Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 04-08-2002, 01:01 PM

Atheism exposes itself when it tries to say that the evolutionary process continued without any kind of goal whatsoever.

"Atheism" doesn't make this claim. Science does. They're two different things. When I say I'm an atheist, I'm saying I lack a belief in god, and am making no statement whatsoever about evolution.

That aside, it's absolutely correct to say there is no "goal" of evolution. You should read Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea or other good titles some might recommend to get a better idea of evolution and what it implies.

As an analogy (admittedly not a perfect one), look at a tree. Draw a picture of it. You'll note it's in a particular configuration, which undoubtedly will be different than other trees in many details, if not in general structure. Even trees of the same species.

Years ago, when that seed was planted, the seed had no "goal" to reach that particular configuration. Realistically, it had no "goal" at all. It simply grew until it reached its particular configuration. Various environmental inputs hepled shape it into its particular configuration.

The only thing that's ever assigned a "goal" to anything in nature is the human imagination.

To admit a goal is to imply pre-existing intelligence. However, if you believe evolution, there will be few things that you can't be convinced of (given the right motivation). Congratulations on your superior display of faith.

It takes evidence to convince me of something. I'd gladly change my acceptance of evolution as an explanation of what evidence we see if evidence was presented that strongly discounted it (e.g. a mechanism or theory that better fits the evidence).

So I don't have "faith" in evolution. I accept it as the best theory to match the evidence we've come up with so far.

Likewise, if I'm presented with irrefutable evidence of a "superior intelligence," I'd accept it. Such evidence is strangely lacking.

Rhea · 04-08-2002, 01:02 PM

Christoph, what an incredibly weird foray you're on.

Don't you want to learn ANYTHING?

You appear to be regurgitating some pretty standard arguments and not reading or responding to the answers.

(Honestly, these are pretty old, tired and deflated statements you're making.)

You are defining some thing called "purpose" which you define as HAVING to come from a deity and which you define all humans as NEEDING.

And we say, rightly, what the heck are you talking about? You can't define that and then expect people who do not believe your definition to answer without saying so.

The answer has been given to you from a number of perspectives. All debateable, all thought provoking. Yet you don't even spend one picosecond actually USING YOUR GOD-GIVEN BRAIN to think about them, you just say, "they don't meet my definition, HA HA you people are deluded"

The exercise, will be to THINK here. PONDER the replies.

I'll repeat one for you, 'cause it's my answer. Why does your life need an externally dictated PURPOSE in order to be worth living? Mine's worth living without that. Interaction with the physical world and the animals that populate it is cool. That's enough. So simple.

Laugh. The concept really is so very simple, as someone tried to illustrate for you with the movie extras. Here are some more analogies.

- What is the purpose of eating chocolate? There is NO PURPOSE, yet people really think it's worth doing.
- What is the purpose of going to a movie? There is NO PURPOSE, yet people really think it's worth doing.
- What is the purpose of looking at a traffic accident, or lifting the flap in a child's book, or doing a double-take on a familiar face? There is NO PURPOSE, yet people really think it's worth doing.

See how easy that is? No external purpose needed. Yet people like to do stuff. Like live.

I'll echo someone else again. I really find it so incredibly, mournfully sad that there are people who cannot find anything worth doing without someone to tell them what to choose. What a raging bummer of a life that would be. Like a puppet on a string. But if you really truly believe that, I can understand why the thought of the puppeteer laying you down would be overwhelmingly depressing. You have no brain, no thoughts, no happiness, no motion, no interation - unless the puppeteer moves you. That _is_ sad.

NOGO · 04-08-2002, 01:05 PM

Christoph,

Would you accept a purpose from God which would make your life finite?

In other words are you looking for purpose or eternal life?

Goliath · 04-08-2002, 01:08 PM

Cristoph,

Quote:

We have purpose.

Well, most of us have purpose in our lives. Suicidal people, for example, would tell you that their lives have no purpose.

Quote:

It had to come from somewhere (everything in our universe does, as far as we know).

