Rather than speculate the purpose of god, we should first speculate purpose. Life, being a subjective experience, is an act of faith. Faith is entirely subjective as it is based on the imaginary interpretation and inner-manifestation of perceived 'reality'. 'Real' as this universe may be, our interpretations provide no truth, no evidence, no factual basis upon which collective reasoning could agree on our purpose as a species. This is true because of one consistent aspect of our sensory perception-fed reasoning: inconsistency. Our minds are simply unreliable. That being said, some conclusions can be made, but without first knowing the 'what' of a thing, the 'why' is unattainable, and our lives have no meaning unless we know what we are, what our universe is. We do not know, because there is no evidence to support the exact truth, the necessity of the 'what'. Therefore debating the 'why', or assuming the 'why', however natural a course of action, is pointless, and is really only a self-admittance that one has closed one's mind off to the truth, however unknowable it may be. Therefore, I have concluded that this sub-forum has no purpose, or value, since no human is truly capable of an objective perspective, aside from the perspective that refuses to reach a resolution. The only logical approach a person on this religion sub-forum could possibly have, is an approach that seeks to show religious people that religion is not objective, and therefore does not qualify as a debate topic. ...But even that approach itself would be a self-defeating conundrum, powerless to effect those who are immune to reason, withdrawn into delusions, obsessed with an imaginary construct intended to provide a sense of security and shelter where none exists. "The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an idee fixe by no means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves no mountains, but instead raises them up where there were none before: all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a lunatic asylum . Not , of course, to a priest: for his instincts prompt him to the lie that sickness is not sickness and lunatic asylums not lunatic asylums. Christianity finds sickness necessary , just as the Greek spirit had need of a superabundance of health the actual ulterior purpose of the whole system of salvation of the church is to make people ill. And the church itself doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal? The whole earth as a madhouse?" - Friedrich Nietzsche
no it aint. The per se, after-life in many described forms, can be considered speculative but the life of mass, is real. Ie.... You created your post, dude. by an act of choice. bull Instinct shares the 'purpose' of the life: to live. you've learned not to trust yourself, from others and your own failings. It is good to be humble, but sorry, mankind is capable and mankind is learning of what it is. ie... knowledge is evolving, as we speak YOU are energy (light) upon mass. YOU live within the UNIVERSE, which is comprised of three main parts, that can be defined so that the 'mass, energy, time' of natures living process, can comprehend 'itself'. ie... mankind created words (math) and are describing 'itself'. bull ie... "what' kind of computer are you tapping on? "what' is the life of your mass? (you know now) 'why' is the subjective inquiry as you cant even ask it without qualifying 'why' you want the answer. (tm) asking 'why' is like wanting to know a beginning and ending, but could never experience either, unless at the same time. 'WE" live within the start and end, why is subjective and how is the process to define, (within the 2 points of time). YOUr purpose is to live. The actions you cause to exist, are the energy that you impose to existence, and of YOUR choice. good: (actions a life can impose to exist) support life to continue (you will live in the wake of your living choice) bad: loss to the common (selfish; like a drop in the ocean, that dont think it is a part of it, trying to jump out)
Well, I am glad that you think this sub-foru is valueless because everyone, but apparently you, lacks objective perspective - and then you end by calling everyone else ... basically brain dead? Well, a reminder that there is one thing that Nietzsche feared would completely undermind what was a legitimate rebuttal to the religion of his time (yep religion is not monolithic, it ebbs and flaws to, sometimes for good, and sometimes not). What he feared was teh nihilistic tendancies of atheism. He feared that, rather being a discourse based on reason and powerful insight, that it would instead become just a general, and eventually self defeating, bland set of attackers whose behavior would completely undermind what he believed to be a very reasonable cirtique of religion - neither assumptions in Nietzsche's case were based on anything other than honest assesment of BOTH sides of the debate. We well understands the weaknesses and shortcomings of religion - but so too did he see, and greatly fear, that the weaknesses of atheism would undermine any pretense to the rational arguement that he was making. In short, he used the hegelian dialectic to drive both religion and atheism forward - believing that debate was a sharpening tool. And now, as we see this forum clogged with atheists routinely comparing theists to terrorists, slavers, and rapists ... when we see this 'cirtique' of religion: "In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god. Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody." http://atheists.org/religion Well, one wonders whether Nietzsche would ever declare a section of a debate forum off limits? Or whether his cirtique of religion would remain unchanged as religion has evovled, as efforts to harmonize science a religion proceed, or whether he would be most angry at atheists whose dehumanizing antics do so much to undermine the logical course he fought to take? As pleased as I am to see Nietsche rather than the bland dumping of the Problem of Evil on the forum, a reminder ... Nietzsche cuts both ways ...
the 'self-defeating' is that when the religions are gone, atheism wont be a sect. Not that they harm themselves. The religious do that. The religious represent the beasts the theology keeps suggesting. is there anyone that would disagree with the bold part? does anyone disagree with the bold part? And so a 'theist' is assisting others, either of theism or not, to see just how harsh reality is to enable truth. He has offered each of us to material information on atheism, that most of us have no idea about, but it makes sense, when each are honest with themselves. The theist is enabling others to evolve. Or clearly, his actions are assisting people to evolve beyond beliefs. a)... bad example of a good person: too much false witness, b) .... that atheist material claims, from atheist sites, given by a theist, have more merit that most of us actually ever gave them (sect-atheists) credit for. Proven once again: "Most atheist are evolved theist!" nah, he ould rip the idiots apart and make fools of them like some, already do!
