Fate 2010-03-02 12:13:43

You're a darn machine.
:P
You're incredible.
Everywhere I look on Newgrounds, no matter how buried in the system it is, YOU'VE reviewed it.
Blows my mind.

Bacchanalian 2010-03-05 03:12:55

Would you like to have a sincere, tactful, and genuine discussion regarding meaning and purpose with relation to atheism?

Bacchanalian 2010-03-05 23:23:53

"Something has no meaning if it is here just because which is us in this case, so there is no reason at all for any of us to live as we make no impact on a cosmic scale of any importance."

First, let's distinguish meaning from purpose. Meaning is a condition derived from integration. Purpose is a condition derived from intent. Thus, purpose is a kind of meaning, and is often used interchangeably with meaning. When you say a thing has no meaning, do you mean to say explicitly that it has no purpose, or that it actually lacks meaning all together?

Bacchanalian 2010-03-06 23:24:52

"I mean that it actually lacks meaning all together. I had no idea there was a difference."

It is possible to describe the significance of a thing independent of its purpose, assuming you can hold anything as significant without purpose. And here we start to see a circular condition develop: the perception of the evidence is framed by the conclusion derived from well, the perception of the evidence.

However, on the atheist end of things, the condition that it is actually possible to describe significance independent of purpose is the result of an acknowledgement of human limitation: the inability to know absolutes. There is not proof of effect without purpose, unless you have some I'm unaware of.

And it is certainly possible to enumerate effect without having to define purpose, as the two are syntactically different. A baseball bat in motion has intrinsic effects on the air and potential target it displaces. It has intrinsic significance, which can be employed to pursue purposes. Even though the bat was manufactured for a purpose, that purpose is not intrinsic to the bat - as the bat could very well not be used for that purpose and used for some other purpose. Even if you abstract the purpose of a bat to be "to hit things" you still rely on the intrinsic significance of a bat to pursue that purpose.

VainZ 2010-03-08 17:53:10

/\
/ \
/ \
| |
| |
| |

Queer.

Bacchanalian 2010-03-08 23:29:09

: I do not understand this bat analogy.

How do you identify a physical thing? Taste, touch, sight, sound, smell. In order for you to taste, tough, see, hear, or smell a thing it must have an effect on - *a relationship with* - the world. Purpose is one such relationship, but it's one of several that make a thing what it is.

Everything that exists has intrinsic significance. A thing with no intrinsic significance does not exist.

Purpose is not intrinsic. It is defined by a sentient being. (The baseball bat can be used for several things, and still remains a baseball bat).

: While it is true this bat could find purpose besides from what it was made for, the human race has no creator (according to atheists) so it had no purpose to begin with, which negates all purpose it could gain from anything.

1. I'm talking about significance, of which purpose is one part.

2. How (explicitly) does the lack of a divine purpose negate the existence of any number of other purposes?

Bacchanalian 2010-03-09 14:16:37

: 1. [...] but there is still no purpose.

Well we're getting to that

: 2. If something has no reason for being there, there is simply no reason for it to do anything. You could try to make a purpose up, but that is exactly what God is, which leads us back to the original argument.

Wait a sec. If I use the baseball bat to hit a baseball, I am prescribing the bat a purpose (the purpose to hit a baseball). There's a purpose right there. You're saying that purpose doesn't count. Let's be precise about this ok?

I'm asking why a human-prescribed purpose doesn't matter. Ok, we've gone from a specific instance to a general rule, but how/why does that rule make sense? What is the rationale behind it?

Bacchanalian 2010-03-09 14:33:03

Actually one more thing...

: If something has no reason for being there, there is simply no reason for it to do anything.

We have proof that things happen for a number of reasons. As far as I know, we have not proven the nth degree of it, which is what you're positing.

Bacchanalian 2010-03-09 16:10:46

: There is at least some kind of branch of science somewhere that explains in great detail exactly how the world came to be and how it works and that's great.

However there is a limit to that knowledge, and what you posit inhabits a point beyond that limit (the nth degree).

: We do not know ''why'' these things happen which is where God comes in. There's a big difference between asking "How do cats purr?" and "Why do cats purr?".

Do not call this a failing of my logic when you said, "If something has no reason for being there, there is simply no reason for it to do anything." Such a statement can regard both how and why, as causality is indeed a type of reason, as how can very well be included in why. Don't be so quick to step up on your pedestal, eh?

There is a difference between how and why. I'm not operating on the principle that they are the same thing.

Now, you have another thing to explain. Why/how does a lack of prescribed reason (i.e. purpose) negate a causal reason?

Bacchanalian 2010-03-10 13:52:14

: It negates a causal reason because you are trying to make something from nothing (no purpose) and there is no way something can derive from nothing.

Causal reason divorced from prescribed reason is exactly the opposite of something from nothing. Prescribed reason is only causal as an impetus. And an impetus does not constitute something as applied in "something from nothing."

Maybe you can explain how purpose constitutes something?

: If you honestly go with this philosophy, how do you know that God is but another purpose made up by people that gives meaning into their lives just like any other made up thing could give meaning to their lives?

God is a purpose we make up for ourselves regardless of whether or not God is absolutely real. To argue otherwise would be to argue against free will.

Bacchanalian 2010-03-14 17:43:47

: If we do not know if God is absolutely real, then how do we know that meaning is absolutely real?

That's a good question that people should ask themselves, particularly people who posit absolutes.

: God is made up to have purpose the exact same way anything else is created to have purpose. Therefore, belief in God serves a purpose.

Belief in God absolutely serves a purpose. We're not debating that. We're debating whether or not atheism precludes purpose as well as significance. Maybe we should get back to that? There are plenty of things you haven't yet answered.

GI-Ganondorf 2010-03-21 05:45:49

Where is One Piece?

Sensationalism 2010-03-22 09:18:24

UOTD yaayy!!

ChandlerThompson 2010-03-22 16:37:37

Congrats on being user of the day!