Drathmoore wrote:The thought of there being no purpose to life is also increadibly depressing; what's the point of us being here if all we're here to do is overpopulate and completely screw-up the planet?
I'm gonna have to interject right there.
I've said this a thousand times before, and I'll say it again: saying that thinking a purposeless life is depressing is jumping to conclusions. I'd expect a nihilist to be depressed only if he got to the notion that his life means nothing and then stopped right there and refused to consider the consequences after that point.
I also firmly believe that life has zero purpose whatsoever, and I find that that's very empowering to me. It's the same sort of feeling you get when you're playing a game you've beaten many times before and are just dicking around -- you don't feel bad that you're not making any sort of existential progress (which in terms of the game would be getting closer to beating it); you're playing the game to play and have fun, not to beat it. To me, life is like one crazy-ass game that doesn't have any victory conditions, and no consequences one way or the other regardless of how I live my life.
But to go from there to say that I might as well run around raping and murdering is also a leap, and is another place I'd expect someone to get stuck if they flat-out refused to consider the issue any further. I feel most people think "life has no meaning" -> "my actions have no consequences" -> "I'm free to act in any way I please" -> [FULL COGNITIVE STOP]. They don't go from there to "well, what does this mean about how I should behave?"
And the answer to that is quite simple: mentally healthy people find it natural to derive happiness from people around them who are also happy. What is it with religious freaks pouncing on murder and rape when they think of things that would make them happy? I'm not going to murder or rape anyone because those things do exactly the opposite! I derive a net
negative pleasure from doing them, so obviously I'm not going to. And if fear of retribution is the only thing keeping you from rape and murder, then
you're the immoral one. No, because I'm a mentally healthy person, I find it natural to get joy out of making other people happy, because that in turn makes me happy. And it's no coincidence that making other people happy ties very closely to a conventional form of morality you see normal people follow.
Think about it -- you've just realized there's no God and that your life means nothing in the bigger, more impressive scheme of things. Then your friend calls you up and asks if you want to go get a sandwich. What are you more likely to do, go out and get a sandwich with him or slowly torture him to death? Consider what changed: you no longer think that God is watching. So what you have to consider is, are you being a good person only because you thought God was watching, or because you are a good person and legitimately want to make friends and have a good time?
Drathmoore wrote:And this is where I believe Religion steps in; to give people hope and a belief in a purpose. Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they all speak about how life should be lived, and the consequences of your actions. It therefore shows your purpose in life; to follow the guidelines to gain entry to a realm beyond life. Many believe that life is just preperation for the great beyond.
But they're pretty inconsistent in that, too. Some people think they're being divine instructions but think it's okay to ignore them most of the time, some people take God's judgment into their own hands and in this life and then go off and kill unbelievers, most buy into the Telephone Game result of religion wherein the God they're told about isn't anything like the one in their holy book because no one's sat down to read the damned thing for millennia... In my experience, something as silly and inconsistent as religion tends to appeal to silly and inconsistent people.
Drathmoore wrote:nobody can give a definate reason that everybody will agree on.
To me, this isn't a problem with there not being an answer, but with the silliness of people.
Drathmoore wrote:As I said, it's almost impossible to answer this question.
Well, er... no, you didn't say that. Otherwise, I would've been up in arms about it earlier.
I understand that it usually reflects well on people to show this sort of thoughtless humility, but the phrase "there is no right answer" is so abused that it's starting to make me nauseous every time I hear it. Yes, it's true that many questions don't have an answer (e.g. subjective questions: "is this awesome," "does this taste good," "is this important?"), but too many people see a situation with two clear sides and interpose themselves in the middleground so that it looks like they're the wise, impartial mediators, completely without any thought about whether the situation actually could have a right answer or not. Then observers will recognize that person as the "good guy" and reason that he must obviously be correct. This makes me want to punch something small and fluffy.
If you honestly think it's impossible to answer the question, say why this is so. Show how the resolution depends on us having more knowledge than we could, or how the clues we'd need can't be obtained or don't exist, or how the existence of an answer is a contradiction. But don't throw this "idk lol" bullshit our way, because while the sheeple might praise you for it, anyone with a thought in his head is going to call you out. Especially on this forum.
Here's a good example:
Assuming there is a Hell and that God is benevolent, is Hitler in Hell?
The answer to this question is Yes. Yes, Hitler is in Hell. If you saw me and a member of the Aryan Brotherhood arguing over this, and you stepped in with "well it's a tricky question, because while Hitler did do some bad things in his life, but he did inspire a lot of people" (and then gave the audience a bow), I'm going to tell you off as well, because fuck you, the answer is Yes. It's a very definite Yes.
On that note, I find that this is especially common in debates over subjects like the one brought up in this thread. A question that has existential implications isn't necessarily hard to find an answer to. This question is a prime example: it has an answer, because it's pretty objective question, and provided you know what a "purpose" is, you can determine whether what you know about the circumstances of our origin will lead you to some answer.
To me, this is pretty clear-cut: it's obvious to me that we were not created, but that we are incidental. Incidental things do not have intelligent intent behind them. Purpose requires intelligent intent. Therefore, no, we do not have a purpose. Easy as pie.
Drathmoore wrote:Some questions are best left unanwsered.
I completely disagree. It makes sense to me that knowledge is always better than ignorance, because at the very least, knowledge of something terrible also enables you to circumvent that terrible thing.
But if anyone has any counter-examples, do throw them at me. This isn't an issue I've spent a lot of time pondering.