by 11nomad16 on October 2nd, 2007

Question

Help answer this question below.

If we are just an accident of evolution, and there is no god, and no life after death, and no accountability then isn't life and every decision we make ultimately meaningless?

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 13 helpful answers below.

by Stableboy on October 2nd, 2007
The position you're stating is called "nihilism": it's a view that's been around for a long time.

It's actually a false concern, but that's not obvious when studying the matter from a purely philosophical / intellectual perspective.

Here's the problem with the logic in your question: it presumes that the basis for morality and meaning can ONLY be located with God and the afterlife. Therefore, if there's no God and no afterlife, there can be no morality and meaning.

But this belief about the basis of morality and meaning is actually just a conditioned reaction -- it's like a mental habit of not stepping on cracks when walking on the sidewalk: there's no basis for believing that ONLY "God and afterlife" can provide meaning and morality to life. That's a hidden assumption in the question.

If you drop the assumptions and preconceptions, it's possible to form an OPEN question -- an inquiry which can actually be useful in one's own development: "what is the basis for a meaningful life?" and "what is the basis for morality?". Those questions are useful, the question you've asked really just reinforces pre-existing beliefs.

A person who isn't biased by preconceptions will (I assert) come to a very different conclusion about the matter than what nihilism offers. What I see when asking these questions is really quite rich with possibilities: all of reality is interconnected into a wonderful and stunning Whole. This is something one can experience directly, it does not require long chains of dry philosophical or ethical argument.

A mind that is clear and free to see it's own nature has a natural centeredness and balance that is in harmony with all of life, and that nature expresses itself as moral action and meaningful living. Also, this happens without producing the sort of metaphysical logical tangles which arise when attempting to place the basis for everything "out there" with the Almighty. That doesn't mean there's no God, or no afterlife, it means these *concepts* are not essential as the basis for morality or meaning.

Basically, you have to "flush the pipes" of your philosophical outlook before you can do clear thinking about the biggest questions. Don't start from what you already think you know, start from nothing and learn to just LOOK.
Comments
- Another excellent answer.
  
  Report
  
  by - retroglide - on October 2nd, 2007
- Thanks, retro!
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 2nd, 2007
- Very interesting response. Thank you so much. However, the operative word in my question is ULTIMATELY. If there is no afterlife, for example, if we all are destined for nothingness, then having a "mind that is clear and free to see it's own nature" is ULTIMATELY no better (or worse) than having a mind that is tangled by philosophical misconceptions. The final state of both is identical.
  
  Report
  
  by 11nomad16 on October 2nd, 2007
- Well I'm really not out to persuade you here. I suggest that there's a big difference between your abstract thoughts *about* having a clear mind, and actually having a clear mind. Two very different things. Your discussing this as abstract concepts. I'm talking about what is *present* for a human subject in experience. There's no point in my attempting to convince someone that this is true... what I do (quite regularly in fact) is to encourage people to explore in their own experience, rather than trying to "figure it out" as you're doing here.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 2nd, 2007
- Of course. I didn't really expect to find the answers here at AB. But I truly appreciate the time you took to respond to my question. Thanks again.
  
  Report
  
  by 11nomad16 on October 2nd, 2007
- No problem. I suggest if you stop looking for answers and start focusing on the questions you'll get a lot farther faster.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 2nd, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by nevets - badgicide on October 3rd, 2007
I will start by going off on a tangent.

Stableboy: "Here's the problem with the logic in your question: it presumes that the basis for morality and meaning can ONLY be located with God and the afterlife. Therefore, if there's no God and no afterlife, there can be no morality and meaning. But this belief about the basis of morality and meaning is actually just a conditioned reaction..."
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1464460

I was born and grew up in a Jewish household but I was free to develop any philosophy I chose - and therefore I feel that I was born and grew up as an atheist. I did have a very strong sense of what is right or wrong, but I never for one moment believed that morality and meaning was located with God and the afterlife. If you could say anything about my conditioning, I grew up thinking that morality and meaning does not require god - since I did not believe in the existence of God.

