NationStates Jolt Archive

Given: No god; no soul

Theory 1: No god means that there is no higher power to dictate morals and values. If one is to not take their morals and values from God then where from? Evolutionary theories would dictate that we are programmed to want to help our families as it helps preserve our genetic material. What would happen if we did not work to preserve and propagate our genetic material? Our genetic line would likely cease to exist after much time. Would this matter? Not to us, we wouldn't know that it no longer existed. Who would it matter to? A human population plagued by a disease that only our line was resistant to? If all of the human race died out would it matter? If nobody knows that it is gone then it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter if we are here or not then why do we fear being gone so much? We wouldn't have survived as a species if we didn't. It is an evolutionary trait that preserves us. Why does it preserve us? It has no reason it is just the way it all mathematically played out. If it is just the way it played out without higher meaning than why are we here? How does one live a meaningful life if there is no higher meaning for why they or anyone exists. One can say that they live to create more life but they are just creating more meaningless life. If one were to kill all humans would they be bad people? In the lower meaning of human societal meters yes, in the higher meaning they are neutral. This is due to two reasons. The first is that if we have no soul, then we are just chemical reactions. If we are just chemical reactions then we were mathematically predetermined to carry out every action that we take. The second is that nobody would care because nobody would know that it happened as we would all just cease to exist.

Conclusion 1: Life is meaningless. We don't have a higher free will, only the illusion of it. There are no true morals.

Theory 2: How does one carry out their lives if their existence is meaningless? There are two overriding ways that one can live. The first is to live to be happy. Have the singular drive to be happy. If you are going to exist you might as well not suffer during it. The second is to live miserably for a “higher” meaning. You are just wasting your existence as you are not happy and you are not really doing anything good because there is no good and bad.

Theory 3: From the above 1 overriding moral can be found. If an action gives you more happiness than sadness in the long term, do it. This works well into todays society and justice system. The justice system works to provide the happiness of the greatest amount of people. A person may get short term joy from stealing a car but they will get long term sadness from being in jail. This balance keeps society from falling apart. If flying an aircraft gives you joy then do it if you have enough money as it will give you net happiness. If you do it and get in debt then it will give you net sadness, don't do it. If one is cutthroat to their friend to get something then they will get short term happiness from what they wanted and long term sadness from the reluctance of future acquaintances to become friendly with them.

Conclusion 3: This ideal moral can only exist fully in a democratic society with checks and balances against too much power and a fair justice system. The greatest example of where this goes wrong is with Hitler. He got happiness from subjugating and torturing people. This throws the happiness driving society into chaos and makes it ineffective. It thereby ruins everybody else's happiness. In a world like this a second moral must be introduced. One must not hurt another. This limits the potential of the first significantly and is thus why a democratic system is superior.

Final Conclusion: There are no higher morals or a truly correct way to live. There are only ways to live within a certain society that bring happiness rather than sadness. That is the most meaning that one can get out of life.

Hey, somebody actually gets it!

Or you could basically break it down to one thing. Reproduction.

42.

Theory 3: From the above 1 overriding moral can be found. If an action gives you more happiness than sadness in the long term, do it. This works well into todays society and justice system. The justice system works to provide the happiness of the greatest amount of people. A person may get short term joy from stealing a car but they will get long term sadness from being in jail. This balance keeps society from falling apart. If flying an aircraft gives you joy then do it if you have enough money as it will give you net happiness. If you do it and get in debt then it will give you net sadness, don't do it. If one is cutthroat to their friend to get something then they will get short term happiness from what they wanted and long term sadness from the reluctance of future acquaintances to become friendly with them.

Why? What's so great about me that I should be happy?

(I don't mean to appear contrary, but no one else is doing anything, so...)

meaning of life is UTORRENT!

I've always thought it odd that "what is the meaning of life?" is the most fundamental question. I take it to be more fundamental to ask this question: "why do we grasp for meaning in life?"

Why does meaning have to come from a God or soul?

EDIT: And why is the utilitarian principle a really good idea? I think that the qualitative nature of Happiness (tm) makes ethical judgment kind of difficult.

Why did you snip out God or soul?

I think it makes just as much sense even if there is a god or soul. Ockam's razor.

Edit: I view it as reasonable to consider things as if we are sure there is no "afterlife" or whatever, since if they do exist, life should still have sense on it's own, otherwise it's useless.

Nothing makes me happy longterm. Now what?

42.

42 is thy answer however we wont no the question since the supercomputer Earth was destoryed.

At least it went something like that.

Always look on the bright side of life.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

Eat, fuck, sleep. Take the occasional piss.

