Life has no ULTIMATE meaning

[wizard69]

OK.. What is the meaning of life? As an atheist I contend that life has no meaning whatsoever.It just is.
No doubt our religious friends here would see that as extremly sad (cough...Theland...cough). However I would contend the opposite, namly that we are extremly fortunate to experiance a moment in time.A moment that is denied countless billions of potential lives (sperm meets ovum type of scenario).
Because i am an atheist does not mean that I do not appriciate life, on the contary, it enhances it.
On the other hand, if you are of a religious persuasion it would diminish it.To believe that life is eternal is not to appreciate your loved ones while you are alive because you can always make up your wrongs when you are all "passed over".
Any thoughts...

[mibn2cweus]

To successfully contemplate the meaning of life we must first understand and acknowledge that such is only possible to a specific kind of entity of which to the extent of our current knowledge exists only in one creature in the universe. The meaning of life is found through the distinctly human process of observing evaluating and ultimately defining what life is.

Definitions are by virtue of the process by which they are derived limited in scope and contextual in nature and evolve with the integration of new discoveries and improved understanding. Life itself is likewise a limited and distinct process. Yet as our understanding of life and the realm in which it exists and thrives improves, as we realise our potential to discover and explore new vistas, the scope of what is obtainable is limited only by our desire to know and our willingness to learn.

Exploring and learning about life and what it means is much like life itself in that it is a self-generated and self-sustaining process with the potential for and the necessity to maintain growth. The refusal to engage ones self continually in this process is to embrace the only alternative, death, before our time has expired. Such is intellectual suicide and the end of what differentiates us as humans from all other known living organisms, our ability to find a reason to live by exploiting our unique potential to do so, through a process of reason.

cont. . .

[mibn2cweus]

Although we must ultimately face the absolute of death along with the physical deterioration and decomposition of the support structure that makes consciousness and self-awareness possible, in a sense we do live on in the continuation of the processes we set in motion while we are alive. The choices we make and actions we initiate change the course of events far into the future. This legacy we leave behind, whether it be the children we have parented or the ideas we have discovered or substantiated define us just as much for who we are as they do for who we were.

By acknowledging and assuming responsibility for what we believe and do we lend credence to and derive meaning from the life we live. To seek such meaning from any other source is a discredit to our ability to appreciate the value of the effort of honest thought and subsequent life affirming actions.

The meaning of life encompasses much more that you will find in any dictionary but if you still have no understanding of what life means that�s definitely a good place to start.

[luna-tic]

I think there are times when nearly everyone asks either themselves or others those searching questions;What are we here for? What's it all about(Alfie)?
Even with family these questions still remain but all I know is that whatever we think we're here for, I know life in anyone's interpretation is to be experienced and that's really all we can do.
If religion helps those who want to follow it to understand life then good luck to `em.
Some believe our spirit returns to whence it came and those who were our spirit creators only wanted to experience physical life through us. If that's true then I suppose we get the best of both worlds.

[Philanthro]

Hi Wizard, it's an interesting thought. I come from a religious background and agree with what you say, I do find the idea of a life without meaning very sad.

I disagre with the second part of your argument. I think the degree to which you appreciate life really depends more upon the individual and their experiences than their religous persuasion. Many religous people live each day to the full and strive to capture every moment, in the same way many athiests fail to appreciate their lives. No matter how strong your beleif in heaven or the afterlife is, leaving your loved one's and everything you have ever known behind is always a frightening prospect. I think many Christians would argue that they actually appreciate their lives more because they are aware of the sacrifices that have been made for them, but as I stated I feel the level to which you appreciate your life depends more upon the individual than the religious views.

[Philanthro]

I would like to get your views on this theory. If you opened a clock and looked at how all the cogs were balanced and weighted perfectly to move each other and tell the correct time, you would know that this had been meaningfully created with a purpose. If you read a Shakespere novel you would know that the words you read had been carefully and purposly put together in the way that they had to tell the story. I think this is very much the same as the world we live in, just look at the solar system, the natural world, the way night follows day without fail, the amazing bodies we have, the cycle of birth and death. Even on a more human level everything is so connected, the person who works hard and shows love and humanity to other will ultimately always end up a lot happier than the person who does not.

Just like the respected astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said, "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junk yard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for takeoff?" I don't know if I have put this point across very well but what I'm getting at is how can you fail to see any creation or meaning in the world we have and the lives we live?

[mibn2cweus]

To presuppose that the universe was created only begs the question of who/what created the creator. The presumption of a creator does nothing to explain the causal chain of events that brought about the universe we now observe, experience and within our limited but growing accumulation of knowledge subsequently developed some degree of understanding. The ability we do have to understand the nature of the world in which we exist demonstrates that such an ability follows from the need to first be in possession of a faculty of consciousness and the ability to reason. Without the prior existence of a mind, the brain and body the bring about the manifestations of the perceptions given to us through our sensory organs, we would be oblivious to the universe around us and be incapable of physically altering its constituents. Creators are not created but are the consequence of the evolution of an entity with the capacity to do so.

