Truth or Comfort?

[Willamena]

Well if you're under the impression that we exist for a purpose, that is comfort over truth.

If what you say is true, that is truth over anything and everything else.

 

[Kathryn]

I would rather accept "depressing hooey" over mythological and uselessly hopeful overgrown fairy tales.

You're assuming there are only two alternatives.

Are you depressed? If not then you are living in a meaningless life just fine! Why not make the best of it? Everyone is asking why, why, why. Why not? There is no reason to live but there is no reason to die.

No, I'm not depressed - but a lot of that lack of depression has to do with my firm belief (based on a wide variety of real facts at least in part), that I have many reasons to live - mostly people in my case (parents, husband, kids, grandkids, etc and the love we enjoy between us) - though other people may have other reasons.

There is plenty of time to be dead. We give our actions meaning, even though that is just personal and there still really is none.

Many of us have loved ones who also give our actions meaning - or friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc.

I have no problem with suicide, but I think we can set up a moral system based on logic. We are just stuck in a meaningless life here together, all free to make our own way. And there is the key, free. So, doing something like killing or raping is going to interfere with anothers freedom, therefore "immoral". Just gotta think a little!

Oh, I've thought about it - just rejected it because it doesn't make much sense to me.

In an existential belief system, what's so great about freedom? Why is it any more special or noble or valuable than a lack of freedom, since nothing really matters anyway?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If it came down to it, would you rather accept what is true or something that is comfortable? For example, say that all logic and evidence points to there being no afterlife. Will you accept that this life is it (truth) or would you continue telling yourself you will go to paradise after you die (comfort)?

There is not enough evidence to come to a logical conclusion about the matter so the question is moot.

 

[Penumbra]

I know you're really talking about death rates in the young, but I just wanted to point out that the death rate in humans is currently at 100 percent.

Just sayin'.

Everyone dies. Not everyone has to die young, or die from something treatable.

Simple cultures have their pros and cons.

Reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where there's a guy who only wants to read books. That's his passion, doesn't want to deal with anything else. Nuclear war happens, the world is destroyed, and now he's alone in a deserted world and can read all the books he wants with no distractions- paradise! But then suddenly his glasses break, and he's basically blind without them, and has no way to fix them. All is lost, in an instant.

Life is fragile, so idealizing about simpler cultures doesn't mean everyone gets to enjoy the advantages of them.

 

[Kathryn]

Everyone dies. Not everyone has to die young, or die from something treatable.

Simple cultures have their pros and cons.

Reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where there's a guy who only wants to read books. That's his passion, doesn't want to deal with anything else. Nuclear war happens, the world is destroyed, and now he's alone in a deserted world and can read all the books he wants with no distractions- paradise! But then suddenly his glasses break, and he's basically blind without them, and has no way to fix them. All is lost, in an instant.

Life is fragile, so idealizing about simpler cultures doesn't mean everyone gets to enjoy the advantages of them.

Amen. No man is an island, either!

 

[1137]

You're assuming there are only two alternatives.

Either there is objective meaning or there is not. I'd love to hear what exists besides yes or no, and maybe does not work.

No, I'm not depressed - but a lot of that lack of depression has to do with my firm belief (based on a wide variety of real facts at least in part), that I have many reasons to live - mostly people in my case (parents, husband, kids, grandkids, etc and the love we enjoy between us) - though other people may have other reasons.

Oh I never said you have no personal reasons to live. We have family, friends, jobs, etc. That is subjective meaning though, so you have just shown that there is ability to be happy in an objectively meaningless world. :clap

Many of us have loved ones who also give our actions meaning - or friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc.

See, you understand, you just do not realize that you do. We create meaning, and it is personal in you, between you and others, but there is not purpose for life on Earth or even the universe's existence.

In an existential belief system, what's so great about freedom? Why is it any more special or noble or valuable than a lack of freedom, since nothing really matters anyway?

