In the film Equilibrium, Mary O’Brien asks the main character in her cell why he exists. He answers: “I live… I live to safeguard the continuity of this great society, to protect Libria.”

In reply she states that his argument is circular, as he lives to continue his existence. He in turn asks her why she lives. She answers: “To feel. Because you can’t do it, you can never know it, but it’s as vital as breath. Without it life is nothing but a clock, ticking.”

In essence her own argument is also circular, as she lives to experience her own existence. There is no real difference if the reason to be alive is a cognitive or emotional decision. Without a higher power, human life and all that exists just doesn’t make sense.

Someone from an earlier discussion made the point that the stars, to him/her, has no significance as they are only atoms. The question why they are there is therefore pointless. I, however, look up at the stars and see possibilities, potential other worlds. They signify my own relative insignificance and therefore accentuate my place in the cosmos, as an observer and respecter of all that is. The stars therefore, although not on a personal religious level, do have personal meaning and from all the astrologists as well as all people who flip to the stars section in the newspaper each morning to check on their “future” as well as all the astronomers and cosmologists out there, I am not the only one who see meaning in the existence of stars.

The question can be asked “why does it matter if human life has a point?” The question touches on many aspects of society, including morality, justice, sociology, etc. Without a point to our existence, without an external reference frame to make up for our own insecurities and shortcomings, life is “but a clock, ticking.” All is then meaningless and all hope is taken out of the equation.

Many scientists (I being one myself) think that the only world view is that of facts from which, through the process of deductive reasoning and logic, theories of how things work can be wrought. The problem with this is on an emotional level. Love, for example. A man loves a woman, yet there is no guarantee the relationship will work. The risk is not justified in purely logical terms, yet we go from relationship to relationship in spite of being hurt each time and making a commitment with yourself that it will not happen again. This transcends the mere need to proliferate genetic material.

The nature of information is another problem. We know it exists, because of the organised way the universe operates. Planets orbit stars, cells in the body go about their daily functions keeping us alive, yet know one knows where this information comes from. It is conceivable that a singular mathematical point with infinite density can exist and explode. What is perhaps less conceivable is that the singularity also contains all the information upon which the future universe and life is based upon. In essence, the singularity also contained a blueprint of everything which was to come into being. With life in mind, what foresight from an unintelligent, dimensionless mathematical point of infinite density.

I would therefore argue that evidence for a higher power does indeed exist, but that this evidence is ignored due to personal prejudice and willful denial.

and why do you need more, it's because you prefer to be spoonfed, rather than think for yourself as it's much harder, life is hard, get used to it.
arguing for the evidence, is shy of producing it.
and how can you deny or be prejudice to that which does not exist, get serious.

Lighteagle,

Without a higher power, human life and all that exists just doesn’t make sense.Why does human life and all that exist have to make sense?

And if there were a higher power why would that make sense of human life and everything? E.g. if you had an enternal soul, go to a heaven after death, and then, what?

The existence of a higher power doesn't appear to solve any problem except perhaps postpone the question a little longer.

Why does human life and all that exist have to make sense?
Because the universe is not nonsensical.

The risk is not justified in purely logical terms, yet we go from relationship to relationship in spite of being hurt each time and making a commitment with yourself that it will not happen again. This transcends the mere need to proliferate genetic material.

Your argument doesn't work. It would be more logical to say that the very reason we do it again and again, despite having been hurt many times, is because of our need to "proliferate genetic material". Without such need we'd just give up after the first let down.

If you "need" to, you would crawl across barbed wire. Let's imagine for the sake of discussion that across 50 feet of barbed wire was freedom. If you did it you'd forever be free or the tyranny and abuse you're suffering. The first crawl hurts, the second crawl also hurts. By now, the illogic of your supposed logic would assume that one must give up if it merely comes down to "need". I say that your 'logic' is royally flawed.

Many people use the word logic, but few ever use logic itself.

Without a higher power, human life and all that exists just doesn’t make sense

It's already been mentioned by Cris, but it was such a misnomer that it's worth mentioning twice. What difference to the 'sense' of life does a higher power make - whether it's a god, fairy or invisible flying banana? What does that solve exactly other than absolutely nothing? Do tell, I'm fascinated.

Bah, how about we just say that everything exists so that we can muse about it in settings such as these? That's good enough for me. Cris and SnakeLord are right; the idea of God doesn't give meaning to life, it only provokes more questions.

Of course, I don't go around asking why is that? whenever I see a tree. I usually go around asking what is that?. It's an equally unanswerable question, but I tend to find it more fulfilling to ask than the former.