Tonight, it's the meaning of life!

How does one live a meaningful life if there is no higher meaning for why they or anyone exists.

By creating one's own meaning. Simple, huh? :p

Eat, fuck, sleep. Take the occasional piss.

You may also wish to drink (to prevent dehydration, or to introduce alcohol into your system) and shit (so you don't like explode or something from forgetting to shit).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27-VCulMf0U

You knew it was coming. If you didn't, you're a yolk.

I declare Monty Python cascade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss&feature=related

life isn't about meaning, but it is about not screwing everything up, so that everyone has some chance to get some kind of enjoyment out of it.

=^^=
.../\...

The quest for the meaning of life is a sort of modern quest for the Holy Grail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feature=related

NONE SHALL PASS. What will you do, bleed on me?

Fine! I never wanted to learn the meaning of life, anyway. I always wanted to be...


A LUMBERJACK!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg

Theory 1: No god means that there is no higher power to dictate morals and values.

No, it doesn't. I don't understand why so many people seem to believe this. Simple reason dictates this already, regardless of whether or not there is a god. The mere fact that God commands something doesn't make it right. Why would it?

If one is to not take their morals and values from God then where from?

The same way we should "take" all our beliefs about truth: by considering the matter rationally and seeing where we are led. By looking at the reasons we have to act one way or another, to accept one moral theory or another.

Generally, when people are asked a question like why lying is wrong, they neither say "No reason" nor advance a non-reason like "God said so." (At least, they need not.) We tend to have structures of justification that may not be very sophisticated, but nevertheless are neither arbitrary nor inextricably religious.

Evolutionary theories would dictate that we are programmed to want to help our families as it helps preserve our genetic material.

Yes, but this gets us nowhere because "wants" are non-rational. Just because I want to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it.

The first is that if we have no soul, then we are just chemical reactions.

False dichotomy. We need not have a soul to be more than "just" chemical reactions. The soul implies a separate, non-physical essence--dualism. But we may be more or less material creatures that are simply not reducible to deterministic, causal processes.

The second is that nobody would care because nobody would know that it happened as we would all just cease to exist.

Morality has never been about other people caring.

We don't have a higher free will, only the illusion of it.

How do you know? Certainly we have a very strong impression of it, and while it may be illusory, it may not be. We have no stronger basis to reject free will.

Why did you snip out God or soul?

I think it makes just as much sense even if there is a god or soul. Ockam's razor.

Edit: I view it as reasonable to consider things as if we are sure there is no "afterlife" or whatever, since if they do exist, life should still have sense on it's own, otherwise it's useless.

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.

Given: No god; no soul

Theory 1: No god means that there is no higher power to dictate morals and values. If one is to not take their morals and values from God then where from? Evolutionary theories would dictate that we are programmed to want to help our families as it helps preserve our genetic material. What would happen if we did not work to preserve and propagate our genetic material? Our genetic line would likely cease to exist after much time. Would this matter? Not to us, we wouldn't know that it no longer existed. Who would it matter to? A human population plagued by a disease that only our line was resistant to? If all of the human race died out would it matter? If nobody knows that it is gone then it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter if we are here or not then why do we fear being gone so much? We wouldn't have survived as a species if we didn't. It is an evolutionary trait that preserves us. Why does it preserve us? It has no reason it is just the way it all mathematically played out. If it is just the way it played out without higher meaning than why are we here? How does one live a meaningful life if there is no higher meaning for why they or anyone exists. One can say that they live to create more life but they are just creating more meaningless life. If one were to kill all humans would they be bad people? In the lower meaning of human societal meters yes, in the higher meaning they are neutral. This is due to two reasons. The first is that if we have no soul, then we are just chemical reactions. If we are just chemical reactions then we were mathematically predetermined to carry out every action that we take. The second is that nobody would care because nobody would know that it happened as we would all just cease to exist.

Conclusion 1: Life is meaningless. We don't have a higher free will, only the illusion of it. There are no true morals.

Theory 2: How does one carry out their lives if their existence is meaningless? There are two overriding ways that one can live. The first is to live to be happy. Have the singular drive to be happy. If you are going to exist you might as well not suffer during it. The second is to live miserably for a “higher” meaning. You are just wasting your existence as you are not happy and you are not really doing anything good because there is no good and bad.

