What is the purpose of life?

[krupa]

I don't want this thread to be about the fact there 100 percent is no god.

You can only start a forest fire.  You can't tell it what not to burn.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StefanUrkel

I don't want this thread to be about the fact there 100 percent is no god.

You can only start a forest fire.  You can't tell it what not to burn.

LOL.

( Some of us will be burn in hell for our posts in this thread. )

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9wood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

This is true, except it might be closer to billions.

I agree Lihu

To be fair, it's billions against billions (non believers, not just @Shorty or others in this thread).   But for those who have faith, the billions are splintered into many: Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buhdists, thousands of native religions, ....

Probably not even close to being equal given 70 billion people ever existed, and most older societies had a faith of some kind. Also, many people who supposedly do not have any faith, take and preach science as a faith. Not everyone proves things for themselves.

[Valleygolfer]

You meant egg salad sand wedge, right?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :banana: :drool: :scared: :scared:

Well that makes more sense! [quote name="rkim291968" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/100_20#post_1198537"] LOL.  ( Some of us will be burn in hell for our posts in this thread. ) [/quote] There is no hell so you are cool. Unless you want to tell that story about the devil that is out of God's control... Me.... I am planning on recanting on my death bed...

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

LOL.

( Some of us will be burn in hell for our posts in this thread. )

There is no hell so you are cool. Unless you want to tell that story about the devil that is out of God's control...

Me.... I am planning on recanting on my death bed...

You are cutting it oh so close.

To @Lihu ,  about (emphasis on about) 1/2 the world population believe in the same God (and have been fighting & killing each other throughout the history).  The rest - about 30% are non believers the remaining 20% believe in other faith.   Not equal but billions nonetheless.  Count me in the "other" category.

[phillyk]

Probably not even close to being equal given 70 billion people ever existed, and most older societies had a faith of some kind. Also, many people who supposedly do not have any faith, take and preach science as a faith. Not everyone proves things for themselves.

Most of science is NOT faith, theoretical physics can be viewed as faith which does encompass origins of the universe and string theory,etc because of the un-likeness to prove it in this day and age.  We might eventually get a big jump on them.  But, like evolution and gravitational theory (not gravity, but gravitational theory, different but very similar), when there are thousands upon thousands of journal articles published by accomplished scientists supporting both of these theories.  You can assume both are close enough to fact as you can get.  Are there solid articles to disprove either?  NO, otherwise the theories would be cast out or changed.  It's not a law because it can be changed or improved upon to make better.  That does not make it even remotely a faith.  Everyone can take the time to learn how to prove most scientific laws and popular theories for themselves through education.  It's impossible to be educated on proving a higher being, because as you said it's faith.  I'm not here to say that there is or isn't a higher being, I don't care either way.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Probably not even close to being equal given 70 billion people ever existed, and most older societies had a faith of some kind. Also, many people who supposedly do not have any faith, take and preach science as a faith. Not everyone proves things for themselves.

Most of science is NOT faith, theoretical physics can be viewed as faith which does encompass origins of the universe and string theory,etc because of the un-likeness to prove it in this day and age.  We might eventually get a big jump on them.  But, like evolution and gravitational theory (not gravity, but gravitational theory, different but very similar), when there are thousands upon thousands of journal articles published by accomplished scientists supporting both of these theories.  You can assume both are close enough to fact as you can get.  Are there solid articles to disprove either?  NO, otherwise the theories would be cast out or changed.  It's not a law because it can be changed or improved upon to make better.  That does not make it even remotely a faith.  Everyone can take the time to learn how to prove most scientific laws and popular theories for themselves through education.  It's impossible to be educated on proving a higher being, because as you said it's faith.  I'm not here to say that there is or isn't a higher being, I don't care either way.

Many theories you are exemplifying are being taught as fact, and many people take the results on faith. Theories can be proven wrong and hypothesis could completely reverse in a following scientific experiment.

85% of science is serendipitous, but I do agree that faith should be taught as faith and science taught as science. Most modern religious and science types do not try to intertwine the two, it's the fringe on the "science" and religious sides that are trying to draw conclusions based upon some theories.

My personal view is that I don't see any conflict between science and religion. It was all created at the same time.

[Shorty]

Alright then, who should I believe. The millions of people who have come to know God. or someone who has never come to know Him and therefore has no experience of God?

Secondly, as far as the existence of God is concerned, either an eternally existing, all-powerful being created all the complexity we see in the universe and in the world, or nothing created everything. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe all the complexity we see created itself from nothing, especially since science has never observed nothing creating something.

Thirdly, evolution is likewise highly debated. Using your logic, it could not be debated if it were a fact - just saying.Y

For your information, evolution is not highly debated. It is simply denied by people who think that talking snakes, arks with billions of creatures and virgin mothers are not fantasy.There are not two "sides to the story".

The complexity in the world is not merely explained by saying "God made it. Prove he didn't." Ignoring the "Who made God?' question, why do you think religion is such a regional thing?

There is plenty of scientific observation of the forces that created life. If you are going down the "Intelligent design" path, it can be disputed every step of the way.

