Atheists... Your life is pointless

Yup I read a lot of it and understand the confrontational nature of the thread title, but I don't have to rise to such overt cliché puerile bait directly.

I do think however that some of the arguments as recently presented are reasonably germane as it brings to light some of the underlying premises upon which the original author would have had to base his assertion(s).

0 Replies

Chumly,

I agree with your general points about semantics and logic. It would be interesting to me however if you would respond to the specific atheistic riposte to the thread title. This riposte could be phrased as follows:

Theists who claim to know the "point" to life are under the influence of a soporific or hallucinogenic drug/virus called "faith". The influence of this "faith" prevents them from rationally evaluating its more pernicious effects which combined with advanced weapons technology now constitutes a serious threat to us all. Claims for an "afterlife" are NOT neutral or innocuous as evidenced by the multiplicity and the magnitude of recent tragic events. Specific parochial interpretations of "faith" or "afterlife" can no more counter the overwhelming evidence for this general riposte anymore than "filters" can counter the dangers of "smoking".

0 Replies

Here you be

I assert that the point of a person's life is a function of the meaning instilled into it. I claim there is no evidence to suggest that an atheist's life must be "pointless" simply because they are an atheist.

Point: an objective or purpose to be reached or achieved, or one that is worth reaching or achieving

Pointless: absence of an objective or purpose to be reached or achieved, or one that is not worth reaching or achieving

0 Replies

I find the assertion ludicrous because there is no reason to assume that life in any form has a point. It is in the nature of replicating molucules that they will replicate (this is really "duh" material). A greater complexity of the combination of replicating molecules does not of necessity lead to questions of purpose. This is a supreme example of begging an all too obvious question.

0 Replies

I do take exception in some case to some degree with the first part of your view that "The influence of this "faith" prevents them from rationally evaluating.."

As strange as it may seem, it is possible, at least for some, to have a religious faith and yet still have a logical, scientific and critical mind outside the confines of their faith based principles.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I find the assertion ludicrous because there is no reason to assume that life in any form has a point. It is in the nature of replicating molucules that they will replicate (this is really "duh" material). A greater complexity of the combination of replicating molecules does not of necessity lead to questions of purpose. This is a supreme example of begging an all too obvious question.

I did not say there was reason to assume that life in any form has a point. I said "I assert that the point of a person's life is a function of the meaning instilled into it." Nor did I amplify on how this instilling would take place.

So here are two example of how a person's life may be instilled with meaning.

1) A person spends fours hour a week studying the sciences, this person claims it gives his life meaning.

1) A person spends fours hour a week studying religion , this person claims it gives his life meaning.

It should be clear in this context the word meaning is subjective and relative and not objective and absolute.

Meaning: to have as a purpose or an intention

We all know the old cliché: define your terms

0 Replies

BTW (and a bit OT) Setanta's point of the autonomous self-replicating molecule and therefore (I will exhume) the premise that simplicity must always move towards complexity can be argued to be potentially invalid in the greater scheme of things due to entropy i.e. the heat death of the universe.

Simplicity moving towards complexity in the atomic/chemical sense can only take place when there is an energy/mass differential.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

BTW (and a bit OT) Setanta's point of the autonomous self-replicating molecule and therefore (I will exhume) the premise that simplicity must always move towards complexity can be argued to be potentially invalid in the greater scheme of things due to entropy i.e. the heat death of the universe.

Simplicity moving towards complexity in the atomic/chemical sense can only take place when there is an energy/mass differential.

I'm not physicist, but did I understand you right? Are you saying that Setanta's idea can't be right because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

0 Replies

No not at all, he is right in that autonomous self-replicating molecules are a reality.

But taken to it's logical extreme, and *assuming* you infer that his larger premise is that simplicity must always move towards complexity, then it can be argued that his premise is *potentially invalid* in the greater scheme of things due to entropy i.e. the heat death of the universe.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I do take exception in some case to some degree with the first part of your view that "The influence of this "faith" prevents them from rationally evaluating.."

As strange as it may seem, it is possible, at least for some, to have a religious faith and yet still have a logical, scientific and critical mind outside the confines of their faith based principles.

This is an argument for the well known phenomenon of compartmentalisation which we all do to some extent. The point is that with respect to "faith", this may be neutral or beneficial at the "individual" level, but pernicious at the "group" level. The analogy is whether personal addictions are an individual idiosyncracy or a social problem.

0 Replies

More for the Wolf,

I also inferred his larger premise to be that simplicity must always move towards complexity because he says "It is in the nature of replicating molecules that they will replicate" alas this will not be the case once/if we reach the heat death of the universe. It won't matter what the presupposed nature of any so-called replicating molecules might be when/if that moment arises.

I also inferred that he meant that there could be no divine intervention because "It is in the nature of replicating molecules that they will replicate". Again this condition may not exist at some point in the far future hence his argument may lack veracity.

Admittedly it was all a bit off topic and more for fun than anything else, but still kind'a cool donut you think?

That's why I put exhume instead of assume as I know I could get burned, but it is still fun Smile

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The point is that with respect to "faith", this may be neutral or beneficial at the "individual" level, but pernicious at the "group" level.

i.e. organized religion sucks Sad

0 Replies

fuc*k "organized, all theistic religion sucks.

0 Replies

As to what might happen if and when we reach the heat death of the universe Isaac Asiamov's story "The Last Question" is compelling.

http://mit.edu/tylerc/www/twt/LQ1.htm

0 Replies

Life isn't pointless. Some people prefer a religion to give them guidance on how to live, while others prefer to find their own way. Your life is what you make of it.

Live and let live, so says one happy little atheist :wink:

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

fresco wrote:
The point is that with respect to "faith", this may be neutral or beneficial at the "individual" level, but pernicious at the "group" level.
i.e. organized religion sucks

Apparently your sentiments are somewhat shared, and then some by Sir Elton John, who has called for the criminalization of organized religion.

Elton says that his call for the criminalization of organized religion is because he is against hatred, and wants to promote tolerance for all. Rolling Eyes

Do you agree with him?

0 Replies

Yep lock 'em up! Sounds like payback to me, and the bible is rife with vengeful deity endorsed actions, so dog willing, we will then have freedom and self-determination for a change!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Apparently your sentiments are somewhat shared, and then some by Sir Elton John, who has called for the criminalization of organized religion.

Elton says that his call for the criminalization of organized religion is because he is against hatred, and wants to promote tolerance for all.

Do you agree with him?

No.

(Wilso will probably smite me for that)

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Apparently your sentiments are somewhat shared, and then some by Sir Elton John, who has called for the criminalization of organized religion.

Elton says that his call for the criminalization of organized religion is because he is against hatred, and wants to promote tolerance for all.

Do you agree with him?

No.

(Wilso will probably smite me for that)

I'll leave the smiting to the gods Exclamation

0 Replies

Sir Elton's "criminality" concept is unfortuanately untenable.

1. What we consider to be "self" is socially aquired.
2. Socialization conditions or predisposes the resultant "self" towards prevailing cultural norms one of which can be "religion".
3. Some "selves" therefore have no integrity or self-coherence without religion.
4. The problem with religion relative to other tribal/cultural binding functions is that it claims "absolute truth" or "divine authority". That is why it tends to be pernicious vis-a-vis inter group relations.

0 Replies

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know