What is the purpose of life?

[Yukari]

How this simple philosophical question turned into a religion discussion is beyond me.

Let's face it, discussion on religion has been going on ever since the beginning of time - albeit via big bang or the creation.

Going back to OP's question, the purpose in life is different for each individual.

If you are seeking the meaning of life from the internet, you are in the wrong place.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Being homophobic is ok.  We have the first amendment to protect the worst things among us.

[quote name="Gator Hazard" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/240#post_1200029"]You post some of the most asinine comments, whether tongue in cheek or intentional. [/quote] He's a basic internet troll. Nothing more.

[Duff McGee]

There are many documented flaws and mistakes made in science throughout history as well, yet you continue to refer to science as gospel.

That is not true. The scientific method is what makes scientific discoveries as close to unbiased as humans can possibly get. I can show you exactly what I am talking about.

You say that there are "many documented flaws and mistakes made in science throughout history as well."

Of course! That is the point of the scientific method. That in itself shows that science is not dogmatic and follows the evidence.

Theists, just like I used to, think of science as just another claim and that scientists are out trying to disprove god. That is not true at all.

Christianity (and all religions) claim to have the one truth and will not alter its claims based on discoveries and objective evidence. Christians look at science and discoveries, accepting things that they think support their beliefs while rationalizing away or completely ignoring things that they think go against them.

[Tat14]

I love lamp.

[JonMA1]

Being homophobic is ok.  We have the first amendment to protect the worst things among us.

@StefanUrkel , for that last few days, I just pictured you sitting back at your computer with your feet up on the desk, hands folded behind your head, simply admiring your handy work while thinking "this was too easy".

I think you may end up with a badge before this is done. Well-played Mr. Urkel, well-played.

[Shorty]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  15 pages and score is still:  0 to 0

Please direct us to the post where the "believers" scored a point.

[saevel25]

Christianity (and all religions) claim to have the one truth and will not alter its claims based on discoveries and objective evidence. Christians look at science and discoveries, accepting things that they think support their beliefs while rationalizing away or completely ignoring things that they think go against them.

Please don't generalize. There are Christian scientists out there. Just because one believes in religion doesn't mean they have to throw away science. The two areas are not against each other like many people think. There are many people who believe in science yet also believe in God.

Cognitive dissonance encourages people to attack the messenger, not the message.

The reason theists believe they are being reasonable is that they are viewing the world with a conclusion first (there is a god, and he is my god). Everything that theist sees is in light of that conclusion.

Which makes sense if you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing and that we can not truly grasp his existence. It makes it tough for scientists to disprove God because of that. It's the reason why it's a very stupid perpetual argument. ;)

I believe in Yaweh and Jesus Christ, now what do Christian scientists or believer scientists have to say about the subject?

Nothing wrong with that. I doubt they would care much. I think they rather do some research than care if you believe in two religious persons.

You guys do not realize what science really is. Every believer that I know or have met in the past (thousands throughout most denominations) thinks that atheism is a belief system where scientists set out to disprove God.

Tough to not think that when Atheists routinely use science as a blunt weapon to try to attack their beliefs. I think a lot of scientists really do not care or want to get into the argument on religion and rather work on their research.

That is not even close to the truth. Science discovers facts. It doesn't have any agenda at all! It's completely objective.

93% of elite scientists in the country are atheist. Yet believers will point to the 7% to show that "even scientists accept god!"

Objective till you get scientists who like to put spin on their results :p Science is objective, people not so much.

I think many just can't prove a God exists so they denounce it or just don't believe in a religion. I think some think since they can not prove God does exists they can't denounce it because there's no evidence to show otherwise. It works both ways, just how you want to look at it.

I do believe a study showed that people with higher IQ's tend to be more Atheists which is interesting. Though the IQ test is more logic based which I can see as easily not believing in a deity.

That is why you think atheists are being rude. They are intellectually attacking something that your brain is putting all of its power into believing. The strongest cognitive dissonance of all.

