Why?

[Max]

Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
or purpose for human life?

Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
krill?

Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?

If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?

Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
no purpose of meaning at all?

Feel free to answer some or all.

[Joe]

Let us suppose, for the moment, that there is no God and thus no
inherent meaning in anything. Then, am I not free to create my own?
Do I need to create a meaning from scratch, or am I also free to get
some ideas from what has come before me? Let us assume that I am both
free to create my own meaning, and that I am also free to get ideas
from sources. What meaning will I create?

I suppose anyone is free as well to lead a meaningless existence, but
why? I mean, if you have a choice? The choice between meaningless
and meaningful seems a no-brainer, but hey, maybe that's just me.

Of all the possible activities that I have ever engaged in, the most
meaningful to me is the sharing of love, the giving and the receiving
of love, with those I love and who love me. In fact, even fairly
meaningless endeavors in themselves take on meaning when they become
vehicles of interaction with loved ones. Now this is a meaning of
life that I did not invent, it is something that I gathered from many
different sources. I was not forced to choose love, but I am glad I
did, because my life is filled with meaning. I know that there can be
no higher purpose or meaning to life, because I experience love as the
highest possible.

Coincidentally, God's Church teaches that God is Love, and the our
purpose of existence is to know, love, and serve God in this world and
to be happy with Him forever in the next. So as it turns out, the
meaning that I chose for myself and the meaning the Church says I am
created for are identical. So if there is God, then I am on the good
road, and if there is no God, but only me creating my own meaning for
myself, then I am still on the good road.

You think you have something better to offer?

[Rolf Schuler]

QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
krill?"
No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give it a meaning. The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food for other animals.

QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?"
No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would  have been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.

Rolf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/5/15 Max <ass...@pcfin.net>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[thea]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Rolf Schuler <rolf...@googlemail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
krill?"
No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give it a meaning. The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food for other animals.

QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?"
No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would  have been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.

Rolf

Rolf, would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?
 

[Rolf Schuler]

QUOTE: "would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?"

Sure, yes.
At first, remember the millions of animal and plant species which have gone extinct in the past, because they couldn't survive.

And then, please take your time as to read these links:

 http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20081107.pdf

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm

You'll see, that it is very interesting

Rolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/5/15 thea <thea...@gmail.com>

[Simon Ewins]

On 5/15/2011 2:11 AM, Max wrote:
> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning&/
> or purpose for human life?
> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> krill?

Nope. Your purpose is to create more of your species. Meaning is
irrelevant at any scale other than within the sphere of your personal
actions with other people, animals, the environment, family and friends.

> Does meaning& purpose presuppose design& by consequence, a designer?

>
> If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?

No. Your purpose is to create more of you, and meaning comes from
family, friends, helping strangers, working to reduce the suffering of
others (human and non-human) and avoiding doing any harm.

> Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> no purpose of meaning at all?

It appears to be mostly rooted in confusion and a lack of intellectual
sophistication combining to provide inaccurate answers to questions
involving nature and the word 'why'.

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"I tell you everything that is really nothing, and nothing of what is
everything, do not be fooled by what I am saying. Please listen
carefully and try to hear what I am not saying."
[Charles C. Finn]

[thea]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Rolf Schuler <rolf...@googlemail.com> wrote:

QUOTE: "would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?"

Sure, yes.
At first, remember the millions of animal and plant species which have gone extinct in the past, because they couldn't survive.

And then, please take your time as to read these links:

 http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20081107.pdf

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm

You'll see, that it is very interesting

Rolf

This is very interesting.  But what say it is not evolution that caused it - but the degree of pollution that we have been seeing
that began as soon as man sinned in the Garden of Eden, that has been building for 6,000 years.
In other words, to say it is caused by *one thingy* is stretching what we don't really know to be a truth that we think
and so we believe.
thea

WebRep

Overall rating

 

[Observer]

On May 15, 5:36 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Rolf Schuler <rolf2...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
> > QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a
> > single
> > krill?"
> > No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give it a
> > meaning. The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food for
> > other animals.
>
> > QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a
> > designer?"
> > No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would  have
> > been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.
>
> > Rolf
>
> Rolf, would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?

Observer
Well, stupid, suppose we start with the fact that over 99,999 percent
of all creatures ever to have lived on this planet are extinct due to
design flaws which prevented them from adapting to changing
conditions.

You are indeed a member of the mentally deficient genus super
stupidious which proves that evolution is not just productive
betterment but also of general inabilities to compete, many of which
lead to the warranted extinction of the most all species'.


Psychonomuist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

[LL]

LL: Right. Humans seem to have a desire or need to invest their lives
with meaning beyond what they can understand about their own lives.
One might as well ask what is the meaning of life for a cat or a dog
or a cockroach. All creatures have the same object in life, to survive
and reproduce. It's up to the individuals (human or otherwise) to
learn the best way to do that. There is no more meaning than that. But
humans will continue to try to find something else--some supernatural,
god-inspired significance. One's own sense of significance is not
enough, evidently.

****************

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

People do a lot of things for their own reasons.

I don't fall into the category where the need for purpose or meaning cause my belief in God.

[Lexie]

Exactly what I have always thought!!
Cudos to you, LL
:) Lexie

[Observer]

On May 15, 3:38 pm, son.of.adam.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> People do a lot of things for their own reasons.
>
> I don't fall into the category where the need for purpose or meaning cause my belief in God.

Observer

I have some questions for you.

First , Why would you believe that such as a god exists, when there is
not one iota of scientifically verifiable substantiating data for
either the existence of or any act of one in or on this universe.

Second why do you believe that the general content of the
sadomasochistic, misanthropic, and quite stupid buy bull are of value
other than to wipe ones ass on or to start campfires.

Psychonomist

[Rupert]

I think the question "Is there any purpose or meaning in my life?"
needs to be made more precise. I can certainly form my own purposes in
life and find meaning in struggling hard to succeed. But it would be a
fallacy to think that the universe cares one way or the other. The
universe is just going to continue working out its basic physical laws
until it inevitably reaches the big crunch many billions of billions
of years after humans have become extinct. I will be fortunate indeed
if anyone at all cares or knows anything about any purposes I had in
my life 100 years after I am gone, and it is a certainty that no-one
will know or care anything about them 10,000 years after I am gone.
The god concept is a response to the difficulty of coming to terms
with the transience and insignificance on a cosmic scale of whatever
purpose I choose to form for my life.

[Rupert]

It all sounds fine for me, it's just not very rational for you to
think that you have the least reason to suppose that God exists.
Really, the way you put it, it makes one wonder why you feel the need
for the God-hypothesis at all. Why don't you just live your life in
those ways which strike you as worthwhile?

[Joe]

I have some very great reasons, not the least of which is my
experience of His existence.

> Really, the way you put it, it makes one wonder why you feel the need
> for the God-hypothesis at all. Why don't you just live your life in
> those ways which strike you as worthwhile?

It strikes me as eminently worthwhile, to believe in God, to love Him,
and to seek His Will for my life, in accord with His Commandments.
What makes you think for a moment that God is some extraneous
hypothesis in my life?

[Lexie]

Wow thea, I can't believe that you actually think that humans are only 6,000 years old as a species. Your are blatantly disregarding all the evidence that says we are so much older than that… 

[Rupert]

Well, maybe you can elaborate on what your reasons are and what sort
of experience you had.

> > Really, the way you put it, it makes one wonder why you feel the need
> > for the God-hypothesis at all. Why don't you just live your life in
> > those ways which strike you as worthwhile?
>
> It strikes me as eminently worthwhile, to believe in God,

Would it still be worthwhile to do so if you lacked good reason for
the belief?

> to love Him,
> and to seek His Will for my life, in accord with His Commandments.
> What makes you think for a moment that God is some extraneous
> hypothesis in my life?

I don't think I understand the question. The existence of God is a
hypothesis in which you believe, no? You may regard it as extremely
well-confirmed but it is still just a hypothesis about the way things
are, as with my belief that there is a laptop in front of me at the
moment.

[Lexie]

Oh, you never know, Rupert… it could all be in your head… ;)

Lexie

[Rupert]

On May 16, 11:38 am, Lexie <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:

It could be but I think the belief is quite well-justified.

[Lexie]

Those are questions that nobody can answer. Even all of the geniuses
pit together couldn't come up with an answer. Only with death will we
learn the truth.

[Lexie]

Lol well, yes I think you made your point quite well;)

[thea]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Lexie <abean...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow thea, I can't believe that you actually think that humans are only 6,000 years old as a species. Your are blatantly disregarding all the evidence that says we are so much older than that… 

One of the latest studies that I read, and for which I don't have documentation for since I crashed,
is that science is starting to think that because of the changes in the movement of the earth,
and the fact that some of the dating information is so different from one part of the earth
to another, that there is possibly a mistake being made as to how old this earth is.
Actually - the Bible itself is only for the last 7,000 years of the universes existence.
Were they humanoids on earth way back when - possibly.  But, the universe as
we see it today is only 6,000 approximate years old.  The remake of the universe
happened when God put it back together in order to have a people's who could
take Satan's place in heaven for the rest of eternity.

Now, let me break this down.  There were possibly human's on earth before Satan
sinned, who were here with the dinosaurs.   There had to be a catastrophic something happen
which got rid of the dinosaurs.

I don't believe dinosaurs were on the earth when Adam was placed in the Garden
of Eden.  And, according to some thinking, Adam was not the only human
being on the earth in his day.

There are a lot of things that we just don't know.  And, I will admit this.

