What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:17 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:15 pm Do you really think quote-mining impresses anyone?
Keep running. I wouldn't want to answer the argument either, were I you.
It's you who are running.
Apparently not. I'm still not seeing an answer to the question.

However, I'm certain you do actually know what the issue is, so I'll leave it with you. You may not answer it here, and that's optional; whether or not you can live without knowing the answer yourself is a different matter. You decide.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:28 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:17 pm

Keep running. I wouldn't want to answer the argument either, were I you.
It's you who are running.
Apparently not. I'm still not seeing an answer to the question.

However, I'm certain you do actually know what the issue is, so I'll leave it with you. You may not answer it here, and that's optional; whether or not you can live without knowing the answer yourself is a different matter. You decide.
I don't think I need to do this for most of the audience here, but let's just reiterate this.

The famous passage that dishonest ICan quoted is, of course, a tiny subset of his work. In this passage, Nietzsche posed the metaphysical problem of the death of God -- the idea that rejecting the existence of God, specifically the Christian version of the same, knocks the props out of morality and just about everything else.

Did Nietzsche stop there? No. Is this passage quoted by ICan the totality of Nietzsche's work? No.

The passage is preparatory to Nietzsche's own answer to the supposed "problem" posed by the death of God.

Does ICan address this? No. His dishonesty is congential. As a Christian fundie, it's in his nature to cherry-pick texts to support his nonsense, just like creationists cherry-pick Darwin.

Of course, one may agree or disagree with the answer to the alleged problem that Nietzsche posed. But it's dishonest to suppose that Nietzsche presented an alleged problem without also offering a supposed solution.

For myself, I don't think that the absence of God is any problem at all.
Last edited by davidm on Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:58 am The ethic that ensued might look the same. But in the latter case, he would have an objective grounds for believing he had a responsibility to do the GR, whereas in the latter he would have none.
The belief in God and that he wills you to act in a certain way is a subjective judgement, otherwise we would all believe it.
There's no reason to expect that. There are plenty of facts that are facts, but many or even most people do not believe. A thing can be objectively true regardless of the number of people who know it is.

Thus his commitment to the GR would have to last only as long as he felt like it; and after he stopped wanting to do the GR, he would have no reason at all to continue, because there would be no objective obligation attached to performing the GR.
It's not so unusual for people to follow their conscience rather than their own personal interest. True, we don't have to follow it but many people find it hard to go against it.
I think that's true. But did you ever ask yourself what a "conscience" actually is, and what it implies that we have one? Even more interestingly, while our consciences are not all in agreement, there are broad patterns of similarity about certain basic items (incest, theft, lies and premeditated murder, perhaps). Why would that be, since certainly some of these hesitations are not survival-adaptive in any identifiable way...
Also, it is not unheard of for even the strongly religious to lose their faith, at which point they will no longer feel obligated to do God's will.
I guess that's why religion is such a bad deal. "Religion" is merely a set of traditions of human invention, man's attempt to know the gods, but on man's terms. I know of no one, however, who has genuinely entered into a relationship with God and then has "lost their faith." If you know of one, I'd be interested in hearing about that.

But from the outside, it's possible it's hard to distinguish "religion" from genuine faith. I suspect it is.
But if I do not obey God, then I know I am doing the wrong thing, and am responsible for my choice.
The same applies if I do not obey my conscience.
We do, however, have a remarkable ability to "get over" the annoyances of conscience when we find incentives strong enough. If it were not so, all people would be conscientious and moral. However, the responsibility we have to God is not something that can be "gotten over." It has implications both for this life and the future. And these will not be brushed aside with our compunctions.
Moreover, I always know that I am falling short of, and damaging the relationship I ought to have with the Creator.
And I know I am falling short and damaging my sense of self esteem.
An over-rated quality, I do believe. I've spent some time in work with prisoners, and have always found that the worst offenders have excellent self-esteem. I'm not sure self-esteem indicates anything about morality. We all do think pretty highly of ourselves anyway.
Even if I agreed with you, how could I be sure what God wanted of me? I don't understand most of what's written in the Bible, I would have to rely on "experts" to interpret it for me, people like you, perhaps.
Not at all, and I wouldn't recommend it. It's actually an incredibly easy book to read and understand. There are difficult parts, sure...but the four gospels, say, I would think a reasonably literate child could understand them at the introductory level without any difficulty. For an adult with the relative facility in language you have, I think it would be very easy.

