Meaning of life.

[Big D]

I completely agree with Edric o. :)

[Edric O]

World itself is senseless without us, so I wouldn't say we have a purpose, but we are a purpose. You should think less egocentrically.

Try explaining to a starving man that he shouldn't be so concerned with the materialistic pursuit of food.

Let's first meet the material needs of every human being on this planet, then we can worry about whatever you have in mind.

I was just thinking. If it is our mission/meaning purpose etc to reproduce...

If there are no gods and no supernatural forces, then we simply don't HAVE a purpose. If there is a God (or several gods, or something similar), then our purpose is determined by that god(s).

Either way, our purpose is NOT to reproduce. Don't make the anthropocentric mistake of assigning a human personality to a natural process, like evolution. Evolution has no purpose. Evolution just happens. Without a god, life has no purpose. Not reproduction, nor anything else. Life just happens.

I'm more frustrated then I am depressed.

but you are right. I should not turn to religion, there must be more.

What do you mean by "more"? As it stands right now, it looks like religion is the "more" that you're looking for. You should give it a chance, at the very least. Try studying and exploring the major world religions. And if you need any help on Christianity, just ask. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Try explaining to a starving man that he shouldn't be so concerned with the materialistic pursuit of food.

Let's first meet the material needs of every human being on this planet, then we can worry about whatever you have in mind.

Hm, people like Buddha or St Francesco wouldn't agree with you. Or any christian pilgrimage, or maybe some shamanistic community. Or follow muslim traditions during fasting before Easter. In my opinion, to control dependencies should be not only a goal of any religiously based person, but even of science. But I think anyway you shouldn't put this to such extreme.

[Dante]

I don't believe that our planet is the only one with a form of life on it. Neither do I believe that we are the only sentient species. Mathematically (statistically) and logically it is impossible. It can happen once, it can happen again. Thus to place the survival of life on the shoulders of one rather pathetic species that is really nothing special seems a bit self-centred. And even if it were true, we have no responsibility to preserve life unless it is we who are damaging it. To clarify; we are responsible for life now because we are overfishing and over-logging. We would not be responsible for the mass extinction of all life when the sun finally has a mid-life crisis. Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, if I were presented with a button to instantly remove the human species from this planet I think I'd have a tough time deciding whether to press it or not. I can think of several reasons why it would be a good thing...

The way I see it with religion you have a choice of being right or being happy. Happiness will come with answers that are flawed. Truth will come with no answers, only uncertainty and doubt. I know which I'd choose.

[Big D]

What do you mean by "more"? As it stands right now, it looks like religion is the "more" that you're looking for. You should give it a chance, at the very least. Try studying and exploring the major world religions. And if you need any help on Christianity, just ask. ;)

well I do have "some" kind of believe in a god/ess/hermafrodite -___-" or a multitude of either

but is very basic. I pray before going to bed and when I'm angry I look to the sky and talk to him/her/it/them, hoping to get a reply.

but ofcourse I don't get one. btw I am the only one is my family to believe in a god. the others do not, and I have been raised to not believe in god but I do it anyways.

what do I mean by more? well . . . . I dunno :-[

[Dante]

What you want is answers, a purpose. Something to aim for, something to justify your existance. Bad news I'm afraid, none of those things exist without you inventing them for yourself. Which is what religion would do; so you're better off without it, without a god/ess, and on your own. You'll come to your own answers that way, not the tired old repeated lies of most established religions.

I did.

[Caid Ivik]

For me, a purpose is to search for questions. Answers are illusions. Where do you place a fact that one answer is right? True? Correct? Only way is to take questions and there try to find out what all are based on. What was the motive of their placing. Then you have a hard ground under you, so you can start asking more  ;D

[Edric O]

I don't believe that our planet is the only one with a form of life on it. Neither do I believe that we are the only sentient species.

So you believe in aliens? And what do you base this belief on? You certainly have no proof to support it, that's for sure.

An atheist who believes in aliens looks like a hypocrite to me...

Mathematically (statistically) and logically it is impossible.

Statistically? What kind of statistic can you compile from a population of ONE? We only know of one planet where life has developed: Earth. A single example is insufficient data for any statistical analysis. We have no clue regarding the chances of there being other planets with life on them. There could be millions, or there could be none.

