What do Atheists believe about life's purpose?

[bluesbassman]

Many of the threads I have read and participated in over the last few weeks have asked questions in the vein of "What's God's purpose", or "What's the Bible's purpose" and similar questions. A lot of responses from theists relate to what their beliefs are concerning God and and God's relationship to man, usually correlating to the theists belief that their purpose in life is intertwined with God's existence.

There have also been many thoughtful and clearly expressed arguments countering theism based on the atheists understanding that there is/are no gods.

My curiosity as to the origin of our existence, and what happens to our being when our physical body ceases to function has led me to believe in the existence of God, and that belief forms the basis for my understanding of my purpose on this plane.

My question for my atheist friends is what is your view about why we exist, how and why did we come to exist and what is the next progression when our lifespan is over.

Have fun, and I look forward to some illuminating posts.

[Random_Australian]

1. Purpose is part of a subjective reality, the order inherit in the laws of

objective reality creates subjective reality.

When you do the sums, it comes out to creating a society in which the unfit survive, ie. most of the left wing ideals, bieng kind, friendly, not bieng jealous, not murdering, not idolising money, stuff like that.

[benburch]

2. Life has no pre-defined purpose.

Even reproduction is a tropism, not a purpose.

You have to set your OWN goals for reasons that seem right to you.

My own goal is to enjoy each day as though it were my last, and to try to leave the place a little better off for my having been here.

[tomhayes]

3. There is no reason, there doesn't have to be

And there is nothing once you are dead, that's the reason why you have to do well when you are alive, it all counts NOW.

This is not nihilism, because I believe secular ethics are possible and that life is it's own meaning.

But all this crap about god, the afterlife, etc is jsut a way for people to control what you do towards their own ends. They all seem to want money or fealty or something.

[Erika]

4. We are here because we are here.

I do not understand some belief in an afterlife. How many dead people have ever come back to visit you and spread the message. Get real. Some cannot face that they will simply cease to exist. I often wonder whether its because of in inflated ego or simply fear that they believe in an afterlife.

[seaglass]

31. I think some of the ideas about life after death relate to our

thoughts about justice, that in some realm, those that are "good" are rewarded and those that are "bad" are punished because it certainly doesn't happen with any consistency here on earth.

I don't personally believe in heaven and hell but I understand why people do.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. We make our own purpose

That's the whole value of modern Existentialism. It's been mercilessly lampooned, but we heart of it is that we humans create value, purpose, and meaning itself.

Even if there is a God, who are the theists to tell us what our purpose should be?

--p!

[cheezus]

6. It's totally arrogant to even ask that

Why do our lives need to have some special meaning?

What makes us so great?

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Try to leave the world a better place than you found it..

[Erika]

8. Yes, indeed n/t

[Cyrano]

9. So a guy walks into a bar with his dog.

The bartender gives the guy a beer and looks over at the dog who is licking itself. The bartender says, "Boy, I wish I could do that."
The guy says, "Go ahead. He doesn't bite."

Theists make a distinction between ourselves and other life forms on this planet. The two major distinctions I can see is that we can communicate more effectively than most life forms, (as far as we know), and we have the ability to destroy the entire planet.

Think whatever you like about the superiority of human beings and their belief in some omnipotent tooth fairy. I'll settle for being envied while sitting on a barstool.

All sarcasm aside, who says we have a purpose? So far the demonstrated "purpose" of the human species seems to be death, destruction and, all to often, bringing misery to others.

[Erika]

10. A reason why I think some religious form had nothing to do

with birth. Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Mussolini, W?

[charlie]

11. If life must have a purpose

then I'd say Life is the purpose of Life. A tautology, yes, but I'd consider it truer and more meaningful than religious teleology.

[varkam]

32. I am a thick-headed materialist

But even so, I think that there can be a purpose to life even if there are no non-physical entities. Notice the use of the word can, however. I don't think that we're so special that there must be some kind of a purpose to our existence.

If there is a purpose to our lives, I think that fulfilling our purpose would mean to act on "what we're for". For instance, what is a hammer's purpose? To pound nails into wood. If I were to say that I have a good hammer, then you would take it that it is good at pounding nails into wood. If I were to say that I have a good ham sandwich, you would take that to mean something entirely different (I guess you could try pounding nails into wood with a ham sandwich. Let me know how that works out for you). Likewise, if I were to say that Joe is a good person, you would take me to mean something else still. Sure, we have lots of ideas about what that means (e.g. Joe is sympathetic, compassionate, a good listener, chews with his mouth closed, etc) but I really don't think we've hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

So perhaps, if we can figure out what it is that we do (in the same fashion that a hammer pounds nails into wood or a ham sandwich tastes delicious), then we'll of found our purpose.

But, of course, that is all assuming that we actually do have some kind of a purpose. The flip side of the spectrum, I think, is just as plausible - namely, life is absurd. We all take our lives so seriously that we're left with a complete inability to really take a step back and realize that nothing really matters. I think that scares a lot of people - to think that there is no purpose to life other than existence. We wake, we eat, we fuck, we work, we read, we sleep, and we die. The end. Sure, we can give our lives some subjective sense of purpose (e.x. I'm in the health care field, so it is my purpose to care for others) but that doesn't really make our lives any less absurd, does it? Doesn't it just make our perspective less absurd? For example, if all I wanted to do all day was do jumping-jacks and nothing else and every day, from sunrise to sunset, that's all I did then I'm sure I wouldn't find it absurd at all; I'm doing just what it is that I want to be doing. But if that's all I do, then doesn't that strike some of you as the definition of absurdity?

