|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 27, 2017 13:25:15 GMT
I kind of agree with the life is meaningless so you give yourself your own meaning to it belief. We only have a purpose if we give ourselves one ..I guess? lol I dont really know I disagree with this depressing philosophy.
Life has value automatically and we can add or subtract to it depending on our actions.
However, even if we lived life aimlessly, one would still gain joys from it.
We can test out the notion that life has meaning by the reactions people have to it ending...Even when they are strangers.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Mar 27, 2017 17:14:17 GMT
I kind of agree with the life is meaningless so you give yourself your own meaning to it belief. We only have a purpose if we give ourselves one ..I guess? lol I dont really know I disagree with this depressing philosophy.
Life has value automatically and we can add or subtract to it depending on our actions.
However, even if we lived life aimlessly, one would still gain joys from it.
We can test out the notion that life has meaning by the reactions people have to it ending...Even when they are strangers.
Monica is referring to inherent meaning or purpose. You're talking about value or worth. Everyone has inherent value, if not for the parents, then for potential beneficial acts they may perform later. Every Christian I've known believes God has a plan for everyone and we were sent here to fulfill that plan. Atheists don't believe we were sent here by anyone for a specific purpose. So any purpose we may have in our lives is created by ourselves. It would only be depressing to me if I had chosen to never do anything beneficial for others and refused to love and be loved.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 27, 2017 17:17:42 GMT
I disagree with this depressing philosophy.
Life has value automatically and we can add or subtract to it depending on our actions.
However, even if we lived life aimlessly, one would still gain joys from it.
We can test out the notion that life has meaning by the reactions people have to it ending...Even when they are strangers.
Monica is referring to inherent meaning or purpose. You're talking about value or worth. Everyone has inherent value, if not for the parents, then for potential beneficial acts they may perform later. Every Christian I've known believes God has a plan for everyone and we were sent here to fulfill that plan. Atheists don't believe we were sent here by anyone for a specific purpose. So any purpose we may have in our lives is created by ourselves. It would only be depressing to me if I had chosen to never do anything beneficial for others and refused to love and be loved.
I think value and purpose are interconnected.
I think finding meaning or purpose in life is can be easier once we realize how much value we automatically hold even from strangers.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 27, 2017 20:58:35 GMT
I disagree with this depressing philosophy.
Life has value automatically and we can add or subtract to it depending on our actions.
However, even if we lived life aimlessly, one would still gain joys from it.
We can test out the notion that life has meaning by the reactions people have to it ending...Even when they are strangers.
Monica is referring to inherent meaning or purpose. You're talking about value or worth. Everyone has inherent value, if not for the parents, then for potential beneficial acts they may perform later. Every Christian I've known believes God has a plan for everyone and we were sent here to fulfill that plan. Atheists don't believe we were sent here by anyone for a specific purpose. So any purpose we may have in our lives is created by ourselves. It would only be depressing to me if I had chosen to never do anything beneficial for others and refused to love and be loved.
Well said, Sulla.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 27, 2017 21:31:23 GMT
a story that leads to a testimony.
Hard to fathom the billions of humans we know have existed, and that may or may not include the aborted babies, but if so, their testimony would mean that the principalities at play work even in the womb, which I'm sure they do, but I don't know if it involves the unborn.
When we meet the holy God, of whom we know only the holy Ghost of here, we will testify of those principalities. Sure, he's sent all fallen angels to the pit, but that's his time line, not ours. As far as he's concerned, we've already testified, if you believe he is the omnipotent and all powerful.
It isn't far afield from the Native American folk tale of the two bears, and which one we meet. It's the one we "feed". As "meter readers", we read the meter here, in the box of Satan, and when we're done, if we truly enjoy Satan, why we can stay with him. There are many we both know who think they'll get a reward.
That's not to say we're saints. Peter was the first pick for usage of the holy ghost, which Jesus used only to heal and do miracles, yet the first act of Peter was to taint the holy ghost by calling a demon to kill two people. That's just what it was. The holy ghost of Jesus never did that. Peter gave power to demons, and we've probably all done that in our ignorance.
The point is not that we like sin, but that those who want to feed Satan are the ones who "like" to "like sin". That's the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 21:53:48 GMT
Monica is referring to inherent meaning or purpose. You're talking about value or worth. Everyone has inherent value, if not for the parents, then for potential beneficial acts they may perform later. Every Christian I've known believes God has a plan for everyone and we were sent here to fulfill that plan. Atheists don't believe we were sent here by anyone for a specific purpose. So any purpose we may have in our lives is created by ourselves. It would only be depressing to me if I had chosen to never do anything beneficial for others and refused to love and be loved.
