Is it possible for us to create a purpose?

[ADigitalArtist]

Hmmm. I think you're confused, DA. I didn't suggest any of that stuff.

I think you did. You keep bringing up totalitarian dictators because you're trying to make the connection that not believing so-called divine purpose/saying that purpose is self-made means tacit agreement with those individual's choices when, of course, not believing in divine purpose or believing in self-made purpose doesn't mean a person can't be a consequentialist or utilitarian or have other ethical standards which wouldn't condone totalitarianism. It's an appeal to emotion and a reduction to the absurd.

Also not even relevant, as morality/values and purpose aren't interchangeable concepts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Get rid of the "see me" font and I'll respond.

Or it could be that I'm not trying to draw attention to myself, but like color and like adding it when I can.

 

[Reflex]

I think you did. You keep bringing up totalitarian dictators because you're trying to make the connection that not believing so-called divine purpose/saying that purpose is self-made means tacit agreement with those individual's choices when, of course, not believing in divine purpose or believing in self-made purpose doesn't mean a person can't be a consequentialist or utilitarian or have other ethical standards which wouldn't condone totalitarianism. It's an appeal to emotion and a reduction to the absurd.

Also not even relevant, as morality/values and purpose aren't interchangeable concepts.

The choice is quite simple: either purpose is derived from ultimate reality (however that may be conceived--I did not use the word "divine" for that reason) or it is arbitrary. All I asked is that without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose anything but arbitrary?

And I did not say morality/values and purpose are interchangeable. I said there is a direct link between them.

Really, you should just read what's there instead of reading into it what you want to see.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The choice is quite simple: either purpose is derived from ultimate reality (however that may be conceived--I did not use the word "divine" for that reason) or it is arbitrary. All I asked is that without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose anything but arbitrary?

The environment and situation which allow purpose to be determined along certain criteria. That's the very definition of non-arbitrary. On the other hand, a dictated, "ultimate" purpose needn't be based on any prior reasoning nor influenced by circumstance, so it can very well be arbitrary. You're setting up a false dichotomy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The choice is quite simple: either purpose is derived from ultimate reality (however that may be conceived--I did not use the word "divine" for that reason) or it is arbitrary. All I asked is that without reference to an ultimate reality, what makes purpose anything but arbitrary?

And I did not say morality/values and purpose are interchangeable. I said there is a direct link between them.

Really, you should just read what's there instead of reading into it what you want to see.

Immortal pretty much said what I was thinking but I'll add that there isn't a direct link between them. You are asserting there is but not giving reason for it.
Also 'ultimate reality' doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sounds like weasel wording to me.

 

[Reflex]

Immortal pretty much said what I was thinking but I'll add that there isn't a direct link between them. You are asserting there is but not giving reason for it.
Also 'ultimate reality' doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sounds like weasel wording to me.

Are you suggesting there isn't a link between the purposes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao and their respective values? Better a weasel than an eagle being sucked into a jet engine.

Again, no one said anything about values being "dictated." And what IF suggests is relativism, which, aside from not answering the question, is something I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao would approve of. After all, it was the source of their power.

Edit: “Ultimate reality” doesn't make a whole lot of sense to you. Algebra doesn't make a whole lot of sense to a first-grade student, either. Inasmuch it makes a lot of sense to so many, shouldn't you consider the possibility that you're missing something? Don't you see? Once language is stripped of it's religious overtones, it becomes painfully obvious that atheism's denial of an ultimate reality is problematic, so much so that its proponents want nothing more than to put up a huge STOP sign as far as reason is concerned. Failing in that, they make religious inferences where nothing of the sort was implied-which is to say they employ straw man arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you suggesting there isn't a link between the purposes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao and their respective values?

There are lots of links between them. They were all male, for one. They all breathed oxygen. They all probably emitted gas at some point. The problem is drawing a direct correlation between a particular generalized position they held and the entire rest of their worldview, which is just as silly as drawing a correlation between their genocidal tendencies and their tendency to urinate are regular intervals.

Better a weasel than an eagle being sucked into a jet engine.

Earlier I asked what the actual message of that short story you transcribed was beyond a poor reconstruction of Pascal's wager. What was the point of it?

Again, no one said anything about values being "dictated."

You are, if you are suggesting that there is necessarily an "ultimate purpose". That purpose can only really be considered a dictate.

And what IF suggests is relativism,

No I didn't, I simply questioned your logic that "non-ultimate purpose = arbitrary". It doesn't.

which, aside from not answering the question, is something I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao would approve of. After all, it was the source of their power.

Do you wear trousers? Because Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao also wore trousers, therefore wearing trousers was the source of their ideological power.

Edit: “Ultimate reality” doesn't make a whole lot of sense to you. Algebra doesn't make a whole lot of sense to a first-grade student, either.

The difference is that algebra can be demonstrated to at least conceptually exist and have real-world applications. Your concept of ultimate purpose can do neither.

