Greetings Callum,
I don't have that much time so I'm just going to respond to some of your main points here and make my post a little bit more brief (maybe that's a good thing :D )
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
You can use me to sharpen your debating skills (which are very good, I might add). On another forum I got told off for "hijacking" a thread arguing about George W Bush with another person.
Thanks for your nice comments. :) Don't worry, I'm enjoying this discussion.
I would ask this question: Who says life has to have a purpose? It's certainly not obvious to me that this must be the case.
You are indeed representing the position of most atheists that there is no purpose in life. Despite the fact that such a belief is problematic for all those who are sufferring around the world and wonder at the reason behind their sufferring, and for those who wonder at the goals of humanity, and for those who believe that we are more than a mass of chemical reactions, I would like to focus on whether such a belief is plausible or not.
The purpose is the reason for which something came into existence, and continues to exist. To deny any purpose in life is to say that the cause of our existence was purely accidental. (I would rather discuss this point in greater detail in a thread on the existence of God)
It logically follows that as we have come into existence by accident, there is no significance to our existence and therefore no action of ours can cause either harm or good. It may be percieved as harmful or good by those around us, but in the grand scheme of the universe, it makes no difference, it is neutral. Hence, according to such a view there is absoloutely nothing wrong with exploiting others for one's own benefits as any pain and suffering experienced by others is as insignificant and meaningless as their pleasure and joy. Such a philosophy can be disastrous for humanity. It aids in understanding the staggering statistics on suicides and homicides in the world, but particularly in materialist societies.
There are two kinds of living thing in the world, plants and animals.
Are you grouping archaebacteria, protists, eubacteria, and fungi with plants? :D
I believe the purpose of life for humans (I would rather call it the aim of life) is the same as the purpose of life for whales, horses, and other animals: to survive and reproduce.
Now you seem reluctant about your previous position that there is no purpose in life so you cite the evolutionary aim in life. Yet survival is not a purpose as mentioned in the referred article which said "living is not an end by itself". Survival means continuing to live, so the purpose of life is to continue to live? Its analogous to saying that the purpose of a light is to keep it on.
This could include making friends and getting on with people - useful skills for surival.
Sure, social skills can get you a better job and lifestyle, but it could just as easily decrease your chances of survival. It's influence on one's life is as unpredicatable as life itself.
As I said before, the idea that the purpose of life is a mystery does not upset me at all.
Now you resign to the position that you simply do not know the purpose of your existence, and consequently you know not whether you are fulfilling the purpose of your existence or not.
but I think you will find that most atheists applaud the moral systems of Islam, Christianity and other religions.
This was the point I was referring to that I found rare, not the banking position. I have found most atheists to be much more skeptical of religion and doubtful of any system built on faith in God. It is agnostics that usually hold position similar to yours. Perhaps you will find that your uncertainty makes you more of an agnostic?
Can I also point out that the moral codes of most religions are, at heart, very similar in content?
Very true, and in Islam this is understood because all Prophets were originally sent with the same message of Islam (submission to the One God), yet deviations crept in amongst their religions, gradually giving rise to the other religions we find which are understood to be the result of diversions from the Islam.
Perhaps there are some cases where what you say is true, but I believe that someone calling themselves an atheist and then assuming they can behave selfishly and immorally has got completely the wrong idea. Most serious, philosophical atheists would see no reason to abandon the moral codes at the heart of religion.
I think this is because in this stage in history, these atheists are still heavily influenced by religion, living in a society heavily influenced by religion. Yet, you cannot deny that as atheism/secularism increases in North America, the concept of subjective morality becomes more and more evident and society is continuously progressing towards what people of faith see as immoral. Perhaps what you may find in society 20 years from now would be so immoral that atheists of today would be shocked, but for people living in that future age, it will be the norm.
I do not believe these issues have an impact on morality, as long as they do not harm others.
What about harming themselves? Is suicide immoral? Are drugs not prolonged suicide?
Education on drugs is something that is badly needed all over the world.
I think education has little to do with it now. I know hundreds of people who know all the effects of drugs yet they continue their drug abuse. And when I talk about drugs being on the rise, I'm not talking about anything in moderation, I am talking about the things which detroy one's life and shatter their very sense of reality.
That's on the rise. Drug abuse.
With regard to nudity, again I am liberal. People should be free to go to nudist beaches if they wish (as they do in huge numbers all over Europe, particularly in Germany), also, people should be free to view pornography if they wish. The one proviso that I would have about nudity is that it should be allowed only in controlled areas - not in the street, in full public view for example.
