MedVision ad

Life (3 Viewers)

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Another thing wrong with your initial post (apart from everything else pointed out earlier lol) is the use of the word valuable. What defines a "valuable" meaning to you? Saying something is less valuable without providing a basis on which to judge it more or less valuable is the equivalent of saying "i don't know how to refute it so I'm just gonna brush it off"

Who am I to say that if a hedonist finds meaning in their life from pursuing pleasurable activities that he is wrong? It's his life and it gives him a sense of fulfillment from it, therefore I have no basis to say his meaning is "less valuable" than mine, because his meaning clearly has more value to him than it does to me and it's his life.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
It would be nice that you quoted where you're responding to so I can know what you're saying

So now the basis of your argument is "not everything is a valid purpose"
No it isn't

However, this by no means discounts the argument that something can have multiple purposes or that said purposes can be subjective. Your argument is ridiculous because you take an extreme example that is by no means logical (no one would say the bananas statement)
What makes you say it is extreme?
You say, "it is by no means logical", what does that even mean? Of course no one would say the bananas statement, showing that there must be restriction to what can be considered a purpose

So then to say that for the purpose of life, to be nonrestrictive with it, will deplete all meaning from the word

and then somehow draw the conclusion that there has to be one universal meaning for life and that is to worship God and therefore atheists cannot have any meaning to their life. A bit absurd, isn't it?
Yeah it is a bit absurd, good thing I never made that argument or never came close to it

Similarly you're rebutting one or two ridiculous examples of how a car cannot be used but that misses the point that a car DOES have various uses depending on how the individual seeks to use it, it doesn't just have *one* overarching purpose, which was the point of your initial statement and this whole debate.
See this is the problem with you trying to focus on the analogies and not realise the message it is portraying.

I showed an example in which if one does not restrict the purposes for something, then you have lost all meaning for when someone says, "car", likewise, if you do not restrict the purposes of life, then everything becomes meaningless.

Here is the same point without an analogy so you can't avoid it (even though the same point was raised in my very first post)

- If you say that "the meaning of life is what you make of it", then people who say, "the meaning of life is mere pleasure", and "the meaning of life is helping people", and "the meaning of life is hurting other people", all of these are equally valid then, but if they are equally valid, then anything and everything goes, meaning that this "meaning" of life is meaningless

Also, even taking ur KFC example, what if someone had a caravan and they cooked inside it? Wouldn't their "car" technically be used to cook KFC? The purpose of something like a "car" or "life" is therefore entirely malleable based on how a person uses it. If literally everything had the same purpose there would be no margin for diverse methods of living or using objects for multiple different things, but it's self-evident this isn't the case when you look at society in real life.
No, the car is not cooking any KFC, the car is not used to cook KFC, a fryer and oven is used to cook KFC.

Also I don't know why you're trying to explain away the example, I can give an infinite number of examples, which is why its meaningless to let everything be valid

Your rebuttal is also invalid, because on what basis are those two people "partially correct"? That's a nonsensical concept lol, the sticks can be used for music or they can be used for fire, that means they are BOTH correct, but from different frames of reference.
No, I said that they are partially correct in the sense that they managed to say part of the purposes of a stick, but not all of them, this is obvious

The premise of your argument is flawed because you're using impossible purposes to show that there must be one *singular* purpose to life that everyone follows. Those two are not the only two possible answers, and it completely discounts the fact that meaning and purpose can be subjective, that this subjectivity does not necessarily denote impossible situations and that this by no means shows that there is one singular universal meaning to life.
Who says they are "impossible", why are they impossible? You're just closed minded, the purposes of things is what you make of it after all!

I don't care if what you talk about meaning and purpose is subjective, if that is what you meant the whole time, then you have been throwing punches at no one.

If you want to talk about "subjective meaning", then sure everything has a subjective meaning, but then you're basically saying "the meaning of life is what you make of it", and if you affirm that, then you affirm laughable conclusions


Honestly it seems like you used pseudo-intellectual ranting to shoehorn the concept of God into everything you say, which is fair enough, but to then use this as a basis to launch an attack on atheists and say they have no purpose or meaning in life is somewhat erroneous.
Yeah well what "seems" like is not true at all, this entire time you have not quoted me directly, and rather you quote my post as a whole, you are putting words into my mouth, and you are reformulating my arguments and talking about how absurd they are.

