There is no point to our existence, and all life is disposable.

[meldave00]

Existence, and all life is disposable

Perhaps feeling itself is the reason for living. Whether its pain or joy. If you imagine that your existence is merely a blip in time compared to the beginning and end of our universe. There is a famous quote that goes a little something like this: "true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing". So perhaps assuming life is meaningless is foolish. I'm assuming we are all to ignorant to assume life is meaningless. Do we have all the evidence to prove this to be the case?

The mere fact that I can type my thoughts in this forum is a miracle within itself. To think that I am able to communicate my thoughts thru cyberspace to some other person sitting across the world is an awesome achievement and to me seems to complex to be a mere coincidence.

I choose to decide that life has meaning because it feels good and I have no evidence to prove it doesn't or does not. I will take the glass is half full approach (positive route).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

the only reason to live for me is to enjoy life, not hedonism but to really apreciate all the amazing things in the universe, to live each day as if it were a discovery, a challenge and had at least some meaning, or at least to live as many days like this as I can before I die, the meaning fo life is indeed that there isn't one at least you will never find it while you are alive(assuming God exists) And not at all if not. Camus said life is absurd and who am I to argue? Is there anything in life that makes absolute sense, are there any hard fast rules? I've yet to see them. Nihilism is all very well but what you going to do with the other 99% of your life

I'm agnostic but there are many forms of this belief in the unknown question, here's wikipedias take on Agnosticism which includes a broader base than just the understanding that there can be no understanding of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Other variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.

Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge Vs Beliefs) Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It may also imply the belief that although there is something that resembles (or would at least appear to us as) a god (or gods), there remains doubt over their true nature, motives, or the validity of the claim to be 'God' rather than superior, supernatural being(s).

Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

I would also include, couldnotgivearatsasseitherwaysticism which is prevalent amongst many of my friends which is a form of apathetic agnosticism

 

[Pythagorean]

I always say I'm agnostic and pluralist

pluralist meaning all religions are equally valid.
agnostic meaning don't know, can't judge.

My assumption is that religion is a mechanism necessary to human survival in some way. One person suffering will invent an imaginary friend, but hundreds of people suffering together will create a religion.

I'm not religious myself, but I've had a reasonably easy life in comparison to most of our ancestors worldwide.

EDIT: I also consider myself a taoist on some levels, which is not necissarily a 'religion'

 

[KnightTemplar]

I have a harsh realistic philosophy. I enjoy it too. I am a atheist, and do not believe in any "super natural power" such as a "God." I know that science has its laws and that we were created by some chemical process. Humans contribute nothing, nor is there anything to contribute too. The universe shouldn't even be here, it does not make any sense. But besides that impossible debate, humans and life itself of all kinds are pointless. We study life and everything, for what? We are born then we die, it is a continuous cycle. So whatever you do in life, it does not matter. Sure it may benefit other humans, but they are going to die too. Who says murder is wrong? There is nothing wrong with it, though society and the human survival technique of fear has led to morals against it. We are simply organisms, just more complex than that roach you killed. Why don't we just go and party 24/7 and enjoy ourselves while we are here? why do that? since we all die and our experiences do not matter since they were just a mental feeling and etc...

basically, life is pointless. Though I admit to being human and with my morals that I have been taught, I can not simply change my ways and career due to my strong feelings toward nothing. Too renegade.

Yup, just thought I would express myself a little.

Do you really believe that complex being like us earthlings just came about from some accidental chance from nowhere? Do you disagree with science in respects to the law of biogenesis that says that all life came from life, not non-life?

Are the laws not written in our hearts and minds? If meaninglessness is true, then law is not true; and if law is not true then we don't need police; and if we don't need police we don't have any meaning left in keeping them since there is no law by your meaningless hypothesis. So rape,murder, and suicide is all acceptable and we should just live for nothing, right? How long will you keep this hollow philosophy of meaninglessness? Will it produce happiness for you? Does it lead to productive or deductive results?

 

[iknowNOTHING!!]

okaaay. so its really not very clever to come up with 'there's no point in life'. Really that's a simplistic perspective...Rather than watching a clock with a blank face on as the hands go round and round thinking 'this is hopeless'... question yourself as to how the hands are spinning and how the hell we even see all this nothing into something anyway. see...we can't imagine what we don't know. just think of that. we used to think the world was flat and when the suggestion of round was made it was scoughed at. were all ignorant, and affraid to beleive. Dont you think that brought hope?? to have made a discovery that literally turned the world around. I think that's our problem, that's why people are feeling there is no point, its too much consistancy...and not enough to worry about. our minds are bored and we need a new perspective. Just think...if there was a giant purple ape roaming streets ready to eat you alive everytime you left you house, would you be thinking life was pointless then!? No! youd be just be happy to have made it home alive. Just don't be affraid to think past all we know towards a world we can't even imagine. Or...we can genetically inhance aps to be killers and solve everyone's problems that way...i don't know.
lol...
its all rather mystical if you think about it though. us, humans that are made up as the same stuff around us but can be consciously aware. Our brain made up of nothing, can transform everything around us into this reality. So actually the guestion isn't what the point, its is any of this real??

