What could be attractive in the life of a mere mortal, clayey humans, who in the name of civilization abandone God in their thoughts and lifestyle as if there's no place called heaven. Remember thy creator in the the days of thy youth, otherwise, He'l forget you eternally. Purpose is real.POSE FOR PURPOSE. www.menofpurposenetwork.org

I wanted to create a thread with this title but decided to search and voila!

However I find no answers here.

My own question to the religionists would be in the frame of Why was man created? . . .why did god make Adam and Eve? What purpose were they supposed to accomplish.

If you're a creator you surely must have a reason for creating don't you?

And for the likes of deep sight who disregard the abrahamic faiths I also would be interested in what they think man was created for.

Anybody pls indulge me.

The very existence of any meaningfulness in our lives, such as family, love, ambition or other reference points for meaningfulness, is evidence that life is not accidental, by chance, or meaningless.

Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature.

Tudór:


And for the likes of deep sight who disregard the abrahamic faiths I also would be interested in what they think man was created for.

Anybody pls indulge me.

Thanks for the question Tudor.

In my view, creation is nothing but intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.

God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains all and infinite permutations of existence.

This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emitts steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.

Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was made to worship God per se.

I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).

In my view, creation is nothing but intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.
God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains all and infinite permutations of existence.
This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emits steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.
Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was made to worship God per se.
I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).
[quote][/quote]

I agree especially with the bolded parts. My thoughts are that the 'consciousness' of man is a reflection of that intrinsic self-expression. This is the part of man that is created in the image of the divine and which yearns to be reunited with 'God'.  Recognition of that yearning for God and then acting on it is what I consider to be true worship.

David, the man reputably 'after Gods own heart', captured this yearning in the words of several of his Psalms. The first two verses of psalm 42, springs immediately to mind:
‘As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. ’

Deep Sight:

Thanks for the question Tudor.

In my view, creation is nothing but intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.

God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains all and infinite permutations of existence.

This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emitts steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.

Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was made to worship God per se.

I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).

If man is really a reflection of the inner core of God then my goodness!!

God must indeed be dirty and rotten inside because anyone looking at mankind would dread the source of this wicked creature.

Like you said, a creator does not bequeath attributes it has not to its creation therefore all we are and all we will be is from God right?

^^^ Correct. There is duality in exstence. Positive and Negative elements are eternal. So yes, you have a point.

Deep Sight:

The very existence of any meaningfulness in our lives, such as family, love, ambition or other reference points for meaningfulness, is evidence that life is not accidental, by chance, or meaningless.

Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature.

Man to his barest minimum is no better than the wild animal.

Those 'meaningfulness' make no meaning to the basic man as like every animal its me, myself and I.

Its the society that has reformed man to a civilized being today if not we'll be every inch as wild as the lion i.e do whatever it takes to be comfortable and in control, stick with your pride when it favours you and when it don't to hell with it.

^^^^Well i cant really argue with that given the run of human history replete with barbarisms, but you must still admit that the human stands higher than the animal in several respects including intelligence and an innate passion for wonder which is the wellspring of ambition that drives great acheivements like landing on the moon.

We are thirsty to see the universe and solve all its riddles which is not something that the animal can claim.

That thirst is partly what Beneli was referring to as being a thirst for God.

Deep Sight:

The very existence of any meaningfulness in our lives, such as family, love, ambition or other reference points for meaningfulness, is evidence that life is not accidental, by chance, or meaningless.

I like the idea behind your reasoning; but had waited to see comments that fall on that quote. To me, it seems that the 'reference points' to meaningfulness as highlghted in yours are inconclusive (and that's probably why Tudor seized upon and wasted it). You see, those indices are observable in animal life as well; but even in non-biological phenomena, the idea of 'family' is observable (such as 'group identities' and chemical reactions in elements). Okay, perhaps I was kidding there. . not likely; but please consider it carefully.

However, I would agree with you along the same lines, as in the summary:

Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature.

Instead of 'meaningfulness', try another word: 'intelligence'.

Deep Sight:

^^^^Well i cant really argue with that given the run of human history replete with barbarisms, but you must still admit that the human stands higher than the animal in several respects including intelligence and an innate passion for wonder which is the wellspring of ambition that drives great acheivements like landing on the moon.

We are thirsty to see the universe and solve all its riddles which is not something that the animal can claim.

That thirst is partly what Beneli was referring to as being a thirst for God.

The crux of this post seems to center on thirst i.e curiosity. . . .