Well said, Sulla. But I said it first!! 😂
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 28, 2017 12:34:16 GMT
...a leaf on the wind. Some soar higher but all eventually fall.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 28, 2017 17:49:43 GMT
a story that leads to a testimony.
Hard to fathom the billions of humans we know have existed, and that may or may not include the aborted babies, but if so, their testimony would mean that the principalities at play work even in the womb, which I'm sure they do, but I don't know if it involves the unborn.
When we meet the holy God, of whom we know only the holy Ghost of here, we will testify of those principalities. Sure, he's sent all fallen angels to the pit, but that's his time line, not ours. As far as he's concerned, we've already testified, if you believe he is the omnipotent and all powerful.
It isn't far afield from the Native American folk tale of the two bears, and which one we meet. It's the one we "feed". As "meter readers", we read the meter here, in the box of Satan, and when we're done, if we truly enjoy Satan, why we can stay with him. There are many we both know who think they'll get a reward.
That's not to say we're saints. Peter was the first pick for usage of the holy ghost, which Jesus used only to heal and do miracles, yet the first act of Peter was to taint the holy ghost by calling a demon to kill two people. That's just what it was. The holy ghost of Jesus never did that. Peter gave power to demons, and we've probably all done that in our ignorance.
The point is not that we like sin, but that those who want to feed Satan are the ones who "like" to "like sin". That's the difference.
You don't think Ananias and Sapphira brought their fate on themselves?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 19:21:08 GMT
Wat.
People think a demon killed them?
I've heard theophobiacs accuse Peter of killing them when trying to contradict me about Doctrine being peaceful, but that's a new one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 19:35:02 GMT
Life has value automatically and we can add or subtract to it depending on our actions.
What do you mean by "automatically"?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 19:40:05 GMT
From the dictionary.com
4. occurring spontaneously
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 19:42:33 GMT
How do you know that life has such value?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 19:45:19 GMT
It's my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 20:45:22 GMT
I kind of agree with the life is meaningless so you give yourself your own meaning to it belief. We only have a purpose if we give ourselves one ..I guess? lol I dont really know I disagree with this depressing philosophy.
Life has value automatically and we can add or subtract to it depending on our actions.
However, even if we lived life aimlessly, one would still gain joys from it.
We can test out the notion that life has meaning by the reactions people have to it ending...Even when they are strangers.
Experiences have value, and suffering has value. Most animal life (including human lives) constitute a constant struggle for survival, although as a presumably middle class American, you generalise your own life experience to that of the entire world's population. Instinctually, life is perceived to be a desirable thing because of our inbuilt fear of death (without this, our species would die out), even though objectively it is an extremely risky and dangerous proposition. This explains why death is generally considered to be the worst thing that could happen - all of our instincts are built on rejecting death, it has nothing to do with a dispassionate evaluation of how good life usually is. We wouldn't feel deprived of it if we never had it to begin with, and there's no evidence to suggest we'll miss it after our mortal life has ended. It's basically a lottery, except unlike a normal lottery, you're actually penalised savagely if you draw a bad ticket, and someone else gets to decide to enter you into this lottery (gambling with the wellbeing of a sentient organism) without your consent.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 21:20:27 GMT
@miccee
Most animal life (including human lives) constitute a constant struggle for survival, although as a presumably middle class American, you generalise your own life experience to that of the entire world's population.
I would never do that. I know I'm living way better than probably 90% of the planet.
Also, value is not desire. The life of a suicidal person still has value even if they don't think it has any. The same applies to people who may think that value and meaning are somehow dependent on what we do with it despite the reality that we may have no control over what happens overall to our life.
I am saying that no matter how we view our own lives, there is value to it if for no other reason than that so many others, people we don't even know, think of it as valuable.
This explains why death is generally considered to be the worst thing that could happen - all of our instincts are built on rejecting death, it has nothing to do with a dispassionate evaluation of how good life usually is.
