I need help analyzing the statement: There can be no meaning of life in an atheistic worldview.
First of all, what does meaning of life mean? I assume it to mean that there is some event yet to occur that everything is designed to make occur. Like the meaning of a kettle is make water boil, humans are also supposed to make some event happen. So, meaning of life refers to purpose.
Next, what is an atheistic worldview. Atheism consists of just one statement: there is no god. Nothing else can be attributed to atheism at this time, and this point is not up for dispute.
To propose that lack of a god means that there is no purpose also means that a god must exist for there to be a purpose. This does not mean that if a god exists there is a purpose. All it means is that purpose is impossible without the existance of a god (nothing else).
How is purpose reliant on god? This is where I’m stuck.
Love, that is the purpose and Gods intent. Everything here is because of Love (God created us out of Love) and it is Love that teaches us to be selfless and this allows us to get along and have fulfillment in all that we do.
The acid test is to try and think of how you can find any joy, fulfillment happiness or sense of achievement in a vacuum. If you are alone then nothing you do matters and there is no point to doing anything, and there is no joy or fulfillment, only existance, there is nothing of worth if you’re alone. Now realize that Love is about others, its impossible to exhibit Love by yourself, some say you can Love yourself but that is a fallacy, its impossible. If you’ve ever been alone and isolated for a long period of time you would be able to prove that it is impossible to love your self or to be happy. What we do is put ourselves before others which is selfishness and this is the opposite of Love, so its not loving yourself.
Now back to the point, the meaning of life is to practice Love and learn from it and let it change you so you’re the kind of soul that God and everyone wants to be around. This allows you to be a productive part of society and abide in happiness and fulfillment. This is Gods plan and that is why there is a separation here on earth as well as in the afterlife. Notice the rules for this separation are the same, those who are selfish and hurt others because of this are locked up and kept from the public because they cause strife and imbalance and pain for all, it’s the bad apple analogy.
kingdaddy, you have dodged the question outright. You have given me a meaning of life (your meaning, too), spouted some nonsense, and not stated how it is impossible for any meaning of life to exist without a god. Stick to the point or begone.
Yes there can. An athiest may have meaning in the here and now. Being an athiest does not mean that you don’t believe in “anything.” It litteraly means not believing in gods, athiest may still believe in other supernatural phenomena depending on the particular athiest. Therefore it is shortsided to assume that all athiest have no meaning in life. You might be confusing athiesm and extreme nihilism.
Also, athiest may still be superstitious about some things in life, like certain days of the year, places or people etc. Most humans have some peculiar superstitions. (It makes life fun I think)
Athiesm is just the belief in no gods, nothing more or less. But alot of people attach more baggage to the term athiesm than is actually part of the definition.
I am kind of an agnostic and a believer in some other things like the laws of nature (tao style mostly) etc, and it is funny how weird some people misunderstand common views. Everyone filters definitions thru their own lens, and usually reflect their own views when defining others.
I’ll accept your interpretation means that atheism implies there is no God. That’s fine. And your interpretation of meaning as purpose. Effectively, you’re asking how can life have a purpose in a world without a higher power?
I disagree that purpose comes from God - it comes from the system of belief. While an atheist may not believe in any sort of super-natural God, they can still construct a worldview that has morality and a hierarchy of action. In this sense, they can construct a purpose for life, rather than having it given to them.
You guys didn’t read it all. Darn. I was asking what the reasoning is behind the statement, I mean, how do people come to that conclusion logically. I, personally, don’t think it’s valid, but I have to have a justification before I can refute the justifications. Plus, I’d really rather go through this on its own thread.
tent, that’s flattering, but it does not work as a social doctrine. If I believe I’m the event that everything else led up to, what’s my purpose?
Social doctrine? More than one… hmmm, that’s just a negotiated settlement agreed to by one or more parties and as such, just a construct that can only refer to itself.
What, did you read anything I wrote? You said you were stuck on how purpose was reliant on God. I explained the Purpose then I explained why God has this exclusive Purpose and gave examples. How much more direct could anyone be? If you disagree then fine, but just because you cant understand anything about Purpose and Love is no reason to claim that no point was made, the point was made and very precisely so, the problem is yours.
See this is the problem with conversing with atheist, they have no foundation in anything that is truly human for the majority of the world so they cannot understand the simplest of things that even a normal child could grasp. You Atheist are so puffed up with your own intellect and spend so much time dissecting every word and look so close you cannot see the big picture of anything, you think you or books you read are the source of knowledge, how funny.
You atheist don’t believe in Purpose, you don’t believe in Love or right or wrong or absolutes of any kind, what the hell is left to talk about on a forum about religion and philosophy? What the hell is left for a human soul to find comfort in, are all atheists dead and soulless inside?
It makes sense to me. From a creator perspective it makes sense. I don’t think you dodged the question. You answered it from a creator and a feel good philosophical perpspective that some will agree on and others may not.
thezeus18,
you can’t expect people to answer a question pefectly that humans have no perfect answers too. And then when they do attempt to answer them, as best as they can from their perspective, call it crap.
No agreed upon answer exists for some questions, which means each person has to find an answer that they think works. That doesn’t mean that answers different than yours are bad.
what is the right place? And who are you talking too, thezeus18 or all on this post, or all athiests, or all agnostics, or all aliens . . . who exactly?
kingdaddy, I stated that I wanted an explanation of how all meanings of life are reliant on the existence of a god, how purpose cannot exist without god.