The sermons of Jesus Christ, for example, while morally profound and capable of provoking two thousand years of debate by some of the greatest scholars on the planet (Bacon, Newton, Locke, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, etc....to say nothing of the theologians), are on the surface so straightforward that a rural first-century audience could understand them. So I would say the difficulty isn't as great as all that.
This being the case, I wouldn't actually be doing God's will, I would be doing what somebody thinks is God's will, which could vary quite a lot, depending on who's advice I was dependant on. How do I know they haven't got it wrong or that they are being truthful?
I really agree with this objection. Right on. At the same time, I would say again that a person of reasonable literacy and intelligence would certainly be able to hold his own on fundamental questions, and not have to surrender any judgment to the putative experts. It's really quite a marvel of accessible writing, when you look at it. In most cases, a straightforward read will do it.

But I'm big on the idea of not surrendering our judgment to self-styled "experts." I'm with you there.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:48 pm For myself, I don't think that the absence of God is any problem at all.
Funny. Nietzsche certainly did.
I mean, it was a price he was willing to pay, of course; but he was not so foolish as to imagine it would be easy. He was honest enough to call this "the greatest deed" mankind had ever done...great not just as an achievement, but as a disruption of all that glues society and knowledge together.

You may say, if you like, that he thought it was worth it; but he did not think it "[wasn't] any problem at all." That's for sure.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:52 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:48 pm For myself, I don't think that the absence of God is any problem at all.
Funny. Nietzsche certainly did.
I mean, it was a price he was willing to pay, of course; but he was not so foolish as to imagine it would be easy. He was honest enough to call this "the greatest deed" mankind had ever done...great not just as an achievement, but as a disruption of all that glues society and knowledge together.

You may say, if you like, that he thought it was worth it; but he did not think it "[wasn't] any problem at all." That's for sure.
But I didn't say I thought it was not a problem for Nietzsche. I said it wasn't a problem for me.

But why do you keep running away from the main point? Which is that in his "God is dead" poem, Nietzsche set up the alleged problem, only later to offer his own solutions? Why are Christian apologists always so dishonest?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:59 pm Well I'm certainly no atheist, I'm agnostic, but then it's folly to characterize them as you have, as no two members of any, so called, group are necessarily clones of the others in that, so called, group.
True in one sense, but not in another. They are committed to the same fundamental proposition: that there is no God. And that comes with exactly the same consequences and problems for all of them, because they follow logically from that fundamental claim. All that was grounded originally in Theism is logically undermined at its root when one carelessly transfers it to an Atheistic worldview. That much, they all have in common.
That's your problem, you believe that religion shall definitely save you, it won't necessarily do so! Only 'all' men wanting, expecting, and giving respect of life and peace shall do so!
Well, I'm not religious, and not looking for religion to save me, so I can't speak for those who are. I would say that nothing but God's own terms, not the religions of man, will set a man right with God.

But on the subject, why should ANY Atheist owe "respect of life and peace" to anyone? Where is it written...in the Atheist Bible? :wink:

What prevents an Atheist from simply taking "life and peace" when it's given to him by others, but choosing to disrespect others and deprive them of peace and even life if it suits his strategic interest to do so, and he feels sure he can get away with it? And in doing so, why would that make him a "bad Atheist," if we were to call him that?

Who will tell him no?
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:59 pm [But I didn't say I thought it was not a problem for Nietzsche. I said it wasn't a problem for me.
Oh. So you do know it was a problem from Nietzsche's perspective. Fair enough.

I'm just saying Nietzsche had it right, and I think you have missed his point.
...in his "God is dead" poem, Nietzsche set up the alleged problem, only later to offer his own solutions?
Fire away. I'm all ears. What are these "solutions"? Let's take your interpretation of them.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:05 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:59 pm [But I didn't say I thought it was not a problem for Nietzsche. I said it wasn't a problem for me.
Oh. So you do know it was a problem from Nietzsche's perspective. Fair enough.

I'm just saying Nietzsche had it right, and I think you have missed his point.
...in his "God is dead" poem, Nietzsche set up the alleged problem, only later to offer his own solutions?
Fire away. I'm all ears. What are these "solutions"? Let's take your interpretation of them.
You want me to teach you about Nietzsche? 50 bucks an hour.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:01 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:59 pm Well I'm certainly no atheist, I'm agnostic, but then it's folly to characterize them as you have, as no two members of any, so called, group are necessarily clones of the others in that, so called, group.
True in one sense, but not in another. They are committed to the same fundamental proposition: that there is no God.
That's because there is no proof that there is. They're just "reasonable" people that see that the universe is more than capable of filling your god's shoes.

And that comes with exactly the same consequences and problems for all of them,
Neither consequences nor problems from their point of view. You're belief in an invisible god bears no necessary weight upon them. And the same can be said of those that devote their entire life to a fictitious entity.

because they follow logically from that fundamental claim.
As do you, from yours!