Hell, it even scares me too. When I think about life in that fashion - if the only two options are religion and absurdity then I can see why, for a lot of people, religion has such a large pull. I mean, think about all the other Gods that people believed in at one time or another - thousands of them (Gods, that is). What seems most plausible to me is not that they were simply all wrong and now a certain, select people are right, but that God is simply a creation of man as an alternative to the wake-eat-fuck-work-read-sleep-die view of existence.

Just my .02.

[charlie]

33. I dunno

I don't know if we *can* discover a purpose to life. I can say a hammer's purpose is to hang smartly on that hook in the garage. Or to be happily hidden in the back of the junk drawer when I need it. We know that isn't correct because we know the intent of the designer. For the big question though, there's no one to consult. We can deduce a direction (or maybe more accurately, a tendency) in life's processes, but is that purpose or consequence? We can imagine all sorts of purposes, from the pedestrian (gene propagation) to the rarified (higher sustainable orders of complexity / conformance to God's nobler aspirations), but are any of them an accurate assessment of Primary Intent? Or more to the point, a confirmation of intent? Is there a way to know? I doubt it.

Count me with the life (and existence) is absurd bunch, if by absurd we mean impermeable to human if/then serial logic.

[bluesbassman]

12. Great comments so far, thanks.

But, being the lousy writer that I am, I guess I phrased my question awkwardly. My core belief is that, being the remarkable creatures that we are, capable of great accomplishments in thought and deed, it occurs to me that there must be something beyond this physical plane. Random chance that we would come to this level and then just cease to exist doesn't make sense to me.

So I guess what I was looking for is an atheistic view of what, if anything is beyond this existence.

[Random_Australian]

13. Anything beyond this existence? No, there isn't. There is that which

has not yet been discovered by science, and when we get the UFT, that will be it.

You change the information of everything you interact with, that is the definition of interaction. The effects you had keep going until randomised out of existence. Which takes a long time. In effect, you live on - a little - in what you have built, the people you have changed, the contribution you have made. That is all.

A dead person is a lump of protein, water and fat when the bits of the brain that had their personality are randomised. There is no more to it.

That what you were after?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. Even if there is no more than that,

I'd say THAT is pretty damned amazing!

I've been enjoying these answers on a Sunday morning waiting for the tea to boil. I hear one grandchild in his crib singing twinkle twinkle and the other one is in her high chair demanding breakfast. And their mother, not I, is running around fixing ba-ba's and cereal.

What amazing, amusing, loving lumps we are while we have life.

I won't answer the question because it was aimed at atheists. I hope this thread has a long life.

PS What's the UFT?

[Random_Australian]

15. It's very true - so beautiful what we can do.(Your life sounds lovely btw)

UFT? It stands for 'Unified Field Theory' - right now, science has come a long way - so far in fact that there are no more inexplicable phenomena - everything is covered by two great theories General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.... the trouble is these two are mutually exclusive! Quite difficult to overcome, and if someone does it will likely be the final and ultimate set of Laws of science. Many attempts have been made. The generic term for any of these attempts is 'Unified Field Theory' or collectively 'Unified Field Theories'.... you get the idea.

It is just more practical than saying String Theory or Super Twistor Theory or (x) theory.

The other thing it is is extra-ordinarily fascinating. String Theory, (my favourite) currently espouses an 11 dimensional universe! Pretty cool huh?

Wow... what a wonderful world we have, your tea and grandkids, my looking into the Great Secrets of the universe... you have to marvel at the depth and diversity of human experience. (Or at least I do)

Goodnight!

[bluesbassman]

23. Yes, that's the type of response I was intested in.

Your post and many others in the thread seem to indicate that an atheistic veiw is that there is no existance beyond the "now". I totaly respect that and it helps me to understand reponses to spiritual affirmation made by theists. My feeling is that whatever helps you to function effectively while alive is beneficial. It is unfortunate that some people use their religious beliefs to attempt to control or dominate others. But on the other hand, any ideology that is used to control osr dominate other people does nothing to improve the human condition.

Thanks again to all of you for sharing your insights. Definitely gives me food for thought.

[bluesbassman]

27. Definitely a cogent description to the here and now.

Thanks R_A, your posts are always thought provoking and compelling. It seems that many atheists hold to the concept that we're born, we live and we die; nothing more, nothing less. From a purely scientific standpoint, I find no error in that assessment. But I disagree with the concept that we are merely biological matter with a degree of cognitive ability. I believe we have a spirit or soul that transcends our physical mass. Let me cite an example. When I was in the service, I was stationed in Nuremberg. Our barracks were located in what had been the SS headquarters, which was within viewing distance to the Coliseum where Hitler staged many of his rallies and speeches. Now as I was about 19 at the time and had been through all of my training, I was in peak physical condition, and as we were not in any conflict at the time, I was not under any extraordinary stress. One day, as I was standing in the motor pool, which looked out to the coliseum, I felt an enormous weight bearing on my entire body. Rather like what you feel as you descend into deep water. I can only describe it as the presence of great malevolence or hostility. I did not feel as though I was in any physical danger, but I knew that there was a force outside of my body that I was somehow connected with. I did not hear any voices, nor did I see any "ghosts". But I do know that what I experienced was not caused by anything physical. I just felt that I was somehow in contact on a spiritual level with what had transpired there.

So having experienced that incident, I have come to believe that there is a reality beyond our physical plane, and that is what I question and seek to understand. And science, as it has progressed to this point does not provide the answers to these questions IMO.

