meaningless) know what meaning is?  2. Have the audacity to completely stand against your own ethos in attaching meaning (assuming that everything is truly meaningless)?  3.  I'm working off the assumption that you want me to take your argument as meaningful, so if what you say is subjective, how can I take it as meaningful?

QuotePeople have intrinsic value to me because I choose to give it to them. Is there a reason why I can't do this?

Because you have essentially, no value in yourself. unless you proclaim yourself to be absolutely meaningful being.  How can you have authority to attach meanings.

Quote from: "Stevil"How does a lack in belief of a god mean that their is a lack in understanding the value of other people? It doesn't really matter where we came from or what we are made up of, we are here, we mutually exist, we have feelings, we matter. Belief in a god doesn't matter.

If there is nothing absolute to define meanings, then everything you still attach as meaning to other people, is meaningless.  Why are you saying there is meaning in a meaningless world? Isn't that completely contradictory?  

If we value people for what they are, they are merely conscious dirt, and logically, should be treated as such. So why the illogical notion of attaching a higher meaning to something that in its entire being, has no meaning?  (if you say it's because its human, please define humanity?)

Quote from: "defendor"

QuotePeople have intrinsic value to me because I choose to give it to them. Is there a reason why I can't do this?

Because you have essentially, no value in yourself. unless you proclaim yourself to be absolutely meaningful being.  How can you have authority to attach meanings.

As individuals we have the ability to attach personal meaning to whatever we want (why should we have to ask someone else if it is okay to value something?)...doesn't mean anyone else has to find those same things meaningful nor does it mean we are making any claims as to our individual selves being meaningful in the absolute sense.

QuoteI personally do not hold hostility to a being I do not believe exists - you are correct, that would be equally ridiculous. However, I am concerned about the actions of those who DO believe their God exists (or pretend to).....the Inquisitions, witch hunts, televangelists who rob people of money, the Catholic Church covering up pedophilia by priests while parents gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were "holy men of God", then providing refuge in the Vatican for many involved in the acts themselves or the cover up, the bombing of abortion clinics, the ostracization of atheists by their family, friends, co-workers because they think atheist = immoral, etc.

Islam has now stepped it up another level with their outright evil activities in the name of their faith.

I will say don't judge a philosophy by its abuse, the actions of its practitioners may not necessarily dictate the tenets of a faith.  I understand your position as an atheist, I disagree with you ha, but I still value you as an eternal being and image bearer of God.  Were you ever a Christian?

 

QuoteHere's another example: What would be the chances today of the USA electing a President who was openly atheist even if he was a man of integrity and presented a platform that appealed to most Americans? Answer: Either Zero or close to Zero.

an atheist has no standard for integrity, unless we're assuming he's abiding in the judeo-christian code of ethics, but ya he'd probably fail miserable haha

QuoteSo my friend, atheists / agnostics like myself speak up because of the harm religion has done throughout the ages up to the present, not because we have a "hostility" toward any particular God we do not believe exists.

I agree, but isn't that survival of the fittest? Where in your atheistic worldview have you changed or associated value with those that cannot survive in this struggle of life?  You are making an assumption that people have value that is unalienable that thus makes them not meaningless. this is basically my argument for everyone else as well, where in the cosmotic notion of meaninglessness do you not only find meaning, but understand what meaning is?

QuoteHa I can handle that, but i will continue to reiterate my points until I feel there is a solid answer, i will try and number them out to so we're working with a set standard   .  I believe people have intrinsic meaning and a set of moral standards, but coming from an Atheist world view (which everything is meaningless) 1. How can you (being meaningless) know what meaning is?

If you define meaning as objective and ultimate, then yes, I am meaningless. However, I give myself meaning and value, along with others. What do you mean "how can you know what meaning is?" Meaning is worth. I place worth on me and everyone around me.

Quote2. Have the audacity to completely stand against your own ethos in attaching meaning (assuming that everything is truly meaningless)?

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about here.

Quote3.  I'm working off the assumption that you want me to take your argument as meaningful, so if what you say is subjective, how can I take it as meaningful?

So, what I say has to have objective meaning in order for you to view it as meaningful? Does everything everyone says have objective meaning then?

Quote from: "defendor"I believe people have intrinsic meaning and a set of moral standards,

You have done nothing to prove this.

Quotebut coming from an Atheist world view (which everything is meaningless)

That's not an atheist worldview, that's just what some atheists here are saying about if there is a purpose to life.  Atheist is not a world view, it just is a label used on people who don't believe in a god.  Some atheists (such as atheistic Buddhists) have a worldview which does involve thinking there is an ultimate meaning to life.

Quote1. How can you (being meaningless) know what meaning is?

That question doesn't make any sense.  Why would a being have to have an ultimate meaning or purpose in order to understand the definition of and be able to recognize meaning?

Quote2. Have the audacity to completely stand against your own ethos in attaching meaning (assuming that everything is truly meaningless)?

This is as straw man.  No one has claimed it is wrong to decide for one's self what they want to consider the meaning of life to be as it applies to how they determine what they personally value in life.  The claim is simply that there is no objective meaning to life.

Quote3.  I'm working off the assumption that you want me to take your argument as meaningful, so if what you say is subjective, how can I take it as meaningful?

You know what they say about assume.  No one cares if you accept their subjective meaning of life.  You can make the meaning of life to wear purple underpants ever day if that is your prerogative.

Quote from: "Whitney"As individuals we have the ability to attach personal meaning to whatever we want (why should we have to ask someone else if it is okay to value something?)...doesn't mean anyone else has to find those same things meaningful nor does it mean we are making any claims as to our individual selves being meaningful in the absolute sense.

How do we not only find the ability to attach meaning, but understand what meaning is, if there is no such thing as meaning?
If everything is meaningless, then attaching meanings to things is also meaningless, which to me contradicts itself. So why even bother attaching meanings to things if it is all meaningless?   Does it make life bearable?

You are assuming that there is meaning in your own being by 1. making arguments that have an assumed meaning 2.  know what meaning is in accordance with your being as meaningful 3. want to find meaning but don't know where to look, so you look at yourself for meaning (which is meaningless) I hope you see that I see this as a very circular argument based on assumptions that there has to be some innate meaning in this cycle, and from an atheistic world view, where does meaning come from?

I agree that you do have meaning and can attach meanings to things, not because everything in the universe is meaningless, but that there is an absolution in the definer of meaning.  This is the hope we have in Christ, that you are meaningful, you are an image bearer of God, that God would send his Son to die on a brutal death on the cross

Now from this perspective, i think the gospel is too good to be true  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zR3h2UsR4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zR3h2UsR4)

Quote from: "defendor"If there is nothing absolute to define meanings, then everything you still attach as meaning to other people, is meaningless.  Why are you saying there is meaning in a meaningless world? Isn't that completely contradictory?

What you are saying here is that meaning is meaningless if it's not meaningful.

QuoteIf we value people for what they are, they are merely conscious dirt, and logically, should be treated as such. So why the illogical notion of attaching a higher meaning to something that in its entire being, has no meaning?  (if you say it's because its human, please define humanity?)

Who decides how we should treat "conscious dirt"? What does logic have to say about how we should treat it?

Quote

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"I believe people have intrinsic meaning and a set of moral standards,

You have done nothing to prove this.

How can I try prove meaning?  By actions that have objective meaning right?

Quote

Quotebut coming from an Atheist world view (which everything is meaningless)

That's not an atheist worldview, that's just what some atheists here are saying about if there is a purpose to life.  Atheist is not a world view, it just is a label used on people who don't believe in a god.  Some atheists (such as atheistic Buddhists) have a worldview which does involve thinking there is an ultimate meaning to life

.

A belief or disbelief in a higher power radically affects a world view, you essentially make yourself the definer of your own existence (God) and its manifested in either Hedonism or Intellectualism

Quote

Quote1. How can you (being meaningless) know what meaning is?

That question doesn't make any sense.  Why would a being have to have an ultimate meaning or purpose in order to understand the definition of and be able to recognize meaning?

You recognize meaning cuz there is something innately meaningful in you (words of eternity are written on every man's heart)  but if there is no such thing as meaning, how can something meaningless recognize meaning if there is no meaning, for it would still be meaningless?

[

Quotequote]  2. Have the audacity to completely stand against your own ethos in attaching meaning (assuming that everything is truly meaningless)?

This is as straw man.  No one has claimed it is wrong to decide for one's self what they want to consider the meaning of life to be as it applies to how they determine what they personally value in life.  The claim is simply that there is no objective meaning to life.

What are you basing this wrong on?  And to know there is no objective meaning to life, would you have to be all knowing and everywhere at once so that you could 100% say there is no meaning?

Quote

Quote3.  I'm working off the assumption that you want me to take your argument as meaningful, so if what you say is subjective, how can I take it as meaningful?

You know what they say about assume.  No one cares if you accept their subjective meaning of life.  You can make the meaning of life to wear purple underpants ever day if that is your prerogative.

[/quote]

We are questioning the essence of subjective meaning, on an objective standard of meaning.  For if I am the strongest of the species (survival of the fittest) and I am making my subjective standard authoritative to my own realm, and I say everyone has to agree with me (remember this is subjective), why shouldn't I be able to eradicate their existence because it doesn't agree with me? For the people doing I would be annihilating are just atoms with no value

Quote from: "defendor"How do we not only find the ability to attach meaning, but understand what meaning is, if there is no such thing as meaning?

There is no such thing as objective meaning.

QuoteIf everything is meaningless, then attaching meanings to things is also meaningless, which to me contradicts itself. So why even bother attaching meanings to things if it is all meaningless?   Does it make life bearable?

lol

QuoteWhat you are saying here is that meaning is meaningless if it's not meaningful.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  So in a universe of meaninglessness, how can you define meaning  

QuoteWho decides how we should treat "conscious dirt"? What does logic have to say about how we should treat it?

According to atheist philosophy, anyone can decide how to treat conscious dirt.  Logically, what is there in attaching meaning to something meaningless? That is still essentially meaningless (the act of attaching meaning to meaninglessness) so why even bother..?
If you say so that we can benefit, you are making the assumption that for you to receive benefit, you, in your essence, have to have intrinsic meaning for something to have any beneficial value, for if you were essentially meaningless, then nothing could mean anything to you

Defendor, I'm done with you and your arguments filled with equivocation fallacies. I'm tired of the nonsense you keep spouting out.

If you want to have a debate with me, please first show that objective meaning does in fact exist.

QuoteThere is no such thing as objective meaning.

So why bother?

QuoteHere, I'll fix this for you: "If there is no objective meaning, then attaching meanings to thing is not objectively meaningful, which to me contradicts itself."

Thank you, could you please answer this?

QuoteMy arguments are meaningful to me and whoever else values them.

Which has no meaning

QuoteThat makes no sense.

For you to know what meaning is, you yourself would have to be meaningful, so that when you base meaning, its based off your existence as intrinsically meaningful

QuoteThe only one making circular arguments are you.

Like which ones? I've only been restating your arguments with just questions

QuoteIf God decides what things are meaningful, then how it is objective? It's just another being's opinion.

Because God in his being, is the essence of meaning, and the standard on which we base this meaning, is off of the standard God has intricately woven into every one of us as beings-objective, but then again isn't an all encompassing subjective reality really just objective?

Quote

QuoteNow from this perspective, i think the gospel is too good to be true

So you think it's false?  

[/quote]

You know, I'm not gonna put evidence on the table but I will say this, If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in fact true, it is the greatest story ever told.  If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in reality false, it's still the greatest story ever told.  

What more than an omnipotent being choosing to spend time with sinners(of which I am this worst, for I am a believer and a hypocrite)?  To love and cherish beings that are unworthy for eternity?

QuoteDefendor, I'm done with you and your arguments filled with equivocation fallacies. I'm tired of the nonsense you keep spouting out.

I don't wish to spout nonsense, but I don't know what parts of my arguments are nonsense

QuoteIf you want to have a debate with me, please first show that objective meaning does in fact exist.

I can only tell you about it, but it's the Holy Spirit's job to convince you.  Objective meaning comes from the God who designed you (He used science to do it).  This is the Faith we believe in, that we are in fact meaningful, even as our common logic tells us.  That this meaning we don't understand, was written on our hearts by our God to seek him for meaning, not ourselves.

Here's the thing, defendor.  You seem to be saying that because many of believe that there's no ultimate purpose or meaning to life, that we shouldn't enjoy things.  However, we do.  That's just a fact, inconvenient though it may be.  So it's a silly argument.  The fact is that atheism and happiness are not incompatible.  

