Humanism and The Meaning of Life (help me with my RE project)

[Slasher]

Here's how I feel about the question posed in this thread:

In the most basic sense, humans are animals. Animals all share many common things, but one thing I'd like to point out is that all animals have instincts. Many animals live exclusively off of their instincts and nothing more (Eg. Animals mate off instinct). However, fortunately, humans have the ability to act beyond their basic instincts (thank you advanced brain) thus not making humans entirely reliant on their instincts. Looking at it from this perspective, I'd say the most fundamental meaning of life is to survive.
It's something which all animals share - they all aim to survive and reproduce; or in the case of natural selection, when an animal is in danger, animals have a whole slew of mechanisms aimed at combating these threats for survival.

What's the most primitive meaning of life? I'd probably go with survival.

Now with human's having the most advanced piece of equipment on this planet out of all other animals - a highly developed brain capable of rational thought, problem solving, language, among many other things - human's tend to construct what the meaning of life means to them based on social circumstances. eg. Live in a capitalist society? The meaning of life is to earn as much money as possible to achieve 'success'. Or what if you lived with a secluded community on some unknown island? The meaning of life to you would be to do whatever duties are assigned of you to be a part of that society. Or what if you believe in god? The meaning of life to you might be to follow the commandments of this figure.

I feel like the meaning of life can be interpreted to be whatever human's make it to be with "morality and self-awareness" playing a factor as well as social/cultural values, traditions, and norms in their social circumstances.

Get what I'm saying? The meaning of life can't be singled out to one common meaning agreed upon by all human beings on this planet. It's whatever you make of it. People of similar cultures and social circumstances may have a general consensus about what the meaning of life means to them, but a universal meaning is rather ignorant of the thousands of other cultures among this planet.

 

[elite]

Here is my counterargument:

Let's say god is visible. If god was visible, then he needs the place where he appears to us. This means that god is not a perfect being, needing a place to exist.

In concept, god is the perfect being. He doesn't need something or a place to exist, making him a being that has its needs.

Therefore, when you see something, this absolutely identifies that it is not a god. From this, we derive that we can't see god in any possible way.

 

[Josey Wales]

To add to what people where saying about how you dont need to see God in order to believe. Well, ill bite, and quickly.

Im going to hunt Sasquatch and the Boogie Monster next week, who wants to come?

Thats not crazy talk, is it? Theres more "sightings" of the boogie monster than there is of God, yet people shun off "beings" like this as fake. Yet the statistic shows that theres more proof of a monster in your sons closet than there is of God. Seeing is neither believing or not believing. In fact, visuals are purely perceptions and hold no real 100% evidence of anything, sight and visuals are just a sense, how the human brain perceives the world around us. For all we know, everything looks the way and color it does because we are humans - maybe a rhino sees things differently. You cant know, and if you did it would change the whole concept of sight as being a top of the line, end all proof of anything. It would completely change the idea of why anything is.

-

Im not a religious person by any means, I lost my faith a long time ago and im glad I did. People consider me a Nihilist although I cant agree, id call myself a Humanist except for that fact that I follow the idea that nothing in this life, anyones life, or the existence of anything matters - however i have morals and I think everyone should live their life off of the morals and structure that society has laid before us from our own experiences. Everyone has their own mind set, and it can be easily swayed with the right words, but regardless of what one believes, it doesnt make it right or wrong in an overall sense. Its impossible to say what is right or wrong because they are just more interpretations of man. Everyone in their own mind is right, whether you like it or not. Ill still argue up and down and try to convince a person otherwise, but you have to realize that regardless of what you believe in, albeit an end all solution or religion or what have you, in the end. It doesnt matter what you think, you will die. Everyone you know, will die. This planet will die. The solar system will die. The galaxy will become nothing in time.

Life is just like the definition of Science - a means to an end. We arent doing anything great towards humanity that we think we are. We are just killing time and waiting for the end of existence. If its us destroying ourselves, or the universe - it doesnt matter, the end will always be there.

There was a beginning, and there will be an end.

Heres a brain popper. If we werent humans, or if we didnt have the brain capacity that we do, we wouldnt even ask this question or even care about it. Wed just be trying to eat and procreate.

 

[elite]

Yeah, but visualizing god is out of the question, as I have said.

 

[Abe Froeman]

Yeah, but visualizing god is out of the question, as I have said.

Only by your logic.

 

[elite]

Abe Froeman, it is common sense.

 

[MenaceInc]

Abe Froeman, it is common sense.

Everyones perception of common sense is different and it's not that common.

Also, can you visualise the size of the universe?
No?
Oh noes, the universe mustn't exist.

 

[Abe Froeman]

Abe Froeman, it is common sense.

It's not common sense.

You believe in god, yet you don't think you can ever see it.

I don't believe in god, so i don't plan on ever seeing it. Just like I don't plan on ever seeing Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Why does your argument hinge on the fact that a visible god equals an imperfect being? If I was religious, I would want to see whatever god I was blindly following while alive.

 

[elite]

MenaceInc, did you check my previous post? I was referring specifically to god, since eldiablov was talking that if god can't be seen, then that can be a doubtful detail about god. I explained that the question is illegitimate in discussion.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

Abe Froeman, your eagerness to see god is one of the motivations to obeying him. That'd be one of the purposes of it. Moreover,

Why does your argument hinge on the fact that a visible god equals an imperfect being?