As an atheist I often said that being moral just because God exists is akin to only being good because you fear the punishment.

Surely an atheist who is good, just for the sake of being good, is far more moral than a religious person who is only good because (s)he fears reprisals from God?

I stand by that statement, however my stance on morality and the meaning of life has changed since taking a degree level class in Philosophy, and my many excavations in the world of politics. During the countless intense discussions I have had about every topic under the sun, I learnt a lot about what I believed. I also learnt that with my philosophical framework my beliefs were meaningless.

----------

For the sake of argument, let's find something almost everyone will believe is wrong:
"Murdering an innocent child is wrong."

What basis do I have to go on to claim that this act is immoral?

I could claim that killing a child is immoral because he/she has done no harm to anyone, that they have a right to life because all life has inherent value. I could say that the child could have done "good" in the world (whatever that may mean), and if they were killed they could no longer benefit society. I could claim that nobody has the right to end the life of another person. I could say any number of things.

All these might be fair moral positions, but what right do you or I have to say that they are right or wrong?

From an atheist's perspective, moral arguments are a bit hollow. An atheist really can't state that X or Y is a morally repugnant position, they can only state that *FROM THEIR RELATIVE PERSPECTIVE* X or Y is a morally repugnant position. What if the majority of people believed that killing children was OK? Would that make it OK?

What I am describing is relative morality, and I reject moral relativism. Even if the majority of people disagreed with me, I don't believe it would be fine and dandy to murder an innocent child.

----------

Let's look at that statement I just wrote:
"Even if the majority of people disagreed with me, I don't believe it would be fine and dandy to murder an innocent child."

A logical person could easily turn that around and argue that I am just arrogant for believing in imaginary 'moral truths'. After all, I am not an authority who can categorically decide what is right or wrong.

Everyone in the world could claim that they alone know moral truths. What if the majority of the people in the world believed that it was OK to kill innocent children? Maybe, they would argue, that we are too over populated. What basis do we have to claim that they are wrong?

Although (from my perspective, I believe) atheists can be extremely moral people and theists can be extremely immortal, it is near enough absurd for me to claim (from an atheists position) that my beliefs of morality are true.

The purpose of this essay is to show you that if we are just an accident and there is no such thing as God, I don't believe that anyone can claim that anything is truly moral or immoral. Without God, the majority of humans decide what is right and wrong - and we can change our minds as much as we like.

In other words, without God (of some form) morality has no basis, no foundation, no reference point.

----------

The question here does not actually focus on morality, but meaning. This raises another question.

What does it mean for life to be meaningful? What gives life meaning?

In my opinion, this topic is even more complicated than morality - the answer to your main question depends entirely on each persons view of what gives their life meaning.

Also see:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=meaning+of+life
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/115011 [ Article: http://www.chabad.org/magazine/article.htm/aid/444045/jewish/Is-Gd-an-Agnostic.html ]

----- Comments -----

11nomad16:
"If we all are destined for nothingness, then having a 'mind that is clear and free to see it's own nature' is ULTIMATELY no better (or worse) than having a mind that is tangled by philosophical misconceptions. The final state of both is identical."

An afterlife is not needed to give life meaning. One could argue that it is what we do with our lives, what we leave behind, that gives our lives meaning.

Stableboy:
"...from my perspective is that Western moral philosophy (and many other kinds of philosophy) are just fundamentally broken in ways that can't be fixed, mainly because of this problem of not understanding the limitations of abstraction. As far as I can see, entire libraries and philosophy careers should just be poured down the drain because they started from this shaky foundation. As we say in computerland, 'garbage in, garbage out'. The notion of a separate self is garbage, and it's the basis of most Western moral reasoning and theology."

