hm. And if no one is interested in a debate? Will you just keep your ideas to yourself forever?
I could just splurge them in the OP as an edit, but it would be part of a declaration of victory
My view of philosophy is that thereâs always got to be a counterargument. However lâm not seeing a way out for Atheism in this situation. It would be nice to see how Atheism fares in a real debate. I will not debate before the debate as doing so pre-empts the debate and this would be another means to shut down the debate. I donât get why nobody will just assent to this debate, on a philosophy forum.
The utilitarian idea that the highest purpose in life is âenjoying lifeâ is the moral ideology of Atheism that they - similar to religions - actively propagate and attempt to impose on âthe peopleâ.
The slogan of the Atheism campaign propagates the idea specifically:
The idea that the value of the world is the source of purpose in life is a flawed and dangerous idea in my opinion. It naturally results in a tendency to corrupt for perceived greater goods, and in my opinion the whole movement is driven by scientism (Darwinism etc) that serves a âgreater good of science ideologyâ.
In my opinion, on a personal/emotional level, Atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.
With regard my own view. I am not religious but I would argue the following with regard morality.
Residing in the essence of philosophical exploration on behalf of what can be considered âgoodâ has no name other than the pursuit of virtue or a âmoral lifeâ. It doesnât require any dogma or belief.
Aristotle considers a state of philosophical contemplation (eudaimonia) the greatest virtue (highest human good). It is an eternal strive to serve life: the discovery (pursuit) of Good from which âvalueâ (the whole Universe) follows.
1 Like
@10x If you are actually Atheist (more than merely ânot religiousâ) then would you like to accept my debate proposal?
P.S. Iâm surprised nobody else saw how rash the âpleasure principleâ was in their argument for life
You are certainly allowed to declare victory whenever you want. Nobody has to care or respect it. Thereâs that scene in Big Daddy where the kid makes the dad play a game called âI winâ, and if thatâs how you want to play, nobody can stop you.
False Analogy: the kid (l canât even remember the book though l read it) likely didnât plead with dad for a formal debate grounded in sound logic with a ban on sophistry, asking dad again and again, and asking others to, again and again, and when the pleading failed to elicit debate, the kid was then asked if he would finally make his argument instead of debate, i.e. the kid was given the choice on the basis that the original choice was rejected by the other people being asked for a debate, and the kid, in resignation, said okay l COULD just reveal my argument seeing as youâve been begging me to all this time, but the cost would be assertion of your defeat, which would be absolutely true anyway because you refused to debate, so you defaulted.
That would be an honest simile. Rather than implying that by repeatedly asking for a reasoned formal debate lâm somehow playing a messed up Orwellian mindgame. This is the superstitious fear in you, playing out again. Thereâs nothing l can do to help that. Peace.
Peace
I am not an Atheist. In my view, Atheism is a religion.
My notion about being ânot religiousâ would be in line with philosophyâs fundamental ability, unlike science, to question dogma itself and therewith having the ability to transcend dogma.
I agree.
I once wrote the following about it:
Many people in the modern world see âhaving funâ (enjoying life) as the highest goal or purpose of life.
When one uses value in the world as âmeaningâ, what will happen when that value is lost? For example, when life may appear unbearable, how will one possibly find motivation to overcome the problems?
Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. The fight to overcome problems makes humanity stronger. Humanity should be driven to the extreme (by culture) to ânot give upâ and in order to enable success on that regard, it will be important to discover the meaning of life that makes motivation possible BEFORE value.
The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onward - is value.
The origin of value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself. This implies that a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori or âbefore valueâ).
The Quest for âAuthenticâ Meaning
Some people cannot accept the idea that âhaving funâ (enjoyment) is the meaning of life. Some people question deeper and upon the consideration that there must be a meaning of life to be able to consider an aim in life to be meaningful, they potentially discover an infinitely deep abyss with no ground in sight and may find great difficulty to establish a convincing (authentic) mindset that provides purpose - a driving force or motivation - for their individual life.
Authenticity may be the key. When one grasps for a ground, one can find that it is not so easy to accept the value in the world (e.g. having a good time) as the meaning of life.
Why does value exist? Why should one create value? Why anything at all?
One then derives at the question âWhat is the meaning of life?â which isnât about food or having a good time. It is about something deeper, about the origin of emotions, about the origin of a feeling of purpose and fulfillment, about the origin of anything at all.
