High school counts as it somewhat matters for your univ entry and same for cegep (at least in Quebec it does). Well that's your opinion, I think it's amusing to defend something you don't believe in.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
What IS the "meaning of life"? Does it differ person-to-person?
- Thread starter Desolate
- Start date
- Status
I wasn't trolling; I was defending a point of view that wasn't mine. It's quite a bit different. To comeback on the subject why do you think animals do have values that are not basic? Examples?
Kitten, stop with the ad hominem. The arguer's stance is always entirely irrelevant to their argument. Even if he doesn't believe his argument to be true, that is not a valid reason for you to reject it. Indeed, sometimes people are forced to argue for the opposite of what they believe, such as in a debating competition.
I don't think there's a 'meaning' to life. It just kinda happens. I guess it's existential doubt or something that throws people into a deep despair over why they're here, etc etc.
You're here cuz you were born, your meaning is to... create your own meaning.
If you haven't made a freakin' meaning for yourself, of course you're gonna freak about not having one or something. I know people who do this on a regular basis and really? It isn't like the clouds are gonna open up and you'll get a QUEST plopped into your lap. This isn't Lord of the Rings. Sometimes it creeps up on you, sometimes you have to fight for it, sometimes your meaning's just to do the typical animal stuff of eat/live/breed/make, sometimes you drift like an existential nomad and that's good enough.
Sometimes the 'meaning' is to get out of running circles around your own skull and DO something.
You're here cuz you were born, your meaning is to... create your own meaning.
If you haven't made a freakin' meaning for yourself, of course you're gonna freak about not having one or something. I know people who do this on a regular basis and really? It isn't like the clouds are gonna open up and you'll get a QUEST plopped into your lap. This isn't Lord of the Rings. Sometimes it creeps up on you, sometimes you have to fight for it, sometimes your meaning's just to do the typical animal stuff of eat/live/breed/make, sometimes you drift like an existential nomad and that's good enough.
Sometimes the 'meaning' is to get out of running circles around your own skull and DO something.
Read the rest of the thread if you want validation for my ad hominem, I rejected it on all those criteria and refused to continue based on the ad hominem reasons.
Validation for ad hominem does not exist. Arguer is irrelevant to argument. Look at argument only. If there's a flaw in the reasoning, point that out. "Personally, I don't believe this is true" is not a flaw in the reasoning.
To imply that the world is accidental would imply that there is indeed a God and he made a mistake.
Atheists don't believe the world and universe were created by "accident" they just think the universe simply wasn't created, it just came to be.,
That is a ridiculous analogy. Of course when you walk into a building you assume someone made it, because from experience we humans know that buildings have been made by people and that such structures don't occur naturally. All of the materials for the building can't be found naturally in such shape and structure and we have seen humans design and make these buildings.
However with the Universe no human has ever seen anything to compare it to and determine whether it has been created or not. This is known as the "watch maker" analogy except this time you used a building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
You can't just make a claim without backing it up. Stating "we're so complicated we couldn't be an accident" is a statement, but no facts backing it up.
Why can't something as complicated as humans or any other animal species exist without a creator? What is it about the Universe that makes that impossible?
And don't just state something akin to "It just is!".
QFT.
What also confuses me about the Bible is how it explicitly states that animals and humans were created by someone. However bacteria creatures are not mentioned. If God created them, and if whoever wrote the Bible got it from that guy, then surely he would have told the humans about bacteria? I mean, that could have saved so many lives that you can't possibly fathom it.
Conclusion: If God existed... Then he would be an asshat. Sorry, but if you can arrive at another conclusion after that, please tell me.
Not really, but it's the most prominent one on the Internet. And it's the one most of us have grown up learning about. I'm fairly certain the same qualities apply to Islam, Jehova's Witnesses and Jews.
Jehova's Witness is a branch of Christianity. But the list goes on and on when you try to classify religions. Sources tell me that there are at least 34,000 branches of Christianity, although most of them are probably very similar to a few others in most ways, but they refuse to join a mainstream denomination.
By the way:
(I can't find anything that is both more recent and accurate)
I'll answer with one word: Balance.
Maybe Bacteria even existed specifically to kill specific people.
We'll just go Maybe-ing till forever. There are some things that are simply un-answered.
Nonreligious likely refers to agnostic persons.
I remember reading awhile ago that a quarter of the world is Muslim but I can't quite find the source, but today's figures are likely quite off that chart.
Just to chime in on the original topic, I don't believe there to be a universal meaning of life. It's sort of silly ("in my opinion") to think that we're collectively drawn to a specific purpose for being here. As such everybody is free to create their own.
EDIT @below: I actually interpret it differently, nonreligious fits agnostic better than atheist. Religion in its barest form is a set of beliefs; atheists have a firm belief all the same as religious folk while agnostics are just passive on the entire matter. Hard to explain better than that.
I remember reading awhile ago that a quarter of the world is Muslim but I can't quite find the source, but today's figures are likely quite off that chart.
Just to chime in on the original topic, I don't believe there to be a universal meaning of life. It's sort of silly ("in my opinion") to think that we're collectively drawn to a specific purpose for being here. As such everybody is free to create their own.
EDIT @below: I actually interpret it differently, nonreligious fits agnostic better than atheist. Religion in its barest form is a set of beliefs; atheists have a firm belief all the same as religious folk while agnostics are just passive on the entire matter. Hard to explain better than that.
Then why wouldn't they simply write agnostic? Also where is deist? I think it's fairly more popular than 0.4% of the population, yet I maybe wrong.
Agnostics literally dont care whether what happens after death, or whether the Big Bang is true or not. They like to take the lazy concept of saying, if you die you disappear.
Atheists want to belive that there is a scientific explanation of death, creation etc. They just dont want it to be God
That's not really true. Agnostics are open to the possibility of a religious or spiritual entity or existence, but aren't yet convinced either way. You can be a science-supporter, i.e. accept the Big Bang as scientifically true as evidence shows, and still be agnostic because you are open to the idea that a deity or other supernal force started or triggered the Big Bang.
Atheism is just the nonbelief in a deity. You don't have to be a science-supporter to be an atheist (it just happens that most of them are).
I find agnostics to be like a 'pascals wager' version of atheists. They leave themselves open to a ridiculous idea that isn't even formed in a scientific way simply because some random archaic view wishes it was true, or maybe they have a small fear of god left in them. Agnostics should literally leave themselves open to all manner of outrageous claim otherwise they are basically hypocrites.
In common usage, 'agnostic' refers to a position of being self-avowedly undecided on whether deities exist. 'Atheist' refers to a definite lack of belief in their existence, but it does not mean this non-belief is held dogmatically.
For me, I do not believe God exists because I consider there to be no good evidence for its existence, and assuming the existence of God solves no problems and creates several. If I see any good evidence or argument for the existence of God, I would be prepared to reconsider my position. (Please note that I have seen a lot of BAD evidence and arguments before you are tempted to post more.)
For me, I do not believe God exists because I consider there to be no good evidence for its existence, and assuming the existence of God solves no problems and creates several. If I see any good evidence or argument for the existence of God, I would be prepared to reconsider my position. (Please note that I have seen a lot of BAD evidence and arguments before you are tempted to post more.)
- Status