Argument from incredulity.

Quote:

Did we evolve it? If we did, why? The concept of purpose seems pretty advanced. If it evolved, what concepts did we use as stepping stones to get to "puropose" or a goal or whatever you want to call it?

I'm a mathematician, not a biologist. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that life forms evolve (specifically, populations of life forms)--not purposes. Your question makes no sense.

Quote:

The answer, of course, is that that something or someone gave us that purpose

Of course. We give ourselves purpose!

Quote:

I've had people tell me that survival is the goal. That's the closest thing to a reasonable answer I've heard, but did the survival instinct would have to exist before the organism in order for that to be the answer.

For some people, survival may indeed be a goal. However, some people (myself included) have more goals that simply surviving (not to diminish the importance of surviving, of course).

Again, the idea is unbelievably simple:

1. Give meaning to your life.

2. Live your life.

I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Christoph · 04-08-2002, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>Having said: "If you prefer a false answer to no answer, go with God."

No, you're confident only in your reliance upon myth. Unfortunately, not even this intellectual abstinence solves your problem, because it is still you who chooses which myth to follow.</strong>

I'm just waiting for the logic you offer on the subject of meaning, regardless of your personal feelings about me.

Mageth · 04-08-2002, 01:10 PM

I know, I know, everyone wants to know what the "purpose" is now. So, what is the purpose, with a capital "P", in life? To live and to exist.

So the "Purpose" of life is to live and to exist? Isn't that more like a definition of life? Further, I and others admit that there are "purposes" to life, among which I personally would count "living" and "existing," although I don't limit myself to them.

And I don't count procreating as a "purpose" in my personal life. I would also view that more as part of the definition of life in general.

That aside, Christoph's intent, when he says "Purpose," transcends any such existential meaning, assuming the Purpose must me something grander than living, existing and procreating and thus must come from an external, superior source. This is the Purpose which I'm denying.

Goliath · 04-08-2002, 01:10 PM

Cristoph,

Quote:

I understand that we invent our own micro-purposes that don't amount to anything if there's no singular purpose.

The purposes that I have for my life amount to something. Therefore you are demonstrably wrong.

Quote:

Can you explain any kind of ideology, even the seperation of church and state, without knowing what the real goal is?

I do not understand what you are asking.

Quote:

You may think that Hitler was wrong to kill the Jews, but how can you say that if you don't know the goal of mankind?

"Goal of mankind?" Prove that such a universal "goal" exists.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Christoph · 04-08-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
<strong>Christoph,

Would you accept a purpose from God which would make your life finite?

In other words are you looking for purpose or eternal life?</strong>

Nogo, I'm just talking about what the universe says and how to logically interpret that. I'm not speaking to religion. If reality points to God, then let it. Don't deny it because of you're fear of the possibility of God.

Goliath · 04-08-2002, 01:12 PM

Cristoph,

Quote:

Another thing. How do we know that we are doing the best we can for our children, for instance.

By looking back upon what we did for them and assessing whether or not we could've done better. Why do you ask such simple questions?

Quote:

If there's no purpose, there is no best, or even measure of good.

Sure there is! Society measures good. It's called relative morality.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath · 04-08-2002, 01:16 PM

Cristoph,

Quote:

I'm just waiting for an answer. Of course, I know there isn't one without God.

For the THIRD time:

1. Give meaning to your life.

2. Live your life.

That is an answer. You may not like it, but I couldn't care less as to whether or not you like it.

You claimed that there was no answer when not only I, but many others on this thread have given you answers. It would seem that this turn of events would make you a liar, Cristoph.

