What is the meaning of life on Earth?

JC 2K3

adam_ccfc wrote:

No, I believe that it is a purpose. We are survival machine built by our genes for the express purpose of passing the genes on.

And what is the purpose of survival?

Passing on genetic information is just an arbitrary function of mankind.

kelly1

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm no philosopher but the concept of multiple gods seems illogical to me. They would all have to be uncreated because a created god would be lesser than an uncreated god. Surely there would be a power struggle
among uncreated gods? I don't know.

MooseJam

adam_ccfc wrote:

No, I believe that it is a purpose. We are survival machine built by our genes for the express purpose of passing the genes on.

what about back in the beginning, when there was only self replicating molecules, was it the "purpose" of the molecules to replicate or was it just something they did

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote:

Hello all,

I'm just curious, according to atheists and agnostics, what is the purpose and meaning of our lives on Earth?

Consider that a generation after you die you will mostly be forgotten.

Why live life? What gives life a purpose?

Kind regards,
Noel.

Personally i find the pleasures in life very desirable and so i seek them out and they give me a reason to live. Other than that there is no purpose to life, the whole universe will probably implode at some point in the next X billion years so its all a ****ing waste anyway.

kelly1

daithifleming wrote:

Personally i find the pleasures in life very desirable and so i seek them out and they give me a reason to live. Other than that there is no purpose to life, the whole universe will probably implode at some point in the next X billion years so its all a ****ing waste anyway.

Does pleasure satisfy us ultimately? Doesn't it cause pain e.g. hangover. Pleasure only scratches the itch but the itch comes back stronger than before. So I reckon there's more to life than seeking pleasure...

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote:

Does pleasure satisfy us ultimately? Doesn't it cause pain e.g. hangover. Pleasure only scratches the itch but the itch comes back stronger than before. So I reckon there's more to life than seeking pleasure...

Pleasure can be the love felt from your family, it doesnt have to be sex, drugs and rock&roll.

Dave!

kelly1 wrote:

Does pleasure satisfy us ultimately? Doesn't it cause pain e.g. hangover. Pleasure only scratches the itch but the itch comes back stronger than before. So I reckon there's more to life than seeking pleasure...

I reckon there's more to pleasure than getting drunk... Maybe your itch comes back stronger, but when I experience pleasure through love for example, the "itch" (if you want to call it that) goes away. The more you progress in a relationship -- getting married should you choose to, having kids, creating a home environment -- the more the itch goes away.

adam_ccfc

JC 2K3 wrote:

And what is the purpose of survival?

Passing on genetic information is just an arbitrary function of mankind.

JC, I think, fundamentally, we're speaking in different terms.

Now if we are discussing this at the level of the gene as opposed to the organism, I don't know that there is a 'purpose' to continued replication. Genes replicate because they do, and that's that! No doubt that's not going to satisfy you, but it's all I have to offer. I don't think we need attach any sort of reason or motive to their doing so. They are blind replicators.

When I say that our own purpose is to pass on genetic information, I mean the purpose of the individual organism. This is unambiguously so; survival machines are built for that purpose and that purpose alone, and it is not merely an 'arbitrary function' as you term it.

JC 2K3

Built?

ZOMG, CREATIONIST!!!

But yeah, I get what you mean, but I still think the human instinct to survive and pass on on genetic information is merely an arbitrary function, since "purpose" seems to imply something grandoise and supernatural - to me anyway....

adam_ccfc

JC 2K3 wrote:

Built?

ZOMG, CREATIONIST!!!

Hehe

JC 2K3 wrote:

But yeah, I get what you mean, but I still think the human instinct to survive and pass on on genetic information is merely an arbitrary function, since "purpose" seems to imply something grandoise and supernatural - to me anyway....

Well, if it's any consolation, I don't intend for it to sound in the slightest way supernatural, IMO it is anything but!

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote:

Question:
If God provides the meaning to our life, what provides the meaning to God's life?

To speak of "the purpose" of God's existence implies a teleology, but God has no personal teleology. "Purpose" is the end toward which someone is moving. That would imply change, and God does not change.

Philosophically, God's nature is idential with his existence. He is all actuality with no potentiality. God's essence is "to be." He gave his name to Moses as "I AM Who AM."

BTW, I plagiarised this

Zillah

kelly1 wrote:

To speak of "the purpose" of God's existence implies a teleology, but God has no personal teleology.

I suspect you have no idea what you just said.

"Purpose" is the end toward which someone is moving. That would imply change, and God does not change.