I can't think of much to say to that, but I agree with you 100%, most philosophy has a shaky foundation. :) Thanks for the answer.
Comments
- Well nobody can question your flair for logical argument. Rather than post a comprehensive analysis, I'll start off with stating that the ontological basis for what it means to be "an individual" is where all the trouble begins. The moment the mind abstracts an entity from the interconnected weave of fine details that reality actually IS, and calls that entity "myself", the stage is set for all manner of confusion. Most of the history of ethical conundrums is rooted in this initial mistake. It's like taking the square root of negative one and then trying to perform ordinary arithmetic on it, and arguing about which way to interpret the signs of the terms. It's just an invalid operation from the get-go.
  
  It's difficult to have this kind of moral-basis discussion in Western culture, because the habit of abstracting like this is so ingrained that we really can't even think without doing it. It takes "untraining" that habit before the argument can be reframed.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- LOL! Well, I guess I was packing a lot into a single comment... of course it can be expressed in greater detail with more background. But the bottom line from my perspective is that Western moral philosophy (and many other kinds of philosophy) are just fundamentally broken in ways that can't be fixed, mainly because of this problem of not understanding the limitations of abstraction. As far as I can see, entire libraries and philosophy careers should just be poured down the drain because they started from this shaky foundation. As we say in computerland, "garbage in, garbage out". The notion of a separate self is garbage, and it's the basis of most Western moral reasoning and theology. So I won't put too fine a point on it! :)
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- So, if you wouldnt mind, what is the proper way to approach this situation? If not from the abstract, should we consider it from reality? And can you give a more detailed example of what typical western philosophers do when they abstract a "myself"
  
  Report
  
  by FallenMan on October 3rd, 2007
- Gosh, I thought I was going to get off cheaply here! :)
  
  Your questions really deserve a whole book, but of course that's not going to happen! A short way to say it is that you can't separate the self from the whole without introducing distortion. A human being isn't an isolated, fixed entity with an impermeable boundary -- a human is intricately interwoven with everything around them. There's "interbeing" going on -- in a certain sense, you are a part of me and we're all a part of the universe, to put it crudely. We're all interconnected.
  
  That interconnectedness gets ignored when we take these kinds of moral arguments seriously: the question "why should I care about others" has a hidden assumption -- the assumption that I am separate from them. It's sort of like asking "why should my right and care about my left hand?". Well, if I can't see the connection, that might seem like a rational question.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- But if I see the connection between my hands, the question is just silly. Obviously my right and and left hand have a vested interest in cooperating, because of the interconnectedness.
  
  In Buddhism, we say that ignorance of this interconnectedness is what makes people crazy. It's the source of our nastiest behavior and chronically unsolvable problems. We don't SEE the interconnectedness, mainly because we cling to abstract ideas about reality instead of learning how to just observe what is. So this is the fundamental error: mistaking our ideas for reality, and clinging to them.
  
  Philosophers do this too, and so they're starting from a defective fundamental premise about reality. All subsequent reasoning is "tainted" by the defective premise, just as if someone makes a measurement error and then calculates the dimensions of a building based on that error. It propagates through the rest of the math.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- It makes sense, but you threaten to shake my very foundation of thought. For example lets just examine a simple philosophical quote, "I think therefore I am." Is this in any way questionable?
  
  Report
  
  by FallenMan on October 3rd, 2007
- Actually that's one of the weaker of the famous philosophical statements! I love debunking it, and have posted several times on the topic... :) Here's one: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/117775. The basic problem with Descartes' statement is that the "I" just jumps into it from thin air! "I think", presumes "I". Where's the justification for holding that there is an "I" doing the thinking? There is none. It just materializes from nowhere. If you break the sentence apart and analyze it, clearly the "input" to the statement is a presumption that "I" exists. So it's presuming it's conclusion, a very simple logical fallacy. The only reason it wasn't caught by more Westerners is because we all share the same conditioning -- the presumption of a separate self.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- But in fact quite a few people have caught this fallacy in Descartes' statement, and in Zen literature it's often cited as a classic example of the separate-self fallacy at work.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- Ok but if we stay away from abstract thought, and try to focus more on wisdom, do we come across the same problem?
  