It works both ways. Atheist attack religious and religious attack Atheist. They are both equally rude really. There are are basically both hypocrites in the fact they want to push their beliefs upon others because they think they are right.

Atheism is not a religion. It has no belief. It is a lack of belief in any deity.

Evolution is not "faith based."

These are all things that my meme speaks to. It doesn't mean all theists don't understand science, it just means that they haven't thoroughly thought out what their religion means in light of what science and reason tell us.

Atheism is a belief.

" Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Can an Atheist prove God does not exist with empirical evidence. If not then it's a belief they have that God does not exist.

Evolution does not disprove or prove a God. Though Christians believe in creationism for the most part. Disproving creationism does not disprove God. It just disproves human's flawed concept of how we thought the world developed. In the end God could still have created the world, yet we just failed to realize how he did it.

I am agnostic, but was brought up Catholic. Since there is no proof that god exists or doesn't exists I do not really have an opinion on it. Yet, I can easily claim that all science has proven is just showing the detail in which god created the world if he did exists. To me science does not disprove a god. It shouldn't be used as a weapon to do so.

---

As for the OP.

I would say food. Hard to argue with Donuts, Bacon, and Ice Cream

[Duff McGee]

I agree with some of what you said, but I would like to point a few things out: 1) Atheism isn't a belief system. It is the lack of a belief in any deity. Atheists are not required to prove that God doesn't exist. If that was the criteria for judging whether something is worth debating, we could all be debating whether there is an invisible spaceship orbiting earth about to destroy us. The person making the claim has the burden of proof,. You cannot disprove a negative. 2) Evidence and proof are two different things. Many theists always use the straw man "atheists wouldn't believe in god if he was standing right in front of them." That is not true. There would be evidence. We don't demand proof, just asking for a micro piece of evidence, like one grain of sand on a beach type of evidence. Yet all we get are God of the gaps fallacies. 3) The "debate" is always thought of as this 50/50 thing where one aside has good points and the other side has good points but they both have value. A claim has no value without evidence in every other area of life but religion. We don't think that is right. 4) atheists are generally not "pushing their beliefs onto others." They are asking for evidence. Now, the fact that there is no evidence to support the miracles in the bible should be enough to make people skeptical. Yet now we have an ABUNDANCE of evidence that the bible was merely a document written by people that were completely ignorant of science and history. So it's not just believing in an unsubstantiated 2,000 year old book. It's believing in an unsubstantiated 2,000 year old book with claims of dazzling miracles and the supernatural that has been completely debunked in so many areas. It is not a 50/50 proposition. Many of us used to be the most gracious, fervent, loving believers you've ever seen. Dan Barker was a music writer and touring pastor that devoted his entire life to Christ. The problem was that we searched. Truly searched. We didn't just read biased books or listen to paid off or brainwashed scientists. We looked for the objective evidence and what we discovered was shocking and changed our lives.

[saevel25]

I agree with some of what you said, but I would like to point a few things out:

1) Atheism isn't a belief system. It is the lack of a belief in any deity.

Atheists are not required to prove that God doesn't exist. If that was the criteria for judging whether something is worth debating, we could all be debating whether there is an invisible spaceship orbiting earth about to destroy us. The person making the claim has the burden of proof,. You cannot disprove a negative.

Look at the definition of a belief. It's believing in something with out empirical evidence to prove it. If you are going to not believe in a deity, though there is no proof one does nor does not exist then that is a belief.

A religion is just an organized collection of beliefs. Though atheist believe in one thing, it's still a belief, just not a system of beliefs that typically define a religion. So I wouldn't say it's a religion, but it's still a belief.

Sure Atheists are required to prove god doesn't exist. If they are willing to challenge religious people on their own beliefs then they better well bring something to the table of value. Their holy grail, pun absolutely intended, would being able to find evidence that god doesn't exist.

In the end if Atheist demand proof then Religious should be able to demand the same of atheist to disprove god. It's only fair ;)

3) The "debate" is always thought of as this 50/50 thing where one aside has good points and the other side has good points but they both have value.

A claim has no value without evidence in every other area of life but religion. We don't think that is right.

