Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[chi pan]

If you honestly believe that we don't do things only because we're afraid of being caught, it frightens me what someone like you would do if they ever lost their faith - without god it sounds like you think people would go around killing and raping and stealing etc......that reflects really badly on you, not us.

no, people do follow rules for more than just that reason. they follow them because: they were taught to, they don't want to do harm to others, and they have a conscious ect. however, there are no consequences for their actions above human and health consequences. if they don't get caught, and they don't compromise their health, they don't have any consequence.

The purpose of life is life. This life, not some imaginary afterlife.

too general. and it sounds like what the bad guys did in the movie "In Time" was justifiable with this definition. good movie btw if you didn't watch it.

I am so offended right now that you've just said my life has no purpose - fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

well what moral code do you have above humanism? what purpose do you have above society?

[KichigaiNeko]

Atheism

[Michelle_Patton]

no, people do follow rules for more than just that reason. they follow them because: they were taught to, they don't want to do harm to others, and they have a conscious ect. however, there are no consequences for their actions above human and health consequences. if they don't get caught, and they don't compromise their health, they don't have any consequence.

As far as I know, people (unless they're psychopaths/sociopaths) feel guilt when they do wrong - you know, the whole conscience thing you mentioned. If you don't see that as any kind of consequence then you've obviously never felt it before.

too general. and it sounds like what the bad guys did in the movie "In Time" was justifiable with this definition. good movie btw if you didn't watch it.

No I've never seen it.
And quite frankly, I don't care if you think it's too general but I will expand anyway:
My purpose in life is to be happy and to make the people I love happy. To raise my son with good values and joy. To love my friends and help them when I can. They may not be what you call worthwhile purposes, but they're good enough for me.

well what moral code do you have above humanism? what purpose do you have above society?

The only thing I know for sure is what's here now, so why should my moral code need to be above humanism? Why should my purpose need to be above society? If you want to believe that you'll be punished or rewarded for all eternity for what you did during a time that amounts to less than a blink in the big scheme of things, fine. But don't tell me I should - I'll be happy with this life that I know exists.

[Zen Badger]

to answer your question amkerman, i have heard of no purpose for life for an athiest besides following by humanistic values. many claim scientific progress is the best goal but what about those who aren't interested in science? they have no purpose because they can't be a scientist? many say benifiting society but for those who only flip burgers they obviously don't do much for society (even though someone has to do it). the truth of the matter is without religion, there is no purpose above society. there is no authority above humans. as long as you don't harm others, you can do whatever you want. the only thing you have to worry about other than the law is your health. this is the thing that athiests want to be the truth. there is no god, no divine punishment, no karma; just human and health consequences.

There, fixed it for you chippy

You have yet to explain the meaning that you think having a god/s gives your life.

---

no, people do follow rules for more than just that reason. they follow them because: they were taught to, they don't want to do harm to others, and they have a conscious ect. however, there are no consequences for their actions above human and health consequences. if they don't get caught, and they don't compromise their health, they don't have any consequence.

You're confusing us with christianity chippers.

In fact it's your theology that teaches that there are no consequences to your actions, that regardless of the crimes you commit you can get off scot free just by accepting jesus.

Bang you're in. Doesn't matter if you're a mass murderer.

Just become one of jesus's fanboys and you are eligible for heaven.

[twocompulsive]

This is the all time classic example of
the need to reference reality through an
emotional filter because it is otherwise too
uncomfortable. By what right do we have the
authority to demand that one of the most basic
laws of biology be suspended for our convenience
We have the ability to philosophise and to moralise so
we must be too important to only have a finite existence
like all the other species of the animal kingdom ? Now only
been here mere 200, 000 years and already are demanding
special treatment which is bit cheeky really. Since the purpose
of life is propagation of the species : that is it and any thing else
just superfluous to requirement in spite of our recognised supreme
intelligence. Because we are still mammals at the end of the day and
Evolution applies to us no less than it does to others. We do not get any
special treatment merely because we can read and write : it does not work
like that unfortunately. You attach whatever meaning you wish to your life but
still die a natural death like every other organism on the planet past present and
future. The fact that you do not like it is beside the point : either accept it or don t
accept it but on a practical level it makes not the blindest bit of difference. But whilst
we are on the subject what exactly are you afraid of ? You not want to spend the rest of
eternity in a blissful state of non consciousness free of all pain and suffering. Why not ? I do

[genkaus]

Here I'll set up the argument again and someone can try to knock it down, again.

