So the meaning of life is “Ouch, that hurts!” ?
That’s a bummer.
At last, I understand. Fuck! I’m dead.
This is going to sound like stoner philosophy, but bear with me:
The meaning of life is that it has no meaning.
There is no “Meaning Of Life”. You determine what you mean your life to be from day to day, and at the end of it you can decide if you managed to do what you set out to do.
What she said. You’re born, you live, you die. In between, you may as well enjoy yourself and be nice to other people.
It does? Hasn’t your faith historically suffered schisms and internecine wars and such? Heck, you don’t even have a consensus now.
I have never heard this or anything like this Bob Hope version of existence. My personal version, on the rare occasions I muse on it, is that we’re part of an evolutionary chain of struggle and development that’ll eventually lead to some kind of singularity of reason. I put this evolutionary struggle as far more noble and significant than any creator-god myth, which casts us as a mere hobby project of some capricious child-entity.
So you’re saying that when we die, on our deathbed, we’ll receive total consciousness?
Actually, you have. Three times so far. Some people are never satisfied.
Ok, so essentially “meaning = meaning”. Thanks, that cleared things up a lot.
Rubbish. The acquisition of happiness is not a zero-sum game; if I become more happy, it’s not because someone else is less happy. If anything my happiness increases by being surrounded by happy people being nice to each another, so of course I want to contribute towards a world in which strangers are kind to one another; it’s the sort of world I would have the most pleasure living in.
Dude…whoa… 
If we’re taking a poll, I’ve got another vote for no. That would be completely creepy and pointless.
OK, now I want everyone to pile on and agree with Rand Rover. He can take it.
*Don’t hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, all your money won’t another minute buy
Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind *–Kansas
No, it does not go without saying . . . not that it really changes anything.
The only rational answer is: The purpose of your life is whatever you decide it to be. This is true for Christians, Hindus, atheists, and even people who decide that there’s no purpose. Nobody is born with an innate “meaning of life,” but at some point you (and everyone else) decide what it is . . . or isn’t.
I’ve always thought this question was really rather simple 'lest you take the theistic perspective in which case it becomes a whole lot more complicated (In the case of Christianity: God has a mysterious purpose for you. What is it? Well he works in mysterious ways so… but I digress…).
There’s no reason to believe that there is any inherent purpose to life on the universal/supernatural level. That is to say there is no reason to believe that the universe was created for any reason, nor the earth, or the rocks, animals, and by the same reasoning, humans.
At the biological level? I suppose one could make an argument that the “purpose” of life is to reproduce in the sense that it’s what we were made to do. (Made in the evolutionary sense. We were optimized by natural forces to reproduce).
On the human level, these do not concern us. We do not consciously try to maximize our genetic material in future generations. We may want children, but not because we want to pass on our genes (or at least most of us I think). We want children because it brings a deep satisfaction. Happiness if you will. Thus, as others have said, I think a very strong case can be made that the purpose of life, on the human level is the pursuit of happiness, whatever that happiness may be.
This I think deserves some elaboration, for our ideas of happiness are very much influenced by our biology and our evolutionary history. Having to pee or being hungry is what I would call a state of unhappiness, that makes sense. Being hungry long enough kills you. How about being nice? Personally, I find being nice pleasurable. There’s a good reason to believe that most people do too. This also makes sense, in recent years we have found some evidence that being nice has neurobiological origins (empathy and altruism for a start). Again, from an evolutionary point of view, this makes sense (too lazy to elaborate, look it up).
So simply, the purpose of life, as it is most relevant to us is the pursuit of happiness or whatever we find most pleasurable. You can say this more abstractly as “reproducing” or a little more concretely as “whatever you say it is” but at the end of the day, it’s the same thing. I suppose, theoretically “reproduction” may be part of some greater abstraction (i.e. theism). Or maybe we’re just plain wrong. However, as of today there’s no evidence, and thus no reason to believe that we are.
If your two stated goals were in conflict, which would take precedence? (serious question)
Most posters agreed that being nice to people was a path to happiness. I can agree with that. But making up a purpose or meaning in life just doesn’t work in the long run. As a child going to school I wondered why I had to learn so much stuff that didn’t interest me at all. There was a reason, a good reason, but I missed it at that age.
Life is like that, I believe there is a reason and meaning in everything that we do and everything that happens to us. No accidents for me.
That’s a very interesting question, however as an atheist, I think it’s based on a flawed assumption. I don’t think there is a meaning of life. Any meaning I would give life would be very subjective - and I do admit that doing so can be beneficial. I suppose that, for me, the meaning of life is to just live it.
Conversely, I don’t see god’s existence with providing any better meaning of life (just on the face of ‘god exists’).
As to your question, I’m not sure that I would go through with it. I can’t see the point - but this isn’t a result of my stance on the meaning of (at least, I don’t think so).
If the only thing restraining a person from doing exactly what he/she wants, to the harm or detriment of her/his fellow humans beings, is because God had to instruct him/her not to, that person is better described as ‘Psychopath’ than ‘Christian’.
If you can’t see the intrinsic ‘good value’ in being ‘good’, then how do you know God is telling the truth when he says that helping old ladies across the street is a ‘good’ thing? And if you follow it without seeing (for and by yourself) that it’s good, then it isn’t the meaning of life at all - it’s meaningLESS.
That would be a decision for the individual; in my case, it would depend on the specific situation. For example, I might forgo a white chocolate mocha tomorrow and give the money to a homeless person. On the other hand, I might go play paintball and shoot somebody in the butt from close range.
I wouldn’t call them stated goals, anyway. It’s more a case of “this is what I have chosen to do with my life”. I wouldn’t say my particular view of things is inherently superior to any other.
That is a purpose or meaning you made up.
Exactly. If you’re a believer and God appeared to you tomorrow and told you that he wanted you to kill your child, would you do it? Would that immoral act suddenly become the moral thing to do because God commanded it?
I find it interesting that the only person so far who would take up the offer of one month of hedonism that is completely forgotten is the OP, who professes to be Christian.
I wonder if that says anything about the relative morality of the two … philosophies, or just something about the OP.