|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Sept 15, 2005 10:30:35 GMT -5
Recently I was debating the meaning of life with a theist and after I had made my point clear she asked a question; "If you are right and there is nothing after all of this then what is the point of it all. What is the point of living if nothing around us matters?"
To her question I answered: " The point is for you to live your life the way you feel is best. In its essence the point is to make your own point, and leave your mark on time." I suppose my question to you guys is if there is any better way to put it? Or do you guys completely disagree with my perspective?
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on Sept 15, 2005 10:50:43 GMT -5
I agree "the meaning of life" comes from within. Where else? Life is what you make it. We only get one life. Pick your cliché. We have the power to take our own existence as we so choose. We can be happy or miserable. Circumstances are only events to be evaluated by one’s own choice and criteria. To any theist I would suggest they learn to realize that they don’t have all the answers. It’s the search for answers that’s kept me happy.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 18, 2005 7:19:49 GMT -5
Choosing to be happy that tsunamis and hurricanes exist doesn't seem to be possible. The point is we don't choose what world to be born into, we don't control such things. Epictetus gives good advice, he says to only regard as good or evil that which you control. If you do that, you have the means to be happy.
So while other people act in ways you wouldn't yourself, you don't control how they act, so judge how you act in response as good or bad. By doing this, your actions will change as your knowledge changes; your spots will be temporary.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 19, 2005 7:59:52 GMT -5
What's the point of living? To live.
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on Sept 19, 2005 12:47:35 GMT -5
What's the point of living? To live. Yea, that's what I meant. Thanks Squid!
|
|
twobirds
Seasoned Citizen
Religion is a con.
Posts: 111
|
Post by twobirds on Sept 19, 2005 16:54:09 GMT -5
What's the point of living? To live. That is how easy it is....Now teach religion that.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Sept 19, 2005 20:19:20 GMT -5
live everday as you want it cause there is no one to judge you at the end but you, so live it up have fun and try your best ^.^ no one to impress but yourself. Just keep in mind when you die you don't keep you material possesions so don't make that your point in life.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Sept 19, 2005 20:31:19 GMT -5
Why should the point of life be anything other than living it? The theist perspective that we were put here to worship god only makes him (god) sound even more vile, stuck up, and overly intolerable. Who would create something for the sole purpose of having their creations worship them, and nothing else. Selfish Selfish Bastard!!
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Sept 19, 2005 21:21:50 GMT -5
or egotestical moron?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 20, 2005 4:30:41 GMT -5
I disagree. I would say the point of living is to live morally. Without God, not everything is permitted. I would say this is true for any sentient being.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Sept 20, 2005 7:43:19 GMT -5
I personally like solidsqids point of view. Well to what basis would you found your morality vertigo? I for one have an honor code but it is founded in my own beliefs, no one else's. The key vertigo is in the knowledge that if you do something that some one dose not consider correct they will try to stop you. In this way there will always be some one there to correct you. The point I would have to say is to live in the way you think is best. Do you agree vertigo?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 21, 2005 5:03:58 GMT -5
Doing what you think is best is not a good thing. I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing what was best. Kant was on the right track. If you take something like lying and imagine that everybody lied all the time, the consequences wouldn't be good at all. If everybody was honest, there would be good consequences. In a way, you have to think in terms of how you would feel if others did it. You have to put yourself in the other person's shoes.
Well it's not always that simple. I tend to think one should not commit an immoral deed even under duress. This is why we should not back down from terrorist threats. People say the London bombings were in response to the Iraq war. Whether the Iraq war should have been fought is separate from the behaviour of terrorists in the aftermath. That terrorists would attack you should sooner be taken as a confirmation of a good deed than a confirmation of a bad one, because we imagine their logic is flawed.
I mean that if someone threatens you and says "do this bad deed or I'll do a very bad deed", one should not obey them. In Sophie's Dilemma, Sophie is told by the Nazi soldiers to choose which of her two children will live. If she refuses to choose, both will die. She chose the older one, but it haunted her afterwards. Choosing a child is not killing a child. There was no way for her to know that they wouldn't kill the one she chose. It might have been a cruel trick. Nevertheless, she needn't have been haunted about it, and the surviving child should not have felt resentment or guilt at being chosen to live.
The choice was always "if you must kill one, let this one live". It was not condoning the killing. We hear stories about rape victims who gave the rapist a condom to use. In court the rapist uses the defense: "It was consential, she gave me a condom. I thought she was consenting." It's the same situation, she is saying "if you must rape me, use a condom". It isn't condoning the act. It is not consent by any means.
Choosing a child, for whatever reason, is not an immoral act. Giving a condom to someone is not an immoral act. However, if someone is blackmailed and then does something immoral, the responsbility is theirs. They are perpetrating the act. The blackmailer is guilty of blackmail, not the further deed done.
In such situations we should place the blame on the proper person. When a govenment withdraws staff from Iraq because some of their countrymen are being held hostage, the responsibility for withdrawing is theirs. One should not excuse them, because if what they were doing was worth doing in the first place it was worth doing, and by withdrawing they are doing something less worthwhile.
Of course, it can be argued that withdrawing staff is not an immoral deed, but then one must question why they were there in the first place. If it was right for them to be there, it was not right for them to withdraw. They shouldn't change their minds at the behest of terrorists. If it takes a terrorist threat to change your mind you are a pathetic individual. The arguments have all been made before, the threat was known, it was accepted. Follow through with your decision, don't be a weasel.
Michael Park, rally co-driver, died on the weekend in the Wales Rally. We hear people now saying how dangerous the sport is, how they should not be doing it, it was only a matter of time. Again, the arguments have all been made, the danger was accepted. If you change your mind because of one accident, and accidents are expected to some degree, you shouldn't have started it. Anyhow, the issue is an individual one, each individual should choose whether to accept the risk. I happen to think the payoffs far outweigh the risk.
To explain my attitude about terrorists, imagine if everybody did what the terrorists said. There would be very bad consequences indeed. Now imagine if absolutely no-one did what the terrorists said. We would see terrorism disappear, or at least be limited to sparse assassinations. This is how morality works, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 21, 2005 8:06:18 GMT -5
I disagree. I would say the point of living is to live morally. Without God, not everything is permitted. I would say this is true for any sentient being. Why morally? Upon what contingency is living a moral life based? What moral system? Would a singular being, living alone need morals?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 21, 2005 12:33:04 GMT -5
Honesty is not applicable with a singular being. Benevolence is not applicable. Communication is not applicable. However, a sentient being can still choose, and while you can choose there are moral choices, immoral choices and amoral choices. Questions about the effect of everyone doing an action don't apply. I would say that moral actions sustain life. If this being acts to sustain its life it is acting morally.
This is the best answer I can give.
PS: Well I suppose we are saying the same thing, whether the point is to live or to live morally where moral actions sustain life.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 21, 2005 17:22:26 GMT -5
However, a sentient being can still choose, and while you can choose there are moral choices, immoral choices and amoral choices. So if I'm alone on a desert island I can make immoral choices? What would the criteria for moral and immoral be? I see morality as a social product and not needed if there is no social group as in the example above. In what sense?
|
|