Or maybe you're saying that if you don't believe that there is a purpose or meaning, it's illogical to enjoy life.  But many of us do.  In fact, many of us enjoy life more than many people who believe in God.  So you may as well stop trying to convince us that we should be miserable.  It's isn't Christian to do so.

As others have pointed out, we evolved to enjoy certain things.  The underlying reason we enjoy stuff is that it serves as motivation for certain tendencies which are good for the survival and reporduction of the species.  And those enjoyments are mostly instinctive and separate from what our philosophy of life is.

I hope you aren't telling us that atheists shouldn't enjoy sex.  That would be going too far.  We'd have to come over there and spank you.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Stevil"How does a lack in belief of a god mean that their is a lack in understanding the value of other people? It doesn't really matter where we came from or what we are made up of, we are here, we mutually exist, we have feelings, we matter. Belief in a god doesn't matter.

If there is nothing absolute to define meanings, then everything you still attach as meaning to other people, is meaningless.  Why are you saying there is meaning in a meaningless world? Isn't that completely contradictory?  

If we value people for what they are, they are merely conscious dirt, and logically, should be treated as such. So why the illogical notion of attaching a higher meaning to something that in its entire being, has no meaning?  (if you say it's because its human, please define humanity?)

I don't in the least understand where you are going with this.
Atheists can treat each other very well, we are not taught the intolerance that some faiths and scriptures promote.
BTW I also value all animals, we should treat them well too.

defendor, I don't even know how to respond from here.

All I said is that I don't think there is objective meaning but I can make up a meaning (if I want to).  I don't put much stock in whether I actually describe what life means to me or not; but I do enjoy life because there are lost of things about life to enjoy regardless of if in the end it had some grand purpose or not.

I am in no way saying that my subjective idea that life is to enjoy should be forced on anyone else; you can hate life all you want   So I don't see why your comments veered towards trying to disprove forcing people to take on my subjective view.

QuoteI don't in the least understand where you are going with this.
Atheists can treat each other very well, we are not taught the intolerance that some faiths and scriptures promote.
BTW I also value all animals, we should treat them well too.

I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

Quote from: "defendor"I can only tell you about it, but it's the Holy Spirit's job to convince you.  Objective meaning comes from the God who designed you (He used science to do it).  This is the Faith we believe in, that we are in fact meaningful, even as our common logic tells us.  That this meaning we don't understand, was written on our hearts by our God to seek him for meaning, not ourselves.

Defendor, please read the rules; if you can't support a claim you shouldn't present it here because that's preaching.  Faith claims are meaningless    to atheists.

QuoteI watched the video, but doesn't see how it relates to the first question, unless  the person in that video assumes that Catholics are not real Christians. The pope and millions of Catholic believers might however not agree with that guy   . Basically, I don't really care if some Christian groups believe that they are better Christians. The last question has already been sufficiently answered by others in this thread.

Catholics have many deviations from reformed theology, namely the Apocrypha, and works based deism.  I forgot what the last question was haha

QuoteDefendor, please read the rules; if you can't support a claim you shouldn't present it here because that's preaching.  Faith claims are meaningless    to atheists.

I like it ha I can support this without biblical evidence, but by your own argument.  If you, as an atheist, realize the meaninglessness of everything,  How can you suppose meaning in meaninglessness (for that is redundant and empty)? where is this meaning coming from if there is no such thing? If you say from yourself then you are supposing that you are full of meaning, for only something that has meaning can produce anything meaningful, but then not everything is meaningless.  If you are meaningless then you can't suppose any sort of meaning for anything, that everything is meaningless without any sense of meaning, for it is a product of something meaningless, how can someone who is meaningless produce something meaningful.

I really don't care if it has an ultimate meaning or not nor do I see why I would need to apply meaning in order to enjoy stuff.  I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

I smell troll.

Quote from: "defendor"I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

They have no OBJECTIVE value. I value them because I think they're valuable.

Quote from: "defendor"I like it ha I can support this without biblical evidence, but by your own argument.  If you, as an atheist, realize the meaninglessness of everything,  How can you suppose meaning in meaninglessness (for that is redundant and empty)? where is this meaning coming from if there is no such thing? If you say from yourself then you are supposing that you are full of meaning, for only something that has meaning can produce anything meaningful, but then not everything is meaningless.  If you are meaningless then you can't suppose any sort of meaning for anything, that everything is meaningless without any sense of meaning, for it is a product of something meaningless, how can someone who is meaningless produce something meaningful.

All you're spouting is a bunch of theological garbage.

Please, get a new argument and, save us the headache.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"All you're spouting is a bunch of theological garbage.

Please, get a new argument and, save us the headache.

What makes it garbage?  and btw am I not just as right as you are?

Quote from: "Whitney"I really don't care if it has an ultimate meaning or not nor do I see why I would need to apply meaning in order to enjoy stuff.  I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

So what do you mean by "enjoyment"...? Things that are meaningless that appeal to you (who is meaningless)  I don't see the logic in why or how you place such value on things of this nature (that are meaningless)?

QuoteHere's the thing, defendor.  You seem to be saying that because many of believe that there's no ultimate purpose or meaning to life, that we shouldn't enjoy things.  However, we do.  That's just a fact, inconvenient though it may be.  So it's a silly argument.

Its a fact according to what?  Making a statement that there is no objective truth, is an objective truth in itself.  

QuoteThe fact is that atheism and happiness are not incompatible.

You're right, only it's value/meaning and atheism are incompatible

QuoteOr maybe you're saying that if you don't believe that there is a purpose or meaning, it's illogical to enjoy life.  But many of us do.  In fact, many of us enjoy life more than many people who believe in God.  So you may as well stop trying to convince us that we should be miserable.  It's isn't Christian to do so.

Again you're basing this fact on some objective reality that atheists decree is only subject.  There are no facts.  And if it is illogical to enjoy life, then we can't think with normal logic as to why life is enjoyable then can we?  And I'm not trying to convince you that you should be miserable, I'm simply asking, according to your philosophy, why aren't you?  What basis of moral standards are you trying to insinuate that something is indicative of being "Christian"? if you're gonna say that that's what the bible says and you don't believe in it 1.  Why are you referring to me that according to you is false 2.  please tell me what the bible say

QuoteAs others have pointed out, we evolved to enjoy certain things.  The underlying reason we enjoy stuff is that it serves as motivation for certain tendencies which are good for the survival and reporduction of the species.  And those enjoyments are mostly instinctive and separate from what our philosophy of life is.

So where in the natural order of chaos and chance, have the natural processes of life evolved to bring together such metaphysical realities as pleasure?  and so if you're philosophy and instinctive behavior are in a dichotomous relationship, how can you expect to believe the philosophy if you're actions deny it?

QuoteI hope you aren't telling us that atheists shouldn't enjoy sex.  That would be going too far.  We'd have to come over there and spank you.

kinky

Quotedefendor, I don't even know how to respond from here.

All I said is that I don't think there is objective meaning but I can make up a meaning (if I want to).  I don't put much stock in whether I actually describe what life means to me or not; but I do enjoy life because there are lost of things about life to enjoy regardless of if in the end it had some grand purpose or not

.

But you're making a claim to objective truth, that there is no objective truth.  Also you're assuming that if you make up meaning, that it then somehow has meaning (even if it's only a personal thing), which contradicts everything being meaningless.  I don't know how you could be so strong, I would feel so empty if life had no meaning.

QuoteI am in no way saying that my subjective idea that life is to enjoy should be forced on anyone else; you can hate life all you want   So I don't see why your comments veered towards trying to disprove forcing people to take on my subjective view.

I'm just curious as to how you have conjured up meaning if there is no such thing as meaning.

defendor, do me a quick favor

Please define objective and subjective.

I think we are not using them in the same way and these terms typically have to be taught in beginner philosophy class due to how often people have trouble with them.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"They have no OBJECTIVE value. I value them because I think they're valuable.

You are also assuming that what you think has value, but according to your philosophy, you have no value, so you can't think of anything valuable.  So how can something that has no value place value on something?  That is contradictory, you are assuming that you are valuable (which you are) and so with your value, you can place that value on other people.  But what is placing value on you? is it yourself (non valuable, as I stated earlier how can something without value create a sense of value) or something that in its essence is the definition of valuable (god)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"They have no OBJECTIVE value. I value them because I think they're valuable.

You are also assuming that what you think has value, but according to your philosophy, you have no value, so you can't think of anything valuable.  So how can something that has no value place value on something?  That is contradictory, you are assuming that you are valuable (which you are) and so with your value, you can place that value on other people.  But what is placing value on you? is it yourself (non valuable, as I stated earlier how can something without value create a sense of value) or something that in its essence is the definition of valuable (god)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"There is no such thing as objective meaning.

I would like to rehash this, you say there is no such thing as objective meaning, but doesn't this statement have objective meaning?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"There is no such thing as objective meaning.

I would like to rehash this, you say there is no such thing as objective meaning, but doesn't this statement have objective meaning?

No. Notice how I never said that there are no objective facts.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"I really don't care if it has an ultimate meaning or not nor do I see why I would need to apply meaning in order to enjoy stuff.  I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

So what do you mean by "enjoyment"...? Things that are meaningless that appeal to you (who is meaningless)  I don't see the logic in why or how you place such value on things of this nature (that are meaningless)?

I'm not claiming that the emotions involved in enjoying something are logical.

Quote from: "Whitney"defendor, do me a quick favor

Please define objective and subjective.

I think we are not using them in the same way and these terms typically have to be taught in beginner philosophy class due to how often people have trouble with them.

Objective-absolute, inalienable, unbiased, that, regardless of perception, is in fact existent and the basis of perception
"there is one truth and many perceptions"

Subjective- individualistic perception of a base reality; relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

so subjectiveness is based on the existence of an objective reality

so for something to be subjective, it has to a perception of an objective reality.  So when you say you are subjective, and there is no objectivity in life, what you really are saying is that, your perception is the only thing that is objective. Thus the essence of your philosophy is just many "objective" perceptions claiming there is no truth (assuming that the thought "there is no truth", is in fact true)

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not claiming that the emotions involved in enjoying something are logical.

so if the essence of enjoyment supersedes logic, we cannot use rational logic to diagnose what enjoyment really is then..?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"\
No. Notice how I never said that there are no objective facts.[quote/]

My argument will radically change, isn't that an objective fact?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"\
No. Notice how I never said that there are no objective facts.[quote/]

My argument will radically change, isn't that an objective fact?

Defendor, the essence of your argument is that beings with no objective value cannot create subjective value. This is false.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Defendor, the essence of your argument is that beings with no objective value cannot create subjective value. This is false.

on what basis is that false?

Quote from: "defendor"I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

My world view is that of an Atheist
Lack a belief in a god or gods.

Please explain how this means people and animals have no value to me?
You are sounding very much like a troll here.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Defendor, the essence of your argument is that beings with no objective value cannot create subjective value. This is false.

on what basis is that false?

On what basis is it true?

Quote from: "defendor"Subjective- individualistic perception of a base reality; relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

so subjectiveness is based on the existence of an objective reality

so for something to be subjective, it has to a perception of an objective reality.

...According to one definition.

QuoteSo when you say you are subjective, and there is no objectivity in life,

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING SAYING.

Quotewhat you really are saying is that, your perception is the only thing that is objective. Thus the essence of your philosophy is just many "objective" perceptions claiming there is no truth (assuming that the thought "there is no truth", is in fact true)

No.

Quote from: "defendor"Subjective- individualistic perception of a base reality; relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

ok, ya I thought there was probably a definition problem here.

Quotesubjective

    That which depends upon the personal or individual, especially whereâ€"in contrast with the objectiveâ€"it is supposed to be an arbitrary expression of private taste.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s9.htm#subj (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s9.htm#subj)

^that is what subjective means

and for further clarity:

Quoteobjective / subjective

    Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: "Spinach is green" is objective, while "I like spinach" is subjective. "Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don't like spinach," however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects.

    The legitimacy of this distinction is open to serious question, since it is unclear whether (and how) any knowing subject can achieve genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, because objective truth is supposed to carry undeniable persuasive force, exaggerated claims of objectivity have often been used as tools of intellectual and social oppression.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#obje (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#obje)

Quote from: "McQ"I smell troll.

