The Student Room Group

What is the point of life? (atheists only please)

Scroll to see replies

Why does there need to be an objective meaning? I strive to enjoy myself and aspire to other dreams...
Reply 361
Original post by BambieWambie
Get a better hobby, deluded troll!


God will test his faithful on this life and reward on heaven but his mockers will drown in worldy gains yet forever burn in hell in the afterlife


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cleo488
God will test his faithful on this life and reward on heaven but his mockers will drown in worldy gains yet forever burn in hell in the afterlife


Posted from TSR Mobile


*yawn*
Original post by cleo488
God will test his faithful on this life and reward on heaven but his mockers will drown in worldy gains yet forever burn in hell in the afterlife

May you be touched by His noodly appendage. May you be bathed in His blessed sauce.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by cleo488
All from the old testement which is overuled by the new testement


Looks like religion didnt invent integrity then.

And Luke 14:26 is not the old testament.

And fnailly

"The scripture cannot be broken. --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by cleo488

As a believer of religion my answer is because God forbids it.


That's arbitrary. I reject that the opinion regarding what is right and wrong of anyone, including 'God', is no more valid than my own personal opinion.
There isn't one, so just enjoy it while it lasts, you have an eternity to be dead.
Reply 368
Anyone else find it amusing when atheists say "I don't do this or that because it is wrong". Why is it wrong? From whom are you getting your authority? There is nothing in atheism that says murder or rape is wrong. If you say "Well, I would feel bad if I did such a thing so I don't do it" then that seems to suggest that morals are subjective. You may feel guilty, but what if the man next to you finds pleasure in the very act you condemn? Who's right? And who's wrong?

Another thing I've heard atheists say: "What's the point in this life if the goal is to go to heaven?" Well, what's the point in doing a mock test if the results are meaningless? But you see, the goal in life is not to go to heaven and be reunited with loved ones. No, the goal is to know GOD in all his infinite glory. GOD said in ISAIAH "I MADE YOU FOR MY GLORY". Who then, are you, to answer back to GOD and say "Why has thou formed me this way?" Can the potter not mold and form the clay in which he pleases? Now as CS Lewis said, you cannot be right and God anymore wrong than say a river can run higher that its source. God is the root; you are the branch. If you cut yourself off you die. Just as Jesus said you would. Those who reject him perish.
Reply 369
Original post by Woody1234
Anyone else find it amusing when atheists say "I don't do this or that because it is wrong". Why is it wrong? From whom are you getting your authority? There is nothing in atheism that says murder or rape is wrong. If you say "Well, I would feel bad if I did such a thing so I don't do it" then that seems to suggest that morals are subjective. You may feel guilty, but what if the man next to you finds pleasure in the very act you condemn? Who's right? And who's wrong?

Another thing I've heard atheists say: "What's the point in this life if the goal is to go to heaven?" Well, what's the point in doing a mock test if the results are meaningless? But you see, the goal in life is not to go to heaven and be reunited with loved ones. No, the goal is to know GOD in all his infinite glory. GOD said in ISAIAH "I MADE YOU FOR MY GLORY". Who then, are you, to answer back to GOD and say "Why has thou formed me this way?" Can the potter not mold and form the clay in which he pleases? Now as CS Lewis said, you cannot be right and God anymore wrong than say a river can run higher that its source. God is the root; you are the branch. If you cut yourself off you die. Just as Jesus said you would. Those who reject him perish.



Ignorance is alive and well I see... :rolleyes:
Original post by Woody1234
Anyone else find it amusing when atheists say "I don't do this or that because it is wrong". Why is it wrong? From whom are you getting your authority? There is nothing in atheism that says murder or rape is wrong. If you say "Well, I would feel bad if I did such a thing so I don't do it" then that seems to suggest that morals are subjective. You may feel guilty, but what if the man next to you finds pleasure in the very act you condemn? Who's right? And who's wrong.

This is really stupid.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST YOUR POSITION:

Firstly, where does YOUR authority come from? If you're saying that murder is wrong because "God told you so", then there's two areas of pursuit.

1) Euthyphro's dilemma - is something moral because God decided it to be moral, or did God decide it to be moral because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality is completely arbitrary - murder could, conceivably, be moral. If it's the latter, then you're left in the same position as the atheist.

2) Morality hits hardest at the level of conscience. I believer murder to be wrong because there is a part of me that is uncomfortable with the idea of humans murdering each other. In many pragmatic philosophies, this needs no further justification.

POSITIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF MY POSITION:

Secondly there are atheistic explanations of morality and human solidarity. I think the golden rule (and moral intuitions that capture the normative/motivational elements in Kantian and Rawlsian philosophy) is an intuitively useful guideline for constraining human behaviour in a civil society where mutually beneficial relationships take place. Stealing is wrong because, by stealing, you make a rule for yourself that you can't wish to be universally applicable to all other humans. This is the definition of unfairness - placing arbitrarily different values upon humans as rule-following agents. If there is no reason to treat humans differently, then treating them equally appears to be the default intuition, because that is something which every human can, jointly, do without causing conflict.

You don't need God as an authority to use normative terms in every day life.

Another thing I've heard atheists say: "What's the point in this life if the goal is to go to heaven?" Well, what's the point in doing a mock test if the results are meaningless? But you see, the goal in life is not to go to heaven and be reunited with loved ones. No, the goal is to know GOD in all his infinite glory. GOD said in ISAIAH "I MADE YOU FOR MY GLORY". Who then, are you, to answer back to GOD and say "Why has thou formed me this way?" Can the potter not mold and form the clay in which he pleases? Now as CS Lewis said, you cannot be right and God anymore wrong than say a river can run higher that its source. God is the root; you are the branch. If you cut yourself off you die. Just as Jesus said you would. Those who reject him perish.

There are some really insightful Christian thinkers out there, but you are not one of them.
Reply 371
Original post by Melancholy
This is really stupid.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST YOUR POSITION:

Firstly, where does YOUR authority come from? If you're saying that murder is wrong because "God told you so", then there's two areas of pursuit.

1) Euthyphro's dilemma - is something moral because God decided it to be moral, or did God decide it to be moral because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality is completely arbitrary - murder could, conceivably, be moral. If it's the latter, then you're left in the same position as the atheist.

2) Morality hits hardest at the level of conscience. I believer murder to be wrong because there is a part of me that is uncomfortable with the idea of humans murdering each other. In many pragmatic philosophies, this needs no further justification.

POSITIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF MY POSITION:

Secondly there are atheistic explanations of morality and human solidarity. I think the golden rule (and moral intuitions that capture the normative/motivational elements in Kantian and Rawlsian philosophy) is an intuitively useful guideline for constraining human behaviour in a civil society where mutually beneficial relationships take place. Stealing is wrong because, by stealing, you make a rule for yourself that you can't wish to be universally applicable to all other humans. This is the definition of unfairness - placing arbitrarily different values upon humans as rule-following agents. If there is no reason to treat humans differently, then treating them equally appears to be the default intuition, because that is something which every human can, jointly, do without causing conflict.

You don't need God as an authority to use normative terms in every day life.


There are some really insightful Christian thinkers out there, but you are not one of them.


Show me another species on this planet that lives in harmony with another. I think you'll find they defend their own, and that's it. Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception? And if you're gonna come back and talk about free-will and rights, then first you're going to have to prove that free-will even exists. The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

And when you talk about knowing right or wrong without God, that's true to a certain extent. God created the moral conscious that you have, yet no one has ever been able to abide by it. So really you condemn yourself.
Original post by Woody1234
Show me another species on this planet that lives in harmony with another. I think you'll find they defend their own, and that's it. Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception? And if you're gonna come back and talk about free-will and rights, then first you're going to have to prove that free-will even exists. The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

And when you talk about knowing right or wrong without God, that's true to a certain extent. God created the moral conscious that you have, yet no one has ever been able to abide by it. So really you condemn yourself.


You are trying to justify rape and other disgusting acts with some 'animals do it' rhetoric everybody has heard before. Unlike animals, we have the conscious ability to think right from wrong and talk. Unlike animals. We know what is right from wrong so we SHOULDN'T DO IT. There is no justification in mauling a girl because a dog did it is there?
Reply 373
Original post by Bluffroom
You are trying to justify rape and other disgusting acts with some 'animals do it' rhetoric everybody has heard before. Unlike animals, we have the conscious ability to think right from wrong and talk. Unlike animals. We know what is right from wrong so we SHOULDN'T DO IT. There is no justification in mauling a girl because a dog did it is there?


I thought we are animals?
Original post by Woody1234
I thought we are animals?


You can't read can you?

we have the conscious ability to think right from wrong and talk. Unlike animals. We know what is right from wrong so we SHOULDN'T DO IT
Reply 375
Original post by Bluffroom
You can't read can you?