However, as for the Bible being only history and prophecy for 7,000 years is
well known by scholars who have studied the Bible.
So, knowing this, and understanding that God made US human beings for
His Glory, and His plan and purpose (according to the Bible), then we
have approximately 1200 years (using the moon calender that Israel uses) until this universe becomes a
*black hole* and a new universe comes into existence (according to Revelation.)

 

[TLC]

Why? My big why is, why would any invisible, super-duper dude in the
sky be so manically obsessed with having people on some planet telling
him how good he is all the time, thanking him for giving things he
never gave, building houses for him which he never visits and even
killing for him?

In fact, is having an invisible, super-duper dude in the sky any more
purposeful or meaningful in life than that of a single garden fairy?

[thea]

Because it is the only way to replace Satan and the angels that left
their first estate and are now in our space (our universe).
It is the only way to have someone in heaven who can never commit
Satan's sin.
It is the only way to have someone in heaven who will understand the
greatness of God's and Jesus'  Power and Perfection.
etc.
thea
 

[Rolf Schuler]

QUOTE: ".... a new universe comes into existence (according to Revelation.)"

Which - according to Harold Camping - will happen next Saturday, May 21st 2011. Don't miss the chance for shopping, before we all will die laughing !!!!
Will the Earth be rebuilt again then`? :-O

Rolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011/5/16 thea <thea...@gmail.com>

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 16, 3:38 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a lot of things we do know, like dinosaurs lived 100 million
years ago. If you have humans living with dinosaurs, how can the
universe possibly be only 6000 years old?

> However, as for the Bible being only history and prophecy for 7,000 years is
> well known by scholars who have studied the Bible.
> So, knowing this, and understanding that God made US human beings for
> His Glory, and His plan and purpose (according to the Bible), then we
> have approximately 1200 years (using the moon calender that Israel uses)
> until this universe becomes a
> *black hole* and a new universe comes into existence (according to
> Revelation.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On May 15, 2011, at 11:38 AM, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Rolf Schuler < <rolf2...@googlemail.com>
> > rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> QUOTE: "would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution
> >> caused?"
>
> >> Sure, yes.
> >> At first, remember the millions of animal and plant species which have
> >> gone extinct in the past, because they couldn't survive.
>
> >> And then, please take your time as to read these links:
>

> >>  <http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20...>
> >>http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20...
>
> >> <http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm>

> >>http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
>
> >> You'll see, that it is very interesting
>
> >> Rolf
>
> > This is very interesting.  But what say it is not evolution that caused it
> > - but the degree of pollution that we have been seeing
> > that began as soon as man sinned in the Garden of Eden, that has been
> > building for 6,000 years.
> > In other words, to say it is caused by *one thingy* is stretching what we
> > don't really know to be a truth that we think
> > and so we believe.
> > thea
>

> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----------------------------
>
> >> 2011/5/15 thea < <thea.n...@gmail.com>thea.n...@gmail.com>

>
> >>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Rolf Schuler <<rolf2...@googlemail.com>
> >>> rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a
> >>>> single
> >>>> krill?"
> >>>> No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give
> >>>> it a meaning. The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food
> >>>> for other animals.
>
> >>>> QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a
> >>>> designer?"
> >>>> No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would
> >>>> have been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.
>
> >>>> Rolf
>
> >>> Rolf, would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?
>

> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
>
> >>>> 2011/5/15 Max < <ass...@pcfin.net>ass...@pcfin.net>

>
> >>>>> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> >>>>> or purpose for human life?
>
> >>>>> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> >>>>> krill?
>
> >>>>> Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> >>>>> If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> >>>>> can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> >>>>> Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> >>>>> no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> >>>>> Feel free to answer some or all.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>  --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>  --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >>> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>  --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > WebRep
> > Overall rating

>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> WebRep

> Overall rating- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Timbo]

On May 16, 9:03 am, Rolf Schuler <rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: ".... a new universe comes into existence (according to Revelation.)"
>
> Which - according to Harold Camping - will happen next Saturday, May 21st
> 2011. Don't miss the chance for shopping, before we all will die laughing
> !!!!
> Will the Earth be rebuilt again then`? :-O

When Gad once again rolls the universe up like rolling a piece of
papyrus, he will likely go back to the winged avatar model. The Jesus
patch he put on the human model did not seem to work out so well. What
are they writing in modern day Nicaea, they seem to be the human
authority on matters.
>
> Rolf
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
>
> 2011/5/16 thea <thea.n...@gmail.com>

> >> On May 15, 2011, at 11:38 AM, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Rolf Schuler < <rolf2...@googlemail.com>
> >> rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> QUOTE: "would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution
> >>> caused?"
>
> >>> Sure, yes.
> >>> At first, remember the millions of animal and plant species which have
> >>> gone extinct in the past, because they couldn't survive.
>
> >>> And then, please take your time as to read these links:
>

> >>>  <http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20...>
> >>>http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%20...
>
> >>> <http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm>

> >>>http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
>
> >>> You'll see, that it is very interesting
>
> >>> Rolf
>
> >> This is very interesting.  But what say it is not evolution that caused it
> >> - but the degree of pollution that we have been seeing
> >> that began as soon as man sinned in the Garden of Eden, that has been
> >> building for 6,000 years.
> >> In other words, to say it is caused by *one thingy* is stretching what we
> >> don't really know to be a truth that we think
> >> and so we believe.
> >> thea
>

> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
>
> >>> 2011/5/15 thea < <thea.n...@gmail.com>thea.n...@gmail.com>
>

> >>>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Rolf Schuler <<rolf2...@googlemail.com>
> >>>> rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a
> >>>>> single
> >>>>> krill?"
> >>>>> No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give
> >>>>> it a meaning. The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food
> >>>>> for other animals.
>
> >>>>> QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a
> >>>>> designer?"
> >>>>> No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would
> >>>>> have been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.
>
> >>>>> Rolf
>
> >>>> Rolf, would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?
>

> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
>
> >>>>> 2011/5/15 Max < <ass...@pcfin.net>ass...@pcfin.net>

>
> >>>>>> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning
> >>>>>> &/
> >>>>>> or purpose for human life?
>
> >>>>>> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> >>>>>> krill?
>
> >>>>>> Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> >>>>>> If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> >>>>>> can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> >>>>>> Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> >>>>>> no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> >>>>>> Feel free to answer some or all.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>>> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>  --
> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>>  --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>>  --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >>> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> For more options, visit this group at

> >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >> WebRep
> >> Overall rating
>

> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >>  --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > WebRep

> > Overall rating

[PD]

On May 15, 1:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> or purpose for human life?
>
> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> krill?
>
> Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> Feel free to answer some or all.

First of all, all life has some purpose: homeostasis, metabolism,
reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli.

Beyond that, some life has a purpose in an ecological sense -- being a
herd animal (and hence having social structures) or being a predator
(and hence hunting and killing other life) or environmental adaptation
(evolutionary or otherwise) or sexual selection.

Some primate life forms have a purpose in using their limbs in
manipulating objects and making tools. This seems to be also part of
their identity as a species.

Beyond that, things start to get a little murky. But the point of all
this is, "purpose" has too broad a connotation to say flatly "no".
Both krill and humans have reproduction as a purpose, and there are a
lot of things that go along with that.

[Drafterman]

How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does" or
"is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue of
the fact that I do it?

[PD]

I think you've just illustrated the ambiguity in the word "purpose"
that I was alluding to.

[Observer]

On May 15, 9:32 pm, Lexie <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those are questions that nobody can answer. Even all of the geniuses  
> pit together couldn't come up with an answer. Only with death will we  
> learn the truth.

Observer
With death comes complete dissolution so that nothing remains that
could learn. No deposit no return. That's all she wrote.
>

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On May 16, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 1:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>
> First of all, all life has some purpose: homeostasis, metabolism,
> reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli.

Observer

A Stupid statement, from the the "mind " of self proclaimed teacher of
science. There is no more purpose to such as you mention than there is
in sun spots.

They are simply the systems at work( produced by evolution) which are
currently functions of the creatures manifesting such behaviors.

Such as purpose is the product of the same dementia, producing belief
is the hideously stupid, sadomasochistic, psychotic, filth of
christianity.

The more you write the more stupidity is revealed. You have had your
tail/ and tale tied in a knot so thoroughly by others that one can
only laugh .

The funniest part is that you are too dense to know it.


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

>
> Beyond that, some life has a purpose in an ecological sense -- being a
> herd animal (and hence having social structures) or being a predator
> (and hence hunting and killing other life) or environmental adaptation
> (evolutionary or otherwise) or sexual selection.

Observer

Stupiud,Stiupiud , Stupiud, !!!

>
> Some primate life forms have a purpose in using their limbs in

> manipulating objects and making tools. This seems to be als part of

> their identity as a species.

Stupid, stupid, stupid,!!!

>
> Beyond that, things start to get a little murky. But the point of all
> this is, "purpose" has too broad a connotation to say flatly "no".
> Both krill and humans have reproduction as a purpose, and there are a
> lot of things that go along with that.

You are a fucking moron.!

None of the above are other than inherited traits and all purpose is
in the wild ass imagination of a dimwitted pseudo scientist.

Psychonomist

[PD]

Perhaps, Dave, there is a simple mismatch in communication. If
reproduction is not a function of life, a purpose of life, then what
do you think "purpose" means? If the purpose of a hammer is not to
pound nails, then what the hell do you think "purpose" even means?

If you don't even KNOW what "purpose" means in a way that you can
articulate, then why would you be so vain as to say this or that is
not purpose?