Ok debate is the wrong word. Lets say argument is the better word ;)

4) atheists are generally not "pushing their beliefs onto others." They are asking for evidence.

Now, the fact that there is no evidence to support the miracles in the bible should be enough to make people skeptical.

Yet now we have an ABUNDANCE of evidence that the bible was merely a document written by people that were completely ignorant of science and history.

Again, why should you even ask for evidence? Why does it matter? Why not just let the religious people believe what they want? What gives the atheists right to demand this of people who are religious? This is what I don't get. Who cares if they live their lives by a certain set of beliefs. Most Christians I know are very normal nice caring people. Do you think you are making the world better by trying to force religious people to prove their beliefs. Honestly it's a bunch of BS in my opinion. If people find meaning, peace, and happiness from religion then let them be.

If you step away from the miracles and just look at the words. Most of the priests I listened to never really harped about miracles and such. They spoke about the teachings of Jesus. What did Jesus have to say? What actions did he take? Did they tell the story about Jesus walking on water, sure. There are many other stories and parables that have good meaning for life. Many of the works written outside the gospels have good meanings for life.

Don't caste the first stone = Don't judge people

Love the neighbor as thyself

Forgiveness is a powerful tool that heals both yourself and others.

I don't have to believe in god to find meaning from the bible or any other religious documents or beliefs.

Who cares if they were not scientific. Not many people were ever scientists in that time. Maybe a few greeks over history, still most were very religious in some regard. I would say 99% or more of the people back then were ignorant to what science was. It's kinda stupid to make that comment when looking at the context in how much science was developed at the time.

[Shorty]

Sure Atheists are required to prove god doesn't exist. If they are willing to challenge religious people on their own beliefs then they better well bring something to the table of value. Their holy grail, pun absolutely intended, would being able to find evidence that god doesn't exist.

In the end if Atheist demand proof then Religious should be able to demand the same of atheist to disprove god. It's only fair ;)

Absolutely not! It is not an argument with two sides. The "argument" was lost by creationists a thousand years ago.

The onus is on those who believe something that is highly unlikely exists to prove it. So many believers claim to have done their own "research". If that is so, how can they believe in people rising from the dead, seas being parted  and virgin mothers?

If I say that an elephant stands on a tortoise and the earth is spinning on a teapot are you going to say that it is a fair theory until someone disproves it? Of course not.

I'll bet you say that your beliefs are based on your own experiences and reading. Seriously, how can apparently sane people believe in things for which there has never been any evidence?

It's like discussing holograms with truthers and conspiracy theorists. You paint people who don't believe in age old lies and superstitions as "sheeple" and narrow -minded.

If you make outrageous claims it is up to you to prove them, not for others to disprove them.

[14ledo81]

@Shorty , what happens if nothing gets proved? That gives you the right to then call people names and look down on them?

[Duff McGee]

Look at the definition of a belief. It's believing in something with out empirical evidence to prove it. If you are going to not believe in a deity, though there is no proof one does nor does not exist then that is a belief.  A religion is just an organized collection of beliefs. Though atheist believe in one thing, it's still a belief, just not a system of beliefs that typically define a religion. So I wouldn't say it's a religion, but it's still a belief.  Sure Atheists are required to prove god doesn't exist. If they are willing to challenge religious people on their own beliefs then they better well bring something to the table of value. Their holy grail, pun absolutely intended, would being able to find evidence that god doesn't exist.  In the end if Atheist demand proof then Religious should be able to demand the same of atheist to disprove god. It's only fair ;) Ok debate is the wrong word. Lets say argument is the better word ;) Again, why should you even ask for evidence? Why does it matter? Why not just let the religious people believe what they want? What gives the atheists right to demand this of people who are religious? This is what I don't get. Who cares if they live their lives by a certain set of beliefs. Most Christians I know are very normal nice caring people. Do you think you are making the world better by trying to force religious people to prove their beliefs. Honestly it's a bunch of BS in my opinion. If people find meaning, peace, and happiness from religion then let them be.  If you step away from the miracles and just look at the words. Most of the priests I listened to never really harped about miracles and such. They spoke about the teachings of Jesus. What did Jesus have to say? What actions did he take? Did they tell the story about Jesus walking on water, sure. There are many other stories and parables that have good meaning for life. Many of the works written outside the gospels have good meanings for life.  Don't caste the first stone = Don't judge people Love the neighbor as thyself Forgiveness is a powerful tool that heals both yourself and others.  I don't have to believe in god to find meaning from the bible or any other religious documents or beliefs.  Who cares if they were not scientific. Not many people were ever scientists in that time. Maybe a few greeks over history, still most were very religious in some regard. I would say 99% or more of the people back then were ignorant to what science was. It's kinda stupid to make that comment when looking at the context in how much science was developed at the time.