I smell something far more serious. Cultists work by undermining their potential victim's self worth. They reduce the individual's ego to the point where they have no confident world view. At this point they explain that the victim is not worthless, far from it, the cult values them and by becoming a cult member their life has meaning and worth. It's a psychological manipulations technique as old as the hills. By denying an individual's existance any intrinsic meaning the cultist can substitute their own meaning into the victims world view.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "McQ"I smell troll.

I smell something far more serious. Cultists work by undermining their potential victim's self worth. They reduce the individual's ego to the point where they have no confident world view. At this point they explain that the victim is not worthless, far from it, the cult values them and by becoming a cult member their life has meaning and worth. It's a psychological manipulations technique as old as the hills. By denying an individual's existance any intrinsic meaning the cultist can substitute their own meaning into the victims world view.

Step two: explosive underware
Step three: Death and Glory.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "McQ"I smell troll.

I smell something far more serious. Cultists work by undermining their potential victim's self worth. They reduce the individual's ego to the point where they have no confident world view. At this point they explain that the victim is not worthless, far from it, the cult values them and by becoming a cult member their life has meaning and worth. It's a psychological manipulations technique as old as the hills. By denying an individual's existance any intrinsic meaning the cultist can substitute their own meaning into the victims world view.

Step two: explosive underware
Step three: Death and Glory.

Quite.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"On what basis is it true?

where in the universe of no meaning, can you conjure the idea of meaning if it doesn't exist?  If you, in your being, are essentially meaningless, then how can you  go outside of your entire being to establish or understand anything that is completely contrary to the essence of your being.  

Here's an illustration and it may not be the most accurate illustration but I think it makes a point

if you lived in a cave your entire life, and never saw the light of day, then how could you say you knew what blue was if you never saw the sky?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

My world view is that of an Atheist
Lack a belief in a god or gods.

Please explain how this means people and animals have no value to me?
You are sounding very much like a troll here.

There is nothing or no one to give value or promote value, for if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value. Everything is merely chemistry in motion.  So even the sheer fact you place "value" on something has 2 assumptions 1. you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value (assuming you are essentially valuable, but nothing is valuable) 2.   if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"On what basis is it true?

where in the universe of no meaning, can you conjure the idea of meaning if it doesn't exist?  If you, in your being, are essentially meaningless, then how can you  go outside of your entire being to establish or understand anything that is completely contrary to the essence of your being.  

Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "McQ"I smell troll.

I smell something far more serious. Cultists work by undermining their potential victim's self worth. They reduce the individual's ego to the point where they have no confident world view. At this point they explain that the victim is not worthless, far from it, the cult values them and by becoming a cult member their life has meaning and worth. It's a psychological manipulations technique as old as the hills. By denying an individual's existance any intrinsic meaning the cultist can substitute their own meaning into the victims world view.

Doesn't atheism preach that there is no meaning? I'm not trying to use psychological traps to wrap anyone up in a "cult".  I'm merely stating the philosophical tenets of a belief system and questioning the practicality.  I'm merely one beggar, telling another beggar where to find bread.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

My world view is that of an Atheist
Lack a belief in a god or gods.

Please explain how this means people and animals have no value to me?
You are sounding very much like a troll here.

There is nothing or no one to give value or promote value, for if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value. Everything is merely chemistry in motion.  So even the sheer fact you place "value" on something has 2 assumptions 1. you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value (assuming you are essentially valuable, but nothing is valuable) 2.   if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?

Incorrect assumption A
"if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value"

Addressing your assumptions
Assumption 1
"you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value"
I do have the ability to place a personal value to something. e.g. I see a chicken cross the road, I give a personal value of nutritional substance to that chicken.
Assumption 2
"if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?"
This is a question, not an assumption. The first part of the sentence is an incorrect assumption though. Please refer to my response to your assumption 1.

Quote from: "defendor"if you lived in a cave your entire life, and never saw the light of day, then how could you say you knew what blue was if you never saw the sky?

Incorrect assumption 1
only the sky is blue

Incorrect assumption 2
the light of day is the only source of light

Your logic and analogy is very poor, please try again

Quote from: "Sophus"Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

QuoteIncorrect assumption A
"if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value"

How is this incorrect?

QuoteAddressing your assumptions
Assumption 1
"you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value"
I do have the ability to place a personal value to something. e.g. I see a chicken cross the road, I give a personal value of nutritional substance to that chicken.

So what value does"you placing value on something" have, if nothing holds value?

QuoteAssumption 2
"if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?"
This is a question, not an assumption. The first part of the sentence is an incorrect assumption though. Please refer to my response to your assumption 1.

I was making the assumption you knew what value is, in a a universe of no value.  In that first example you were making the claim that sustenance is valuable to prolong your life.  So you are stating that your life has value in order to retrieve nutritional substance to live.  If this is the case then your life has an apparent meaning, that is a struggle to survive (Assuming you place value on your life, in a universe where there is no meaning)  So you find "meaning" in your life to merely survive but there is no "meaning" in the universe.  So there's a dichotomy that is being placed on your life that, your existence is essentially meaningless, but somehow you can place meaning on it, even though its essentially meaningless.  Why the struggle for existence, even instinctively, if it has no meaning whatsoever?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "defendor"if you lived in a cave your entire life, and never saw the light of day, then how could you say you knew what blue was if you never saw the sky?

Incorrect assumption 1
only the sky is blue

Incorrect assumption 2
the light of day is the only source of light

Your logic and analogy is very poor, please try again

Let me rephrase it then.  If you never saw the color blue in your life, how would you know what blue is

Quote from: "Stevil"Incorrect assumption 1
only the sky is blue

Incorrect assumption 2
the light of day is the only source of light

Your logic and analogy is very poor, please try again

Here's another analogy that is essentially the same thing, How could you explain color to a blind man?  How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Sophus"Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

The concept of assigning personal "value" to something is essential for evolution. e.g. sustenance, danger, procreation, useful tool...

Please define "meaning"

Quote from: "defendor"where in the universe of no meaning, can you conjure the idea of meaning if it doesn't exist?

In a universe of no gods, can you conjure a god if it doesn't exist?

Quote from: "defendor"Doesn't atheism preach that there is no meaning?

Short answer: No
Longer answer: Why do you think that atheism "preaches" anything at all?  Atheism is not a religion.  It's merely the position of asserting with greater or lesser certainty that a god or gods do no exist.  Please provide an example of "atheism preach[ing] that there is no meaning."  Certain atheists may also assert that there is no ultimate objective meaning, but that is not a tenet of atheism per se.

Quote from: "defendor"How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

Why does the assertion that there is no such thing as a truly objective meaning necessitate that there is no meaning whatsoever?  You seem inordinately fond of straw man arguments, if you don't mind my saying so.

Quote...According to one definition.

Whats another one?

QuoteTHAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING SAYING.

then what are you saying?

QuoteNo.

Please explain how that is wrong

Quoteobjective / subjective

    Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: "Spinach is green" is objective, while "I like spinach" is subjective. "Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don't like spinach," however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects.

    The legitimacy of this distinction is open to serious question, since it is unclear whether (and how) any knowing subject can achieve genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, because objective truth is supposed to carry undeniable persuasive force, exaggerated claims of objectivity have often been used as tools of intellectual and social oppression.

So how does this definition change, change the entirety of the argument?

Quote from: "defendor"Here's another analogy that is essentially the same thing, How could you explain color to a blind man?  How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

"How could you explain color to a blind man?"
Describing the frequency or wavelength size would be scientifically accurate.

"How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?"
I wouldn't as I prefer not to lie.

How does this relate at all to the point you are trying to make? What is your point please, I am growing tired of your endless riddles

QuoteIn a universe of no gods, can you conjure a god if it doesn't exist?

No you can't, but I'm going off the idea He does exist

QuoteDoesn't atheism preach that there is no meaning?
Short answer: No
Longer answer: Why do you think that atheism "preaches" anything at all?  Atheism is not a religion.  It's merely the position of asserting with greater or lesser certainty that a god or gods do no exist.  Please provide an example of "atheism preach[ing] that there is no meaning."  Certain atheists may also assert that there is no ultimate objective meaning, but that is not a tenet of atheism per se.

Ya I after I posted that I felt that wasn't the proper word ha, I'll change it, 'Doesn't atheism assert that there is no meaning?'

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

Why does the assertion that there is no such thing as a truly objective meaning necessitate that there is no meaning whatsoever?  You seem inordinately fond of straw man arguments, if you don't mind my saying so.

I don't mind at all, I just don't understand that if there is no objective meaning how can you find meaning at all if it doesn't exist? Where's the proof that there is meaning. For If you say it's personal then you are making the assumption that each individual has intrinsic meaning to attach personal meanings to things

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Sophus"Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

Because if you're incapable of finding a reason to live you won't survive and carrying on your genes. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to thoughts and memes doesn't make any sense. Thermodynamics deals with physical energy. I don't see what you're getting at.

Quote"How could you explain color to a blind man?"
Describing the frequency or wavelength size would be scientifically accurate.

Do you see the actual wavelengths (crests and troughs as it moves through the air) when you see color?  No you see its effect on the atmosphere, and this anomaly you could not describe to someone through science, but only to show them.

Quote"How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?"
I wouldn't as I prefer not to lie.

How does this relate at all to the point you are trying to make? What is your point please, I am growing tired of your endless riddles

This is the point I was trying to make, how can you tell someone to go find their own meaning, when there is no such thing as meaning in the first place.  By saying people can individually find meaning in meaningless things (pleasure, food, people, etc.) isn't that lying if there is no meaning?  also you mention lying as if you are basing your statement on objective truth, for if there were no such thing as objective truth, then there is no such thing as lying

QuoteBecause if you're incapable of finding a reason to live you won't survive and carrying on your genes. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to thoughts and memes doesn't make any sense. Thermodynamics deals with physical energy. I don't see what you're getting at.

Where in the scientific world, has a formula ever explained purpose.  You are "finding a reason to live" that is 1. unnatural to tangible logic 2. assuming your life has meaning, if there is no meaning

The thing I was mentioning about the laws of science was to invoke the magnitude of improbability that we could even have a conversation about meaning, if chaos was our creator.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Defendor, you're just spouting off theological psychobabble about meaning and subjectivity.

There is (probably) no objective meaning to anything in the universe.
Life is (probably) a product of random chance.
Our brains have evolved to see meaning in things for better survival.

The "meaning" we see is a result of chemical reactions in our brain. There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's simply matter.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Sophus"Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

The problem is that you are misapplying the laws of thermodynamics

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... tml#thermo (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo)

Quote"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Quote from: "Fininho"Let us think, and try help the desperately stuck in the gospel of JC of Nazareth:

God cannot save all sinners**, and because of that he will have to make new heavens and a new Earth!

** Apparently, he could if he wanted, but for some private pride, he prefers, at a later stage - PLAN B, C or D, who knows! -  to INCINERATE the entire Cosmos and then restart the process, by creating everything afresh; new heavens and a new Earth!!

What do you say to this to help the gospel's victims?...

lets get back to the topic for this is the exact same conversation I am having on the purpose of life

That is not what the bible says, He can save all sinners, and has made the capability for all sinners to be saved.  The covenant of salvation is to foreshadow the goodness of God in its fullness that is yet to be revealed.  

If I am right, I have eternal life with God who sits on the most High.  If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, I live a good life and found purpose, and enter into the eternal state of nothingness with a clean conscience, not regretting the way I lived my life (ask Oscar Wilde).  If  you are right, you enter into the eternal state of nothingness, with time to reflect on whatever moral standard you chose to live your life.  But the question is, what if you are wrong?

Quote from: "Stevil"The concept of assigning personal "value" to something is essential for evolution. e.g. sustenance, danger, procreation, useful tool...

Please define "meaning"

meaning- a true, unwaivering definition of; the purpose for

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteIn a universe of no gods, can you conjure a god if it doesn't exist?

No you can't, but I'm going off the idea He does exist

We live in a world where little green men don't fly down in silver saucers and abduct rednecks so that they can be anally probed for 'research'....yet many a movie has come up with that idea and many a gullible person has believed it is true.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote...According to one definition.

Whats another one?

The one Whitney gave.

Quote

QuoteTHAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING SAYING.

then what are you saying?

That meaning is completely subjective; not truth.

Quote

QuoteNo.

Please explain how that is wrong

Because it is. We're not claiming that our perceptions are the only objective thing that exists.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Stevil"The concept of assigning personal "value" to something is essential for evolution. e.g. sustenance, danger, procreation, useful tool...