I can read perfectly fine, but thanks for the concern. As for knowing the difference between right and wrong, well, would you not stay they have been instilled in you? And even then it doesn't explain why its right and why its wrong.
I don't particularly think life has a point, but what does that matter?

I don't think you should worry if you have a purpose, but rather just enjoy your time here because the world is a beautiful place to be :biggrin:

This is what life is about:

"Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them.”
Reply 377
Original post by battycatlady
I don't particularly think life has a point, but what does that matter?

I don't think you should worry if you have a purpose, but rather just enjoy your time here because the world is a beautiful place to be :biggrin:

This is what life is about:lrself running with them.”


It's not a beautiful place though is it? There is one particular forum on the internet that shares videos of torture and cruelty. I advise everyone to stay away. It is sick. And atheists say this is just an undesirable trait of evolution. What sick people!
Original post by Woody1234
Show me another species on this planet that lives in harmony with another. I think you'll find they defend their own, and that's it. Not only that, you've completely failed to tell me why rape is wrong. If the goal of evolution is to ensure survival of the species, then doesn't rape support that? In that mean, more chance of conception? And if you're gonna come back and talk about free-will and rights, then first you're going to have to prove that free-will even exists. The whole atheistic approach is that morals are subjective, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

A great many species on this planet demonstrate solidarity, often best expressed at the familial level - the parent animal taking care of its offspring, for instance. So you're just plain wrong to suppose that spontaneous bonds of affection, duties and so forth don't exist in the animal kingdom.

But, more importantly, humans have the capacity to engage in second-order reflective thinking - we're not instinctive, nor impulsive, nor completely self-interested. Considering the full implications of the golden rule (or other moral systems) require introspection, rationality, and self-reflection.

As for the claim that "I've completely failed to tell me why rape was wrong"... I don't see how I could have failed to do something that was never asked of me. However, a more alert reader would have seen that I would have justified it by recognising that I wouldn't like to be raped, so why would I wish to inflict that upon other people? I think that mode of thinking is based on deep-rooted intuitions. If a person has committed crime X under circumstance Y and receives punishment Z, then another person who commits X under Y should receive Z. Moral judgements supervene on matters of fact. Intuitions about fairness have motivational force. Of course, in a world where humans do not respect such intuitions (and have no psychological commitment to them) then we may be committed to dismissing morality as not being at all authoritative - but that's trivially true (i.e. humans not committed to the belief in the immorality of murdering themselves and others will not respect moral laws that constrain human behaviour in accordance with that moral maxim). I happen to think that the human capacity for self-reflection, en masse, creates spontaneous order, a modus vivendi - a golden rule that we won't do to others what we wouldn't like done to other people.

As for your connection between rape and evolution... you seem very stupid. And I don't usually use that sort of language in debate.

The FACT of evolution does not imply any normative imperative. Evolution has no goal. It has no telos. It is not a teleological theory. It is purely mechanistic. There are no "ought" statements. Just because homosexual couples don't produce offspring doesn't mean that it's immoral to have such relationships. There are no imperatives to rape in order to produce offspring. Evolution is a natural process; I would find it hard to incorporate it into a moral theory other than on the occasion where some psychological thesis offers some insight about human behaviour, human psychology and moral culpability.

Finally, contrary to what you're saying, I'm not committed to a radical or extreme conception of free will or an absolutist version of rights. Instead of spouting off half-arguments in all sorts of directions, may I suggest that you choose your argument, argue it well, and discuss it?

And when you talk about knowing right or wrong without God, that's true to a certain extent. God created the moral conscious that you have, yet no one has ever been able to abide by it. So really you condemn yourself.

Answer my other concerns please (e.g. euthyphro dilemma). You assert that God created the moral conscious [conscience?], yet there's no need to presuppose a creator.

I don't see how I've condemned myself.
Original post by Woody1234
It's not a beautiful place though is it? There is one particular forum on the internet that shares videos of torture and cruelty. I advise everyone to stay away. It is sick. And atheists say this is just an undesirable trait of evolution. What sick people!

You must be a troll or something.

Just because you think something is bad doesn't mean that it isn't true. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if a big fluffy Santa delivered presents to African children every year? But instead, omg, you Christians believe that Africans die instead! What sick people.

The world is both beautiful, in places, and disgusting, in other places. Those are facts, not to be contested, regardless of what you want to believe.

I'm embarrassed and ashamed that some Christians argue like this.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending