Richard Dawkins: The Question Didn't and CANNOT ANSWER.

The question was, "What evidence do you have to support this?"

Nobody asked you to repeat your assertion yet again.

Please explain what evidence you have that there is a purpose or goal or objective of human (or any other) life.

No matter how obvious it might seem to you or how much you might think it's just the way things should be or how much faith you have in the words of the prophet or any other bullshit "way of knowing", your assertions alone carry no weight here. If you want to be taken seriously you must produce a convincing argument, not just keep repeating unsupported postulates.

Can we say this any clearer!?

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S:
It is a fact. Just as the computer without the compatible software is garbage; the human life without objective is a waste.

Saeed

No, it is not a fact.

There is nothing in nature that leads one to believe that humanity or life in general has ever had any kind of objective or goal. The more we examine and the more we learn about nature the more it appears that shit just happens and various forms of natural selection cause trends in cumulative baby steps but there is no master plan or ideal goal toward which progress is headed.

You display thinking processes like the puddle in Douglas Adams' puddle parable:

I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? – you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

When you look at the vastness of the universe and all the billions of galaxies containing billions of stars and the infinitesimally small amount of space and time that humans have occupied in this universe, the notion that it all was created for us humans or that us humans were put here for some special purpose is like one of the billions of bacteria occupying your small intestine imagining that your parents designed, conceived, nurtured and raised you for the sole purpose of providing a cozy, supporting environment for it.

You could say it's a theory, but it would be more appropriate to call this type of thinking arrogant, delusional, counter-productive and dangerous.

S1:
What is the real objective of the human life?
None, life just is, it has no other objective than what each individual wants to give it.

S2:
Who can guarantee future existence of the universe and the human life other than the creator of the universe?
I can't guarantee the future existence of the universe nor that of this planet, tomorrow we could be struck by an asteroid or something else and that would be the end for us.

S3:
Can you seriously and honestly believe in the non-guaranteed future?
Yes, why wouldn't I

S4:
Why should any one truly devote and commit himself to a non-guaranteed future?
You don't have to devote yourself to it, that's just reality live with it.

S5:
Is it possible for any one that you know to create any functional unit of the universe, i.e., from atoms to galaxies and from viruses to human beings, without knowledge, planning and work?
1. The universe isn't perfect, as I said before the earth could cease to exist any time.
2. Human beings (as well as any other living creature) aren't perfect either, we have LOTS of flaws, fortunately they aren't that many, thanks to evolution.

S6:
The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are the living testimony for the works of the prophets, Mosses, Jesus and Muhammad which was demonstrated by challenging and eliminating the mightiest empires of their times i.e., the empires of the Pharaohs, the Romans, the Byzantinians and the Persians; besides establishing belief in the eternal creator of the universe. What comparable works did the atheists do to prove the credibility of atheism?

1.Nope, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Flat-earth believers, etc. are just living testimony of human stupidity even in this modern ages.
2. Most scientists today (you know, those people who improve our lives by devoting their lives to science and technology) are atheists, you're welcome.

Here's what all these arguments sound like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWKDOikIgIs

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEs...eature=channel