[heidler1]

28. I'm 80 years old and I get weird sensations quite often. For one thing my

heart is acting up with an off and on pulse rate of over 150, but it ain't god, it's just old age and being too damn stubborn to see a doctor. Lots of times certain foods will make me gassy and my heart will act up. It isn't at all uncommon to get a emotional up or down just from a scene I'm looking at. Our body is reacting to input to our senses all of the time and to claim it's more than natural is a judgment call. If your body is damaged some how, it is much safer to deal with it on truthful level then laying it at god's door.

[Zenlitened]

41. Very well put.

...The effects you had keep going until randomised out of existence. Which takes a long time. In effect, you live on - a little - in what you have built, the people you have changed, the contribution you have made.

:hi:

The "purpose," then, if we choose it, is to leave a little something positive to float down the stream of time after we're gone.

[Random_Australian]

42. Thankyou!

[Silent3]

24. Where does this "must" come from?

You write: "...it occurs to me that there must be something beyond this physical plane" (emphasis mine).

Why must this be true? To satisfy your human need to associate those things which seem remarkable to the human concept of purpose?

I've heard this same sentiment you express above many times before, and I think it stems from a false application of the ideas of economy and effort. We can look at human creations and think of the cost and effort of doing things such as building bridges, tending gardens, writing songs and think to ourselves, quite rightly, that no one would bother with such efforts unless some practical or emotional purpose were served by these efforts.

But what does it "cost" to make a universe? How much "effort" does it take to make a universe? Well... cost and effort in what context, and as opposed to doing what?

Cost and effort are concepts which are grounded in a very human way of looking at the world. Not only that, but cost and effort only have meaning when there are competing options, when you suppose that there are other things one could do with ones resources and efforts. Contemplating these issues requires that one suppose there is some greater metauniverse in which options could exist, a metauniverse in which the alternatives of creating some different universe, or just kicking back and not doing anything at all, might be able to play out.

The first thing that should be pointed out is that there's no possible end to this line of inquiry. You would need to ask "What's the purpose of the metauniverse?", a question which implies a metametauniverse of questionable purpose, which in turn implies a metametametauniverse, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

One way of looking at this problem is simply to state that we are using the word "universe" to mean everything -- the sum total of all objects, all beings, all ideas, all events, whether or not these things are accessible to human experience, perception, or knowledge. This is really the most fundamental meaning of "universe", and it renders meaningless any talk of multiple universes or metauniverses. If you're talking about the Universe in this most fundamental sense, the idea of purpose would at best be a circular one. There simply exists no context, no separate background, against which purpose could be related, against which ideas like cost and effort could be assessed.

Of course, in colloquial use, the word "universe" is often taken to mean simply the physical universe that we humans are crudely aware of. It's certainly reasonable to imagine there's more to reality than the more limited universe of which we're directly aware through our senses and though scientific instrumentation. What's not reasonable (but oh so common) is to leap to a certain conclusion that there must be more, and that this "more" would just so happen to correspond to human notions of God, a promise of ultimate justice and an afterlife, etc.

[BurtWorm]

70. "Beyond this existence?" Beyond which existence?

Beyond your existence? Or mine? Or the human species'?

One way I think about it is to look at what was apparently beyond human existence before there were humans. And the answer is a humanless world and universe. And beyond the existence of the world? A worldless universe. It is not possible to know if "existence beyond the universe" is even a meaningful idea, because the only existence we know of is in this universe. Speculate all you want. Believe all you want. But wishing for an existence outside of this one doesn't make it so.

[Proud_Democratt]

16. We just exist....for a purpose?THAT'S where people draw the

lines of religion or a belief system in order to form groups to justify discrimination.

"Life's purpose" is a man-made outlook...which tends to create fictional characters and "idolize" past human lives to verify these beliefs or prejudices!

[Proud_Democratt]

17. Why must life have a purpose? Humans created religion to

somehow explain man's ignorance of the "hows","whats", and "whys" of life's mysteries.
And still today, in 2006, we cannot provide proof of "Life's Purpose"!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. I think the concept

of "purpose" is a human construct.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Not an atheist, but an atheistic view...

I prefer to look at our existence as an evolution. Alone among the life we know of, we have the ability to grow and evolve to a "higher plane" of understanding. What is the future evolution of our species? How far can we go and how do we choose the paths toward greatness or destruction? If we go far enough, will we find our purpose?

We are explorers and searchers. I don't know if my cats can dream of visiting the stars, but we humans can both dream of it and do it. And we have a destiny there.

[Cyrano]

20. Actually, I'm a very devout agnostic.

(For those who don't know what an agnostic is, it is someone who neither confirms nor denies a belief in a higher power. It is a person who, when asked questions about a higher power, replies "I don't know" and adheres to the principle that it is unknowable.)

Overall, I think that an atheist is just as dogmatic as a theist. A theist says there is a higher being. An atheist says there isn't. To my way of thinking, we are all clueless on this issue.

For the most part, I live my life without giving much thought to the question. However, I've observed that "believers" have done and are still doing incalculable damage to humanity. The Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Pat Robertson's, Jerry Falwell's, James Dobson's, and Taliban types with varying dogma serve only to add to the misery of humanity.

I don't blame or not blame some higher power for people like this. I just think they're a form of plague we can do without and have nothing whatever to do with so-called religion.

[Evoman]

21. I disagree

"Overall, I think that an atheist is just as dogmatic as a theist. A theist says there is a higher being. An atheist says there isn't. To my way of thinking, we are all clueless on this issue."

