Sign up with Google
Bryn
Doubleplusgood
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 16,894
I followed the quote train of bulls**t back a little and settled on your post (you're not a user in the convo I was tracking). This post of yours is related though and contains two elements I find more concerning.
1) A meaningless universe is in no way a bad thing. Does a mountain have a specific purpose? Does anyone care to ask? Even if this universe is an intelligent creation, who's to say it's a supernatural one? It just shifts the same question mark up a level to the origin of those beings' universe.
Humans can find purpose wherever they want and are also free to live without purpose. Aspects of your life that contribute to your sense of purpose, such as family, friends, theism, work etc., are not going to map onto everyone else. Whether or not the universe was created by happenstance or a supernatural entity is irrelevant. If a sense of purpose is what a sentient being in that universe desires, they can derive it from any combination of social bonds, conforming and/or adding to a culture, a lasting legacy, impacting the lives of others, documenting and/or sharing their experiences, being absorbed by a hobby, lifestyle or work environment, contributing to a body of knowledge, a sense of belonging etc. It's almost impossible to box in the various ways people find meaning for themselves. And there's no inherent requirement for someone's purpose to be ethical anyway.
You come across as though you'd be lost if someone else did not provide your life with purpose, and that's depressing to think about.
2) When it comes to wanting particular groups to refrain from commentary or protest, you should first consider how your particular group's actions are impacting them.
It is frequently the case that religious organisations have a tremendously negative impact on the lives of those outside those organisations. If laws, education, medical research, freedom of expression, art and culture, women's rights etc. for the general population are being impaired by the presence of individuals conforming to a particular organisation's superstitions, then surely it is the outliers whose commentary and protest deserve restriction? Whether or not members of those outlier groups are offended by their denigration is of no concern. All parties are afforded freedom of expression and may exercise their right to feel offended.