P.S.- Equilibrium is a kick ass movie

and why do you need more, it's because you prefer to be spoonfed, rather than think for yourself as it's much harder, life is hard, get used to it.
arguing for the evidence, is shy of producing it.
and how can you deny or be prejudice to that which does not exist, get serious.

This is response is typical of the survey and findings carried out by James R here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8&pp=20


here is an excerpt you might want to take on board when you make further comments

I think the results show that this is not true. In general, theists do think about the big questions and come to logical conclusions based on their own thinking, rather than on authority handed down to them. I would encourage atheists on this forum to take note.

Turning to the atheists themselves, we find another somewhat surprising result - that atheists are perhaps not as supremely rational as they would have us believe. It seems that many of the atheists responses on this forum, at least, are emotional rather than rational. They are not based purely on available evidence, but rather on a reaction against the idea of God. There may be many reasons for this. People can react against a religious upbringing, or point to the perceived ills that religion causes in the world.

More worrying from the atheists is the number of people who dismiss the possibility of God on emotional grounds, without really considering why they are doing so. They label the religious as less intelligent, or authority driven, or simply mad, with no good justification. This seems to be largely a knee-jerk response against people who take an opposing view. Perhaps these people should consider the real reasons why they so despise the religious.

Cris

Lighteagle,

Why does human life and all that exist have to make sense?
Not sure what you are advocating - I mean even science operates on the principle of order - I think it was Sarte who suggested the only meaningful question in life is whether one should kill oneself or not -lol

And if there were a higher power why would that make sense of human life and everything? E.g. if you had an enternal soul, go to a heaven after death, and then, what?
Not all descriptions in scriptures are normative - however whatever value can be had in discussing theisism with an atheist can be found in the normative descriptions - in other words it is an advanced topic of discussion amongst theists

This is response is typical of the survey and findings carried out by James R here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8&pp=20


here is an excerpt you might want to take on board when you make further comments

I think the results show that this is not true. In general, theists do think about the big questions and come to logical conclusions based on their own thinking, rather than on authority handed down to them. I would encourage atheists on this forum to take note.

Turning to the atheists themselves, we find another somewhat surprising result - that atheists are perhaps not as supremely rational as they would have us believe. It seems that many of the atheists responses on this forum, at least, are emotional rather than rational. They are not based purely on available evidence, but rather on a reaction against the idea of God. There may be many reasons for this. People can react against a religious upbringing, or point to the perceived ills that religion causes in the world.

More worrying from the atheists is the number of people who dismiss the possibility of God on emotional grounds, without really considering why they are doing so. They label the religious as less intelligent, or authority driven, or simply mad, with no good justification. This seems to be largely a knee-jerk response against people who take an opposing view. Perhaps these people should consider the real reasons why they so despise the religious.

Amen. I've definitely noticed this, as well. I wouldn't want to derail the discussion, however. Dude, it's not cool to try and change the subject.

Amen. I've definitely noticed this, as well. I wouldn't want to derail the discussion, however. Dude, it's not cool to try and change the subject.

I thought it was suitable since Light eagle was coming in with a logical viewpoint from his own subjective thoughts and then Shaitan came in and tried to dress it all up in authority and emmotion

I thought it was suitable since Light eagle was coming in with a logical viewpoint from his own subjective thoughts and then Shaitan came in and tried to dress it all up in authority and emmotion

Normally I would just ignore the more emotional responses.

This is response is typical of the survey and findings carried out by James R here

An atheist could go up to the thread starter and say that many theists only believe because of Pascal's wager etc etc and that's why he claims there's only sense in believing in higher powers but I personally fail to see it's value or relevance.

What are you trying to point out exactly, that humans have emotions and sometimes use those emotions in debates? Come now LG, that's hardly news.

Sure, Shaitan might be considered as having as many emotions as any other human, but as far as the debate goes Lighteagles post was flawed and Shaitan, (and others), pointed that out.

If you really want an end to emotion, go argue with Borgs.

Normally I would just ignore the more emotional responses.
explains why you only have 406 posts I guess
:D

Light,

Not sure what you are advocating - I mean even science operates on the principle of order - I think it was Sarte who suggested the only meaningful question in life is whether one should kill oneself or not -lolYou've probably missed the underlying implication here, e.g. sense = purpose or meaning.


Not all descriptions in scriptures are normative - however whatever value can be had in discussing theisism with an atheist can be found in the normative descriptions - in other words it is an advanced topic of discussion amongst theists And that statement simply exposes you as arrogant and condescending.