I disagree. Atheism is not as dogmatic for the simple reason that its the default null position. Do you have a belief in unicorns?

When you ask people, they say no. It isn't dogmatic to not have a belief in unicorns...its the result of there being no proof, so you assume there is not until proved otherwise. The god thing is the same thing...I have never seen any evidence that god exists. Never seen a miracle that couldn't be explained by physical laws. So I am an atheist. Much of the times I suspect that agnostics (middle of the spectrum definition of agnostic) are people who had faith and just aren't ready to go all the way to...."I have no belief in God". I am NOT saying that is the case for ALL agnostics though.

[Proud_Democratt]

22. IMO...

I would say that man made God or gods.

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. Some atheists *are* dogmatic

The assertion, "There is no god" is just as dogmatic as the assertion, "There is a god." That is very different from a "default null position," which would be more along the lines of, "I have no evidence upon which to base a conclusion."

Not all atheists subscribe to this so-called "strong atheism", but there are many who do.

[girl gone mad]

44. atheism doesn't fit the definition of dogma.

# a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
# a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"

# A blind belief in things often without a material base.

# a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true

# Institutionalized doctrine..


Atheism is simply a lack of belief in religious doctrines, founded on a lack of evidence of the factualness of these doctrines and overwhelming scientific evidence that most of the claims in said religious doctrines are false and/or untestable.y

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. In general, you are right

But again, there are many atheists who state as true without proof: There is no god. That is not just a lack of belief in religious doctrine; that is a proclamation of a theological position as true, despite the lack of proof.

Because there are self-described atheists who hold that this dogmatic theological position (ie, this proclamation of "truth" without proof regarding God) is, in fact, the essence of atheism, it is incorrect to say that all atheists hold that all atheist assertions are "null positions." Counter examples exist, that is all I am saying.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. Now correct me if I'm wrong

but this is basically a point of contention, language-wise, is it not? Strong opinions in both "camps"?

[Imperialism Inc.]

40. Naw. The dogma thing is a ridiculous notion actually.

Ok. Once again from the top (man this gets old).

If we follow your line of thinking then we have to admit that we have to be agnostic about the existence of an infinite number of things. 300 foot tall purple gorillas, and pink unicorns , and flying spaghetti... etc etc. Now do you really intend to stick by your statement that both a belief and a non-belief in 300-foot tall purple gorillas are on equal footing? How about belief and non-belief in Athena and Zeus and the gang?

Clearly such a notion of parity is absurd. Why is that? Well it is because it is indeed the default position to not believe in things for which we have no evidence. Indeed, in almost any area knowledge, other than the God area, we would not even think twice about which position makes more sense. Even if we say that ok yes technically we have to be agnostic about the 300 foot purple gorilla we would never say something so ridiculous as the corollary to what you said. Which is, both the believer in 300 foot purple gorillas and the non-believer are equally dogmatic. Clearly, even if we call it a leap of faith in both cases, the one leap is extremely small and the other extremely large.

Such is the case for the belief in God as well. The "leap" to non-belief is so tiny that it really can be safely ignored and in fact not even called a leap at all (edit: I should point out that the "safely ignored" part is indeed my personal belief and not part of the "non-debatable" question of whether or not it is reasonable to say both beliefs are composed of equal amounts of "faith" or "dogma"). Just like we don't call it a leap of faith that I don't walk around all day constantly checking for 300 foot purple gorillas around every corner.

Despite all the "debate" over this matter there really isn't anything to debate. The only way your sentence makes any sense is if one determines a priori that the existence of God is a 50/50 proposition. But then, that is pretty poor reasoning now isn't it? Do you have any evidence to make that a reasonable statement? Can you imagine the person who really thought like that all day long about all the infinite things we must be agnostic about? They would be a complete wreck. The constant worry about the 50/50 chance that aggressive aliens would begin their attack soon. That 50/50 chance monsters of all types and shapes would be arriving at any moment to tie you up and torture you. And on and on. No one could function if they really took your view to heart.

I also have to say that is a very strange statement from an agnostic. You are the first I have heard that puts non-belief right on par with belief. Many may have more belief than the fellow below but usually it is nowhere near parity.

That was all a long-winded way to say this:

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

26. Life is whatever you make of it.

I see no reason to bow to any other power, because, as a humanist/pantheist/non-traditional theist, I believe everything is "divine," for lack of a better term. I believe in the here and now, not the tomorrow.

Nice and open-ended for ya.

;)

[FM Arouet666]

29. Interesting

My curiosity as to the origin of our existence, and what happens to our being when our physical body ceases to function has led me to believe in the existence of God, and that belief forms the basis for my understanding of my purpose on this planet.

The age old questions, where do we come from and where do we go when we die. Where do we come from? Where do we go when we die? Science provides answers to both questions. Humans are but a tiny blip in the scope of the universe. Long after our species has become extinct, and yes this is an inevitable occurrence, other locations in the universe will be teaming with life. Will that life ponder it's own existence as we do? Who knows. Our passing, singularly or collectively is irrelevant to the cold reality of the universe in which we live. Why do we live, what is life's purpose?

The universe might be a cold uncaring place, but this world is filled with humans who, for the most part, care deeply about life. The human community has developed laws, religions, methods of communication, science and reason to better understand the world around us, to provide for a world where we can all live in peace. Yes, the human community tends to miss the ideal, sometimes by a long shot, thank you very much GWB. But consider the human population today versus that which occurred a thousand years or a few hundred years ago.