>
> Psychonomist

[thea]

Since we know that the Bible is just 7,000 years of history and prophecy
and we know that at the end of the Bible in Revelation, this universe passes
away and a new universe is born.
Then is it such a stretch to believe that the dinosaurs were on earth 100 million
years ago.  Is it such a stretch to realize that the dinosaurs disappeared when
Satan sinned and was cast out of heaven.
That the earth was made perfect, 100 million years ago, and
*became* null in void in Genesis 1:2.
I think since we want to believe that the earth is million of years old,
we ought to read the Bible correctly in order to see that there is no
way the dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden.
Talk about a tree - it would have been smashed to smithereens
way before Adam had a chance to taste the fruit thereof.
The guy who is now main stream preaching to everyone about how Adam
and Eve walked with the dinosaurs - has to have had brain surgery to
be so stupid (according to me).


 

WebRep

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 16, 4:25 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

How can humans be created in this "new universe" 7000 years ago when
you have them cavorting with dinosaurs 100 million years ago.

> Then is it such a stretch to believe that the dinosaurs were on earth 100
> million
> years ago.

Yes. If dinosaurs lived in the old universe then why are their fossils
in the new universe?

> Is it such a stretch to realize that the dinosaurs disappeared
> when
> Satan sinned and was cast out of heaven.

Yes. That's just stupid.

> That the earth was made perfect, 100 million years ago, and
> *became* null in void in Genesis 1:2.

Why did you emphasize the word "became"?

> I think since we want to believe that the earth is million of years old,

We have evidence the earth is billions (not millions) of years old.
What we want to beleive is irrelevant.

> we ought to read the Bible correctly in order to see that there is no
> way the dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden.

Then why are there dinosaur fossils in this new universe?

> Talk about a tree - it would have been smashed to smithereens
> way before Adam had a chance to taste the fruit thereof.

Why are you talking about a tree?

> The guy who is now main stream preaching to everyone about how Adam
> and Eve walked with the dinosaurs - has to have had brain surgery to
> be so stupid (according to me).

What you believe is just as stupid.

> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­--------------------------------------------------------------------------­-­---------

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Timothy 1:4a]

On May 15, 4:28 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 2:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

Good post, Joe.
Just be sure that your loving God does not involve hating humankind,
as the Romans accused the early Christians of doing.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On May 16, 7:25 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

If God remade the world within the last 7000 years, then He did it
AFTER the Flood. And faked the world to appear 4 billion years old.
If the world was flooded that recently, it is 100% impossible to have
the geology and geography that we see today, unless a miracle was
performed to erase the evidence from almost every square mile on the
planet.

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ­-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -­---------

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lexie]

There is no new universe that we exist in there has only been one earth

Then is it such a stretch to believe that the dinosaurs were on earth 100 million
years ago.  Is it such a stretch to realize that the dinosaurs disappeared when
Satan sinned and was cast out of heaven.
That the earth was made perfect,

Who the heck told you that the earth is perfect?? Are you freakin insane Thea??? Someone would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to even consider that statement. And even then, they realize that the earth is far from perfect. I think you might need to check your sources

Lexie

[Drafterman]

> that I was alluding to.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

In your use of the word, yes. I don't agree with your use, though.

[Taipanus]

If there's no meaning or purpose to your life, why do you feel it's
important to discuss the issue of meaning and personal importance on
this forum?

I once heard a story about Jackson Pollock, the painter. I'm quoting
an old pastor, in a sermon I heard years ago (so my facts might be a
bit hazy), but he usually had his sermon notes right.

Pollock seems to have been some sort of nihilist, ie. he didn't think
there was any meaning to life. We've got an expensive meaningless
painting called "Blue Poles" hanging in the national gallery to prove
it (or that was the story when it first came out). Mind you it's
worth a lot of money if they decide to sell it.

But one day Pollock was very intently picking mushrooms or truffles
with a friend of his. The friend noticed Pollock's determination in
this process, and commented that Pollock was a hypocrite. While he
was picking the mushrooms, he had a very definite purpose for his
life.

No doubt his strubble with alcoholism was a factor, but when it suited
him he had a purpose.

[thea]

The humans that were here 100 million years ago were destroyed when the
earth became null and void in Genesis 1:2
In other words, we were recreated for a specific purpose, at a specific time
in order to replace Satan in heaven and replace the humans that God had
made on the earth.
And this specific time frame is just the last 7,000 years of this universes
existence.

 

> Then is it such a stretch to believe that the dinosaurs were on earth 100
> million
> years ago.

Yes. If dinosaurs lived in the old universe then why are their fossils
in the new universe?

Because they were buried, and were we suppose to dig and till the
ground to find them -- no!  we did not have to work in the Garden of
Eden, so sin is what caused us to discover that this universe was
made more than once.

 

> Is it such a stretch to realize that the dinosaurs disappeared
> when
> Satan sinned and was cast out of heaven.

Yes. That's just stupid.

It is the only reasonable thinking we have to explain - how come 

> That the earth was made perfect, 100 million years ago, and
> *became* null in void in Genesis 1:2.

Why did you emphasize the word "became"?

Because the King James version of the Bible says *was*.
In other words, because we do not have a good translation of the
Bible, in these first verses of the Bible, we have had incorrect
thinking and forever.
This, of course, is the Gap Theory, which a lot of theologians
say they don't believe.
And, I say, if they want to believe that dinosaurs walked with
Adam and Eve, then they have rocks in their heads.

 

> I think since we want to believe that the earth is million of years old,

We have evidence the earth is billions (not millions) of years old.
What we want to beleive is irrelevant.

For us to be able to prove something is this old or that old, depends
on the way we measure time.  Are the instruments we use absolutely
accurate.  Maybe or maybe not. 
Time can be measured several ways.
In fact, I have been reading about how in Genesis, the long lives
of people should, in fact, be halved.  That is because they measured
years in a different way.
For instance, I have learned that learned men are saying the way
the ancients in Genesis counted years:
One year was the Spring planting time, the next years was
the Fall harvest time.  So you had two years per our one year.
Interesting to find that there is another way of thinking through what
some people are saying are problems with time in the Bible.
 

> we ought to read the Bible correctly in order to see that there is no
> way the dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden.

Then why are there dinosaur fossils in this new universe?

Dinosaurs existed in this universe, before Satan sinned.
And humans were also in this universe before Satan sinned.
Howbeit, when Satan sinned, he destroyed this universe.
Genesis 1:2 in the starting point at which God *re-made*
the universe to have a specific purpose of making human beings
who would be true to HIM ONLY.
 

> Talk about a tree - it would have been smashed to smithereens
> way before Adam had a chance to taste the fruit thereof.

Why are you talking about a tree?

The tree of *good and evil* which the woman ate, and then gave
to Adam, would have been destroyed by dinosaurs before they
could have been tested.
Common man, use either common sense - or allow your brain
to work.
 

> The guy who is now main stream preaching to everyone about how Adam
> and Eve walked with the dinosaurs - has to have had brain surgery to
> be so stupid (according to me).

What you believe is just as stupid.

Not so stupid as to believe that we can from *nothing*.
Not so stupid as to believe that our lives here on earth now do not
count for *anything.*
And I believe there is a plan and it is being played out perfectly.
We can see shadows of what is happening, and will happen.

 

[Drafterman]

On May 17, 9:48 am, Taipanus <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> If there's no meaning or purpose to your life, why do you feel it's
> important to discuss the issue of meaning and personal importance on
> this forum?

When did he say there is no meaning or purpose to his life?

> > Feel free to answer some or all.- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

Then what do you believe "purpose" means, as you'd like it used?
Is the purpose of a clock to keep time, or is it just something that
it does?
Is the purpose of a leaf to do photosynthesis, or is it just something
that it does?

What "purpose" do YOU have in mind?

[Drafterman]

> What "purpose" do YOU have in mind?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

In this context a purpose invokves intention, design, goal. In this
case the purpose of a clock is to keep time, as that is the reason it
was made. But notice that *what* the clock's purpose is is separate
from *how* that purpose is achieved. Clocks achieve their purpose a
number of ways: through pendulums, batteries, quartz, atoms, springs,
gears, mechanisms, hands, digital displays. A clock may use a pendulum
to turn, through discrete increments, turn a gear which turns a set of
hands. "Turning gears" or "Turning hands" is not the clock's purpose.
It is what it does to achieve its purpose: "to keep time."

Likewise, whatever a plant's purpose may or may not be, photosynthesis
is what it does to achieve that purpose, if it has one. If it does not
have one, then photosynthesis is simply what it does.

Then there are other aspects. All machines produce heat. The
production of heat is not its purpose. In fact, since heat represents
waste and loss of efficiency, the production of heat is counter to its
purpose. Yet it produces heat nontheless.

Purpose requires intent.

Now, back to the unanswered questions I posed in response to your use
of the term:

[student13]

PD,

does the clock "keep" time? Does the clock knows that?
Or is it you who keep the time? Is it not by your relating
some movement that you make it appear to inform you the time?
( I hope you would have noticed the folly of bringing in maths
in the discussion on another thread as an example ! )


Don't you think your this example a bit odd?

cheers
st13

[PD]

So let's get to the source of intent then.
I take it that you believe that natural objects cannot have a purpose
without demonstrating that there is intent that provided design behind
nature.
And yet you also believe that human beings can have an intent for a
machine that they create, and therefore that machine has purpose.
And in fact, a human being can have an intent for an ordinary object,
such as a stone, if it is used as a tool to do something (such as
being a hammer or a stone axe or a projectile weapon or a spark-
throwing fire-starter). So it does not have to be something that is
*created* by a human for it to have a purpose in that context.
And in fact, some animals have been observed to use objects as tools,
and so those objects have purpose in that context. One would guess,
then, that some animals can be *surmised* to have intent by the use of
those tools.