Please define "meaning"

meaning- a true, unwaivering definition of; the purpose for

you can't just make up definitions like that and expect people to understand what you are saying

mean·ing  (mnng)
n.
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meaning (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meaning)

^obviously, nothing about the definition of 'meaning' requires that it be objective...in face all of the definitions are subjective in nature as they mention  "sense" "one", "interpreted" and "inner"  All words that relate to feelings, personal views, and the self.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quoteobjective / subjective

    Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: "Spinach is green" is objective, while "I like spinach" is subjective. "Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don't like spinach," however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects.

    The legitimacy of this distinction is open to serious question, since it is unclear whether (and how) any knowing subject can achieve genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, because objective truth is supposed to carry undeniable persuasive force, exaggerated claims of objectivity have often been used as tools of intellectual and social oppression.

So how does this definition change, change the entirety of the argument?

because an understanding of what the word subjective means and how it differs from objective shows that one can have a subjective idea of the meaning of life while an objective meaning doesn't exist.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Fininho"Let us think, and try help the desperately stuck in the gospel of JC of Nazareth:

God cannot save all sinners**, and because of that he will have to make new heavens and a new Earth!

** Apparently, he could if he wanted, but for some private pride, he prefers, at a later stage - PLAN B, C or D, who knows! -  to INCINERATE the entire Cosmos and then restart the process, by creating everything afresh; new heavens and a new Earth!!

What do you say to this to help the gospel's victims?...

lets get back to the topic for this is the exact same conversation I am having on the purpose of life

That is not what the bible says, He can save all sinners, and has made the capability for all sinners to be saved.  The covenant of salvation is to foreshadow the goodness of God in its fullness that is yet to be revealed.  

If I am right, I have eternal life with God who sits on the most High.  If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, I live a good life and found purpose, and enter into the eternal state of nothingness with a clean conscience, not regretting the way I lived my life (ask Oscar Wilde).  If  you are right, you enter into the eternal state of nothingness, with time to reflect on whatever moral standard you chose to live your life.  But the question is, what if you are wrong?

I would like to draw your attention to point 1 below. Introducing Pascals wager out of nowhere.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2F4149%2Fdebateflowchart1.jpg&hash=ea8d3ae6813e7dd326f26c370cbd1e1da6dd38ad)

You cheated, the discussion is over.

QuoteI've said it before, but I'll say it again: Defendor, you're just spouting off theological psychobabble about meaning and subjectivity.

There is (probably) no objective meaning to anything in the universe

.

assuming this is an objective truth

QuoteLife is (probably) a product of random chance.

more unlikely than probably

QuoteOur brains have evolved to see meaning in things for better survival.

That would be an objective truth, so if it is survival of the fittest, why do you pretend to play with morality? wheres the innate struggle for dominance?

QuoteThe "meaning" we see is a result of chemical reactions in our brain. There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's simply matter.

if it is just matter and a matter of science, what is the scientific formula for purpose for anything?  Why do you exist? if its chance then why do you care about anything (cuz isn't it all worthless with no intrinsic value)?

Quote from: "defendor"Do you see the actual wavelengths (crests and troughs as it moves through the air) when you see color?  No you see its effect on the atmosphere, and this anomaly you could not describe to someone through science, but only to show them.

You asked me to describe the colour blue, not to explain how the human brain interprets the colour blue when observed via the eye.
It would be pointless to describe to a person who has been blind all their life. I could use analogies of heat, texture or sound but they would have to be really keen to want me to go down that track.

Please tell me how this relates to any point that you are trying to make?

Quote from: "defendor"This is the point I was trying to make, how can you tell someone to go find their own meaning, when there is no such thing as meaning in the first place.

Please define "meaning"

Quote from: "defendor"By saying people can individually find meaning in meaningless things (pleasure, food, people, etc.) isn't that lying if there is no meaning?

Who has said people can individually find meaning? Who says there is no meaning? Please define meaning.

Quote from: "defendor"...also you mention lying as if you are basing your statement on objective truth, for if there were no such thing as objective truth, then there is no such thing as lying

Are you taking drugs?

I've found that almost all of Defendor's posts contain equivocation. He keeps saying that we say there is no meaning, while that isn't true -- we're saying that there isn't any objective meaning. We're operating on two different definitions here.

Defendor, I'd appreciate it if you could use the definition of meaning that Whitney has provided above for the purpose of the debate.

And, Defendor -- what if you're wrong, and in reality invisible pink unicorns exist that will chop off your head if you don't believe in them? I choose to believe in them, for I'm right and they exist, then my head will continue to be connected to my neck; but if I'm wrong, I'll have lost nothing.

Quote from: "Whitney"We live in a world where little green men don't fly down in silver saucers and abduct rednecks so that they can be anally probed for 'research'....yet many a movie has come up with that idea and many a gullible person has believed it is true.

the question of God was before movies, some gullible people believe there is no God (now it depends on which perspective you are willing to take, for if this were all subjective, then they are just as 'right' as you are)

The universe is a closed system, not just the earth

define meaning - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning)

Sorry tank, I didn't mean to dis value the code of ethics of the board, I do apologize

QuoteI've found that almost all of Defendor's posts contain equivocation. He keeps saying that we say there is no meaning, while that isn't true -- we're saying that there isn't any objective meaning. We're operating on two different definitions here.

Defendor, I'd appreciate it if you could use the definition of meaning that Whitney has provided above for the purpose of the debate.

I thought I have been, but doesn't that statement that there is no "objective meaning, hold objective value?

QuoteAnd, Defendor -- what if you're wrong, and in reality invisible pink unicorns exist that will chop off your head if you don't believe in them? I choose to believe in them, for I'm right and they exist, then my head will continue to be connected to my neck; but if I'm wrong, I'll have lost nothing.

Then you're not atheist then

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteI've said it before, but I'll say it again: Defendor, you're just spouting off theological psychobabble about meaning and subjectivity.

There is (probably) no objective meaning to anything in the universe

.

assuming this is an objective truth

Your point?

Quote

QuoteLife is (probably) a product of random chance.

more unlikely than probably

No.

Quote

QuoteOur brains have evolved to see meaning in things for better survival.

That would be an objective truth, so if it is survival of the fittest, why do you pretend to play with morality? wheres the innate struggle for dominance?

...What?

Quote

QuoteThe "meaning" we see is a result of chemical reactions in our brain. There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's simply matter.

if it is just matter and a matter of science, what is the scientific formula for purpose for anything?

There is none, as it's subjective.

QuoteWhy do you exist?

Non-sequitor.

Quoteif its chance then why do you care about anything (cuz isn't it all worthless with no intrinsic value)?

Why shouldn't I?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"We live in a world where little green men don't fly down in silver saucers and abduct rednecks so that they can be anally probed for 'research'....yet many a movie has come up with that idea and many a gullible person has believed it is true.

the question of God was before movies, some gullible people believe there is no God (now it depends on which perspective you are willing to take, for if this were all subjective, then they are just as 'right' as you are)

Who tricked me into believing there's no god, if I'm so gullible?

QuoteThe universe is a closed system, not just the earth

How do you know?

Quotedefine meaning - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning)

And yet, you keep using it as if it has to be objective.

Also, you keep saying things as if we believe that there's no objective truth, when I've told you many times now that I, and most likely the majority of other users here, believe in objective truth. Meaning is not the same as facts.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Whitney"We live in a world where little green men don't fly down in silver saucers and abduct rednecks so that they can be anally probed for 'research'....yet many a movie has come up with that idea and many a gullible person has believed it is true.

the question of God was before movies, some gullible people believe there is no God (now it depends on which perspective you are willing to take, for if this were all subjective, then they are just as 'right' as you are)

  why can't you understand such simple concepts; my point really had nothing to do with when movies started nor who you think is gullible

let me put this simply.  

People are able to make shit up and people will believe that shit.

It doesn't matter if the shit is real or not...god doesn't have to exist in order for people to make up the idea and believe in it.  Invisible Pink Unicorns don't have to exist in order for people to make up the idea and believe in it.  Flying saucers don't have to exist in order for people to make up the idea and believe in it.

did that help?

btw, the link for the definition of meaning matched what I said it was...not what you stated previously.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteI've found that almost all of Defendor's posts contain equivocation. He keeps saying that we say there is no meaning, while that isn't true -- we're saying that there isn't any objective meaning. We're operating on two different definitions here.

Defendor, I'd appreciate it if you could use the definition of meaning that Whitney has provided above for the purpose of the debate.

I thought I have been, but doesn't that statement that there is no "objective meaning, hold objective value?

Quote

QuoteAnd, Defendor -- what if you're wrong, and in reality invisible pink unicorns exist that will chop off your head if you don't believe in them? I choose to believe in them, for I'm right and they exist, then my head will continue to be connected to my neck; but if I'm wrong, I'll have lost nothing.

Then you're not atheist then

[/quote]
You're right -- I'm an agnostic Pastafarian.

QuoteYour point?

There is objective truth

QuoteNo.

How so?

Quote...What?

Why do you make moral laws for yourself if you're in a struggle for survival? why obey some moral code if there is no such thing?

QuoteThere is none, as it's subjective.

First point..

QuoteNon-sequitor.

doesn't answer the question

QuoteWhy shouldn't I?

You tell me, that's the answer i would love to hear

Quote from: "defendor"Why do you make moral laws for yourself if you're in a struggle for survival? why obey some moral code if there is no such thing?

Stated simply:  Morality is an evolved survival trait that allows social creatures to work in groups.

QuoteYou asked me to describe the colour blue, not to explain how the human brain interprets the colour blue when observed via the eye.
It would be pointless to describe to a person who has been blind all their life. I could use analogies of heat, texture or sound but they would have to be really keen to want me to go down that track

.

Or they'd have to see it for themselves

QuotePlease tell me how this relates to any point that you are trying to make?

if there is no such thing as meaning, why are you assuming meaning?

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"This is the point I was trying to make, how can you tell someone to go find their own meaning, when there is no such thing as meaning in the first place.

Please define "meaning"

i posted a definition from definition.com

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"By saying people can individually find meaning in meaningless things (pleasure, food, people, etc.) isn't that lying if there is no meaning?

Who has said people can individually find meaning? Who says there is no meaning? Please define meaning.

Everyone on this board has said they find personal meaning, but say there is no objective meaning, go to dictionary.com

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"...also you mention lying as if you are basing your statement on objective truth, for if there were no such thing as objective truth, then there is no such thing as lying

Are you taking drugs?

[/quote]

Nope but that doesn't answer my question

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteYour point?

There is objective truth

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Also, you keep saying things as if we believe that there's no objective truth, when I've told you many times now that I, and most likely the majority of other users here, believe in objective truth. Meaning is not the same as facts.

Quote

QuoteNo.

How so?

Since it's very unlikely that any god(s) exist(s), it's very likely that life started by random chance.

Quote

Quote...What?

Why do you make moral laws for yourself if you're in a struggle for survival? why obey some moral code if there is no such thing?

I'm not in a struggle for survival. I follow moral codes for my own benefit.

Quote

QuoteThere is none, as it's subjective.

First point..

Quote

QuoteNon-sequitor.

doesn't answer the question

I don't need to answer the question, as it's a non-sequitor.

Hey, Defendor! What kind of underwear are you wearing? Please be very elaborate.

Quote

QuoteWhy shouldn't I?

You tell me, that's the answer i would love to hear

I care about things because I want to.

Quote

Quotethe question of God was before movies, some gullible people believe there is no God (now it depends on which perspective you are willing to take, for if this were all subjective, then they are just as 'right' as you are)

Who tricked me into believing there's no god, if I'm so gullible?

Yourself, its an issue of the heart, you don't want anyone telling you how to live your life

Quote

QuoteThe universe is a closed system, not just the earth

How do you know?

the laws of physics, can you physically move outside of space and time?

QuoteAnd yet, you keep using it as if it has to be objective.

Right "what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Also, you keep saying things as if we believe that there's no objective truth, when I've told you many times now that I, and most likely the majority of other users here, believe in objective truth. Meaning is not the same as facts.

so are we basing meaning on facts?

Defendor....I think you should ask your church leaders to help you understand what we are saying because I'm pretty sure that (while they would agree with you that objective meaning exists) that you are misusing the word subjective and the word meaning to try to support your views and in the process are annoying a lot of peole.