People who question so deeply may be motivated by authenticity. Without authenticity on a deeper level, one would lose oneâs identity and mind. The question can make one aware that his/her mental foundation isnât as secure as one may expect to be normal, which may result in anxiety and ideas leading to suicide.
Authenticity and finding meaning in life may be a key for talent, art and human performance. Many talented and top performing people have struggled with the question, which shows that the origin of the question may be something fundamental and that despite having success, thousands of friends and a rich social life, the question (or inability to answer it) is just as critical.
Philosophy Itself as âThe Answerâ and Solution
The podcast âCamus and the Absurdâ by Partially Examined Life about the French philosopher Albert Camus provides a semi-professional conversational perspective on the question by professors of philosophy.
Does our eventual death mean that life has no meaning and we might as well end it all? Camus starts to address this question, then gets distracted and talks about a bunch of phenomenologists until he dies unreconciled. Also, letâs all push a rock up a hill and like it, okay?
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals (Third Essay) argues that in response to a lack of ability to answer the question "What is the purpose of life?, people will rather choose to commit suicide than to choose nothing at all.
If you except the ascetic ideal, man, the animal man had no meaning. His existence on earth contained no end; âWhat is the purpose of man at all?â was a question without an answer; the will for man and the world was lacking; behind every great human destiny rang as a refrain a still greater âVanity!â The ascetic ideal simply means this: that something was lacking, that a tremendous void encircled manâhe did not know how to justify himself, to explain himself, to affirm himself, he suffered from the problem of his own meaning. He suffered also in other ways, he was in the main a diseased animal; but his problem was not suffering itself, but the lack of an answer to that crying question, âTo what purpose do we suffer?â Man, the bravest animal and the one most inured to suffering, does not repudiate suffering in itself: he wills it, he even seeks it out, provided that he is shown a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. Not suffering, but the senselessness of suffering was the curse which till then lay spread over humanityâand the ascetic ideal gave it a meaning! It was up till then the only meaning; but any meaning is better than no meaning; the ascetic ideal was in that connection the âfaute de mieuxâ par excellence that existed at that time. In that ideal suffering found an explanation; the tremendous gap seemed filled; the door to all suicidal Nihilism was closed. The explanationâthere is no doubt about itâbrought in its train new suffering, deeper, more penetrating, more venomous, gnawing more brutally into life: it brought all suffering under the perspective of guilt; but in spite of all thatâman was saved thereby, he had a meaning, and from henceforth was no more like a leaf in the wind, a shuttle-cock of chance, of nonsense, he could now âwillâ somethingâabsolutely immaterial to what end, to what purpose, with what means he wished: the will itself was saved. It is absolutely impossible to disguise what in point of fact is made clear by complete will that has taken its direction from the ascetic ideal: this hate of the human, and even more of the animal, and more still of the material, this horror of the senses, of reason itself, this fear of happiness and beauty, this desire to get right away from all illusion, change, growth, death, wishing and even desiringâall this meansâlet us have the courage to grasp itâa will for Nothingness, a will opposed to life, a repudiation of the most fundamental conditions of life, but it is and remains a will!âand to say at the end that which I said at the beginningâman will wish Nothingness rather than not wish at all.
What does it mean that the question âthe meaning of lifeâ has been a major subject in philosophy? What does the quest for the meaning of life imply?
The meaning of life can be found in the question.
While I agree that Atheismâs moral ideology that enjoyment is the highest purpose of life is problematic for various reasons and would hinder people to efficiently adopt a fighters mentality when âall hope seems lostâ, I would not agree with the assertion that it would be logical to commit suicide in response to Atheism.
Your assertion seems to suggest that a âresponseâ is in any case required in order to establish a meaning of life. However, this might not be the case. My argument would be: why has the question âwhat is the meaning of life?â been a major part of philosophy in history until this day?
For the Atheist, this simple fact provides a justification to simply enjoy their life and be content with it.
Hi there itâs great that youâve thought about this too, and l didnât really know about the past history of this question. I was aware of Camus but only vaguely.
Iâm unsure what you have inferred so l canât really respond. However, l would say my proposal is clean, though l should have used the word âREACTIONâ rather than âRESPONSEâ, but still broadly the same word l mean itâs an adverb or something isnât it.
