NationStates Jolt Archive

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.

The Practical Impossibility of Atheism

About the only solution the atheist can offer is that we face the absurdity of life and live bravely. Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote that we must build our lives upon “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.”15 Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life. Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.
The fundamental problem with this solution, however, is that it is impossible to live consistently and happily within such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy; if one lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap, because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.
Let’s look again, then, at each of the three areas in which we saw life was absurd without God, to show how man cannot live consistently and happily with his atheism.

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4

Whats wrong with living inconsistently?

Utter babbling nonsense.

In that entire article, no serious attempt is made at explaining how atheism eliminates value, purpose, and meaning in life - or how theism permits us to have them to any greater degree.

Indeed, it continually assumes as a premise the first part - the "two-story" structure.

lol, why would one want to be consistent?

absurdity is next to hilarity. and hilarity is closely associated with happiness. it's all good to me.

A bunch of theist crock as always. Seriously, to claim there is "purpose, value and meaning" in deluding yourself with fairytales instead of facing the truth... bollocks.

You know, the author has a point. And I think I will go look into Christianity. No more of that Atheist nonsense.

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.



http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4
Why does life need meaning, value, or purpose?

And I fail to see why one can't be happy without meaning, value, or purpose.

What's so bad about the universe? I rather like it.

Whats wrong with living inconsistently?
It would be irrational. You would have to hold two contrary opinions simultaneously.

No where has the OP demonstrated that atheism requires inconsistency, howerver.

Utter babbling nonsense.

In that entire article, no serious attempt is made at explaining how atheism eliminates value, purpose, and meaning in life - or how theism permits us to have them to any greater degree.
Furthermore, it argues that those three things are somehow good or necessary, without making any effort to explain why.

It would be irrational. You would have to hold two contrary opinions simultaneously.


no it doesn't. it can require holding two contrary opinions consecutively, but that is hardly a challenge. besides, holding two contrary opinions simultaneoulsy seems to be a speciality of the hardline religious types, not atheists.

It would be irrational. You would have to hold two contrary opinions simultaneously.

No where has the OP demonstrated that atheism requires inconsistency, howerver.

It says that it requires you only to be inconsistent if you hold beliefs in atheism and meaning/purpose/value. Which I assume you agree with.

It would be irrational. You would have to hold two contrary opinions simultaneously.


no it doesn't. it can require holding two contrary opinions consecutively, but that is hardly a challenge. besides, holding two contrary opinions simultaneoulsy seems to be a speciality of the hardline religious types, not atheists.

anyway, who says you have to be rational to be happy?

so the only way to have a happy life is to live in delusion?

well that could be true...

"modern man" seems to be as happy as he sets himself out to be. misery is an equal opportunity attitude. its just as upsetting to realize that the "plan" god has for your life is one of unremitting suffering as it is to realize that there IS no plan and one's life is unremittiing suffering. (for those whose life IS unremitting suffering)

no it doesn't. it can require holding two contrary opinions consecutively, but that is hardly a challenge.
But then you wouldn't be inconsistent. Hydes asked why inconsistency was bad, and I gave the answer.

It says that it requires you only to be inconsistent if you hold beliefs in atheism and meaning/purpose/value.

Which is utter nonsense.

Certainly not. Subjective value is perfectly compatible with athiesm - even the strong atheism assumed by the article.

And God hardly provides us with a better case for objective value.

"What God says" is not intrinsically valuable.

It says that it requires you only to be inconsistent if you hold beliefs in atheism and meaning/purpose/value. Which I assume you agree with.
Certainly not. Subjective value is perfectly compatible with athiesm - even the strong atheism assumed by the article.

Believers have the wrong notion that morality can only be atached to religion.

Why must a life devoid of faith by definition be devoid of purpose, meaning and value? I think the premise is fatally flawed.

I would like to see the consistent and happy Christian.

Constant self-immolation could not be happy work.

And God hardly provides us with a better case for objective value.

"What God says" is not intrinsically valuable.
Exactly.

I was once asked what I, as an atheist, would do if God appeared before me and irrefutably proved to me his own existence.

I said I'd ask him why I should care.

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4

You not be thinking! I live happily with my atheism.

Why must a life devoid of faith by definition be devoid of purpose, meaning and value? I think the premise is fatally flawed.

But value and purpose can only be subjective, discrediting it somewhat.

You not be thinking! I live happily with my atheism.

I have been Christian for the past few minutes, and I feel much better and my life is better. Now that I believe in God and the Bible, my life is complete.

Atheism is for the weak.

Atheism is for the weak.

Atheism is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.



http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4

Hmm. I manage to find shitloads of meaning and purpose in my life without calling to a higher being. Wonder how I manage it? :rolleyes:

eh? I always assumed you were an atheist.

You assumed correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura#Religion

Atheism is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.

eh? I always assumed you were an atheist.

Wonder how I manage it? :rolleyes:

Inconsistency, clearly.

Because the author of this article knows what and how you think better than you do.

eh? I always assumed you were an atheist.

This is why I'm a big advocate of the and tags. Someone needs to come up with a designated sarcastic font. It would make the Internet a much more comprehensible place...

Or people could just learn to recognize sarcasm based on context...;)

This is why I'm a big advocate of the and tags. Someone needs to come up with a designated sarcastic font. It would make the Internet a much more comprehensible place...

I sometimes put the ;) smiley, but I value subtlety in sarcasm.

It just isn't the same without it.

Atheism is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.