Theory 3: From the above 1 overriding moral can be found. If an action gives you more happiness than sadness in the long term, do it. This works well into todays society and justice system. The justice system works to provide the happiness of the greatest amount of people. A person may get short term joy from stealing a car but they will get long term sadness from being in jail. This balance keeps society from falling apart. If flying an aircraft gives you joy then do it if you have enough money as it will give you net happiness. If you do it and get in debt then it will give you net sadness, don't do it. If one is cutthroat to their friend to get something then they will get short term happiness from what they wanted and long term sadness from the reluctance of future acquaintances to become friendly with them.

Conclusion 3: This ideal moral can only exist fully in a democratic society with checks and balances against too much power and a fair justice system. The greatest example of where this goes wrong is with Hitler. He got happiness from subjugating and torturing people. This throws the happiness driving society into chaos and makes it ineffective. It thereby ruins everybody else's happiness. In a world like this a second moral must be introduced. One must not hurt another. This limits the potential of the first significantly and is thus why a democratic system is superior.

Final Conclusion: There are no higher morals or a truly correct way to live. There are only ways to live within a certain society that bring happiness rather than sadness. That is the most meaning that one can get out of life.

Premises are correct, the conclusion isn't. By your own reasoning, life is meaningless thus happiness (something that may occur only in life) is also inconsequential. Happiness is in no way superior to suffering, regardless of your preference for one or the other. This preference need not be universal, and you are basing your conclusion entirely on a subjective value judgment.

If life is meaningless then you cannot derive any meaning from it, full stop. Happiness is of no consequence, and thus life is not bound to seek it.

The meaning of life is this:

Webster's defines life as the period of shit between birth and death.


Question answered. Riddle solved.

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.
Most people don't.

Is it Occam's Razor? I never did know how to spell it. I believe, and I only have TV to thank for this, that Occam's Razor is that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.

I also would like to issue what I call Lokkim's Razor: The simplest answer is that you're an idiot. This can also be substitute with "The simplest answer is people are stupid"

Why did you snip out God or soul?

I think it makes just as much sense even if there is a god or soul. Ockam's razor.
Application of Occam's Razor would lead to snipping out gods and souls, since they are considerable complications.
Is it Occam's Razor? I never did know how to spell it. I believe, and I only have TV to thank for this, that Occam's Razor is that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.
That's it.

I also would like to issue what I call Lokkim's Razor: The simplest answer is that you're an idiot. This can also be substitute with "The simplest answer is people are stupid"

Sounds a lot like Hanlon's Razor. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Application of Occam's Razor would lead to snipping out gods and souls, since they are considerable complications.

That's it.



Sounds a lot like Hanlon's Razor. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

And I was trying to be witty too. Oh well.

Given: No god; no soul

Theory 1: No god means that there is no higher power to dictate morals and values. of life.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Einstein, Albert

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein

I'm into Einstein at the moment

Premises are correct, the conclusion isn't. By your own reasoning, life is meaningless thus happiness (something that may occur only in life) is also inconsequential. Happiness is in no way superior to suffering, regardless of your preference for one or the other. This preference need not be universal, and you are basing your conclusion entirely on a subjective value judgment.

If life is meaningless then you cannot derive any meaning from it, full stop. Happiness is of no consequence, and thus life is not bound to seek it.
I am not saying that one derives meaning from happiness, only that it is more pleasant to be happy so why not? Clearly most would rather be happy than sad and if there is no higher meaning to life then why be sad?

I am not saying that one derives meaning from happiness, only that it is more pleasant to be happy so why not? Clearly most would rather be happy than sad and if there is no higher meaning to life then why be sad?

Not everybody gets a kick out of happiness: see emos.

Final Conclusion: There are no higher morals or a truly correct way to live. There are only ways to live within a certain society that bring happiness rather than sadness. That is the most meaning that one can get out of life.

Thats almost very good, heh cept you contradict yourself.

Either 'there is no correct way to live' or we should live a way that 'brings happyness'.

Which one, which one?

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.
Most people don't.
Occam's Razor is that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.
And this is what I was talking about.

Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. Occam's Razor does not deal with likelihood or make any assertion about the correctness of a given explanation. The point of Occam's Razor is as a strategy to maximise the Quality of a given model. Contrary to popular assumption, the highest Quality model is that which is vulnerable to the greatest amount of error while still remaining valid under the current evidence, because such a model is easier to disprove and therefore improve our understanding of the world.

Not everybody gets a kick out of happiness: see emos.

ya but...who cares about what emo's think?

Happiness is just a bowl away :D

Life only has what meaning you give it.

Though I don't agree with the premise.

Thats almost very good, heh cept you contradict yourself.

Either 'there is no correct way to live' or we should live a way that 'brings happyness'.

Which one, which one?