I do not believe in god or the supernatural, my universe is cold and uncaring, I come from nothing and I will return to nothing when I die. I live for today, my life has a purpose and I hope to make the most of it even if none of this matters in the end.

[bluesbassman]

45. Science provides answers to the "physical" questions.

Where do we come from, where do we go when we die. Yes I wholeheartedly agree with the scientific explanations for those physical things. Just as I agree with or accept the fact based conclusions of all science. But it's the metaphysical aspect of our universe that science has yet to explain that compels me to search for answers. When science can demonstrate absolutely what happens to our consciousness when we die, I'll be happy to study the findings. But to me, the idea that all of our life's experiences pass into nothingness would mean that there is little motivation to improve ones self, or to live in any particular way.

One of the posts here suggested that the question for purpose or meaning to life was arrogant because what makes humans so great. But I think the human race is great, capable of great evil to be sure, but also of great benevolence and wisdom. And quantum physics, string theories and plain random chance aside, I believe that we are not just a product of accident, and there is more to our universe than we, at this juncture, are capable of comprehending.

[Silent3]

60. Not all questions are good questions

But it's the metaphysical aspect of our universe that science has yet to explain that compels me to search for answers.

Who says there is a "metaphysical aspect" in need of any explanation, apart from metaphysics being anything more than a fanciful human conception? You have to ask yourself what exactly metaphysics is supposed to be, if anything at all, before you demand that it be explained.

When science can demonstrate absolutely what happens to our consciousness when we die, I'll be happy to study the findings.

This is a rather backwards approach to things. All the solid evidence points to consciousness ceasing when we die, and nothing more. If you assert that something more than cessation happens (must happen!), the burden of proof is on you. You can't fairly say, "I think consciousness continues after death... in some way, shape, or form which I have absolutely no ability to describe, and I couldn't even be able to begin to tell you where or how to look for it, but damn it, I'm sure it's still out there after death because, well, what's the point in life if you just die like completely and all that, so, like, I've got every right to believe I'm right until you rule out every conceivable way I can imagine, and even all the ways I can't imagine, for consciousness to keep going on."

I claim that whenever I'm asleep, I'm living as a rabbit in "another dimension". You can't possibly prove that's not true. No matter what you say, I can say you just haven't found out how to get to my special rabbit dimension. If I make an offer to "study the findings" you bring me about my nocturnal rabbit dimension, in your research about my claim which I foist off on you, refusing to make any effort myself to back up my own claim, it's not a very generous offer.

How's this?: Upon death, our consciousness is transferred into an alternate universe for preservation. The transfer is one way only, death is the only means to transfer anything from our universe to that alternate universe, and there's nothing detectable in this universe from that alternate universe.

It's utterly impossible to prove the above idea wrong. That doesn't, however, make it a good idea. In fact, ideas that neatly seal themselves away from any possibility of disproof are cheap and easy to come by.

But to me, the idea that all of our life's experiences pass into nothingness would mean that there is little motivation to improve ones self, or to live in any particular way.

So, the universe owes you motivation and moral direction, and because it would bother you to have to do without those things, they are obligated to exist on some grand, metaphysical scale?

I think you see yourself as someone who is "asking questions", but you're doing a lot of unquestioning assertion too -- you aren't questioning if there's a meaningful basis for your questions, and you're treating a statement of a personal emotional need as if it's a compelling basis for examining how the universe must work.

I believe that we are not just a product of accident, and there is more to our universe than we, at this juncture, are capable of comprehending.

Believe all you like, you're just making a baseless assertion followed by a simple truism -- that there's more to this universe than we understand -- as if that truism means a whole lot more than it means. The world of the unknown is not the automatic home for all you desire to be true, or all that you just can't imagine not being true, about the universe.

[bluesbassman]

61. What are good questions then, only the ones that you have an answer to?

I get the impression that you find questions that science has not yet verified or fully explained to not be worthy of consideration. If you choose to ignore or dismiss questions concerning existence beyond the visible and observable universe, You're welcome to that position.

But your suggestions that I am laying claim to some right to answers based on the innate feelings and beliefs that I have is incorrect. You state:

The world of the unknown is not the automatic home for all you desire to be true, or all that you just can't imagine not being true, about the universe

and

So, the universe owes you motivation and moral direction, and because it would bother you to have to do without those things, they are obligated to exist on some grand, metaphysical scale?

When did I say that? All I'm looking for are answers to the questions that occur to me, which IMO is the foundation of understanding, and I am in no way implying that you or anyone else is required to accept or believe any part of those questions. If you don't have those questions, I do not feel any less respect for your intelligence or integrity. Re-read your posts, and see if you have the same respect for my position.

[Silent3]

62. How do I keep my boat from falling off the edge of the Earth?

That is a bad question.

What are good questions then, only the ones that you have an answer to?

Of course not. Some of the best questions are the unanswered ones. The question I used as a title isn't bad because I don't have an answer for it, the question is bad because it's based on a bad premise -- a premise that the Earth is flat, has an edge that you can fall from, and that there's actually a navigational hazard to worry about.

Good question: Do I have an immortal soul?
Not so good question: How do I save my immortal soul?

The second question isn't as good as the first one, because the second question (depending on how you ask it) presumes the first question is solved (the first being far from settled, and with very little evidence in favor of a positive answer), and further presumes that if such a thing as an immortal soul exists, that there's this thing called "saving" that you'd want or need to have done for it.

Of course, context matters...