Like Fascism.

I have been Christian for the past few minutes, and I feel much better and my life is better. Now that I believe in God and the Bible, my life is complete.

Atheism is for the weak.

you are getting funnier, ruffy. that one made me laugh out loud.

I speak here as a theist, all though one who pays homage to she who is responsible for much of the absurdity in life, this is the biggest load of utter crap I have seen for quite some time.

But then you wouldn't be inconsistent. Hydes asked why inconsistency was bad, and I gave the answer.

yeh ok.

A second problem is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished and all the sacrifices of good men go unrewarded.
What the hell? Has this guy never heard of a legal system?

More 'z0mgz the atheists have no morals!!!!!' crap.

I speak here as a theist, all though one who pays homage to she who is responsible for much of the absurdity in life, this is the biggest load of utter crap I have seen for quite some time.

You're a Discordian?

But humans aren't that intelligent or sophisticated yet.

Really?

So you only do good things because you're rewarded for them, and you only avoid murdering people in the street because you know you'll be punished for them?

What the hell? Has this guy never heard of a legal system?

More 'z0mgz the atheists have no morals!!!!!' crap.

First, the legal system doesn't generally reward good actions, merely punish negative ones.

That being said, I think the point that he is trying to make is that without some ultimate final reward or final punishment, there is no reason to do good or not do evil. He is of course assuming that some reward or punishment is inherently necessary.
One would imagine, though, that in an ideal system, good actions would be undertaken for their own sake, regardless of any intended reward, and evil actions would be avoided simply because they are wrong on some objective moral scale, instead of avoiding them to avoid the punishment that might follow.

But humans aren't that intelligent or sophisticated yet.

But value and purpose can only be subjective, discrediting it somewhat.

I'm not understanding your answer. The article quoted says that atheist's lives are devoid of purpose, value and meaning because they are atheists. I said that that premise is fatally flawed, because lack of faith =/= lack of meaning, purpose and value, any more than faith automatically = meaning, purpose and value.

First, the legal system doesn't generally reward good actions, merely punish negative ones.

That being said, I think the point that he is trying to make is that without some ultimate final reward or final punishment, there is no reason to do good or not do evil. He is of course assuming that some reward or punishment is inherently necessary.
One would imagine, though, that in an ideal system, good actions would be undertaken for their own sake, regardless of any intended reward, and evil actions would be avoided simply because they are wrong on some objective moral scale, instead of avoiding them to avoid the punishment that might follow.

But humans aren't that intelligent or sophisticated yet.
Well, society tends to reward good actions. Not always, obviously, but often enough to say that good people generally get rewarded.

If there is no final judgement, this life is what counts- punishment or rewards received in it is as good as you'll get, and there is no state of floating around in space where you can laugh about how you got life for murder but now it doesn't matter. How is being punished normally somehow substandard?

A second problem is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished and all the sacrifices of good men go unrewarded.
My reaction to this passage is:

"So what?"

Hit and run OP? Or is it miss and run?

I don't think life or the universe is particularly absurd. Both appear to be consistent, and though I have no idea if there's some point to existence itself, my personal existence isn't pointless, at least not by any normal definition. I please both myself and others, I'd be missed if I stopped existing, I enjoy the experience of existing, and I'd like to think (because it pleases my ego) the sum total of my existence will have made an overall positive impact for the totality of sentient beings, after I cease to be.

None of that requires any sort of divinity or superstition. On the other hand, clinging to superstitions for the sole reason that it makes existence endurable, seems to me to be a massive waste of perfectly good life and common sense. And it strikes me as hugely irrational to embrace superstitions not because you actually believe them, but because the alternative is worse. Sounds like double-think to me.

So not only is the OP obnoxiously prejudiced on a false basis, it's hypocritical as fuck to boot.

I wonder why there seems to be such an over-abundance of sad & nasty superstitious people, but perhaps the explanation - if that observation is correct - is in the OP; they dislike the entirety of existence, themselves included.

Perhaps they should seek psychological help. Or get laid.

Exactly.

I was once asked what I, as an atheist, would do if God appeared before me and irrefutably proved to me his own existence.

I said I'd ask him why I should care.

Me, I'd go Jesse Custer on His ass and hold Him accountable for all the shit He's done.

Damn, missed that. My reaction is different. With God there can be no morality, only obedience and disobedience. The only moral being is God itself, the rest of us would be no more moral than trained or untrained pets.

We could always tell Him to go fuck Himself.

My reaction to this passage is:

"So what?"Damn, missed that. My reaction is different. With God there can be no morality, only obedience and disobedience. The only moral being is God itself, the rest of us would be no more moral than trained or untrained pets.

Really?

So you only do good things because you're rewarded for them, and you only avoid murdering people in the street because you know you'll be punished for them?

I don't, personally, but there are plenty of people who do. And that is what I meant.

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.



http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4

Atheism is not intended to offer solutions to anything other than an answer to the question "does God exist?" Atheism was never intended to be an instruction manual for life. It's just a stance on one single question. I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand this.

Furthermore, my beliefs are not intended to make me happy, they are intended to give me an accurate representation of the world in which I live.

You're a Discordian?

The heretical sort.

This article raises many interesting points, but it overlooks one major obstacle. Just because we want something to be true doesn't mean it is true. No matter how much I hope Osama Bin Laden or Hitler goes to hell, if there is no hell, he'll just rot away in his grave, and that's that. Wishing for it, no matter how hard, won't change that.