By "correct way to live" it is meant that, in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter which specific actions you take. It is just chemical reactions and electrical circuits interacting with one another. This calls into question what one might want to do while existing. I suggested that one might want to strive for happiness as it makes life pleasurable rather than something does just to avoid death because avoiding death is illogical. You won't know or care that you're dead when you are.

No, it doesn't. I don't understand why so many people seem to believe this. Simple reason dictates this already, regardless of whether or not there is a god. The mere fact that God commands something doesn't make it right. Why would it?
Because of the belief that God is a higher intelligence, knows why things are right and wrong and has a greater plan.

Generally, when people are asked a question like why lying is wrong, they neither say "No reason" nor advance a non-reason like "God said so." (At least, they need not.) We tend to have structures of justification that may not be very sophisticated, but nevertheless are neither arbitrary nor inextricably religious.
I you were to ask why lying is wrong they could answer in several ways. They could say that they have integrity, but what is integrity and where does it come from? Typically, a person is only at a disadvantage if they have "integrity." I am of the belief that integrity's only function is to bring order to an otherwise possibly chaotic situation. If everyone lied then society would be in danger of being seriously damaged. Under my final conclusion i stated that the preservation of society and government was important as these things brought happiness. Therefore having integrity brings long term happiness and not lying is in keeping with my singular value.


Yes, but this gets us nowhere because "wants" are non-rational. Just because I want to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it.
Who says that wants are non-rational? If i want food is it irrational? Under typical values, ethics and moral it is certainly not. Life is the epitome of typical value structures and food sustains life. You might say that food is a need, not a want but the situation is analogous to other wants.


False dichotomy. We need not have a soul to be more than "just" chemical reactions. The soul implies a separate, non-physical essence--dualism. But we may be more or less material creatures that are simply not reducible to deterministic, causal processes.
Then what would we be reducible to? The process that we perceive as thought has to be initiated somewhere. Whether it is from a soul or a chemical reaction I can't be 100% sure though I believe it is the latter.



Morality has never been about other people caring.
I flat out disagree. Traditionally, it is immoral to steal because people will feel bad if they are the victim. Traditionally, it is immoral to kill because people care that that person is gone and that person is believed to care that they are dead. Traditionally, it is moral to share because people are happy when you do it.

Because of the belief that God is a higher intelligence, knows why things are right and wrong

Then he might understand morality better than humans, but still cannot be its source.

and has a greater plan.

"Greater" is a value judgment. It requires a prior standard.

I you were to ask why lying is wrong they could answer in several ways. They could say that they have integrity, but what is integrity and where does it come from? Typically, a person is only at a disadvantage if they have "integrity."

Which only shows that morality has nothing to do with "advantage."

If everyone lied then society would be in danger of being seriously damaged. Under my final conclusion i stated that the preservation of society and government was important as these things brought happiness. Therefore having integrity brings long term happiness and not lying is in keeping with my singular value.

But having integrity doesn't bring "long term happiness"... not always, not even usually. People have died for their integrity. They have lost friends, ended relationships, sacrificed wealth and power for it. Because they realize that integrity has intrinsic value--moral value. Not just value for happiness's sake.

What if my happiness opposes the general social happiness, as is surely sometimes the case? What should I do? Why?

Who says that wants are non-rational? If i want food is it irrational?

"Non-rational" is not the same as "irrational." Having wants can't be irrational, because it's not a choice--it doesn't depend on a thought process. But wants are non-rational, in that in and of themselves they don't constitute a reason for doing anything.

Again, just because you want to do something does not mean that it is right.

Under typical values, ethics and moral it is certainly not. Life is the epitome of typical value structures and food sustains life.

That might actually be a reason: "We should preserve life, so we should eat." But not "We are hungry, so we should eat."

Then what would we be reducible to?

Need we be reducible?

The process that we perceive as thought has to be initiated somewhere.

What of it?

Traditionally, it is immoral to steal because people will feel bad if they are the victim. Traditionally, it is immoral to kill because people care that that person is gone and that person is believed to care that they are dead. Traditionally, it is moral to share because people are happy when you do it.

There's a person nobody knows exist who you find in the woods. You kill that person painlessly. Does it not count because nobody feels pain over it?

Even utilitarians have moved beyond this exaggerated focus on the senses: most of them deal these days in preferences. Even if you kill me without me noticing, I have still been treated unjustly because I prefer to live.