You can't prove objective meaning by attacking the view that one can have subjective meaning.  If you want to make an argument for objective meaning you're going to have to start fresh with a proof of what that objective meaning is based on.

Keep in mind that quite a few of the people you are talking to here have college degrees and/or have studied philosophy extensively; so if you make a real point we will be able to get it even if we have reason to disagree.

Quote

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"This is the point I was trying to make, how can you tell someone to go find their own meaning, when there is no such thing as meaning in the first place.

Please define "meaning"

i posted a definition from definition.com

With that definition, we've never said there isn't meaning.

Quote

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"...also you mention lying as if you are basing your statement on objective truth, for if there were no such thing as objective truth, then there is no such thing as lying

Are you taking drugs?

QuoteNope but that doesn't answer my question

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Also, you keep saying things as if we believe that there's no objective truth, when I've told you many times now that I, and most likely the majority of other users here, believe in objective truth. Meaning is not the same as facts.

Quote from: "defendor"Yourself, its an issue of the heart, you don't want anyone telling you how to live your life

Defendor, you have no way of knowing why someone doesn't believe in something unless you ask them.  I could easily assume that you believe in god because you are afraid of responsibility; yet I'd just be making wild assumptions that probably aren't true.

If you continue to project your stereotypical views on atheists or any other type of member here I will start handing out the kind of warnings that get you banned.

Quote from: "defendor"The universe is a closed system, not just the earth

Quotethe laws of physics, can you physically move outside of space and time?

Again with the incorrect assumptions. Are you assuming that the space and time are a subset of the universe?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're right -- I'm an agnostic Pastafarian.

so can you, as an agnostic Pastafarian, explain the answers to the questions of Meaning? Morality? Purpose? Destiny?

p.s. I know you're being quite sarcastic

Quote from: "defendor"so can you, as an agnostic Pastafarian, explain the answers to the questions of Meaning? Morality? Purpose? Destiny?

p.s. I know you're being quite sarcastic

Meaning = What the great and almighty FSM likes (probably)
Morality = What the great and almighty FSM likes (probably)
Purpose = What the great and almighty FSM likes (probably)
Destiny = What the great and almighty FSM likes (probably)

By the way, that was a non-sequitor.

Quote from: "Whitney"Defendor....I think you should ask your church leaders to help you understand what we are saying because I'm pretty sure that (while they would agree with you that objective meaning exists) that you are misusing the word subjective and the word meaning to try to support your views and in the process are annoying a lot of peole.

You can't prove objective meaning by attacking the view that one can have subjective meaning.  If you want to make an argument for objective meaning you're going to have to start fresh with a proof of what that objective meaning is based on.

Keep in mind that quite a few of the people you are talking to here have college degrees and/or have studied philosophy extensively; so if you make a real point we will be able to get it even if we have reason to disagree.

Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Also, you keep saying things as if we believe that there's no objective truth, when I've told you many times now that I, and most likely the majority of other users here, believe in objective truth. Meaning is not the same as facts.

so are we basing meaning on facts?

...No...?

Quote from: "Whitney"Defendor, you have no way of knowing why someone doesn't believe in something unless you ask them.  I could easily assume that you believe in god because you are afraid of responsibility; yet I'd just be making wild assumptions that probably aren't true.

If you continue to project your stereotypical views on atheists or any other type of member here I will start handing out the kind of warnings that get you banned.

I apologize I did not mean to insult you, based on the evidence of your arguments, essentially stating, we as beings "define our own reality" I made a logical conclusion

Quote from: "defendor"so can you, as an agnostic Pastafarian, explain the answers to the questions of Meaning? Morality? Purpose? Destiny?

42?

Seriously, what are the questions, exactly? You haven't actually stated what they are, so it's a bit difficult to know what the answers are.

Meaning? Meaning of what? Morality? Doesn't exist in any objective sense. Certainly, we think we know what right and wrong are, but they're entirely subjective, which is why we call them 'values'. Values are necessarily subjective. Purpose? I have yet to be convinced that we actually have any purpose, so I just get on with enjoying what I am convinced we do have, which is life. Destiny? Again, I don't think there's any such thing. Indeed, given that the universe is demonstrably not deterministic, destiny is a moot point, because the entire concept of destiny is rooted in determinism, and the idea that there is a path laid out for you.

So, you're asking somebody for the answers to questions that aren't even questions. In fact, it's worse than that, because you're actually asking for an explanation of answers to questions that aren't questions, which is, if you'll pardon the pun, begging the question, namely that those answers and the explanations thereof actually exist.

Garbled nonsense, if you ask me.

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

Well, no...Buddhist atheists don't seem to have any problems claiming there is objective meaning.

but if your point it to prove that objective meaning exist start a new thread and prove it and quit worrying about the fact that a lot of atheists subjectively apply meaning to stuff.

Quote from: "defendor"I apologize I did not mean to insult you, based on the evidence of your arguments, essentially stating, we as beings "define our own reality" I made a logical conclusion

When did anyone here ever say that we define our own reality?

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

Objective meaning can exist without a god. In fact, I don't think that it can exist even with a god.

Quote from: "defendor"I apologize I did not mean to insult you, based on the evidence of your arguments, essentially stating, we as beings "define our own reality" I made a logical conclusion

I never said that.  I'm not sure if anyone said that.  Nor does it logically follow that someone who claims to define their own reality has that view because they don't like being told what to do.
[youtube:a2mh8pf2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBxE0y7b464[/youtube:a2mh8pf2]

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Also, you keep saying things as if we believe that there's no objective truth, when I've told you many times now that I, and most likely the majority of other users here, believe in objective truth. Meaning is not the same as facts.

so are we basing meaning on facts?

...No...?

So when you base meaning on whatever it is you want to base it on, you can do whatever you want (maybe the appeal of atheism...?) So if we are not basing meaning on facts, what does it mean if you are moving at 60 miles per hour straight into a concrete wall...?


I noticed you posted something along the lines of "morality is what helps you" I'm not sure, but you still are making the assumption that you are worth while in the fact that getting what you desire has meaning

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

Err, no. Objective, loosely speaking, means universal. In other words, for our existence to have objective meaning, then it would have to mean something to the universe as a whole. Since we are but a tiny insignificant germ on a speck of dust in universal terms, and since the universe would continue to exist with or without us, I can only conclude that there we have no objective meaning.

As for the other things you assert your deity as the objective measure of, the most laughable of these is morality. If morality is determined by a single individual, divine or not, it is necessarily subjective, because it is predicated on his idea of what constitutes right and wrong. As soon as I say that I disagree, the point is demonstrated. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that I would disagree, although without knowing which particular celestial peeping-tom you defer your critical faculties to, it's difficult to say. I haven't come across a conception of a deity whose purported morality was remotely on a par with my own.

Do you really think you get your morals from your deity? If so, I have a challenge for you. It's my favourite question, and I've never had a satisfactory, honest answer to it yet. Up for it?

Quote from: "defendor"So when you base meaning on whatever it is you want to base it on, you can do whatever you want (maybe the appeal of atheism...?) So if we are not basing meaning on facts, what does it mean if you are moving at 60 miles per hour straight into a concrete wall...?

I have no idea what you're trying to argue or say here.

QuoteI noticed you posted something along the lines of "morality is what helps you" I'm not sure, but you still are making the assumption that you are worth while in the fact that getting what you desire has meaning

I have meaning to myself. Getting what I desire has meaning to myself.

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

QuoteErr, no. Objective, loosely speaking, means universal. In other words, for our existence to have objective meaning, then it would have to mean something to the universe as a whole. Since we are but a tiny insignificant germ on a speck of dust in universal terms, and since the universe would continue to exist with or without us, I can only conclude that there we have no objective meaning.

Should I say creator, if there is no creator, there is no purpose, then why live?  this is where we're at tryin to define who assumes meaning, and on what premise

QuoteAs for the other things you assert your deity as the objective measure of, the most laughable of these is morality. If morality is determined by a single individual, divine or not, it is necessarily subjective, because it is predicated on his idea of what constitutes right and wrong. As soon as I say that I disagree, the point is demonstrated. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that I would disagree, although without knowing which particular celestial peeping-tom you defer your critical faculties to, it's difficult to say. I haven't come across a conception of a deity whose purported morality was remotely on a par with my own.

morality is based on the fact that we do have a creator, and this creator gave us meaning, and we are supposed to respond to each other as such

QuoteDo you really think you get your morals from your deity? If so, I have a challenge for you. It's my favourite question, and I've never had a satisfactory, honest answer to it yet. Up for it?

yes

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.  However, there isn't a God, which is shame, because in the judaeo-christian and islamic models, god takes the position of the objective observer, whom we mortals have to second-guess in establishing our morality.  So in the absence of God, who can take the objective position?  Well, nobody.  It isn't possible.  There's no such thing as objectivity.  It's a myth, as deeply embedded in our culture as the god myth.  The scientific model can take measures to minimise the effect of our subjectivity to be sure, but it would be a major mistake for anyone to misread this process as the success of objectivity.

Objective meaning is meaningless.

QuoteI have no idea what you're trying to argue or say here.

just as I said, if we are basing meaning on something other than facts, then meaning comes from whatever you want it to. So if you have no facts to discern meaning, you can't ever define meaning. The fact we used definitions to define meaning means nothing, for facts have nothing to do with meaning. If that is true, then (it comes full circle) how can you assume you are meaningful if there is nothing to base this on?

Quote

QuoteI noticed you posted something along the lines of "morality is what helps you" I'm not sure, but you still are making the assumption that you are worth while in the fact that getting what you desire has meaning

I have meaning to myself. Getting what I desire has meaning to myself.

So how, if there is no meaning, can you assume you are yourself meaningful. Thus getting what you want has no meaning for not only is the act of getting what you want not meaningful, but you in your being have no meaning. So if this is case, you would have no purpose to live, only to say that you give yourself purpose, which has no meaning.  Also if there is no objective meaning, the statement "there is no object meaning" means nothing.  How can you believe a philosophy that terminates on itself

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.  However, there isn't a God, which is shame, because in the judaeo-christian and islamic models, god takes the position of the objective observer, whom we mortals have to second-guess in establishing our morality.  So in the absence of God, who can take the objective position?  Well, nobody.  It isn't possible.  There's no such thing as objectivity.  It's a myth, as deeply embedded in our culture as the god myth.  The scientific model can take measures to minimise the effect of our subjectivity to be sure, but it would be a major mistake for anyone to misread this process as the success of objectivity.

Objective meaning is meaningless.

I will say God takes the position of objective inter-actor. That's why the story of Jesus is so important.  God interacting with us.  

So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

So if objective meaning is meaningless, then this statement  (which has objective meaning that there is no objective meaning) is meaningless.  So if this statement "objective meaning is meaningless" this statement is meaningless and you wasted your time typing

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.

Don't be so quick to agree with that. As I wrote in another thread, God is a Nihilist. God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). Theism hasn't solved this problem, it has pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence.

Quote from: "Sophus"Don't be so quick to agree with that. As I wrote in another thread, God is a Nihilist. God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). Theism hasn't solved this problem, it has pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence.

Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.  God in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.  He did not need to create us.  He created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

Quote from: "defendor"I will say God takes the position of objective inter-actor. That's why the story of Jesus is so important.  God interacting with us.

I completely respect this.  God can take any objective position, of course.  God is omnipotent.  The only problem is, he doesn't exist.

Quote from: "defendor"So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

I don't.  I take the position of a subjective observer for myself.  

Quote from: "defendor"So if objective meaning is meaningless, then this statement  (which has objective meaning that there is no objective meaning) is meaningless.  So if this statement "objective meaning is meaningless" this statement is meaningless and you wasted your time typing

As did you.  But I wasted less time typing it.  You still believe that objective meaning is meaningful, and are destined to waste a lifetime typing about it.

Quote from: "defendor"just as I said, if we are basing meaning on something other than facts, then meaning comes from whatever you want it to. So if you have no facts to discern meaning, you can't ever define meaning.

Meaning is based on opinion, which isn't fact, but it's a fact that there are opinions. We've already defined meaning. You lose.

QuoteThe fact we used definitions to define meaning means nothing, for facts have nothing to do with meaning. If that is true, then (it comes full circle) how can you assume you are meaningful if there is nothing to base this on?

It's based on opinion.

QuoteSo how, if there is no meaning, can you assume you are yourself meaningful.

There's no objective meaning. There is subjective meaning. I'm not assuming I'm meaningful; I'm giving myself meaning.