So then the question comes, where is the boundary of intent? Where
does intent disappear?

Or for that matter, since humans are a natural object in a natural
world and therefore what humans do, they just do, because nothing in
the natural world has a purpose, then whence comes intent? Is intent
itself just something that some organisms just do?

>
> Now, back to the unanswered questions I posed in response to your use
> of the term:
>
> "How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does"
> or "is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue
> of the fact that I do it?

In response to *my* use of the term, there is considerable overlap
between these two, and there are no clearly identifiable boundaries.
In the example you gave of heat, machines generate heat; their
designers are exploiting the laws of physics to design a machine to
produce an outcome, and those very same laws of physics demand that
there will be heat output as part of the outcome so that
acknowledgment of those laws of physics is also an acknowledgment of
heat as one of the outcomes. It may be an ancillary outcome rather
than a principle outcome.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 17, 7:56 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

If God created a "new universe" then there would be no evidence of an
old one, but not only is there no evidence of an old universe, we can
find archeological evidence of our direct ancestors older than 7000
years.

> And this specific time frame is just the last 7,000 years of this universes
> existence.

But you just said this universe is only 7000 years old, if that's the
case then this "specific time frame" is all there is. You are very
confused.

> > > Then is it such a stretch to believe that the dinosaurs were on earth 100
> > > million
> > > years ago.
>
> > Yes. If dinosaurs lived in the old universe then why are their fossils
> > in the new universe?
>
> Because they were buried,

If dinosaurs lived in an old universe then everything in that
universe, including dinosaur fossils, would be destroyed when it was
replaced by a new universe. Do you even know what a universe is?

> and were we suppose to dig and till the
> ground to find them -- no!  we did not have to work in the Garden of
> Eden, so sin is what caused us to discover that this universe was
> made more than once.

So in your world, paleontology is a sin. Figures.

> > > Is it such a stretch to realize that the dinosaurs disappeared
> > > when
> > > Satan sinned and was cast out of heaven.
>
> > Yes. That's just stupid.
>
> It is the only reasonable thinking we have to explain -

It isn't the only reasonable thinking we have to explain (evolution
explains dinosaur fossils reasonably), and it isn't even reasonable.
It's stupid.

> how come


> > > That the earth was made perfect, 100 million years ago, and
> > > *became* null in void in Genesis 1:2.
>
> > Why did you emphasize the word "became"?
>
> Because the King James version of the Bible says *was*.
> In other words, because we do not have a good translation of the
> Bible, in these first verses of the Bible, we have had incorrect
> thinking and forever.

People that don't believe the Bible aren't saddled with that
particular "incorrect thinking", ever.

> This, of course, is the Gap Theory, which a lot of theologians
> say they don't believe.

I agree with them, the "Gap Theory" is stupid.

> And, I say, if they want to believe that dinosaurs walked with
> Adam and Eve, then they have rocks in their heads.

Most don't believe that (but they believe something equally as
ludicrous).

> > > I think since we want to believe that the earth is million of years old,
>
> > We have evidence the earth is billions (not millions) of years old.
> > What we want to beleive is irrelevant.
>
> For us to be able to prove something is this old or that old, depends
> on the way we measure time.  Are the instruments we use absolutely
> accurate.  Maybe or maybe not.

They are accurate within a defined tolerance.

> Time can be measured several ways.

Time is measured with a clock. There are all sorts of clocks
available.

> In fact, I have been reading about how in Genesis, the long lives
> of people should, in fact, be halved.  That is because they measured
> years in a different way.
> For instance, I have learned that learned men are saying the way
> the ancients in Genesis counted years:
> One year was the Spring planting time, the next years was
> the Fall harvest time.  So you had two years per our one year.
> Interesting to find that there is another way of thinking through what
> some people are saying are problems with time in the Bible.

Sure, if you change what the Bible says to mean something else, then
everything might make sense. If the Bible says that God made humans
six days after the beginning of the universe but the Bible really
means that humans evolved naturally billions of years after the
beginning of the universe then I'd have no problem with the Bible. If
the Bible says that Jesus sacrificed himself for me on the cross but
the Bible really means that Jesus was a schizophrenic who imagined he
was divine then I'd have no problem with the Bible.

Even if 1 season = 1 year then Noah would have been over 200 years
old. Your religious beliefs are absurd.

> > > we ought to read the Bible correctly in order to see that there is no
> > > way the dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden.
>
> > Then why are there dinosaur fossils in this new universe?
>
> Dinosaurs existed in this universe, before Satan sinned.

But you said an old universe was destroyed when Satan sinned and was
replaced by a new universe. How could dinosaur bones survive the
destruction of a universe?

> And humans were also in this universe before Satan sinned.

But you said an old universe was destroyed when Satan sinned and was
replaced by a new universe. How could humans survive the destruction
of a universe?

> Howbeit, when Satan sinned, he destroyed this universe.

So now this universe was destroyed? I thought you said an old universe
was destroyed? You seem very confused.

> Genesis 1:2 in the starting point at which God *re-made*
> the universe to have a specific purpose of making human beings
> who would be true to HIM ONLY.

So then there would be no remnants of an old universe, like dinosaur
bones or archeological sites older than 7000 years. But there are
things older than 7000 years in this "new universe", including pretty
much everything that isn't alive. Your religious beliefs are absurd.

> > > Talk about a tree - it would have been smashed to smithereens
> > > way before Adam had a chance to taste the fruit thereof.
>
> > Why are you talking about a tree?
>
> The tree of *good and evil* which the woman ate, and then gave
> to Adam, would have been destroyed by dinosaurs before they
> could have been tested.

I'm leaning towards "the magic tree never existed".

> Common man, use either common sense - or allow your brain
> to work.

It's common sense to think that the universe did not begin 7000 years
ago since we've found things that are 15 billion years old.

> > > The guy who is now main stream preaching to everyone about how Adam
> > > and Eve walked with the dinosaurs - has to have had brain surgery to
> > > be so stupid (according to me).
>
> > What you believe is just as stupid.
>
> Not so stupid as to believe that we can from *nothing*.

I don't believe that so I'm safe.

> Not so stupid as to believe that our lives here on earth now do not
> count for *anything.*

I don't believe that so I guess I'm safe.

> And I believe there is a plan and it is being played out perfectly.

I know. You believe a lot of crazy things.

> We can see shadows of what is happening, and will happen.

Your powers of prophecy have failed to impress me so far. For
instance, you predicted that God and Jesus would "make themselves
known to me" because you prayed that they would. But I haven't met
them, at all. I think it's safe to ignore what you think are "shadows

> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­-------------------------------------------------------------------------­-­-­---------

>
> > > > > >>>> 2011/5/15 Max < <ass...@pcfin.net>ass...@pcfin.net>
>
> > > > > >>>>> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be
> > > > meaning &/
> > > > > >>>>> or purpose for human life?
>
> > > > > >>>>> Is human
>

[Drafterman]

Yes. I agree that purpose or intent can be imbued upon something else;
I didn't suggest otherwise. All I said was that simply because an
object does something doesn't automatically that thing its purpose.
Nor does it even make that thing supportive of its purpose.

I don't know what you are talking about with the boundary of intent or
it disappearing. Intent is either imbued upon a thing as part of its
creation or afterwards.

>
> Or for that matter, since humans are a natural object in a natural
> world and therefore what humans do, they just do, because nothing in
> the natural world has a purpose, then whence comes intent?

From us. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it.

> Is intent
> itself just something that some organisms just do?

It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
organisms do, I don't know.

>
>
>
> > Now, back to the unanswered questions I posed in response to your use
> > of the term:
>
> > "How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does"
> > or "is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue
> > of the fact that I do it?
>
> In response to *my* use of the term, there is considerable overlap
> between these two, and there are no clearly identifiable boundaries.
> In the example you gave of heat, machines generate heat; their
> designers are exploiting the laws of physics to design a machine to
> produce an outcome, and those very same laws of physics demand that
> there will be heat output as part of the outcome so that
> acknowledgment of those laws of physics is also an acknowledgment of
> heat as one of the outcomes. It may be an ancillary outcome rather

> than a principle outcome.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you can or you can't distinguish "purpose" from something one
simply "does" or "is?" I'm not sure based on this answer.

Also, if I design something with a specific intent, can it operate in
direct contradiction to that intent?

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

The purpose of a Christian is to glorify God.

[PD]

So the intent for the stone is imbued when it is picked up and thrown
at an enemy, right?

>
>
>
> > Or for that matter, since humans are a natural object in a natural
> > world and therefore what humans do, they just do, because nothing in
> > the natural world has a purpose, then whence comes intent?
>
> From us. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it.

But it's not unique to us. Animals (without a word for it) use tools
with what we infer is intent.
Those tools therefore have purpose, or so it is inferred. Thus the
boundary cannot be with us and us alone.

>
> > Is intent
> > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> organisms do, I don't know.

Then again, we're stuck at not being able to tell the clear line
between purpose and that which things just do.

[PD]

On May 17, 11:01 am, student13 <pairam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PD,
>
> does the clock "keep" time?  Does the clock knows that?
> Or is it you who keep the time?  Is it not by your relating
> some movement that you make it appear to inform you the time?
> ( I hope you would have noticed the folly of  bringing in maths
>  in the discussion on another thread as an example ! )
>
> Don't you think your this example a bit odd?

There again, I think you illustrate the ambiguity of the word
"purpose". Here you are saying that an object that is CREATED by human
beings can't even be said to have a purpose, as it is only in the
context of a human observing it that it serves any purpose. That is,
the purpose doesn't reside in the functioning of the clock but in how
humans interpret what the clock is doing.