Theory 2: How does one carry out their lives if their existence is meaningless? There are two overriding ways that one can live. The first is to live to be happy. Have the singular drive to be happy. If you are going to exist you might as well not suffer during it. The second is to live miserably for a “higher” meaning. You are just wasting your existence as you are not happy and you are not really doing anything good because there is no good and bad.No meaning, no possibility of "wasting" it. And if there is a meaning, the way to discover it is to use your brain. Hence my preference for the second alternative. Which, I must say, need not be miserable. Though I suppose that if, like me, you happen to unconditionally enjoy the gaining of knowledge and the feeling of awareness lighting up in your little brain, the two are the same.

In a world like this a second moral must be introduced. One must not hurt another.Conscience - the only "moral" you need. Too bad most top politicians lack it (otherwise, generally speaking, they wouldn't be where they are, doing what they are). Hence the declining state of democracy in the world. They don't care, and they do their best to make us not care either.

Then he might understand morality better than humans, but still cannot be its source.
You don't know that. You think it. His existence might be such that he can be the source but you just can't understand it.


"Greater" is a value judgment. It requires a prior standard.
By greater i mean a plan that requires our life thus giving it meaning.


Which only shows that morality has nothing to do with "advantage."
No, it shows that morality doesn't have to do with an individuals advantage but rather with the advantage of all of society.


But having integrity doesn't bring "long term happiness"... not always, not even usually. People have died for their integrity. They have lost friends, ended relationships, sacrificed wealth and power for it. Because they realize that integrity has intrinsic value--moral value. Not just value for happiness's sake.
Integrity brings long term happiness because it preserves society. We have evolved to have the moral value because it preserves the institution that keeps us going.

What if my happiness opposes the general social happiness, as is surely sometimes the case? What should I do? Why?
That is where the strong legal system that i mentioned comes into play. It creates a system where if you happiness opposes that of the general society then you will be punished. This leads to a situation where an action that typically brought happiness at the expense of others no hurts you as well.


"Non-rational" is not the same as "irrational." Having wants can't be irrational, because it's not a choice--it doesn't depend on a thought process. But wants are non-rational, in that in and of themselves they don't constitute a reason for doing anything.
Wants are the way our body transforms the true reason for doing something into action. We need to do something, our body creates a want, we do it.


Need we be reducible?

How else would we function?

What of it?
That means we must be reducible.


There's a person nobody knows exist who you find in the woods. You kill that person painlessly. Does it not count because nobody feels pain over it?
Traditional morals it's bad, with my value it's neutral.

Why does doing what makes people happy not count as a moral? You say there are no higher morals, but what do you mean by a "higher moral". Even if there is no God that doesn't mean that there are no universal truths. By your own admission, you aprove of a system that prevents hurting others, even if that imposes somewhat on your own happiness. Is that not a moral value?

I'm disturbed, however, by your assertion that killing every human being on Earth would be a morally neutral act. In truth, such an act deprives other beings of the chance to live as full and happy a life as we did. It also would surely cause suffering for those being killed. This is wrong regardless of weather there is anyone left alive to hurt us in turn. All your reasoning says is that hurting anyone would be okay, as long as we could be sure they wouldn't hurt us back. All you have shown is an astounding lack of empathy. If we would not want something done to ourselves, what right have we to impose it on another, regardless of the ultimate consequences? At least you recognize that harming others has a tendency to backfire on us in the long term, and is therefor unadvisable from even a purely selffish viewpoint. On the other hand, your OP amounts to an assertion that without God, there is nothing inherrently wrong with committing any of the most unspeakable atrocites. Thankyou for lending credence to the fundimentallist's lie that athiests have no basis to discern right from wrong.:headbang::rolleyes::upyours:

For my part, I'm honest enough to admit that I have no idea what what the purpose of life is, or weather there is a God. Part of my reason for living is to find out, as much as I am able, the answer to that question. That is the purpose of life: to discover the purpose of life. Even if we never find an answer, imagine how such a pupose could unite us, drive us, and lead to new discoveries that could bring happiness and fulfillment to the lives of billions.

Perhaps there is no "outside" purpose to the Universe. Perhaps it has a purpose only in terms of its own internal rules and structure. Perhaps the purpose of life origionates from within.

You don't know that. You think it. His existence might be such that he can be the source but you just can't understand it.

That could be true of anything. Yet you still seem to want logical, comprehensible explanations in general, so why not here?

By greater i mean a plan that requires our life thus giving it meaning.

I have a child. My plan is for him or her to serve me. Does that give the child's life meaning?

No, it shows that morality doesn't have to do with an individuals advantage but rather with the advantage of all of society.

Then your argument collapses. Even if you can claim a reason to obey wants, the wants that are relevant to me are my own, not anyone else's. Without a "higher morality", you cannot present to me any reason to care about the advantage of all society.