This may give atheists a bout of depression, but even that is better than to live a lie.

Personally, I feel much more secure without the presence of a God or higher power. If we knew there were aliens roaming the galaxy with weapons that could blow up a planet, and we had no idea of their intentions, wouldn't people be somewhat unnerved? I find the idea of a being that can instantly kill anyone it wants in whatever way it pleases unpleasant, since looking at its works so far, I wouldn't put it past it to kill me for fun.

God represents a lack of control, and that frightens me far more than a universe without him. I want control, the ability to shape my destiny and the ability of mankind not only to shape its own destiny but the destiny of the universe itself.

Humans, as the highest known intelligence in existence, have to create their own purpose, assign their own values, and determine their own meaning just like a God does. Is this nihilistic? No, it is freedom, the purest kind we can achieve. The only thing I can confidently believe is our own potential to discover the secrets of the natural world and control them, enabling us to achieve creative potential we would have previously assigned to God.

The apotheosis of mankind, of achieving our potential and writing our own destiny as free agents existing in a naturalistic world, using our power of rational inquiry to discover its secrets and control them for our betterment as a species, is what I believe in. I imagine it might come across as scientistic or technist, but this is what I believe.

So I read that essay and thought "Wow, this person must have taken very little philosophy" and guessed that they were possibly in the early stages of a bachelor's in philosophy.

Then I get to the bottom of the page and realize it's by a Dr. William Lane Craig and I go "wtf?! Who the hell gave this man a PhD?!". I then wiki-ed him. He's got a PhD in theology... which makes sense. He knows a lot about his particular religion, but not a whole hell of a lot about philosophy. Shame that he went and tried to construct a philosophical argument.

I wonder now why it is that theologians seem to have such weak arguments. I mean, no philosopher would end up with such a shitty argument. I think it's because either theologians are used to putting up with poor arguments or no one tends to criticize a theological argument from within the framework of their theological position and they have a tendency to discount opinions from people who aren't religious.

I also wonder what makes this man think he has any reason at all to write a damn thing about physics. (look at the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) if you want to know why I'm complaining about this)

Humans, as the highest known intelligence in existence, have to create their own purpose, assign their own values, and determine their own meaning just like a God does. Is this nihilistic? No, it is freedom, the purest kind we can achieve. The only thing I can confidently believe is our own potential to discover the secrets of the natural world and control them, enabling us to achieve creative potential we would have previously assigned to God.

If we define our own values, what is the difference between a value and a preference?

If we define our own values, what is the difference between a value and a preference?

Nothing.

What of it?

Yeah, reading that article has made me re-think my whole life. I realize now that I have, and have always had, no meaning, value, or purpose in life. Now I just need to find a temple, church or mosque! Save me! Save me!

Why must a life devoid of faith by definition be devoid of purpose, meaning and value? I think the premise is fatally flawed.

I don't think he was meaning human lives, but life itself as it exists on earth. I think he has a point there, if we contend that there is no higher being, then it really wouldn't matter if life on earth persisted for the next 20 billion years or was snuffed out at the end of this post.

Yeah, reading that article has made me re-think my whole life. I realize now that I have, and have always had, no meaning, value, or purpose in life. Now I just need to find a temple, church or mosque! Save me! Save me!

Be calm. Find your salvation.

Feel the touch of His Noodly Appendage.

I don't think he was meaning human lives, but life itself as it exists on earth. I think he has a point there, if we contend that there is no higher being, then it really wouldn't matter if life on earth persisted for the next 20 billion years or was snuffed out at the end of this post.

Nonsense. It matters to me. As usual with this kind of theological nonsense, people talk in absolutes. "Does it REALLY matter?" Meaning, from an objective, non-human based perspective - meaning God. Well no, if God doesn't exist, then no it doesn't matter in some grand cosmological sense. Big deal. That's not a "point," that's just typical theological wankery.

If we define our own values, what is the difference between a value and a preference?

Nothing, really.

Of course, there's not really any difference between that and values given to us by God; in that case, they're just God's preferences, whatever those preferences might be.

I don't think he was meaning human lives, but life itself as it exists on earth. I think he has a point there, if we contend that there is no higher being, then it really wouldn't matter if life on earth persisted for the next 20 billion years or was snuffed out at the end of this post.
...and?

Live for the moment.

Nothing.

What of it?

So if there is no difference between a value and a preference, what sort of base is there for morality and the like?

So for example, I dedicate my life to something, say the cause of feeding starving children in Africa. It matters to me. There is another person out there that dedicates his life to undoing what I am doing. Is there any way to say that one of us is right or wrong?

So if there is no difference between a value and a preference, what sort of base is there for morality and the like?

Subjective moral values.

Is there any way to say that one of us is right or wrong?

Of course. We apply our moral standards to it.

What's the deal with life having to have meaning, value and purpose anyway? Why does that matter?

If you ask me, worrying about that kind of thing is symptomatic of having an overblown opinion of your own importance in the scheme of things.

Be calm. Find your salvation.

Feel the touch of His Noodly Appendage.

No! You can't have him he belongs to Eris!!:sniper: :gundge: [/n00b]

This argument might have some ground to stand on if it said it was about atheists who were also moral relativists. I for one am convinced of objective morality, so my lack of belief in God fails to stop me from finding meaning, purpose, and value.

Subjective moral values.

Of course. We apply our moral standards to it.

So there is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty?

