|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/10/2011 : 15:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
Ok, I'll bite. Why is it necessary for anything to have a "meaning" beyond the needs and ambitions of an human lifetime?
|
In the meaningless materialistic universe there is no meaning before/during/or beyond the needs and ambitions of an human life. In the meaningless materialistic universe there is no assigned meaning, there is no temporal meaning and there is no self-meaning. In the meaningless universe there is NO meaning, period. What is so hard to understand about this reality?
|
That's pretty much what I asked you. Any "meaning" to anything is strictly on an individual basis. You see "meaning" to the universe; all I see is the beauty and the wonder, which I greatly enjoy. There is no evidence that some raggedy-assed god or other has had anything to do with any of it, nor is there any basis to believe it "means" anything at all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/10/2011 : 16:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But before we go any further if the universe was created through naturalism/materialism is it a universe created with purpose, meaning and reason or is it a universe created without reason, purpose or meaning? |
Materialism and/or naturalism do not answer questions of "meaning" or "purpose" as you are using those words, Bill. The proper materialist answer to "does the universe have a purpose" is "materialism doesn't say, why don't you find some other philosophy which addresses such questions." In other words, one can be a consistent materialist and say, "I don't know if the universe has a 'purpose' in the grand sense of the word."
Now, an evidentialist might say that there's no evidence to suggest that there's any grand meaning to the universe, and that would also be true. A universe without a purpose is completely consistent with what we actually observe. But then a universe without a purpose is also what an iron atom deep inside a guillotine blade might also observe. We can't escape the universe to actually determine if there's a purpose to it, just like the iron atom can't escape the blade to see that it's part of a killing machine. (Some physicists think we might be able to leave our universe, someday, but that's a minority view.) So evidentialists are stuck with "we don't know, because we cannot test," too.
Finally, pragmatists will say, "well forget all of the above: for all practical purposes, there is no grand meaning to the universe," but even that doesn't say that there isn't any meaning, only that whether or not there is a "purpose" to the universe, it makes no difference to us and how we live our lives. We humans obviously supply meaning freely and quite liberally to our tiny part of the universe, regardless of any possible purpose (or lack thereof) the universe might have as a whole. Pragmatists, too, can say "we don't know" but they follow up with "and we won't care until we can know."
Your problem, Bill, is nothing more than that you insist upon an answer. Tough luck. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 16:46:15 [Permalink]
|
It should also be pointed out that meaning and purpose are not synonyms. Even purposeless things may be meaningful. An avalanche which occurs may have no preordained purpose, but if it takes out your house and family I guarantee you will find it meaningful. Considering the number of examples he has been provided, Bill's denial that meaning can still be found in a purposeless universe is simply delusional at this point.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/10/2011 17:01:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 18:23:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It should also be pointed out that meaning and purpose are not synonyms. Even purposeless things may be meaningful. An avalanche which occurs may have no preordained purpose, but if it takes out your house and family I guarantee you will find it meaningful. Considering the number of examples he has been provided, Bill's denial that meaning can still be found in a purposeless universe is simply delusional at this point. |
In fairness to Bill, I think he's saying that any meaning we mere mortals might find or invent is only transitory. As soon as everybody who agrees on a particular meaning for some thing or event die, then that meaning vanishes with them.
But that's true whether there's some purpose to the universe or not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 19:34:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
In fairness to Bill, I think he's saying that any meaning we mere mortals might find or invent is only transitory. As soon as everybody who agrees on a particular meaning for some thing or event die, then that meaning vanishes with them. |
That's reasonable, but it's not what Bill has said. In fact, whenever people pointed out that there can be meaning in a limited, transitory sense, Bill flatly rejects them. If there is no ultimate meaning then there can be no meaning at all, not even a little bit, at least according to Bill. He's stated this several times (all bolding mine):
| Actually we were discussing the ends of peoples lives, which in the materialistic universe, they begin and end with nothing. From nothing you came and to nothing you shall return. What's left in the middle is meaningless. |
| Actually in a materialistic universe there is no meaning to be able to assign to your life. |
| So please don't take this personal but that is why I find it laughable that little ol' you, who may get 100 years of existence in the universe at best, and who came from billions/trillions of years of chaotic/random/meaningless functions, and who's life will end in nothingness with out any self-identity or self-awareness, would have the audacity to actually believe that you can assign meaning to your life and insist that this is just not you burying your head in the sand to the realities of your meaningless life in the meaningless universe. |
In the last quote, Bill states that it audacious to even believe that we can assign any meaning to our lives at all, even transitory meaning, because he rejects the very premise that something can be both transitory and meaningful. Either something lasts forever or it is the same as nothing, there is no in-between.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/10/2011 19:41:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 20:43:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That's reasonable, but it's not what Bill has said. In fact, whenever people pointed out that there can be meaning in a limited, transitory sense, Bill flatly rejects them. If there is no ultimate meaning then there can be no meaning at all, not even a little bit, at least according to Bill. He's stated this several times... |
I understand that. I agree that Bill is saying that any meaning that isn't eternal "ends in meaninglessness." I just don't agree that Bill denies "that meaning can still be found in a purposeless universe," because he's also clearly stated that people can find meaning where none exists. He just thinks it's just a kind of "fake" meaning because it's "ultimately" meaningless.
What he finds "audacious" is clearly the idea that any meaning we might assign to anything is not just us fleeing, stupidly and hypocritically, from some sort of inherent nihilism. As if we're scared of living meaningless lives, and so lie to ourselves by claiming that they're not meaningless.
