The Meaning of Life

[Naryar]

if  Hitler used christian faith to support its mad ideology, it  is demagogy

I agree.

[frezal]

I just mean that there is a lot of stuff in life that sucks.  I was paraphrasing an argument against God that I've heard on several occasions.  (Incidentally, I don't agree with it.)  Namely that if God is perfect, then life should be perfect, but it's not.

The atheists who say that God doesn't exist because life sucks are most likely not really atheists, but some sort of theist who has had a rough time.

It wasn't a trap and God is not a fascist... in fact, quite the opposite is true.  God gave man the choice whether or not to obey him.

Stalin also gave his people the choice whether or not to obey him.  If the soviets chose to cross him, they got taken out by the KGB, just like if you cross God you get tortured in hell literally forever.  Now, do either of these two scenarios seem like the people get much of a choice?

If he didn't put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it, there would be no way for them to disobey, and they would be forced to love God without even knowing there was an alternative.

But that alternative, according to the New Testament, is pain and misery for eternity.  If we don't accept this type of behavior from world leaders, why should we praise this kind of behavior from an invisible being in the sky?

God could have easily just made us his loyal slaves... but he didn't.  At the risk of ruining his own creation, God gave us the choice of obedience.  Last I checked, not too many evil dictators will do that.

Stalin certainly gave his people a choice.  If the women stayed in the kitchen and popped out babies, the homosexuals abstained from having homosexual relationships, and everybody followed the other crazy laws, the KGB would not take them out.  But, if they did disobey the great Stalin, they would be taken out.  How is this any different than what the NT's version of hell?

Going off on a tangent here, God is still giving us that choice.  People often wonder why God doesn't just reach down and smite the bad guys with a lightning bolt.  Or why Jesus hasn't returned yet.  Well it all makes sense if you consider that he's giving us as much time as possible to repent.  He wants to smite as few people as possible.

That is a huge copout.  It is also a very evil thing to do.  Provide the people with no evidence of your existence, let genocide occur at all times, and then send people to a put of fire for not believing.  At least Stalin's people could see that he was real.

I'll admit it, that's a difficult question.  Mostly because I don't know much about other religions and can't make informed statements about them.  But there's a couple of reasons why I think Christianity is "the right one".

Do you think that it might be possible that you believe in the Bible because that is what you were raised with?

Quickly: One, the Bible was written over hundreds of years by several different authors who sometimes had no contact with each other, yet the message remains consistent throughout.

The message was just fulfilling the Jewish prophecies of the OT.  They took one of the guys running around claiming to be the messiah, and retrofitted his life to match that of the prophecies.  (There were several "messiahs" around Jesus's time.  One such person was Apollonius.  It's interesting that modern Christians don't even consider that guy as a candidate for their God).

Two, after Jesus was crucified, the disciples were scattered, disheartened, and depressed.  It doesn't make sense for them to be so enthusiastic about the idea that he rose from the dead if he didn't really do it.

So many gods did the same exact thing (Horus, for example).  Not only that, but that story existed before the NT (much like the flood story was around with different characters before the OT).

And three, Christianity actually changes lives.  Maybe I'm biased, but I haven't heard many stories of addicts and criminals repenting and finding a better life and staying that way after coming to faith in some other religion.

That's because you're not actively seeking out those stories.  There's also a high probability that you don't know very many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, atheists, agnostics, etc.

True.  Religious teachings, like anything else in the world, can be misinterpreted.  It's hard to know God's will and some people get it grossly wrong.  That's why I chose not to get into that particular issue.

How do you know that some people get it grossly wrong?  There are passages in the Bible that clearly support genocide (which I'll get to when I respond to philetbabe again).  There are passages in the Bible that clearly support men being dominate over women.  There are passages in the Bible that clearly support slavery and child rape.  While rational humanist Christians tend to ignore these insane passages, they are still there, waiting for a crazy member of their religion to use it as justification for all sorts of wrong.

Is not the purpose of food to nourish?  So if you become food, your purpose is to nourish the organism that eats you, so that organism can reproduce.  I won't belabor the point, though, since "The Meaning of Life" is no more to be food than it is to reproduce.

That's a fair point, and one I didn't really consider.

Yes, domesticated pets were originally bred for that purpose.  But what about now?  What about all these "purebreed" cats and dogs people can enter into contests and such?  Some modern pets would be very unfit for life in the wild.

They are unfit for the wild because they are biologically meant to be paired with humans.  On a philosophical level, I suppose they serve a purpose to entertain us, but I was speaking purely on a biological level.

Yes, but a wild cat won't sit on your lap no matter how warm it is.  We've bred modern cats so that they will, and serve the purpose of comfort.

