Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[SteveII]

You are simply wrong and continue to conflate the two kinds of meaning. One is derived and the other is found in the reason for human existence. 

I have no problem finding meaning in either category.  I don;t see how we're in different positions in this regard, anyway.

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Mathilda
I suspect that, if you ask our resident god botherers, they'll tell you that it;s possible with god and -only- possible with god...but this is because they mistakenly take a whole range of words to be synonymous with pixies...ala;

Transcendent Meaning Is Pixie Meaning.
Objective (whatever) is God (whatever).


etc, etc, etc.....ad infinitum.

Meanwhile, I;m content to classify something as objective (and objectively true) if it purports to report a fact, and gets that fact right.

---

I have no problem finding meaning in either category.  I don;t see how we're in different positions in this regard, anyway.

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

Sometimes, when a mommy loves a daddy very much........

It';s a pointless diversion, don;t you think..because no matter what answer I give you, none of them will be god-answers..and you don;t accept the validity of anything sans god-hyphen. It;s not as if some of the answers I might goive haven;t already been discussed. I;m not going to give you a lazy reset...because I don;t think I exist to give you lazy resets...and didn;t you -just- offer up a list of properties, yourself? Start with those.

[Silver]

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

*shrugs*

I'm certainly not going to concoct or rely upon a self-satisfying answer for the sake of personal comfort.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

Because our ancestors fucked.

[Mister Agenda]

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

Straight answer: why shouldn't humans exist?

[Angrboda]

@Steve:

Via the human sciences, I can understand the why's and wherefore's of my being in a way that is tangible, palpable, direct, and definitive. Whereas theists by taking their cues from superstitious primitives spend all their lives trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. By the way, I've still yet to see your response to my post on the nature of God and any values derived thereof. Your response would be appreciated, if you have the time, here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why you bein' mean MH? 

I said thanks. I think Hammy should always speak for me.

You spoke for yourself. I corrected your error.

I wasn't referring to what you meant, or your intended meaning, I corrected what your words conveyed: the semantic meaning of what you said. I pointed out it was incorrect.

I do that all the time. I don't try and read people's intentions. I take them at face value—although some others sure as hell love trying to read my mind, and misattirbuting negative intentions to me. And when I tell them they're wrong, as only I can read my mind, if they double-down on their false negative perception of me that's just a one way ticket to losing me as a friend. True friends know I'm not full of shit—You should try it sometime, as, ironically, you wrongly concluded that I was speaking of what you meant when I didn't say anything that said anything about what you meant. I was dealing with what you actually said. And saying that you got it backwards.

Got it? No? Probably not. But my response to you may benefit others who can see my point. Here's hoping.

---

I said thanks. I think Hammy should always speak for me.

You're mean.

Nah. But he is mistaken.

Well, feel free to think he's mean but I personally think he's just enjoying his egotistical attitude and mindreading of me. He can have it, I've got bigger fish to fry and it'll never make him truly happy.

Either that or he's just jealous of my awesomeness.

I'm not the only awesome person on AF though. There's plenty.

---

I understand, there are some topics I tend to avoid discussing as they make me too emotional.

Now I'm curious.

---

How is objective meaning even logically possible? Surely the very definition of meaning is that it is subjective.

In my opinion objective/subjective isn't always as clear of a distinction as many make out. As there's more than one kind of objectivity and more than one kind of subjectivity. So there's only actually a true dichotomy and possible contradiction between the two being combined when they're both being used in the same sense simultaneously.

---

I have no problem finding meaning in either category.  I don;t see how we're in different positions in this regard, anyway.

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

What sense of why are you using here?

If your 'why' speaks of ultimate purpose then you are starting from the presupposition that there is an ultimate purpose at all. Before you can ask "What is the ultimate purpose?" you have to ask "Is there an ultimate purpose?" and perhaps the answer to that is "no". Again, depends what you mean by 'ultimate purpose'.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Straight answer: why do humans exist?

What sense of why are you using here?

If your 'why' speaks of ultimate purpose then you are starting from the presupposition that there is an ultimate purpose at all. Before you can ask "What is the ultimate purpose?" you have to ask "Is there an ultimate purpose?" and perhaps the answer to that is "no". Again, depends what you mean by 'ultimate purpose'.

That's the reason for the question. It demands a yes or no answer. Either is acceptable but can it be accepted? Some ideas have consequences. YMMV.

[brewer]

I said thanks. I think Hammy should always speak for me.

You spoke for yourself. I corrected your error.

I wasn't referring to what you meant, or your intended meaning, I corrected what your words conveyed: the semantic meaning of what you said. I pointed out it was incorrect.

I do that all the time. I don't try and read people's intentions. I take them at face value—although some others sure as hell love trying to read my mind, and misattirbuting negative intentions to me. And when I tell them they're wrong, as only I can read my mind, if they double-down on their false negative perception of me that's just a one way ticket to losing me as a friend. True friends know I'm not full of shit—You should try it sometime, as, ironically, you wrongly concluded that I was speaking of what you meant when I didn't say anything that said anything about what you meant. I was dealing with what you actually said. And saying that you got it backwards.

Got it? No? Probably not. But my response to you may benefit others who can see my point. Here's hoping.

Actually not Hammy, but thanks for trying to justify your behavior. It's cute.

Edit: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intrinsic_good

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed they do, and the consequences of this idea you've been bandying around vis a vis meaning and god have been disastrous on a scale that spans continents and centuries. This alone would be unbearable were it not for the simple and complete idiocy of the notion in the first place...which adds to the shame of the entire tradition, which you now stand as a representative of. Not for any discernible or communicable reason, but simply because you, like your intellectual ancestors, fail to see or appreciate any co-equal meaning in the lives or values of others apart from a relationship with your god.

Our transcendence threatens your close minded bigotry, and so it must be exterminated..if not by force (because you;ve been justly restrained) then by browbeating with an imaginary club.