(Actually, though, integrity is a more thorough virtue than you give it credit for. Sometimes lying might help preserve society--say, telling people pleasant untruths to make them happy, or to maintain order.)

Integrity brings long term happiness because it preserves society.

Long-term happiness for whom? Society? But why should I care about society? Me? Of course it doesn't. Plenty of people have no emotional difficulty with lying, and often it can be a highly advantageous, more or less risk-free behavior.

We have evolved to have the moral value because it preserves the institution that keeps us going.

"Evolution" is not a justification for anything. You noted this yourself: it has no reason behind it, just the arbitrary playing out of causal forces.

That is where the strong legal system that i mentioned comes into play.

Under your reasoning, why should I want a legal system? It punishes me, too. True, I would want it if it protects me more than it restricts me... but I still will feel no intrinsic loyalty towards it. If I can break its rules and get away with it, why shouldn't I do so? If I can transform it so that it serves me more than others--say, through any government system other than a democracy--why not?

Wants are the way our body transforms the true reason for doing something into action. We need to do something, our body creates a want, we do it.

You're just pushing it back a step. What's the true "reason" for hunger? Because evolution selects for creatures that can perpetuate themselves, and hunger helps. But evolution is not a binding obligation upon is. Why should we be concerned for it fulfilling its goals?

How else would we function?

Non-reducibly? What are you getting at?

That means we must be reducible.

No, it doesn't. Just because thought must be initiated by something doesn't mean that something must be reducible, or that the product of that something must be reducible.

Traditional morals it's bad, with my value it's neutral.

Well, that only shows that your moral framework has no problem with the annihilation of the species. It tells me nothing about mine. I'm not sure what your point here is.

Does life really have a meaning other than try to pass one's genes on in whatever manner possible?

I am the meaning of life.... Immortal God- Emperor Santiago the first and only. :p

Oh other notes I believe everybody has the right to chose what should be the meaning of his life. I hate people trying to tell you waht should be the meaning of your life.... specially the ones that get angry and threaten you that youll go to hell if you dont do as they say.

Meaning Of Life...

...is a great movie ;)

No, it doesn't. I don't understand why so many people seem to believe this. Simple reason dictates this already, regardless of whether or not there is a god. The mere fact that God commands something doesn't make it right. Why would it?

Because what is right is defined as what God commands, maybe? I guess it depends what your definition of "right" and "God" are, but I've always understood morality, from a theistic standpoint, to be what God says is right.

Because what is right is defined as what God commands, maybe? I guess it depends what your definition of "right" and "God" are, but I've always understood morality, from a theistic standpoint, to be what God says is right.

Not necessarily. Only if you believe that god is unerringly benevolent. Certainly doing as Kali or The Morrigan or Loki commanded might not always be right.

The god I believe in is benevolent, but I don't really believe in a set of commands, really more suggestions/way things should be. I'd try do be good if I was an atheist, too. Doing right is an end in itself, or at least I think so.

Hey, somebody actually gets it!

Great meaning of life for animals found, meaning of life for humans still eludes you though.

Agreed. Those fools fail to realize that we humans are very different from animals. After all, we have all three souls, whilst animals only have two. They ought to pay more attention to Aristotle.

Not necessarily. Only if you believe that god is unerringly benevolent. Certainly doing as Kali or The Morrigan or Loki commanded might not always be right.

The god I believe in is benevolent, but I don't really believe in a set of commands, really more suggestions/way things should be. I'd try do be good if I was an atheist, too. Doing right is an end in itself, or at least I think so.

True. When I said "theistic," I guess I really meant "Christian." And when I say "Christian," I really mean, "my kind of Christian."

I think this prettymuch somes up the Meaning of Life...

and Humanity in general...

Agent Smith: "I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure."

Given: No god; no soul

Theory 1: No god means that there is no higher power to dictate morals and values. If one is to not take their morals and values from God then where from? Evolutionary theories would dictate that we are programmed to want to help our families as it helps preserve our genetic material. What would happen if we did not work to preserve and propagate our genetic material? Our genetic line would likely cease to exist after much time. Would this matter? Not to us, we wouldn't know that it no longer existed. Who would it matter to? A human population plagued by a disease that only our line was resistant to? If all of the human race died out would it matter? If nobody knows that it is gone then it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter if we are here or not then why do we fear being gone so much? We wouldn't have survived as a species if we didn't. It is an evolutionary trait that preserves us. Why does it preserve us? It has no reason it is just the way it all mathematically played out. If it is just the way it played out without higher meaning than why are we here? How does one live a meaningful life if there is no higher meaning for why they or anyone exists. One can say that they live to create more life but they are just creating more meaningless life. If one were to kill all humans would they be bad people? In the lower meaning of human societal meters yes, in the higher meaning they are neutral. This is due to two reasons. The first is that if we have no soul, then we are just chemical reactions. If we are just chemical reactions then we were mathematically predetermined to carry out every action that we take. The second is that nobody would care because nobody would know that it happened as we would all just cease to exist.