No it doesn't. If I could live forever, and I had a knife, that knife's purpose is to be sharp enough to cut things. That will never change. Change doesn't come into. It would, in fact, fail its purpose were it to change.

BTW, I plagiarised this

Ah, that explains a lot. Find better authors to copy and paste.

adam_ccfc

Does this clown have opinions on anything or is he/she just copying and pasting bull**** galore?

indough

Very interesting debate you're having here lads. Most of the stuff was going a little over my head though to be honest.

There were a couple of points that I considered replying to, so here goes:

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. You would have far more free will to love God if we unquestionably knew he exists.
2. You don't really have free will, because if you don't do what God wants you get punished. Hardly freedom if there is a fear of punishment.

1. When asking this question of a believer in God, you must remember that they believe that God has actually given us knowledge of his existence.
2. If this were the case then we would have no free will regardless of God's existence, as we are all required to obey our own man made laws or else face punishment. What I mean to say is that you still have the choice of doing what you want even though you know you will be punished for it.

I must stress that i'm not a religious person and neither am I an atheist (not sure if thats actually possible though), I simply don't care. I think it is more important to try your best to be the best person you can be, and I really can't imagine a better meaning for life than that.

I've never understood the mentality that atheists should question the point of their life either (as in, if there is no meaning to life then why bother type questions), surely if you believe that you've only got one life to live then it would be better spent actually living it and not worrying about its purpose.

What does worry me sometimes is the thought that perhaps some religious people are only interested in doing good because of the fear of reprisals from God. Is it not enough to just do it for the sake of your fellow man? Having said that, most of the people i've met who actually have a clue about their religion seemed like genuinely nice characters.

Dades

adam_ccfc wrote:

Does this clown have opinions on anything or is he/she just copying and pasting bull**** galore?

Kelly1 at least hasn't resorted to name-calling.

kelly1

Zillah wrote:

I suspect you have no idea what you just said.

I do. I looked up the word teleology before posting it.

Teleology:
1. the doctrine that final causes exist.
2. the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature.
3. such design or purpose.
4. the belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature.
5. (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.

"Purpose" is the end toward which someone is moving. That would imply change, and God does not change."

No it doesn't. If I could live forever, and I had a knife, that knife's purpose is to be sharp enough to cut things. That will never change. Change doesn't come into. It would, in fact, fail its purpose were it to change.

The definition makes sense to me. I'm saying that God doesn't have a purpose in the sense that He's not moving towards a goal. A knife is created for one limited purpose. I believe we on the other hand are created for a higher purpose towards which we *should* be moving. To rule out this possibility, is I believe, unwise to say the least.

kelly1

indough wrote:

What does worry me sometimes is the thought that perhaps some religious people are only interested in doing good because of the fear of reprisals from God.

Doing good should be done primarily for the love of God although fear is a good motivator.

Scofflaw

kelly1 wrote:

Doing good should be done primarily for the love of God although fear is a good motivator.

I'd ask indough's question again:

indough wrote:

Is it not enough to just do it for the sake of your fellow man?

cordially,
Scofflaw

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Galvasean

God: "How dare you love others on a par with me!!!!"*


*May not be actual quote.

Tar.Aldarion

God: "Only I may unconditionally love!!!'*



*May not be actual quote.

indough

Well in fairness the two commandments according to Jesus are to love others as you love yourself, and secondly to love God. They supercede even the ten commandments, yet obeying these two should automatically mean that you are obeying those ten aswell.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote:

I do. I looked up the word teleology before posting it.

Well yes, you can quote a dictionary but what does the sentence mean? I seems almost like you were looking for an excuse to use "teleology" rather than make any sort of cogent point.

I'm saying that God doesn't have a purpose in the sense that He's not moving towards a goal.

Because, apparently, you don't understand the word "purpose". You are arbitrarily redefining words as you feel like. Your entire point here is to make vague rammbling theological statements about the universe, with no agrument, no evidence, no consistency. Argument by assertion all the way.

But it makes sense to me!!
God is magical and doesn't have to make sense.
You just don't understand how magically transcendent God is.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Galvasean

indough wrote:

Well in fairness the two commandments according to Jesus are to love others as you love yourself, and secondly to love God. They supercede even the ten commandments, yet obeying these two should automatically mean that you are obeying those ten aswell.

So.. according to the ten commandments its okay to love others (or indeed yourself?) more tahn God?

indough

I wouldn't say more than, but on an equal level perhaps. Those commandments seem to have been laid out with the purpose of us treating each other better, not in a way to love God better. I don't see it as some sort of test really.