Again, you miss the point I'm making on the subject. I'm not talking about the nudity of a person in a secluded area, in a seperate beach, in their bedrooms, in their washrooms, etc. I am talking about nudity
in the open, on the street, in public. I am talking about society becoming a nudist colony.
Would you have a problem with that vision? Would you find such a society acceptable to live in?
Your last point is fascinating - would a society where nudity and drugs are rife be productive for humanity? Well, why not? Look at the ancient Greeks. That society was actually far more liberal than I would like on these issues, and yet I cannot think of a society that has done more for civilization.
The greeks also had rigid laws governing their conduct in public and they had many etiquettes as well. To suggest that they lived the wild promiscuous lifestyle would be highly inaccurate.
Even in society today, at least professionals recognize a certain lifestyle as "lower-class" when it includes high levels of nudity and drugs. It is considered below the people at the top of society.
Perhaps we are judging by different criteria, but I'm afraid I don't understand you here. A children's film, with a U certificate (in Britain that is) is very unlikely to include drugs or nudity. In fact, I can state categorically that it would not include such things. A film for people aged 15 and over, maybe.
With respect to children, since the growing trends go against the content in children's films, we find that children's films slowly begin to contain some of the material which would not have been found in such films decades ago, or the children's films lose popularity and they begin to watch the same popular films with immoral content.
Either way, they are being desensitized. Adults are being desensitized. What someone finds on TV today would shock a person living in the west only a few decades ago. There are video games coming out that have begun to feature complete nudity and drugs. I think this trend should worry anyone with a sense of concern for the welfare of humanity.
I should point out that I have a philosophy degree, and that the initial arguments regarding a creator/deity presented in this article are so old, and have been refuted so many times by so many eminent philosophers (Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Russell to name but five), that it is just impossible to take them seriously.
I didn't refer the article to you for its discussion on the existence of God, but rather for its discussion on the purpose of existence from an Islamic perspective. Naturally, any article on the purpose of life would have to touch on the issue of God's existence but it does not go into much depth.
And I agree that the arguments from 'intelligent design' are familiar to everyone by now, they are nothing new. I would prefer to dicuss the existence of God in a seperate thread which I will create after this post.
I am sorry if this sounds offensive
No offense taken, ;)
One of the arguments used seems to me to prove just the opposite of what the author intends - this is the point that all human civilizations throughout history have believed in a god, gods or a creator of some sort. This surely shows the limitless capacity of human ingenuity, not that there therefore must be a god. Baal, Ra, Zeus and many others are gods that are now "dead" i.e. people do not believe in them any more. Could this be the future of the gods that people believe in today?
Actually, this argument is very important to the discussion, and I have used it myself in my discussions with atheists. The argument is that human beings have basically always accepted the existence of a single superior being since the dawn of humanity. This belief itself would be difficult to explain by atheits and many argue that human beings have progressed from superstition to polytheism to monotheism, yet I have explained in other discussions why this is not plausible.
Also, I must point out one factual inaccuracy in the article - the author speaks of "Buddhist gods". In fact Buddhism is an atheistic religion - Buddhists do not believe in any gods at all. The first that he mentions is "Gautama". This is the surname of the first Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama is his full name). Buddha was not a god, but a man.
I agree, you are correct. However, the Islamic understanding of "god" or
Ilah is actually anything which is worshipped (thus the Qur'an often describes people who have made their lusts their
Ilah) so according to an Islamic understanding the author is correct as well.
Can you see the problem here? The person who wrote this has very little genuine understanding of science if he believes these two statements are true. He incorrectly describes the Big Bang as a "widely accepted phenomenon". It is in fact a theory, just like evolution, only there is far less evidence for it. There is plenty of evidence for an expanding universe, but the Big Bang at the beginning is little more than a speculation. It is also relatively controversial among scientists, unlike evolution.
The quote on evolution is undoubtedly inaccurate. However, the quote on the Big Bang is referring to a collection of theories which share the notion of a Big Bang. The majority of theories supported by scientists are actually modifications of the Big Bang theory. As the wikipedia online encyclopedia states in its discussion of difficulties with the Big Bang theory:
Though such aspects of standard cosmology remain inadequately explained, the vast majority of astronomers and physicists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory.
So I beg to differ on your point that the Big Bange theory is not established.
Regards