How does this translate into the rest of life? For example, in government, what sort of things do we make our laws with? Is it just the average of the subjective morals of the whole populace? And don't say that we can't legislate morality. Everything from social welfare to outlawing murder is legislating morality.

This argument might have some ground to stand on if it said it was about atheists who were also moral relativists. I for one am convinced of objective morality, so my lack of belief in God fails to stop me from finding meaning, purpose, and value.

Actually, that's what the argument is trying to refute. It is saying that there is no way to be an athiest and an objective moralist.

Everything from social welfare to outlawing murder is legislating morality.No, basically it's legislation for the well-being of the populace.
There are not necessarily considerations of morality involved.

No, basically it's legislation for the well-being of the populace.
There are not necessarily ideas of morality involved.

Isn't the well-being of the populace a moral position?

Isn't the well-being of the populace a moral position?

Not necessarily. For example, I might be concerned about the well being of the populace because I stand to benefit from it. My own self-interest motivates my concern for other people.

Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God.

Life is not a question: God is not an answer.

Not necessarily. For example, I might be concerned about the well being of the populace because I stand to benefit from it. My own self-interest motivates my concern for other people.

So laws are made by balancing everyone's self-interest?

So laws are made by balancing everyone's self-interest?Basically yes, if you add in community interest and cultural & religious bagage, but it's hardly the optimal way to go about it.

A saner approach is to only establish rules that prevents people from infringing on the autonomy of their peers.

Basically yes, if you add in community interest and cultural & religious bagage, but it's hardly the optimal way to go about it.

A saner approach is to only establish rules that prevents people from infringing on the autonomy of their peers.

Why? It could be in my best interest to infringe on other's autonomy. Why shouldn't I?

So laws are made by balancing everyone's self-interest?

Sort of. Most laws are drafted by what the community considers to be in its best interests as a whole, and since in many cases most people's interests and desires overlap, this is pretty successful. So, an act considered a crime is not only detrimental to another person's well being, but also to the community as a whole. As a result, by restricting or outlawing this behavior the community maximizes overall well-being.

Now, economically, this is absolutely the case. Individual self-interest is the main mechanism behind modern market economics. People want things, and they engage in trade with others to get them and maximize their economic utility.

Now, economically, this is absolutely the case. Individual self-interest is the main mechanism behind modern market economics. People want things, and they engage in trade with others to get them and maximize their economic utility.

Funny you should bring up economics given some of the more recent corporate scandals. They acted in their best interests and screwed the population. Glossing over the fact that they were caught and punished, is there anything wrong with that?

Isn't the well-being of the populace a moral position?No.

Yeah, reading that article has made me re-think my whole life. I realize now that I have, and have always had, no meaning, value, or purpose in life. Now I just need to find a temple, church or mosque! Save me! Save me!

I'll save your wallet :p

I am an atheist. I can objectively say that there is such a thing as meaning and purpose in life without god.

There is no reason to believe that eternal reward/punishment is a more inherently valuable 'life goal' than anything else. The betterment of humanity, the desire to be remembered after death and the pursuit of personal perfection all seem, to me, to be more worthwhile goals. Even the pursuit of pleasure (hedonism) is a way of establishing meaning and purpose.

If happiness is defined as the pursuit and acquisition of life goals, then, in fact, the only people who can truly be happy are atheists. They are the only ones who can have attainable, knowable life goals, and the only ones who can be aware of their progress.

I think the problem is that some people are unable to understand what life without a higher power is, and imagine it to be a terrible existence, devoid of hope and meaning. For me, religion is devoid of meaning. I have never in my life felt the presence of a higher power, despite desperately wanting to.

As an atheist, I hold certain things to be universal truths that I expect everyone to adhere to. The primary truth is the a priori 'worthwhileness' of humanity. That alone is enough to establish an entire system of morality without the necessity of external reward or punishment.

I am an atheist. I can objectively say that there is such a thing as meaning and purpose in life without god.

There is no reason to believe that eternal reward/punishment is a more inherently valuable 'life goal' than anything else. The betterment of humanity, the desire to be remembered after death and the pursuit of personal perfection all seem, to me, to be more worthwhile goals. Even the pursuit of pleasure (hedonism) is a way of establishing meaning and purpose.

If happiness is defined as the pursuit and acquisition of life goals, then, in fact, the only people who can truly be happy are atheists. They are the only ones who can have attainable, knowable life goals, and the only ones who can be aware of their progress.

I think the problem is that some people are unable to understand what life without a higher power is, and imagine it to be a terrible existence, devoid of hope and meaning. For me, religion is devoid of meaning. I have never in my life felt the presence of a higher power, despite desperately wanting to.

As an atheist, I hold certain things to be universal truths that I expect everyone to adhere to. The primary truth is the a priori 'worthwhileness' of humanity. That alone is enough to establish an entire system of morality without the necessity of external reward or punishment.

If you only see religion (and Christianity in particular) as being concerned with heaven/hell, then you've been hanging around with the wrong religious folks. I've said it numerous times: if God came down from the sky tomorrow and told me that there is no afterlife, I would still live according to Christian principles.

As for the a priori worthiness of humanity, what do you base that on? From an atheistic standpoint, I don't see how humans are really that different from other animals on this planet. As such, I don't see how they have any particular worth or deserve any special treatment.

If you only see religion (and Christianity in particular) as being concerned with heaven/hell, then you've been hanging around with the wrong religious folks. I've said it numerous times: if God came down from the sky tomorrow and told me that there is no afterlife, I would still live according to Christian principles.