Have you ever watched a nature flick? If you have theres no way on this earth you'd tell me animals aren't as curious too.

viaro:


Instead of 'meaningfulness', try another word: 'intelligence'.

Instead of Intelligence try another word: Intent.

Tudór:

The crux of this post seems to center on thirst i.e curiosity. . . .

Have you ever watched a nature flick? If you have theres no way on this earth you'd tell me animals aren't as curious too.

The thirst here is a metaphor for the desire of the created to reunite with the creator. Even the so called 'atheists', if they will be honest with themselves, have this thirst. It's just that a lot of them like to ignore it and then erect infantile ego defence mechanisms, all in the guise of trying to sound or behave 'intelligent'.

beneli:

The thirst here is a metaphor for the desire of the created to reunite with the creator. Even the so called 'atheists', if they will be honest with themselves, have this thirst. It's just that a lot of them like to ignore it and then erect infantile ego defence mechanisms, all in the guise of trying to sound or behave 'intelligent'.

What thirst do atheist have? The way you guys go about with your baseless assertions is really ridiculous. I guess you guys can not really come to terms that there are people do not believe in your deeply held non evidential beliefs, So you try all your possible best to placate yourselves with false and ridiculous assertions, What has intelligence got to do with anything? When you are asked very simple things you come up with baseless assertions that have nothing to do with what is been discussed. What has intelligence got to do with anything again I ask? You guys go around bandying baseless claims and when asked to defend it you begin to attack straw man after straw man.

Pastor AIO:

Instead of Intelligence try another word: Intent.

Hehehe. .  good one. . very good one!

I thought of 'intent' as well, but felt I would be digging a ditch for myself. Akin to 'intent' are other words that crossed my mind as plan, goal, aim, objective, meaning, significance, purpose, etc., etc. . . and this thread is already asking those same questions in one apt manner: 'the Purpose of Life (why were we created?)'

However, in accord with the idea behind Deep Sight's earlier quote (Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature), I thought 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier. There are two reasons why I thought so:

(a) One reason was because using 'intent' would render my comments incoherent, especially as 'intent' is synonymous with 'purpose'. So, if I were to try 'intent' instead of 'meaningfulness', and the synonyms were brought to their basic sameness (that is, 'intent' = 'purpose') then I could not say:

'Meaningfulness Intent is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose intent and a personal nature'

             . . . nor even simply:

'Purpose is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature'

On the other hand rather, I was thinking about the basic or fundamental element behind anything one might describe as a 'purpose'; and that basic element IMO would be 'intelligence'. That is because, any detectable "intent/purpose" would of necessity involve some level of 'intelligence'. In that understanding, I thought it might be better to say instead: "Intelligence is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature."


(b) The second reason why I thought that 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier would be that 'intent' sounded a bit more subjective to me. I mean, should someone ask me what I supposed was the "intent" (or 'purpose') of the Creator in having created us and the Universe, I immediately recognize that my own take would be subjective - descriptive only of what I might think, and not necessarily what the Creator Himself had in mind.

I have no way of peering into the Creator's mind to understand exactly the way He arrives at a decision - any decision at all - in order to form my subjective answers to the question of the "purpose" of Life in regards of creation. Indeed, this second reason stems from my understanding of such verses like Romans 11:34 - 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?' It's not my style to pretend to know His exact intent/intention/purpose in creation - the vast creation of the cosmos and all within it - so I often shy away from making subjective statements in this wise (statements which could apparently have the appearance of wisdom but in actuality are simply dense - see Job 38:2 - 'Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?').


So all the yada above. I thought 'intelligence' might be the basic element that points to any intent/intention/purpose detectable anywhere; and on that basis that it would be more aptly descriptive of the idea behind Deep Sight's quote.

toneyb:

What thirst do atheist have? The way you guys go about with your baseless assertions is really ridiculous. I guess you guys can not really come to terms that there are people do not believe in your deeply held non evidential beliefs, So you try all your possible best to placate yourselves with false and ridiculous assertions, What has intelligence got to do with anything? When you are asked very simple things you come up with baseless assertions that have nothing to do with what is been discussed. What has intelligence got to do with anything again I ask? You guys go around bandying baseless claims and when asked to defend it you begin to attack straw man after straw man.

Ahn, Ahn, no be fight now!

I don't know who the 'you guys' you keep mentioning are, but if it helps neither the believers nor the unbelievers have 'evidence' for their positions. So no go there my brother!

