Well there is no evidence of ULTIMATE meaning.

So I would assume that until there is - there is no ultimate meaning so LIFE ITSELF doesn't have meaning - but living things (mostly humans I would think!) INTERPRET meaning in life.

I do not believe there is any meaning there until it is interpreted. And everyone has their own interpretation (we are all individuals).

So I do not believe life has meaning - in the sense that life ITSELF I do not believe has meaning.

But we can (and do - as humans) surely find meaning in life even if there is no known ULTIMATE meaning there in life itself.

Its interesting because someone said to me the other day that the purpose of life is simple: to evolve.

But life doesn't need a purpose to evolve of course. It doesn't have to have the purpose to evolve in order to evolve. It evolves anyway.
Life just is.

Its like someone else has also said to me: The purpose of existence is for it to exist. The purpose of life is to exist.

But it doesn't NEED any purpose in order exist. Life doesn't need to have 'the purpose' to exist in order to exist. It exists anyway. Some people might have the view there's no purpose to existence unless its worth it. Unless living things - like us humans - have a time that's worth living. As in spending all your life being tortured horrifically might not be worth it. To some - existing to exist might seem just for the sake of it and we need to find something else.

I am very grateful for existing and am of course glad I'm not in a situation that would make me just want to give up on life! (like the one mentioned above). But not only does life not need ULTIMATE meaning. Its rather nonsensical and clutching at straws I think to say that the purpose of existence is to exist - the purpose of life is to evolve because: It doesn't need this purpose in order to exist and evolve - it does it anyway - and its a matter of interpretation still - if this is really the purpose.

There is no evidence of ultimate purpose. People just can't agree because its all subjective and open to interpretation. We see meaning in life whether there is an 'ultimate' meaning or not. There doesn't have to be an 'ultimate meaning' or 'purpose' in 'life itself' in order for people to find meaning and feel meaning.

EvF

(October 31, 2008 at 2:08 pm)S_Truth Wrote: Can someone answer my questions Please?

There is no specific purpose to life ... we're born, we live, we die ... end of story.

The ride however can be exhilarating, you can get value from helping others and progressing our culture and knowing that there is always potential to live on forever in your impact (hopefully positive) on the world around you.

My goal in life is to do the best for my children and the children of others ... I would like to believe I will play some part in making the world a better place for them.

Just because the general process is doom 'n gloom doesn't mean it has to be appreciated/evaluated in that way ... I love life, I love being alive and the fact that I am going to die (scary though that prospect is) sharpens my appreciation of what I have.

---

(October 31, 2008 at 6:09 pm)S_Truth Wrote: This pleasure is also useless because it leads you no where at the end you die same with the others they just die.

But that is simply your opinion and inherently worthless as anything else ... seems to me that pleasure is an end in and of itself at least for some of us. Certainly I will do things (some things) just because I enjoy them.

---

(October 31, 2008 at 6:25 pm)S_Truth Wrote: What you are missing to understand is if both bring you to the same result then both are useless and it doesn't matter what way you take.

And what you fail to understand is that it is your choice to view life from the perspective you are ... the vast majority of atheists I know (by which I mean all that I have ever met) find plenty of meaning in their lives, plenty of reason to keep on going, plenty of justification to live moral and full lives.

---

(October 31, 2008 at 6:46 pm)S_Truth Wrote: The whole time I have been using simple logic with you guys and no answer has been given. One can only come to one conclusion you have no answer and live your life without meaning and atheist now have been proven wrong at their own game.

In other words your entire purpose (as a goal seeking animal capable of setting your own goals) was in some way to attempt to discredit the philosophy of atheism ... clever in a not-very-clever way though as atheism isn't a philosophy, it's a shame you failed

Kyu

(September 20, 2008 at 4:35 am)Giff Wrote: Does this mean that atheists are smarter then people who are religious?

NO.

It's a correlation,not a proven causal link as far as I'm aware.

If Mensa member wishes to argue the case,fine. The burden of proof rests with him/her.

That most Mensa members are atheists is a logical fallacy,either argument from authority and/or the no true Scotsman fallacy.

(February 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm)padraic Wrote: That most Mensa members are atheists is a logical fallacy,either argument from authority and/or the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Erm...no.

Most Mensa members are atheists, that is a fact. What is a logical fallacy is saying that because most Mensa members are atheists, atheists are more clever than theists. That's an argument from authority. No idea how you got the no true Scotsman into it, that covers something completely different.

OK, I wasn't sure:I thought no true Scotsman after the statement that but one Mensa member was an atheist,implying that all REAL members were. Yeah, a bit weak,but that's the reasoning..

(February 25, 2009 at 6:59 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well there is no evidence of ULTIMATE meaning.

So I would assume that until there is - there is no ultimate meaning so LIFE ITSELF doesn't have meaning - but living things (mostly humans I would think!) INTERPRET meaning in life.

I do not believe there is any meaning there until it is interpreted. And everyone has their own interpretation (we are all individuals).

So I do not believe life has meaning - in the sense that life ITSELF I do not believe has meaning.

But we can (and do - as humans) surely find meaning in life even if there is no known ULTIMATE meaning there in life itself.

Its interesting because someone said to me the other day that the purpose of life is simple: to evolve.

But life doesn't need a purpose to evolve of course. It doesn't have to have the purpose to evolve in order to evolve. It evolves anyway.
Life just is.

Its like someone else has also said to me: The purpose of existence is for it to exist. The purpose of life is to exist.

But it doesn't NEED any purpose in order exist. Life doesn't need to have 'the purpose' to exist in order to exist. It exists anyway. Some people might have the view there's no purpose to existence unless its worth it. Unless living things - like us humans - have a time that's worth living. As in spending all your life being tortured horrifically might not be worth it. To some - existing to exist might seem just for the sake of it and we need to find something else.

I am very grateful for existing and am of course glad I'm not in a situation that would make me just want to give up on life! (like the one mentioned above). But not only does life not need ULTIMATE meaning. Its rather nonsensical and clutching at straws I think to say that the purpose of existence is to exist - the purpose of life is to evolve because: It doesn't need this purpose in order to exist and evolve - it does it anyway - and its a matter of interpretation still - if this is really the purpose.

There is no evidence of ultimate purpose. People just can't agree because its all subjective and open to interpretation. We see meaning in life whether there is an 'ultimate' meaning or not. There doesn't have to be an 'ultimate meaning' or 'purpose' in 'life itself' in order for people to find meaning and feel meaning.

EvF

Agree with you there, there is no 'ultimate meaning' as you say.
-----

Back to the original question here. I think those who are intellegent are most likely to be atheists.

who knows a site with some serious I.Q. tests? the ones i took seemed very amateurish, I'm 18 and I usually get between 120-130

(April 9, 2009 at 3:47 pm)Overmars Wrote: who knows a site with some serious I.Q. tests? the ones i took seemed very amateurish, I'm 18 and I usually get between 120-130

I don't think there are any sites that have any good IQ tests.

I made one on my computer, quite some years ago, which came with a serious science magazine. It was a IQ test similar as the ones you do when you will go to the army here in sweden. I was around 15 maybe 16 and I got 109 in IQ. Which is probably quite good for that age.

Anyway I don't think you should use any IQ test on the webb. There are probably no one that is relible.

You can apply for a Mensa home test and pay a small fee to get it marked. That's what I did. They say you need to take their full test to get a more accurate figure, but I still got an estimated IQ of 155.

Here is a workout test: http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php

It's by no means an accurate IQ test, but if you get a score of "excellent" then you could probably pass the Mensa tests and have an IQ in the top 2% of the population.

155? Very nice. That's 1 point higher than my Dad's.