So I guess I can ask YOU, then: what does "purpose" even mean,
separating that word from just the things that happen?

Others have said that an object's purpose can only have meaning in the
sense of the intent of a being outside the object. You said above that
a clock can't have purpose unless the clock itself is aware of intent
to do so.

So does the intent behind the purpose of a thing reside outside the
thing or inside the thing?

[Simon Ewins]

On 5/17/2011 12:01 PM, student13 wrote:
> does the clock "keep" time? Does the clock knows that?
> Or is it you who keep the time? Is it not by your relating
> some movement that you make it appear to inform you the time?

The difference is the use of the indefinite article 'a' (and incorrect
usage of 'have').

Clocks do not have purpose. As you say, they are incapable of such.

Clocks have (serve) a purpose. The word 'have' is accepted but
inaccurate. It should always be 'serve' followed by either an indefinite
(or definite) article.

Even native English speakers seldom understand this.

Coffee mugs don't 'have' a purpose, they 'serve' a purpose. The
'purpose' is ours and they 'serve' it.

> ( I hope you would have noticed the folly of bringing in maths
> in the discussion on another thread as an example ! )
>
>
> Don't you think your this example a bit odd?
>
> cheers
> st13
>
>
> On May 17, 8:44 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 7:36 am, Drafterman<drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 16, 3:58 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 16, 2:25 pm, Drafterman<drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 16, 3:17 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On May 15, 1:11 am, Max<ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning&/
>>>>>>> or purpose for human life?
>>
>>>>>>> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
>>>>>>> krill?
>>

>>>>>>> Does meaning& purpose presuppose design& by consequence, a designer?

--
Musique

http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony
be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the
fact which it endeavors to establish."
[David Hume]

[Drafterman]

What about the rest of the world?

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Sure.

>
>
>
> > > Or for that matter, since humans are a natural object in a natural
> > > world and therefore what humans do, they just do, because nothing in
> > > the natural world has a purpose, then whence comes intent?
>
> > From us. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it.
>
> But it's not unique to us.

No, but you only referred to humans here. I interprted that as the
establishing the scope of your comment.

> Animals (without a word for it) use tools
> with what we infer is intent.
> Those tools therefore have purpose, or so it is inferred. Thus the
> boundary cannot be with us and us alone.

Then why did you only refer to humans?

>
>
>
> > > Is intent
> > > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> > It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> > organisms do, I don't know.
>
> Then again, we're stuck at not being able to tell the clear line
> between purpose and that which things just do.

It's not an issue of there not being a clear line. There's a clear
line between first degree murder and an accident, though the end
result may have the same appearance. Thus, it is not possible, based
on appearances alone, to determine if it was first degree murder or an
accident. This isn't an issue of there not being a clear line, it's an
issue of not having enough information to know on what side of the
line it falls on.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Now, back to the unanswered questions I posed in response to your use
> > > > of the term:
>
> > > > "How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does"
> > > > or "is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue
> > > > of the fact that I do it?
>
> > > In response to *my* use of the term, there is considerable overlap
> > > between these two, and there are no clearly identifiable boundaries.
> > > In the example you gave of heat, machines generate heat; their
> > > designers are exploiting the laws of physics to design a machine to
> > > produce an outcome, and those very same laws of physics demand that
> > > there will be heat output as part of the outcome so that
> > > acknowledgment of those laws of physics is also an acknowledgment of
> > > heat as one of the outcomes. It may be an ancillary outcome rather
> > > than a principle outcome.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > So you can or you can't distinguish "purpose" from something one
> > simply "does" or "is?" I'm not sure based on this answer.
>
> > Also, if I design something with a specific intent, can it operate in

> > direct contradiction to that intent?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

Then you missed my intent, as I was making that statement in the
context of all my preceding remarks, which definitely spanned scope
beyond humans.

See in particular: "So it does not have to be something that is

*created* by a human for it to have a purpose in that context. And in
fact, some animals have been observed to use objects as tools, and so
those objects have purpose in that context. One would guess, then,
that some animals can be *surmised* to have intent by the use of those
tools."

>

> > Animals (without a word for it) use tools
> > with what we infer is intent.
> > Those tools therefore have purpose, or so it is inferred. Thus the
> > boundary cannot be with us and us alone.
>
> Then why did you only refer to humans?
>
>
>
> > > > Is intent
> > > > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> > > It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> > > organisms do, I don't know.
>
> > Then again, we're stuck at not being able to tell the clear line
> > between purpose and that which things just do.
>
> It's not an issue of there not being a clear line. There's a clear
> line between first degree murder and an accident, though the end
> result may have the same appearance. Thus, it is not possible, based
> on appearances alone, to determine if it was first degree murder or an
> accident. This isn't an issue of there not being a clear line, it's an
> issue of not having enough information to know on what side of the
> line it falls on.

And what would be the information needed here to make a determination
of purpose?

[Drafterman]

To which I agreed....

>
>
>
> > > Animals (without a word for it) use tools
> > > with what we infer is intent.
> > > Those tools therefore have purpose, or so it is inferred. Thus the
> > > boundary cannot be with us and us alone.
>
> > Then why did you only refer to humans?
>
> > > > > Is intent
> > > > > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> > > > It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> > > > organisms do, I don't know.
>
> > > Then again, we're stuck at not being able to tell the clear line
> > > between purpose and that which things just do.
>
> > It's not an issue of there not being a clear line. There's a clear
> > line between first degree murder and an accident, though the end
> > result may have the same appearance. Thus, it is not possible, based
> > on appearances alone, to determine if it was first degree murder or an
> > accident. This isn't an issue of there not being a clear line, it's an
> > issue of not having enough information to know on what side of the
> > line it falls on.
>
> And what would be the information needed here to make a determination
> of purpose?

Access to that which imbued said purpose.

[PD]

Then intent does not come from us, as it is not limited to us. From
what, then, does intent come?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Animals (without a word for it) use tools
> > > > with what we infer is intent.
> > > > Those tools therefore have purpose, or so it is inferred. Thus the
> > > > boundary cannot be with us and us alone.
>
> > > Then why did you only refer to humans?
>
> > > > > > Is intent
> > > > > > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> > > > > It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> > > > > organisms do, I don't know.
>
> > > > Then again, we're stuck at not being able to tell the clear line
> > > > between purpose and that which things just do.
>
> > > It's not an issue of there not being a clear line. There's a clear
> > > line between first degree murder and an accident, though the end
> > > result may have the same appearance. Thus, it is not possible, based
> > > on appearances alone, to determine if it was first degree murder or an
> > > accident. This isn't an issue of there not being a clear line, it's an
> > > issue of not having enough information to know on what side of the
> > > line it falls on.
>
> > And what would be the information needed here to make a determination
> > of purpose?
>
> Access to that which imbued said purpose.

Namely?

>
>
>
> > > > > > > Now, back to the unanswered questions I posed in response to your use
> > > > > > > of the term:
>
> > > > > > > "How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does"
> > > > > > > or "is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue
> > > > > > > of the fact that I do it?
>
> > > > > > In response to *my* use of the term, there is considerable overlap
> > > > > > between these two, and there are no clearly identifiable boundaries.
> > > > > > In the example you gave of heat, machines generate heat; their
> > > > > > designers are exploiting the laws of physics to design a machine to
> > > > > > produce an outcome, and those very same laws of physics demand that
> > > > > > there will be heat output as part of the outcome so that
> > > > > > acknowledgment of those laws of physics is also an acknowledgment of
> > > > > > heat as one of the outcomes. It may be an ancillary outcome rather
> > > > > > than a principle outcome.- Hide
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

Well... intent does come from us. As in the case with the clock maker.
The clock maker imbues the clock with purpose. We're not the only ones
that can imbue something with purpose, though. Other organisms can do
that too, as you explained. So, I'm not sure what the question is.

Anything that we have observed imbuing something with intent is
capable of imbuing something with intent.

>
>
>
> > > > > Animals (without a word for it) use tools
> > > > > with what we infer is intent.
> > > > > Those tools therefore have purpose, or so it is inferred. Thus the
> > > > > boundary cannot be with us and us alone.
>
> > > > Then why did you only refer to humans?
>
> > > > > > > Is intent
> > > > > > > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> > > > > > It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> > > > > > organisms do, I don't know.
>
> > > > > Then again, we're stuck at not being able to tell the clear line
> > > > > between purpose and that which things just do.
>
> > > > It's not an issue of there not being a clear line. There's a clear
> > > > line between first degree murder and an accident, though the end
> > > > result may have the same appearance. Thus, it is not possible, based
> > > > on appearances alone, to determine if it was first degree murder or an
> > > > accident. This isn't an issue of there not being a clear line, it's an
> > > > issue of not having enough information to know on what side of the
> > > > line it falls on.
>
> > > And what would be the information needed here to make a determination
> > > of purpose?
>
> > Access to that which imbued said purpose.
>
> Namely?

Namely.... that which has imbued something with a purpose. We know
that clocks have the purpose they do because of our awareness and
access to the clockmakers.