As for the a priori worthiness of humanity, what do you base that on? From an atheistic standpoint, I don't see how humans are really that different from other animals on this planet. As such, I don't see how they have any particular worth or deserve any special treatment.


I don't see religion as being concerned solely with heaven/hell. I do understand that Christianity in particular has the end goal of being with God in Heaven. A Christian is supposed to comport himself in a manner consistent with that goal. I have a great deal of respect for the good things (those consistent with a belief in the worthwhileness of humanity) that religions do.

Humanity is worthwhile because I am a human. To continue to live, yet believe that there is nothing worthile about being human is inconsistent.

My personal morality is for the most part identical to that of Christianity. Because I believe that there is no god, it is my understanding that all rules in various world religions developed as a result of human action. Those religions that were conducive to a well functioning society have survived a long time. Because my morality is based on the proper functioning of society as a result of deep respect for all people, many of the principles of established religions coincide with my own principles.

The only difference is the motivation.

Does that answer your questions?

So the idiot believes that atheists cannot have values or purposes and can't believe in the meaning of life without being inconsistent?

What an arse. I have values, and life has a meaning. There, no arbitrary deity required.

So the idiot believes that atheists cannot have values or purposes and can't believe in the meaning of life without being inconsistent?

What an arse. I have values, and life has a meaning. There, no arbitrary deity required.qft :D

Believers have the wrong notion that morality can only be atached to religion.

I dont think thats what the article's point is making. It says you can be moral without religion, but it is to be logically inconsistant

So the idiot believes that atheists cannot have values or purposes and can't believe in the meaning of life without being inconsistent?

What an arse. I have values, and life has a meaning. There, no arbitrary deity required.

If you read it, you would see that it does not say it is not possible. What it says is that it is not possible without being inconsistant

I dont think thats what the article's point is making. It says you can be moral without religion, but it is to be logically inconsistantwhich in reality is not so.

Belief in invisible fairies or some bearded bloke in a white robe who lives up in the sky leads to anxiety:
anxiety that everything you do will be used against you later (after death)
anxiety over feelings of guilt you have for doing things you have been told are 'wrong'
anxiety that you will burn forever in the pits of hell for your immoral behaviours
anxiety that perhaps you're worshiping the 'wrong' God and that your entire life will have been a waste

Atheism takes away all those anxieties and replaces it with scientific knowledge and proofs. After we die, we rot. Therefore best make the most of what we've got.

If you read it, you would see that it does not say it is not possible. What it says is that it is not possible without being inconsistant

And if it's inconsistent, it's basically impossible, since it's contradictory.

We atheists do have morals and values and we do believe that life has meaning, and we are not being inconsistent.

Common decency shouldn't be about pleasing some dude in the clouds, it should be about what's best for humanity. The dude in the clouds can watch us and eat popcorn.

Belief in invisible fairies or some bearded bloke in a white robe who lives up in the sky leads to anxiety:
anxiety that everything you do will be used against you later (after death)
anxiety over feelings of guilt you have for doing things you have been told are 'wrong'
anxiety that you will burn forever in the pits of hell for your immoral behaviours
anxiety that perhaps you're worshiping the 'wrong' God and that your entire life will have been a waste

Atheism takes away all those anxieties and replaces it with scientific knowledge and proofs. After we die, we rot. Therefore best make the most of what we've got.

Precisely what I think, though I do believ in a sort of reincarnation.

And yeah, when I was a theist, I was anxious about what God thought. I was afraid of hell. Now... God can go to hell for all I care, I have more important things to do for humanity and myself rather than some neocon that nobody can prove exists.

It's almost like trying a fad, like Xbox or sk8rstufz or somehting.

If you read it, you would see that it does not say it is not possible. What it says is that it is not possible without being inconsistant

...and does nothing to prove it.

As for me, I have no trouble being consistent and having no belief in a god or gods. What meaning I have in my life, if meaning it can be called, is very much subjective. That doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to me.

And as has been pointed out, even if there were a god, that does not confer meaning to our lives, nor would it make morality in any way more objective; god's views would still just be his/her views. Nothing objective about that. What makes an invisible dude with superpowers so meaningful, really? I bet he wouldn't even wear tights.

Divine command theory can just fuck right off if you ask me.

Looks like standard Craig nonsense to me:

1. Objective meaning and moral standards require the existence of God.
2. Because I say so, that's why!
3. If objective meaning and moral standards didn't exist then I'd be sad. :(
4. Therefore God exists.

How did this guy get two PhDs?

The discussion has covered all important points already. atheism is not illogocal. Basically it is sticking to ones sensorical perception. The world is what you see, hear, feel, can detect. Nothing more. Now where do morals come into play here? My idea is that every person needs a kind of infrastructure for a good life. We do not live on our own in the jungle, we live in a community, in this globalized times, it is a global community. Now I make an assumption: I make the assumption that we do not want to live in the jungle on our own but we want to live in a community. Now basically morals is the dos and don'ts that make you a part of the community, which can be derived by Kant's imperative.

The discussion has covered all important points already. atheism is not illogocal. Basically it is sticking to ones sensorical perception. The world is what you see, hear, feel, can detect. Nothing more. Now where do morals come into play here? My idea is that every person needs a kind of infrastructure for a good life. We do not live on our own in the jungle, we live in a community, in this globalized times, it is a global community. Now I make an assumption: I make the assumption that we do not want to live in the jungle on our own but we want to live in a community. Now basically morals is the dos and don'ts that make you a part of the community, which can be derived by Kant's imperative.Indeed.
And if someone needs a god to know what's wrong and what's right, then that one is in fact a pitiable person.