 

[Paddy]

...I also used to adopt this philosophy, but then I asked the question, "If life is pointless and I'm just going to die, why should I enjoy myself?" It's not like when you die you're going to remember all the good times that you had, all that sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. If we all adopted the philosophy of hedonism, I think it's safe to say that our civilization would have progressed much more slowly and would continue to progress slowly now. Instead of me justifying to you why you shouldn't party and have every action depend on your happiness, tell me why you should.

Well, I think hedonism is my philosophy, until now I didn't know how it was called, but thanks to Jameson and this website, I know its hedonism.

If Life is pointless and we are going to die, not remembering all the good times we had, all the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll (Even though I don't like rock 'n' roll), then why worry about it? My answer to this question Jameson is simple, if we will not remember all this when we are dead, if after death there is no feeling, why worry about death? why worry about the future? Its the present that matters isn't it? if right now I feel good and enjoy having sex or doing something, why not do it? why not enjoy life? sure we are not going to remember once dead, but we are not going to remember that we didn't do it either, so why not think about the present? why not think about enjoying life step by step?

I believe there is something out there, however I am not religious

...And I don't have a religion, but I don't get people that say they're an atheist. Have they no imagine? Can they not imagine that there is something bigger out there than our present understanding?
...

Like J77 said i do image and am convinced that there is something bigger than us out there, might not be God as we know it, but there is something out there definitely.

I believe but i am not religious, I do hardly follow religion (I hardly do anyway).

 

[TuviaDaCat]

to the one who opened the topic:

heh, i thought about it in age 16, with all the hormons going wild, its a bad thinking material to the mind... suicide came in mind, yet here i am.

anyway, there is know "book of life" for me, those who are confused to have indepent thoughts, like this one, chose some sort of bible to live by.
it is all meaningless, no astral, or defult laws. yet it does not mean a man should end life for being aware to such facts.

think of yourself as a machine, a machine driven by two factors:
-positive feedback: some things you do in life, make u feel "good", and you would like to repeat them the most.
-negative feedback: some thing you do in life make you feel "bad" and you would like to avoid repeating them.

so your goal in life can be defined by: repeat the most positive feedback, and avoid the most negative feedback.

so life shouldn't be comlicated with eternal ideas, do whatever you wish to do. heh, but just to keep in mind that humans who would get a negative feedback, by one's positive feedback(killing?), this one will get lots of negative feedback when caught.

 

[Veritas]

First of all i am atheist to. And from what i have learned, though highly unprobable, there could be a "higher power" but even if there is one why would it exist. I mean no matter how you think about there is no point for existence. If anyone knows about the ring or string theory, it helps explain what I am saying.

 

[Tzemach]

GOD'S EXISTENCE SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

Professor John Wheeler, former Chair of the Physics Department at the University of Texas at Austin, formerly a colleague of Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr, and considered one of the foremost contemporary thinkers in theoretical physics and cosmology, had this to say (from a PBS science documentary, "The Creation of The Universe"): "To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, 'How could it have ever been otherwise?'"

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature – like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Newcastle University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies, adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life – almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and G-d: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: "The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present."

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

Dr. Gerald Shroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T., wrote to us and had this to say. "As is, the site is excellent. Any additions I suggest here are merely fine-tuning. But let me give me two or three more major examples":
1. Nobel laureate, high-energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if anyone of several physical quantities had slightly different values."
2. Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile: "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bull’s-eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."
3. Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.


Yes I am a believer, there is too much to indicate that it is not all just some sort of strange accident. If it was truly that simple we would have discovered it all by now.

 

[Rade]

...Yes I am a believer, there is too much to indicate that it is not all just some sort of strange accident. If it was truly that simple we would have discovered it all by now.

OK, but is it not yet more strange--your belief--that universe is outcome of a designer that itself was not designed ? What are the odds against this, for a designer not to be designed ? -- seems to me to be 0.0 %. Thus at least the argument of universe from accident has some odds of possibility (even if small), while your argument from designer has 0.0 % possibility.

 

[PIT2]

OK, but is it not yet more strange--your belief--that universe is outcome of a designer that itself was not designed ? What are the odds against this, for a designer not to be designed ? -- seems to me to be 0.0 %. Thus at least the argument of universe from accident has some odds of possibility (even if small), while your argument from designer has 0.0 % possibility.

What about a TV that was designed by a non-designed human? Also 0.0% chance? Does that mean its 100% chance that humans were designed?

Also I am curious why u would say there is a 0.0% chance, would a designer designing itself have a higher probability? Or is it just the idea of a universe-designer in any form that u think is unlikely?