Non-religious point of life.

\



Nothing being literal means nothing at all.

 

In my opinion

1 Sentence:

We have so many reason to NOT believe in religion, But what reasons do we HAVE to believe? None

 

Sex is a "choice" in that an specific individual can choose not to have sex (which in the animal kingdom leads to offspring most of the time, plants have no choice in the matter), however as a species it is not a choice it must occur or the species will die out.

That's completely incorrect in that drawing the comparison requires those restrictions as the comparison was highlighting the fact that the purpose of the script was something that it was programmed to do so thus if we are programmed to do something it must be its purpose. The origination of how the programming came to be is entirely irrelevant to the comparison because the comparison has nothing to do with the actual programming.

I said that what you are doing is creating a circular argument which is essentially like you asking what is the circumference of a circle and i say about its radius times pi and then you asking what its radius is and i say the circumference divided by pi and then you asking the circumference ect.

Companies purpose is to sell their "product" which could be something tangible or a service. Your definition is incorrect because Non-profit companies don't make any money (at least legally), however they sell a product/service. In order to sell those products/services they need to employ people much like in order to reproduce you must eat, sleep and drink. I said that individuals have choice to reproduce. Assuming you some how convinced every single human to not reproduce ever the species would die out within a hundred or so years and become extinct, an individual being able to choose regarding reproduction (besides the fact that we are literally the only species where those who are able to reproduce don't) doesn't affect the fact that we continue to grow at an exponential rate because other people reproduce enough for that person to be accounted for.

Also being a characteristic of something doesn't stop it from being its purpose, for example this script has a characteristic that it displays readable text, which is also its purpose.

I don't see how it is contentious, its simple fact that those who are unable to bear children with their sexual partner are of biological uselessness, this includes impotence for any reason and gay people. Its simple fact in my opinion and isn't discriminating against them.

Its not a question of finding an article that links to that but more common fact that if you have an obstruction in your path you can either move around it to the left or right, or go over or under it or turn around to continue. This is a choice what you are going to do. You don't need to research this because it's something that's fairly rudimentary.

Its a function that you must partake in to reproduce, which was my argument against it being the purpose of life because you are attempting to reach the end goal with it. Surviving also isn't an odd purpose, and its not existing to exist, Surviving is furthering your existence not simply existing. Existing would be something that would involve you doing nothing.

You took my point out of context. I answered why we are here as in this point in the universe assuming it was a graph and you plotted the point we were and said "Why are we here" you even quoted why are we here as in this specific point in this specific universe with the expanded 3 dimensions we can sense is that we have no idea which implies that this is NOT speaking of a purpose but of a location.

Directly from your source
"Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals"

and

"The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion"

I have a full time job, university classes and a girlfriend to attend to, I don't really have time to properly format a complete argument, these kind of point by point rebuttals don't take me much more than 10 minutes which is an acceptable amount of time. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in writing an essay to discuss my full opinion for a while anyways until its less busy.

Those were actual versus, I am not sure who decided to "interpret" your bible, however Thou shalt not kill has been the literal interpretation in English from the book of Exodus for at least 60 years as the bible my grandparents owned contained those exact words as I am reading them.

In fact it actually goes back to 1611 from the King James version of the bible:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/book.php?book=Exodus&chapter=20&verse=13

It states thou shalt not kill plain and simple you are wrong. Lastly before you speak of any other bible. They are "modern translations" which means that someone recently decided to change the interpretation of something that existed in the same changing language of English for about 400 years. What that mean's is that they aren't interested in the actually meaning but more of a political appearance. I personally think that do not murder is a better rule of thumb to go by, but it says what it said.

 

Excellent, so, sex isn't a choice for certain kingdoms of species. As you have just stated: "plants have no choice in the matter". But you previously stated:

Reproduction comes from sex, asexual or sexual. In the case of asexual sex, you just testified, at least to plants, that it was not a choice, much like metabolism. It just so happens that in order for the species to survive ie. continue in its existence, it must both reproduce via sex, and metabolise, among other things.

You can write a book with the intention and thus, purpose of making money. The fact that the book services the function of giving the audience something to read is merely the characteristic of all books.

I'm asking that why you think reproduction is the purpose of life. Paraphrased, your response is essentially because all life does it. I then asked you why the fact that all species do x means x is the purpose. In fact, the circular argument would be on you if you are answering my questions with your own premises.

While it is true that in modern times a companies purpose may not be solely to make money (in times bygone, it was). However, using your argument for the purpose of life, what do all companies have in common (aside from offering goods or services). All companies spend money. Does this mean that the purpose, or a purpose, of a company is to spend money?

I agree, characteristics can be purposes, but not all characteristics are purposes. For example, all books have pages, this is a characteristics of books. This does not mean at all that the purpose of books is to have pages.

You don't see how it is controversial to say a group of people are biologically useless? You could be absolutely right in your assertion, that doesn't mean it's not a controversial issue. For example, the existence of God by logic to many may seem to straight forward, that doesn't mean it's not a controversial issue.

So, you don't have a source to back up the claim that amoeba choose which way they go. Blindfold yourself and walk around where you live for a few minutes. Why did you choose to step there and not there?

Surviving is continuing to exist, not furthering your existence. Furthering is progressing, and you can survive without the progression of ones existence. In fact, you can survive with the continuation of your existence being in a state of decline.

The question "why are we here" can be rephrased to "why do we exist". I didn't intend the word "here" to be taken so literally as to mean a point on the 3D Cartesian co-ordinate system, rather, what is the reason for our existence. As it happens, that's the exact definition of purpose: the reason for ones existence.

Exactly! It may refer to, but is not "restricted" to.

I understand. An argument consists of premises leading to a logical conclusion. This takes minutes to formulate. The time consuming part is debating whether these premises are correct. In the case that the argument leads to the conclusion, and the premises are correct, then the conclusion must be true. It's must easier to keep track of an argument this way.

 

If you look aesthetically at a religious point of view, it is to reproduce.
If you look directly at an atheist point of view, it is to reproduce.

There is a raw answer right there.^