QuoteThus getting what you want has no meaning for not only is the act of getting what you want not meaningful, but you in your being have no meaning.

It has meaning to me; I have meaning to me.

QuoteSo if this is case, you would have no purpose to live, only to say that you give yourself purpose, which has no meaning.

No objective purpose; I give myself subjective purpose; it has no objective meaning.

QuoteAlso if there is no objective meaning, the statement "there is no object meaning" means nothing.  How can you believe a philosophy that terminates on itself

I feel like I want to strangle a puppy right now.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "defendor"Objective meaning is based on whether or not there is a God.

I completely agree.

Don't be so quick to agree with that. As I wrote in another thread, God is a Nihilist. God is left confronted with nothingness and meaninglessness so he had to assign his own meaning (to us apparently). Theism hasn't solved this problem, it has pushed it aside. God is in the same boat you are in in his absence.

I understand.  But if God can't solve this problem, no-one can.  I give god more credit than you, he's a wise dude and can do a hell of a lot that we can't.  Theism might not be able to solve the problem, but I'm sure God can...  just as soon as he gets over his little local difficulty of not existing.

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"I will say God takes the position of objective inter-actor. That's why the story of Jesus is so important.  God interacting with us.

I completely respect this.  God can take any objective position, of course.  God is omnipotent.  The only problem is, he doesn't exist.

I respect what you have to say and am appreciative of your responses but I disagree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI)
I would appreciate it if you could watch this and we could try and discern whatever "facts" he proposes

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

I don't.  I take the position of a subjective observer for myself.  

It is objective, it's objective to you, but in the grand scale of the universe it is relative to you thus labelled subjective

"realism is relative"

Quote

Quote from: "defendor"So if objective meaning is meaningless, then this statement  (which has objective meaning that there is no objective meaning) is meaningless.  So if this statement "objective meaning is meaningless" this statement is meaningless and you wasted your time typing

As did you.  But I wasted less time typing it.  You still believe that objective meaning is meaningful, and are destined to waste a lifetime typing about it.

I think the point was convoluted and I apologize on the misconstruing or misinterpretation of my argument

I am merely assuming that when you said "objective meaning is meaningless" you thought it was meaningful
so if that statement was meaningful then not everything is meaningless
but if that statement is meaningless, why did you type it?

here's the gospel of good hope.  You have eternal meaning to God of the universe, he sent his son to die for you so that he could not just give you meaning, but  give you life, hope and eternal life with him.  Now this statement transcends all human logic. I wrote a note on facebook "why do I believe?" if you would like to discern my premises on that I will gladly be obliging

QuoteI understand. But if God can't solve this problem, no-one can. I give god more credit than you, he's a wise dude and can do a hell of a lot that we can't. Theism might not be able to solve the problem, but I'm sure God can... just as soon as he gets over his little local difficulty of not existing.

How do you know you exist? Cuz you can think for yourself, assuming you do actually exist in the first place?

QuoteMeaning is based on opinion, which isn't fact, but it's a fact that there are opinions. We've already defined meaning. You lose.

So if meaning has no meaning, why are you arguing that it does have meaning?

QuoteIt's based on opinion.

So if meaning is based on opinion, you have stated that there is no meaning, you are basing something that doesn't exist (meaning) on something that has no meaning (your opinion)

QuoteThere's no objective meaning. There is subjective meaning. I'm not assuming I'm meaningful; I'm giving myself meaning.

You are assuming that the fact there is no objective meaning, has objective meaning to you, or else you wouldn't assume to make claims of subjective meaning
and also "you are basing something that doesn't exist (meaning) on something that has no meaning (your opinion)"

QuoteIt has meaning to me; I have meaning to me.

You are saying that as a statement with objective meaning, for if that is a statement with subjective meaning, why would you care if you have meaning or give yourself meaning?

QuoteNo objective purpose; I give myself subjective purpose; it has no objective meaning.

So if you are chasing something that is meaningless (subjective purpose) why do you keep insisting is has meaning to you (who is meaningless)

QuoteI feel like I want to strangle a puppy right now

DONT DO IT

Quote from: "defendor"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI
I would appreciate it if you could watch this and we could try and discern whatever "facts" he proposes

I watched it, it took 3 minutes and 10 seconds.  To be honest, I don't know what you're asking me to do with that. You request is not very precise.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "existentialist"

Quote from: "defendor"So if no one can take the position of objective observer, why do you take the position of objective observer for yourself?

I don't.  I take the position of a subjective observer for myself.  

It is objective, it's objective to you, but in the grand scale of the universe it is relative to you thus labelled subjective
"realism is relative"

Again, too vague, too short.  You need to explain more.  I do not understand what the grand scale of the universe has to do with my subjective view.  It is a matter of subjectivity, not scale.

Quote from: "defendor"I think the point was convoluted and I apologize on the misconstruing or misinterpretation of my argument

I am merely assuming that when you said "objective meaning is meaningless" you thought it was meaningful
so if that statement was meaningful then not everything is meaningless
but if that statement is meaningless, why did you type it?

Let me put it another way.  There is no such thing as objective meaning.

Quote from: "defendor"here's the gospel of good hope.  You have eternal meaning to God of the universe, he sent his son to die for you so that he could not just give you meaning, but  give you life, hope and eternal life with him.  Now this statement transcends all human logic. I wrote a note on facebook "why do I believe?" if you would like to discern my premises on that I will gladly be obliging

QuoteI understand. But if God can't solve this problem, no-one can. I give god more credit than you, he's a wise dude and can do a hell of a lot that we can't. Theism might not be able to solve the problem, but I'm sure God can... just as soon as he gets over his little local difficulty of not existing.

How do you know you exist? Cuz you can think for yourself, assuming you do actually exist in the first place?

What does it matter whether I exist or not?  I just don't see where we're going with any of this, but thank you for your responses anyway.

Quote from: "defendor"Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.  God in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.  He did not need to create us.  He created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

Quotehere's the gospel of good hope. You have eternal meaning to God of the universe, he sent his son to die for you so that he could not just give you meaning, but give you life, hope and eternal life with him. Now this statement transcends all human logic. I wrote a note on facebook "why do I believe?" if you would like to discern my premises on that I will gladly be obliging

Stop inserting your preaching here like you think you can get away with it.
[spoiler:37k735gp][quote="Forum Rules (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522)]NO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike. Preaching means stating your beliefs without providing evidence. If directly asked what you believe you may answer but it would then become against the rules if you were to then refuse to back up your views objectively when honestly challenged. This means that if you want to use your religious text to prove your deity, for instance, you will also need to be prepared to prove that your religious text is an objective source of evidence.[/quote][/spoiler:37k735gp]

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I feel like I want to strangle a puppy right now.

;) )

Quote from: "defendor"Should I say creator, if there is no creator, there is no purpose, then why live?

Because life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

Quotethis is where we're at tryin to define who assumes meaning, and on what premise

Well, the only one assuming any objective kind of meaning here is you. You also seem to be asserting that, without said meaning, there's no point to life. Of course, I disagree on both points. I like life. That's all there is to it, and the only purpose, point or meaning necessary.

Quotemorality is based on the fact that we do have a creator, and this creator gave us meaning, and we are supposed to respond to each other as such

Here's the thing: You state as fact that there is a creator. What evidence do you have in support of this? Care to be the first supernaturalist in more than 5,000 years to actually support this assertion with anything of substance?

Quoteyes

OK, then. If you believe that your morality comes from your deity, and you believed that your deity had commanded you to do something you found to be morally reprehensible, such as killing a child, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

It's a fairly straightforward, closed digital question, to which the only valid responses are yes or no. Whenever you're ready.

Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

Quote from: "defendor"Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.

Quite incorrect. Nothing transforms your worldview quite like beginning to understand how the world actually works, and you won't find those answers in any holy book.

QuoteGod in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.

Ah, so it is the impossible, logically absurd entity described in the bible that you support. Such a shame, since that entity very definitely does not exist.

QuoteHe did not need to create us.

Of course not, because to have such need, he would actually have to exist, and he doesn't.

QuoteHe created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

Err, except that he didn't create us, because he doesn't exist. Bit of a problem for your magic man, that.

QuoteBecause life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

What is good?

QuoteWell, the only one assuming any objective kind of meaning here is you. You also seem to be asserting that, without said meaning, there's no point to life. Of course, I disagree on both points. I like life. That's all there is to it, and the only purpose, point or meaning necessary.

You are assuming the statement "there is no objective meaning" has objective meaning


Here's the thing: You state as fact that there is a creator. What evidence do you have in support of this? Care to be the first supernaturalist in more than 5,000 years to actually support this assertion with anything of substance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI)

QuoteOK, then. If you believe that your morality comes from your deity, and you believed that your deity had commanded you to do something you found to be morally reprehensible, such as killing a child, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

It's a fairly straightforward, closed digital question, to which the only valid responses are yes or no. Whenever you're ready.

Your asking for an answer on the assumed premise that 1. there is a basis for morality 2. These acts defy a set standard of morality 3. A "good" God would want these things to happen

the question is a paradox, but there is an answer, but if to live in submission of this, maybe

Abraham was asked to sacrifice to his son.  When Abraham was about to sacrifice him, God stopped him, for Abraham only wanted to live a life of submission.  But God didn't allow that, he saw Abraham's heart and blessed him beyond measure.  For the rape thing, look at Joseph, he was sold into slavery by his family and went on to say "What you meant for evil, God meant for Good"

defendor has been issued warning 1 for preaching

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteBecause life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

What is good?

I like it. What more do I need to classify it as good, since 'good' is a subjective construct?

QuoteWell, the only one assuming any objective kind of meaning here is you. You also seem to be asserting that, without said meaning, there's no point to life. Of course, I disagree on both points. I like life. That's all there is to it, and the only purpose, point or meaning necessary.

QuoteYou are assuming the statement "there is no objective meaning" has objective meaning

Where did I indicate that assumption?

Quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

Oh, dear. First cause? Really? Are you sure? Firstly, arguments are still not evidence. Secondly, can you actually demonstrate that everything requires a cause? Do you really want to be schooled on just how vacuous such arguments are?  

Oh, dear. The teleological argument? Really? Are you sure? Firstly, arguments are still not evidence. Secondly, do you know what is required to infer design?

You need a metric for design. This metric needs to be demonstrated to work in artefacts of known provenance. It also needs to be demonstrated to be applicable to the biosphere, and to the universe as a whole.

When you have such a metric in place, let us know, and we'll all polish our shoes and take our tuxedoes out of mothballs, so that we can come to your investiture as a Nobel laureate. You'd like a nice, shiny medal now, wouldn't you?

Oh dear, the 'chance' canard, with creationist mathematics side salad and a generous helping of 'fine-tuning' croutons? Really? Are you sure? Firstly, arguments are still not evidence (are you beginning to see a pattern forming here?) Secondly, do you know what probability can be gleaned from any calculation with a sample set of one? That's right! It can only ever give a probability of 1. Thirdly, this mathematics runs up against the gamblers fallacy. It may be clear to anyone that, after tossing 100 heads in a row, the chances of tossing another head is ridiculously improbable, because it is, isn't it? No! It is exactly the same probability as it was the first time! Fourthly, the universe isn't fine tuned, as far as we can tell. Indeed, there is no good reason to suppose that the physical constants we experience could actually have any other values. Besides, when physicists and cosmologists talk about fine-tuning, they aren't misusing it the way this idiot is, they are talking about the fact that certain parameters in the cosmos must fall within a narrow range of values if their models are correct. They aren't talking about it being fine-tuned, and they certainly aren't talking about it being fine-tuned for life. If anything, life is fine-tuned for the universe, by virtue of the fact that it evolved under the constants we rely on. It could well be that those constants could vary wildly and still produce life, although whether we, with our parochial view of things, would actually recognise it as life, is another matter. Puddle thinking at its finest. 'Doesn't this hole fit me well?' Finally, with respect to the 'chance' canard, science doesn't postulate chance, it postulates, and repeatedly demonstrates with startling reliability, well-defined natural mechanisms.

Now, do you actually have anything of substance, or are you just impressed by any fuckwit on a youtube video who blinds you with his misunderstanding of how probabilities work?

