Why are we here?

We are here because we speciated from the same primate that gave us chimps, and our imaginative minds proved useful in our survival.

What is the purpose of life to an atheist?

The same as every organism on this planet. Live, reproduce (or not) and die. What you do with that time in which your brain and organs function is up to you. If you want to waste it building buildings for a supernatural being to worship him in, then that's your business. I'm going to spend my time enjoying myself. 

It is also the reason why.

I'm here to eat more Doritos.

But seriously...I have a question: Why does anyone think there should be an answer to the question "Why are we here?"

Why does there have to be a devine purpose?

Where I am concerened the purpose of my life is mine and mine alone, no ultimate purpose.

 

Because it make my feel all tingly inside! 

 

We are here because our ancestors possessed phenotypes that were well adapted to the enviornment.  We are here for the same reason that all living organisims are here.  Polar bears are here because their phenotypes are well suited for their enviornment, and hence, are able to pass on their genetic material.  The same is true for humans.

The theist assumes that their must be a "why" over and above a "how."  They are one and the same.  For inquires into why the universe exists, consult modern cosmology.  As Stephen Hawking said in a lecture I heard:  "we are getting very close to answering the question:  Why are we hear?"  There is much we do not know yet, but more will be known with more inquiry.

Why do theists think that ignorance is somehow a point against the atheist?  What is so bad about saying the three little worlds:  I don't know? 

Isn't that more of an answer to how we are here as opposed to why we are here?

edit: Well then, that was already brought up. My bad. I still am not getting how it's "why" we are here. 

What doesn't make sense to me, is how you can value THIS life, given that when you die you believe you will go to a place that is infinitely better.  Think about this:  This is the one shot we have...given this, we should enjoy the brief time we exist.  For the theist, this isn't the only shot...this is a more highway that leads to something better.

Imagine you have a piece of cake.  You know, this is the last piece of cake you will ever eat.  You will enjoy it all the more, right?  now imagine you have a piece of cake, but know that once you eat this piece of cake, you will be given one that tastes infinitely better.  In which case will you appreciate more? 

In this case, the "why" assumes a sentient mind.  Since we naturalists believe life, and ultimately, the universe came into being an evolved in accordance with natural laws and processes, a "why" question in this case, doesn't apply.  There's no Purpose" behind the universe; there is just natural laws, processes and the universe, period.   

 

I would like to think that life has a purpose that's all. It doesn't make it true, but I feel better thinking that. 

 

Just because it may not be our only one, doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy it to the fullest. Ever heard the phrase: It's not the destination that's fun, it's the journey getting there (Or something like that).

 

 

 

That's your philosophy of life. Other people have theirs.

 

Best. Answer Ever.

Ghost Wrote:

For the record, I don't have any idea what you were talking about either.  Please answer Chaoslord's question, or stop spamming with posts that don't contribute to the thread.

 

Every atheist knows we're being cultivated as a low cost feed for the inhabitants of labor planet XVM-739 as they construct the milky way bordello and souvenir shop for their genetic and moral superiors, the Greater Andromeda Smaptians.

I think I am missing something here; let me get this straight. so, religion provides answers to metaphysical questions, like "who am I?" "why am I here?" and "where did I come from?" And an atheist view would be that those questions are irrelevant to the fullness of experience of our existence or that they are not metaphysical questions at all(?) Further, the athiest would argue that the answers religion provides have no evidence to support them.

The only problem I have is that even though evolution provides some evidence of biological evolution, the problem of infinite regression persists in that the question of the beginning would always be left unanswered. I suppose what I am trying to say is that it seems to me that reason has its limitations - this is where faith and religion steps in - granted in many corrupt and destructive forms. so, to me the fact that there is no evidence for these answers is precisely the essence of them and may be a good argument for why not to beleive in them, but I am missing how it's a good argument for why one should not ask them (because there's no answer?).

I may be way off because I don't know much about athiesm and I am a new philosophy major.

Anyway, it seems unfair to condemn the rest of the world to hell because the answer one person chose for their own supersensible questions is not accepted by all. At the same time it seems narrow-minded to contend for another person what metaphysical questions are/are not necessary for a rewarding existence.

If you're not looking for a causal explanation then what kind of explanation are you looking for?
The 'why' sounds like you are looking for an explanation involving 'intentions' and 'decisions'. In which case, perhaps I could say that I'm here because my parents wanted to bring a child into the world. (well, I actually think that they got a bit 'careless' once they were married, but I wasn't a complete accident! )

If not, what kind of explanation are you looking for?
You need to make yourself clearer.
I think "why are we here?" is one of those questions that sounds deep and confusing because it doesn't make sense and consequently baffles people.

First, welcome. Second, my responses are below. 

 Yes, you're missing something. Namely, I've never heard an atheist say that those are not metaphysical questions. Religion does not really answer those questions, either. Our parents answer "Who am I", science/biology answers, "Where did I come from" and we answer, "Why are we here?" We also answer, "Who am I" for ourselves, once we get old enough. How is it that we anwer, "Why am I here?" We answer that by coming to whatever conclusion we do. But in any case, it requires reason to do this. I'll respond to your "faith" point down below.

Not only that, but also that religion provides no evidence to support itself.

 The problem of infinite regression does not exist. This is an advanced physics question, better for one of the scientists over in the science forum. However, evolution does not provide an infinite regression anyway; it certainly has a terminal end. It's called abiogenesis and it has been shown possible in various experiments over the years.

