Purpose

[nobspeople]

Do we all have a purpose?
From another thread (about why christians don't wish death on those they 'know' will go to heaven when they die), a poster said:

One need not be a Christian or even a theist to realize one has a purpose to fulfill prior to death.

This made me question rather or not we all DO have a purpose, how we know what it is, how we know when it's accomplished and what do we do, once it's accomplised?

Thoughts for discussion?

[TRANSPONDER]

So I have no answer to your question other than I think you've got the wrong concept of God, and you need to disentangle the various traditions and layers of history at play here. What did Yoda say? You've got to unlearn what you have learned. (Or not, and you can keep pounding the drum against what has become in popular opinion a caricature of God.)

Until someone can present a verifiably true concept of God there is no way to determine which concepts are wrong or which are right. Of course if God doesn't exist, they're all wrong. At this point all we have are caricatures of God.

Yoda is of course a fictional character and there is no verifiable reason to put God in a different category. Odd that you haven't encouraged theists who believe otherwise to unlearn what they have learned or rather have been taught.


Tcg

It's odd that these discussions always revert to interminable questions on the existence of God. It's the backstop for any atheist in a debate . But look, there's different levels we can debate this at. My concern in this whole thread is primarily the bible as literature, the God concept that it conveys, and the purpose that God character has for us. It is not so much the correspondence of reality, or if that literary testimony has any real-world truth to it. We can at least endeavor to get the first question closer to the truth before we start spinning our wheels on the latter.

And I do think we can do a much job answering the first question. We have a load of textual evidence to analyze. For instance, nowhere in the bible will you find the words 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', etc. That's a pretty strong signal that something is seriously off with that view and we should reconsider such notions of God. (So why waste time trying to prove such a Being actually exists?...)

So yah, keep God in the same category as Yoda for now. Fine by me. Especially if that helps us detach from everything we've been told and connect to a more accurate view. That holds for theists as much as anyone (my comment wasn't meant to be narrow; just so happened that an atheist was throwing encyclopedia definitions at me).

The question of the existence of God (or any other god) is basic to the rationality of the discussion, because nothing, no Claim, about God (or any other god) can be taken for granted, no matter what any Holy Book claims, until that existence is verified.

You may Then debate about what the Bible tells us about God's nature and abilities as an academic matter, but it (rationally) tells us nothing at all about what an actual god (name your own) is like, what it wants from us (if anything) and what its powers might be, or even how many of them there are, nor whether any such thing exists or not.

In which case the topic of our purpose is best discussed in assumption that there is no god until the existence of one is demonstrated, and the universe has no particular purpose for us unless it be the one that evolution has for us, as it does all other species. In which case the speculations of old religious thinkers in ancient tomes seems a bit irrelevant, don't they?

That makes no sense. How can you prove something exists if you don't have a clear idea of what it is you're looking for?... And sorry, the word 'God' is not sufficient. You need to put some more parameters around it. Like, God = an omnipotent being. Which is something you can actually look for and prove. That's all I'm saying. And I'm challenging what those parameters are.

From another angle (to reiterate what you cited), it is perfectly valid to look at the bible as literature and debate the question of what purpose the biblical (/literary) God sets us. You don't need to prove anything exists to have that discussion. You don't need to assume anything about non-existence either to have that discussion.

As an analogy, we can equally debate any literature. Take Star Wars for example to build on the Yoda example. We can have a real discussion about the precise moment and cause of Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader. We don't need to know first that Darth Vader actually exists somewhere to do that. Same here and the purpose God sets us in the bible.

It makes more sense than you'd like it to. It is for the Theist to prove (within reason) that their god exists. If they don't know what they mean by God or what it is like, it's their problem, not that of skeptics. And if they have no idea how to prove it, it's their problem, too. The burden of proof is on them as the God -claimants.Yes. I agree it's for the God -claimant to say what God means to them; or more usually we doubters assume popular parameters and if the Theist means something else he or she can say so and should have done so at the outset of the discussion.

The Bible is indeed literature. Just as the Tripitaka or the Enuma Elish, and as such, would belong on the (religious) literature shelf. Not here. It is the truth and validity of the religious claims that are the topic, not its' quality or value as literature. What would you think of somebody arguing a thread about Star Wars or something similar? You'd say 'This is the seriously held religious beliefs forum, not discussing literature'.