The 'thirst' that the so called atheists have, is the one that drives them to higher rates of suicide when it is not quenched http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091103130324AAsqlsd I couldn't come up with better evidence but that should quench a bit of your 'thirst'. I hope.

Let's face it my brother. If you are feeling 'attacked', it's not by me. It may be your conscience.

beneli:

Ahn, Ahn, no be fight now!

I don't know who the 'you guys' you keep mentioning are, but if it helps neither the believers nor the unbelievers have 'evidence' for their positions. So no go there my brother!

The 'thirst' that the so called atheists have, is the one that drives them to higher rates of suicide when it is not quenched T I couldn't come up with better evidence but that should quench a bit of your 'thirst'. I hope.

Let's face it my brother. If you are feeling 'attacked', it's not by me. It may be your conscience.

You assume to much my friend, My concience does NOT feel "attacked" and it can never feel "attacked". You came with a false assumption that atheist have some imaginary thirst. That is false. As for your link here is what another person had to say about the ridiculous link.

"Please site the study you are referring to.

Edit: I found the study. It included 371 patients all diagnosed with major depression. Of this 371, only 66 where "not religiously affiliated." It does not even say that these 66 were atheists or agnostics or anything. Hmm, is there a correlation here that could be made about being "religiously affiliated" and having a higher risk of being depressed, ?

For starters, religiously affiliated *doesn't* mean atheist. Sure atheists are in that group, but it would include anyone who's not affiliated with a given church. You'll notice also that the religiously unaffiliated tended to be younger, unmarried, no children, and with less contact with family. ALL those things are correlated with poorer morale and higher suicide rates, irrespective of religion.

So what you're saying is, it's better to be, say, a Muslim than an agnostic or non-churchgoing Christian--and you have an ambiguous survey to back that statement up? All I can say is, color me unimpressed.

You should be ashamed of yourself. All you do is reemphasize to me how easily it is for people like you to lie or fudge the facts. Why is it so easy for you? Or did you not even read the study you are spouting off about?"

There you have it somebody had already answered you ridiculous and false assertion about atheist and suicide. If you want to make this argument, you would have to explain why highly atheist countries like Sweden, Estonia and Finland have such low suicide rates. Which other lie do you have up your sleeve?

toneyb:

You assume to much my friend, My concience does NOT feel "attacked" and it can never feel "attacked". You came with a false assumption that atheist have some imaginary thirst. That is false. As for your link here is what another person had to say about the ridiculous link.

"Please site the study you are referring to.

Edit: I found the study. It included 371 patients all diagnosed with major depression. Of this 371, only 66 where "not religiously affiliated." It does not even say that these 66 were atheists or agnostics or anything. Hmm, is there a correlation here that could be made about being "religiously affiliated" and having a higher risk of being depressed, ?

For starters, religiously affiliated *doesn't* mean atheist. Sure atheists are in that group, but it would include anyone who's not affiliated with a given church. You'll notice also that the religiously unaffiliated tended to be younger, unmarried, no children, and with less contact with family. ALL those things are correlated with poorer morale and higher suicide rates, irrespective of religion.

So what you're saying is, it's better to be, say, a Muslim than an agnostic or non-churchgoing Christian--and you have an ambiguous survey to back that statement up? All I can say is, color me unimpressed.

You should be ashamed of yourself. All you do is reemphasize to me how easily it is for people like you to lie or fudge the facts. Why is it so easy for you? Or did you not even read the study you are spouting off about?"

There you have it somebody had already answered you ridiculous and false assertion about atheist and suicide. If you want to make this argument, you would have to explain why highly atheist countries like Sweden, Estonia and Finland have such low suicide rates. Which other lie do you have up your sleeve?

Suicide rates in the countries you mention are actually among the highest. Here is a WHO link for you to peruse http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

I admit that i didn't do my argument a lot of good by giving the link to a study i haven't actually read. Am i ashamed? Not really. I was just looking for something to show you what the facts borne out in clinical practice by Psychiatrists say about the relationship between the absence of a religion and the incidence of suicide. There is a positive correlation, though Atheist psychiatrists like to argue against this, quoting dodgy 'confounding variables'.

Existential angst is common to ALL 'intelligent' humans at one point or the other in their life journeys. Some are pacified by 'religion', not necesarily Judeo-Christian. Those that aren't able to find the peace of religion resort to suicide (sometimes cloaked as euthenasia). Hence the unarguably higher rate of suicide in atheist countries.

toneyb:

There you have it somebody had already answered you ridiculous and false assertion about atheist and suicide. If you want to make this argument, you would have to explain why highly atheist countries like Sweden, Estonia and Finland have such low suicide rates. Which other lie do you have up your sleeve?