It depends on the situation.  If you raise a wild cat, it will consider you its mother.  So long as that wild cat recognizes you, it would probably sit on your lap. (though it might be a bit rough with you since it's much stronger).

Technically, humans are animals, but our existence is vastly different from other animals.

No technically is necessary.  We are animals with DNA that is nearly identical to that of modern chimps.

I don't think I need to make a list of human accomplishments to make that point.

Yep.  We developed very smart brains (due to having weak bodies) in order to survive.

And while our biological instincts may be the same, we have higher thought processes that can (and often should) override those.  When confronted with a plate of food, for instance, we can choose whether or not to eat it.  An animal guided by pure instinct will just gobble it up as long as it's hungry.

That's not true.  A wild scavenger will likely gobble up that food, but others are very particular in their diets.  This is assuming that the wild animal isn't on the brink of starvation.  In that case, the animal would scarf the food (much like a person in the same situation).  

I didn't say intelligence is unique to humans.  Intelligence and self-awareness, however, is.

Chimpanzees are self aware, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

As I said before, we have the capability to ignore our instincts.  Also, while it's true that any species outside of its native range can have drastic global effects, none of them could do damage on the scale humans are capable of.  Imagine if we did not restrain ourselves from exploiting the environment as much as we wanted (which is to say, restrain ourselves from obeying our instincts).  Whole biomes would collapse.  The ozone layer would vanish.  The Earth would turn into a radioactive oven.  I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up killing everything bigger than algae.

So much of your life is based on your primal instincts.  You may not realize it, but that 'fight or flight' reaction is very common in human lives.  Yes, our instincts have changed quite a bit, but the basic survival instincts have remained the same.

Since we are smarter than the rest of the animals (and by extension, the lower forms of life), we are able to affect the whole world much faster.  That doesn't, however, mean that we are the only ones who can.

That's just callous.  Suppose rice were threatened with a new disease that was wiping it out.  Would you condemn it to extinction then, and cause mass starvation all across Asia?  That seems to go against your belief that the meaning of life is to procreate.  By preserving the Earth's ecosystems, as opposed to ruining them, we increase humanity's own survival.

They would need to find a new source of food, or find a way to keep rice around (or die out).  In a global economy, I really don't think that would be much of a threat to humanity (though it would be quite inconvenient).

Because if the purpose of life is to procreate and nothing more, there is absolutely no reason for our ability to override our instincts.  We might as well live as animals, mating with as many people as possible and killing our rivals.  There is no reason for creativity.  Art, entertainment, love, it all just gets in the way of our primary purpose.  Nothing we do matters except how many kids we can overpopulate the Earth with.

Wrong again, Tom.  Because of our massive intelligence, we are able to survive.  We build houses with heating units because we lack the fur to keep warm.  We develop vaccines and such to keep us from dying of disease.  Just because our purpose is to procreate, that doesn't mean that everything else we do is rendered void.

Take art, for example.  It allows us to express our emotions and attract others who feel the same way.  Thus furthering the species.

No kids, you might as well be dead.  Everyone on this forum, in fact, is wasting their time with meaningless distractions when they could be out raping women!

I'm not religious, so I have no justification for rape.  We can further the species even if we don't procreate ourselves.  We could help raise other children, or provide other services to help ensure the survival of the current and next generation of humans.

If you don't think that view of life is depressing, man, you have problems.

I will agree that your view of the world is depressing.

Einstein's sexual behavior has nothing to do with anything; I was just using him as an example of someone important who didn't have any kids.

Don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it.  Einstein furthered human survival (and in a way caused massive death).

The same with Jesus.  Even if you don't believe he was God, you would have to agree that he was important.

Real or not, Jesus was important.  Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and various other dictators were also important.

That's exactly my point!  You don't need to fulfill your "biological purpose" in order to be significant.  That is the Meaning of Life I'm getting at--significance beyond simply reproducing.

If you don't further the cause of human survival, or greatly hinder it, you will most likely not be significant to the masses.

But energy can be lost as heat.

Energy is never lost; it just becomes different kinds of energy.

Things always move from a higher energy state to a lower state.  Entropy is always increasing, and the only way to decrease it again is to put energy into it (thus increasing entropy somewhere else.)  My point is that, one way or another, Earth and probably the entire universe will eventually cease to support life.

The Earth will eventually be non-existent, so at that point, it'll no longer be able to support life of any kind.  As for the universe, if it ever stops being able to support life, it'll probably eventually go back to being able to support life at some point.  Not sure if that makes sense, but it makes sense in my head.