[theophile]

If they don't know what they mean by God or what it is like, it's their problem, not that of skeptics. And if they have no idea how to prove it, it's their problem, too. The burden of proof is on them as the God -claimants. Yes. I agree it's for the God -claimant to say what God means to them; or more usually we doubters assume popular parameters and if the Theist means something else he or she can say so and should have done so at the outset of the discussion.

The Bible is indeed literature. Just as the Tripitaka or the Enuma Elish, and as such, would belong on the (religious) literature shelf. Not here. It is the truth and validity of the religious claims that are the topic, not its' quality or value as literature. What would you think of somebody arguing a thread about Star Wars or something similar? You'd say 'This is the seriously held religious beliefs forum, not discussing literature'.

You're sidestepping my point. For the highlighted text above, where ought the God-claimant go to develop their God-concept so that they can then prove whether or not it exists? My point is that if we are talking about the biblical God, then the God-claimant (or anti-claimant) ought to go to the bible, and use textual evidence to set parameters on what the biblical God is, so that we can then check for a corresponding reality should we want to pursue that course. That holds for both theists and atheists, frankly. Any atheist worthy of their name needs to have a robust God-concept of their own with verifiable biblical grounding. Otherwise what the heck are they arguing against?! ...

So biblical analysis (literary though it is) is absolutely in scope for a discussion board such as this. This is a site debating Christianity, and the bible is the source text of Christianity. So it's incumbent on all of us to be knowledgeable on what it says / teaches. (Same if we were on a Star Wars discussion board - you need to have some knowledge of the films and verifiable claims about them!)

Again, why even engage in a debate about our purpose (per the OP) if it is a complete non-starter until someone proves God exists? A good chunk of the topics on this board should be removed if what you're saying is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

If they don't know what they mean by God or what it is like, it's their problem, not that of skeptics. And if they have no idea how to prove it, it's their problem, too. The burden of proof is on them as the God -claimants. Yes. I agree it's for the God -claimant to say what God means to them; or more usually we doubters assume popular parameters and if the Theist means something else he or she can say so and should have done so at the outset of the discussion.

The Bible is indeed literature. Just as the Tripitaka or the Enuma Elish, and as such, would belong on the (religious) literature shelf. Not here. It is the truth and validity of the religious claims that are the topic, not its' quality or value as literature. What would you think of somebody arguing a thread about Star Wars or something similar? You'd say 'This is the seriously held religious beliefs forum, not discussing literature'.

You're sidestepping my point. For the highlighted text above, where ought the God-claimant go to develop their God-concept so that they can then prove whether or not it exists? My point is that if we are talking about the biblical God, then the God-claimant (or anti-claimant) ought to go to the bible, and use textual evidence to set parameters on what the biblical God is, so that we can then check for a corresponding reality should we want to pursue that course. That holds for both theists and atheists, frankly. Any atheist worthy of their name needs to have a robust God-concept of their own with verifiable biblical grounding. Otherwise what the heck are they arguing against?! ...

So biblical analysis (literary though it is) is absolutely in scope for a discussion board such as this. This is a site debating Christianity, and the bible is the source text of Christianity. So it's incumbent on all of us to be knowledgeable on what it says / teaches. (Same if we were on a Star Wars discussion board - you need to have some knowledge of the films and verifiable claims about them!)

Again, why even engage in a debate about our purpose (per the OP) if it is a complete non-starter until someone proves God exists? A good chunk of the topics on this board should be removed if what you're saying is true.

It's up to the god -claimant to decide where they go for their god -concept. It is known that some go to First cause, which is nothing to do with Bible -god or Quran -god or any other religion -particular god -concept. So an atheist debator will simply respond to whatever god -concept is being argued. It is not for atheist to provide the god claim they then argue against as we can't know what god -concept is being presented. Though on a forum like this, we assume Bible - based God unless they say different (which they ought to in order to avoid confusion).

Certainly atheists are aware of god concepts and the arguments that arise from them, because we've done it before. That doesn't mean that atheists have, or should have, any particular god concepts.

You are right that it out to be a non -starter, logically and rationally. It is an axiom that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. And the only reason we have active atheists is because we have active theists.

[theophile]

You are right that it ought to be a non -starter, logically and rationally. It is an axiom that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. And the only reason we have active atheists is because we have active theists.

I don't actually think that discussions such as our purpose according to the bible is a non-starter. You may have mistaken my final comment. I genuinely think that we can and should discuss such questions, and that they are valid topics for a board such as this.