In order to play it safe, we must assume the worst case scenario: That we are alone.

It can happen once, it can happen again.

Of course. On the other hand, if the odds are 1 : 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... then it probably won't happen again. And the problem is that we DON'T KNOW what the odds are.

Thus to place the survival of life on the shoulders of one rather pathetic species that is really nothing special seems a bit self-centred.

And to place the survival of life on the shoulders of creatures who might not even exist seems to be pure wishful thinking - not to mention being a convenient way to shrug off responsibility ("others will take care of it").

And even if it were true, we have no responsibility to preserve life unless it is we who are damaging it. To clarify; we are responsible for life now because we are overfishing and over-logging. We would not be responsible for the mass extinction of all life when the sun finally has a mid-life crisis.

I suppose that depends on your view on the nature of responsibility. I see that we have been given a priceless gift (Life and Sentience), and I see that we have immense power - for better or for worse.

And I believe that with great power comes great responsibility.

The way I see it with religion you have a choice of being right or being happy. Happiness will come with answers that are flawed. Truth will come with no answers, only uncertainty and doubt. I know which I'd choose.

Wrong. You don't know which side holds the truth. And there is no such thing as a sure ticket to happiness. You could be right, or you could be happy, or you could be both, or you could be neither.

[Dante]

So you believe in aliens? And what do you base this belief on? You certainly have no proof to support it, that's for sure.

An atheist who believes in aliens looks like a hypocrite to me...

Statistically? What kind of statistic can you compile from a population of ONE? We only know of one planet where life has developed: Earth. A single example is insufficient data for any statistical analysis. We have no clue regarding the chances of there being other planets with life on them. There could be millions, or there could be none.

In order to play it safe, we must assume the worst case scenario: That we are alone.

Of course. On the other hand, if the odds are 1 : 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... then it probably won't happen again. And the problem is that we DON'T KNOW what the odds are.

If something can happen once, even once, when the changes are millions of billions to one, then it can happen again. I think that 'believe' is possibly too strong a word for my opinion on aliens. I would say more 'expect.' I think believing in something that is likely to exist is a bit silly really. As Terry Pratchett said in a book of his, "it would be like believing in the postman." I expect there to be aliens on other planets simply because we are on this planet. There may only be the one example, but one example is proof that it can happen once and as I said, that means that however small the chances, it can happen again.

And to place the survival of life on the shoulders of creatures who might not even exist seems to be pure wishful thinking - not to mention being a convenient way to shrug off responsibility ("others will take care of it").

Who said I was placing the survival of life on the shoulders of anyone else? I don't think any one species or group should bare the responsbility to the preservation of all life.

I suppose that depends on your view on the nature of responsibility. I see that we have been given a priceless gift (Life and Sentience), and I see that we have immense power - for better or for worse.

And I believe that with great power comes great responsibility.

I believe that what we have is not a gift, it is a chance. It is coincidence. We can choose what to do with it, and there is no right or wrong.

Wrong. You don't know which side holds the truth. And there is no such thing as a sure ticket to happiness. You could be right, or you could be happy, or you could be both, or you could be neither.

No, there is no such thing as a ticket to happiness. But happiness, I have found, demands answers. And the truth, that there are no answers, is anathema to this. Thus truth and happiness are incompatible.

[TMA_1]

this is what I dont understand. Some people will say "there is a meaning of life and religion solves it".

than others will say "no, that isnt true there is no meaning to life".

cant you guys see that both of those are extremely objective and one sided? You cant say yes or no without opinionating, and so it isnt good philosophy just a point of view.

[Acriku]

My take on other life is that since other planets have had the same amount of time, perhaps more, to develop life as this planet did so, there's a good chance of life being somewhere else. Also, it helps to not think of life as we do, since life as we know it comes from every factor that played a role in the development of life on Earth.

TMA, it is because of our philosophies that we either believe there is a purpose in life or not. I think it's naive to think we have a purpose given to us, or inherently held. That's due to my secular and humanist approach.

[TMA_1]

I know and I respect that acriku, but see many would think that it is foolish to think there is no purpose, so how can one opinion hold over another?