What is so great about freedom? That is a terrifying thought especially with our free America bordering so close to toppling into fascism. I am so tired of these ignorant straw man arguments. When did I ever say that nothing matters? If it matters to you then it matters, there is just NO OBJECTIVE MEANING OR PURPOSE TO EXISTENCE.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Simple cultures have their pros and cons.

This is pure opinion on my part.

I always feel like the intelligence and wisdom of "primitive cultures" are for the most part underestimated. When in reality it is like you said, there are pros and cons. Most moderns see the less technical societies as just ignorant. So, when I communicate on this subject, I leave out the cons. Most folks already have an over blown sense of them to begin with.

 

[Kathryn]

]Either there is objective meaning or there is not. I'd love to hear what exists besides yes or no, and maybe does not work.

Now you're moving the goal posts. This is not what you said. What you said was:

I would rather accept "depressing hooey" over mythological and uselessly hopeful overgrown fairy tales.

Not the same thing.

Oh I never said you have no personal reasons to live. We have family, friends, jobs, etc. That is subjective meaning though, so you have just shown that there is ability to be happy in an objectively meaningless world. :clap

That's simply your interpretation seen through your belief that all life is objectively meaningless though. You haven't proven a thing. So no applause for you.

See, you understand, you just do not realize that you do. We create meaning, and it is personal in you, between you and others, but there is not purpose for life on Earth or even the universe's existence.

Please don't patronize me. I understand existentialism - I just don't buy it. You can keep repeating your assertions but all they are are your opinions. You cannot offer any proof of this hypothesis - only your subjective opinion.

What is so great about freedom? That is a terrifying thought especially with our free America bordering so close to toppling into fascism. I am so tired of these ignorant straw man arguments. When did I ever say that nothing matters? If it matters to you then it matters, there is just NO OBJECTIVE MEANING OR PURPOSE TO EXISTENCE.

Well, I'm tired of trying to discuss something with someone who resorts to personal insults and "yelling." Let me know when or if you want to proceed in a more mutually respectful mode and I'll join you.

 

[1137]

Now you're moving the goal posts. This is not what you said. What you said was:
Not the same thing.

I see, apologies.

That's simply your interpretation seen through your belief that all life is objectively meaningless though. You haven't proven a thing. So no applause for you.

You showed that we create meaning. Unless you can show objective meaning then there is none.

Please don't patronize me. I understand existentialism - I just don't buy it. You can keep repeating your assertions but all they are are your opinions. You cannot offer any proof of this hypothesis - only your subjective opinion.

So you probably believe we can prove a negative, like that God doesn't exists huh. I can show the arguments against objective meaning, and since you cannot provide one scrap of rebuttle I am logically correct.

Well, I'm tired of trying to discuss something with someone who resorts to personal insults and "yelling." Let me know when or if you want to proceed in a more mutually respectful mode and I'll join you.

Haha not one personal insult was made, but a good excuse to leave behind an argument you cannot even support. The caps were not yelling, it was trying to get my point across of what is being argued, since you seem unable to follow.

 

[InChrist]

... there is just NO OBJECTIVE MEANING OR PURPOSE TO EXISTENCE.

Besides being illogical I think this idea that there is no objective meaning or purpose can lead to very dangerous outcomes. You may think you can create your own meaning and value freedom for yourself and others, but someone else may not find meaning in allowing you or others freedom. Such a person may find meaning in controlling or exterminating others. If there is no outside standard then everyone may come up with their own meaning resulting in some minor and major collisions between humans...chaos.

 

[Penumbra]

Besides being illogical I think this idea that there is no objective meaning or purpose can lead to very dangerous outcomes. You may think you can create your own meaning and value freedom for yourself and others, but someone else may not find meaning in allowing you or others freedom. Such a person may find meaning in controlling or exterminating others. If there is no outside standard then everyone may come up with their own meaning resulting in some minor and major collisions between humans...chaos.