Hahaha. .  I can't laugh. My guy toneyb, that is not even an argument up there. You only are confirming a case against your own argument by acknowledging a low suicide rate for those 'atheist countries' rather than a no-sucide-rate at all. If those Scandinavian countries are anything to go by that appellation of 'atheist countries', you won't have any suicide - if that is what you want to maintain. I wonder: why are there suicides in those countries at all?

The thing is that we all share a common humanity - atheists as well as theists of all shades are as damned to commit sucides and all sorts. Atheism does not make any better score on the chart as reason for low rates of suicide, and we should be careful about citing so-called research reports making this kind of silly connections. They are illiterate non-starters for the balance of views on matters like this. Why? Well, just as some may cite sources praising such 'atheist countries' as Sweden for low rates of suicides, other sources note that the same Sweden had a close tie with religious countries like the USA in that regard. An example below:

The happiness survey, described at Nationmaster.com, has the people of Sweden third in the world, behind Iceland and the Netherlands.

The Suicide rate in close to that of the U.S. but  less than Russia. Russia in 2002 had 69.3 suicides per 100,000 people. The United States in 2001 had 10.4. In Sweden, suicides have been declining, from a high of 22.3 per 100,000 in 1970 to 13.4 in 2001. In both the U.S. and Sweden a steep rise occurs in males by age 75 -  60.9 in the U.S. and 42.2 in Sweden. Is this the result of better health care for older people in Sweden?  Maybe not. Maybe the Swedes take better care of themselves and so are in better shape in old age. Maybe a little of both. (These figures are from the World Health Organization)

http://www.fsmitha.com/world/sweden.html

I often laugh at this totally unrelated quip of helping atheism with a face-lift on issues like this - as if atheism has anything to do with low rates of suicides, murders, deaths, crimes, etc. No, my guy. . nada, nothing, zilch. Our common humanity (religious or irreligious) record these problems and have nothing to do with 'atheist countries' versus 'theist countries'.

beneli:

Suicide rates in the countries you mention are actually among the highest. Here is a WHO link for you to peruse http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Ah, there - you had anticipated me on that one. I had tried to draw the same point in the link I provided that says "(These figures are from the [b]W[/b]orld [b]H[/b]ealth [b]O[/b]rganization)". This is why I worry about people claiming low suicide rates for so-called 'atheist countries'.

Deep Sight:

The very existence of any meaningfulness in our lives, such as family, love, ambition or other reference points for meaningfulness, is evidence that life is not accidental, by chance, or meaningless.

Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature.

What do we understand by the word 'meaning'? For me, meaning is simply a reference. When I ask what does something means, what I am saying is what does it refer to. Meaning suggests that there is an interconnectedness between events in the universe. So various events point to, refer to, are connected to, various other events.

When I ask what 'Je t'aime' means, you can answer that it means 'I love you'. In other words Je t'aime refers to, is connected to, I love you.

I walk into your room and I'm surprised to find books and papers scattered all over your desk. "What does this all mean I ask"?
To which you respond, "I have that big exam tomorrow, remember? I have a lot of reading up to do." The open books are connected to the exam tomorrow, they are not just there independently for no reason.

"Why did the apple fall from the tree?"
"Because there is a force called gravity that emanates from material bodies and gravity pulls the apple to the earth"
The falling apple is a reference to a reality that we have not experienced first hand. No one has ever seen the force of gravity. If the apple falls slower to the ground that Means that gravity is lesser.

To say that there is no meaning in existence is to go against every instinct in the human mind, and against all our experience. We instinctively seek for meaning because we believe intrinsically that events are connected to other events and do not occur independently. Without this instinctive belief in meaning, there would be no science at all.

Most of the recalcitrance against the idea of meaningfulness comes from existentialists/atheists resenting the Idea that the perceivable universe makes a reference to another metaphysical reality.

viaro:

I like the idea behind your reasoning; but had waited to see comments that fall on that quote. To me, it seems that the 'reference points' to meaningfulness as highlghted in yours are inconclusive (and that's probably why Tudor seized upon and wasted it). You see, those indices are observable in animal life as well; but even in non-biological phenomena, the idea of 'family' is observable (such as 'group identities' and chemical reactions in elements). Okay, perhaps I was kidding there. . not likely; but please consider it carefully.

Were you kidding? Weren't you kidding? I can't tell but either way that's a fine point, very well put, and I might yet use it myself in the future.

viaro:

Hehehe. .  good one. . very good one!