  Report
  
  by FallenMan on October 3rd, 2007
- Well, what is wisdom? In the West, it's usually seen as more abstract thought -- pithy ideas. "It's the journey that matters, not the destination" is an example of such wisdom. Now, it's a nice thought I suppose, and perhaps it points to something meaningful or useful... but it's easy to see that it's also quite abstract. Does this mean I should never have a destination? How do I know which flight to get on? How will I know when it's time to get off?
  
  If I take that idea, and make it my "Answer" (with a capital A!), and then try to apply it to all difficult situations, I run into problems very rapidly. But this is exactly what we do with "wisdom" -- we try to pick up some small set of ideas, connect them together into a system of Answers, and use them to advise us on how to live and what to do, etc. But they always break down when applied to the wrong situation, because generalities simply don't fit well to specific situations.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- What I try to press with people is the importance of letting go of fixed ideas -- not getting rid of them, but holding them correctly: i.e. with a certain measure of doubt or "distance". This approach is about honoring the distortion inherent in concepts: "yes, we know concepts have shortcomings, but they're still useful. So we use them but we also keep our eyes open so we'll notice when they're being abused or stretched too far".
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- So this applies to the concept "I" as well. It's useful. I use it! But it has limitations, and if taken too seriously it can be a real problem. Being able to hold these ideas in a mode which allows them to be useful without becoming deadly is important. We like power saws, but we also recognize the danger.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 3rd, 2007
- Ok so we take concepts, and we use them, but we realize they have shortcomings, because we realize it doesnt fit every model. Wouldnt that be a form of wisdom in it of itself, knowing that concepts do not fit perfectly? Ahh in thinking your train of thought, if taken too seriously, it is rather scarey to consider that my entire foundation of perception may be faulty. But what im more interested in knowing is the consequences... are there any noticable ones? For example, I think therefore I am you proved is faulty, but is it completely false, or is it because its a circular arguement... which makes it almost absurd.
  
  Report
  
  by FallenMan on October 4th, 2007
- Yes, I think Descartes' statement is essentially circular and meaningless.
  
  @FallenMan: I sympathize with your sense of agitation about this. In Buddhism, it's sometimes called "fear of groundlessness" -- i.e. the anxiety associated with having the familiar pillars of our model of reality pulled away -- it's sort of like the ground disappears and we become concerned about falling into nothingness.
  
  But that's really a false concern: we tend to hold concepts as absolute, and we've been doing it for so long that we're conditioned to feel this is normal. But it's not normal, it's actually a misuse of an otherwise handy facility of the mind. To break from that bad habit is to escape from an illusory prison.
  
  I think your real question is something like "if concepts no longer serve as the foundation for one's personal reality, where does that foundation come from?". This is harder to answer, because the answer does not itself fit well into concepts!
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 4th, 2007
- The basic "ordinary" answer is that direct perception of reality as it is replaces conceptual absolutism. This is nearly impossible to explain adequately, one must experience it before the explanation makes sense. When you give up trusting concepts for ground, the world does sort of come apart, but in the process one learns to "become one" with reality as it is, and that provides stability.
  
  Usually when called upon to explain this, I spew forth a bunch of metphors and hand waving, hoping that something resonates with the listener at some level. But in short, people want something they can trust before they'll discard what they're familiar with, and that just isn't possible. You sort of have to leap off the cliff without being able to see what's below. It's more a function of courage than knowledge. I will say nobody ever died from learning that concepts can't be trusted.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 4th, 2007
- An amusing conversation to say the least :). Well it seems like a very interesting ... dare i say concept... maybe not o_o, but anyways it seems interesting, but before i leap anywhere, i think it better i learned properly how to do the leaping, althouhg to me it almost seems as if your saying just live your life, and worry not at all about abstract thought. Which sounds well enough, but then i wonder about what one does to predict the future with out our handy dandy concepts =[.
  
