Author Topic: The Purpose of Life (Read 55873 times)

l0ckp1ck · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2011, 12:10:25 AM »

the main purpose of life it would appear is to breed, eat, sleep, insult people then die. it goes back to whole question why we are here and where did we come from which is what i assume tubby was trying to bring the whole god thing back into debate. the only person that would possibly know the meaning of life would be god if he did exist, or unless u believe people who say there is a 90yo man over in india who claims to know the meaning of life but he won't answer unless you ask him the right question, i mean it's pretty stupid if you ask me.

reaper · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2011, 12:32:13 AM »

If you wanna find out I've got a paypal account. Quadz can vouch for me that I"ve got all the answers.

Tubby · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2011, 01:09:06 AM »

Quote from: quadz on February 11, 2011, 04:33:44 PM

Out of curiosity, if you remove philosophy, theology, and science from a discussion of what is traditionally a philosophical/theological question, what have you got left? (*)

In other words, what non-scientific, non-theological, and non-philosophical avenue(s) of inquiry do you suppose will shed new light on this topic?
(*) Douglas Adams notwithstanding.

Quadz, I think that in order to address the question we really need to forget about pigeonholeing our avenues of thought into philisophical, theological, and scientific boxes. I think we need to back up a bit - no, a lot - here.

Simply step outside for an hour or so, literally, step outside and take a look at nature in action.

I don't mean take a trip to the jungles of Congo or the Amazon basin. I mean simply step outside your front door and take a look at the reality of nature in black and white. EVERYWHERE there is evidence of the strong dominating the weak: The fly caught in a spider web, The dog chasing the cat, The weeds choking your vegetable garden. Simple things like that. Then you could go further afield, for example to your local school where you'll see the (physically & intellectually) stronger kids dominating the weaker kids; Or to the local pub where the good-looking guys pick up all the hot chicks.

It's Everywhere: In families (sibling rivalry). At work (promotion). On the sports field (self evident).

I have yet to come across any area of life in which the ultimate purpose is not for the strongest to dominate - and thus be eventually more likely to procreate - to the point where this seems to be the ultimate 'purpose of life'.

Even religions themselves are not exempt from this seemingly universal principle: Which world Religions are dominant today? And Why? Because their adherants killed or converted the adherents of the other weaker religions - and whose adherents are thereby going to produce the most offspring... Etc...

Quadz, as I said elsewhere, I don't profess to be as intellectually acute as you, but don't you think that maybe too much emphasis on intellectual ideals might sometimes blind us to that which would otherwise be self-evident?

yahoo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:06:05 AM »

LOL not again

Tubby · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:11:46 AM »

Quote from: yahoo on February 12, 2011, 02:06:05 AM

LOL not again

What? Am I 'trolling' again?

Please tell me if I am, because I really don't understand the difference between trolling & debating. And I don't want Admin to lock down this thread too.

reaper · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:17:58 AM »

religions primary tenant - treat others as you would yourself (dominating the weak???)

|iR|Focalor · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:24:28 AM »

I coulda swore he said "if he has something NEW to say". I coulda swore we've heard the "hunky guy fucking the hot chick" routine before.

Lemme go ahead and blow it outta the water... AGAIN.

When did women give a fuck about good looking guys? Maybe the dumb ones. The smart ones would prefer a guy with a big bank account as opposed to a big dick.

Your argument (this same one AGAIN) points to a few things.

1, you obviously don't have a woman because you know nothing about females.

2, since you don't have a woman, you don't have kids. You lied about having kids.

3, you probably are a kid yourself judging from the impulsive way you make arguments and never back them up with facts.

Tubby · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:36:46 AM »

Quote from: reaper on February 12, 2011, 02:17:58 AM

religions primary tenant - treat others as you would yourself (dominating the weak???)

Such "primary religious tenants" are generally used only in order to attract (religiously weak) people to the dominating religions' cause, Reaper.

A prime example of religious indoctrination.

Tubby · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2011, 02:54:59 AM »

Quote from: |iR|Focalor on February 12, 2011, 02:24:28 AM

When did women give a fuck about good looking guys? Maybe the dumb ones. The smart ones would prefer a guy with a big bank account as opposed to a big dick.

Focalor, maybe both of those things are just as important to a woman who wants to pass on 'positive' genes to her offspring: It doesn't matter if her man has a big dick or a big bank balance - either way it will mean her offspring will probably get to have an evolutianary advantage, one way or the other.

quadz · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2011, 04:25:41 AM »

Quote from: Tubby on February 12, 2011, 01:09:06 AM

Quote from: quadz on February 11, 2011, 04:33:44 PM
Out of curiosity, if you remove philosophy, theology, and science from a discussion of what is traditionally a philosophical/theological question, what have you got left?

In other words, what non-scientific, non-theological, and non-philosophical avenue(s) of inquiry do you suppose will shed new light on this topic?
Quadz, I think that in order to address the question we really need to forget about pigeonholeing our avenues of thought into philisophical, theological, and scientific boxes. I think we need to back up a bit - no, a lot - here.

Simply step outside for an hour or so, literally, step outside and take a look at nature in action.

Right, but what's next? Let's say I did step outside for an hour or so, literally, and I revelled in the awsomeness of nature in action. Only I did this 20,000 years ago in my cave, as a hunter-gatherer.

What's to separate my having stepped outside 20,000 years ago, and having been bowled over by the fucking awsomeness of nature in action, and my stepping outside today--and I assure you, I think nature is pretty awesome.

Tubby · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2011, 04:51:54 AM »

Quadz, that's exactly my point: The hunter / gatherer of 20,000 years ago will find no more difference in the evidence of 'survival of the fittest' as you yourself will if you walk out on your doorstep today and observe the fly getting caught in the spider web, the cat being chased by the dog, or the little weak kid getting bullied by the big strong kid.

It's still all about survival of the fittest - as I suggested - as it has been all along: Your scientific / intellectual arguments notwithstanding.

quadz · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2011, 05:22:14 AM »

Quote from: Tubby on February 12, 2011, 04:51:54 AM

It's all about survival of the fittest - as I suggested - as it has been all along: Your scientific / intellectual arguments notwithstanding.

So, basically cockroaches and leeches?

I say again: what's next?

Sgt. Dick · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2011, 06:58:07 AM »

This topic

QwazyWabbit · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2011, 11:16:40 AM »

The purpose of life is to live.

Cease to do evil.
Strive to do good.
Cleanse your own heart
This is the way of the Buddhas.

- Buddha

Live life, stop asking silly questions about it.

[BTF]Sigma · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2011, 11:53:24 AM »

Author Topic: The Purpose of Life (Read 55873 times)

l0ckp1ck

El Box de Shoutamente