The author of this article seems to, rather groundlessly, generalize his own opinions. Throughout the article, it is tacicly assumed that some matters he thinks are true are true for everyone. Here are some quotes that illustrate this. No proof for the statements below is offered...

but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless

And yet the atheist, like the rest of us, instinctively reacts with praise for this man’s selfless action

But again, who can live with such a dehumanizing view?


Finally something for a laugh:
Only if God exists can a person consistently support women’s rights.

I have been Christian for the past few minutes, and I feel much better and my life is better. Now that I believe in God and the Bible, my life is complete.

Atheism is for the weak.

Alright, you bash my irreligion, I bash your religion. Religion is for those who can't take the things as they come without having to reassure themselves that some magical force of nature can fix it all.

Indeed.
And if someone needs a god to know what's wrong and what's right, then that one is in fact a pitiable person.
I disagree here. There exist very tough moral questions.

A second problem is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished and all the sacrifices of good men go unrewarded.

This kind of thinking is higly immoral.
Men should act morally because it is right, not because of fear of punishment or craving of a reward.
This actually makes atheist living morally better men than theists. They have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

Alright, you bash my irreligion, I bash your religion. Religion is for those who can't take the things as they come without having to reassure themselves that some magical force of nature can fix it all.

Johnny! /sarcasm detector ON! Il Ruffino is having a go, as it were :p

Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God.



Life is not a question: God is not an answer.

that quote bothers me

no matter if there is an upper story or not, a god or not, we live on the ground floor where life is absurd.

everyone is responsible for putting meaning value and purpose into their lives. some people do that with religion, some do it with their own ideas.

that quote bothers me

no matter if there is an upper story or not, a god or not, we live on the ground floor where life is absurd.

everyone is responsible for putting meaning value and purpose into their lives. some people do that with religion, some do it with their own ideas.

Well said! Hear, hear!

Johnny! /sarcasm detector ON! Il Ruffino is having a go, as it were :p

Sorry. I just get needled very easily, and Ruffy is naturally needling.

Life is a question. All of life is a question- but what is the answer? God is not an answer. God is also a question used to answer the question of life. The question of God leads to more and more questions to the point where one is just so sick of the questions that he or she totally gives up thw questioning and just waits for answers that may never come, and the answers that do come bring more questions. When life becomes a question, don't answer it with God- you will wind up with more questions than you wanted, and even if you can answer all the questions about God, you can never figure out the question of life.

I'm about to fall asleep here, so I apologize if this doesn't make any damn sense whatsoever.

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.



http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4

Utter nonsense. There's no reason whatsoever why an atheist can't live an altruistic, fulfilling life. In fact, there's all the more reason when you realize that your own life is finite and therefore nothing next to the collective life of those who will remain after your passing.

Life is a question. All of life is a question- but what is the answer? God is not an answer. God is also a question used to answer the question of life. The question of God leads to more and more questions to the point where one is just so sick of the questions that he or she totally gives up thw questioning and just waits for answers that may never come, and the answers that do come bring more questions. When life becomes a question, don't answer it with God- you will wind up with more questions than you wanted, and even if you can answer all the questions about God, you can never figure out the question of life.

I'm about to fall asleep here, so I apologize if this doesn't make any damn sense whatsoever.

this reminds me a lot of what a friend of mine in college would say.

Typically when he was drugged out of his mind.

Life is a question. All of life is a question- but what is the answer? God is not an answer. God is also a question used to answer the question of life. The question of God leads to more and more questions to the point where one is just so sick of the questions that he or she totally gives up thw questioning and just waits for answers that may never come, and the answers that do come bring more questions. When life becomes a question, don't answer it with God- you will wind up with more questions than you wanted, and even if you can answer all the questions about God, you can never figure out the question of life.

I'm about to fall asleep here, so I apologize if this doesn't make any damn sense whatsoever.

That's very profound. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Happiness is not the highest good. Judging an idea based on whether it bring you comfort rather than whether it fits the available evidence is cowardly.

Life is a question. All of life is a question- but what is the answer?

If life is a question, then what is the question?

Utter babbling nonsense.

In that entire article, no serious attempt is made at explaining how atheism eliminates value, purpose, and meaning in life - or how theism permits us to have them to any greater degree.

Indeed, it continually assumes as a premise the first part - the "two-story" structure.

Exactly. Nice strawman, too. First declare that all atheists consider life to be a terrible place full of unyielding strife (by quoting one), the proceed to go about showing how awful a world view that is. It is awful, but it's not my world view. Feh.

If life is a question, then what is the question?

Seven times eight?

If life is a question, then what is the question?

Vogon alert! Everyone! PANIC, NOW!

It's good to know that my life is meaningless and inconsistent. Just the way I like it.

Belief in invisible fairies or some bearded bloke in a white robe who lives up in the sky leads to anxiety:
anxiety that everything you do will be used against you later (after death)
anxiety over feelings of guilt you have for doing things you have been told are 'wrong'
anxiety that you will burn forever in the pits of hell for your immoral behaviours
anxiety that perhaps you're worshiping the 'wrong' God and that your entire life will have been a waste

You realize that many if not most Pagans have none of these problems, yes?