All that was grounded originally in Theism
You can't 'prove' any amount of grounded-ness at all. All you can do is 'believe' in something you cannot know for certain. Sure believing may pacify your nerves, but it can never feed your philosophical side, as philosophy is the love of "knowledge," not simply belief.

is logically undermined at its root when one carelessly transfers it to an Atheistic worldview.
And well it should be undermined! That's what humans do, they learn and grow, if not we would not be conversing as we are right now. Think of how your ancient biblical figures would be wowed by our computers. Magic!!!

That much, they all have in common.
Sure, but it's not a detriment, quite the contrary!
That's your problem, you believe that religion shall definitely save you, it won't necessarily do so! Only 'all' men wanting, expecting, and giving respect of life and peace shall do so!
Well, I'm not religious, and not looking for religion to save me, so I can't speak for those who are. I would say that nothing but God's own terms,
Though you've never been certainly made aware of them.

not the religions of man, will set a man right with God.
You've only been able to use those religions so as to assume there is such a thing as a god.

But on the subject, why should ANY Atheist owe "respect of life and peace" to anyone?
I thought I made that very clear! IN ORDER TO RECEIVE IT! That's the beauty of the GR. Anyone can only ever expect that which they give, it's that simple.

Where is it written...in the Atheist Bible? :wink:
Again with the written thing, as if it's the final proof. Yet in fact it has been written, by men in their laws. Here, this is how trivial the written word is: Immanuel Can is a toad, not human at all. See, total BS! ;-)

What prevents an Atheist from simply taking "life and peace" when it's given to him by others, but choosing to disrespect others and deprive them of peace and even life if it suits his strategic interest to do so, and he feels sure he can get away with it?
Nothing, and neither does the bible, and very apparently, nor your god. Again you're referring to assuredness that the laws shall be upheld, with humans that's never going to be the case, (well maybe in the very distant future when we finally mature to true adulthood). They'll always be crazies running around. Laying down the law has nothing to do with ensuring that it's never broken. The GR is just a law, that follows logically, the idea of reciprocity. It's meant to balance the equation between all individuals.

And in doing so, why would that make him a "bad Atheist," if we were to call him that?
The GR and mans laws.

Who will tell him no?
All those that want to be left alone and not bothered with his silliness.
Though the GR has flaws, as pointed out by some philosophers. I attempted to improve it, to dispense with those flaws. Of course it requires communication and it can never account for time, as nothing can. I even changed it's name because I see that "golden" cheapens it's worth. I call it:

The Fundamental Social Axiom: "Treat others, as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree, at that time."

And that seems to be as perfect as it ever can be. Revisions anyone?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:48 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:46 pm
The belief in God and that he wills you to act in a certain way is a subjective judgement, otherwise we would all believe it.
There's no reason to expect that. There are plenty of facts that are facts, but many or even most people do not believe. A thing can be objectively true regardless of the number of people who know it is.
No, I didn't put that very well, did I? I'll try again: If I believe in the conscience, and that it has moral authority, and you believe in God, also having moral authority, what is the difference between our beliefs as far as objectivity/subjectivity is concerned? That's not exactly how I think of the conscience, btw, but that's not the point, I could do.
But did you ever ask yourself what a "conscience" actually is,
No, not with any expectation of coming up with a conclusive answer. Did you ever ask yourself what God actually is?
while our consciences are not all in agreement, there are broad patterns of similarity about certain basic items (incest, theft, lies and premeditated murder, perhaps). Why would that be, since certainly some of these hesitations are not survival-adaptive in any identifiable way...
I disagree, there's an argument why all these things have survival value for our species as far as natural selection is concerned but if we start arguing about that things are going to get too complicated.
"Religion" is merely a set of traditions of human invention, man's attempt to know the gods, but on man's terms.
But surely, believing in God tells you nothing beyond "the fact" of his existence. Unless you construct a story around that "fact" and call it a religion how do you know what its implications are, or that it actually has any? I believe the Sun exists and that it is essential to our existence but I don't feel I am under any obligation to do anything about it.
I know of no one, however, who has genuinely entered into a relationship with God and then has "lost their faith." If you know of one, I'd be interested in hearing about that.
I'm sorry, IC, but I think you're trying to slip another version of the "no true Scotsman" malarkey past me, stop cheating. :)
We do, however, have a remarkable ability to "get over" the annoyances of conscience when we find incentives strong enough. If it were not so, all people would be conscientious and moral. However, the responsibility we have to God is not something that can be "gotten over."
Come on now, IC, people are just as inventive at rationalising their way round the will of God as they are their own conscience.
An over-rated quality, I do believe. (self esteem)
I'm not sure I'd call it a quality but the lack of it can cause problems. I think the dangers of underestimating its value are greater than those of over-rating it.
I've spent some time in work with prisoners, and have always found that the worst offenders have excellent self-esteem. I'm not sure self-esteem indicates anything about morality.
Well I suppose you can get a sense of self esteem from being the best bank robber that ever lived but I was talking about the type of self esteem that emanates from doing the right thing, which, admittedly, is not latent in everyone.
The sermons of Jesus Christ, for example, while morally profound and capable of provoking two thousand years of debate by some of the greatest scholars on the planet (Bacon, Newton, Locke, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, etc....to say nothing of the theologians), are on the surface so straightforward that a rural first-century audience could understand them. So I would say the difficulty isn't as great as all that.
Well I am aware of the paraphrased version of some of the teachings of Jesus and I don't need to believe he was the son of God to be able to see the value in them but I don't have the patience to go to the raw Bible version.
It's really quite a marvel of accessible writing, when you look at it.
I can only ask you to trust me when I say that I don't find it so.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:51 am
Dubious wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:28 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:15 am Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?
What do you think Nietzsche was referring to when he said that god was dead?
Ummm...to God, actually...

