that person's reply was a flash warning, the same way how some animals advertise their toxicity by being brightly coloured. Everyone has there own definition of what a humanist, a xtian, an Islamist, etc is, and you're correct, they were definitely off, or trying to augment it to how their beliefs confine them.

I reply with a lecture on quantum mechanics and the universe. Their eyes glaze over. And I end with the phrase. “And then shit happens”.
(and I know absolutely nothing about Quantum Theory except it’s very strange like quantum entanglement)

I usually don't engage in such conversations because they tend to ask a lot of questions, but tend to not really listen to the answers they are given.

Personally, I think the universe acts according to rules of nature, not all of which we fully understand. Any purpose comes out of consciousness and intent.

For religious people, they think it was all created for them by a god or gods. I think they are pretty full of themselves and greatly over estimate their own importance.

The purpose of life is to live it.

I don't care if everything is random.
Most of the time, that's how it feels to me.
As far as purpose goes, my purpose is whatever I decide it is on any given day.

I doubt I would have engaged.
It probably would have ended badly.
I have a tendency to tell people who insist their gods are real, to go fuck themselves with their bullshit.

Anyone who knows me, would know better than to start that particular conversation.

No matter what one says to religious people, unless you would say that you now believe they would never be satisfied. To me it doesn’t really matter reason or not, what is important is that I live in the moment.

Is the world random? The word random is a pejorative term used by religionists, so the question comes from a place of hostility and fear. Whatever response, if any, that is given should be suitable for the person's mindset, and your capacity to enlighten them.

Even the religionists suffer the paradox of Free Will versus Determinism (aka it's all planned). Such unanswerable questions lack meaning because the terms are badly defined, if not entirely illusory. If the questioner persists, you can ask them to explain how free will exists or how prayer works if everything is planned.

Invoking a god does not provide meaning or purpose. But without thinking it through, that is what is implied by the question. The question is an abstract non sequitur, actually intended to confuse prior to delivering the pitch. The pitch being that if you adopt certain beliefs, you will have a purpose for your life.

We are incapable of grasping many things in life, and some questions don't have an answer. Only on rare occasions can science provide a glimpse of how things happen. We can never know why, because the term why is being mis-applied.

Literally smack some sense into them (good and hard with slightly cupped palm and follow-through). Ask them if there was a reason behind that action. Watch as they try to square that circle. While it may not be productive, it will be fun.

I think you guys are using two different forms of those words, so even if you actually kind of agreed, you wouldn't end up seeing eye to eye.

My take, everything is 100% the result of cause and effect, and the science bears this out. You may have jumped into the river, the purpose of which was to save the drowning child, but you didn't have a metaphysical purpose given to you to be there to save it. There's no grand scheme, end goal, or meant to be.

The fact that there are no big, overarching, or god given purposes, does not mean that there are no purposes.

The two are not mutually exclusive. To think that it is so, is a bad example of absolutist thinking, either A. or B. no third alternative and nothing between. Absolutism is a fallacy which believers are trained to think in terms of, because it sets them up to be vulnerable to a lot of other fallacies, such as. "If science can not answer it, then it must be god."

But if I go to make my friend a cup of tea, because she likes tea, then I have a purpose, of making my friend happy for a short while, albeit a small purpose. But when you remove the big purposes, then you can see how important the small ones really are.

Suppose there is, a hypothetical, creator god looking down. Then what do you think is most likely to meet with its approval; that I pray to it for a place in a better world, which I believe I am owed because I am important, and its spoiled creation is not good enough for me, or that I show full appreciation for that part of its creation which is my friend, by thinking it worth while to make her a cup of tea, and thinking that one of her smallest joys is important ?

( Now forget the hypothetical god, it has served its purpose. LOL )

It would depend on how I was feeling.

If I was feeling particularly pissy, my response would be along the lines of "What an absurd question. How about learning to think?".

If I was feeling nothing like so belligerent, it would be along the lines of "Could you explain further, please?".

As you suggest, the Laws of Nature are a good starting point, and those are underpinned by scientific theories, such as the Table of the Elements and Einstein's Theory of General relativity.

Thanks for all the replies. I now feel more confident about how I can clarify my response to this fellow if I see him again.

I had originally answered "both" to his "random" or "purpose" question and changed the subject quickly because I didn't want to start an argument in front of so many onlookers.

Now I feel I still like my "natural consequences" clarification, but I also like the "cause and effect" that @ChestRockfield mentioned, so if I see this person again, I'll likely clarify my answer to this person who was trying to understand my perspective.

I guess I never really get to talk to people who think that atheists believe that everything is random, and not with any purpose, but I don't really like the choice of "purpose" so I think changing or clarifying it as cause and effect, natural consequences, and maybe sometimes intent or fulfilling potential, creating a natural balance or harmony can be even more beautiful than a "purpose" when thinking about the bigger questions.

Life, is complex, a beautiful mystery and I like thinking about it. I can only think about it by being agnostic. If I believed there is a god determining everything, then there is no beauty in the world for me.

I actually like having these conversations with people, but not in the middle of my pool exercises.

Again, I'm so grateful for this group/site. I had to clear my cookies (again) to get back into the site to see the answers, and again to reply, but that almost makes the responses all the more precious.

I would say "ok".