Even given supposedly outside influence, the result has often led to torture, theocracy, etc. When people build up dogmatic systems not based on facts, it results in some minor and major collisions between humans...chaos.

As far as I can tell, they're not operating on an outside standard despite calling it that.

I'd trust a person who reasons with her own conscience rather than someone who claims to follow an external source

 

[1137]

Besides being illogical I think this idea that there is no objective meaning or purpose can lead to very dangerous outcomes. You may think you can create your own meaning and value freedom for yourself and others, but someone else may not find meaning in allowing you or others freedom. Such a person may find meaning in controlling or exterminating others. If there is no outside standard then everyone may come up with their own meaning resulting in some minor and major collisions between humans...chaos.

You cannot just say that the claim is illogical. Provide an argument that there is purpose to existence. There really is not anyways. It cannot be learning, as you will die and lose that knowledge. It cannot be to affect reality, because all life on this planet is unbelievably small and is not going to make a noticeable difference to the cosmos. If all life on Earth ended right now, the universe would no even notice.

I can see how it is dangerous. People are weak and pathetic and need order. When I am asked if people can live without religion, I usually say no because people need something to follow, we are an illogical species for the most part. The fact is, whether or not there is meaning changes nothing. There is no objective purpose to existence, and things are the way they are now anyways.

The fact that others (like Hitler or Stalin) find meaning in oppression is a sad one. But yes, that is a created meaning, however it is illogical. That is my point, we can set up a logical "objective" system of morality, in which things like genocide are wrong and must be punished.

 

[Polymorphic Grass]

i think truth is more logistical but for me i cant live with wat i had to put up with my past year so i am a christian now i cant find life with not it i couldnt take it any more.

 

[Kathryn]

You showed that we create meaning. Unless you can show objective meaning then there is none.

LOL - THIS is an argument?

But this does bring me to a question for clarification. Please give me your definitions of objective and subjective meaning. And I don't mean the ones related to grammar (the more common usage of the two terms! )

So you probably believe we can prove a negative, like that God doesn't exists huh.

Please speaky English. OK, that was a low blow, but honestly - I can't make much sense out of your train of thought here.

I can show the arguments against objective meaning, and since you cannot provide one scrap of rebuttle I am logically correct.

You have no idea what I can and cannot show. But first we have to start having some semblance of an intelligent conversation. I haven't seen any compelling arguments from you at all, to be honest. When I see one, I'll give you my rebuttal. Right now, I freely admit that I am just toying with your comments.

Haha not one personal insult was made, but a good excuse to leave behind an argument you cannot even support. The caps were not yelling, it was trying to get my point across of what is being argued, since you seem unable to follow.

Bolded, huge caps are considered yelling - surely you know that.

Perhaps if you provide a logical argument, I can follow your train of thought.

Just an idea.

 

[Kathryn]

You cannot just say that the claim is illogical. Provide an argument that there is purpose to existence. There really is not anyways. It cannot be learning, as you will die and lose that knowledge.

We can (and do) pass on knowledge, which exists in others after we die. Human advances over time are due to cumulative knowledge.

It cannot be to affect reality, because all life on this planet is unbelievably small and is not going to make a noticeable difference to the cosmos. If all life on Earth ended right now, the universe would no even notice.

Well, you're right about this - in the most roundabout way. You're right that "the universe would not even notice" - because the universe isn't an entity that CAN notice anything.

What do you think this proves, by the way? We affect reality every day in small and large ways. Reality doesn't have to be something huge and profound in order to be affected in very real ways.

One day, Alois noticed the curve of Maria's back when she bent over the stove. His eyes were drawn to this because she had tied her apron strings into a jaunty little bow that sat just right on her hips. Maria turned her long, vulnerable neck to look at him over her shoulder and he noticed a familiar, moist flush on her cheeks - and felt a familiar jolt of desire. He made his move - and the beans boiled over. Nine months later Adolph was born.

All because of that silly little bow.

(I thought it was about time to throw Hitler into the mix.)