Was that a trick question?

Ummm...yes and no! I just wanted to see if you were ignorant enough to take the phrase literally as written...which obviously you have. Even most theists, the more intelligent ones, understand it gets a little more complicated as in the following example:

http://facultyblog.eternitybiblecollege ... illed-god/

While I don't agree with its improvised Pollyannaish conclusion, which a commentator also noticed, the writer realizes there is much more at stake than YOUR simplistic assertion that when N proclaimed "god was dead", he meant simply that god was dead but couldn't prove it! :shock: :lol:

It's clear to everyone, most theists included as mentioned, that Nietzsche was referring to a Belief System and not to any actual Entity whose existence is immune to confirmation. By your own words you clearly cannot tell the difference between these two vast separations which have nothing in common. For most of the last two millennia it was Christian belief that was the virtual backbone of Western Civilization which was already beginning to erode long before N so saliently and profoundly proclaimed it or its post traumatic slow-motion consequences.

Most people theist or non-theist understand these dichotomies well enough, though its consequences are more debatable, yet thou still doesn't get the message! Amazing! You say to others "Take it up with Nietzsche" as if you understood his intentions making him responsible for your mutilations of him.

Everyone knows by now mutilating what others think is the prime methodology used in your debased version of apologetics which you haven't yet apologized for.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:08 pm You want me to teach you about Nietzsche? 50 bucks an hour.
Yeah, I thought so. No answer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:26 pm The Fundamental Social Axiom: "Treat others, as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree, at that time."

And that seems to be as perfect as it ever can be. Revisions anyone?[/color]
Yeah. Sez who? Why do we have to follow that axiom -- or any axiom you, or anybody else may devise at all -- if we're Atheists? Nobody's ever been able to give me a reason. Maybe you can.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Greta »

I think many generations have made clear what life is about:

1. Survive to maturity

2. Dive into life, maybe breed

3. Press onwards, getting things done, until you start seeing through the games

4. Slow down and ponder what on Earth all that was about, compare notes with others, pass on experience

5. Decline, die, and make way for a new generation of fresh young minds to continue the journey, who are armed with the extra experience passed on by my departing generation.

Somehow, out of all this individual and collective striving, progress happens. Where that all leads could be nowhere if we are unlucky or something more extraordinary than we can imagine if luck falls our way. It's satisfying to realise that our individual blunderings are forming small links in the chain of progress leading to a great unknown.

That kind of meaning will leave many people cold, but it works for me.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
An over-rated quality, I do believe. I've spent some time in work with prisoners, and have always found that the worst offenders have excellent self-esteem. I'm not sure self-esteem indicates anything about morality. We all do think pretty highly of ourselves anyway.
Are you perhaps confusing self esteem with lack of remorse?

The sermons of Jesus Christ, for example, while morally profound and capable of provoking two thousand years of debate by some of the greatest scholars on the planet (Bacon, Newton, Locke, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, etc....to say nothing of the theologians), are on the surface so straightforward that a rural first-century audience could understand them. So I would say the difficulty isn't as great as all that.
I agree with you but object to use of "Jesus Christ" in the context. The sermons stand on their own merit whoever had preached them. 'Jesus Christ ' was not a name that was invented until long after the historical Jesus had died. BTW I am not accusing you of thinking that 'Christ' was the surname of Jesus, you know better than that I am sure.
Post Reply