[Edric O]

What you want is answers, a purpose. Something to aim for, something to justify your existance. Bad news I'm afraid, none of those things exist without you inventing them for yourself. Which is what religion would do; so you're better off without it, without a god/ess, and on your own. You'll come to your own answers that way, not the tired old repeated lies of most established religions.

Heh. Dust Scout tells you not to listen to religion, while trying to persuade you to listen to him. When the atheist says "I am right and all others are wrong", he doesn't seem to notice that he is, in fact, acting the same way a religious preacher would.

Let's refrain from "I alone posess the truth!" statements, shall we?

I did.

Hmmm, now that I think about it, you've never made the purpose of your life clear. What is it, exactly?

well I do have "some" kind of believe in a god/ess/hermafrodite -___-" or a multitude of either

but is very basic. I pray before going to bed and when I'm angry I look to the sky and talk to him/her/it/them, hoping to get a reply.

but ofcourse I don't get one. btw I am the only one is my family to believe in a god. the others do not, and I have been raised to not believe in god but I do it anyways.

what do I mean by more? well . . . . I dunno :-[

Your position is called Deism. The belief that there is a god, without any further details associated with it. And I've told you my reccomendation: Study the major world religions, and form your own opinion on them.

Oh, and God certainly has no gender. You may refer to God as Him or Her - it doesn't really matter.

[TMA_1]

hmm I think it is important to refer to God in the right way and in the right context. Like in the bible there are parts in the bible whne God is put in the female gender when it is talking about God caring for the children of israel, like one part where God refers to himself as a hen taking care of the little chicks.  Then theer are masculine parts where God is seen as a powerful fahter and enforcer. It really depends on the context in my opinion.

[Big D]

And I've told you my reccomendation: Study the major world religions, and form your own opinion on them.

I could :- but there are somethings I cannot agree with, such as not being allowed to eat pork when you are a muslim (correct me if wrong)

I will eat anything I will and there are some other minor things I don't agree with such as going to a church each sunday.

I know this will sound a little dumb but I think of (at least my) religion as a individiual thing.

another thing is that "some" people in the world are considered holy because of what they have done/achiefed (sp) I think thats b*llsh*t

a human is a human and nothing more. angels may be holy but not humans.

[Caid Ivik]

Human? Isn't that enough?  ;D  Religions aren't only strict following of laws and rituals. Those are only things which are to help you to understand their philosophies. If your priest can't explain this, I have no surprise that you don't like to visit church.

[Anathema]

I would probably never strictly follow an institutionalised religion, like going to church every sunday. It's basicly just rituals that though have a reason behind it, shouldn't be followed for the sake of strict formality. Going to church every sunday is good for keeping your relation with God and all, but that doesn't mean that skipping once or twice is inexusable. In the end, you're the one who has to answer for your actions in front of God so you act according to your own conscience.

If you're religious then the meaning of life is obvious. When you're an agnostic (like me) it gets tougher. I'm pretty much undetermined on religious issues so I don't have a solid answer for questions like this.

When you're atheist, meaning you reject the idea that gods exist or may exist, there isn't any real meaning to life, except "spreading the seed" like evolution demands. It would be best not to think much about if there's a meaning to life, because there's nothing to gain from it except vague answers.

For some atheists on Fed2k though it seems that their life goal is to make each person on Earth reject religion ;)

[Dante]

Heh. Dust Scout tells you not to listen to religion, while trying to persuade you to listen to him. When the atheist says "I am right and all others are wrong", he doesn't seem to notice that he is, in fact, acting the same way a religious preacher would.

I don't possess the answers. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't been giving any answers at all, all I've been doing is pointing out that there aren't any. I can't very well go about giving an answer when the answer is that there aren't any answers, can I? If anything I'm throwing up more questions.

Let's refrain from "I alone posess the truth!" statements, shall we?

This is PRP...

Hmmm, now that I think about it, you've never made the purpose of your life clear. What is it, exactly?