Conclusion 1: Life is meaningless. We don't have a higher free will, only the illusion of it. There are no true morals.

Theory 2: How does one carry out their lives if their existence is meaningless? There are two overriding ways that one can live. The first is to live to be happy. Have the singular drive to be happy. If you are going to exist you might as well not suffer during it. The second is to live miserably for a “higher” meaning. You are just wasting your existence as you are not happy and you are not really doing anything good because there is no good and bad.

Theory 3: From the above 1 overriding moral can be found. If an action gives you more happiness than sadness in the long term, do it. This works well into todays society and justice system. The justice system works to provide the happiness of the greatest amount of people. A person may get short term joy from stealing a car but they will get long term sadness from being in jail. This balance keeps society from falling apart. If flying an aircraft gives you joy then do it if you have enough money as it will give you net happiness. If you do it and get in debt then it will give you net sadness, don't do it. If one is cutthroat to their friend to get something then they will get short term happiness from what they wanted and long term sadness from the reluctance of future acquaintances to become friendly with them.

Conclusion 3: This ideal moral can only exist fully in a democratic society with checks and balances against too much power and a fair justice system. The greatest example of where this goes wrong is with Hitler. He got happiness from subjugating and torturing people. This throws the happiness driving society into chaos and makes it ineffective. It thereby ruins everybody else's happiness. In a world like this a second moral must be introduced. One must not hurt another. This limits the potential of the first significantly and is thus why a democratic system is superior.

Final Conclusion: There are no higher morals or a truly correct way to live. There are only ways to live within a certain society that bring happiness rather than sadness. That is the most meaning that one can get out of life.

If there is no GOD, no soul, no afterlife, no whatever, why does it matter? If you are gonna be nothing for an eternity after you die, your life is like a mili second in thousands of years. Why does being happy in that tiny fraction matters if "you" are gonna spend the vast majority of time being nothing.

I believe the meaning of life is to read a good book every now and then.

If there is no GOD, no soul, no afterlife, no whatever, why does it matter? If you are gonna be nothing for an eternity after you die, your life is like a mili second in thousands of years. Why does being happy in that tiny fraction matters if "you" are gonna spend the vast majority of time being nothing.

Being happy matters because being happy is preferable to being unhappy.

Perhaps you, in your infantile mindset, require your actions to have Cosmic Significance in order for you to feel good about yourself.

Some of us, however, do not.

Some of us are content knowing that it is a FACT that our lives are but a tiny speck in the cosmic sense and have very little measurable impact on the history of the universe.

Some of us can handle that sort of simple truth. The ones who don't, need to believe or they will curl up into a little ball, grab their crotch and suck on their thumbs, whimpering.

If there is no GOD, no soul, no afterlife, no whatever, why does it matter? If you are gonna be nothing for an eternity after you die, your life is like a mili second in thousands of years. Why does being happy in that tiny fraction matters if "you" are gonna spend the vast majority of time being nothing.

Well, because id rather think there was something after death than just rotting in the Ground..

Im not gonna argue about what it is, cause, quite frankly...I dont give a shit, I think everyone's got it wrong...

Doesnt change the fact that i believe in an afterlife, after all, what have you got to lose, other than being immensely afraid of dying?

Life has the meaning you give to it. It's up to you to decide what's the meaning of your life.

Why does doing what makes people happy not count as a moral? You say there are no higher morals, but what do you mean by a "higher moral". Even if there is no God that doesn't mean that there are no universal truths. By your own admission, you aprove of a system that prevents hurting others, even if that imposes somewhat on your own happiness. Is that not a moral value?

