The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

As long as there are 2 or more humans interacting there is civilization. If there are no humans, it isn't worth asking about purpose or meaning. Even a lone human can find purpose and meaning as they learn new things and explore before their death. What's wrong with transitory meaning and purpose? Finding new meaning and purpose as the world changes around you doesn't seem like a problem.This seems to fit into a trend that I have seen within Christian apologetics. There seems to be a common thread where there can't be meaning and purpose unless it is an intrinsic property of the universe. There also can't be morality unless it is based on some objective standard. Overall, Christian apologetics seems to have a problem with the subjectivity of the human experience. I have often seen phrases like, "in atheism, there is no real purpose in life," as if a subjective purpose is not real.In my own experience as an atheist, I have become very comfortable with the subjective. I don't need the universe to have an intrinsic purpose in order to find my own purpose in life, and subjective morality works quite well for me (and for society). I am able to understand and embrace both my objective skeptical side and my very subjective and fallible human side. The human experience is one big contradiction after another, and I think it's a great ride.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that. My point was that you misunderstood what Barrigar was saying and I wanted to correct it. Nothing wrong and it isn't a problem I agree with all of that. I do suggest that the difference is between our meanings and purposes in this life that would no longer be meaningful with the end of civilization as opposed to having meaning that would extend beyond this existence and into the next. That's reasonable and well put.

You're in no position to advise anybody about anything. Your IQ is 9.

The best he could do would be to advise by example, a prime example of what not to be and what not to do:

Go on... I look at it like this. Dream as if you (or your species) are gonna live forever. Plan as if you could be gone tomorrow. This is charging up my neurons a bit. I will have to think about what you just said. Do you see subjectivity in truth? Traditionally, I attempted to validate belief as an objective truth. This was made possible only because I became a believer and focused on *that* emotional objectivity. Im trying to understand this concept of what a subjective truth actually would be.​

I see objectivity as the path to truth. The subjective part is the human experience. For example, I love my parents and siblings. This isn't an objective truth, but it is a very subjective emotion that I hold very dear. It is one of the most important parts of the human experience and being a human. Experiencing a beautiful sunset, listening to an amazing Bach concerto, and admiring a great painting are all subjective experiences, but they are all important parts of life.Something can be subjective and still be very important. It doesn't make it a truth, but it can be a vital part of our lives. Subjective emotions are real, even if they aren't objective truths.

Taq the con-man is at it again ...
This is about the 3rd time you've presented the same argument by Steve Schaffner. You seem to be running out of ideas.Schaffner's argument is just a theory ... it doesn't prove that science has discovered what process was responsible for the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record. News flash: A theory is not a discovery.Furthermore, Schaffner's argument doesn't extend to the evolution of different phyla ... it merely relates to the alleged common ancestor of humans and chimps.And guess what, dum-dum? It's impossible for anyone to discover what process was responsible for the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record ... although that fact doesn't deter Darwinoid charlatans like you from claiming otherwise.Incidentally, the EvoGrad blog(?) you cited is a joke ... the Darwinoid author states that he chooses to remain anonymous, so his credibility goes down the drain right there.
Then he declares that he's an atheist ... which means his views on evolution will be characterised by extreme bias, delusional fantasies, pseudo-science, false claims and almost certainly, outright lies.

I think you're taking this insect thing way too far. It's all well and good to study insects ... and to even give yourself the taxonomic name of an insect genus ... but to actually start thinking like an insect, well that's not a good idea at all.

Very imaginative.

Funny how you can't address the actual observations. It seems all you can muster is "Nuh uh!".Do you know how the scientific method works? Do you know what hypothesis testing is? You seem to be arguing against the very practice of doing science.

Furthermore, do you really think restricting your diet to insects is wise?

It beats swallowing your Pedo Cult bullshit.

I would suggest that if you require "meaning" to extend beyond this existence and into the next in order to be meaningful... then you are egotistical and without honour.And, if you allow for "meaning" to be ultimately meaningful without such a selfish requirement... then you allow the possibility of having ultimate meaning AND honour.

That's sound advice.

Your suggestion is shallow, stupid and absurd ... not to mention shallow, stupid and absurd.Life has meaning only if it's eternal. A finite life is as meaningless as meaningless can get.For Pete's sake, grow up and think.