Quite easy.

All of reality is experienced through consciousness.

THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.

Fair enough.

Things that are real must exist apart from our observation of or ideas about what they are.

THEREFORE: If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it.

Incorrect. Our ideas and opinions exist. If you are looking for evidence of their physical existence, they exist as particular arrangement of neurons in the brain. These are not independent of consciousness, yet they are very much real.

The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants.

THEREFORE: If consciousness is real science believes it is a universal constant.

First mistake.

Universal constants are conceptual values which we get while interpreting how reality works. They are very much based on observation.

Also, it is a mistake to think that you cannot observe consciousness or that you cannot have any ideas about it.

Since this step is incorrect, the rest of your argument falls apart automatically.

[genkaus]

People do assign purpose and significance to things all the time. If that purpose ofr meaning is purely a figment of that consciousness then it is illusory. it is not real beyond being a made up belief. Any belief that purpose is real necessitates that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real, it must exist apart from our ideas of it. The only forces science believes exist apart from its observation of and ideas about are universal constants. If consciousness is a universal constant it could correctly be called "God".

Being a product of consciousness does not make something automatically illusory.

Also, consciousness is not unobservable and it is definitely not a universal constant. My consciousness is separate from yours and it is temporal but they are bot still very real.

If I say the meaning to life is X and you say the meaning to life is Y we both can't be right unless 1. : there actually is a real meaning to life and 2: that meaning contains the elements X and Y. If there is no real meaning but only the meaning we personally ascribe it it is illusory. To state otherwise would be to state that reality is dictated by beliefs. Even if there was only one sentient being in the entire universe who believed that Z was the meaning to life, that would not make Z real outside of that consciousness, it would just be the only illusory belief about reality held. In order for any meaning to be real consciousness must exist as a primary function of the universe, the universe must be bound by consciousness, not the other way around. That could be called "God".

If I say that the purpose of a knife is cutting tomatoes and you say that it is stabbing people, does that mean that knife has no real purpose or does it mean that the purpose is determined by one who holds it?
Would that make the actions done by that knife any less real?

Something having different meanings in different contexts does not make all meanings illusory.

Correct. Kinda. There Must be something real, but that thing need not be CALLED God. In order for something to be real, it must exist apart from our ideas and feelings about it. Again, the only things science believe exist apart from its observation of or ideas about them are universal forces and constants. Those forces created everything in the universe and without them nothing would or could exist. Science does not believe the sun exists because it observes it, it believes it exists because it believes in the laws of physics the fact that we observe it does not verify it's existence anymore than the fact that science doesnt observe trillions of other stars in the universe means science believes they do not exist. If there is a real sentience to the universe, it operates as a force on everything in the universe, it can not be found in a particular locality within the universe.

On the contrary, science does believe that sun exists because we can observe it. Science believes that sun exists independently of our observation, but to hold the belief that something exists, either it or its effects must be observed.

You have to let go of the idea that anything that is a product of consciousness is not real. Every concept in existence, every language, every scientific law and every artistic creation is a product of someone's consciousness. These things are not universal constants and they are very much real.

that may be, and that is all well and good, but reality is not dictated by your beliefs anymore than it is dictated by mine. If that is how you feel know that your meaning exists only in your mind. It is not real. once you dies any meaning you ascribed to yourself is gone. Your belief in personal meaning is no more rational than my belief that God exists in that case.

The meaning of anything only ever exists in someone's mind. The words I'm writing here are simply arrangement of letters. On a more basic level, the are simply binary arrangement semiconductors in the computer. It is the concept of language that gives them any meaning. The person who came up with the concept is long dead, but the meaning remains because the concept remains.

Similarly, while I assign purpose to my own life, I'm not the only one to whom my life is significant. I have a lot of people to whom my life is meaningful and that meaning will not cease to exist once I do.

this is where you go off the rails. If you determine that your life has meaning you hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you determine that your life does not have meaning you still hold a belief, there is no way around it. If you are not sure whether or not your life has meaning you still hold a belief that life possibly could have meaning, there is no way around it.

I believe "My life has no meaning until I give it one and once I do, it does". This is not a belief about whether my life already has a meaning, is it?

Beliefs do not dicate reality, beliefs are not absolute facts which you simply have to accept. Beliefs can be wholly true, or not true at all, or somewhere in between.