Zillah

indough wrote:

Those commandments seem to have been laid out with the purpose of us treating each other better, not in a way to love God better.

Really? Have you actually paid attention to what these commandments say?

- The first one is God telling us that he is the one and only true God and that worshipping anything else is evil.
- The second one is God telling us that using His name in a non-reverential sense is forbidden.
- The third is God demanding that we keep the Sabbath day a holy day.
- Nine and Ten essentially enforces thought crime. The very desire for something is a sin apparently.

So thats 50% of the commandments that have nothing whatsoever to do with treating each other well.

I'll also point out that the punishment for breaking these was almost invariably death.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote:

- Nine and Ten essentially enforces thought crime. The very desire for something is a sin apparently.

God, the original Minority report!

indough

I believe thats why they were revised with the two from the new testament which i've already mentioned.

I don't think that it explicitly says in the first commandment that worshipping anything else is evil, and I thought the sabbath day commandment was the 4th? I could be wrong on both though as i'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps you were referring to Roman Catholics though, who do not actually follow the bible as thoroughly as some other branches Christianity.

If people didn't covet their neighbours wives and houses then we'd all be in a better place in my opinion. You can learn not to want what belongs to others. The fact that you don't bother learning to do this does not mean that you shouldn't.

I do not consider myself a Christian, I just think that just because I choose not to believe in a religion that doesn't mean that I can't take philosophical lessons from it. I also don't understand the idea that some Atheists have that it would be beneficial in any way to convert a person away from their faith. There is nothing to gain from believing in nothing. At least not in my opinion.

Zillah

indough wrote:

I don't think that it explicitly says in the first commandment that worshipping anything else is evil

Well, GOD HIMSELF has commanded you not to do it. I would've thought that most believers would consider disobeying God to be evil. Can we agee that they would at least consider it "bad"...?

and I thought the sabbath day commandment was the 4th? I could be wrong on both though as i'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps you were referring to Roman Catholics though, who do not actually follow the bible as thoroughly as some other branches Christianity.

I do believe it was a Catholic list I was references. I don't think the order matters though, do you?

If people didn't covet their neighbours wives and houses then we'd all be in a better place in my opinion. You can learn not to want what belongs to others. The fact that you don't bother learning to do this does not mean that you shouldn't.

I seriously doubt any human can teach themselves to not want what others have when they might otherwise do so. I'm sure people can put themsevles through all sorts of torturuous guilt, conditioning and self-delusion, and perhaps maintain they no longer desire the possessions and traits of others, but I suspect it would very much be an unhealthy self-lie.

I also don't understand the idea that some Atheists have that it would be beneficial in any way to convert a person away from their faith.

I have seen the effects of religion in the world around me, the world as a whole, and our species' terrible history. The single greatest cause of strife and inequity has been, in my opinion, religious belief and other similarily irrational world views.

If you genuinely want to understand why many secularists would like to see the fall of religion I suggest you read the End of Faith by Sam Harris. Here's a YouTube video where he summarises most of his arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

There is nothing to gain from believing in nothing. At least not in my opinion.

Ah, oops! You seem to have confused "Atheist" with "Sociopathic Nihilist"! A common mistake. Atheists have no belief in God, no not belief in anything.

indough

Zillah wrote:

Well, GOD HIMSELF has commanded you not to do it. I would've thought that most believers would consider disobeying God to be evil. Can we agee that they would at least consider it "bad"...?

Of course we can. But evil is a lot stronger word than bad.

Zillah wrote:

I seriously doubt any human can teach themselves to not want what others have when they might otherwise do so. I'm sure people can put themsevles through all sorts of torturuous guilt, conditioning and self-delusion, and perhaps maintain they no longer desire the possessions and traits of others, but I suspect it would very much be an unhealthy self-lie.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one

Zillah wrote:

I have seen the effects of religion in the world around me, the world as a whole, and our species' terrible history. The single greatest cause of strife and inequity has been, in my opinion, religious belief and other similarily irrational world views.

I'd personally put that down to human nature. Religion is just often used as an excuse to justify human actions. I don't think that religion is actually the cause.

Zillah wrote:

Ah, oops! You seem to have confused "Atheist" with "Sociopathic Nihilist"! A common mistake. Atheists have no belief in God, no not belief in anything.

Sorry, when I referred to believing in nothing, I meant in terms of religion, I realize that atheists believe in science. I just thought that it would be obvious as we're on a forum for religion but I should have been more specific, my fault.