It seems that many of the atheists responses on this forum, at least, are emotional rather than rational. They are not based purely on available evidence, but rather on a reaction against the idea of God. [/I]

Atheists base their opinion of God on available evidence (rather lack thereof)

There is no evidence --> there is no god

Atheists base their opinion of God on available evidence (rather lack thereof)

There is no evidence --> there is no god

Your denial of god is based on our current level of knowledge. If an yet-to-be-discovered scientific phenomenon happens and is dubbed as miracle of god as there is no scientific explanation at that time, would you accept it as 'evidence' for god?

Atheism gained momentum after science ruled out the necessity of god rather than lack of evidence for god.

ever,

If an yet-to-be-discovered scientific phenomenon happens and is dubbed as miracle of god as there is no scientific explanation at that time, would you accept it as 'evidence' for god?Why would anyone say anything is due to a god without evidence of a god? Absence of a scientific explanation isn't evidence of a god.

Your denial of god is based on our current level of knowledge. If an yet-to-be-discovered scientific phenomenon happens and is dubbed as miracle of god as there is no scientific explanation at that time, would you accept it as 'evidence' for god?

Atheism gained momentum after science ruled out the necessity of god rather than lack of evidence for god.

Of course if there was evidence of a God then more if not all people would believe in this God. The same could be said of Unicorns, orbiting teapots, flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Cris,


Why would anyone say anything is due to a god without evidence of a god?
Absence of a scientific explanation isn't evidence of a god.

It seems we are trapped in circular definitions. What disqualifies such a 'miracle' itself as an evidence of a god, in the absence of a scientific explanation to counter with?

What disqualifies such a 'miracle' itself as an evidence of a god, in the absence of a scientific explanation to counter with?all science is tested and retested, you cannot test without something to tested.
thats probably why theres no scientific explanation, theres nothing to explain, it's that simple.

What disqualifies such a 'miracle' itself as an evidence of a god, in the absence of a scientific explanation to counter with?

I think it might be worth asking what specific 'miracle' it is that you have in mind that does not have a counter explanation by science.

Without a point to our existence, without an external reference frame to make up for our own insecurities and shortcomings, life is “but a clock, ticking.” All is then meaningless and all hope is taken out of the equation.
au contraire my silly theist.
the knowledge that this life ENDS and is ALL you have makes it,gives it all the meaning,importance ,value.
the belief in afterlife REDUCES value of human lifes as you can see from all those suicide bombers willing to kill themselves and others in hope they will imediately go to paradise!! ;)

Many scientists (I being one myself) think that the only world view is that of facts from which, through the process of deductive reasoning and logic, theories of how things work can be wrought. The problem with this is on an emotional level. Love, for example. A man loves a woman, yet there is no guarantee the relationship will work.
theres no guarantee that you will wake up tomorow either does it make you feel afraid to go to sleep?
no, we do what we need to do to survive and to enjoy life,and sex is number one for most people.

The risk is not justified in purely logical terms, yet we go from relationship to relationship in spite of being hurt each time and making a commitment with yourself that it will not happen again.
speak for yourself bucko,If I cant find a COMPATIBLE mate I rather live alone

I would therefore argue that evidence for a higher power does indeed exist, but that this evidence is ignored due to personal prejudice and willful denial.
your argument fails,unless you wnat to tell us HOW does some higher power makes your life more meaningfull,imo it does not.
what is this higher power?what does it do?
who made it?

Cris

Light,

You've probably missed the underlying implication here, e.g. sense = purpose or meaning.
And doesn't the absence of meaning -as so thoroughly explored by the existentialist writers like sartre, appear absurd?

And that statement simply exposes you as arrogant and condescending.
How do you propose that a person understands the nature of the activities after liberation if they don't understand the means of liberation?

Light,

And doesn't the absence of meaning -as so thoroughly explored by the existentialist writers like sartre, appear absurd?Why? To play a game has no meaning, it is simply enjoyed for the pleasure. I see no imperative that anything about life or the universe must have a meaning, apart from we what we choose for ourselves.

How do you propose that a person understands the nature of the activities after liberation if they don't understand the means of liberation? I do not understand the question.

Cris


“ And doesn't the absence of meaning -as so thoroughly explored by the existentialist writers like sartre, appear absurd? ”

Why? To play a game has no meaning, it is simply enjoyed for the pleasure. I see no imperative that anything about life or the universe must have a meaning, apart from we what we choose for ourselves.
Then you are changing your stance that life has no meaning since you attribute pleasure to being the meaning of life (which BTW is a vedic aphorism - anando mayo 'bhyasat - the living entity is pleasure seeking by constitutional position


“ How do you propose that a person understands the nature of the activities after liberation if they don't understand the means of liberation? ”

I do not understand the question.

If B is an advanced proposal of A, How do you propose that a person understands B if they are unfamiliar with A?