That "seems to me", to be what it is to be pseudo intellectual

To summarise the absurdity of this argument let me essentially break down your argument.

1. People don't use sticks to make bananas
2. Therefore atheists have no purpose in life
Do you really think I made that argument or are you just trolling now?

The sticks and bananas example was a refutation of your own analogy
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Oh please

Another thing wrong with your initial post (apart from everything else pointed out earlier lol) is the use of the word valuable. What defines a "valuable" meaning to you? Saying something is less valuable without providing a basis on which to judge it more or less valuable is the equivalent of saying "i don't know how to refute it so I'm just gonna brush it off"
I'm using it to show that if you say that anything goes, then everything is equally valid, and thus equally valuable.

So its equally valid to be a hedonist, or to be a psychopath, or to be Hitler, or to Mother Teresa, at least, according to the person who says, "the meaning of life is what you make of it"

Who am I to say that if a hedonist finds meaning in their life from pursuing pleasurable activities that he is wrong? It's his life and it gives him a sense of fulfillment from it, therefore I have no basis to say his meaning is "less valuable" than mine, because his meaning clearly has more value to him than it does to me and it's his life.
Thanks for proving my point then, if you really find no difference between your purpose of life and that of a hedonist, or that of a psychopath, sorry but you've just taken anything of meaning from this "meaning" of life.
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
It would be nice that you quoted where you're responding to so I can know what you're saying



No it isn't



What makes you say it is extreme?
You say, "it is by no means logical", what does that even mean? Of course no one would say the bananas statement, showing that there must be restriction to what can be considered a purpose

So then to say that for the purpose of life, to be nonrestrictive with it, will deplete all meaning from the word



Yeah it is a bit absurd, good thing I never made that argument or never came close to it



See this is the problem with you trying to focus on the analogies and not realise the message it is portraying.

I showed an example in which if one does not restrict the purposes for something, then you have lost all meaning for when someone says, "car", likewise, if you do not restrict the purposes of life, then everything becomes meaningless.

Here is the same point without an analogy so you can't avoid it (even though the same point was raised in my very first post)

- If you say that "the meaning of life is what you make of it", then people who say, "the meaning of life is mere pleasure", and "the meaning of life is helping people", and "the meaning of life is hurting other people", all of these are equally valid then, but if they are equally valid, then anything and everything goes, meaning that this "meaning" of life is meaningless



No, the car is not cooking any KFC, the car is not used to cook KFC, a fryer and oven is used to cook KFC.

Also I don't know why you're trying to explain away the example, I can give an infinite number of examples, which is why its meaningless to let everything be valid



No, I said that they are partially correct in the sense that they managed to say part of the purposes of a stick, but not all of them, this is obvious



Who says they are "impossible", why are they impossible? You're just closed minded, the purposes of things is what you make of it after all!

I don't care if what you talk about meaning and purpose is subjective, if that is what you meant the whole time, then you have been throwing punches at no one.

If you want to talk about "subjective meaning", then sure everything has a subjective meaning, but then you're basically saying "the meaning of life is what you make of it", and if you affirm that, then you affirm laughable conclusions




Yeah well what "seems" like is not true at all, this entire time you have not quoted me directly, and rather you quote my post as a whole, you are putting words into my mouth, and you are reformulating my arguments and talking about how absurd they are.

That "seems to me", to be what it is to be pseudo intellectual



Do you really think I made that argument or are you just trolling now?

The sticks and bananas example was a refutation of your own analogy
And here we go again in circles, which is often exactly what happens in debates with you and why I think most people just get sick of it eventually.