It matters if you believe in an eternal afterlife.  Only in the context of eternity does anything at all have any meaning whatsoever.

Why must we live forever to have meaning?

If you die and that's it, that's all she wrote, then the Earth might as well explode tomorrow for all the difference it makes, because it's going to end anyway someday, and it won't matter how many children you have or how fit your DNA is.

That's a pretty pessimistic view.  So the only reason why you bother to wake up in the morning is because you eagerly await living forever with a space dictator?  How awful.  I prefer to enjoy the 75+ years of time I have here on Earth.  

I could say more about God and how the concept of him being a cruel dictator is a gross misconception, but I've already talked about that and I'm really tired now.  I'll probably wake up and notice a bunch of mistakes in this post... meh.

I've already shown the similarities between God and a dictator.  If you can't see that God, as depicted in the Bible and the Qur'an, is an invisible tyrant, I don't know what would convince you.

[ACAMS]

There is no meaning to life.......you live......you die.........game over.....FTW
 
and that is not "for the win"...... "free trade worldwide" either

[Sage]

Just a few (random) comments:

What language were Adam and Eve speaking when God told them not to eat the apple?

How come God doesn't heal amputees?

Is religion anything more than a explanation for the unexplainable? (For example, the Greeks thought up Zeus because they didn't know what caused lightning bolts).

Why do Atheists only compare God to bad people? Didn't he do good things? I mean, sure there was the bad apple, but God gave the two a giant garden of paradise. It's like a rich man giving a poor man a huge area of land to farm and telling him not to dig in one spot because that's where his wife is buried. That's not a trap, just a request.

God can't be compared to Hitler because Hitler was a murderer. I have not heard of God ever smiting anyone. I don't think he's the kinda guy who would gas six million because he doesn't like them.

Why don't people believe in Terry Prachett's vision of Disc World where the Earth is flat and lies on the back of a giant turtle? Well, because we know the Earth is round. It's scientifically proven. People accept that fact, and a lot of other scientific things. So, what I'm asking is, what is the reason to believe in God is explanation is not needed anymore?

If animals were meant to be eaten by humans (or bred to be eaten) why do some people feel bad for them and become vegetarians?

Why did God only create life (as far as we know) on Earth?

The Bible states sex must be after marriage, so does that mean only a few of the billions that live on earth are not going to hell? How many Americans do you know that waited until after marriage for intercourse? How many do you know that didn't?




Just pulling that crap out of the top of my head. I really just don't care whether God exists or not.

[frezal]

God can't be compared to Hitler because Hitler was a murderer. I have not heard of God ever smiting anyone. I don't think he's the kinda guy who would gas six million because he doesn't like them.

Have you not read the Bible?  God kills about 2 million people in there.  Here's a fun picture that makes my post look more sophisticated:

[Pwnator]

And how many did God kill in the story of Lot alone? :P

[frezal]

And how many did God kill in the story of Lot alone? :P

It's estimated to be around a sh** load.

[philetbabe]

Click : It wasn't a trap and God is not a fascist...
in fact, quite the opposite is true.
God gave man the choice whether or not to obey him.

Jeff : Stalin also gave his people the choice whether or not to obey him.
If the soviets chose to cross him, they got taken out by the KGB, just like if you cross
God you get tortured in hell literally forever. Now, do either of these two scenarios seem
like the people get much of a choice?

i do not think you could ever convince each other, because you're not talking of ther same thing under the word of 'God'
and , strangely, your nature are very commons :
I explain :

Jeff, you do not want of a god making a trap in a garden, spectator of the poor man eating the apple and
violently punishing them : I agree with you, if THIS is god, i do not want no more a this kind of vicious being,
tempting humanity than going hard on it, you're right, such a god is not far from communist or fascist, it is unloveable,
and it is all your honor to reject such a picture of a despotic god.

Click, you talk  a god giving all to men, even the knowledge of what is true and what is false, even freedom.
But a freedom so wide, that the men may also decide to do evil : so God advert them : you know true and false,
good and evil, you have also the ability to pervert yourself and say that true is false, evil is good.
Life and Happiness (Eden Park) is strongly linked to life tending to  truth and good. So if men want to change the rule
and  take evil for good and so -> they  will die : This is not a punishment but a warning among an evidence : evil and lie are
not what men are made for and, far from truth and good, they're is only death. In this point of view, God is not fascist, he gives
all to men : freedom, knowledge of truth and evil and responsibility of their act.
One should say but "this freedom is not real for the men may not really choose Evil or they will die" : by "choosing evil" i do not mean choosing
a soft philosophy (epicurian, stoïcism, etc), no, it is choosing a way of lie and murder for self promotion. What is strange
is that men have this freedom and even more strange, is that  that they sometime choose it.but the fact that murder (choosing evil)  drive to death
is just an evidence.

why i say that Click and Jeff  a very commons :
If both can't share your ideas because of different reading and understing, both of you finally
militate for the same valors : good and freedom from humam kind. Differently, you're finally both humanist, i mean people
wanting the better for humanity.