Then you are changing your stance that life has no meaning since you attribute pleasure to being the meaning of life (which BTW is a vedic aphorism - anando mayo 'bhyasat - the living entity is pleasure seeking by constitutional position
Could you expound on this? What makes the meaning of playing a game the same as the meaning of life?

Could you expound on this? What makes the meaning of playing a game the same as the meaning of life?
If you didn't think the game had meaning why would you utilize your life in playing it?

... Without a higher power, human life and all that exists just doesn’t make sense.

That's a psychological need for authority and has little or nothing to do with a human's ability to comprehend reality.

...I am not the only one who see meaning in the existence of stars.

Meaning is literally the relationships between varaibles. Stars have many relationships to information in reality and they exist whether humans can recognize them or not.

...Without a point to our existence, without an external reference frame to make up for our own insecurities and shortcomings, life is “but a clock, ticking.” All is then meaningless and all hope is taken out of the equation.

You just stated that without a perfect sentient authority, relationships and the human experience of hope don't exist. That makes no sense whatsoever. Let me clear some things up for you:

WHAT ARE YOU?:
* You are literally a cross section of reality that is sentient.

WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?:
* To persist whatever adaptations that have led to an instance of 'you'.
- AND -
* Whatever else you choose.

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?:
* It is the relationship of life to everything that it can possibly have a relationship to.


Many scientists (I being one myself) think that the only world view is that of facts from which, through the process of deductive reasoning and logic, theories of how things work can be wrought. The problem with this is on an emotional level. Love, for example. A man loves a woman, yet there is no guarantee the relationship will work. The risk is not justified in purely logical terms, yet we go from relationship to relationship in spite of being hurt each time and making a commitment with yourself that it will not happen again. This transcends the mere need to proliferate genetic material.

Being driven to partake in relationship after relationship (regardless of the subjective experience) increases the chances that a desireable relationship will eventually be found. It has everything to do with built-in programming to persist.



...yet know one knows where this information comes from.

Quite true... and nobody knows if that question even applies. For all we know the information has always existed. Don't get caught up in the emotional authority trap of "I don't know / understand; therefore, 'God' did it".


It is conceivable that a singular mathematical point with infinite density can exist and explode. What is perhaps less conceivable is that the singularity also contains all the information upon which the future universe and life is based upon. In essence, the singularity also contained a blueprint of everything which was to come into being. With life in mind, what foresight from an unintelligent, dimensionless mathematical point of infinite density.


That sounds like a very old 'Big Bang' theory being laid out. There are much better inflationary, string-derived, and steady-state theories at present. It is also faulty thinking to assume that the present state of life on Earth is a result of 'foresight' or 'intention'. That's an anthropomorphization trap... put eyes, a nose, and a mouth on anything (universe included) and suddently it magically becomes a sentient life-form with consciousness, expression, intent, and behaviors humans can emotionally relate to.


I would therefore argue that evidence for a higher power does indeed exist, but that this evidence is ignored due to personal prejudice and willful denial.

I would argue that the evidence you provided is evidence of various human psychological needs rather than a sentient life form that designed, developed, and deployed reality.

LightG,

Then you are changing your stance that life has no meaning since you attribute pleasure to being the meaning of life (which BTW is a vedic aphorism - anando mayo 'bhyasat - the living entity is pleasure seeking by constitutional positionNo, I'm not saying that, people can assign their own meanings to their lives. My point indicates the absence of an external absolute meaning imposed on us - i.e. there doesn't need to be one. And that we can engage in meaningless activities if we so desire. Perhaps you are confusing "meaning" with "purpose".

Lightg,

If B is an advanced proposal of A, How do you propose that a person understands B if they are unfamiliar with A?That really doesn’t help.

My question was “if you had an eternal soul, go to a heaven after death, and then, what?”

Your answer was – “it is an advanced topic of discussion amongst theists”.

Which sounds an awful lot like I’ve posed you a question for which you can give no meaningful answer. Which was my point. Adding a god concept into the mix doesn’t solve the question of “what is the meaning of life”.

And please have the intelligence to note that many atheists were theists and rejected theism for the very reason that theism does not offer anything, and not that they are incapable of understanding the issues. It seems more likely that theists remain theists on this question because they are incapable of seeing their way out of the idiotic maze they have created for themselves, not that the issue is so advanced that no one else can comprehend it.

My question was “if you had an eternal soul, go to a heaven after death, and then, what?”

Your answer was – “it is an advanced topic of discussion amongst theists”.

Which sounds an awful lot like I’ve posed you a question for which you can give no meaningful answer. Which was my point. Adding a god concept into the mix doesn’t solve the question of “what is the meaning of life”.