I thought of 'intent' as well, but felt I would be digging a ditch for myself. Akin to 'intent' are other words that crossed my mind as plan, goal, aim, objective, meaning, significance, purpose, etc., etc. . . and this thread is already asking those same questions in one apt manner: 'the Purpose of Life (why were we created?)'

However, in accord with the idea behind Deep Sight's earlier quote (Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature), I thought 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier. There are two reasons why I thought so:

(a) One reason was because using 'intent' would render my comments incoherent, especially as 'intent' is synonymous with 'purpose'. So, if I were to try 'intent' instead of 'meaningfulness', and the synonyms were brought to their basic sameness (that is, 'intent' = 'purpose') then I could not say:

'Meaningfulness Intent is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose intent and a personal nature'

             . . . nor even simply:

'Purpose is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature'

On the other hand rather, I was thinking about the basic or fundamental element behind anything one might describe as a 'purpose'; and that basic element IMO would be 'intelligence'. That is because, any detectable "intent/purpose" would of necessity involve some level of 'intelligence'. In that understanding, I thought it might be better to say instead: "Intelligence is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature."


(b) The second reason why I thought that 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier would be that 'intent' sounded a bit more subjective to me. I mean, should someone ask me what I supposed was the "intent" (or 'purpose') of the Creator in having created us and the Universe, I immediately recognize that my own take would be subjective - descriptive only of what I might think, and not necessarily what the Creator Himself had in mind.

I have no way of peering into the Creator's mind to understand exactly the way He arrives at a decision - any decision at all - in order to form my subjective answers to the question of the "purpose" of Life in regards of creation. Indeed, this second reason stems from my understanding of such verses like Romans 11:34 - 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?' It's not my style to pretend to know His exact intent/intention/purpose in creation - the vast creation of the cosmos and all within it - so I often shy away from making subjective statements in this wise (statements which could apparently have the appearance of wisdom but in actuality are simply dense - see Job 38:2 - 'Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?').


So all the yada above. I thought 'intelligence' might be the basic element that points to any intent/intention/purpose detectable anywhere; and on that basis that it would be more aptly descriptive of the idea behind Deep Sight's quote.

I've got my own working definition for intelligence that is sometimes at odds with how others use the term.  It's quite subtle.

I define intelligence as the the ability to acquire and store information.  End of story, no comma, full permanent full stop. 
I therefore see the world as a duality of two components, Information and Intelligence.  Information is that which shapes, gives form (static or dynamic) to events, in other words, information informs.  It determines How.  Intelligence on the other hand receives information.  It is kinda like the relationship between a stamp and a piece of plasticene.  The stamp is the information while the plasticene that gets stamped is the intelligence.  To the extent that it can receive the information from the stamp is the extent of its intelligence. 

Now the tricky part is when I bring Intent into it, because of course Intent is itself a kind of information.  Now imagine an intelligence that also has imprinted on it an intent.  Say for instance an intelligent being that has an intent of going to the market.
Now imagine that the road to the market is blocked.  The ability to acquire information from the circumstance, that will enable the intelligence being to pick an alternative route to fulfilling it's intent is a more recognisable mark of intelligence.
I started a thread called Ona kan o w'oja (more than one path to the market) in order to explore these ideas, but the other main contributor was Olabowale.  So as you can imagine the thread went nowhere. 

The main point that I'm trying to make here, and there is a point trust me, be patient, is that people rarely recognize intelligence if it not applied to an intent.  If someone is not willful then that person might appear unintelligent.  For instance, an old man who has seen and done it all is approached by a young 'un who lies to him in order to get some money from him.  The old man actually sees through the young guy's ruse but he can't be bothered and gives in to him anyway.  It might seem that the old guy has been duped but in actual fact he hasn't, he's just let the matter slide. 

So you see intelligence without intent is hard to see.  However it is possible, and not only possible, but common.

viaro:

However, in accord with the idea behind Deep Sight's earlier quote (Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature), I thought 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier. There are two reasons why I thought so:

(a) One reason was because using 'intent' would render my comments incoherent, especially as 'intent' is synonymous with 'purpose'. So, if I were to try 'intent' instead of 'meaningfulness', and the synonyms were brought to their basic sameness (that is, 'intent' = 'purpose') then I could not say:

'Meaningfulness Intent is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose intent and a personal nature'

             . . . nor even simply:

'Purpose is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature'

Could it be that Deepsight's statement is just plain wrong. Okay, if not wrong then in need of a dusting down.
That there is meaning at all is 'conclusive proof'(?) of a creator with a purpose? How do you arrive at that?

beneli:


Existential angst is common to ALL 'intelligent' humans at one point or the other in their life journeys. Some are pacified by 'religion', not necesarily Judeo-Christian. Those that aren't able to find the peace of religion resort to suicide (sometimes cloaked as euthenasia). Hence the unarguably higher rate of suicide in atheist countries.   