My suggestion was more that if you're right, most of the posts on this board should be removed since they have to do with biblical interpretation, which is essentially literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist. (I disagree completely with that view.)

I would push my suggestion even further and ask why you even participate on this board if you think all conversations are non-starters until God is proven to exist. Is it to make that point to theists? i.e., to tell them to come back and talk to you once they have proof of whatever God-concept it is they're selling?

[TRANSPONDER]

You are right that it ought to be a non -starter, logically and rationally. It is an axiom that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. And the only reason we have active atheists is because we have active theists.

I don't actually think that discussions such as our purpose according to the bible is a non-starter. You may have mistaken my final comment. I genuinely think that we can and should discuss such questions, and that they are valid topics for a board such as this.

My suggestion was more that if you're right, most of the posts on this board should be removed since they have to do with biblical interpretation, which is essentially literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist. (I disagree completely with that view.)

I would push my suggestion even further and ask why you even participate on this board if you think all conversations are non-starters until God is proven to exist. Is it to make that point to theists? i.e., to tell them to come back and talk to you once they have proof of whatever God-concept it is they're selling?

Well argued, but not good enough. Our purpose according to the Bible is a non -starter until the Bible is shown to be credible and reliable. I suspect you have strawmanned what I posted as " literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist.". Since I don't agree with that either, I doubt that I said (or at least meant) that.

To remove all doubt, the Bottom line is Bible credibility. Particularly the resurrection - claim, without which the rest is just moralising waffle. Despite the New Covenant, the OT is necessary to establish the God if the Jews, even if he dumped then and switched his support to the Greeks, or so the NT tells us.

Biblical literary Interpretation usually (if not always) turns out to be attempts to pretend it doesn't say what it appears to say, or trues to excuse the non -credible with excuses like 'they wrote differently, then'. In which case, logically, they can't argue from a Bible when they can't understand what it says either. Unless they believe that God is downloading the Truth into their heads. Which is something I Do rather believe they believe. While I'm here myself for discussion, I am not here to talk about irrelevancies such as first cause (because that doesn't tell you Which God) or metaphor or poetic symbolism, which is irrelevant if it means 'Not actually factual'. It is actually about Bible credibility and particularly the claims about Jesus. If it isn't a discussion relating that, I consider it irrelevant.
I

[theophile]

You are right that it ought to be a non -starter, logically and rationally. It is an axiom that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. And the only reason we have active atheists is because we have active theists.

I don't actually think that discussions such as our purpose according to the bible is a non-starter. You may have mistaken my final comment. I genuinely think that we can and should discuss such questions, and that they are valid topics for a board such as this.

My suggestion was more that if you're right, most of the posts on this board should be removed since they have to do with biblical interpretation, which is essentially literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist. (I disagree completely with that view.)

I would push my suggestion even further and ask why you even participate on this board if you think all conversations are non-starters until God is proven to exist. Is it to make that point to theists? i.e., to tell them to come back and talk to you once they have proof of whatever God-concept it is they're selling?

Well argued, but not good enough. Our purpose according to the Bible is a non -starter until the Bible is shown to be credible and reliable. I suspect you have strawmanned what I posted as " literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist.". Since I don't agree with that either, I doubt that I said (or at least meant) that.

To remove all doubt, the Bottom line is Bible credibility. Particularly the resurrection - claim, without which the rest is just moralising waffle. Despite the New Covenant, the OT is necessary to establish the God if the Jews, even if he dumped then and switched his support to the Greeks, or so the NT tells us.

Biblical literary Interpretation usually (if not always) turns out to be attempts to pretend it doesn't say what it appears to say, or trues to excuse the non -credible with excuses like 'they wrote differently, then'. In which case, logically, they can't argue from a Bible when they can't understand what it says either. Unless they believe that God is downloading the Truth into their heads. Which is something I Do rather believe they believe. While I'm here myself for discussion, I am not here to talk about irrelevancies such as first cause (because that doesn't tell you Which God) or metaphor or poetic symbolism, which is irrelevant if it means 'Not actually factual'. It is actually about Bible credibility and particularly the claims about Jesus. If it isn't a discussion relating that, I consider it irrelevant.

We may just have to agree to disagree. To me the credibility of the bible is more in the purpose that it sets us, i.e., how coherent and compelling its teachings are. And understanding that is purely an exercise in literary analysis and reason. Real-world correspondence or factuality, i.e., whether Jesus actually existed or whether events such as the resurrection actually happened, is irrelevant. The teachings should stand or fall on their own accord.