[Naryar]

The Earth will eventually be non-existent, so at that point, it'll no longer be able to support life of any kind.  As for the universe, if it ever stops being able to support life, it'll probably eventually go back to being able to support life at some point.  Not sure if that makes sense, but it makes sense in my head.

Well actually, while energy is never lost, it "dilutes" in the universe. We actually have sources of energy (like stars and planets) and low energetic regions (like outer space). The laws of thermodynamics state that energy tries to leave the more energetic places to go in the less energetic places (by radiation for the stars) and tend to an equilibrum. So, as the sources of energy the Universe has aren't infinite, the Universe will probably finish with every place on it having the same energy (=heat, so the residue of the Sun (dwarf star) will be as hot as the residue of the Earth (dead planet, something like the Moon), as well as intergalatic space.

So i really don't see how the Universe could eventually come back to a state where Earth could support life again...

J
How come God doesn't heal amputees?

Probably because he doesn't involve in human activities anymore.

Is religion anything more than a explanation for the unexplainable? (For example, the Greeks thought up Zeus because they didn't know what caused lightning bolts).

I actually answer yes to this question, and i will also add that religion is also the result of humanity's fears and hopes.

If animals were meant to be eaten by humans (or bred to be eaten) why do some people feel bad for them and become vegetarians?

Because of freedom God is supposed to gave to humans.

________

Anyways a thing i am sure of: If the Bible is true and God exists, he is NOT all-loving and did not gave absolute freedom to man. I don't say he is a tyrant, but perfect he isn't.

An all-loving God would not make justice on Judgment Day (but rather take all humans with him in Paradise and hope his love will make "sinful" humans go good), neither let a place of eternal evil like Hell exist, especially that Hell constantly tries to ruin his work.

What is the point of letting a thorn in your foot if you can remove it easily (he is supposed to be almighty, he could wipe out all demons and devils, including the greater ones and the lords of Hell, in a matter of seconds) ?

Also God gave freedom to men : Hell tries to enslave men and he lets Hell in this world?

[philetbabe]

An all-loving God would not make justice on Judgment Day (but rather take all humans with him in Paradise and hope his love will make "sinful" humans go good), neither let a place of eternal evil like Hell exist, especially that Hell constantly tries to ruin his work.

What is the point of letting a thorn in your foot if you can remove it easily (he is supposed to be almighty, he could wipe out all demons and devils, including the greater ones and the lords of Hell, in a matter of seconds) ?

Also God gave freedom to men : Hell tries to enslave men and he lets Hell in this world?

This point of view of a god creating both the paradise and the Hell was professed by the Manicheism, a christian sect. It has been  rejected by the early church as non compatible with the jewish and christian faith.  they both claim that god did not create death and evil (manys intance in the bible).
And indeed how could one say he is all loving and let other in hell, i won't for my wife and i'm not god.

On the other part, both Jewish and christian claims that there's hell  as a state ( not a location)  of "god refusal -ie good refusal) ", going in hell should so be the free will to refuse god, even with the knowledge of what it does mean. So, who populate hell ? don't know. Christians say it is a possibility for human but does not ensure there are some inside. because, as long as we are here, we do not have a true knowledge of the consequence of our act and even the most evil people should, confronted with love, reject their previous abomination.

and why god did not kill for once those who have refuse him (and so eliminate this state of hell) -> still for christian, the power of god is a power of love and  life, not death. In this religion, there is a limit in god strength : what love could.

How come God doesn't heal amputees?
Probably because he doesn't involve in human activities anymore.

That's a real question a a legitimate revolt.
There are few school or though considering the pain :
-Archetype : wihch cover almost 99% of the known religions : 1/ the pain the human suffer reflects the part of the life of the the gods in the pantheon   all the variation at this point still consider that pain come from gods and the symbiosis man have (or have not) with the life-cycle of the gods.

-Karma and so : even if the religion that teach karma have many commons parts with archetype, they say that each one is responsible for the pain he suffers. In a way, pain is a side/part of justice.

-Islam : if one know the decrees of god from the Coran, god himself is the unknowable and whatever the pain, it is something in god will that we can't understand. So pain is jsutified, but the justification is unknown.