  Report
  
  by FallenMan on October 4th, 2007
- Well again, we're not throwing out concepts. We're throwing out *absolutism* -- the tendency to believe that concepts are suitable substitutes for reality itself.
  
  And I'm not saying "just live your life". There's actually a very precise recommendation regarding this -- invest a lot of energy in awareness practice. Awareness disrupts concepts by bringing one's attention back to the details of reality. That practice is actually the bridge between over-reliance on concepts and being grounded in direct experience. It's like the boat that takes you from one shore to the other. This is why I talk about awareness so much and it's importance.
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 4th, 2007
- Hehehe sorry I am so ignorant, but makes for the better student no? In any case, i appreciate the very brief overview hehehe of buddhism.
  
  Report
  
  by FallenMan on October 4th, 2007
- You're quite welcome, of course. Really, being able to have this conversation with people is the main reason I bother posting answers at all -- otherwise I'd just spend all my time hanging out with my little group of friends and commenting! :)
  
  Report
  
  by Stableboy on October 4th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
19 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Magenta on October 3rd, 2007
No.

Instead of having an imaginary meaning from an imaginary God, your life has the meaning you choose to give it.

A blank canvas is only blank if you don't fill it.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on October 4th, 2007
I am not sure what it is for life to have "meaning". Life is life, enjoy it while it lasts. Even if there is a creator, what does it "mean" to be the toy of that creator? And what is the "meaning" of that creator? If you cans answer "why do I exist" with "because X", you can then go on to say "why does X exist", and so ad infinitum. There can be no ultimate, unquestionable, meaning. You always have to decide that you will accept some level as "good enough" and ask no further. For some, that is "God exists, which proves thing have meaning"; for others it is "I seem to exist, so let's make the best of it".
Comments
- Yes, that seems to be the case whether exploring higher levels or peeling them back!
  
  Report
  
  by LynfromNM on October 4th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by 2old2dieyoung on October 2nd, 2007
No. Every choice we make still has an impact on the remainder of our life, and on the lives of others.

There's plenty of meaning in that.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by AntigoneRising on October 3rd, 2007
I don't think that we need Deity to give our lives meaning. It is up to us to give our lives meaning.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on October 2nd, 2007
No. There is accountability while we live. And my concept of an afterlife is that people will remember me and think well of what I've done.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by mikepipe on September 28th, 2010
NO! Meaning is here and now. This one and only life and its finality. What connection is there between meaninglessness and finiteness? Meaning is in the act itself. And how would 'ultimate' meaning or meaninglessness be?
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by mooeypoo on October 3rd, 2007
Okay, this question is un-answerable, for a very simple reason: It is flawed logically.

The actual logical fallacy that screams from the question itself is "Strawman": "Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view." (Source: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp).

The set-up for the question is just not true. Scientists do not claim evolution is "acceidental", nor do they bother themselves with the existence of god. Furthermore, evolution has nothing to do with life after death or accountability or meaning. So since the set up is flawed, the question is misleading, and quite unfair.

I will give you an example as to why. Let's say I would ask you, the believer, this question:

"If Angels dance polka in my bedroom, then why does God allow for nonbelievers?"

As you see, there are two problems with this question. The first is that "Angels dance polka in my bedroom" is a premise I created, not one you actually made. I am setting up the question in a way for you to not be able to answer it, and as a default, I will be right. It is, however, quite an unfair question.

Second, the two parts don't agree with one another - whether or not angels dance polka in my bedroom has nothing to do with the existence of god or the existence of non-believers.

The question itself is flawed, and cannot be answered.

That said, let me put something quite simply: Evolution is a long process that has nothing to do with randomness or accidents. It is a "ladder-step" process that does NOT have a purpose; it is gradual changes in a life form. Life form that develops a beneficial change keeps on living, multiplying, and hence continuing on the genetic modification. The life forms that develop modifications that do not assist their existence or do not make them more accustomed to their environment simply die, and their "not-fitting" modification die along with them.