Of course, since there can be no individual meaning or purpose in Christianity (Bill has already admitted that he thinks the purpose of his life is nothing more than to serve God, a role that could be filled by any of a billion other people), he must logically be in the same boat. When he and everyone else who remembers him is dead, and he's stuck doing nothing but fellowshipping with God (or rotting in Hell) for eternity, all the meaning that will exist will be God's, and not Bill's. Since Bill will have had no part in creating or maintaining the eternal meaning, he may as well not have existed at all.
So I don't think it's denial. I think it's projection. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 23:18:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I agree that Bill is saying that any meaning that isn't eternal "ends in meaninglessness." I just don't agree that Bill denies "that meaning can still be found in a purposeless universe," because he's also clearly stated that people can find meaning where none exists. He just thinks it's just a kind of "fake" meaning because it's "ultimately" meaningless. |
Which is what I find to be untenable. There can't be such a thing as "fake" meaningfulness. Meaning is not a concrete quality, it's experiential. It's something you either feel or you don't. If my life is meaningful to me, then it's meaningful. My life won't have a purpose necessarily, but like I said those words aren't interchangeable. I guess for my life to be "ultimately" meaningful, my life must be meaningful to somebody else on into perpetuity, an impossibility so far as I can see, and something which neither affects nor concerns me very much.
| What he finds "audacious" is clearly the idea that any meaning we might assign to anything is not just us fleeing, stupidly and hypocritically, from some sort of inherent nihilism. As if we're scared of living meaningless lives, and so lie to ourselves by claiming that they're not meaningless. |
I'm not scared of living a purposeless life, or a life that someone else considers meaningless. I've also acknowledged to Bill that I do believe all life in the Universe will eventually come to an end and all record of its existence wiped away. But I refuse to concede that any of those facts have the power to rob my life of meaning. He wants to pretend that nihilism is the only option when it clearly isn't. It is possible to have a very meaningful life for yourself. You just can't make your life meaningful for everyone for all time, something only a pathological egomaniac would waste time wringing their hands over anyway.
So I don't think it's denial. I think it's projection.
|
For it to be projection Bill would have actually had to think through the implications of his belief system to the degree you just did, and I think that's probably giving him far too much credit. He's not a bright guy. No, I just think that Bill thinks that if atheism/materialism can be forced to mean that life means "nothing," then Christianity wins by default. I really do believe his thought process is that shallow and confused.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 16:07:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Which is what I find to be untenable. There can't be such a thing as "fake" meaningfulness. Meaning is not a concrete quality, it's experiential. It's something you either feel or you don't. If my life is meaningful to me, then it's meaningful. |
But if its meaning is derived from lies, isn't that where those "WTF have I been doing with my life?" moments come from? Isn't that why creationists who turn atheist seem to often refer to their early lives as time wasted?| I'm not scared of living a purposeless life, or a life that someone else considers meaningless. |
No, I know that, but Bill thinks you and the rest of us are lying to ourselves with his "head in the sand" language.| It is possible to have a very meaningful life for yourself. You just can't make your life meaningful for everyone for all time, something only a pathological egomaniac would waste time wringing their hands over anyway. |
Well, it's Bill we're talking about, here. A guy who thinks that his own incredulity is evidence enough to declare 150 years of science null and void.| For it to be projection Bill would have actually had to think through the implications of his belief system to the degree you just did, and I think that's probably giving him far too much credit. |
Given the pathetic meaning he's given his own life, I think he knows, whether he's thought it through or not. People can come to a correct conclusion through unsophisticated or even wrong reasoning. Bill may believe that his purpose in life is to serve God only because the Bible tells him so, but deep down, maybe he'd acknowledge that it provides as much meaning in "the grand scheme of things" as an individual silicon atom has for the entire Sahara. But you're probably right.| No, I just think that Bill thinks that if atheism/materialism can be forced to mean that life means "nothing," then Christianity wins by default. |
In the previous thread on this, he seemed to be trying to avoid such competitive argumentation.| I really do believe his thought process is that shallow and confused. |
I won't disagree. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2011 : 13:36:03 [Permalink]
|
Belated condolenses, flithy. I can relate, as my father died from Alzheimer's Disease a couple of years ago.
And I see that Bill Scott hijacked the topic to assert that everyone is rendered meaningless if their electro-chemical brain patterns don't magically teleport to an afterlife after death. So many opinions as to which afterlives there are and how to get to them, whether by deeds, by telepathically submitting to an ancient Jewish zombie, or by joining the inner circle of Mohammad. Religidiocy. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2011 : 00:06:51 [Permalink]
|
Thor.....
Uh,Thor, I think your condolences should be addressed to Dave, not Filthy.
As you kids say, jus' sayin! |
|
|
|
Sososo13
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 04/14/2013 : 06:17:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
As for Manson. Bullshit. The Tate and LaBianca murders weren't cases lacking in very strong evidence against Manson.
|
Vincent Bugliosi has always said that he never had any evidence against Manson. He just thought that he was responsible for "brainwashing" the others because he was older and from a different socio-economic class and made up a story because he's a lawyer and he can. I've done the research on him. He is corrupt and a proven liar and fraud. Horrifying. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2013 : 11:09:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sososo13
Originally posted by Kil
As for Manson. Bullshit. The Tate and LaBianca murders weren't cases lacking in very strong evidence against Manson.
|
Vincent Bugliosi has always said that he never had any evidence against Manson. He just thought that he was responsible for "brainwashing" the others because he was older and from a different socio-economic class and made up a story because he's a lawyer and he can. I've done the research on him. He is corrupt and a proven liar and fraud. Horrifying.
|
He did have evidence against Manson. Just not physical evidence. He had Linda Kasabian, who testified for 18 straight days. There were other circumstantial evidences, but Kasapian's testimony was the most damning.
Here's an interesting site on the case:
The Trial of Charles Manson
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Wow!