Ho ho, I try hard to avoid direct questions, it makes it harder to dodge them... My purpose? Heh, never thought anyone would ask me that... A while ago I went through a long period of soul-searching and thinking in an attempt to 'sort out' my life. I was depressed because I couldn't find anything certain, anything absolutely undoubtable. I did a lot of thinking, a lot of reasoning, and I came to a lot of different conclusions. One of which, and a rather important one, was that there is no such thing as an absolute. It's not original, but everything is relative. This led me to some more important conclusions, such as the non-existance of objective right and wrong, the non-existance of god, the non-existance of objective purpose, or meaning. And so I finally worked out that my life had no purpose. And not just that, neither did anyone else's. Everything around me was completely purposeless, devoid of meaning or lasting substance. So I looked at my options, and I saw two choices.

The first was suicide. Pff, I thought about that only in terms of curiosity. I'll die soon enough anyway, why hurry the process? Besides, I might be wrong, though I doubted it. Secondly, I could make a purpose (Making something out of nothing, sound familiar? ;) Nothing in that, I just thought it was funny). Anyway, as I see it my purpose is simply to be me. My goal is to preserve myself and keep myself happy. This also extends to those around me, those I care about. There is no justification (well, there is, but not one relevant to this), because it is a made up answer. Just like all of the others. Sorry to take so long to answer such a simple question, but I felt that if I just gave the answer without the background it would just sound egocentric. Which it is.

hmm I think it is important to refer to God in the right way and in the right context. Like in the bible there are parts in the bible whne God is put in the female gender when it is talking about God caring for the children of israel, like one part where God refers to himself as a hen taking care of the little chicks.  Then theer are masculine parts where God is seen as a powerful fahter and enforcer. It really depends on the context in my opinion.

Personally I think an enforcer would be much more effective as a woman...

Big D: 'Good' religions, and I use the term loosely are more philosophies than rulebooks. They don't tell you what to you, they encourage you to think for yourself. Bhuddism is a good example, you might want to look into that (Meh, if the guy wants religion there's nothing I can do about it. Might as well point him in an acceptable direction).

If you're religious then the meaning of life is obvious. When you're an agnostic (like me) it gets tougher. I'm pretty much undetermined on religious issues so I don't have a solid answer for questions like this.

No solid answers, that's it! Way hey!

When you're atheist, meaning you reject the idea that gods exist or may exist, there isn't any real meaning to life, except "spreading the seed" like evolution demands. It would be best not to think much about if there's a meaning to life, because there's nothing to gain from it except vague answers.

For some atheists on Fed2k though it seems that their life goal is to make each person on Earth reject religion ;)

Well I've given my goal, for what it is. I wouldn't say 'spreading the seed' is my purpose (it would be damn difficult for me ;) ). Still, rejecting religion sounds good.

[Acriku]

Even when one takes evolution into consideration, there is no purpose. Life wasn't meant to evolve, and it certainly doesn't have a goal, it just happened. The only purpose in life is what we give it.

[ken124578]

if I were presented with a button to instantly remove the human species from this planet I think I'd have a tough time deciding whether to press it or not. I can think of several reasons why it would be a good thing...

You're... scary. =S

[Wolf]

I just had the grand old God discussion with a few friends last night. One of the things that I pointed out is that human beings have imperfect knowledge of the world beyond ourselves (heck, we even have imperfect knowledge of ourselves). Doesn't this mean that, without absolute certainty of the world around us, that all things are possible? Even God? The point of view certainly seems to be valid.

The other thing we talked about is whether or not religion, or, more to the point its central tenets, such as God, is actually the model human beings have for government. The nature of organized religion, in fact, is very mnuch like that of a human government. When you do bad things, God knows it, God punishes you for it. God always watches you, God has a certain role for you. When you do bad  things, society knows it, society punishes you for it. Society always watches you, society has a certain role for you.

It was just something interesting that my friends and I were talking about. Government, society, and religion, do not only seem to be simply interrelated, but also interdependent. A sort of bizarre trinity. I am sure there are many flaws to all of this, but it is supremely interesting. Take a moment to think of all the parallels between God and government, between a religion, and society. It all seems very much like those Sartrean ideas of man and "the other." Which is ironic, since we all know how Sartre felt about God...

[Acriku]

I just had the grand old God discussion with a few friends last night. One of the things that I pointed out is that human beings have imperfect knowledge of the world beyond ourselves (heck, we even have imperfect knowledge of ourselves). Doesn't this mean that, without absolute certainty of the world around us, that all things are possible? Even God? The point of view certainly seems to be valid.