QuoteYour asking for an answer on the assumed premise that 1. there is a basis for morality 2. These acts defy a set standard of morality 3. A "good" God would want these things to happen

the question is a paradox, but there is an answer, but if to live in submission of this, maybe

Abraham was asked to sacrifice to his son.  When Abraham was about to sacrifice him, God stopped him, for Abraham only wanted to live a life of submission.  But God didn't allow that, he saw Abraham's heart and blessed him beyond measure.  For the rape thing, look at Joseph, he was sold into slavery by his family and went on to say "What you meant for evil, God meant for Good"

Firstly, there was no assumption. You stated that your morality was predicated on the will of your magic man. Also, who said anything about Abraham and Isaac?

Standard apologetic evasionist fayre. Now, any chance of answering the question? A simple yes or no will suffice, or an admission that the question is too difficult, which is preferable to evading it.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteBecause life is subjectively good. I don't need a creator for that.

What is good?

Here's how to read. "Life is subjectively good." The word in blue is describing the word in red.

Deep breath, deep breath....  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I feel like I want to strangle a puppy right now.

BADDD!!!! BAAAAADDDD ATHEIST!!!!!!

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "defendor"Nothing transforms your world view like the question is there a god.

Quite incorrect. Nothing transforms your worldview quite like beginning to understand how the world actually works, and you won't find those answers in any holy book.

QuoteGod in his completeness as a triune God had the full measure of companionship and love and meaning in his own being.

Ah, so it is the impossible, logically absurd entity described in the bible that you support. Such a shame, since that entity very definitely does not exist.

QuoteHe did not need to create us.

Of course not, because to have such need, he would actually have to exist, and he doesn't.

QuoteHe created us as individuals to simply demonstrate his Character as loving, gracious and glorious to people that don't deserve it.

Err, except that he didn't create us, because he doesn't exist. Bit of a problem for your magic man, that.

Hackenslash, I have a question -- how do you know that the logically impossible does not exist?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

I can give your life meaning if you PM my your bank account details, the names of your mother and father and date of birth  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

I can give your life meaning if you PM my your bank account details, the names of your mother and father and date of birth  :D

Oh, wait. I'm broke.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Hackenslash, I have a question -- how do you know that the logically impossible does not exist?

Because logical absolutes are absolute. The law of non-contradiction is solid and inviolable. Something cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time.

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

This thread provides me so much entertainment.

Quote from: "Achronos"This thread provides me so much entertainment.

I think someone will lose an eye sooner or later though...  

Quote from: "hackenslash"Because logical absolutes are absolute. The law of non-contradiction is solid and inviolable.

Not to play devil's advocate, but how do you know this?

Simply because something cannot be what it is and what it is not. It's one of the few things that is genuinely axiomatic, and these few axioms are the reasons that logic has any validity. This is not inductive, so it cannot even be the case that a falsifying observation is even possible. They are the beginning of logic.

Quote from: "Recusant";) )

Where in my logic do you find reasons to believe that I haven't adequately given reasons to and for my position?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

I have been warned for preaching, so I'm not sure on how to address this from a different world view without seeming as preaching (for isn't telling someone about a world view, preaching?).  But I believe that a creator God gives us meaning as people.

QuoteQuite incorrect. Nothing transforms your worldview quite like beginning to understand how the world actually works, and you won't find those answers in any holy book.

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

QuoteOf course not, because to have such need, he would actually have to exist, and he doesn't.

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.

QuoteErr, except that he didn't create us, because he doesn't exist. Bit of a problem for your magic man, that

.

basing this on what evidence?

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteQuite incorrect. Nothing transforms your worldview quite like beginning to understand how the world actually works, and you won't find those answers in any holy book.

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

Then put me in a bagel and call me Sally.

Quote

QuoteOf course not, because to have such need, he would actually have to exist, and he doesn't.

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.

When you say this, you're saying that nothing can be shown to be false. So, Defendor, do magical invisible unicorns that go up when they go down exist?

Quote

QuoteErr, except that he didn't create us, because he doesn't exist. Bit of a problem for your magic man, that

.

basing this on what evidence?

Logical contradictions and impossibilities.

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Okay Defendor, my life as no meaning. What now?

I have been warned for preaching, so I'm not sure on how to address this from a different world view without seeming as preaching (for isn't telling someone about a world view, preaching?).  But I believe that a creator God gives us meaning as people.

I still don't believe you've adequately shown that my life can't have any purpose of any kind at all, nor that I can subjectively give anything purpose; but even if I can do neither, I don't think anything would really change. Life would continue to go on.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I still don't believe you've adequately shown that my life can't have any purpose of any kind at all, nor that I can subjectively give anything purpose; but even if I can do neither, I don't think anything would really change. Life would continue to go on.

I'll use the law of non-contradiction

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.

SO for the statement "there is no objective meaning" has to have objective meaning for that statement to mean anything.  So assuming that there is no objective meaning, then in essence, the statement "there is no objective meaning" has no meaning. So how can you define your world view, that in essence, has to have objective meaning for you to abide in the subjectivity of its principles?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I still don't believe you've adequately shown that my life can't have any purpose of any kind at all, nor that I can subjectively give anything purpose; but even if I can do neither, I don't think anything would really change. Life would continue to go on.

I'll use the law of non-contradiction

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.

Which is why your god can't exist.

QuoteSO for the statement "there is no objective meaning" has to have objective meaning for that statement to mean anything.  So assuming that there is no objective meaning, then in essence, the statement "there is no objective meaning" has no meaning. So how can you define your world view, that in essence, has to have objective meaning for you to abide in the subjectivity of its principles?

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".

And even if truth and meaning were the same thing, I could myself out of that problem by simply saying that the only statement with objective meaning is that there is nothing with objective meaning, besides this statement.

QuoteWhen you say this, you're saying that nothing can be shown to be false. So, Defendor, do magical invisible unicorns that go up when they go down exist?

I'm not saying nothing can be proved false, for we have logic to discern what is beneath us.  2+2=4 for that is something that logically is within my realm of comprehension.  An omnipotent God is not within my realm of comprehension. So for me to have comprehension of omnipotence,  I would have to be in essence of being, greater than or equal to such.  So for you to say that there is no God (assuming an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being) you would have to be able to have the logical premise to discern such astounding claims of existence.  So the fact that you are not infinite, all-knowing, all powerful disqualifies you on making claims of such knowledge that he does not exist.

QuoteWhich is why your god can't exist.

Jesus existed in our space time continuum, he did exist in one place at one time.  But the Father, is outside of our laws of physics

QuoteI'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".

And even if truth and meaning were the same thing, I could myself out of that problem by simply saying that the only statement with objective meaning is that there is nothing with objective meaning, besides this statement.

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

So if the essence of that statement disqualifies itself from its own meaning, how can you assume it to be true?

Quote from: "hackenslash"Because logical absolutes are absolute. The law of non-contradiction is solid and inviolable. Something cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time.

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Love has become a junk drawer word, you love your pet, you love your pizza and you may love your spouse.  All in different fashions

Jealous in these instances have translated to mean different things, God is jealous for your heart not jealous of your being.  God is love, but love is not God.

QuoteI watched it, it took 3 minutes and 10 seconds.  To be honest, I don't know what you're asking me to do with that. You request is not very precise.

tell me where he is wrong

QuoteAgain, too vague, too short.  You need to explain more.  I do not understand what the grand scale of the universe has to do with my subjective view.  It is a matter of subjectivity, not scale.

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

Quote from: "defendor"I think the point was convoluted and I apologize on the misconstruing or misinterpretation of my argument

QuoteLet me put it another way.  There is no such thing as objective meaning.

Assuming that statement has objective meaning

QuoteWhat does it matter whether I exist or not?  I just don't see where we're going with any of this, but thank you for your responses anyway.

You are making solid claims to truth (for yourself) based on your own existence, if you can't answer for a fact you exist, then how can you base a philosophy on a question you have no answer to?

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteWhich is why your god can't exist.

Jesus existed in our space time continuum, he did exist in one place at one time.

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.
 

QuoteBut the Father, is outside of our laws of physics

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.

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteWhen you say this, you're saying that nothing can be shown to be false. So, Defendor, do magical invisible unicorns that go up when they go down exist?

I'm not saying nothing can be proved false, for we have logic to discern what is beneath us.  2+2=4 for that is something that logically is within my realm of comprehension.  An omnipotent God is not within my realm of comprehension. So for me to have comprehension of omnipotence,  I would have to be in essence of being, greater than or equal to such.  So for you to say that there is no God (assuming an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being) you would have to be able to have the logical premise to discern such astounding claims of existence.  So the fact that you are not infinite, all-knowing, all powerful disqualifies you on making claims of such knowledge that he does not exist.

So what you're saying is that we can comprehend math, but we can't comprehend god, so, ergo, we cannot apply logic to him?

And are you saying that you are greater or equal than math equations?

QuoteJesus 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
 

QuoteIf 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

Quote

QuoteBut 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

QuoteI'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"?

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteJesus 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.
 

Quote

QuoteIf 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?

Quote

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: "defendor"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.

Quote from: "defendor"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.

QuoteAssuming 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.

Quotebasing 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.

Quote from: "defendor"I'll use the law of non-contradiction

This should be a laugh.

QuoteFor 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.

Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

Quote from: "pilchardo"Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

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

Quote from: "pilchardo"Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

Don't mistake bluntness for emotional content.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "pilchardo"Hackenslash, you seem to have anger issues.

Don't mistake bluntness for emotional content.

Sorry if I offended you.

You didn't.

Quote from: "hackenslash"You didn't.

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

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.

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."

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"In robbing us of purpose, it robs us of morals.

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

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

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

Who does?

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"Christianity, however, offers a plausible explanation.

It does now does it?

Quote from: "Achronos"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...

Quote from: "Achronos"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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_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."

Quote from: "Achronos"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...

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos""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.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

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.  

Quote from: "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.

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

QuoteHowever, 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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Sophus"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...

Quote from: "The Holey Bibble"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"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"In robbing us of purpose, it robs us of morals.

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

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

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

Who does?

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"Christianity, however, offers a plausible explanation.

It does now does it?

Quote from: "Achronos"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...

Quote from: "Achronos"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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_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."

Quote from: "Achronos"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...

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos""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?

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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq301%2Fhackenslash_album%2F2902643161_b32c32b070.jpg&hash=4559eab780427f2f63f3e8ebaa075946b5722226)

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

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

Quote from: "Ultima22689"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 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6421&start=105#p96219)

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"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 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6421&start=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!

Quote from: "superfes"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"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 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6421&start=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!

Yes I believe Elder Paisos has nailed what exactly is wrong with the world, hmm I do admit that I should have included the original link to my original posting. I don't agree that "just trust us" because that is very dangerous.

Quote from: "Achronos"I don't agree that "just trust us" because that is very dangerous.

Think you missed something with that statement, I believe it should be read:

QuoteI don't agree that "just trust us" because that is very dangerous, unless you're talking about religion. It's not dangerous to blindly trust religion.

I'll let everybody else get back to arguing with you though, it's entertaining.  

Quote from: "superfes"

Quote from: "Achronos"I don't agree that "just trust us" because that is very dangerous.

Think you missed something with that statement, I believe it should be read:

QuoteI don't agree that "just trust us" because that is very dangerous, unless you're talking about religion. It's not dangerous to blindly trust religion.

I'll let everybody else get back to arguing with you though, it's entertaining.  

LOL. If that was the case then we'd be having alot more Jim Jones'.

Quote from: "superfes"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Who has that sig for crazy shit Achronos has said, I think it could use some updates.

That would be LegendarySandwich: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6421&start=105#p96219 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6421&start=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!

Umm, wow. Just finished reading your link, this is the stuff that dictatorships are made of.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Umm, wow. Just finished reading your link, this is the stuff that dictatorships are made of.

How exactly? I don't see any Orthodox Christians blowing up buildings (more so themselves), killing people, doing damage to others, etc. It's good advice to put more into practice (in the Elder's case Christianity) without contemplating too much on it. I think what he is saying is the more we practice it the less we have to rationalize. I made a comment in the other thread that we can go back and forth all day, but you don't know something by siting around and thinking about it. You know something by experiencing it. It's not about how far I can make God into a mental excercise, because that's not what God is, it truly must be experienced.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Umm, wow. Just finished reading your link, this is the stuff that dictatorships are made of.

How exactly? I don't see any Orthodox Christians blowing up buildings (more so themselves), killing people, doing damage to others, etc. It's good advice to put more into practice (in the Elder's case Christianity) without contemplating too much on it. I think what he is saying is the more we practice it the less we have to rationalize. I made a comment in the other thread that we can go back and forth all day, but you don't know something by siting around and thinking about it. You know something by experiencing it. It's not about how far I can make God into a mental excercise, because that's not what God is, it truly must be experienced.