[PD]

On May 17, 1:47 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> > > > Then you missed my intent, as I was making that statement in the
> > > > context of all my preceding remarks, which definitely spanned scope
> > > > beyond humans.
>
> > > > See in particular: "So it does not have to be something that is
> > > > *created* by a human for it to have a purpose in that context. And in
> > > > fact, some animals have been observed to use objects as tools, and so
> > > > those objects have purpose in that context. One would guess, then,
> > > > that some animals can be *surmised* to have intent by the use of those
> > > > tools."
>
> > > To which I agreed....
>
> > Then intent does not come from us, as it is not limited to us. From
> > what, then, does intent come?
>
> Well... intent does come from us. As in the case with the clock maker.
> The clock maker imbues the clock with purpose. We're not the only ones
> that can imbue something with purpose, though. Other organisms can do
> that too, as you explained. So, I'm not sure what the question is.
>
> Anything that we have observed imbuing something with intent is
> capable of imbuing something with intent.

How does that observation work? For example, which of these would
represent an observation of imbuing something with intent?
- A man carving a piece of wood into a boomerang
- An ape inserting a twig into a termite colony hole to bring out
termites to eat
- An angler fish using its luminescent appendage from its head as lure
for food
- An otter smashing shellfish on a rock on its belly to eat them
- A bird gathering twigs and scraps to make a nest
- A wasp injecting her eggs into a caterpillar to be a food source for
the hatchlings

I'm sorry, we seem to be talking past each other here.
If I asked you what caused a rock to fall, and you answered "that
which caused the rock to fall", you would probably agree that you've
not offered much in the way of a useful response. What is it in the
clockmaker that imbues purpose to the clock?

[Drafterman]

Yes.

I guess. I don't understand the question. The intent of the clockmaker
imbues purpose into the clock. Where did you think it came from?

>- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Brock]

On May 15, 2:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> or purpose for human life?

I consider the Bible makes clear God created humankind in a special
and unique value among created beings. So we have the underlying
"purpose" that our Creator made us with.

> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> krill?

Only in relation to the value God places on us:

"So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."

http://bible.cc/matthew/10-31.htm

> If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?

No, in that meaning and purpose are not limited by your disbelief.

> Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> no purpose of meaning at all?

God != "god concept"

Regards,

Brock

[PD]

All of them, then? So none of these are to be distinguished from
"purpose" as being something that these things simply "do", as you
described earlier.

Then we obviously have not run into the boundary where the behaviors
are no longer exhibiting intent but are simply things that creatures
do. Let's probe a little further then.

How does that observation work? For example, which of these would
represent an observation of imbuing something with intent?

- A bird-of-paradise male putting on a dancing display of its feathers
to attract a mate
- A jaguar using a tree to store part of a kill for dining later
- A bat using echolocation to find food and avoid flying into
obstacles
- A chameleon using its skin pigments, blending into its surroundings
to avoid predation
- A human using his teeth to scrape paint off his fingernail

[Jeff]

Why? What need is there for a god to need glorifying?
If there were a need, WHO is the god trying to impress?

JEFF

On 5/17/2011 11:43 AM, son.of.a...@gmail.com wrote:
> The purpose of a Christian is to glorify God.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drafterman<draft...@gmail.com>
> Sender: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:34:48
> To: Atheism vs Christianity<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Why?
>
> On May 17, 12:16 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 11:00 am, Drafterman<drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 17, 11:44 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 17, 7:36 am, Drafterman<drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 16, 3:58 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 16, 2:25 pm, Drafterman<drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 16, 3:17 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 15, 1:11 am, Max<ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning&/
>>>>>>>>> or purpose for human life?
>>>>>>>>> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
>>>>>>>>> krill?

>>>>>>>>> Does meaning& purpose presuppose design& by consequence, a designer?

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

No need. I don't really know how to answer your question other then comparing things in our life that we find valuable. The more valuable or important something is, the more it is admired. This explanation lacks the aspect that such a being would be worthy of such admiration.

[Max]

So very sorry for taking so long to respond to other posters here.
With the best of intentions, factor 'x' with work often limits my time
here. Again, apologies. I'll do what I can now.

On May 15, 2:11 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> or purpose for human life?
>
> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> krill?
>

> Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?

[Max]

On May 15, 4:28 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 2:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

> Let us suppose, for the moment, that there is no God and thus no
> inherent meaning in anything.  Then, am I not free to create my own?
> Do I need to create a meaning from scratch, or am I also free to get
> some ideas from what has come before me?  Let us assume that I am both
> free to create my own meaning, and that I am also free to get ideas
> from sources.  What meaning will I create?

A god and everything that comes with that.

>
> I suppose anyone is free as well to lead a meaningless existence, but
> why?  

Meaningless to whom?

I mean, if you have a choice?  The choice between meaningless
> and meaningful seems a no-brainer, but hey, maybe that's just me.
>
> Of all the possible activities that I have ever engaged in, the most
> meaningful to me is the sharing of love, the giving and the receiving
> of love, with those I love and who love me.  

Nothing wrong with that

In fact, even fairly
> meaningless endeavors in themselves take on meaning when they become
> vehicles of interaction with loved ones.  Now this is a meaning of
> life that I did not invent, it is something that I gathered from many
> different sources.  I was not forced to choose love, but I am glad I
> did, because my life is filled with meaning.  I know that there can be
> no higher purpose or meaning to life, because I experience love as the
> highest possible.
>
> Coincidentally, God's Church teaches that God is Love,

Men teach that. Men who were taught themselves, by those that taught
them etc.


and the our
> purpose of existence is to know, love, and serve God in this world and
> to be happy with Him forever in the next.  

Yes, that is what they say. Some listen, but many don't anymore.

So as it turns out, the
> meaning that I chose for myself and the meaning the Church says I am
> created for are identical.  So if there is God, then I am on the good
> road, and if there is no God, but only me creating my own meaning for
> myself, then I am still on the good road.
>
> You think you have something better to offer?

To offer you.....I don't know....for me, most certainly.

[Max]

On May 15, 4:59 pm, Rolf Schuler <rolf2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a
> single
> krill?"

> No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give it a
> meaning.

Agreed, subjective meaning of course, but meaningful to me as I
determine what meaningful is!

The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food for
> other animals.
>

> QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a
> designer?"

> No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would  have
> been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.

Funny how the god nutters feel that their sense of meaning is defined
by their belief in a god thing.
>
> Rolf
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2011/5/15 Max <ass...@pcfin.net>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

[Max]

Brock!

On May 15, 6:36 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Rolf Schuler <rolf2...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
> > QUOTE: "Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a
> > single
> > krill?"
> > No. But the difference is, that you can modify your life, you can give it a

> > meaning. The krill can't do that, its only meaning is to serve as food for

> > other animals.
>
> > QUOTE: "Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a
> > designer?"
> > No - why should it? Live evolved without any designer. If there would  have
> > been one, many mistakes in evolution could have been avoided.
>

> > Rolf
>
> Rolf, would you like to give us the many mistakes that evolution caused?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Max]

On May 15, 9:27 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/15/2011 2:11 AM, Max wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning&/
> > or purpose for human life?
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>

> Nope. Your purpose is to create more of your species. Meaning is
> irrelevant at any scale other than within the sphere of your personal
> actions with other people, animals, the environment, family and friends.

Of course I agree, however I was also hoping to see how Christians in
particular address this.

>
> > Does meaning&  purpose presuppose design&  by consequence, a designer?

>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>

> No. Your purpose is to create more of you,

I would say it is my function (not purpose) to propagate, like any
other animal....

and meaning comes from
> family, friends, helping strangers, working to reduce the suffering of
> others (human and non-human) and avoiding doing any harm.

and it (meaning) also seems to be derived from others who prosletyse
and indoctrinate within a social setting, the god concept because

>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>

> It appears to be mostly rooted in confusion and a lack of intellectual
> sophistication combining to provide inaccurate answers to questions
> involving nature and the word 'why'.

of a latent fear that man may serve no other purpose (function) that
simply to be and all other constructs (meaning) are exactly that; i.e.
made up stuff like god's & fairies & ghosts etc
>
> --
> Musique
>
> http://www.reverbnation.com/simonewins
>
> "I tell you everything that is really nothing, and nothing of what is
> everything, do not be fooled by what I am saying.  Please listen
> carefully and try to hear what I am not saying."
> [Charles C. Finn]

[Max]

On May 16, 4:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 11:11 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>

> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?

>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>

> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>

> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

> LL: Right. Humans seem to have a desire or need to invest their lives
> with meaning beyond what they can understand about their own lives.
> One might as well ask what is the meaning of life for a cat or a dog
> or a cockroach. All creatures have the same object in life, to survive
> and reproduce. It's up to the individuals (human or otherwise) to
> learn the best way to do that. There is no more meaning than that. But
> humans will continue to try to find something else--some supernatural,
> god-inspired significance. One's own sense of significance is not
> enough, evidently.

Apparently, that seems to be so. Is it a fear thing do you think or
even a 'I'm so frigging insignificant & I don't like that', so I'll
perpetuate the soothing idea of Big Brother in the sky to help me
along thing'.

>
> ****************

[Max]

Why do you believe in a god thing then?

On May 16, 4:38 am, son.of.adam.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> People do a lot of things for their own reasons.
>
> I don't fall into the category where the need for purpose or meaning cause my belief in God.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LL <llp...@aol.com>
> Sender: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 13:32:55
> To: Atheism vs Christianity<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Why?
>

> On May 14, 11:11 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>
> LL: Right. Humans seem to have a desire or need to invest their lives
> with meaning beyond what they can understand about their own lives.
> One might as well ask what is the meaning of life for a cat or a dog
> or a cockroach. All creatures have the same object in life, to survive
> and reproduce. It's up to the individuals (human or otherwise) to
> learn the best way to do that. There is no more meaning than that. But
> humans will continue to try to find something else--some supernatural,
> god-inspired significance. One's own sense of significance is not
> enough, evidently.
>

> ****************

[Max]

Peer pressure & fear.