Dogmatic Christianity relies on adults being childlike and unquestioning.

If a hundred million people in  a certain country "believe" in a story they were told as children and are required to keep on doing so to maintain their position in society, that's fine.

Why are Muslims incorrect? Why are Buddhists or Taoists incorrect?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact that billions (of all faiths) persist in believing things for which there has NEVER been any evidence does not make them right. Just look at the relaibility eyewitnesses to current events - even with cameras - let alone two thousand years ago.

Millions of people believe things about golf that are incorrect (old ball flight "laws", for example). It doesn't add any weigh to their (non) argument.

It should be very simple to provide us with ONE piece of information that would make someone believe in something that defies all logic and human experience.

As for worshipping someone who demands obedience and threatens you with eternal torture - that's another mystery.

[Vinsk]

For your information, evolution is not highly debated. It is simply denied by people who think that talking snakes, arks with billions of creatures and virgin mothers are not fantasy.There are not two "sides to the story". The complexity in the world is not merely explained by saying "God made it. Prove he didn't." Ignoring the "Who made God?' question, why do you think religion is such a regional thing? There is plenty of scientific observation of the forces that created life. If you are going down the "Intelligent design" path, it can be disputed every step of the way. Dogmatic Christianity relies on adults being childlike and unquestioning. If a hundred million people in  a certain country "believe" in a story they were told as children and are required to keep on doing so to maintain their position in society, that's fine. Why are Muslims incorrect? Why are Buddhists or Taoists incorrect? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact that billions (of all faiths) persist in believing things for which there has NEVER been any evidence does not make them right. Just look at the relaibility eyewitnesses to current events - even with cameras - let alone two thousand years ago. Millions of people believe things about golf that are incorrect (old ball flight "laws", for example). It doesn't add any weigh to their (non) argument. It should be very simple to provide us with ONE piece of information that would make someone believe in something that defies all logic and human experience. As for worshipping someone who demands obedience and threatens you with eternal torture - that's another mystery.

Eloquent. Well written. But unfortunately, there are those who simply have been irreversibly brainwashed into the creationist beliefs. In all other aspects of believing they too require evidence, rational explanations, and common sense. However when it comes to God, they simply lack those requirements and follow like cattle. It's a moot argument with them. Dawkins has done numerous debates only to be inevitably confronted with "that's just the way it is."

[Gator Hazard]

For your information, evolution is not highly debated. It is simply denied by people who think that talking snakes, arks with billions of creatures and virgin mothers are not fantasy.There are not two "sides to the story".

The complexity in the world is not merely explained by saying "God made it. Prove he didn't." Ignoring the "Who made God?' question, why do you think religion is such a regional thing?

There is plenty of scientific observation of the forces that created life. If you are going down the "Intelligent design" path, it can be disputed every step of the way.

Dogmatic Christianity relies on adults being childlike and unquestioning.

If a hundred million people in  a certain country "believe" in a story they were told as children and are required to keep on doing so to maintain their position in society, that's fine.

Why are Muslims incorrect? Why are Buddhists or Taoists incorrect?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact that billions (of all faiths) persist in believing things for which there has NEVER been any evidence does not make them right. Just look at the relaibility eyewitnesses to current events - even with cameras - let alone two thousand years ago.

Millions of people believe things about golf that are incorrect (old ball flight "laws", for example). It doesn't add any weigh to their (non) argument.

It should be very simple to provide us with ONE piece of information that would make someone believe in something that defies all logic and human experience.

As for worshipping someone who demands obedience and threatens you with eternal torture - that's another mystery.

This is not an argument for or against religion or faith; one of the things that I took from the bible when reading it from an objective standpoint was this:

We have to remember who was telling it, who was writing it, and most importantly who the audience was.  Perhaps 10-15 percent of people in that day and age could read and write.  I had a college finance professor who used to constantly drive this point home about being able to explain it to your audience, or "Joe On The Barstool".  If you couldn't, then the information was not good.

The bible has a blend of historical information and many parables, which are stories meant to teach a message, usually about morality.  These persons were the scholars of their day, eligion and politics were often the same thing unlike now, and they would have to answer many questions from inquisitive people.

How do you easily explain to someone the creation of earth in that day and age?  If you tried to discuss evolution, that all the matter in our beings at one time was matter in a star, etc they would hang you for a heretic and you would not get the message across you were trying too, such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

They themselves would not fully understand these things, until Galileo observed the satellites orbiting Jupiter mankind thought the Earth was the center of the universe.  At the end of the day, when trying to get a message across sometimes the easiest approach is taken.  Saying God created all living things then was not exactly untrue, it just doesn't go into the scientific detail that we have available right now.

Just something to ponder.

I agree science should be taught as science and faith or religion as such.  Anyone who does not understand the concrete evidence of evolution is a fool or has an agenda.

[Valleygolfer]

Eloquent. Well written. But unfortunately, there are those who simply have been irreversibly brainwashed into the creationist beliefs. In all other aspects of believing they too require evidence, rational explanations, and common sense. However when it comes to God, they simply lack those requirements and follow like cattle. It's a moot argument with them. Dawkins has done numerous debates only to be inevitably confronted with "that's just the way it is."

