Ever wonder what is your purpose in life? (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

Jeff, I understand with what your saying, I was only generalizing about the comments made earlier about "helping others". I prob shouldnt have used doing good as my description becuase its open to interpretation.

I get where you guys are going and I agree.

But I think the Hilter, Stalin examples are extreme and uncommon. The numbers doing harm I think are small compared to the population of the planet.

People come together when needed, and we've seen some examples of that in the past 5 years

 

[RobertR]

The deaths caused by the 20th Century totalitarians must easily total in the tens of millions.

 

[MarkHastings]

Most definitely and I'm not arguing that. Actually, I'm not arguing anything really, I'm just throwing out the notion that a lot of people 'do good' because they feel that 'doing good' is what makes their life better as a human. While it's fulfilling and wonderful, I don't think that it's a requirement in living a wonderful and fulfilling life.

Helping others is definitely the best approach in assuming there's a purpose to your life, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't really think that helping others is anyones "Purpose".

I guess my reasoning is thus: If we weren't here, we wouldn't need to help anyone else. Also, without others doing wrong, we wouldn't need anyone to help those being wronged. Perhaps my thinking is even above my own head, but it seems ironic that the purpose of life is to help other lives??

Life is created to help itself? It sounds so ass-backwards. It almost sounds like inventing a vaccine for a disease that is caused by the making of that very vaccine.

Ok, maybe now I AM talking over my own head.

 

[Holadem]

Huh? Did I just read the word... "relative"?

--
H

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Not to mention the ones that are not as publicized or are universally lauded by the unknowing public as "good". Not to get too political, but to mention one that Chu Gai is fond of: The "do-gooders" of recent vintage felt it was a good thing to eliminate the use of DDT because some studies said it was harmful to birds. This ban was eventually almost worldwide, causing third world deaths from malaria to skyrocket. What actual good came of the DDT ban is debatable, but there were certainly "good" thought s behind it. If only the "do-gooders" had stopped using DDT themselves and led a blissfull life knowing they were personally saving the birds within their sphere of influence, the actual "good" done may have been a positive.

PS, the use of DDT is not seen as such a bad thing today, compared to the approximately 50 million deaths it could have prevented during the ban.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Absolutely. I never said that good was not a relative term when assigned by multiple cultures and/or persons. Any anthropological study will tell you that. Now, whether the definition of "good" adheres to a moral certainty (or not) is another deal entirely. This is where we cross over into the philosophical or theological, which I said is a personal choice. A choice which can be evaluated and weighed against the instincts of the human spirit and historical precedent, as well as any structured worldview someone may have. I never denied that "good" (or "evil") was not relative, only said that the "relativity" of the term is never an excuse to let evil off the hook, whether that "hook" is judgment, punishment or both. Everyone is free to choose their own definitions, but choose wrong and you must suffer the consequences. This assumes those judging and assigning the consequences are "good and just", which brings us back to that human spirit thing (not to mention revolution ).

 

[MarkHastings]

Very true. There is no religion in the animal kingdom and if we were to judge the actions of animals by 'human' values, they'd all be considered pretty "evil". But are all animals really considered "evil" in the presence of no religion??

 

[Trey Fletcher]

Pardon me, I was exhausted last night from a long day of work, and dealing with a sick 2 year old.

My comment should have been more obviously linked to Arthur's statement: After I left, I thought, "how curious, sounds like she believes in intelligent design, but, as a scientist, how can she disagree with evolution?"

My point was that being a scientist, and disagreeing with evolution is not inherently contradictory. There are a lot of scientists who are disturbed by evolution. Disturbed by what legitimate science has uncovered in the last 50-100 years (for example, the structure of the cell and DNA in microbiology, and the Cambrian explosion in archaeology), and disturbed that evolution is often preached as a proven fact, while anyone who dares question the theory, or offer an alternative, is often labeled as a religious zealot or a reactionary with an agenda.

And just to be clear, I don't know of any scientist who rejects microevolution. We see it every day in the way a virus changes, or the fact that my son looks like me (poor little guy). But the theory (macroevolution) that cells just came into being from primordial soup, and that they've evolved into every living thing on this planet from reptiles to mammals to redwoods is the issue.

Lew,

Thanks for the homework assignment.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Not the bunny rabbits, man. I always thought bunnies were pretty good really. And Chickadees. I had a nest of Chicakdees in the ivy outside my window when I was a kid and they seemed pretty positive as far as life is concerned - cute, they sang me awake and seemed to care for the little ones. Plus I accidentally killed one with a slingshot once and I've felt terribly guilty ever since

. So yeah, animals are evil; except bunnies, Chickadees (and Mockingbirds).

 

[MarkHastings]

Damn! Talk about 'evil' BrainW's post looks DEVILISH!


LMAO! Jeff, you're above response sounds EXACTLY like something that Randy (from My Name is Earl) would say. Re-read it in his tone and voice.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Sorry, never seen it (but I imagine he is a fascinating and lovable character).

Come to think of it, I've never seen or heard a Mockingbird, either. But I have read the book and seen the movie and if you can't trust Atticus Finch, who can you trust?

(My apologies H, for inserting a Moral Certainty again )

 

[RobertR]

What’s especially heinous is the notion that it was a positive good that 50 million would lose their lives for the “good of all” (in this case not even all people, but the nonhuman part of the planet), and that they should embrace the idea of self sacrifice as the highest ideal (not to mention the idea that 50 million deaths are nothing to mourn, since there are too many people anyway).

 

[Chu Gai]

Why do we need religion to do the right thing?

 

[Chu Gai]

I think if you go to toys r us there's a little toy where you can hear various animal or birds. the mockingbird might be there.

 

[MarkHastings]

so according to the song, I can actually Listen to the Mockingbird?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I went to a birthday party last night for an 8 year old that had 8 kids age 5-13. At this point, any toys that make noise, even the sweet song of the Mockingbird, would immediately be crushed with sledgehammer and that may cause me to disregard my "Atticus Finch is a Moral Certainty" statement and then H will have won a round. Do we really want that?

 

[Chu Gai]

Well, they've done a spectacular job haven't they?

BTW Jeff, just do a search for mockingbird and wav to hear the little bugger.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I was careful to say "the theological and philosophical" not religion. I truly think that the rules of "good" are ingrained in the spirit of mankind, regardless of the good (or evil) of whatever religion has been adopted or rejected. In other words, religious rules are a reflection or interpretation (either good or bad and certainly open for debate) of the spirit of man, not the source of the spirit of man. That's all I'm going to say, for I've admitted to being a lapsed Catholic before.

 

[RobertR]

Which religion? What if religion A says “do X”, and religion B says “do non-X”? If the answer is “whichever gives better results”, why not use the criteria you used to judge the results in the first place? It makes no sense to use circular reasoning (“I decided religion A is better because religion A says it’s better”).

 

[JonZ]

"Why do we need religion to do the right thing?"

THANK YOU!!!