It is through the process of reason we derive the ability to make sense of the order we find in the causal nature of the universe that brought us into existence and it is through our physical bodies we acquired as a result of those physical processes that we are provided with the means to perceive it and alter it to serve our own purpose. Circumventing the causal chain of events that lead to the development of an ability to reason is an assault on the evidence that only reason could have provided as evidenced by the current sum of our knowledge and our understanding of how that knowledge was acquired.

A universe without a life form with the need and ability to understand and appreciate it would be completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever. It is only by virtue of such a life form that an understanding of how it came about is possible. Such life forms wherever they might exist define what meaning means.

[dawkins]

Philanthro

Fortunately natural selection doesn't assemble life randomly or hoyle may of had a point. I think he actually believed that life on earth was ceded from space. He also championed the steady state universe which held that the universe was eternal. I think the idea was that if the universe is eternal then life could start somewhere, get to earth and natural selection could take over (no room for god in hoyle's eternal universe). He was wrong on both counts.

If the human body is designed then why does it contain useless artifacts? You'll find your clock mechanism doesn't contain extra bits that serve no useful purpose.

Get past the glitch that your designer left his mistakes on view and you reach the much bigger problem of explaining god when you have just argued that complex things can't just manifest themselves.

[mibn2cweus]

wizard69...not trying to be pushy or anything but
where�s your manners???

[wizard69]

mibn2cweus... you are quiet right and I stand corrected
people who live in glass houses and all that.
Anyway, Philanthro, your 747 anology doesnt hold up
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.h tml
these types of anology (clock,jumbo,etc) miss out one vital point.Clocks and aeroplanes are not biological and do not reproduce, therefore they cannot evolve.

[wizard69]

In addition Philanthro, if there was a supreme being behind "creation" then I would have to question his works. The solar system is not perfect, the earth is under constant threat from heavenly bodies crashing into it (as has happened in the past), the natural world is cruel and "red in tooth and claw". I'm sure that the gazelle that is been torn apart by a lion would fail to see the beaty of life and our "amazing" bodies are prone to illness, cancer, disease and death.And for what purpose has the creator created typhoid, AIDS, maleria, chicken pox, syphalis, brain tumors, cancer, schizophrenia, spina bifida, leprosy, M.S, cholera,alzheimers, epilepsy, meningitis, athiritis, etc.?
This perfect creator appears to have made a few c0ck ups

[Theland]

Wizard69 - the universe that is not perfect, as you so rightly observe, is not the perfection it was at the beginning, and the reason for that is the Fall of Man, which didn't only affect us, but the whole of creation. Hence you are correct in your , "red in tooth and claw" observation.
It shouldn't have been like this, but it is, and Gods' plan is to restore it, through His Son, Jesus Christ. As you well know, of course.
If you go the thread from Chakka35 claiming God was demoted / promoted, I have left the answers there that you requested.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Why 'shouldn't it have been like this?'

This is such an elementary point, and the only answer seems to be some ridiculous, weasily, 'Ah, but you can't understand God's intentions!' (The answer to which is that 'no, I can't because they fail the meet even the basic requirements of an arguement such as you would expect from a small child' and if true would serve to suggest that you can't trust anything he says.)

God is omnicient, yes? And God is omnipotent, yes? Therefore, if it happened, it happened because God wanted it to. By nature of his omnicience he must have known, by nature of his omnipotence, he could have stopped it.

If he didn't want it to happen like that, but failed to address the situation then he's either thick or cruel.

Or imaginary.

[wizard69]

I'd plump for the latter Waldo...

[WaldoMcFroog]

Well, me too - but if people are sure that God exists then, as I say, he'd have to be either Mr Thicky or Mr Bast**d.

[jenstar]

You know, the bible would be greatly improved by changing the name from God to Mr. Thicky *******....

[Theland]

Well, at least you don't throw Christians to the lions anymore ... do you?

[WaldoMcFroog]

No, and nor did the Romans - it's a debunked myth that Christians were ever thrown to the lions, though they were undoubtedly persecuted.

I hardly think someone saying 'This bible thing, it's not quite as sensible as you seem to think,' quite qualifies as persecution though, does it?

[wizard69]

christians seem to forget that for centuries it was THEM that did the persecuting.

[wizard69]

most christians would like us to live in a theocracy.Well, we did once...it was called the dark ages

[Theland]

To digress a little - would it therefore be better if there was no religion & spirituality thread on AB?

Waldo - That's your opinion.

Wizard69 - If you are referring to the likes of the Crusades or the Inquisition, then no, that was papism, not Christianity. There's a difference.