Pathetic.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2002, 01:01 PM	#41
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Atheism exposes itself when it tries to say that the evolutionary process continued without any kind of goal whatsoever. "Atheism" doesn't make this claim. Science does. They're two different things. When I say I'm an atheist, I'm saying I lack a belief in god, and am making no statement whatsoever about evolution. That aside, it's absolutely correct to say there is no "goal" of evolution. You should read Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea or other good titles some might recommend to get a better idea of evolution and what it implies. As an analogy (admittedly not a perfect one), look at a tree. Draw a picture of it. You'll note it's in a particular configuration, which undoubtedly will be different than other trees in many details, if not in general structure. Even trees of the same species. Years ago, when that seed was planted, the seed had no "goal" to reach that particular configuration. Realistically, it had no "goal" at all. It simply grew until it reached its particular configuration. Various environmental inputs hepled shape it into its particular configuration. The only thing that's ever assigned a "goal" to anything in nature is the human imagination. To admit a goal is to imply pre-existing intelligence. However, if you believe evolution, there will be few things that you can't be convinced of (given the right motivation). Congratulations on your superior display of faith. It takes evidence to convince me of something. I'd gladly change my acceptance of evolution as an explanation of what evidence we see if evidence was presented that strongly discounted it (e.g. a mechanism or theory that better fits the evidence). So I don't have "faith" in evolution. I accept it as the best theory to match the evidence we've come up with so far. Likewise, if I'm presented with irrefutable evidence of a "superior intelligence," I'd accept it. Such evidence is strangely lacking.

04-08-2002, 01:02 PM	#42
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	Christoph, what an incredibly weird foray you're on. Don't you want to learn ANYTHING? You appear to be regurgitating some pretty standard arguments and not reading or responding to the answers. (Honestly, these are pretty old, tired and deflated statements you're making.) You are defining some thing called "purpose" which you define as HAVING to come from a deity and which you define all humans as NEEDING. And we say, rightly, what the heck are you talking about? You can't define that and then expect people who do not believe your definition to answer without saying so. The answer has been given to you from a number of perspectives. All debateable, all thought provoking. Yet you don't even spend one picosecond actually USING YOUR GOD-GIVEN BRAIN to think about them, you just say, "they don't meet my definition, HA HA you people are deluded" The exercise, will be to THINK here. PONDER the replies. I'll repeat one for you, 'cause it's my answer. Why does your life need an externally dictated PURPOSE in order to be worth living? Mine's worth living without that. Interaction with the physical world and the animals that populate it is cool. That's enough. So simple. Laugh. The concept really is so very simple, as someone tried to illustrate for you with the movie extras. Here are some more analogies. - What is the purpose of eating chocolate? There is NO PURPOSE, yet people really think it's worth doing. - What is the purpose of going to a movie? There is NO PURPOSE, yet people really think it's worth doing. - What is the purpose of looking at a traffic accident, or lifting the flap in a child's book, or doing a double-take on a familiar face? There is NO PURPOSE, yet people really think it's worth doing. See how easy that is? No external purpose needed. Yet people like to do stuff. Like live. I'll echo someone else again. I really find it so incredibly, mournfully sad that there are people who cannot find anything worth doing without someone to tell them what to choose. What a raging bummer of a life that would be. Like a puppet on a string. But if you really truly believe that, I can understand why the thought of the puppeteer laying you down would be overwhelmingly depressing. You have no brain, no thoughts, no happiness, no motion, no interation - unless the puppeteer moves you. That _is_ sad.

04-08-2002, 01:05 PM	#43
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Christoph, Would you accept a purpose from God which would make your life finite? In other words are you looking for purpose or eternal life?

04-08-2002, 01:10 PM	#46
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I know, I know, everyone wants to know what the "purpose" is now. So, what is the purpose, with a capital "P", in life? To live and to exist. So the "Purpose" of life is to live and to exist? Isn't that more like a definition of life? Further, I and others admit that there are "purposes" to life, among which I personally would count "living" and "existing," although I don't limit myself to them. And I don't count procreating as a "purpose" in my personal life. I would also view that more as part of the definition of life in general. That aside, Christoph's intent, when he says "Purpose," transcends any such existential meaning, assuming the Purpose must me something grander than living, existing and procreating and thus must come from an external, superior source. This is the Purpose which I'm denying.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.