And please have the intelligence to note that many atheists were theists and rejected theism for the very reason that theism does not offer anything, and not that they are incapable of understanding the issues. It seems more likely that theists remain theists on this question because they are incapable of seeing their way out of the idiotic maze they have created for themselves, not that the issue is so advanced that no one else can comprehend it.

This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I think that religion actually does give a great deal of meaning to life. However, I'm not talking about the specific religious ideas. Those are relatively meaningless. If there really was a God, it would offer no more meaning to your existence, only more complication.

Let me explain. It is my contention that myths, stories, history, etc... all of these things provide context for an individuals life (I've said this before, but bare with me please). I don't believe that these specific ideas are true, as I am a firm atheist, but I do recognize that religion is neither stupid nor arbitrary. It allows an individual to see himself or herself as a small part of something larger and more important than themselves. Importance, of course, is subjective so it depends on the individual. You, Cris, probably find more meaning in the achievements of modernity than from a mythology of some kind, but I would contend that the feeling of awe and wonder that you have at human achievement is the same feeling that a religious practitioner has when connecting himself or herself to a given myth through ritual behavior. It's the experience that makes one religious, not the beliefs, and that is what gives meaning to one's life. Yes, self-determined meaning is the same, only the source of the meaning comes from an internal rather than external source.

Perhaps I could expound on this in more detail once I get a response.

Jaster,

This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I think that religion actually does give a great deal of meaning to life.I agree but with a slight modification. For those who choose to follow a religion (and let’s agree that at the heart of most religions there is a peaceful and moral tendency that many find attractive) their meaning for living is encompassed by the tenets of that philosophy. I have no objection to that, but it is their personal choice. My objection would be to the implication that religion gives meaning to LIFE as in ALL life, and that I believe is untrue.

If there really was a God, it would offer no more meaning to your existence, only more complication.here I think we agree.

Let me explain. It is my contention that myths, stories, history, etc... all of these things provide context for an individuals life (I've said this before, but bare with me please). I don't believe that these specific ideas are true, as I am a firm atheist, but I do recognize that religion is neither stupid nor arbitrary. It allows an individual to see himself or herself as a small part of something larger and more important than themselves. Importance, of course, is subjective so it depends on the individual.Agreed.

You, Cris, probably find more meaning in the achievements of modernity than from a mythology of some kind, but I would contend that the feeling of awe and wonder that you have at human achievement is the same feeling that a religious practitioner has when connecting himself or herself to a given myth through ritual behavior. I believe I can also relate to that to a large degree.

It's the experience that makes one religious, not the beliefs, and that is what gives meaning to one's life.I don’t believe I would describe my sense of meaning for my life as religious though. I would maintain that a religious direction does necessarily include an implication for a significant irrational element.

Yes, self-determined meaning is the same, only the source of the meaning comes from an internal rather than external source.I read this statement many times and finally realized – I’m not sure what you mean. I think for those who follow a religion they adopt a meaning for their lives that is determined by their chosen religion. We could also argue that a secular humanism stance also offers a non-religious meaning for some.

But for me, and to be honest I’m struggling here, I have not really set any meaning to my life, and I guess it doesn’t seem to matter to me. In pretty much everything I do I see experiences; both the good and bad things that occur are simply events to be experienced. I often feel myself as an external observer as events unfold around me, many of which I instigate just to see what will happen. Placing myself in awkward, sometimes embarrassing or dangerous situations just to see how I will react, much like a self test is typical of my life. But being able to objectively experience my emotions is quite fascinating. And now I am rambling and I think off point.

I agree but with a slight modification. For those who choose to follow a religion (and let’s agree that at the heart of most religions there is a peaceful and moral tendency that many find attractive) their meaning for living is encompassed by the tenets of that philosophy. I have no objection to that, but it is their personal choice. My objection would be to the implication that religion gives meaning to LIFE as in ALL life, and that I believe is untrue.
Well, I would agree with you then. I was under the impression that it gave no meaning to the life of an individual, not to life in general.

I don’t believe I would describe my sense of meaning for my life as religious though. I would maintain that a religious direction does necessarily include an implication for a significant irrational element.
Well, all people have irrational qualities. I'm sure you're no automaton, that you experience intense emotional states at times. Conversely, the vast majority of religious people are not savages blinded by their emotional needs and the unpredictability associated with them. Irrationality is needed for one to be religious, but all people are somewhat irrational in certain areas of their lives. It's impossible to act in a robotic fashion, making perfectly rational decisions based on nothing but strictly available data. If you're telling me that this is truly the way you conduct your life, and even think, then I'd say you're a rare specimen and not even human at that.