Reality - an apron, a woman, a man, and some beans. Reality - Auschwitz. The devil is in the details.

The fact is, whether or not there is meaning changes nothing. There is no objective purpose to existence, and things are the way they are now anyways.

What? Is this a typo or do you honestly think this makes sense?

The fact that others (like Hitler or Stalin) find meaning in oppression is a sad one. But yes, that is a created meaning, however it is illogical. That is my point, we can set up a logical "objective" system of morality, in which things like genocide are wrong and must be punished.

Will you please give us your definition of "subjective" and "objective" as related to reality - and morality?

 

[blackout]

The UniVerse came into Being.
It evolves, it changes, it develops.
Could these things not constitute it's 'purpose'?

Sentience in the UniVerse came into Being.
It evolves, it changes, it develops.
Sentience brought with it Self Realization,
and 'Meaning'.
Meaning is directly linked with Sentience and Self Reflection.
All of these things have come into Being.
'Meaning' evolves ... changes... develops--
as we do. (we= Sentience in the UniVerse, or the The UniVerse Self Aware)

 

[InChrist]

Even given supposedly outside influence, the result has often led to torture, theocracy, etc. When people build up dogmatic systems not based on facts, it results in some minor and major collisions between humans...chaos.

As far as I can tell, they're not operating on an outside standard despite calling it that.

[FONT=&quot]True, too often those who claim to adhere to a Higher outside standard don’t, they’re just doing their own selfish thing.[/FONT]

I'd trust a person who reasons with her own conscience rather than someone who claims to follow an external source

[/quote]

I’d say it depends on whether or not the person is listening to and following their God-given conscience or what external source one claims to follow (and the evidence to validate it) before I would trust.

 

[InChrist]

You cannot just say that the claim is illogical. Provide an argument that there is purpose to existence. There really is not anyways. It cannot be learning, as you will die and lose that knowledge. It cannot be to affect reality, because all life on this planet is unbelievably small and is not going to make a noticeable difference to the cosmos. If all life on Earth ended right now, the universe would no even notice.

[FONT=&quot]Love is the purpose for existence. God is love and each person was created to be a recipient of His love, to love and enjoy Him in return, and to love one another forever. True, loving, caring human relationships are a reflection of God’s love and the purpose and meaning He has intended for our existence.[/FONT]

I can see how it is dangerous. People are weak and pathetic and need order. When I am asked if people can live without religion, I usually say no because people need something to follow, we are an illogical species for the most part. The fact is, whether or not there is meaning changes nothing. There is no objective purpose to existence, and things are the way they are now anyways.

The fact that others (like Hitler or Stalin) find meaning in oppression is a sad one. But yes, that is a created meaning, however it is illogical. That is my point, we can set up a logical "objective" system of morality, in which things like genocide are wrong and must be punished.

[/quote]

Who decides what is wrong? What if the “we” decides to set up a system of morality which includes genocide?

 

[confused453]

If it came down to it, would you rather accept what is true or something that is comfortable? For example, say that all logic and evidence points to there being no afterlife. Will you accept that this life is it (truth) or would you continue telling yourself you will go to paradise after you die (comfort)?

I would accept what is true if there was physical evidence. Don't really care about logical evidence. I think of afterlife as unknown, at this time.
I would accept physical immortality, explore the universe, live and learn, and just die when I'm certain that I no longer wish to exist, and the universe doesn't need me. At that point I will not care whether there is afterlife or not. My view could change in the future, though :trampo:

 

[beerisit]

[FONT=&quot]Love is the purpose for existence. God is love and each person was created to be a recipient of His love, to love and enjoy Him in return, and to love one another forever. True, loving, caring human relationships are a reflection of God’s love and the purpose and meaning He has intended for our existence.[/FONT]

Yes as can be seen by absolutely none of the verses in his book. Or do you have one that demonstrates his love?

Who decides what is wrong? What if the “we” decides to set up a system of morality which includes genocide?

Like the morality the god of the bible uses.