Whether Jesus was a work of fiction doesn't devalue his teachings anymore than, say, the teachings of Nietzsche's Zarathustra are undermined by the fictional status of that character. Or the teachings of Yoda. We all know Yoda never existed and that the force is a fictional construct, but there is a teaching being expressed there that we can still work to understand and evaluate on its own terms.

But hey, maybe you find no value in anything that can't be shown to exist or to have actually happened, and you would devalue all works of fiction as meaningless / irrelevant.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #46]

We all know Yoda never existed and that the force is a fictional construct, ...

We cannot be certain that somewhere far, far away in another galaxy...

[TRANSPONDER]

You are right that it ought to be a non -starter, logically and rationally. It is an axiom that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. And the only reason we have active atheists is because we have active theists.

I don't actually think that discussions such as our purpose according to the bible is a non-starter. You may have mistaken my final comment. I genuinely think that we can and should discuss such questions, and that they are valid topics for a board such as this.

My suggestion was more that if you're right, most of the posts on this board should be removed since they have to do with biblical interpretation, which is essentially literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist. (I disagree completely with that view.)

I would push my suggestion even further and ask why you even participate on this board if you think all conversations are non-starters until God is proven to exist. Is it to make that point to theists? i.e., to tell them to come back and talk to you once they have proof of whatever God-concept it is they're selling?

Well argued, but not good enough. Our purpose according to the Bible is a non -starter until the Bible is shown to be credible and reliable. I suspect you have strawmanned what I posted as " literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist.". Since I don't agree with that either, I doubt that I said (or at least meant) that.

To remove all doubt, the Bottom line is Bible credibility. Particularly the resurrection - claim, without which the rest is just moralising waffle. Despite the New Covenant, the OT is necessary to establish the God if the Jews, even if he dumped then and switched his support to the Greeks, or so the NT tells us.

Biblical literary Interpretation usually (if not always) turns out to be attempts to pretend it doesn't say what it appears to say, or trues to excuse the non -credible with excuses like 'they wrote differently, then'. In which case, logically, they can't argue from a Bible when they can't understand what it says either. Unless they believe that God is downloading the Truth into their heads. Which is something I Do rather believe they believe. While I'm here myself for discussion, I am not here to talk about irrelevancies such as first cause (because that doesn't tell you Which God) or metaphor or poetic symbolism, which is irrelevant if it means 'Not actually factual'. It is actually about Bible credibility and particularly the claims about Jesus. If it isn't a discussion relating that, I consider it irrelevant.

We may just have to agree to disagree. To me the credibility of the bible is more in the purpose that it sets us, i.e., how coherent and compelling its teachings are. And understanding that is purely an exercise in literary analysis and reason. Real-world correspondence or factuality, i.e., whether Jesus actually existed or whether events such as the resurrection actually happened, is irrelevant. The teachings should stand or fall on their own accord.

Whether Jesus was a work of fiction doesn't devalue his teachings anymore than, say, the teachings of Nietzsche's Zarathustra are undermined by the fictional status of that character. Or the teachings of Yoda. We all know Yoda never existed and that the force is a fictional construct, but there is a teaching being expressed there that we can still work to understand and evaluate on its own terms.

But hey, maybe you find no value in anything that can't be shown to exist or to have actually happened, and you would devalue all works of fiction as meaningless / irrelevant.

Excellent textbook exposition of flawed and dogy theist thinking.

Agree to disagree translates as 'My case is as good as yours'. It isn't because logic requires the claimant make their case stick, not pretend it's equal points because they don't do logic. To ignore whether there's any reason to credit it as true, and pretend that only the teachings matter is at best only presenting personal opinions about what's a good way to live, no better than any other philosopher or sociologist and has no more credibility and probably less because social morals have moved on, leaving the Bible to play catch up.

What else did you argue? Well....nothing much else in fact other than the grubby smear that if I don't credit the Bible as being any more authoritative than any other book (and probably less so) I (you imply) find no value in any book.

Hoo, boy.

[theophile]

You are right that it ought to be a non -starter, logically and rationally. It is an axiom that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. And the only reason we have active atheists is because we have active theists.

I don't actually think that discussions such as our purpose according to the bible is a non-starter. You may have mistaken my final comment. I genuinely think that we can and should discuss such questions, and that they are valid topics for a board such as this.