What lâm saying is, the endpoint in Atheist logic is immediate suicide.
I donât see how anybody can undermine this statement.
Moreover, when an Atheist gives a reason for why they do not commit suicide immediately, l laugh because of the new counterarguments to the atheistâs striving to live which youâve given in your response but also before that, because they are invoking non-sequiturs to Atheism. I hope you can see where my argument is leading. I donât want to spill the beans before the debate.
1 Like
You wrote the following specifically:
This seems to align with the consideration of philosopher Albert Camus who asked:
Does our eventual death mean that life has no meaning and we might as well end it all?
Your notion of âresponseâ or âreactionâ appears to imply the assumption âthat a response is in any case requiredâ when faced with the proposition that you proposed that is to be inferred when following Atheistic logicâ. However, my argument would be:
- the answer is the question
- for Atheists, this in practice implies that they can be content with âenjoying lifeâ
Hi there, nope, l was only talking about the -ism, which was invoked twice in the title of the debate.
It is intended of course that the -ist would be brought up, by the -ist themselves, and thus l would round on them and bring my utlimate point home, about the nature of the -ist and his/her entire reality for that matter (ârealityâ = the âexistâ in âexistentialâ, âexistenceâ etc. etc.).
If you want to assume the role of the Atheist youâre welcome to be the opponent in this debate
Thank you for the invitation, but I am not an Atheist.
Your question:
Please give a logical argument for why the Atheist should choose life.
My argument: the Atheist doesnât âneedâ to choose life.
The Atheist can be content with âenjoying lifeâ and can find a convincing justification by revolting against religions.
Their revolt against religions doesnât provide an answer to their fundamental weakness in life (the inability to answer the question: âwhat is the meaning of life?â), but it provides evidence for them that they are justified in simply enjoying their life and to âstop worryingâ about the question.
Their own propaganda reveals that it is evident that âworryingâ about the question (their âweaknessâ) is applicable for them. The Atheist just needs a justification for their choice for an âenjoyed lifeâ, which they find in their revolt.
So my answer is applicable to your question:
- the answer is the question
- for Atheists, this in practice implies that they can be content with âenjoying lifeâ
In my opinion, Atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.
The Atheist essentially escapes the âchoiceâ for life, by seeking a justification to âstop worrying about itâ, which they find in their revolt against religions.
Hi there,
I did not say the Atheist needs to choose life.
I posed a question to Atheists: why would you choose life?
This was after explaining: the -ism (Atheism) logically implies immediate suicide
What the Atheist needs, varies. If it helps, please ask yourself: âHow could his question have been a good one, did l misunderstand something in assuming thereâs an easy answer? Did he actually say this or that? And: was he asking, not telling? Or in other situations: was he telling, not asking?â If it helps, l have seen Atheists before, l know they donât instantly suicide. I know this.
This is my technique: I think how the other person might be right and if l still disagree, l then counter.
I donât want to give my arguments aaway so l canât be more specific, sorry! Peace!
1 Like
In that case I am unable to help since I am not an Atheist.
Since you repeatedly asked, I shared my perspective: their propaganda suggests that the Atheist prefers to âstop worrying about itâ.
Good luck with the debate!
1 Like
Thank you but nobody wants to debate this very fundamental question despite most people here being Atheist l presume.
I know existentialism is a fundamental topic in philosophy but lâm not aware of much debate on âAtheism + Existentialismâ.
Iâm sorry for giving you a curt response just now but l really donât see how my answer is in the question plus some of the things you were saying were too complex.
Another of my guiding principles: My mother was a simple woman and she was a saint or something like that. So, if thereâs something she couldnât understand about spirituality (and conversely, Atheism, and contingently also: philosophy) then itâs overcomplicated. I try to phrase things simply.
Btw yes ,l did mention the -ist too, but the debate opens with an assertion about the -ism, and then addresses the disparity with the -ist still clinging to life. Sadly l may have to do the chicken dance again as nobody took me up.
Peace!
They donât âchooseâ life, they have it. Your question should be why they donât choose death.
1 Like
Well put.
Most atheists I know are innately moral and decent, happily sacrificing for others, leading deep, meaningful lives.
If you need religion to be decent then youâre not actually decent.