Life is a question. All of life is a question- but what is the answer? God is not an answer. God is also a question used to answer the question of life. The question of God leads to more and more questions to the point where one is just so sick of the questions that he or she totally gives up thw questioning and just waits for answers that may never come, and the answers that do come bring more questions. When life becomes a question, don't answer it with God- you will wind up with more questions than you wanted, and even if you can answer all the questions about God, you can never figure out the question of life.


Everything is a question, even the answers.

Vogon alert! Everyone! PANIC, NOW!

fucking vogons. youre *that* close to getting the question to the answer to life the universe and everything and BAM, youre destroyed to make an intergallactic bypass.

rat bastards

I must say, this OP is rather flameworthy.

As an Atheist, I live my life both consistently and happily, thank you very much. I know how much the religious love to pick on the non-religious, but this is bullshit. The author of the work you posted clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and probably has never even sat down and tried to talk with an atheist w/o trying to convert him.

If life is a question, then what is the question?

What is the meaning of life, silly. :)

What is the meaning of life, silly. :)

Why the blatant and entirely unfounded assumption that it does have one?

What is the meaning of life, silly. :)

And the answer is 42.

this reminds me a lot of what a friend of mine in college would say.

Typically when he was drugged out of his mind.

Well at the time I'd been up for over 24 hours. :p

Don't know if that could be profound or just insane.

What is a 'meaning', silly? :)

The purpose of existing, the purpose of life, why we're here...?

What is the meaning of life, silly.What is a 'meaning', silly? :)

So that's a meaning. OK. Does life have one?

Most likely. We're conscious beings, so we must be here fo some reason.

The purpose of existing, the purpose of life, why we're here...?So that's a meaning. OK. Does life have one?

Most likely. We're conscious beings, so we must be here fo some reason.

An odd assumption to make . . .

The purpose of existing, the purpose of life, why we're here...?

And we find ourselves back at the Answer, "42."

Most likely. We're conscious beings, so we must be here for some reason.I do not see any logic in this assumption. How does consciousness create purpose?

I do not see any logic in this assumption. How does consciousness create purpose?

We're sentinent beings. Life must have some sort of purpose. I may be atheist, but I do believe life has some sort of meaning.

We're sentinent beings. Life must have some sort of purpose. I may be atheist, but I do believe life has some sort of meaning.

If you are an atheist, that really doesn't make any sense.

If you are an atheist, that really doesn't make any sense.You really should widen your perspective one day...

We're sentinent beings. Life must have some sort of purpose. I may be atheist, but I do believe life has some sort of meaning.But what has the one thing to do with the other? And wWhat purpose does the life of other creatures have?

You really should widen your perspective one day...

That doesn't make sense either, as you also view it as illogical.

We're sentinent beings. Life must have some sort of purpose.

Yes, we are sentient beings. What does this have to do with purpose?

Meh. I'm an atheist. I'm happy. The author of that article can blow is out his ass.

Yes, we are sentient beings. What does this have to do with purpose?

Sentience provides the capability to find purpose. Assuming purpose is something derived from personal choice, only a being with sentience has the ability to find purpose.

Sentience provides the capability to find purpose. Assuming purpose is something derived from personal choice, only a being with sentience has the ability to find purpose.

This all still hinges on the unstated and quite frankly dubious assumption that a purpose exists.

Yes, we are sentient beings. What does this have to do with purpose?

Porpoises are also sentient beings . . .

Porpoises are also sentient beings . . .

Really? I demand that you provide a cetacean for such an assertion.

Yes, we are sentient beings. What does this have to do with purpose?

I dispute that it is a certainty that we are sentient.

I dispute that it is a certainty that we are sentient.Some are.

Really? I demand that you provide a cetacean for such an assertion.

*unzips his pants*

Some are.

How would you know?

I dispute that it is a certainty that we are sentient.

Do we react to stimuli? That's all that's needed. Sapience, on the other hand...

How would you know?I've met some...

Sentience provides the capability to find purpose. Assuming purpose is something derived from personal choice, only a being with sentience has the ability to find purpose.Something derived from personal choice is based on reason, not on sentience. I really don't know how someone could construct a connexion between purpose and sentience.

Absurd. First, how dare a theist point out any supposed ‘inherent contradictions’ in atheism? That is rank hypocrisy. Second, of course life doesn’t have any express meaning to it. Not in the spiritual sense…there is no such thing as a soul. The point of life? To fuck, excrete, eat and live. To enjoy, hypothesise and think. Humanity’s great goal is to subvert instinct, to start afresh. We might only elevate ourselves through action. We are not special. There is no God (philosophically and scientifically, it is patently obvious). Deal with it; find meaning in your ‘self’. That’s why atheists are oftentimes more ‘moral’ and decent than theists; as there’s no afterlife, let us build a heaven here and now. In addition, I commend theists to an extent; requires immense powers of delusion and ability concerning intellectual gymnastics to swallow that tripe.

Something derived from personal choice is based on reason, not on sentience. I really don't know how someone could construct a connexion between purpose and sentience.

Free will is a myth, as is choice. We’re shaped by our experiences, our genes, our environment…everything is predetermined. You cannot separate your decisions from your ‘self’. There might be a degree of flexibility, in accordance with circumstance, but that is all. Sentience? That is the capability to reason and deduce. We are conscious, sentient beings. We might react to sensory deceptions, but we are (invariably) predisposed towards reasoning and rationality on the most basic level. Famous ball of wax analogy (cf Descartes). That is the distinction between the ‘reactive’ and the ‘pre-emptive’. We’re capable of pre-emptivity, most animals and machines are not. There is no purpose, beyond that biological one...to reproduce. We can, and indeed should, construct an alternative. That should be to enrich our own lives; make the best of a terrible world and a 'bad ride'. Seek joy.