I'm disturbed, however, by your assertion that killing every human being on Earth would be a morally neutral act. In truth, such an act deprives other beings of the chance to live as full and happy a life as we did. It also would surely cause suffering for those being killed. This is wrong regardless of weather there is anyone left alive to hurt us in turn. All your reasoning says is that hurting anyone would be okay, as long as we could be sure they wouldn't hurt us back. All you have shown is an astounding lack of empathy. If we would not want something done to ourselves, what right have we to impose it on another, regardless of the ultimate consequences? At least you recognize that harming others has a tendency to backfire on us in the long term, and is therefor unadvisable from even a purely selffish viewpoint. On the other hand, your OP amounts to an assertion that without God, there is nothing inherrently wrong with committing any of the most unspeakable atrocites. Thankyou for lending credence to the fundimentallist's lie that athiests have no basis to discern right from wrong.:headbang::rolleyes::upyours:

For my part, I'm honest enough to admit that I have no idea what what the purpose of life is, or weather there is a God. Part of my reason for living is to find out, as much as I am able, the answer to that question. That is the purpose of life: to discover the purpose of life. Even if we never find an answer, imagine how such a pupose could unite us, drive us, and lead to new discoveries that could bring happiness and fulfillment to the lives of billions.

Perhaps there is no "outside" purpose to the Universe. Perhaps it has a purpose only in terms of its own internal rules and structure. Perhaps the purpose of life origionates from within.

If you are just bunch of chemicals, then he is right. There is nothing wrong with killing everone on Earth more than desynthesising ammonia.

Happinness doesnt matter as it is just a bit more endorphins and some other chemical changes just like sadness/sufferring does not matter.

Being happy matters because being happy is preferable to being unhappy.


It doesnt matter. Because the time amount is too short. You may care about leading a happy life but you wouldnt care about having a happy mili second. I'd say you'd be ok with having a terrible mili second and having a happy life. Hence you care much more about the vast majority of your time.

So my point was if in the vast majority of time, you are nothing, then why do you care how you spend your life. Avarage life span in many Western countries is like 80 years. Thats nothing compared billions of years of existance of the universe which "you" will spend it as nothing.

Being happy matters because being happy is preferable to being unhappy.
Not exactly objective though, is it? "Being happy is good because, eh, I like being happy." :)

Perhaps you, in your infantile mindset, require your actions to have Cosmic Significance in order for you to feel good about yourself.

Some of us, however, do not.

Some of us are content knowing that it is a FACT that our lives are but a tiny speck in the cosmic sense and have very little measurable impact on the history of the universe.

Some of us can handle that sort of simple truth. The ones who don't, need to believe or they will curl up into a little ball, grab their crotch and suck on their thumbs, whimpering.
I find it comforting, actually. Reading what Sartre and other people say about us being responsible for man and all that is burdensome. Knowing that I am physically a collection of atoms that is part of something much, much larger is less overwhelming.

Well, because id rather think there was something after death than just rotting in the Ground..

Im not gonna argue about what it is, cause, quite frankly...I dont give a shit, I think everyone's got it wrong...

Doesnt change the fact that i believe in an afterlife, after all, what have you got to lose, other than being immensely afraid of dying?

Well, I was operating under the assumption in the OP: "Given: No god; no soul"

I, too, believe in an afterlife and GOD and souls and all that. Tho, I'm terribly biased cause I find the alternative nihilistic notions depressive.

It doesnt matter. Because the time amount is too short. You may care about leading a happy life but you wouldnt care about having a happy mili second.

...what kind of argument is this?

That WITH a belief in God, you care about having a happy millisecond?

That's absurd.

I'd say you'd be ok with having a terrible mili second and having a happy life. Hence you care much more about the vast majority of your time.

So my point was if in the vast majority of time, you are nothing, then why do you care how you spend your life.

Because my life is not on the scale of the "vast majority of time." I am concerned only with the vast majority of MY time. Hence I can be happy because I am not worrying about how happy I'll be when I cease to exist.


Avarage life span in many Western countries is like 80 years. Thats nothing compared billions of years of existance of the universe which "you" will spend it as nothing.

So what?

42 is thy answer however we wont no the question since the supercomputer Earth was destoryed.

At least it went something like that.

It will be instantly destroyed and replaced by something even more bizarre. There are some who say this has already happened.

the secularization of society has led to the collapse of morals and the meaning of life has shifted. Todays morals come from the Ubermensch, the overmen among us.

In modern society I'd have to say that the Ubermensch are the overreaching political and economical structures that dominate our day to day living.

But the ultimate meaning of life is that, now that God is Dead, you, as a human being, need to continually strive towards the betterment of yourself, so that you may one day become more then what you are be a moral example for others to strive towards, as well as a bench mark for them to surpass.

In other words, Want is the Meaning of Life. if you don't want you're already dead.

Because what is right is defined as what God commands, maybe?

No one defines "right" that way. What is right is what we should do.

People might argue that God's commands determine what is right, but it is difficult to see why that would be true. It requires a reason, an argument.