The basis of your entire argument is making a false dichotomy between "every meaning for everything is valid" and "life must have a single universal meaning in worshipping God and therefore atheists have no meaning in life"

What I have been trying to point out (repeatedly) is that such a dichotomy does not exist, that it is absurd to narrow it down to that dichotomy, that "subjective meaning" and everyone attaching their own purpose to their own lives is not the equivalent of saying that all possible meanings (that no one actually says mind you) are valid, that the fact that everything has one singular purpose or that life has one singular purpose is completely absurd when u consider practically everything has multiple uses to different people, that statements such as what is valuable etc. in terms of meaning are themselves subjective and not a basis for disregarding someone's meaning of life and that your entire argument is based on presupposing that meaning or purpose in life HAS to be universal because you personally cannot comprehend value in a life that doesn't worship God.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
1. That isn't what he said. He said atheists have "no meaning in life" since to him, the only basis of meaning in life is worshipping God.
Well that wasn't my reasoning process, my argument didn't even try to claim that the meaning of life is to worship God, lol.
I just said, "my answer to the question is worshipping God", I didn't say, "due to what I said above, therefore the meaning of life is to worship God".

2. How is religion any less of an abstraction than atheist morals? Saying religion is more concrete is already presupposing that God exists and that religion is right, but an atheist would contend that religion is simply a construct by man in which case those who follow religion are simply following an abstraction that is someone else's.
Sure an atheist can contend that, but then that is a different debate, point being is that the atheist is demonstrably wrong.

3. Nihilism is different from moral relativism so again, that statement that atheists are essentially nihilists is also incorrect
They are very similar

taking a proper definition of moral relativism, essentially then it is true that there is no objective right or objective wrong.
Nihilism is the point that there is no right or wrong.

So the relativist, excitedly says, "but what about subjective moral right or wrong?"

Subjective right and wrong basically means one's opinion, which basically means Hitler was only wrong due to our opinion, and that on Hitler's opinion, he was right, and in fact our opinion is as valid as Hitler

lol
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Oh please



I'm using it to show that if you say that anything goes, then everything is equally valid, and thus equally valuable.

So its equally valid to be a hedonist, or to be a psychopath, or to be Hitler, or to Mother Teresa, at least, according to the person who says, "the meaning of life is what you make of it"



Thanks for proving my point then, if you really find no difference between your purpose of life and that of a hedonist, or that of a psychopath, sorry but you've just taken anything of meaning from this "meaning" of life.
what is valid then?

Are you saying that a hedonist, psychopath etc. have no meaning to their lives? Just because it's not in line with yours?

Since when does "meaning" have to be valuable? What is a "valuable" meaning? So things cannot serve any purpose beyond what certain people such as yourself deem valuable or valid? Like sticks cannot possibly ever logically be used to create fire because someone such as yourself might believe another use of them is more valid or valuable?
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Well that wasn't my reasoning process, my argument didn't even try to claim that the meaning of life is to worship God, lol.
I just said, "my answer to the question is worshipping God", I didn't say, "due to what I said above, therefore the meaning of life is to worship God".



Sure an atheist can contend that, but then that is a different debate, point being is that the atheist is demonstrably wrong.



They are very similar

taking a proper definition of moral relativism, essentially then it is true that there is no objective right or objective wrong.
Nihilism is the point that there is no right or wrong.

So the relativist, excitedly says, "but what about subjective moral right or wrong?"

Subjective right and wrong basically means one's opinion, which basically means Hitler was only wrong due to our opinion, and that on Hitler's opinion, he was right, and in fact our opinion is as valid as Hitler

lol
"atheists can't have meaning in life"

lol isn't that essentially the same as saying they can't have meaning in life because they don't worship God?

Yes an atheist can contend that and no the yare not demonstrably wrong because you have literally not demonstrated how they are wrong, you're just saying it lol. And it isn't a different debate at all, because to an atheist, you're essentially using man-made principles just like them, the only difference is they derived their's independently and you get yours from people a thousand years ago.

This is another huge flaw in your debate, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of moral relativism, anyone with any remote knowledge of how it works would be able to see how nihilism and moral relativism are not in fact the same thing. I would suggest you read up on such concepts before you argue against them.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Are you unable to actually quote which parts of my post who are responding to?
You are firing blindly and no one knows which target you're aiming at.