 This is incorrect. Faith and religion do not provide answers to any questions that logic, reason and science cannot either. My question to you is: Where do faith and religion provide answers that science, logic and reason do not? I highly suggest the book Atheism: A Case Against God to answer this question. It's a great book for a philosophy person. I will contend that faith and religion cannot answer any questions at all. Why not? If you take an answer on faith and religion, then you could take ANY answer and just choose to believe it. Does that make faith a sensible way to come to a conclusion about something? Of course not. Furthermore, an example to provide illumination. Say you have faith that every time you flip a normal, heads-tails coin and let it land that it will be heads up. Let us even suppose that for the first ten times you flip it, it lands heads up. Does this make your faith correct? Of course not. Just having faith in something does not mean that you are correct, and neither does faith provide any type of method of knowing that you are or are not correct; it simply presupposes its own veracity. This is called assuming the conclusion, usually. 

You might say, "But reason and logic break down when asking metaphysical questions." No they don't. They have perfect answers for them. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that they are not correct. Sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth here. This response was also partly directed at the originator of this thread.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying these should not be asked. They are presuppositionalist questions, though, which makes them less important than many other questions, such as, "Why do I let appeals to emotion affect me?" 

You know, you're right. Because of that, we should try to fight religion and its world-damning attempts. Instead, we should villify the world with reason, logic and science and enter into a period of peace, rather than irrational religious wars. Just because someone does not accept a specific religious view is no reason to kill them -- yet most "holy" books claim that that is exactly what should be done. 

 

This is where I'd like to make a quick note to Captain Pineapple: I'm a little disappointed in you. I have heard much better arguments for believing in religion than, "It makes me happy." Sorry if I misquoted you, but that's how I read it. That is clearly an appeal to emotion fallacy, and I guess it just surprised me to read that it is a reason you have, since you seem fairly reasonable.

I'll go ahead and say it: There is none. There is no cosmic purpose to life.

 

Why would there be, when the fraction of the universe that all known life consitutes is so small it's hard to even give it number?

The purpose of life is to live, not to die. Reproduction is as close to immortality is one can achieve. A part of yourself continues on.

We are here to make Bill Gates rich.

What if there was a purpose to life and you found out what it was, and it turned out to be something you didn’t even care about like fishing or something like that? Of course if it was fishing I think I could live with that and it would be a lot more believable than if the purpose was getting down on your knees and talking to yourself like some kinda chump.

I think the question of "Why?" is inherently unknowable to a closed system. You need a place outside the system to be able to propperly answer. Is there a case where the question of "Why?" doesn't either ultmately lead to circular definitions or requiring a viewpoint outside of the system in question?

For example, lets take Mathematics. At the root of why math works, we get to a set of  axioms that are assumed to give a starting point for understanding and quantifying the world around us. Math in and of itself has no reason for existence.

If all of reality is subject to this, then it leads to the confusing thought of there being no reason for the existence of anything, which contradicts that we do in fact exist. I think it would be terribly ironic if we were able to logically prove our own non-existence.

In the meantime, we're left with the obvious fact that, regardless of the reasons, methods, etc of our existence, we exist, and might as well make the best of things. That should be justification enough for a logical system of morality. But I'm an idealist there...

Im not gonna lie, I dont know. And i dont think you know, and i dont think anybody knows. I think because people so badly wanted to know the purpose of life they made something up called heaven. Really, its a perfect goal, and it benefits everyone to think that if they a life of good moral, they will be rewareded with eternal happiness. Even better, it would really push you to be good if you thought you would be punished eternally for acting against good moral. The intent of the idea of God and heaven and  hell and living a life of good moral is without doubt probably the best idea ever made, and i think even the strongest atheist would have to agree. But I think atheists see past the illusion that many see, its tempting to want to believe the purpose of life is to be with a god and live in eternal happiness after death. But really, i think christians have fear of the unknown, afraid of not knowing the purpose of why we are here and what will happen when we die.

But really, i dont know. And I admit it as i think everyone should.

I don't know why I'm here either. My guess is that there probably isn't a reason. I'm just here. I exist. That's it. But that's just a guess.

Here's what I think is happening. When we humans ponder our existence it's really the universe pondering its own existence. Look at it this way. The atoms that make up our carbon bodies are the exact same atoms that existed when the universe was created twelve billion years ago. So we humans are made of those same atoms that are in the air and trees and squirrels and rocks and asteroids and stars that make up the universe and have been here since the very begining.

That means we humans are the universe. And it took twelve billion years to get to the stage where we ( the universe) is begining to ask, "What is my purpose?"

We have developed the Hubble telescope to gaze out into deep space to search for answers of how we got here and where we're going. Space probes travel to distance planets searching for answers and sending back data.

Churches are part of the universe that believes it already knows the answer and that no hard data is needed. It has come up with thousands of different answers each one believing it is the real answer.

In internet forums like this one we're still asking the question, "Why are we here? Why do we exist? What's the meaning of our existence? What's going on here?"

What's going on here is the universe is talking to itself and looking at itself asking, "Why am I here? What purpose do I have? Did something create me?"

Will the universe ever find an answer? Or will it discover that there is no answer or that it has no purpose?

I don't yet know. I'll just keep pondering. Or maybe I'll have a beer and listen to some music.