Good question: Is there life on Mars?
Follow up question: What does martian life eat?
Good context: You're thinking "if there were life on Mars, what would it eat?", a question which can help guide estimates of the probability of life on Mars, and which can help in designing experiments to detect possible life.
Bad context: You're already planning to build a Martian zoo, and all you care about is what supplies you should buy.

When it comes to religious/spiritual questions, a lot of people are more like the guy planning to build a Martian zoo. This guy might even admit, when pressed, he doesn't know for certain whether or not Martians exist, but he says, "Life without being able to build a Martian zoo wouldn't be worth living," and henceforth lives his life as if Martian life were a certainty.

When did I say that?

How's this stuff?

"My curiosity as to the origin of our existence, and what happens to our being when our physical body ceases to function has led me to believe in the existence of God, and that belief forms the basis for my understanding of my purpose on this plane."

"I believe that we are not just a product of accident, and there is more to our universe than we, at this juncture, are capable of comprehending."

You're just asserting "I believe this, I believe that", and have offered nothing more to support your stated beliefs than a negative emotional reaction to the idea of a universe without fundamental purpose or built-in reasons to make you want to live.

Your "curiosity as to the origin of our existence"? If you had a genuine, probing curiosity about this question, it would it lead you to a few answers and many more questions, with the only honest answer to many of those questions being "I don't know". Unless you've got a whole lot of amazing evidence and logic you're simply holding in reserve to dazzle us with later, I see nothing but a projection of your own desires and emotional needs when you jump to "{belief} in the existence of God", and further jump to presuming this is a specific kind of God that hands out purpose for people to live by.

"...and that belief forms the basis for my understanding of my purpose on this plane."

I don't hear a whole lot of questioning going on there. Sounds like you've already decided you have a purpose... you've already decided to build your Martian zoo, and you're just wondering how to stock it, how other people plan to stock their zoos, and, with bemused curiosity, you're wondering why some people aren't getting busy planning their own Martian zoos.

[NMMNG]

30. IMO this physical life is all that there is

There is no soul, no afterlife, no rebirth. I think that these concepts and the notion that there has to be a "higher purpose" or "something greater than oneself" keeps people yearning for things that just don't exist. Why simultaneously pump ourselves up with talk of a "higher purpose", while deflating ourselves by submitting to a deity who we are not fit to even look upon?

There is so much beauty right here on Earth, and so much we can do as mere mortals if we wish to find purpose in our lives--religion not required. Life has the meaning that you give to it. Tend to the needy, learn new things for personal enrichment, visit people from different cultures, donate to charities, volunteer, start a garden, phone a friend or family member, exercise. The opportunities are endless.

[CrispyQ]

34. There is no purpose to life other than the purpose each of us

gives to our own life.

As for an afterlife, who cares? As long as we experience time in a linear fashion, the only moment that matters is now.

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. "The only moment that matters is now" -- I would disagree

I would say that our unique(?) ability to see time in a linear fashion -- past leading into future -- obligates us to remember what has happened, to avoid what went wrong and to intitute what went right, so as to create a better future.

But that would be a discussion for a separate thread, I think. :hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Isn't it enough that we exist because we *can* exist?

Why do some people feel the need to go beyond the fact of existence and find some "higher meaning"?

[girl gone mad]

38. It is up to the individual to determine..

their own purpose in life. For most, purpose is fluid.

No can tell us with any certainty why we exist or the ultimate answer of how we came to exist, though we do have very good theories of the process which brought us here, right up to within the first second of the existence of our universe.

Why do we exist? Why shouldn't we exist? Equally valid questions, in my view.

[SidDithers]

39. I don't believe life has a purpose...

does the life of a fish have a purpose? A dog? A slug? A monkey?

Our lives do not have purpose. We are animals who descended from animals. We can live a good life or a bad life, and that is our choice to make, but there is no higher purpose for us.

Sid

[Zebedeo]

54. If that were the case,

then it wouldn't matter whether we live a good life or a bad life. And that's not so.

[SidDithers]

56. Why wouldn't it matter?...nt

Sid

[Zebedeo]

57. You asked

in post #39 "does the life of a fish have a purpose? A dog? A slug? A monkey?"

Then you used this reasoning to conclude that our human lives have no purpose.

I responded by pointing out that if that were true, it would not matter whether we live good lives or bad ones.

The reason that it wouldn't matter is that, if what you are saying is true, and we are not fundamentally different than a slug, then it follows that what is morally true for a slug is morally true for people. Do you think it matters whether a slug lives a "good life" or a "bad life"? If not, and if as you suggest, people are fundamentally no different than slugs, then it does not matter whether people live "good" or "bad" lives.

Of course, I think that it is preposterous to assert that we are fundamentally no different than slugs. Slugs are incapable of behaving morally or immorally - unlike humans.

[SidDithers]

58. We differ from slugs because we have evolved...

We are intelligent. We have emotions. We have the ability to feel empathy. We can see the effect that our actions have on others. We are social animals who, for the most part, self-regulate our behaviour so as not to be anti-social. We make choices, and shape our actions, for a myraid of reasons - out of altruism, self interest, fear of consequences. We have morality only because morality is a learned attribute.

You're equating socialization with purpose. We've evolved a way of playing nicely with each other, but that doesn't mean that our lives serve any more purpose than that of slug.

Sid

[Zebedeo]

59. I respectfully disagree

"We have morality only because morality is a learned attribute."

This statement implies that all morality is entirely subjective, and is completely determined by what is taught. If that were true, then teaching that something is moral would make it so.