That is the point though. They didn't know anything about science. Right! But their god sure would have. How can you say "just let them be" when an entire group of people are trying to force their beliefs on our country? Christianity isn't the "give unto Caesar" type religion it may have been intended to be. Just watch the news in the last year to see how much of a problem fundamentalist Christianity is to this country. Atheism is not a belief. Here is a meme to demonstrate how much of a belief atheism is: In re: miracles. Miracles are the most important part of the bible. Sure there are some words of wisdom in the bible but they are far outnumbered by the evil actions of the characters as well as the laws they give and follow. If it wasn't for miracles, none of the bible would be any more relevant than any other mythic tale with a moral. In re: burden of proof. Taken right from Wiki: "Some theists maintain that unless atheists can disprove the existence of a god, or gods, their position is untenable. It does, however, depend on which of the many thousands of mankind's gods one has in mind; strangely, such theists cheerfully accept the arguments against every god except their own preferred one(s). On like lines, some anti-theists maintain that because theists cannot prove the existence of their chosen god or gods, their position is untenable. A similar fallacy, from the opposite direction. The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the assertion. If there's no evidence either way, it's a matter of faith. Expressing a personal belief / disbelief in the existence of a certain god / goddess is sound enough, but claiming their opinion is factual or denouncing the opponent's claim as false without any proof supporting one idea or disproving the other is fallacious. While an Unfalsifiable claim / hypothesis can be proven neither right nor wrong, it is reasonable to dismiss it as non-factual if it lacks logical supporting evidence."

[Gator Hazard]

@StefanUrkel, for that last few days, I just pictured you sitting back at your computer with your feet up on the desk, hands folded behind your head, simply admiring your handy work while thinking "this was too easy".

I think you may end up with a badge before this is done. Well-played Mr. Urkel, well-played.

I agree, I totally see Urkel patting himself on the back and chuckling in a smarmy way as if he has actually said or done something clever.  Sadly, it takes him quite a long time to come up with his oh so cool zingers.

Please direct us to the post where the "believers" scored a point.

I thought my post made it evident that neither side had scored one.

[Duff McGee]

I agree, I totally see Urkel patting himself on the back and chuckling in a smarmy way as if he has actually said or done something clever.  Sadly, it takes him quite a long time to come up with his oh so cool zingers.  I thought my post made it evident that neither side had scored one.

Based on what? I've seen atheists score a bunch of "points" as you say.....I mean, someone claiming there is a personal god up there and that the bible is his holy word and is asking for evidence seems to be pretty powerful....unless providing evidence is not necessary for a "debate."

[Gator Hazard]

Please direct us to the post where the "believers" scored a point.

Based on what? I've seen atheists score a bunch of "points" as you say.....I mean, someone claiming there is a personal god up there and that the bible is his holy word and is asking for evidence seems to be pretty powerful....unless providing evidence is not necessary for a "debate."

There is about 14 pages of dialogue from the opposite side to say otherwise, just as you say it is, which gets back to my point, neither side has scored any points on this "argument" or "debate" or whatever else people want to call it.  As I see it, every single person who came into this forum with a belief one way or the other remains to have the same beliefs after having read all of this back and forth, which is to say it's futile.