The setting was in real life. Not at the end of the universe.

 

[Scorned]

Here is my counterargument:

Let's say god is visible. If god was visible, then he needs the place where he appears to us. This means that god is not a perfect being, needing a place to exist.

In concept, god is the perfect being. He doesn't need something or a place to exist, making him a being that has its needs.

Just because he is visible does not necessarily mean that he needs a place to exist. What makes you come up with that statement?

You can't arbitrarily bring up statements that have no basis or foundation.

And like Menace said, Common Sense is different to every person. You may think it's common, but that's only from your perspective.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

Abe Froeman, your eagerness to see god is one of the motivations to obeying him. That'd be one of the purposes of it. Moreover,

Isn't this common sense: Curiosity killed the cat. Not true in every circumstance, but curiosity shouldn't ever really be a reason to believe in something.

And then in that circumstance, you're in fact using God, which would seem more as a sin, seeing as you're only "obeying" him to get what you want.

 

[madsoul]

Abe Froeman, it is common sense.

it is common sense

common sense

sense

God makes NO sense. And common sense would also tell you that there is no God. Put aside your religion for a moment, your feeling that there is something out there and study the evidence for evolution and you will get a clear picture why the world do not need a creator. Everything is its own creator! DNA. Adaption. Sure, we do not know why exactly there was a big bang and why the laws of physics came to be the way they are, but to fill the gap with an old mighty intelligent force for the lack of anything els is just idiocy.

 

[elite]

Just because he is visible does not necessarily mean that he needs a place to exist. What makes you come up with that statement?

That's in a philosophical point of view.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a place. Just a space or whatever you want to call it. It just means that he needs it to exist, altering him to an imperfect being.

Isn't this common sense: Curiosity killed the cat. Not true in every circumstance, but curiosity shouldn't ever really be a reason to believe in something.

And then in that circumstance, you're in fact using God, which would seem more as a sin, seeing as you're only "obeying" him to get what you want.

I wouldn't be using god. I would be using his wonders he blessed me with, which in turn affects my "likeness" towards him. You won't be focused on just obeying him from the fact that I want to see him so much. Obedience should come from your will spontaneously and from the perpetuation of respect.

 

[Abe Froeman]

Blind faith, I will never understand it.

 

[elite]

madsoul, refer to my first post about seeing god. I said "common sense" for that post. Not from my own religious views.

 

[Chathurga]

That's in a philosophical point of view.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a place. Just a space or whatever you want to call it. It just means that he needs it to exist, altering him to an imperfect being.

Um if he was perfect wouldn't he be able to choose to make part of himself exist physically, Christianity is based on that idea.

 

[elite]

This question is wrong by itself.

God is not a quantity. Thus, we can't say that he can make a part of himself exist physically. When we say a part of god, we are actually considering him as a limited being , while he is an unlimited being.

 

[Scorned]

This question is wrong by itself.

God is not a quantity. Thus, we can't say that he can make a part of himself exist physically. When we say a part of god, we are actually considering him as a limited being , while he is an unlimited being.

This is another point that I always find incredulous.

Why do you assume to know all there is about what God is and what it can be? You've never seen it or spoke to it, and the only information you know is a few slivers from books, so you can not act as if you truthfully know what it is.

 

[Chathurga]

If god is an all powerful being he can make himself physical/limited if he so chooses.

Why do you assume to know all there is about what God is and what it can be? You've never seen it or spoke to it, and the only information you know is a few slivers from books, so you can not act as if you truthfully know what it is.

Yeah for real.

 

[Abe Froeman]

Indeed. All of your thoughts and ideas about god come from the writings of man. If they don't, then they come from the writings of man combined with your own interpretation of them.

If that's not flawed and lacking common sense, then I don't know what is.

By your logic elite, every person has their own interpretation of god and who's to say which one is right? Does your religion that you were born into make yours right or does it make you wrong?

If you base your faith on the writings of man, how could the first person to pit pen to paper even hear or understand the words of your god; by your logic that is.


Excuse the post and any typos. I'm on my phone watching football at the inlaws. I had more to say, but I'm catching looks.

 

[LocutusEstBorg]

I'm defining secular humanism as the non-religous belief that humans are nothing more but a result of evolution and the result of this, are separated from other forms of life by morality and self-awareness. As a result of this, secular humanists work to create a better society for everyone.

I believe as a general rule (with exceptions of course) that religious people are incapable of contributing anything to society. They can only sustain their own existence and hinder other people's contributions. Their inherent irrationality makes them useless.

And we are not "separated" from other forms of life. Everything with a brain is capable of morality and other feelings. You can see it in your pets if you have more than one. They share food, curl up next to each other in the same blanket when its raining, etc. Because of our intelligence humans can additionally express it in man-made constructs which may have an effect only in the future and not immediately. Orang-utans have "police" who resolve conflict between others and stop them fighting etc.

However on the larger scale I believe that our existence is deterministic. Everything is preordained. Which makes pondering about these things completely moot. You only need to satisfy your mind and ensure your survival. If you are satisfied by acting moral and advancing society then the world becomes a better place, however irrelevant that is in the end.