The universe operates to certain immutable laws,or rules, and any purpose is made by ourselves.
I listened to out tame physicist Brian Cox last night explaining the latest theory on the origin of the universe.The big bang caused ripples in a dense energy field and those ripples became the first galaxies.
Fascinating stuff.

I have found a great belief in the Butterfly Effect or also known as the Chaos Theory. Actions and decisions made every day by everyone have effects way beyond what we actually see or are aware of. Even natural disasters, which there is no way to know or change, have effects on many things and people way beyond the immediate area of the event. Events in my life seemed too weird to be just random. But if I look at it from the Chaos Theory, these events were brought about by decisions I made and other people made, which had they or I made a different decision would have never happened. Even simple things like deciding to go one way to the supermarket rather than another, might lead to an accident that would never have happened had I gone the other way. This in turn could affect the lives of all the people involved in the accident, all the people in my life and theirs and include the first responders and generations to come. And yet, no one will really know that it was my original decision that set this entire chain of events into motion. Best I can do for a quick explanation or what for me has simplified my life.

The laws of nature are simply observed regularities like ocean tides or planetary movements. All of which point to repeat patterns underlying nature. Occasionally, events may occur which are considered irregular and do not fit the observed pattern. There is a fundamental tendency in nature towards order; however, I am not inclined to think that it something that is being directed behind the scenes by an invisible director.

If you over think all of these types of beliefs, there can be only one conclusion insanity, seems to be what they all fall in with, instead of logical fallacies and factual reasoning!!!

Life's purpose is not predicated upon a necessary belief in the existence of a suite of super beings for which there is not one jot of evidential support.

[humanists.international]

I wrote this several years ago, and its somewhat relevant to what you are asking.

Generally, most people would agree that philosophy is only important as a general guide in human affairs and progress, and that it is much more important that we have compassion (I'll not use the word "love", because it is polluted with all kinds of different sentiments and innuendos) for our fellow human beings, which works to improve and stabilize societies. It is sufficient, and one could throw out philosophy and do well without it, following that line of thought. That conclusion seems to be indubitable, when measured against the small microcosm of human existence. Humans cling to the idea of the universe being teleological . . . . the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
.
But when this view is expanded, to encompass the universe, it is clearly, and, indeed, indubitably, mistaken.

Plato argued that true explanations for any given physical phenomenon must be teleological. Plato was wrong, and I think I understand why Plato had so much contempt for the works of Democritus that he said that all of his books should be burned. One only needs to start with nature to see that there is not much compassion there . . . .
.
[vice.com]
.
For millions of years, the dinosaurs flourished, evolved, only to be wiped out from existence. Expand that to planets . . . and one sees instances were entire planets can be wiped out as stars explode, and the whole teleological argument goes out the window.
Plato most likely hated Democritus because Democritus did not buy into the belief that there was some ideal, god, or perfection, i.e. teleological force guiding the flow of the universe . . .
But the evidence is all around us, although there are many people who refuse to accept it. (They see it as detrimental to the whole idea of civilization.). But it is not. When we realize just how fragile our civilization is, and what surrounds it, (and could potentially even destroy it), we are much more likely to be compassionate toward others . . . . because, indeed, we are all in this together, and no, we do not have some form of divine protection . . . . that belief distorts the picture and causes people who embrace it . . . to actually be less compassionate toward their fellow humans, because they selfishly believe that they have some form of special protection, sanctioned by some supreme being. To those particular individuals, I say "No, you arrogant caterpillars . . . . you don't have any divine protection." Just as the dinosaurs were wiped out, so too could humans be wiped out, and the universe would continue on indifferently without them.

From context it sounds like "purpose" to him means over-arching design or master plan. Nature may appear to be random, and in some regards is, but it has a genuine purpose--survival. (imo humans needs to get more natural. Whatever we're doing, it's not fostering long-term survival).
Seems like he wanted to talk about freewill vs predetermination. I lean heavily toward freewill.

We have to deal with both random happenings , disaster many of them, a few beneficial AND human planned socially beneficial, or overall criminal or stupid acts by both individuals and Govenrnent. schemes. To suggest that any religion, prayer, oath, or spiritual agency can alter the balance between these two,random and pre-arranged is ridiculous . Out job is to make the very best of controlling society to make the best of changes for those who want to respond positively and eliminate ANY BAD CONSEQUENCES for the maximum possible number of innocent citizens

I would point out that no intelligent creator would have created a planet with as many cracks in it as this one has nor populated it with a dominant species who can’t agree on how we came to be or what our purpose for being here is.

Why must there be only one answer? We see in 3D and some answers have more than one cause. We may often believe our actions reflect back as purpose or reason but our beginnings are random. How many sperm try to impregnate an egg and which of those become YOU? That is a random action but your life has future repercussions on the purpose and/or life of others- marriage for example has the purpose of procreation: a natural urge. We have a lot of natural urges that influence others and ourselves. If you're a hunter you kill a deer which affects her fawns starving to death.

I think almost half of each is true. Half the time it's random because nature, the earth, most humans don't really give a shit about each individual action. There are billions of actions a second how can all of them be purposeful? Then we must ask what purpose do all those billions serve?

The purposes of many such as voting, war, religion need to attract individuals to participate. They have somewhat of an effect on everyone because they intentionally attract humans to belong which isn't always good for non believers. They often claim to serve a purpose and most of the time it's money.
I guess I'm not totally convinced one way or another.