And here we go again in circles, which is often exactly what happens in debates with you and why I think most people just get sick of it eventually.
Oh wow how convenient that I always make circular arguments, and it happens all the time!

Yeah how about you demonstrate my circularity and showing exactly how I presuppose my conclusion in my premises before you start accusing people of fallacious claims

The basis of your entire argument is making a false dichotomy between "every meaning for everything is valid" and "life must have a single universal meaning in worshipping God and therefore atheists have no meaning in life"
I guess you didn't read my post right?

I make a dichotomy between (as I've repeated myself)

"the meaning of life is what you make of it", and "there is a meaning of life", I said, if you affirm the latter, then you are already taking any real meaning out of the statement. As I repeated myself, if you say that the meaning of life of a hedonist, psychopath, a Hitler, and a Mother Teresa are the same, you have depleted any meaning from the question


What I have been trying to point out (repeatedly) is that such a dichotomy does not exist,
Yeah great, what a silly argument to make, good thing I didn't make it and all this time you've been putting words into my mouth

that it is absurd to narrow it down to that dichotomy, that "subjective meaning" and everyone attaching their own purpose to their own lives is not the equivalent of saying that all possible meanings (that no one actually says mind you) are valid, that the fact that everything has one singular purpose or that life has one singular purpose is completely absurd when u consider practically everything has multiple uses to different people, that statements such as what is valuable etc. in terms of meaning are themselves subjective and not a basis for disregarding someone's meaning of life and that your entire argument is based on presupposing that meaning or purpose in life HAS to be universal because you personally cannot comprehend value in a life that doesn't worship God.
I already asked what you mean by "universal", and you have failed to give a definition, either you did not read my post, or you have no definition and you are using it willy nilly
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'm actually dumbfounded that a glorified "believe in God because everyone else is wrong!" post dressed up as an intellectual response got that many likes and I'm actually curious as to how many of those people actually read it and thought about it
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Are you unable to actually quote which parts of my post who are responding to?
You are firing blindly and no one knows which target you're aiming at.




Oh wow how convenient that I always make circular arguments, and it happens all the time!

Yeah how about you demonstrate my circularity and showing exactly how I presuppose my conclusion in my premises before you start accusing people of fallacious claims



I guess you didn't read my post right?

I make a dichotomy between (as I've repeated myself)

"the meaning of life is what you make of it", and "there is a meaning of life", I said, if you affirm the latter, then you are already taking any real meaning out of the statement. As I repeated myself, if you say that the meaning of life of a hedonist, psychopath, a Hitler, and a Mother Teresa are the same, you have depleted any meaning from the question




Yeah great, what a silly argument to make, good thing I didn't make it and all this time you've been putting words into my mouth



I already asked what you mean by "universal", and you have failed to give a definition, either you did not read my post, or you have no definition and you are using it willy nilly
in bold are the parts i highlighted to show how essentially half your post is just saying the other person's opinion is invalid without actually demonstrating how

I already told you how your reasoning is circular, you presuppose that meaning has to be universal (no i don't have to define it because you literally say meaning is objective which by definition makes it universal) and then use this to argue that meaning is universal lol.

It is convenient for you because what I have come to realise is yoou just repeat it over and over till people get sick of arguing with you and just give up which is what I'm on the verge of doing right now lol, it's honestly not worth the effort if you're so adamant in refusing to acknowledge the flaws in what you said.

And lol I did and that dichotomy is exactly the same as the one i said you established. It is EXACTLY the same haha.

Not to mention you still haven't actually provided any substance to what you said because you throw around words like "valuable" and "valid" without defining them by any objective measure.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
what is valid then?
that which is true/ok

Are you saying that a hedonist, psychopath etc. have no meaning to their lives? Just because it's not in line with yours?
yea