-Jewish/Christian : there is a link between evil and pain, but no much is said about and,in fact, pain is never justified. there is no 'good reason' for pain. Just the faith that it will end. In this way, it gives a hope to human not an explanation.  
There is an exemption which is the story of job who suffers a lot with God authorization, joining in this way the islamic point of view. Well, i don't know what to say about, i'm not a specialist after all, but the idea of a god tolerating pain for personnal reason is unbearable for me. i won't tolerate my wife or those i love to be the object of pain experiment for reason i don't know and even for reasons i should know (nothing may justify rape, murder and so !).   With the reading i have of this story, it  looks incompatible with the over all idea of a god of love. i have to admit Job weaken my christianity.

[System32]

Apart from this turning into a pick on Click thread, anyone care about the meaning of life?

[Oggie]

Well actually, while energy is never lost, it "dilutes" in the universe. We actually have sources of energy (like stars and planets) and low energetic regions (like outer space). The laws of thermodynamics state that energy tries to leave the more energetic places to go in the less energetic places (by radiation for the stars) and tend to an equilibrum. So, as the sources of energy the Universe has aren't infinite, the Universe will probably finish with every place on it having the same energy (=heat, so the residue of the Sun (dwarf star) will be as hot as the residue of the Earth (dead planet, something like the Moon), as well as intergalatic space.

So i really don't see how the Universe could eventually come back to a state where Earth could support life again...

I agree that the earth most probably won't support life again, but for the reason that the sun will expand and destroy it before it dies completely. But I do belive that the Universe will continue to support life. The reason everything is moving away from each other is the Big Bang. The big question is whether the gravity will pull it back together and make an inverted Big Bang, or if it will continue to grow forever. In the first case it might end upp in a new Big Bang, who knows (It might just be over). This will support life for sure. In the other case we might end up with a place that got the same heat all over the place (not so sure about this), but there can still evolve creatures that can live under these conditions. If I'm right there is made new stars all the time from the particles floating in the universe, so I belive there will always be somewhere where there are more heat than other places. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Short version: Earth will die out, at least for a long time, but I belive the universe will always be able to support life, as long as it don't end.

[Naryar]

there is made new stars all the time from the particles floating in the universe, so I belive there will always be somewhere where there are more heat than other places.

You are right, with the stars being created by contraction (by gravity) of floating hydrogen clouds, and the hydrogen being used (nuclear fusion) by the star to produce energy, if we can say used.

But - as the universe isn't infinite (it grows, but it has been created from a finite amount of matter), there is a finite amount of these particles - i think the number of atoms of the Universe is something like 10^80 atoms. Most of them are hydrogen, and i think that only a part of it could create stars (because you can't create a star like that, the creation of a star needs enough concentration of hydrogen for the gravity to pull the atoms together).

So there is a finite amount of possible stars in the Universe => there will be a time where all stars will be extinct and the heat will be constant.

However, my theory isn't true if your inverted big bang (big crunch) will happen.

[roboman2444]

as long as there is lightning and water Earth will have life (maybe in diff forms though)

[Urjak]

Lightning?

[Sage]

Well sure, in the Bible God may have smited people, but have you actually heard of  someone being smited that's been recorded recently?

That is because God doesn't involve himself with human activities anymore

Well... then why do people pray to Him?

[Oggie]

Lightning?

Yeh, you know, to power all the Frankensteins.

[frezal]

Well sure, in the Bible God may have smited people, but have you actually heard of  someone being smited that's been recorded recently?

Well, no.  That would require proof of god first.

[Sage]

I have a passage from a book that's quite interesting:

The word used by the people of Near East for "reality/truth" (emet) is derived from the root "amen" (or some times ”men” due to a weak initial letter ‘a’).  It is found through history from Akkadian, down through Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Babylonian, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Swahili and English.  The basic meaning of 'amen' (‘men’) is ‘that which is firm/orderly/stable' and hence what is ‘real/true,’ what is ‘reality/truth.’  Thus, the Hebrew word 'amen’ describes reality as a whole.
The word used in Hebrew for "faith/belief" is also derived from the root "amen, "that which exists."  Thus, in Hebrew, whenever someone spoke about 'reality/truth/what's real' and/or 'faith/belief,' he would being using slight modifications of this same word, 'amen.'


So, if faith and reality are derived from that same meaning, that gives more philosophical evidence to God's existence than there is to the non-existence of God (there's no real proof either way).  


Just thought that would be a fun tidbit to share.

[frezal]

So, if faith and reality are derived from that same meaning, that gives more philosophical evidence to God's existence than there is to the non-existence of God (there's no real proof either way).

That just shows that ancient peoples thought that faith and reality were one in the same.  It offers no evidence to suggest that a god or gods actually exist.