[saevel25]

Absolutely not! It is not an argument with two sides. The "argument" was lost by creationists a thousand years ago.

The onus is on those who believe something that is highly unlikely exists to prove it. So many believers claim to have done their own "research". If that is so, how can they believe in people rising from the dead, seas being parted  and virgin mothers?

Because they can. Prove that someone didn't rise from the dead once? The seas being parted was explained before. Who said it wasn't divine influence on a natural lowering of the river during that time that made it possible for them to escape at that moment? Prove that Mary wasn't a Virgin? You can say prove that she was. I might say, well she says she was, or at least stories says she was. I don't know. I might consider the bible first hand knowledge and give her the benefit of the doubt.

Absolutely not! It is not an argument with two sides. The "argument" was lost by creationists a thousand years ago.

Doesn't matter. Creationism isn't really a bible story, but a flawed human interpretation of trying to fit a story into something more believable. No one knows the exact timeline of those 7 days. 7 days to a deity could be a very long time. You think an eternal being perceives time like we do. 7 days could be a huge amount of time. Heck one day from another might not even be the same interval of time.

If I say that an elephant stands on a tortoise and the earth is spinning on a teapot are you going to say that it is a fair theory until someone disproves it? Of course not.

I'll bet you say that your beliefs are based on your own experiences and reading. Seriously, how can apparently sane people believe in things for which there has never been any evidence?

It's like discussing holograms with truthers and conspiracy theorists. You paint people who don't believe in age old lies and superstitions as "sheeple" and narrow -minded.

If you make outrageous claims it is up to you to prove them, not for others to disprove them.

Why not, sounds like a fun experiment. Well maybe not for the tortoise.

How can any sane person say they can't believe in something when there is no evidence to directly disprove it. #LogicReversed ;) I am not going to say that something can't or can not happen with out evidence to the contrary. Has evidence proven ghosts exist, probably not. I still will not dismiss the option they do not exists, yet I can not sit and claim that they do.

That is the point though. They didn't know anything about science. Right! But their god sure would have.

Would he? Does God go through trial and error to prove something or doesn't he already know all? Nothing worse than a know it all ;) He doesn't need science because he has all the answers.

Science is just something created by Humans to justify our own curiosity. Maybe some of the answers are just the methods god used to create our universe and give it balance.

Atheism is not a belief. Here is a meme to demonstrate how much of a belief atheism is:

Ok so lets say Atheism isn't a belief. Than an Atheist can not claim deities do not exist. They can only claim an absence of a belief they exist. Meaning they would belief if there was evidence. Yet if they say that deities do not exist then they are stating a fact that is not based on evidence and would then be a belief. If we agree that Atheists have an absence of a belief in a deity then we must agree that they must stay neutral until other evidence is shown to prove otherwise.

If an Atheist ask for evidence and then disproves the evidence then they should say, "That evidence doesn't prove anything, I still will not believe they exists, yet I will not claim they do no exists such that this claim would require me to prove they do not exists which I surely can not"

[JonMA1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonMA1

@StefanUrkel, for that last few days, I just pictured you sitting back at your computer with your feet up on the desk, hands folded behind your head, simply admiring your handy work while thinking "this was too easy".

I think you may end up with a badge before this is done. Well-played Mr. Urkel, well-played.

I agree, I totally see Urkel patting himself on the back and chuckling in a smarmy way as if he has actually said or done something clever.  Sadly, it takes him quite a long time to come up with his oh so cool zingers.

He's too busy calling friends and then hanging up when they answer. Good times!  Wait a minute, I'm posting here again. Damn it!

Apparently, the purpose of life is to perpetuate this thread (there's a joke about Hell in all this but I'm too weary to even try).

[Shorty]

Prove that someone didn't rise from the dead once?

No - you have to prove that it is possible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to prove such a ludicrous notion.

Here's a proposition:

Which scenario do you think most likely?

A) Jesus rose from the dead.

B) He wasn't actually dead but they thought he was,

C) The story was made up.

Why is the least probable (impossible) scenario the one which people cling so desperately to? Please explain that.