Clearly that is not the case. If I taught my children that it is moral to hate racial minorities, that would not make it so.

I believe that our lives have purpose far greater than that of a slug - although a slug's life also has purpose. Mankind is engaged in a great morality play, as I see it. Each of us is a moral actor. Will we accept God, or reject Him? Will we do His will, or the opposite? Each of us must make these decisions. In the end, God will have living with Him those who have freely chosen Him.

Animals, including slugs, have no such decisions to make, nor are they capable of making them. A cat that harms a mouse for its own amusement does not act immorally - it is just a cat. An anteater that devours tens of thousands of ants every day does not commit an immoral act in doing so - it is just an anteater. Animals are incapable of making moral or immoral decisions. They just do what comes naturally. With people, it is different. That is because only humans have the capability of knowing God's will and the ability to act in accordance with it or in violation of it.

This is my understanding and belief. I am interested in your thoughts on the subject, which I expect are quite different.

[SidDithers]

63. We will have to agree to disagree, then...

When I described morality as a learned attribute, I was speaking of society as a whole. What goes for moral behaviour in a society is that which a society has deemed to be acceptable. Immoral behaviour is what society deems as immoral. That is why some societies accept behaviour which you or I, living in Western society, would deplore. If you taught your kids it is moral to hate racial minorities, our society as a whole wouldn't agree with you, and your kids would suffer the societal consequences of their immoral / anti-social behaviour. But, in my opinion, it is societal expectations which guide our morality. You believe it is because humans have the ability of knowing God's will.

The reason we'll have to agree to disagree, is because invoking "God's will" stops the discussion. I don't have capability of knowing God's will, because I have a lack of belief in a god. I don't see how I can guide my actions to be in accordance or in violation of God's will if I don't know what that will is. How do you know what God's will is? Does he speak to you?

Sid

[Zebedeo]

65. I don't know how a discussion about morality can avoid

mention of God's will. For me, morality is defined with reference to God's will. For me, what God wants done is moral, and the opposite is immoral - by definition.

How do you know what God's will is? Does he speak to you?

God's will is knowable through various sources. The most obvious is through prayerful reading and study of God's Word - the Bible. Also, prayer itself, if done earnestly, humbly, with a sincere desire to communicate with God and understand His will, can be an excellent method. Quiet contemplation and meditation are also available. Even without these methods, we as humans have an innate sense of right and wrong "written on our hearts." Almost always, we know when we are doing the right thing, and when we are doing wrong.

To me, it is self-evident that there is an OBJECTIVE standard of morality, because if morality were entirely subjective, then saying something is moral would make it so. In response, you say that morality is defined by a society, not an individual; but to me this does not solve the problem, because if an entire society says something is moral, that again does not make it so. Take, for example, the Nazi society. Because the society said that it was moral to round up Jews, persecute and murder them, did that make it moral to do so? Clearly not, I would argue. If every person on the planet said that it was moral to burn out a baby bunny's eyeballs with a magnifying glass, would that make it moral? Nope - It would still be an evil act, because saying something is moral does not make it so.

[SidDithers]

69. I disagree...

I don't have God, I could care less whether he even exists. How are my actions guided by my wish to adhere to his will? I don't pray, humbly, sincerely or any other way. I don't believe the bible is the word of God, I believe it is a compilation of stories and myths, with their roots in prior civilizations and mythologies. Without any of these influences on my behaviour and actions, how is it that I can act morally?

You raise the issue of the Nazis. (**cough cough Godwin cough cough**) You and I know their actions were monstrous and reprehensible. Yet I believe that they thought they were acting morally, or else they wouldn't have done what they did. Torquemada thought he was acting morally when he was following God's will during the Inquisition. Fred Phelps believes he is acting morally from God's will when he pickets funerals with signs reading GOD HATES FAGS. It may be self-evident to you that there is an objective standard of morality - as long as it is your morality. But because you're basing your morality on your interpretations from a book of stories and myths, your morality is entirely SUBJECTIVE.

THAT is why, when you invoke "following God's will" as your standard of morality, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Sid

[Zebedeo]

71. So you've never done something you knew was wrong?

If so, you are one unique individual.

You said that the Nazis "thought they were acting morally, or else they wouldn't have done what they did." I don't follow that logic at all. People frequently do things that they know are wrong. I call it "sin." You can call it something else, if you do not believe in sin. But surely you agree that this phenomenon occurs.

You ask me to explain how it is that you can act morally, when you don't believe in God. That's easy. Whether you believe in Him or not, His laws are written on your heart. That's what I mean when I say that people generally have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong behavior.

Your position that there is no objective morality, but that instead morality is entirely subjective, leads to absurd results, IMHO. For one, it means that no act is, objectively speaking, morally better than any other act. So burning out the bunny's eyeballs just for the sadistic pleasure of it is morally equivalent to giving a homeless person your last dollar. Objectively, both acts are morally equivalent -- neither is better or worse than the other. Some people (or societies) may say eyeball-burning is good, and some may say it is bad, but that is nothing more than a statement of preference -- like preferring chocolate ice cream over strawberry.

Another absurd result from your hypothesis, IMHO, is that it would mean that it is impossible for a society to improve. The society can change, but that change cannot result in an objectively better society - because under your hypothesis, there is no such thing as an objectively better society. Every society is morally equivalent to every other society.

These results strike me as not only absurd, but also that they would be profoundly depressing for someone who believes as you do that there is no objective morality. If you are definitionally unable to improve society (because there is no such thing as a better society), what is the point of voting Democratic, or working for change or reform, or justice or anything?