You do realize that many of the atheist of this board were just as religious as you? Because i'm an open minded person, I gave religion chance, several times, I tried to experience it and yet it seems to remain a fairy tale. Anything that depicts logic/rationalization/thinking is bad, period.  The elder may mean well but you don't have to blow up buildings to make a dictatorship, one can rise without any bloodshed, all it takes is for someone to believe that what you're saying is true. This is what religions/cults want. If they can convince you to not rationalize then they've succeeded in their purpose because they now do the thinking for you AKA a Theocracy, we've had those before and we have some now, it's a system that doesn't work and just stifles the human race so i'll reiterate it again. Anything that preaches rationalization/logic as something not to be trusted is bad.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You do realize that many of the atheist of this board were just as religious as you?

How are we to quantify this to make a comparable demonstration?

QuoteBecause i'm an open minded person, I gave religion chance, several times, I tried to experience it and yet it seems to remain a fairy tale.

Or do you mean "too good to be true"?

QuoteAnything that depicts logic/rationalization/thinking is bad, period.  The elder may mean well but you don't have to blow up buildings to make a dictatorship, one can rise without any bloodshed, all it takes is for someone to believe that what you're saying is true.

Right, but what the Elder is saying is nothing new, in fact it's hundreds of years old. And he can be backed up by many people who have said and believed the same thing. Yet there was no dictatorship that arose from the wisdom.

QuoteThis is what religions/cults want. If they can convince you to not rationalize then they've succeeded in their purpose because they now do the thinking for you AKA a Theocracy, we've had those before and we have some now, it's a system that doesn't work and just stifles the human race so i'll reiterate it again. Anything that preaches rationalization/logic as something not to be trusted is bad.

There are certain things we cannot simply rationalize about, for example God. However we do have a brain and we are capable of thought, and one of the things he was saying is that don't be so sure of your own thoughts.

I personally don't think that it has more to do with how credulous that person happens to be. Verily, even very well educated individuals can buy into nonsense if they're not careful, and, furthermore, some of the most heinously asinine ideas I have ever seen have come out of what some would call the intelligentsia.

A mind that is too open is liable to let thoughts of the wrong sort trespass where an otherwise cautious mind would place fortifications. That's the message.

Quote from: "Achronos"A mind that is too open is liable to let thoughts of the wrong sort trespass where an otherwise cautious mind would place fortifications. That's the message.

Otherwise known as: A mind that is too open is liable to no longer pay tithing.

Quote from: "superfes"I think he forgot the important part of the article he copied and pasted though...

Yeah, I caught him doing that before. From now on I think we should run a quick search on all of "his" posts.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You do realize that many of the atheist of this board were just as religious as you?

How are we to quantify this to make a comparable demonstration?

QuoteBecause i'm an open minded person, I gave religion chance, several times, I tried to experience it and yet it seems to remain a fairy tale.

Or do you mean "too good to be true"?

QuoteAnything that depicts logic/rationalization/thinking is bad, period.  The elder may mean well but you don't have to blow up buildings to make a dictatorship, one can rise without any bloodshed, all it takes is for someone to believe that what you're saying is true.

Right, but what the Elder is saying is nothing new, in fact it's hundreds of years old. And he can be backed up by many people who have said and believed the same thing. Yet there was no dictatorship that arose from the wisdom.

QuoteThis is what religions/cults want. If they can convince you to not rationalize then they've succeeded in their purpose because they now do the thinking for you AKA a Theocracy, we've had those before and we have some now, it's a system that doesn't work and just stifles the human race so i'll reiterate it again. Anything that preaches rationalization/logic as something not to be trusted is bad.

There are certain things we cannot simply rationalize about, for example God. However we do have a brain and we are capable of thought, and one of the things he was saying is that don't be so sure of your own thoughts.

I personally don't think that it has more to do with how credulous that person happens to be. Verily, even very well educated individuals can buy into nonsense if they're not careful, and, furthermore, some of the most heinously asinine ideas I have ever seen have come out of what some would call the intelligentsia.

A mind that is too open is liable to let thoughts of the wrong sort trespass where an otherwise cautious mind would place fortifications. That's the message.

I doubt you could but you could just ask them if you care enough to prove it.

No, I meant it's complete, utter bullshit. From the moment my grand parents attempted to convert me my bullshit radar was going off the scale and the more I read the bible the more I began to be sure it was complete, utter bullshit. Despite that, for a moment I tried my hardest to pretend logic was irrelevant for god yet I didn't feel or experience sky daddy or anything remotely spiritual, so, no, there is nothing good about it, IMHO. The abrahamic god is a douchenozzle, the fact that I have to set aside logic, one of his "gifts" to see past all of his douchebaggery is one of the biggest red alarms yet.

Yeah, that's true, orthodox christanity isn't the only religion to follow that wisdom. Radical Islam employs the same thing to get people to blows themselves up in the name of your god. The Catholic church used the same wisdom to plunge Europe into the dark ages and bullshit politicians are using it now to convince people to support policy that works to hurt them. It's nothing new alright, it's the best method you can use to control people, the greatest enemy to all of the above is thinking about it AKA employing logic.

Hmm, for the most part agreed, there are some well educated people who have some very ridiculous ideas because they were gullible enough to believe whatever someone was spouting at them. As for an intelligentsia, sounds like tinfoil stuff.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"No, I meant it's complete, utter bullshit.

"[...] The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." -- Albert Einstein

Intelligent people agree, religion is complete and utter bullshit.
 

Quote from: "Achronos"doing damage to others, etc.

Depends what you call damage. Incuclation into whacky, unfounded belief systems is damage, in my opinion, and should be illegal before the age of majority.

You always hear the whinge 'let them make up their own mind', which I agree completely with. Only thing is, when the mind has already been made up, because the child has had it drilled into their head while completely unable to resist, it doesn't constitute making up their own mind. One's own mind can only be made up about something when one has full control of one's mind. Religion is mind control and, when inculcated at an early age, extremely difficult to resist.

In my opinion, indoctrinating one's children into one's religion should be punishable by imprisonment just as much as any other form of child abuse. Deliberately keeping your children stupid is the most heinous of crimes.

Quote from: "Achronos"Right, but what the Elder is saying is nothing new, in fact it's hundreds of years old. And he can be backed up by many people who have said and believed the same thing. Yet there was no dictatorship that arose from the wisdom.

Perhaps you'd like to go and have that conversation with Tomas de Torquemada.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Depends what you call damage. Incuclation into whacky, unfounded belief systems is damage, in my opinion, and should be illegal before the age of majority.

You always hear the whinge 'let them make up their own mind', which I agree completely with. Only thing is, when the mind has already been made up, because the child has had it drilled into their head while completely unable to resist, it doesn't constitute making up their own mind. One's own mind can only be made up about something when one has full control of one's mind. Religion is mind control and, when inculcated at an early age, extremely difficult to resist.

In my opinion, indoctrinating one's children into one's religion should be punishable by imprisonment just as much as any other form of child abuse. Deliberately keeping your children stupid is the most heinous of crimes.

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.

We have to let parents have control over their kids (to a certain extent), because there's no real viable alternative; I mean, do you want the government taking care of kids, or loving, even if misguided, moms and dads? Parents should be allowed to teach their kids anything they feel they should, whether that be that all people are created equal or that God created the Earth in six days.

Quote from: "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', and the rest is an argumentum ad populum.

QuoteWe have to let parents have control over their kids (to a certain extent), because there's no real viable alternative; I mean, do you want the government taking care of kids, or loving, even if misguided, moms and dads? Parents should be allowed to teach their kids anything they feel they should, whether that be that all people are created equal or that God created the Earth in six days.

Nonsense. Firstly. children are not property. 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.

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?

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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "hackenslash"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.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "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.
 

Quoteand 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.

QuoteNonsense. Firstly. children are not property.

Are they property of the government?

QuoteNot 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.

QuoteIn 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?

QuoteThe 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?

Back to what I was discussing earlier...

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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).

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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!

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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?

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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).

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

Quote from: "Achronos"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.

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.

Quote5) 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?

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.

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).

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

Quote from: "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

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.  

The purpose of life is simple.

Avoid dying for as long as you can.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"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.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"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.

Life is meaningless untill you give it meaning. There is no grand purpose unless we make a grand purpose. There is no goal that we must work towards unless we make a goal to work towards.
However, certain things do stand to common reason. We should be kind to others, try our best not to destroy the planet we're lucky enough to be floating around on, and take good care of ourselves.
I tend to agree, personally, with an Eastern philosophy that says the purpose of life is to Love and to be Loved. Everything that lives in a way is wanting to Love and be Loved. The ant searches for one grain of sugar, loves it when he finds it, and it loves him back with nourishment. Most every person has some kind of desire, and when they attain it, participate in whatever it may be, they are Loving it, and it Loves them back.

So MY purpose is to Love and to be Loved, but only because it's the one that I've given myself.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AverageJoe"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.

Avoiding dying, or staying alive (it amounts to the same thing) is extremely fulfilling.

When you know that death is the end, then you can appreciate your life, and realise how unique it is. Every day I think about how good it is to be alive, because I am alive and conscious of it. I can do things I enjoy and help people as I want, because I'm alive. I'd say that is fulfilling.

What do you do that is so much more...fulfilling? Worship a made up sky fairy? It's a waste of your time my friend, you could be eating an ice cream instead.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"Avoiding dying, or staying alive (it amounts to the same thing)

It is the same thing, just worded differently.

Quoteis extremely fulfilling.

Not if you don't do anything with your life.

QuoteWhen you know that death is the end, then you can appreciate your life, and realise how unique it is. Every day I think about how good it is to be alive, because I am alive and conscious of it. I can do things I enjoy and help people as I want, because I'm alive. I'd say that is fulfilling.

That's great, but the way you said it made it sound like survival is the only thing that matters to you, nothing else.

QuoteWhat do you do that is so much more...fulfilling?

Try to have fun and do good things, while also trying to stay alive.

QuoteWorship a made up sky fairy? It's a waste of your time my friend, you could be eating an ice cream instead.

I'm an atheist.

Excellent, so what were we arguing about?

By the way, I'd like to pull you up on your comment "Not if you don't do anything with your life" - what exactly qualifies as "doing something with your life"?

Surely our definitions of doing something with your life will be different to each other. As will our definitions of personal fulfillment.

You said to me "I'd rather do something more...fulfilling" but that would be based on your idea of fulfillment, not mine.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"Excellent, so what were we arguing about?

I don't know, you tell me.

QuoteBy the way, I'd like to pull you up on your comment "Not if you don't do anything with your life" - what exactly qualifies as "doing something with your life"?

:shrug:
Doing things that give you fulfillment.

QuoteSurely our definitions of doing something with your life will be different to each other. As will our definitions of personal fulfillment.

You said to me "I'd rather do something more...fulfilling" but that would be based on your idea of fulfillment, not mine.

I realize that.

Be born, learn, reproduce, teach, die. That is all. The nearest any of us will ever come to immortality is that we teach what we have learned, and that will be passed on.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Be born, learn, reproduce, teach, die. That is all. The nearest any of us will ever come to immortality is that we teach what we have learned, and that will be passed on.

I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. -_-

Well part of it anyway.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Be born, learn, reproduce, teach, die. That is all. The nearest any of us will ever come to immortality is that we teach what we have learned, and that will be passed on.

I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. -_-

Well part of it anyway.

Yup. One could also make a HUGE statue of oneself and get the future generations to look after and polish it.   (Statue can also be understood metaphorically. You live on through the achievements credited to you, if they are great enough.)

Quote from: "Asmodean"Yup. One could also make a HUGE statue of oneself and get the future generations to look after and polish it.   (Statue can also be understood metaphorically. You live on through the achievements credited to you, if they are great enough.)

My definition of life requires finken and feeling, no freaken statues going to do that for me.

The purpose of life itself, in general, is to reproduce. Species have been for millions and millions of years, and it's why we're here today. And since we're here, the purpose of your own life, or at least for myself, is to live a meaningful life, filled with adventure, knowledge and love. Do what you enjoy doing, eat what you love eating, and love those around you.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"My definition of life requires finken and feeling, no freaken statues going to do that for me.

Uhm... Incorporate AI into it..? With your memories on the HDD?