> > If there is no purpose, then what is it that keeps you going? Besides God. I know that keeps a lot of people going. I think that is a good way to keep going(although kind of shallow, living because of someone else... but only my opinion). I just already know that perspective. I want to see what the other ones are.
>
>
> Knowing me, I'm probably thinking too literally-- but I'm not sure what you mean here by "living because of someone else". Whether we believe in God or not, we're *all* living because of someone else, aren't we? (i.e. through the actions of our parents). :-) Do you mean living *for* someone else?
> --as in, putting their (ahem) purpose above our own?
>

Hmm. No, I don't think that's what I mean. But I will try to explain what I mean after the next part.

> If that is what you mean, then I'm interested in why you think that it's necessarily shallow. I think it *can* be shallow, but it's not a given. Some selflessness can be very profound indeed-- was Mother Theresa shallow because she did not live for herself?
>

Well, having never met Mother Theresa, I don't really know. If the only reason she decided to help all those people was that she felt God would have wanted her to, then yes, I would consider her shallow. But I doubt very much that was how she felt. I think that she decided on her own, based on her own life and her own feelings, that there were people in the world that she could benefit with her life. So that would not be shallow.

The kind of shallow belief in God, in my opinion, is just saying that you exist because he wants you to. So, then, anything you do in your life is because of him. It gives you kind of a carte blanche in life, to be able to say that what you do must be good, because he said it was. The only kind of religion I find shallow, and the kind I wanted to keep out of the debate(because it has consumed a lot of debates I've had on this forum and in real life), is the kind which denies human involvement. I don't even mind saying that our purpose, or our being, is simply random. I think that at least supposes that we have control over ourselves to a degree, because we are not dictated to by a overwhelming law of the universe. But to say that there is only one possible way, and only to follow that, seems shallow to me.

I will try this analogy: if you meet someone, maybe a priest, and they tell you that for the rest of your life you should pinch everyone you meet, would you? Of course not. You would use your judgement to determine that that was wrong. The same with religion. God is supposedly infallable, but he is not present. You cannot live your life just for him. You must think, come up with your own reasons, and then live for yourself. In the argument, I assume you will fulfill his purpose for you that way. That is all I assume. Not that religion isn't important, but just that God's purpose, or I suppose the law of the universe(which I do not believe in, so I am with Stephen on that), is already working out. I'm not sure what everyone has been saying about objective and subjective purposes, but I hope I have clarified a little.

> Companion question: If you think that living for someone else is shallow, would you also then consider dying for someone else to be shallow?
> ..I'm guessing not, but would have to ask then, why not?
>
> koala"appreciated your post about growing up"mom


That's my favorite one too :)

Melanie