Besides, I've seen you react emotionally on this message board, and in this very subforum. It's not a discredit to your character, as some ultra-rationalists (which is a very irrational stance anyway) would contend, but merely a statement of your humanity. It's normal to be irrational at times. What separates the sane from the insane is how much that irrationality dominates your actions. Most religious people go about their daily lives in a very rational, reality-minded manner, as I'm sure you would agree.

I read this statement many times and finally realized – I’m not sure what you mean. I think for those who follow a religion they adopt a meaning for their lives that is determined by their chosen religion. We could also argue that a secular humanism stance also offers a non-religious meaning for some.
That's essentially what I meant. Meaning is meaning, whether it comes from religious tradition or self-realization.

But for me, and to be honest I’m struggling here, I have not really set any meaning to my life, and I guess it doesn’t seem to matter to me. In pretty much everything I do I see experiences; both the good and bad things that occur are simply events to be experienced. I often feel myself as an external observer as events unfold around me, many of which I instigate just to see what will happen. Placing myself in awkward, sometimes embarrassing or dangerous situations just to see how I will react, much like a self test is typical of my life. But being able to objectively experience my emotions is quite fascinating. And now I am rambling and I think off point.
I think I understand what you mean by this, but you cannot objectively experience anything. Experience precludes objectivity. You can hold a sense of detachment from your experiences, but it's not the same as objectivity. No matter what happens, you are always you, and because you are you all of your experiences will be filtered through your particular perspective. This is the reason why, in science, we do not accept the word of authority.

Without a point to our existence, without an external reference frame to make up for our own insecurities and shortcomings, life is “but a clock, ticking.” All is then meaningless and all hope is taken out of the equation.

The point is to be born, live long enough to pass our genes along and die. My cat, snoozing here by my side, doesn't think about why he exists (although since he's neutered his "point" is gone literally and figuratively!)

I believe we create our own meaning here and now, then we die. So yes, life is meaningless, except as in we create meaning for ourselves. Look around, it is a grinding relentless search for survival in a cold and seemingly infinite universe.

(*Cue* The Galaxy Song, from Monty Python's Meaning of Life).

Yeah, so what? I'm just glad that I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place and of parents that allowed me the lucky opportunity to live a life that is relatively easy, fun, full of good food, health, warm cloths, fairly safe from war (sort of), crime, where I have access to education, medical care, libraries, food, transportation, travel and jobs. Everyone should be this lucky and it is those poor slobs who don't have access to these things who should really be shouting about the meaningless of life! I think of life as a precious commodity that will soon be snatched away from me. It's scary to think about my eventual extinction but that's just the disadvantage of being born with a great big brain. My Mom always said "God is Chemistry" and I say "God is random chance" so combine the two and you have a good definition of God.

Like others on this thread, I'm interested in how religion exactly gives one's existence meaning? I mean, on Earth here and now, it certainly doesn't because the faithful still have to muddle through the daily grind of living. Are you saying that since theists "feel" that they are here for a higher purpose (which never manifests itself during life itself, at least no more for them than for anyone else), that the "feeling" itself gives their lives "meaning" even though, when they die, they will just rot away in the ground like everyone else? I.e., they think life has meaning, therefore it does?

Or, are you saying, that there is indeed a meaning to life that is being provided by a supernatural being that is somehow breathing a purpose into all of this Earthly struggle and pain? This purpose being what? Physical existence is difficult and seems meaningless, but it's not really meaningless because there is a God that is making it meaningful? I.e., the very existence of a supernatural being creates meaning although the meaning is not manifest while we are living and breathing on Earth?

JM,

I'm sure you're no automaton, that you experience intense emotional states at times.I think you are confusing the state of experiencing an emotion with being emotional. It is not irrational to be happy, sad, angry, etc. these are all part of the human condition. But experience has taught me not to let my emotions control my decisions. Remaining detached and objective in the face of an emotionally draining situation can be difficult and challenging but is possible. For many of course it is too difficult, or they don’t try, or do not recognize the scenario, and that is where emotionalism takes over. I would argue that all religionists are in this state where they have allowed warm fuzzy loving feelings to control their actions.

Conversely, the vast majority of religious people are not savages blinded by their emotional needs and the unpredictability associated with them.Unfortunately you have exaggerated and misrepresented the emotional state here; savages, blinded!!! Remove those buzz words and then you do indeed have an accurate perception of the average religionist – ruled by their emotions on the issue of their beliefs.

.. all people are somewhat irrational in certain areas of their lives. It's impossible to act in a robotic fashion, making perfectly rational decisions based on nothing but strictly available data.One doesn’t need to act in a robotic fashion to always attempt to make decisions based on rationality. I would agree that not all decisions will be precise as we live in an imperfect world with a great deal of subjectively in much of what we do, but in all important issues one can always attempt to be rational while realizing the imperfect nature of real life. Remember that if adequate information is unavailable one is usually not forced to make a decision; one can usually abstain, as is the atheist case when considering theistic ideas.