Your belief in god is dictating the reality of your arguments. Your beliefs dictate your very real actions, which dictate the effect you have on reality.

If I assign meaning to something, that does not make the meaning real outside of my belief, it simply means I hold a belief, which may be true or false.

So, you equate "not real outside consciousness" with not "real"?

Answer this: If "god" has a meaning for your life, then that meaning is also held within god's consciousness. Why would that be any more real than the meaning I hold within my consciousness?

There is a big difference between believing life actually has meaning and letting someone ascribe that meaniong for you. You can't ascribe that meaning to yourself. No one else can ascribe it for you. The meaning can not be "ascribed", because the meaning is real. There is actually a meaning to life. it is always the same and the same for everyone. You can't know what it is; you can try to understand it, you can question it, you can form beliefs about it, but your beliefs are not necessarily true or false.

You are completely wrong here. I told you before that you should try to understand the philosophical underpinnings of your own arguments.

Meaning is a conceptual property. It is dependent on consciousness. That is true for the meaning of everything including life. The words I write here are simply arrangement of letters unless there is a consciousness to give it or appreciate its meaning.

Patently false. "God" is the axiom we must accept. Validity of reality must not be assumed. All of reality is perceived through consciousness. In order to accept reality as valid we must accept that consciousness is real. If consciousness is real it must exist apart from our beliefs about it. Therefor it muswt be a universal constant. Consciousness as a universal constant can correctly be called "God".

The bolded part is the failure of your argument. If something exists outside our consciousness or apart from our beliefs does not mean that it must be a universal constant.

Secondly, you must understand what one means by an axiom. Here, you first state that "god" is an axiom and then proceed to try and proveit. An axiom is unprovable and undeniable by its very nature. In order to be true it wouldn't require conditions such as "to accept reality as valid" and "if consciousness is real".

Thirdly, the statement "to accept reality as valid" is redundant. Valid means it is true or false. True means it corresponds to to reality. What your are trying to say here is "In order for reality to be real - ". Reality being real is not based on any conditions. It is real by its definition.

[reverendjeremiah]

Jerahmiah. We experience copper oxidation. The copper doesn't experience anything... The copper is not conscious, at least as far as we can tell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you stated Jeremaih you have experienced through consciousness. To believe that reality exists apart from your conscious experience of it is to believe that consious experience is actual reality. in order to believe that reality exists as we perceive it to apart from our consciousness requires the assumption that consciousness is real. if consciousness is real... there is nothing you can say to negate my argument (I don't think). Until you can show me an instance of reality existing without using conscious observation your statements are all the same.

Bullcrap. the copper atoms very much experience a change through oxidation that is recorded in its properties. Copper atoms that experience oxidation are forever changed.

The fact that you deny this goes against your entire argument that reality is independent from consciousness. You are suggesting that the oxidation doesnt REALLY happen unless someone is conscious enough to understand that this is in fact oxidation..

You might as well argue that a tree doesnt make a sound if it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it. In reality that tree is experiencing its own death. the fall is recorded in the tree by the damage caused to it, and those who are smart enough can gather that recorded information through observation and conclude the tree fell over and got damaged and is either dead or dying.

You might as well say that media storage devices do not exist either, as everytime you save something to your computer you are placing information upon the disk. The disk experiences a physical change which is recorded in its very self. the disk is forever changed from what it used to be before you saved something onto it. The disk also does not have a consciousness.

If I take a bat to a broken printer, then that printer will experience an open can of whoop ass from my very hand. the printer has experienced damage that has forever changed it in that given moment in time and is recorded in its form.

Honestly dude, you arent very good at philosophy are you?

---

And lets be honest. Copper and lifeless material can experience and record events. Just because it is not as seemingly sophisticated as human consciousness does not mean that these materials do not go through a change that is recorded within its properties of form.

What makes the human consciousness exist? Why it is the physical properties of the substance that brings it about; The human brain.

The human brain is basically made of these 4 basic and lifeless elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. these elements form the DNA that forms your brain. Proof of life from lifelessness. And then you use that brain, made from lifeless elements, to claim that lifeless matter cannot record sensations (which is what experience means).

[amkerman]

the answer to if a tree falls in the forest with nothing around to hear it does it make a sound? is no.

[Ace Otana]

The unobserved world functions the same as the observed world.
If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, it's just that there would be no-one to know it.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it will still make a sound.