Inasmuch it makes a lot of sense to so many, shouldn't you consider the possibility that you're missing something? Don't you see?

It's always possible. The difficulty you face is in demonstrating it to be the case. Do you concede that it is POSSIBLE that YOU'RE missing something?

Once language is stripped of it's religious overtones, it becomes painfully obvious that atheism's denial of an ultimate reality is problematic, so much so that its proponents want nothing more than to put up a huge STOP sign as far as reason is concerned. Failing in that, they make religious inferences where nothing of the sort was implied.

This is just gabled nonsense.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Immortal is on it today. I'm at work so I can only post in intervals. Thanks for wording it so well.

 

[Reflex]

Immortal is on it today. I'm at work so I can only post in intervals. Thanks for wording it so well.

Immortal is irrational.

 

[McBell]

Immortal is irrational.

are you ever going to answer his question?

Earlier I asked what the actual message of that short story you transcribed was beyond a poor reconstruction of Pascal's wager. What was the point of it?​

 

[psychoslice]

You certainly sound like one. You're saying, "Don't bother me with the facts! I have my opinion and that's that!"

Yes that is if it is fact, it maybe your fact but not mine.

 

[Reflex]

are you ever going to answer his question?

Earlier I asked what the actual message of that short story you transcribed was beyond a poor reconstruction of Pascal's wager. What was the point of it?​

Are either of you going to answer mine? (BTW, that the question was asked indicates he/she didn't understand something as straight-forward as the title.)

And saying, in effect, that drawing a direct correlation between the particular generalized purposes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao's and their respective values is “just as silly as drawing a correlation between their genocidal tendencies and their tendency to urinate are regular intervals” is hardly something a sound mind would do.

 

[ArtieE]

And saying, in effect, that drawing a direct correlation between the particular generalized purposes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao's and their respective values is “just as silly as drawing a correlation between their genocidal tendencies and their tendency to urinate are regular intervals” is hardly something a sound mind would do.

There's no correlation between theism/atheism and values. Theism is just the belief in the existence of one or more gods and atheism is the lack of that belief. It says nothing else about the person.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are either of you going to answer mine? (BTW, that the question was asked indicates he/she didn't understand something as straight-forward as the title.)

You mean the title that was an incredibly tortured metaphor for a poor version of Pascal's wager?

It's really quite simple: you explained that the story only served as an introduction to the chapter, so I assume there is more to be said on the topic of the story than just the story itself, and that the chapter proceeds to elaborate on this. I was not the only poster who read the story and came away with no idea what it was actually trying to say, which indicates one of two things: either the message of the story makes little sense without at least the context of the chapter it serves as the opening to, or the person who wrote it is a terrible writer who is unable to understand how metaphors work.

Now, can you answer the question? If the point of the story was more than just yet another restatement of Pascal's wager, what exactly is it?

And saying, in effect, that drawing a direct correlation between the particular generalized purposes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao's and their respective values is “just as silly as drawing a correlation between their genocidal tendencies and their tendency to urinate are regular intervals” is hardly something a sound mind would do.

I didn't say "drawing a correlation between their purposes and values", I said "drawing a correlation between a particular generalized position they held and the entire rest of their worldview". Reading is fundamental, grasshopper. You are in no position to judge who has a sound mind and who hasn't when you post nonsensical stories without context and completely misread other people's posts.

 

[McBell]

Are either of you going to answer mine? (BTW, that the question was asked indicates he/she didn't understand something as straight-forward as the title.)

And saying, in effect, that drawing a direct correlation between the particular generalized purposes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao's and their respective values is “just as silly as drawing a correlation between their genocidal tendencies and their tendency to urinate are regular intervals” is hardly something a sound mind would do.

you sure are a master at avoidance.
One wonders why all the dishonesty?

 

[Reflex]

There's no correlation between theism/atheism and values. Theism is just the belief in the existence of one or more gods and atheism is the lack of that belief. It says nothing else about the person.

Ahhh....if it were only so simple.

 

[outhouse]

you sure are a master at avoidance.
One wonders why all the dishonesty?

Me thinks someone does not realize the gap between theism and atheism isn't as large as one imagines.


he doesn't believe in the thousands of other gods, and I only disbelieve in one more

 

[ArtieE]

Ahhh....if it were only so simple.

Actually it is that simple. What else do you think it tells you about the person?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ahhh....if it were only so simple.

It is.

 

[Reflex]

I didn't say "drawing a correlation between their purposes and values", I said "drawing a correlation between a particular generalized position they held and the entire rest of their worldview". Reading is fundamental, grasshopper. You are in no position to judge who has a sound mind and who hasn't when you post nonsensical stories without context and completely misread other people's posts.

"Not Craw! CRAW!" -- the "Claw" in the old Get Smart TV series. And if there is a real difference between what you said and my interpretation of what you said, then what you said is a non sequiter.

Pascal's Wager or Why Psychological Arguments Against Religion Fail