A philosopher once said that 'Religion was the opiate of the masses'. I don't think that his observation was sharp enough. If he looked closer he would have seen that Meaning is the opiate of the masses. Anything that provides meaning will serve as such opiate whether it be religion, political ideology, History, etc.

The question is: how objectively True are the meanings that we believe in? Which is better: to be in possession of unsound meaning or to be faced with an existential meaninglessness? The latter is what leads to the high suicide rates that yes are more common amongst the atheists.

Nobody is answering the question as to WHY we were created. Basically all we've seen here is people laying down 'what' man is

Tudór:

Nobody is answering the question as to WHY we were created. Basically all we've seen here is people laying down 'what' man is

Tudor, have you considered that your question is loaded? First by asking 'why' you are presuming that there is an intention for creation, probably the intention of a Creator-God. I know that you don't believe in one, but if we are to 'presume' that this world is the work of a creator then, presuming that he/she/it is motivated like we are, the question 'why' could have any number of answers. It could be a whim. God created the universe just for kicks. Or there could be a specific purpose in which case we have to ask 'what is the source of that purpose/intention as separate from the universe for which the universe is created'?

I don't see how the question is loaded. . . . Anyone willing to answer should do so based on his understanding or what his religion teaches. Religions don't presume they like to think they Know.

I just want an idea of Why according to different faiths.

This question bothered me while I was still christian and i'd love so see ideas about it.

Pastor AIO:

It could be a whim. God created the universe just for kicks.

Yes o. . . and there's of course the possiblity that its the work of super advanced beings like ourselves toying with an experiment. . .

The developing field of planetary engineering demonstrates this. . . man is already planning how to engineer planets. . . there is no reson to suppose that science cannot develop to the degree that in another 10, 000 years we are engineering new universes. . .

There are a million possibilities. . .

But all the possibilities do not obviate the cosmological question of a first cause. . .

Pastor, i need your attention here -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371493.0.html

@Pastor AIO,

Thanks for the responses, quite interesting. This one first:

Pastor AIO:

Could it be that Deepsight's statement is just plain wrong. Okay, if not wrong then in need of a dusting down.

Well, it seemed possible that his statement was 'wrong', but I was being careful to not hastily conclude so - especially when I did not know where he was coming from. Perhaps, a small tuning ('dusting down') would be more preferable.

That there is meaning at all is 'conclusive proof'(?) of a creator with a purpose? How do you arrive at that?

It's quite an enigma (IMO), whether we look at it subjectively or. . objectively. The subjective case may not be much of a problem, as we may each and everyone have our various take on the issue. But just how do we proceed with an objective realisation of what we intend here, before drawing any conclusions at all? Sincerely, I don't know - and it seems to me that previous attempts have not even scratch the surface of that enigma.

Pastor AIO:

I've got my own working definition for intelligence that is sometimes at odds with how others use the term.  It's quite subtle.

I like that so very much - the highlight taken into consideration. While you logically moved out from your initial definition of intelligence, I realised that it encompassed several other elements you may not have detailed. In this regard, it would not only include your own definition, but a few others as Wikipedia highlights:

[list]Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence.[/list]

I started a thread called Ona kan o w'oja (more than one path to the market) in order to explore these ideas, but the other main contributor was Olabowale.  So as you can imagine the thread went nowhere.

Oh dear me! You asked for . . !!!    Okay, kidding. But that would have been quite a good thing to discuss, and hope for the day many more who post in the Religion Board would be able to rise above mere theological exercises and experiment with just thinking (no, I don't want to say 'philosophy' too quickly).

The main point that I'm trying to make here, and there is a point trust me, be patient, is that people rarely recognize intelligence if it not applied to an intent.

That is a fine point - I dare add nothing to it.

So you see intelligence without intent is hard to see.  However it is possible, and not only possible, but common.

Good point.

________________
addendum

Pastor AIO:

Were you kidding? Weren't you kidding? I can't tell but either way that's a fine point, very well put, and I might yet use it myself in the future.

Well, sorry for the mix-up there; but I was not kidding on that though.