It would be nice that you quoted where you're responding to so I can know what you're saying
So now the basis of your argument is "not everything is a valid purpose"
No it isn't
However, this by no means discounts the argument that something can have multiple purposes or that said purposes can be subjective. Your argument is ridiculous because you take an extreme example that is by no means logical (no one would say the bananas statement)
What makes you say it is extreme?
You say, "it is by no means logical", what does that even mean? Of course no one would say the bananas statement, showing that there must be restriction to what can be considered a purpose
So then to say that for the purpose of life, to be nonrestrictive with it, will deplete all meaning from the word
and then somehow draw the conclusion that there has to be one universal meaning for life and that is to worship God and therefore atheists cannot have any meaning to their life. A bit absurd, isn't it?
Yeah it is a bit absurd, good thing I never made that argument or never came close to it
Similarly you're rebutting one or two ridiculous examples of how a car cannot be used but that misses the point that a car DOES have various uses depending on how the individual seeks to use it, it doesn't just have *one* overarching purpose, which was the point of your initial statement and this whole debate.
See this is the problem with you trying to focus on the analogies and not realise the message it is portraying.
I showed an example in which if one does not restrict the purposes for something, then you have lost all meaning for when someone says, "car", likewise, if you do not restrict the purposes of life, then everything becomes meaningless.
Here is the same point without an analogy so you can't avoid it (even though the same point was raised in my very first post)
- If you say that "the meaning of life is what you make of it", then people who say, "the meaning of life is mere pleasure", and "the meaning of life is helping people", and "the meaning of life is hurting other people", all of these are equally valid then, but if they are equally valid, then anything and everything goes, meaning that this "meaning" of life is meaningless
Also, even taking ur KFC example, what if someone had a caravan and they cooked inside it? Wouldn't their "car" technically be used to cook KFC? The purpose of something like a "car" or "life" is therefore entirely malleable based on how a person uses it. If literally everything had the same purpose there would be no margin for diverse methods of living or using objects for multiple different things, but it's self-evident this isn't the case when you look at society in real life.
No, the car is not cooking any KFC, the car is not used to cook KFC, a fryer and oven is used to cook KFC.
Also I don't know why you're trying to explain away the example, I can give an infinite number of examples,
which is why its meaningless to let everything be valid
Your rebuttal is also invalid, because on what basis are those two people "partially correct"? That's a nonsensical concept lol, the sticks can be used for music or they can be used for fire, that means they are BOTH correct, but from different frames of reference.
No, I said that they are partially correct in the sense that they managed to say part of the purposes of a stick, but not all of them, this is obvious
The premise of your argument is flawed because you're using impossible purposes to show that there must be one *singular* purpose to life that everyone follows. Those two are not the only two possible answers, and it completely discounts the fact that meaning and purpose can be subjective, that this subjectivity does not necessarily denote impossible situations and that this by no means shows that there is one singular universal meaning to life.
Who says they are "impossible", why are they impossible? You're just closed minded, the purposes of things is what you make of it after all!
I don't care if what you talk about meaning and purpose is subjective, if that is what you meant the whole time, then you have been throwing punches at no one.
If you want to talk about "subjective meaning", then sure everything has a subjective meaning, but then you're basically saying "the meaning of life is what you make of it", and if you affirm that, then you affirm laughable conclusions
Honestly it seems like you used pseudo-intellectual ranting to shoehorn the concept of God into everything you say, which is fair enough, but to then use this as a basis to launch an attack on atheists and say they have no purpose or meaning in life is somewhat erroneous.
Yeah well what "seems" like is not true at all, this entire time you have not quoted me directly, and rather you quote my post as a whole, you are putting words into my mouth, and you are reformulating my arguments and talking about how absurd they are.
That "seems to me", to be what it is to be pseudo intellectual
To summarise the absurdity of this argument let me essentially break down your argument.
1. People don't use sticks to make bananas
2. Therefore atheists have no purpose in life
Do you
really think I made that argument or are you just trolling now?
The sticks and bananas example was a refutation of your own analogy