Life is a question. All of life is a question- but what is the answer? God is not an answer. God is also a question used to answer the question of life. The question of God leads to more and more questions to the point where one is just so sick of the questions that he or she totally gives up thw questioning and just waits for answers that may never come, and the answers that do come bring more questions. When life becomes a question, don't answer it with God- you will wind up with more questions than you wanted, and even if you can answer all the questions about God, you can never figure out the question of life.Life is not a question; life is a complex series of processes. You can choose to interpret it as a question, but doing so is rather nonsensical. Just as interpreting, say, your nose as a question.

You can ask questions about life, though, just as you can ask questions about your nose; you can ask anything, no matter how meaningless the question is. And a very vast majority of questions do not have any meaningful answer. Hence the endless chains of questions; such occur when you ask something that is not logically deducible.

Why should I, as an atheist, give a flying fuck about wheather or not some dude thinks I'm living a happy life full of purpose. The only thing that really matters is that I believe I'm living a happy life full of purpose. His opinion is absolutely worthless. The only person's opinion that is valid is my own because I'm the one living this life.

Some atheists rant about how theists are missing out on the quest for true purpose by placing all their faith and hopes in a being that probably doesn't exist, a fairy tale used to keep children in line and keep the insecure from despair, but they're commiting the same sin. They, like some theists are arrogant enough to think that their opinion of someone else's life matters.

Sentience provides the capability to find purpose. Assuming purpose is something derived from personal choice, only a being with sentience has the ability to find purpose.

One could be existentialist and say that sentience gives the ability to assign meaning to experience, rather to find some objective "meaning of life".

Why should I, as an atheist, give a flying fuck about wheather or not some dude thinks I'm living a happy life full of purpose. The only thing that really matters is that I believe I'm living a happy life full of purpose. His opinion is absolutely worthless. The only person's opinion that is valid is my own because I'm the one living this life.

Some atheists rant about how theists are missing out on the quest for true purpose by placing all their faith and hopes in a being that probably doesn't exist, a fairy tale used to keep children in line and keep the insecure from despair, but they're commiting the same sin. They, like some theists are arrogant enough to think that their opinion of someone else's life matters.

Hmmm...I think that the tendency amongst atheists is to 'rant' about -organised- religion, which is surely the true enemy of 'free' thought. I don't think that many atheists preach of the 'supremacy of truth' et al.[RIGHT

Why should I, as an atheist, give a flying fuck about wheather or not some dude thinks I'm living a happy life full of purpose. The only thing that really matters is that I believe I'm living a happy life full of purpose. His opinion is absolutely worthless. The only person's opinion that is valid is my own because I'm the one living this life.

Some atheists rant about how theists are missing out on the quest for true purpose by placing all their faith and hopes in a being that probably doesn't exist, a fairy tale used to keep children in line and keep the insecure from despair, but they're commiting the same sin. They, like some theists are arrogant enough to think that their opinion of someone else's life matters.
*applauds*

One could be existentialist and say that sentience gives the ability to assign meaning to experience, rather to find some objective "meaning of life".

This is mostly what I meant. However, I have difficulty totally accepting existentialism because of the idea that existence predates essence. In other words, you are not a person before you have had experiences. Through my experiences I am able to assign value to all human life, even that which has not been born yet. (Not gonna argue about abortion in this thread, so don't even try to start something.)


Something derived from personal choice is based on reason, not on sentience. I really don't know how someone could construct a connexion between purpose and sentience.

I would argue that setience is the ability to make a choice based on reason.

I understand that true free will is a bit of an impossibility. We only have the illusion of free will due to the incredible complexity of not only life, but our interaction with the world.


Why should I, as an atheist, give a flying fuck about wheather or not some dude thinks I'm living a happy life full of purpose. The only thing that really matters is that I believe I'm living a happy life full of purpose. His opinion is absolutely worthless. The only person's opinion that is valid is my own because I'm the one living this life.

Some atheists rant about how theists are missing out on the quest for true purpose by placing all their faith and hopes in a being that probably doesn't exist, a fairy tale used to keep children in line and keep the insecure from despair, but they're commiting the same sin. They, like some theists are arrogant enough to think that their opinion of someone else's life matters.


I think you're wrong. If you have a grasp on either 'objective truth', or 'truth which makes the world a better place', it is your duty to share it with other people - at least, if one of your goals is to improve the world or to seek truth. I think where a lot of atheists go wrong is that they refuse to see any value in religion, and make character attacks on the people who follow them.

I will never try to convince somebody that god does not exist. It is not possible to prove that. What I will try to convince people of is that they should think critically about their beliefs, and consider the reasons why they do 'good acts'. Hopefully, they will come to the conclusion as I have that there is no reason for god to exist, and if there is a god, there is no reason for us to worship him.

Most importantly though, I will try to convince people that they should not allow religion to impede the progress of science. There are perfectly good secular reasons why some scientific experiments would not be ethical.

An article from Bethinking.org which I thought I would share with NS. He'res the intro. Follow the link for the rest.



http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=139&TopicID=6&CategoryID=4

I love absurdity. It's funny, despite the fact it's trying to kill me.