There is no evolution either, just adaptation. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys... I still have no answer for how we got here.

[RGoosen]

Interesting.  The only "purposes" that have gotten mocked and made fun of here are the ones involving God. Sounds like there are a lot of "purposes" that do not include being tolerant of others' beliefs. The only post to get any response at all was @Abu3baid 's and it got 10 negative responses of varying degrees of negativity, with one supportive.  No one else's state purpose was commented on at all by anyone else to any degree.  Yet almost one-third of the posts in this thread mock, to one degree or another, his answer.   Like I said, interesting.

Amen :)

[Mr. Desmond]

Amen :)

Amen to let's search for our sense of humor. We've seemed to have lost it.

If one is secure in their beliefs, one might appreciate humor and perhaps join it. Taking offense doesn't help. Asking yourself why other's opinions hurt you, and you will learn more about yourself.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinsk

Eloquent. Well written. But unfortunately, there are those who simply have been irreversibly brainwashed into the creationist beliefs. In all other aspects of believing they too require evidence, rational explanations, and common sense. However when it comes to God, they simply lack those requirements and follow like cattle. It's a moot argument with them. Dawkins has done numerous debates only to be inevitably confronted with "that's just the way it is."

There is no evolution either, just adaptation. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys... I still have no answer for how we got here.

There are a lot of questions that are unanswered. As we learn more things, we will ask more questions. That's science.

[Vinsk]

There is no evolution either, just adaptation. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys... I still have no answer for how we got here.

Valley ....come on bro....that's the most common question that has been answered for years....Evolution does not state that we came from (Apes, not monkeys). Evolution states that humans and apes HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR. That is why there are still apes. Humans went one route of evolutionary process and apes went another...which also better explains the different races we have as people: 1. Icy, cold climates....Eskimos are short, Stocky and have narrowed eyes to protest from glare of the white snow and ice. 2. West Africans are tall, dark skinned and thin to help protect against the extreme exposure to sun. Mutations occur in the genetic code randomly and if that mutation yields an advantage to that organism ....that organism will more likely produce offspring thus passing on the advantageous mutation. Giraffes necks...mutation, sickle cell disease? A protective mutation against Malaria...and guess who has the vast majority of Sickle Cell disease....Africans. Makes much more sense than the hilarious and fantastical explanations by creationist.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

There is no evolution either, just adaptation. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys... I still have no answer for how we got here.

Valley ....come on bro....that's the most common question that has been answered for years....Evolution does not state that we came from (Apes, not monkeys). Evolution states that humans and apes HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR. That is why there are still apes. Humans went one route of evolutionary process and apes went another...which also better explains the different races we have as people:

1. Icy, cold climates....Eskimos are short, Stocky and have narrowed eyes to protest from glare of the white snow and ice.

2. West Africans are tall, dark skinned and thin to help protect against the extreme exposure to sun.

Mutations occur in the genetic code randomly and if that mutation yields an advantage to that organism ....that organism will more likely produce offspring thus passing on the advantageous mutation. Giraffes necks...mutation, sickle cell disease? A protective mutation against Malaria...and guess who has the vast majority of Sickle Cell disease....Africans.

Makes much more sense than the hilarious and fantastical explanations by creationist.

No, it doesn't "state" anything. There is evidence that what you state might be true. However, like all decent theories, it has holes in it. Science is about the process of finding answers and not declaring that they have all the answers. People declare that they have all the answers, science doesn't.

[Valleygolfer]

Valley ....come on bro....that's the most common question that has been answered for years....Evolution does not state that we came from (Apes, not monkeys). Evolution states that humans and apes HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR. That is why there are still apes. Humans went one route of evolutionary process and apes went another...which also better explains the different races we have as people:

1. Icy, cold climates....Eskimos are short, Stocky and have narrowed eyes to protest from glare of the white snow and ice.

2. West Africans are tall, dark skinned and thin to help protect against the extreme exposure to sun.

Mutations occur in the genetic code randomly and if that mutation yields an advantage to that organism ....that organism will more likely produce offspring thus passing on the advantageous mutation. Giraffes necks...mutation, sickle cell disease? A protective mutation against Malaria...and guess who has the vast majority of Sickle Cell disease....Africans.

Makes much more sense than the hilarious and fantastical explanations by creationist.

Still sounds like adaptation. We have a lot of common ancestors but it doesn't mean we came from them. I don't think there is evolution. I don't claim to know how we came about though... but I feel like humans as we are now were just here... I don't have any proof of anything or science behind it.

[Duff McGee]

One of the biggest myths is that "we should respect people's beliefs." 1) Beliefs do not automatically deserve respect. Belief is not a race, a gender, or a sexual orientation. It is subject to scrutiny. 2) Never once has any God (or anything supernatural at all for that matter) ever defended itself.....it's only ever the followers. If your God exists, it should easily be able to defend itself.