I don't know if death is the worst thing, but in the majority of circumstances, death does suck which is why no normal person facing non-terminal aches and pains can pick a good time to croak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 22:09:11 GMT
@miccee I would never do that. I know I'm living way better than probably 90% of the planet. Also, value is not desire. The life of a suicidal person still has value even if they don't think it has any. The same applies to people who may think that value and meaning are somehow dependent on what we do with it despite the reality that we may have no control over what happens overall to our life. I am saying that no matter how we view our own lives, there is value to it if for no other reason than that so many others, people we don't even know, think of it as valuable. You generalised life earlier on as a "3 star out of 4 star movie". But I'm glad that you have some perspective. Life's really harsh for most people in the world. You can argue that life still has value in the eyes of others, and that is true, but it is selfish to bring a life into the world because it is going to add positive value to your life; even when there is a significant risk that the owner of the life will ascribe a strongly negative value to it. And people feel sad about the death of someone that they didn't know mainly because it reminds them of the fragility of their own life, and it triggers that troublesome fear of death that they normally manage to keep tamped down in their subconscious - the individual who dies has merely symbolic value to someone who didn't know them personally. I don't know about "normal" (because slavery to our instincts is certainly typical, but that does not make it commendable, and "normal" is kind of a term that implies that typical behaviour is morally exemplary); but it is certainly completely rational to choose to die for any reason that satisfies the one who chooses. This is based on the principle of avoidance of present and/or future suffering. Death sucks for the ones who are left behind to mourn; and a life badly lived is a greater tragedy than any death.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 23:25:45 GMT
@miccee
I'm pretty sure we have already had a conversation in which I made it pretty clear that there are more people content with life than not.
However, my comment about life being a 3 star movie had nothing to do with social/financial status.
it is selfish to bring a life into the world because it is going to add positive value to your life
Agreed, however there is nothing wrong at all with bringing a life into this world when it is mutually beneficial. Selfishness is not synonymous with desire and want.
it is certainly completely rational to choose to die for any reason that satisfies the one who chooses.
So even irrational reasons are rational reasons for suicide? If a dude is trying to shoot the gophers nesting in his brain, that would be a perfectly rational reason simply becauae the dude chooses it?
Interesting...
In any event, it doesn't change the notion of that person's life having value. Whether they realize it or not is irrelevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 7:31:35 GMT
@miccee I'm pretty sure we have already had a conversation in which I made it pretty clear that there are more people content with life than not. However, my comment about life being a 3 star movie had nothing to do with social/financial status. I think that we did have such a conversation, but I can't remember what dataset you used to corroborate this belief (expressing your opinion alone does not constitute making the facts clear). The problem is that the unborn child doesn't need any of the benefits that the parents believe that they can bestow. The benefits of life only become meaningful or relevant when one already has life. The benefits are the solutions to the problem, if you will. If you don't create the problem in the first place, then there will be no need of a solution. Furthermore, the parent is determining whether the potential benefits are worth the potential risk of great harm; which makes it a lottery that they play on behalf of someone who cannot consent. So it is rather hard to spin it as a non-selfish act, unless you believe that there are such things as human souls floating out somewhere in the ether, desirous of life and awaiting their opportunity to be born into a human body. Well, the man in that scenario is likely suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Which, from what I have learned, is absolutely the pits. If he is trying to shoot the gophers out, but isn't intending to kill himself, then that would be an irrational reason to shoot himself (although such a situation would be extremely rare). If he wants to die because his paranoid delusions are causing him intense mental distress, then that would be rational, and should be sanctioned and assisted by the government. I wouldn't object to a rule that said that it would be required for him to seek treatment for the condition first for a certain period of time. But if that treatment were to be unsuccessful, or if for any reason he was still desirous of suicide after a set period of treatment, then he should be entitled to assistance. I have no difficulty accepting that a human life may have subjective value in the estimation of other humans. However, if there was only 1 sentient life form left on Earth, then that lifeform's value would be the same as its own estimation of its value (whether good, bad or indifferent). Life has subjective value; but it has no intrinsic value and a barren universe would be no worse off than one that was teeming with life.
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Mar 29, 2017 8:38:19 GMT
Personally, I see it as kind of like the Kobayashi Maru test......but with a few significant differences. What do YOU think? Is there any point to it? Is it all about gratification of the material self? Or is there more going on? Thats a bit sad that you feel life is a no win situation. What about all the people who do pretty well in life, and enjoy their lives? Point? I dont see an external point, outside of whatever point anyone wants to give it. No one is ever truly happy.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 29, 2017 9:20:37 GMT
Thats a bit sad that you feel life is a no win situation. What about all the people who do pretty well in life, and enjoy their lives? Point? I dont see an external point, outside of whatever point anyone wants to give it. No one is ever truly happy. Disagree.
|
|