There my guesses!

On May 16, 5:51 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 3:38 pm, son.of.adam.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > People do a lot of things for their own reasons.
>
> > I don't fall into the category where the need for purpose or meaning cause my belief in God.
>

> Observer
>
> I have some questions for you.
>
> First , Why would you believe that such as a god exists, when there is
> not one iota of scientifically verifiable substantiating data for
> either the existence of or any act of one in or on this universe.
>
> Second why do you believe that the general content of the
> sadomasochistic, misanthropic, and quite stupid  buy bull are of value
> other than to wipe ones ass on or to start campfires.
>
> Psychonomist

[Max]

Couldn't agree more!

On May 16, 6:31 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 4:11 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

> I think the question "Is there any purpose or meaning in my life?"
> needs to be made more precise. I can certainly form my own purposes in
> life and find meaning in struggling hard to succeed. But it would be a
> fallacy to think that the universe cares one way or the other. The
> universe is just going to continue working out its basic physical laws
> until it inevitably reaches the big crunch many billions of billions
> of years after humans have become extinct. I will be fortunate indeed
> if anyone at all cares or knows anything about any purposes I had in
> my life 100 years after I am gone, and it is a certainty that no-one
> will know or care anything about them 10,000 years after I am gone.
> The god concept is a response to the difficulty of coming to terms
> with the transience and insignificance on a cosmic scale of whatever
> purpose I choose to form for my life.

[Max]

Plenty have answered them already Lexie. I wonder why you look for
'truth' in death, when in life we have the chance to find it. Seems
like such a waste of life to me.

On May 16, 10:32 am, Lexie <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those are questions that nobody can answer. Even all of the geniuses  
> pit together couldn't come up with an answer. Only with death will we  
> learn the truth.

>
> On May 15, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning  
> > &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

[Max]

Or the Jolly Green Giant or Captain America or the Flying Spaghetti
Monster.

It baffles me TLC.

On May 16, 7:12 pm, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why?  My big why is, why would any invisible, super-duper dude in the
> sky be so manically obsessed with having people on some planet telling
> him how good he is all the time, thanking him for giving things he
> never gave, building houses for him which he never visits and even
> killing for him?
>
> In fact, is having an invisible, super-duper dude in the sky any more
> purposeful or meaningful in life than that of a single garden fairy?

[Max]

I would use the term 'purpose' more as 'function' for clarity.

What say you about 'meaning'?

On May 17, 3:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 1:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

Max, the argument is not new. Everything that begins to exist has a creator. Therefore God.

-----Original Message-----
From: Max <ass...@pcfin.net>
Sender: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com

[Max]

On May 17, 9:48 pm, Taipanus <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> If there's no meaning or purpose to your life, why do you feel it's
> important to discuss the issue of meaning and personal importance on
> this forum?

I didn't and I'm exploring the why's & how's Christians abrogate
conceptual ownership of purpose & meaning to a god thing.

>
> I once heard a story about Jackson Pollock, the painter.  I'm quoting
> an old pastor, in a sermon I heard years ago (so my facts might be a
> bit hazy), but he usually had his sermon notes right.
>
> Pollock seems to have been some sort of nihilist, ie. he didn't think
> there was any meaning to life. We've got an expensive meaningless
> painting called "Blue Poles" hanging in the national gallery to prove
> it (or that was the story when it first came out).  Mind you it's
> worth a lot of money if they decide to sell it.

You might be a Melburnian then. Whitlam bought it (Blue Poles) for a
mill or so, now it's worth a shit load more. But I digress.

>
> But one day Pollock was very intently picking mushrooms or truffles
> with a friend of his. The friend noticed Pollock's determination in
> this process, and commented that Pollock was a hypocrite.  While he
> was picking the mushrooms, he had a very definite purpose for his
> life.

If he wiped his arse with toilet paper every day after pinching a
loaf, is that not also his raison detre also?


>
> No doubt his strubble with alcoholism was a factor, but when it suited
> him he had a purpose.

His purpose, not a 'god given one'

Whatever that is.

[Max]

On May 18, 4:27 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > or purpose for human life?
>
> I consider the Bible makes clear God created humankind in a special
> and unique value among created beings.  So we have the underlying
> "purpose" that our Creator made us with.

What is that purpose?

>
> > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > krill?
>
> Only in relation to the value God places on us:
>
> "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."
>
> http://bible.cc/matthew/10-31.htm

How does this greater relative purpose or meaning manifest itself?

>
> > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> No, in that meaning and purpose are not limited by your disbelief.

So, no god still has me with meaning & purpose to my life?

>
> > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> God != "god concept"

I'll wait for the objection

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Max]

What created the creator?

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

To create something means that something came into existence at a point in *time*. God is the creator of time itself. So before 'time', things didn't *begin* to exist. He was, He is, He will be. In the bible he is referred to as the great 'I AM'.

[Alan Wostenberg]

If life had no purpose, then there would be reason to prefer A instead of B. No reason to plant, or uproot; to kill, or heal; to weep, or laugh; to morn, or dance.   If you think life has no purpose - to really understand what that means please read the only book in the Bible in which God never speaks.

In fact, as Joe points out, people who do not know life's purpose tend to invent one by fixing on some worldly good. But

Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth; where the rust and moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven; where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew 6:19-20)

[Max]

So before time nothing existed other than this god thing. You say
other "things" didn't exist before time....fine, but you still haven't
explained what created your god?

BTW a bunch of very mortal sheep herders located the middle east some
2,000 years, who wrote that their god thing is the ants pants, is not
a valid explanation of the existence of a god thing that predated
time.

You know that.

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

I'll give you your point with the sheep herders...but I thought I explained that before time, things don't *begin* to exist because beginning to exist requires -time-. As no time existed, there was no beginning to God. Therefore God was not created.

[Max]

Ipso facto.....as god did not have a beginning before time, it (i.e.
the god thing) did not exist.

It still doesn't.

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the term. Can you simplify what you mean when using that term?

You're saying if God did not begin to exist, he could not have always existed? Why?

[Max]

On May 18, 7:34 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If life had no purpose, then there would be reason to prefer A instead of B.
> No reason to plant, or uproot; to kill, or heal; to weep, or laugh; to morn,
> or dance.   If you think life has no purpose - to really understand what

> that means please read the only book in the Bible in which God never speaks<http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ecclesiastes/ecclesiastes3.htm>

Life has function. The reasons for that functionality are diverse. As
far as humans are concerned, we kill animals to survive, we make fire
to warm ourselves, we dance to entertain ourselves, we concoct stories
to intrigue us or to explain that in which we don't know, we make laws
to create order, we congregate for social interaction & protection.
Humans do many functional things to satisfy that in which humans need
to be satisfied.

So 'purpose' in the sense of 'serving a purpose', humans do many
functional things for a reason. For me, humans functionality act
through social conditioning and biological determinants.

Now, the issue of 'meaning'. That's an entirely different kettle of
fish.

I give meaning to my own existence, through the agency of social
conditioning and biological determinants.

However one aspect of social conditioning that I reject, is the notion
that a supernatural entity has given me that 'meaning'.

I don't need it and I certainly don't find solace in it.

Clearly you do......why?


> .

>
> In fact, as Joe points out, people who do not know life's purpose tend to
> invent one by fixing on some worldly good.

Isn't that interesting?

You say: "people who do not know life's purpose tend to invent one by

fixing on some worldly good".

Contrastingly, I would say "people who do not know life's purpose tend
to invent one by fixing on some unworldly god".

Obviously, I don't agree that we have acquired a 'purpose' through the
agency of a god, but you do seem to assert that for some, life does
have a purpose beyond that of altruism (worldly good)

But what's that then?

An invention of another variety?
But
>
> *Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth; where the rust and moth

> consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves
> treasures in heaven; where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where

> thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew 6:19-20)*

[Max]

On May 18, 8:34 am, son.of.adam.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the term.  Can you simplify what you mean when using that term?

Ipso facto is a Latin phrase, directly translated as "by the fact
itself," Your assertion: "So before 'time', things didn't *begin* to
exist". [including your god thing I would have thought]

>
> You're saying if God did not begin to exist, he could not have always existed?  Why?

Because your argument has it that for something to be created, there
must be a creator. So if your god predated time itself, then it would
have needed a creator to create it!

You asserted that as god was the creator of time (and for other things
to then be created) then surely the only thing that 'existed' was god.
So the two options are that god has always existed (even before time)
then we're in the realm of infinite possibilities and if taken on face
value, I could equally assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has
always been (before time or otherwise) or something created god or the
FSM.

So,

I discount the FSM as the creator, simply because I know who created
the concept of the FSM. It was a bunch of students in the US who were
satirising ID advocates & equally, I discount the concept of a god
thing as the creator as I know who created the concept. Sheep herders
in the middle east, some 2,000 years ago, largely because of
ignorance.

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

I think I get what you're saying. If God always existed, then so could have a figment of imagination, such as the FSM.

Did I get it?

[Timothy 1:4a]

I thought the Christian God was perfect. Why does He need people
glorifying Him?