If you're telling me that this is truly the way you conduct your life, and even think, then I'd say you're a rare specimen and not even human at that.Within the framework I’ve outlined, yes, I always attempt to run my life in a rational manner.

Besides, I've seen you react emotionally on this message board, and in this very subforum. It's not a discredit to your character, as some ultra-rationalists (which is a very irrational stance anyway) would contend, but merely a statement of your humanity. It's normal to be irrational at times.I think you may have mistaken feigned emotions on my part to illustrate a point. But I reiterate – it is not irrational to experience or express emotions.

.. but you cannot objectively experience anything.Sure you can. I don’t see any problem here. Are you claiming that you cannot recognize when you are experiencing an emotion? That recognition is the basis for objective observation. You only have a point for people who do not or cannot recognize their own emotional states.

Experience precludes objectivity.I don’t see that. I think that statement is nonsense.

You can hold a sense of detachment from your experiences, but it's not the same as objectivity.Why not? Of course it is. If you have the sense to be detached then it follows you can apply objectivity.

No matter what happens, you are always you, and because you are you all of your experiences will be filtered through your particular perspective.But that doesn’t prevent me from exercising logical reasoning and appropriate objective observation while experiencing an emotional state.

LightG,

No, I'm not saying that, people can assign their own meanings to their lives. My point indicates the absence of an external absolute meaning imposed on us - i.e. there doesn't need to be one. And that we can engage in meaningless activities if we so desire. Perhaps you are confusing "meaning" with "purpose".

... and you will find that despite the variety of "meanings" that people assign their lives they are all done in the pursuit of pleasure, which leads to the next q of discussion, namely which things are more pleasurable than others etc

I think you are confusing the state of experiencing an emotion with being emotional. It is not irrational to be happy, sad, angry, etc. these are all part of the human condition. But experience has taught me not to let my emotions control my decisions. Remaining detached and objective in the face of an emotionally draining situation can be difficult and challenging but is possible. For many of course it is too difficult, or they don’t try, or do not recognize the scenario, and that is where emotionalism takes over. I would argue that all religionists are in this state where they have allowed warm fuzzy loving feelings to control their actions.
And I would say you'd be wrong. The state of experiencing an emotion is being emotional, by definition. If you mean it's not the same as flying off the handle, going crazy, insane, etc... then I'd agree, but that's not what I said. Not letting your emotions control your decisions is a wonderful skill to have, but I think you have kind of a warped view of religious people in this respect. I know and interact with many on a daily basis and not one of them acts on emotion any more than anyone else I've ever known. They aren't clouded by unreasonability. They make perfectly rational, sane, reasonable decisions based on information they have on hand all the time. And yes, most of them act in the same manner when discussing their religious beliefs, even when I vehemently disagree with their position. To tell you the truth, more often than not it's been myself who has let my emotions get the better of me when defending what I thought was the more reasonable, secular position to them.

Unfortunately you have exaggerated and misrepresented the emotional state here; savages, blinded!!! Remove those buzz words and then you do indeed have an accurate perception of the average religionist – ruled by their emotions on the issue of their beliefs.
This isn't a quality shared only among the religious. Almost everyone is ruled by their emotions on the issue of their beliefs, including atheists. Except for your fringe fanatics, most religious people are quite detached from their beliefs most of the time, except of course during religious ceremonies and discussions of religion.

One doesn’t need to act in a robotic fashion to always attempt to make decisions based on rationality.
I agree with you. I'm saying that religious beliefs do not prevent a person from making decision based on rationality.

Within the framework I’ve outlined, yes, I always attempt to run my life in a rational manner.
Of course you have. I have also. The point I am trying to make is that you can never separate yourself from your emotional, irrational nature. It's a part of you, not some cancer that can be cut away. The things that you are irrational about help to define who you are, and saying that you can isolate your irrational nature and make decisions that are never based on that nature is a silly, and even dangerous, belief to hold of yourself.

I think you may have mistaken feigned emotions on my part to illustrate a point. But I reiterate – it is not irrational to experience or express emotions.
I think you're misusing the word "irrational". Irrationality has nothing to do with something being arbitrary, or without any reason to act in such a manner. Irrationality has to do with emotion. When you are experiencing an emotion, you are irrational.