Gradual and tiny changes bring about larger change in the long run. I understand that thinking in such large periods of time seems impossible, and yet, there are many proofs we see for these gradual changes.

I suggest you look up what the Evolution truly is (and it's not what you say it is, I guarantee it), before you ask a misleading and fallacious question.

If you want true answers, ask true questions.

~mooeypoo
Comments
- Firstly, thank you for investing so much time responding to my unanswerable question. I'm sure you will occasionally come across those here. You may want to develop the habit of simply skipping over them so that the authors of the the "answerable" questions can enjoy the benefit of your intellect.
  
  Secondly, my question was posted in the Philosophy category, which I happen to believe is broad enough to encompass questions regarding the origins of life and the search for meaning.
  
  And finally, I never said I was looking for "true answers". I was initiating a conversation. This would be evident to you if you took the time to look beneath my question to see where it reads
  "Conv: 1 Edu: 0". However, since this your first day, and since you haven't actually posted any questions of your own as of yet, I am inclined to forgive your oversight.
  
  Welcome to AB.
  
  Report
  
  by 11nomad16 on October 3rd, 2007
- Hey nev! Where were you for so long. Hope everything was fine.
  
  Report
  
  by HDev is living On tHE EdgE on October 8th, 2007
- I am fine too
  
  Report
  
  by HDev is living On tHE EdgE on October 10th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by iwnit on October 2nd, 2007
1) Here the Chewbacca defense, that is really meaningless:
"Cochran:
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Gerald Broflovski:
Damn it!

Chef:
What?

Gerald:
He's using the Chewbacca Defense!

Cochran:
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

2) I am making some efforts to give my life a meaning, even if it had not one in the beginning.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by bluff2085 on September 28th, 2010
Yes, if you believe so
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by VSPrasad on October 4th, 2007
Almighty has chosen you, and every other person for a
particular purpose. The aim of life is to understand
the greatness of the creator. And to search for the
purpose for which a soul is given human life. This
purpose differs from person to person because it is
dependent on the past Karma of the soul. But one thing
is sure. Human beings are the highest of all creation.
The rest of the creation is intended for the use of
human beings. How you use it is dependent on your mantal
attitude. You cannot specify one purpose for all.
When you understand the purpose of your life, you will
derive the highest happiness of your life.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Jewel on October 3rd, 2007
No. Everyone has their own understanding of purpose and meaning. Mine has nothing to do with the things you are using to guage a meaningfull life. I find life to be full of goodness and worth the effort despite my disbelief in religion.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink

Question

If we are just an accident of evolution, and there is no god, and no life after death, and no accountability then isn't life and every decision we make ultimately meaningless?

Answers. 13 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

The Bible says not all are written in the "Book of Life" so does that mean many are damned from birth or God knows the decision they ultimately make will make them so?

"If all of life is meaningless, and ultimately absurd , why bother to march straight forward, why stand in the queue as though life as a whole makes sense?" Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There ..... Any comments?

Do you think, if there were God, he created death just to make people value life?

Do you ever feel like your life is empty and meaningless? that every day is like the commercial where the guy is walking in a circle saying he "took drugs, to work harder, to make more money, to buy drugs, etc" i don't mean anything to do with drugs, just

If a person spent the rest of their life completely using fate to make their decisions, at the end of their life would they of found fortune or would fate ultimately lead a person to failure?

Professionally Researched

When was the evolution of the human skull first discovered?

How long after Hidalgo\'s death did Mexico gain independence?

Is a $10,000 whole life insurance policy worth $10,000 at death?

Does a whole life policy pay out a death benefit with cash value?

Where did the Mayans practice their game of life or death?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

If we are just an accident of evolution, and there is no god, and no life after death, and no accountability then isn't life and every decision we make ultimately meaningless?

Answers. 13 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!