When we talk of possibilities, anything is possible that is not inherently contradictory. Thousands of gods have the possibility to exist, but it's more relevant to talk about probabilities when discussing the existence of a god. A god with very little evidence to support its existence that does not actively interact with the world (due to the fact of no evidence of it) is very improbable to exist.

The other thing we talked about is whether or not religion, or, more to the point its central tenets, such as God, is actually the model human beings have for government. The nature of organized religion, in fact, is very mnuch like that of a human government. When you do bad things, God knows it, God punishes you for it. God always watches you, God has a certain role for you. When you do bad

[Wolf]

Actually, I believe the governments require something -- anything -- to serve as an "absolute moral good" for that government to protect. Therefore, religion becomes the simplest candidate from which to adopt an absolute moral good philosophy from. There is where I can talk about interdependence.

And about probabilities... that still does not take away from the possibility of his existence. There was a low probability that the Germans would attack France through Belgium, because the terrain was unsuitable for tank divisions to pass. 'Lo and behold, the Germans bypass the Maginot line using a tank blitz from Belgium. The fact remains that there is a great deal about our universe that we do not know -- and without this knowledge, anything we say about God could be wrong -- even saying that he does not exist. Stephen Hawking once admitted that he would not be surprised if there turned out to be a God. Possibility, probability, the difference between them doesn't seem to matter. Especially considering that much of the scripture about God (are we allowed to use this as evidence?) seems to indiciate that his nature is elusive, there could be even a decent probability that he exists as well as a possibility -- granted that all the evidence or knowledge we have about God seems to point to His being a mysterious, elusive being. Regardless, since you admit the possibility exists, but that there is a low probability, you must then understand that the assertion that "there is no God" might very well be wrong, but, as you see it, it probably is not? I have to ask you why you think that, then. To hear what the other side thinks.

Besides, Edric is probably knowledgeable about this, I guess I have to wait for his backup before taking on Acriku directly...  ;D

[Acriku]

Actually, I believe the governments require something -- anything -- to serve as an "absolute moral good" for that government to protect. Therefore, religion becomes the simplest candidate from which to adopt an absolute moral good philosophy from. There is where I can talk about interdependence.

Hopefully not absolute, otherwise the democratic process is moot.

And about probabilities... that still does not take away from the possibility of his existence. There was a low probability that the Germans would attack France through Belgium, because the terrain was unsuitable for tank divisions to pass. 'Lo and behold, the Germans bypass the Maginot line using a tank blitz from Belgium. The fact remains that there is a great deal about our universe that we do not know -- and without this knowledge, anything we say about God could be wrong -- even saying that he does not exist. Stephen Hawking once admitted that he would not be surprised if there turned out to be a God. Possibility, probability, the difference between them doesn't seem to matter. Especially considering that much of the scripture about God (are we allowed to use this as evidence?) seems to indiciate that his nature is elusive, there could be even a decent probability that he exists as well as a possibility -- granted that all the evidence or knowledge we have about God seems to point to His being a mysterious, elusive being. Regardless, since you admit the possibility exists, but that there is a low probability, you must then understand that the assertion that "there is no God" might very well be wrong, but, as you see it, it probably is not? I have to ask you why you think that, then. To hear what the other side thinks.

Besides, Edric is probably knowledgeable about this, I guess I have to wait for his backup before taking on Acriku directly...

[Wolf]

Mmm. You bring up many good points. And yet, I feel, the possibility exists. And unlike faries, the philosophy of a God is somewhat different. God's nature, at least, that which we believe to be his nature, is that of fatih. God is a philosophical conundrum, of sorts. You are correct in that our "evidence" isn't really evidence at all -- which, I believe, however counterintuitive, helps the case for God. If God existed, a universal, benevolent king, of sorts, would he want his existence to be known? Were it known, would humanity have any semblance of free will to speak of? Now, let us avoid the free will debate -- we may very well not have free will, but at least we have an illusion of it. Were God to make his existence known, we would lose this perception of free will -- that which we so highly value. Therefore, considering the type of "fairy" we're speaking of, its much more interesting -- philosophically -- to consider the issue of God. In fact, the probability of his existence is as small as it could be without being nonexistent. This might further help the case for God, because might this not be how God wants it?