Since when does "meaning" have to be valuable? What is a "valuable" meaning? So things cannot serve any purpose beyond what certain people such as yourself deem valuable or valid? Like sticks cannot possibly ever logically be used to create fire because someone such as yourself might believe another use of them is more valid or valuable?
Well I just told you what I meant by valuable, thanks for repeating yourself
 

enoilgam

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,904
Location
Mare Crisium
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
1. That isn't what he said. He said atheists have "no meaning in life" since to him, the only basis of meaning in life is worshipping God.
2. How is religion any less of an abstraction than atheist morals? Saying religion is more concrete is already presupposing that God exists and that religion is right, but an atheist would contend that religion is simply a construct by man in which case those who follow religion are simply following an abstraction that is someone else's.
3. Nihilism is different from moral relativism so again, that statement that atheists are essentially nihilists is also incorrect
Whether God actually exists or not is irrelevant to what I'm saying, because a "believer" will trace their beliefs back to an ultimate source which to them is real. In contrast, an atheist develops morals on the basis of whatever they believe is right - which are essentially abstractions. In other words, a believer's morals are based on direct commands of a higher power (again whether the higher power exists is irrelevant, what the person believes is), an atheist bases them on human abstractions.

When I look at an atheists views I see them as being nihlistic, because their morals are abstractly contrived, they dont inherently exist.

I'm actually dumbfounded that a glorified "believe in God because everyone else is wrong!" post dressed up as an intellectual response got that many likes and I'm actually curious as to how many of those people actually read it and thought about it
I like it because it's different and because it raises some interesting points.
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Essentially for those ceebs to read all of what was said, im arguing the possibility that the meaning of life is determined by the individual, that there isn't necessarily one overarching meaning of life that is the same for everyone. Life isn't some process independent of us, we use the life we have jsut the same way we use tools and cars and objects and we attribute purposes to these things based on our own individual aims.

Just the way two sticks can be used for a plethora of things, how we live our lives and to what purpose we live them is possibly dependent on how we ourselves wish to live them and what our own aims and values are. And that it is erroneous to declare that atheists have no meaning in life or purpose simply because they don't believe they have one overarching purpose in worshipping God.
 

Sy123

This too shall pass
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
"atheists can't have meaning in life"

lol isn't that essentially the same as saying they can't have meaning in life because they don't worship God?
yea

Yes an atheist can contend that and no the yare not demonstrably wrong because you have literally not demonstrated how they are wrong, you're just saying it lol. And it isn't a different debate at all, because to an atheist, you're essentially using man-made principles just like them, the only difference is they derived their's independently and you get yours from people a thousand years ago.
Yeah, that's a different debate, we aren't getting into that here

"man made principles"

Please show what "man-made principles" that I'm using

This is another huge flaw in your debate, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of moral relativism, anyone with any remote knowledge of how it works would be able to see how nihilism and moral relativism are not in fact the same thing. I would suggest you read up on such concepts before you argue against them.
No, in that post I accurately said what moral relativism and despite your handwaving I showed how moral relativism and nihilism are different in name only and in the fundamentals they are the same, i.e. they deny objective moral values.

If you think there is subjective morality, then you think Hitler's morality was just as valid as our morality
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
that which is true/ok


yea



Well I just told you what I meant by valuable, thanks for repeating yourself
lol how is hedonism not a "truth"? Does pleasure not exist? What makes "truth" more valuable or valid over other concepts such as happiness?
 

asparagus

Active Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
139
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Does everyone *have* to have the same purpose in life? Surely it isn't counter-intuitive, as u imply, considering that if everyone has their own individual life they have their own individual aspirations and aims and thus attach their own individual purpose and meaning to it?
i think the aim is to set yourself challenges and do things that challenge and fulfil you.
 

Kiraken

RISK EVERYTHING
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
1,908
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
yea



Yeah, that's a different debate, we aren't getting into that here

"man made principles"

Please show what "man-made principles" that I'm using



No, in that post I accurately said what moral relativism and despite your handwaving I showed how moral relativism and nihilism are different in name only and in the fundamentals they are the same, i.e. they deny objective moral values.

If you think there is subjective morality, then you think Hitler's morality was just as valid as our morality
It was more valid to *him* which is essentially the point
 

Swaan

Stupid Fat Hobbit
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
397
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
i think the aim is to set yourself challenges and do things that challenge and fulfil you.
But Sy is arguing that unless worshiping God is the basis of said challenges and fulfillments then there is no meaning to them nor your life in general
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top