[SidDithers]

72. Is Fred Phelps acting morally...

when he pickets funerals? After all, he's following what he subjectively believes to be God's will, and according to you, God's will determines morality?

If his interpretation of God's will is different from yours, and I suspect it is, then don't you agree that interpretation leads to a subjective determination of morality?

Sid

Edit: clumsy wording

[Zebedeo]

73. No, he's not acting morally, because he is not doing God's will

Phelps is casting stones, when God said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He is not loving his neighbor, as God commanded. He is intentionally causing great distress and suffering to grieving families who have done no harm to him. This is all in violation of God's will.

You say he's following what he subjectively believes to be God's will, but I'm not so sure of that. Frankly, I think the dude is insane, but that is JMHO. Could be that he has personal "issues" with homosexuality -- I dunno. Maybe he is just an attention-whore.

Your bigger point is that different people can have different interpretations of God's will. I agree. But that does not mean that they are all correct, or all incorrect. There is an objective truth, and we can only do our best, as imperfect creatures, to discern it. If we fail in our efforts of discernment, that does not make God's will any less objective.

[SidDithers]

74. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree...

I claim that because different people have a different interpretation of God's will, then their actions and morality - which is based on that interpretation - is subjective. It depends on their interpretation.

You claimed first that we can determine God's will by reading the bible and by praying, or through meditation. Now you claim that God's will is an objective truth, which we might or not be able to discern.

I'll say it again for you. "God's will" is a nonsense phrase that completely stops the discussion, because it is impossible to objectively determine what God's will is. You believe you know what it is, but your belief is not an objective truth. What you seem to be unable to do is to put yourself in the place of the 5 billion people on Earth who don't believe as you do. For non-Christians, what you claim God wants (if God even exists)is completely irrelevant. You might as well be talking about Gaea's will or Odin's will. The beliefs of the followers of those gods were just as certain as your belief in your Christian god.

As far as your statement: "Whether you believe in Him or not, His laws are written on your heart. That's what I mean when I say that people generally have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong behavior." That's just another example of your Christian egocentrism.

Sid

[BigMcLargehuge]

43. an atheist answers -

we exist because our parents had sex, and their parents had sex, and their parents had sex, and in each case the offspring of each coupling survived to mate and produce offspring that survived long enough to mate and produce offspring.

What is our role? To produce offspring. What is the purpose? Same purpose as for paramecium, antellope, cockroack, gibbon, dolphin, and lamprey, produce offspring to pass on genetic material.

What happens when we die? We decompose.

End of story.

[Odin2005]

47. There is no meaning to life.

I have stuggled with this statment for a while now. I want to believe in the Existientialist idea that we create the meaning of our lives, but this conflicts with my adhearence to determinism and my lack of belief in free will. I consider the idea of free will simply the baggage of the West's Christian heratige, most pre-Christian pagan societies of Indo-European derivation in Europe emphasized accepting ones fate (interestingly, in both Germanic and Graeco-Roman mythology one's fate was set by the "3 fates").

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. "meaning"

is a human construct. Animals don't search for meaning.

However, it obviously means something to us because we're always talking about it!

[Goblinmonger]

49. I agree with Grannie

we clearly create the meaning. You are creating the meaning by talking about fate.

I see the concept of fate as just an excuse to accept the shitty situation you are put in. You are a serf and the king is a prick--it's fate, sorry, nothing we can do about it.

Romeo and Juliet were not "fated" to die in a double suicide; they were just stupid kids that were thinking with their sex organs and not their brains and were trying to do something to piss off mommy and daddy (who were all, admittedly, pricks).

[Odin2005]

51. My determinism has little to do with meaning or as an excuse.

It has to do with the laws of physics. Arguments that try to make free will compatible with physicalism and materialism end up just redefining free will in a way thast makes the term meaningless. Some have made arguments that Qunatum Mechanics allows for free will, but this I consider special pleading, since it is unknown if QM effects are relavent, and even if are that just means we have have a determinism of probabilities.

[Goblinmonger]

53. We are no officially

over my head. Everything I Know About Quantum Mechanics I Learned from Quantum Leap. I will leave the discussion of fate at that level to those that know.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

66. And I will go with you

I didn't understand anything in that last post, but I so admire anyone who did.

[rd_kent]

50. Why do theists always assume that there must be a purpose?

I guess that must be part of your belief system or else it kind of makes your whole religion thing kind of pointless, huh? If god exists, then there must be a reason I'm here. If we have no pupose, god must not exist.

[Odin2005]

52. People want to think we are different from the rest of the Universe;

Different and superior to the rest of Nature. Then we try to rationalize it by making our lives have "meaning" in a way that non-human objects don't have.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. Oh, no!

I want to be OF the universe, not above and better than. How lonely that would be.

No, that is not part of this theist's personal belief system, either.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. No, it is not part of my belief system

"Purpose" and "Meaning" are human constructs. Nice concepts, but only exist in our minds.

[htuttle]

55. I think Life is it's own purpose

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
It's orbiting at ninety miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
Through an outer spiral arm at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars,
It's a hundred thousand lightyears side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand lightyears thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand lightyears wide.
We're thirty thousand lightyears from galactic central point,
We go round every two hundred million years.
And our galaxy is only one of millions and billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz.
As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light, you know;
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space
Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!

[Beetwasher]

64. What Is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?

The sun is shining on my face today. Tomorrow, if it rains, I will enjoy that too. Every day is a good day.