My suggestion was more that if you're right, most of the posts on this board should be removed since they have to do with biblical interpretation, which is essentially literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist. (I disagree completely with that view.)

I would push my suggestion even further and ask why you even participate on this board if you think all conversations are non-starters until God is proven to exist. Is it to make that point to theists? i.e., to tell them to come back and talk to you once they have proof of whatever God-concept it is they're selling?

Well argued, but not good enough. Our purpose according to the Bible is a non -starter until the Bible is shown to be credible and reliable. I suspect you have strawmanned what I posted as " literary analysis, which you said can't happen until God is proven to exist.". Since I don't agree with that either, I doubt that I said (or at least meant) that.

To remove all doubt, the Bottom line is Bible credibility. Particularly the resurrection - claim, without which the rest is just moralising waffle. Despite the New Covenant, the OT is necessary to establish the God if the Jews, even if he dumped then and switched his support to the Greeks, or so the NT tells us.

Biblical literary Interpretation usually (if not always) turns out to be attempts to pretend it doesn't say what it appears to say, or trues to excuse the non -credible with excuses like 'they wrote differently, then'. In which case, logically, they can't argue from a Bible when they can't understand what it says either. Unless they believe that God is downloading the Truth into their heads. Which is something I Do rather believe they believe. While I'm here myself for discussion, I am not here to talk about irrelevancies such as first cause (because that doesn't tell you Which God) or metaphor or poetic symbolism, which is irrelevant if it means 'Not actually factual'. It is actually about Bible credibility and particularly the claims about Jesus. If it isn't a discussion relating that, I consider it irrelevant.

We may just have to agree to disagree. To me the credibility of the bible is more in the purpose that it sets us, i.e., how coherent and compelling its teachings are. And understanding that is purely an exercise in literary analysis and reason. Real-world correspondence or factuality, i.e., whether Jesus actually existed or whether events such as the resurrection actually happened, is irrelevant. The teachings should stand or fall on their own accord.

Whether Jesus was a work of fiction doesn't devalue his teachings anymore than, say, the teachings of Nietzsche's Zarathustra are undermined by the fictional status of that character. Or the teachings of Yoda. We all know Yoda never existed and that the force is a fictional construct, but there is a teaching being expressed there that we can still work to understand and evaluate on its own terms.

But hey, maybe you find no value in anything that can't be shown to exist or to have actually happened, and you would devalue all works of fiction as meaningless / irrelevant.

Excellent textbook exposition of flawed and dogy theist thinking.

Agree to disagree translates as 'My case is as good as yours'. It isn't because logic requires the claimant make their case stick, not pretend it's equal points because they don't do logic. To ignore whether there's any reason to credit it as true, and pretend that only the teachings matter is at best only presenting personal opinions about what's a good way to live, no better than any other philosopher or sociologist and has no more credibility and probably less because social morals have moved on, leaving the Bible to play catch up.

What else did you argue? Well....nothing much else in fact other than the grubby smear that if I don't credit the Bible as being any more authoritative than any other book (and probably less so) I (you imply) find no value in any book.

Hoo, boy.

Two points.

First, my "agree to disagree" was more based on what feels like a different standard that the bible gets held to versus other texts for whatever reason, and a desire to not keep spinning on it. I don't honestly believe you find no value in any book that's not proven out first, but I made that as an extreme statement to push the point. But let's hold that for a second because the text I bolded above starts getting us closer I think. i.e., Why would we treat the bible any different than any other work of philosophy? I don't think we should (and maybe you don't either). We should hold it to the exact same standards, and value its teaching in the exact same way as we do, say, Nietzsche's, Marx's, Plato's, or anyone else's. The richness of none of these should be discarded because, say, Socrates never did what Plato said or Zarathustra never existed.

Second, my point is not to "ignore whether there's any reason to credit it as true." My point is more that the reasons we should credit it as true are not based in historical fact. Or in the proven existence of some entity. There are other reasons to credit it as true. i.e., We value the philosophies I mentioned above because of the compelling views they convey of how the world works, how we should live our lives, etc., etc. It is regarding these kinds of things that we should hold the bible accountable. I get the go-to arguments of atheists are all about historical inaccuracy or unproven existence, but these are really beside the point and only end up closing down the discussion. We need to consider it from these other aspects before we dismiss it. And hey, if we understand it better, maybe we can ask again questions of existence. (But that may mean rethinking popular notions of God.)