What did you do? You gave me a meaning, and then went on to say that this meaning can only exist with god. Fine, but this does not pertain to the discussion at hand unless you also say that your meaning is the only meaning possible, which can easily be refuted. Okay? So it was either a dodge of the question or a poorly written response, both of which are your fault, not mine.
By the way, insult me or the Dalai Lama again and I cease tolerating your presence on my threads. Just because you are scared doesn’t mean you have to start calling names. And if I think of something worse I’ll do it too, so watch it, bub.
You should practice your reading and comprehension skills. I clearly covered this in my earlier posts in more then one thread that you participated in. I perfectly answered your question and did so comprehensively, your inability to properly refute and the frustration from this is your problem.
I’ll summarize it for you again:
Purpose requires design, look up the definition of Purpose if you can’t see that. Design requires intelligence, again look it up in a dictionary if you still have problems following this simple logic. And of course lastly an intelligent designer would be some form of God or absolute or at the very least would fit the qualifications of a God or absolute. Now if you have anything to refute about this you need to show either an alternative with some examples to back that up or show some discontinuity in the logic I presented.
In addition, try not to whine so much about my assertions, your claim about me insulting you is unfounded, I have never insulted you or the Dali Lama and I’m entitled to my opinions and are presenting them as only my opinions.
You never said that. That’s what I wanted. Now, to dissect it:
Purpose does not require design. It is not inherent in the definition. The definition of purpose is not “What the object was created to be used for” but “what the object is used for”.
Here:
Imagine this. You’re a caveman (not too hard so far , just kidding), and you find a sharp rock. This rock can be used for slicing meat, it can be attached to a to an axe hilt for chopping wood, can be attached to a stick to make a spear with which to hunt. A few weeks after you find it, a friend comes along. He notices the sharp rock and says “Hey, what’s that for?”, and you say “It’s a wood-chopping-meat-slicing-hunting-o-matic 3000. It’s purpose is chopping wood, slicing meat, and hunting.” While the sharp rock was not designed to be used as a WCMSHOM 3000, that’s its purpose to the caveman.
Design does require intelligence, but not active intelligence. For example:
Ungh makes (designs) a cup. Ugh dies. Cup was still designed, but intelligent designer does not exist.
Analyzing the statement, eh? Are you basically saying that you have confirmed that there absolutely cannot be a ‘meaning of life in an atheistic worldview’ and now you simply wish to ascertain why?
Have you already disclosed the possibility that the atheistic meaning of life could be that of pushing the boundaries of human thought, knowledge, and expression; in effect, the growth of the human species? I’m sure you have thought of this, but then you would have also thought, why would humanity put itself to this task? Why should I bother pushing my own limits? Well, that’s where you would ask for a reason, a “why” so to speak, for that particular meaning of life.
So I ask you, are you searching for the meaning of life, or simply why it is so? After all, I could put it fairly that the meaning of life is to die in eternal conflict between groups of different opinion (war), and the reason why could still be a matter of speculation.
A meaning of life can have nothing to do with a belief in something, and it can have everything to do with it. It’s just a matter of perspective.
The meaning of life is being, which is becoming. It needs no atheistic or religious substantiations. If you were born, you have a right to be here and are entitled to benefit from all that is here. Being is your right to be!!!
Because all of the evidence says it’s a great probability, that is unless your agenda is to find what you want it to be instead of what the evidence points too. Your obvious bias and distaste for religion has severely clouded your vision as well as others here. If you look for flaws with a closed mind and a preset agenda you will never find any truth, you will only find what suites your pallet, how safe. Making your own truth does not make it true, any counterfeit is just that, a counterfeit which is a lie. I know that many will accuse me of having a like agenda for proving God and I cant prove that idea wrong as I am as susceptible to bias as anyone. But if you can just look at the evidence and observe nature and humanity as objectively as possible I think you should at least see enough evidence and coincidences to make you think a little more about the possibility of an absolute.
In closing:
I never claimed any of this to be absolutely true, I only claim that there is much evidence to it and that I believe it, I presented my case with real world examples and much connected thought that is backed up by the vast majority of all human thinking for all of known time. You and others cherry pick a few statements and make obscure off topic points and have no connection to a line of logic against the idea of a possibility of absolute purpose. This leads me to believe that you guys either haven’t given it any real thought or simply don’t have a real opinion, and obviously you just don’t like my assertions so you fight it with irrelevant pot shots, each one I have been able to address and show to be either erroneous or out of context without further follow up from the opposition. So I have to conclude that the points I respond to are closed for this debate.
You and others (mostly Atheist) claim that there is no way it could possibly be true under any circumstances, which line of thinking is irrational?
However, if there is no script, no story, you can’t have roles, so obviously there can’t be a purpose to life if there is no script, and who may write this? That’s the question.
, just kidding), and you find a sharp rock. This rock can be used for slicing meat, it can be attached to a to an axe hilt for chopping wood, can be attached to a stick to make a spear with which to hunt. A few weeks after you find it, a friend comes along. He notices the sharp rock and says “Hey, what’s that for?”, and you say “It’s a wood-chopping-meat-slicing-hunting-o-matic 3000. It’s purpose is chopping wood, slicing meat, and hunting.” While the sharp rock was not designed to be used as a WCMSHOM 3000, that’s its purpose to the caveman.