On May 17, 12:43 pm, son.of.adam.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> The purpose of a Christian is to glorify God.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com>
> Sender: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:34:48
> To: Atheism vs Christianity<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Why?
>

> On May 17, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 17, 11:00 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 7:36 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 16, 3:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 16, 2:25 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 16, 3:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > On May 15, 1:11 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning &/
> > > > > > > > > or purpose for human life?
>
> > > > > > > > > Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a single
> > > > > > > > > krill?
>
> > > > > > > > > Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a designer?
>
> > > > > > > > > If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
> > > > > > > > > can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>
> > > > > > > > > Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well have
> > > > > > > > > no purpose of meaning at all?
>
> > > > > > > > > Feel free to answer some or all.
>

> > > > > > > > First of all, all life has some purpose: homeostasis, metabolism,
> > > > > > > > reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli.
>
> > > > > > > > Beyond that, some life has a purpose in an ecological sense -- being a
> > > > > > > > herd animal (and hence having social structures) or being a predator
> > > > > > > > (and hence hunting and killing other life) or environmental adaptation
> > > > > > > > (evolutionary or otherwise) or sexual selection.
>
> > > > > > > > Some primate life forms have a purpose in using their limbs in
> > > > > > > > manipulating objects and making tools. This seems to be also part of
> > > > > > > > their identity as a species.
>
> > > > > > > > Beyond that, things start to get a little murky. But the point of all
> > > > > > > > this is, "purpose" has too broad a connotation to say flatly "no".
> > > > > > > > Both krill and humans have reproduction as a purpose, and there are a
> > > > > > > > lot of things that go along with that.
>

> > > > > > > How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does" or
> > > > > > > "is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue of
> > > > > > > the fact that I do it?
>
> > > > > > I think you've just illustrated the ambiguity in the word "purpose"
> > > > > > that I was alluding to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > In your use of the word, yes. I don't agree with your use, though.
>
> > > > Then what do you believe "purpose" means, as you'd like it used?
> > > > Is the purpose of a clock to keep time, or is it just something that
> > > > it does?
> > > > Is the purpose of a leaf to do photosynthesis, or is it just something
> > > > that it does?
>
> > > > What "purpose" do YOU have in mind?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > In this context a purpose invokves intention, design, goal. In this
> > > case the purpose of a clock is to keep time, as that is the reason it
> > > was made. But notice that *what* the clock's purpose is is separate
> > > from *how* that purpose is achieved. Clocks achieve their purpose a
> > > number of ways: through pendulums, batteries, quartz, atoms, springs,
> > > gears, mechanisms, hands, digital displays. A clock may use a pendulum
> > > to turn, through discrete increments, turn a gear which turns a set of
> > > hands. "Turning gears" or "Turning hands" is not the clock's purpose.
> > > It is what it does to achieve its purpose: "to keep time."
>
> > > Likewise, whatever a plant's purpose may or may not be, photosynthesis
> > > is what it does to achieve that purpose, if it has one. If it does not
> > > have one, then photosynthesis is simply what it does.
>
> > > Then there are other aspects. All machines produce heat. The
> > > production of heat is not its purpose. In fact, since heat represents
> > > waste and loss of efficiency, the production of heat is counter to its
> > > purpose. Yet it produces heat nontheless.
>
> > > Purpose requires intent.
>
> > So let's get to the source of intent then.
> > I take it that you believe that natural objects cannot have a purpose
> > without demonstrating that there is intent that provided design behind
> > nature.
> > And yet you also believe that human beings can have an intent for a
> > machine that they create, and therefore that machine has purpose.
> > And in fact, a human being can have an intent for an ordinary object,
> > such as a stone, if it is used as a tool to do something (such as
> > being a hammer or a stone axe or a projectile weapon or a spark-
> > throwing fire-starter). So it does not have to be something that is
> > *created* by a human for it to have a purpose in that context.
> > And in fact, some animals have been observed to use objects as tools,
> > and so those objects have purpose in that context. One would guess,
> > then, that some animals can be *surmised* to have intent by the use of
> > those tools.
>
> > So then the question comes, where is the boundary of intent? Where
> > does intent disappear?
>
> Yes. I agree that purpose or intent can be imbued upon something else;
> I didn't suggest otherwise. All I said was that simply because an
> object does something doesn't automatically that thing its purpose.
> Nor does it even make that thing supportive of its purpose.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about with the boundary of intent or
> it disappearing. Intent is either imbued upon a thing as part of its
> creation or afterwards.
>
> > Or for that matter, since humans are a natural object in a natural
> > world and therefore what humans do, they just do, because nothing in
> > the natural world has a purpose, then whence comes intent?
>
> From us. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a word for it.
>
> > Is intent
> > itself just something that some organisms just do?
>
> It's something that organisms do. Whether it's JUST something that
> organisms do, I don't know.
>
> > > Now, back to the unanswered questions I posed in response to your use
> > > of the term:
>
> > > "How do you distinguish a "purpose" from something one simply "does"
> > > or "is" or are they one in the same? Is what I do my purpose by virtue
> > > of the fact that I do it?
>
> > In response to *my* use of the term, there is considerable overlap
> > between these two, and there are no clearly identifiable boundaries.
> > In the example you gave of heat, machines generate heat; their
> > designers are exploiting the laws of physics to design a machine to
> > produce an outcome, and those very same laws of physics demand that
> > there will be heat output as part of the outcome so that
> > acknowledgment of those laws of physics is also an acknowledgment of
> > heat as one of the outcomes. It may be an ancillary outcome rather
> > than a principle outcome.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So you can or you can't distinguish "purpose" from something one
> simply "does" or "is?" I'm not sure based on this answer.
>
> Also, if I design something with a specific intent, can it operate in
> direct contradiction to that intent?

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

He doesn't need it, he deserves it because he is awesome. And I don't mean awesome in a juvenile sense.

[Timothy 1:4a]

So if God doesn't need it, is glorifying God just a purpose that
Christians create for themselves?

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

Dude! If God was real....imagine. How would you regard him?

I don't see where purpose comes into play.

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

Max. If you could equally assert that the FSM could have existed before time then we are progressing to a point of agreement.

We would just be labeling the creator differently.

I didn't quite follow on the need for the creator needing a creator.

-----Original Message-----
From: son.of.a...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:13:51
To: <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: son.of.a...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [AvC] Re: Why?

I think I get what you're saying. If God always existed, then so could have a figment of imagination, such as the FSM.

Did I get it?

[Alan Wostenberg]

You say you "give meaning to your own existence" -- which is to agree with Quoheleth who wrote that life is pointless and a "chase after the wind"

"All things are vanity. What profit has a man for all the labor which he toils at under the sun?
One generation passes and another comes, but earth abides.
The sun rises and the sun goes down; then it presses on to the place where it rises
Blowing now toward the south, then toward the north, the wind turns again, returning it's rounds
All rivers go to the sea, yet never does the sea become full
...I have seen all things done under the sun and behold all is vanity and a chase after the wind"

But if life is truly pointless why should we pretend otherwise by inventing one? Perhaps we can agree this would be fundamentally dishonest.

[Timothy 1:4a]

This whole thread is on purpose, and you gave us "The purpose of a
Christian is to glorify God." I'm wondering if you see this as God's
purpose for Christians, or a purpose that Christians create for
themselves.

> ...
>
> read more »

[son.of.adam.i.am@gmail.com]

Oh. I see it as Gods purpose for Christians which they do in obedience out of love and reverence for him.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On May 17, 10:08 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You say you "give meaning to your own existence" -- which is to agree with

> Quoheleth <http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ecclesiastes/ecclesiastes1.htm>who wrote that life is pointless and a "chase after the wind"

>
> "All things are vanity. What profit has a man for all the labor which he
> toils at under the sun?
> One generation passes and another comes, but earth abides.
> The sun rises and the sun goes down; then it presses on to the place where
> it rises
> Blowing now toward the south, then toward the north, the wind turns again,
> returning it's rounds
> All rivers go to the sea, yet never does the sea become full
> ...I have seen all things done under the sun and behold all is vanity and a
> chase after the wind"
>
> But if life is truly pointless why should we pretend otherwise by inventing
> one? Perhaps we can agree this would be fundamentally dishonest.

I forget if I said the quote, but I agree with it. We are sometimes
happy (which feels great) and sometimes sad (which feels bad). That
is all a man, or a squirrel for that matter, needs to give purpose to
their activities. No one needs to pretend to pursue happiness.

Being humans not squirrels, we can and should be creative in pursuit
of happiness. See for example John Stuart Mill's essay on happiness,
in which he finds that happiness eluded him when pursued directly.

And we should assist (or at least not hinder) others in their pursuit,
which luckily comes easily if we've been properly raised and
socialized. Man is a social creature.

[Alan Wostenberg]

A thing cannot give what it lacks. If his life has no purpose, he cannot "give purpose to his activities". He and his activities are pointless. He just pretending otherwise. Isn't that dishonest?

[Lexie]

Is there hard evidence validating any of it??
And I meant death as in when you die. Not that people should kill
themselves just to find out.

On May 17, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:

> Plenty have answered them already Lexie. I wonder why you look for
> 'truth' in death, when in life we have the chance to find it. Seems
> like such a waste of life to me.
>
> On May 16, 10:32 am, Lexie <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those are questions that nobody can answer. Even all of the geniuses
>> pit together couldn't come up with an answer. Only with death will we
>> learn the truth.

>>
>> On May 15, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Do Christians (as a whole) carry the view that there must be meaning
>>> &/
>>> or purpose for human life?
>>
>>> Is human life any more purposeful or meaningful than that of a
>>> single
>>> krill?
>>
>>> Does meaning & purpose presuppose design & by consequence, a
>>> designer?
>>
>>> If I, as an atheist do not believe in a designer (i.e. god concept),
>>> can I conclude that there 'can' no meaning and purpose to my life?
>>
>>> Is the god concept origins, rooted in the fear that man may well
>>> have
>>> no purpose of meaning at all?
>>
>>> Feel free to answer some or all.
>>

>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/
>>> group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en
>>> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com
> .