Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Amarok]

Your engaged in a logical fallacy. If I say there is a new car behind door#1 and someone else says it's behind door#2 that doesn't mean there cannot be a car behind either.

Good now one of you open the door and show me a car .

[Whateverist]

Why you bein' mean MH? 

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

Lucky bastard.  I only speak for myself because I don't find anyone else doing it.

---

EP is just mad because he changed his username to something stupid.

Hmmm .. EP, EP ... where have I seen that before?  Sounds kind of distinguished.

---

---

I know you indicated that you weren't making an argument, Steve, but since one broke out anyway, I thought I'd add my two cents.  It seems that atheists and theists are talking about two different kinds of meaning.  There is the meaning which is experienced in the moment as a result of participating in an event or process which they find meaningful.  Winning a sporting event can be experienced as meaningful and will still have been meaningful whether anyone remembers or reflects upon that moment ever again.  Similarly for such things as raising a child or getting an education or discovering something important.  That type of meaning exists in the present and is not erased by what comes after.  The theists seem to want to concentrate on the type of meaning associated with remembrance and identity.  This is a different kind of meaning than the first and its absence doesn't invalidate the first, despite theists' claim to the contrary.  This type of meaning comes in a variety of forms, from the meaning one attaches to being a member of a family to the meaning one attaches to the events of one's history.  A theme, however, is appearing here, and it relates to your comment about values, purpose, and their relation to a person.  

In some sense you may be right that meaning ultimately relates to a person.  However, I would argue that meaning derives not from a relationship toward any person, but specifically a relationship towards the self.  All other forms of meaning are derivative.  A person must first embrace a meaning as one's own, and only secondarily do other things or persons obtain meaning from that initial commitment.  We can see the failure of the attempt to derive meaning through an external third party in examples such as the student who is pressured into a college career by one's parents, despite not being committed to the endeavor oneself, leaving one feeling that the exercise is ultimately pointless and empty.  A similar example occurs whenever parents try to live vicariously through the lives of their children by involving them in sports or learning a musical instrument or whatever.  Many times the child ends up feeling that the pursuit and their participation in it is empty and meaningless.  A theist may, as they choose, find it valuable having a God living vicariously through them by forcing them through a dreary theater dominated by obsession with sin and fruits promised but never obtained, but I do not care for it personally.  

---

Regardless, at best, the theist is overplaying their hand by claiming that the atheist's life is meaningless.  While an atheist lives, they are bathed in meaning to the same extant that the theist is.  The theist has no advantage there.  The theist simply wants to count their chickens before they are hatched, crow about an eternal life that may not exist, and derive meaning from dancing to the tune of an imaginary piper.

---

 

As an addendum, I find it a dubious proposition that deriving one's meaning by relating it to a transcendent object, whether God or something else, ultimately makes a person's experience of life more meaningful than if one doesn't.  This appears to be a form of Pascal's wager in which you essentially assert that you've made a better deal than the atheist by hitching your wagon to God.  Not only is it unclear how that actually alters your day to day experience of meaning, it seems to be a grasping for something one doesn't actually possess.  Beyond that, many things can fill the role of the transcendent in a person's life.  God isn't the only option.  Living a good life, being virtuous, most things related to the good have an element of the transcendent in them, whether one links that up to God or not.  Even simple things like appreciation of art or the passing of the seasons can yield a sense of transcendent meaning.  The Japanese have the aesthetic of wabi sabi which is about as transcendent as one can get.  The Buddhist and Hindu have the unending struggle against samsara.  And so on.  Theists don't have a monopoly on transcendent meaning.

---

QFT because fricking brilliant!

---

Jor, if you burn a book its meaning is gone regardless of any meaning it had in the past.

Meaning is not to be found in books.  Meaning is an event/state that happens in a human mind (at least).  A book can convey that meaning from one mind to another.  Burn one book and another copy of it can go on conveying the same meaning.  Burn all copies of it and the meaning that had been conveyed earlier will not be subtracted from anyone's experience which already received that meaning.  Even if no one to whom the meaning was transferred manages to convey it to anyone else, the same ideas/meaning can arise again and make its way into print or some other medium or just become part of an oral tradition.

I must be missing your point but for the life of me I have no idea then what your point may be.

[Amarok]

Impermanence does not alter wisdom .

[robvalue]

This has probably been said already, but all those theists in the wrong religions worshipping gods that don't exist manage to find meaning and values. So it's clearly not dependent on anything real. Since atheists are surrounded by things that are real, then this should provide an even easier way to get meaning and values.

[Edwardo Piet]

This has probably been said already, but all those theists in the wrong religions worshipping gods that don't exist manage to find meaning and values. So it's clearly not dependent on anything real.

So this is the part where I say "How do you define reality?".

Is it dependent on 'something unreal'?

My bold.

[robvalue]

If that question is aimed at me, I don't define reality at all, if we're talking pure philosophy.

I only use it informally or relatively (things which are as real as each other).

[I_am_not_mafia]

So this is the part where I say "How do you define reality?".

You don't. I do. Everyone needs to consult me on the latest definitions because they do tend to change according to my whims.

[Edwardo Piet]

So this is the part where I say "How do you define reality?".

You don't. I do. Everyone needs to consult me on the latest definitions because they do tend to change according to my whims.

Tell me the definition, NOW!

Yours sincerely,

Your former prince of darkness,

Satan

---

But in all seriousness. My point is that can something be based on unreality? And what would that even mean?

Reality doesn't conform to our definitions. And that's kind of the point. But definitions aren't about creating reality they're about referencing it.

Feel free to ask how I answer the question

[chimp3]

When I read or hear a believer state that my life is meaningless I do not apply that to my meaning filled life. I apply that to the claimant : This is a person who considers my life meaningless. Their religion must have been very successful depersonalizing others. I am afraid of people who consider me meaningless. Especially groups of them.

[Ravenshire]

But praying is actually doing something for others. I'm sure it makes you feel better about your lack of action, though.

Correct, it is doing something for others and it can and is for ones self also. So what's your point, you seem to be agreeing with me. What lack of action, praying for others is an action, every day all the time. The Church does more for the poor than any other entity in the world.

GC

No, GC. When you fold your hands in prayer for others, you are doing exactly nothing to help them. The warm fuzzy it give you might make you feel better about failing to help them out, but it does fuck-all for them.