Sure you can. I don’t see any problem here. Are you claiming that you cannot recognize when you are experiencing an emotion? That recognition is the basis for objective observation. You only have a point for people who do not or cannot recognize their own emotional states.
Of course you can recognize that you are experiencing an emotion, but recognizing that you are experiencing an emotion does not stop you from experiencing the emotion. It doesn't mean that you are taking an objective stance to yourself, it means you are self-aware. It's perfectly normal to know how you're feeling about something.

I don’t see that. I think that statement is nonsense.
I don't think you understand what the word "objective" means. Experience itself is unique to yourself. That makes it subjective. No one else can experience what it's like to experience as you do. That means that everything you experience you experience differently from everyone else. That makes it subjective, whether or not you are able to logically analyze the experience. Logic and Reason have nothing to do with objectivity. You can logically analyze your own experiences quite easily, because they are your experiences. The point is, the same experience in another person, using the same logic, can yield completely different interpretations. This has nothing to do with the logic, it has to do with the nature of experience. It's different for everyone, and so it's not objective. It can't be objective.

Why not? Of course it is. If you have the sense to be detached then it follows you can apply objectivity.
Objectivity is not something that you "apply". Objectivity implies something that precludes your personal perspective, and you can never remove that. You are always you. Your experiences, as long as they are your experiences, are subjective because no one else will experience them the way you do.

But that doesn’t prevent me from exercising logical reasoning and appropriate objective observation while experiencing an emotional state.
No, it doesn't prevent you from exercising logical reasoning while experiencing an emotional state, but it does preclude objectivity because your experiences are yours alone. No one else can know them the way you do, because they are yours. Objectivity is about truths which are universal and not subject to the differences between the experience of one person and another.

Cris

Lightg,

That really doesn’t help.

My question was “if you had an eternal soul, go to a heaven after death, and then, what?”
well to start with existence is socialised around eternity ......

Your answer was – “it is an advanced topic of discussion amongst theists”.

....... which is why I said it was an advanced topic

Which sounds an awful lot like I’ve posed you a question for which you can give no meaningful answer. Which was my point. Adding a god concept into the mix doesn’t solve the question of “what is the meaning of life”.

to give a meaningful answer requires an element of understanding of the eternal nature of god and the eternal nature of the living entity - and it can be discussed, like for instance there is vedic information of 5 types of liberation - which leads to a discussion of which one is superior - but of course only amongst theists who are capable of accepting scripture - surely you can see why such discussion is totally useless amongst persons who do not accept scripture

Lightg,

well to start with existence is socialised around eternity ...... Pompous gibberish.

.. but of course only amongst theists who are capable of accepting scripture - surely you can see why such discussion is totally useless amongst persons who do not accept scriptureNo Light that is total nonsense. It is not necessary to accept that something is true before understanding the concepts.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

In science you can gather all the data first and then form your hypothesis.

Religion is different, it's a relationship! You have to commit to get the evidence. Faith is trusting in a relationship with the deepest part of yourself, it's not an explanation of the world. The same is true in all relationships - if you don't initially trust, they don't work!

I don't know why people are so stuck on this 'lack of evidence'!? Any fool knows that you can't prove/disprove God! :confused:

I don't know why people are so stuck on this 'lack of evidence'!? Any fool knows that you can't prove/disprove God

Rock on dude! I say exactly the same thing when it comes down to my belief in Lenny the leprechaun. I go around telling them it is true and they should join me as a believer - and they, foolish halfwits that they are, mess around with "lack of evidence" nonsense. What bloody idiots they all are. You need to trust first!

*end sarcasm*

Rock on dude! I say exactly the same thing when it comes down to my belief in Lenny the leprechaun. I go around telling them it is true and they should join me as a believer - and they, foolish halfwits that they are, mess around with "lack of evidence" nonsense. What bloody idiots they all are. You need to trust first!

*end sarcasm*
Beautiful sarcasm, SnakeLord. Unfortunately, Diogenes' Dog is quite correct.

Cris
Lightg,


“ well to start with existence is socialised around eternity ...... ”

Pompous gibberish.
The fact that eternal existence can be entertained without accepting it indicates something


“ .. but of course only amongst theists who are capable of accepting scripture - surely you can see why such discussion is totally useless amongst persons who do not accept scripture ”

No Light that is total nonsense. It is not necessary to accept that something is true before understanding the concepts.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

The problem, illustrated by diogenes, is that you insist on understanding god according to ways that god doesn't advocate that he can be understood - if you cannot even get direct experience of the president of the USA without being submissive to his desires how do you expect to understand god (particularly if you are adverse to the intellectual basis for developing even a theoretical understanding of his existence) - hence the only theistic topic for an atheist is the normative descriptions of religion - in other words how to develop the correct behaviour to understand god - which innvolves topics of sin and piety - lol - a delightful topic amongst atheists no doubt