Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Meaning of Life for Atheists
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 31 of 56 (494456)
01-16-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Granny Magda
01-15-2009 1:59 PM


Re: No Such Thing as Objective Meaning
Granny Magda writes:
Exactly the problem. That my ancestors started having sex is nothing more than a phenomenon, no meaning is involved. Meaning requires conciousness and the first sexually reproducing organisms were not concious.
You see - even at the first paragraph you start making assumptions. You claim you know that there is no meaning involved in evolution. How do you know this? Because you know there is no god and because you assume mutations are completely random. Maybe it's so, but that's an assumption, it doesn't involve the absolute certainty that shines through the posts of atheists. We don't have any idea what causes randomness. We have to believe determinism is false and true uncaused randomness exists in Nature(whatever nature is).
GRanny Magda writes:
If I remember correctly, you are not an atheist. Why so keen to tell others what they think?
I am not telling anyone what they think. I merely said that life is objectively meaningless according to atheism. And I challenge each and everyone to produce a single objective purpose. Sujective(at the individual level) - yes, there are countless purposes, but objective there are none.
Granny Magda writes:
From my point of view, reproduction is simply part of the "how" of life.
When worded like that, atheism is not radical and even makes sense.
Granny Magda writes:
Indeed, I do not believe that there is an objective reason "why" beyond human action (and perhaps not even there). There is no such thing as objective purpose or meaning. All such things are human constructs.
Agreed. As long as we use "believe" this is the only right way to stay away from radicalism.
Granny Magda writes:
That I think this at all suggests that you do not understand atheists as well as you think you do.
You are right, I don't. I don't need to believe anything, much less argue against another dogmatic position that's also beased on a different belief.
Granny Magda writes:
But that is a contradiction; if I have subjective meaning, then my life is obviously not meaningless. If I lack objective meaning, that just makes me the same as everybody else, since I don't believe that any such thing exists.
That's what i said - your personal life is not meaningless, but our collective human living is meaningless, i.e. it does not serve any objective purpose(according to what you believe). You seem to agree with this in other replies to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2009 1:59 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2009 12:09 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 01-16-2009 1:35 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 01-16-2009 1:51 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 32 of 56 (494458)
01-16-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Agobot
01-16-2009 4:12 AM


Re: No Such Thing as Objective Meaning
Agobot writes:
DrJones writes:
No, it's a lack of beleif in gods, not a beleif that are no gods.
Fighting against other beliefs strongly implies that this lack of belief in gods is much closer to a radical belief that there are no gods.(though i am sure it doesn't look so to the individuals who hold those beliefs strongly).
The most intuitive description of what atheism really is (or isn't)that I ever found, is the following:
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Hope that helps to clear things up...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:12 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 33 of 56 (494460)
01-16-2009 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
01-16-2009 6:53 AM


Re: The Meaning of Fusion
Granny Magda writes:
Here is another way of looking at the topic.
Life is a property/process that is displayed by an incredibly tiny percentage of the matter in our universe, namely living things.
Nuclear fusion is also a property/process that is displayed by a somewhat larger, but still very tiny percentage of matter in our universe, namely stars.
So what is the meaning of nuclear fusion?
What is the meaning of stars?
If you can see the absurdity in those two questions, you may be able to see why I find ideas of an intrinsic meaning of life so absurd. Life is nothing special. It may be unusual, but it is only our anthropocentric outlook that persuades us that we are meaningful.
In truth, everyone must find meaning for themselves.
I agree that we can't find the meaning(there is a chance that there be none), but it would be radical to say there is no meaning. We simply don't know. The only cases i've seen where people here "knew" that there was or wasn't an objective meaning to life was by atheists and creationists. And the certainty implied by both positions borders dogma. An assumption is a not fact, it's an assumption, it can be wrong. A belief can be wrong, there is no certainty involved in beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2009 6:53 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 56 (494463)
01-16-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Agobot
01-15-2009 12:01 PM


That's your subjective interpretaion that certainly doesn't hold for every atheist. What you all can objectively agree is that life is meaningless
No.
But there is something else - according to your beliefs life came through extreme luck and randomness via Sex urge.
No.
Did you ever consider the possibility of arguing with real atheists, instead of the imaginary atheists in your head?
Just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 12:01 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 56 (494465)
01-16-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Agobot
01-15-2009 5:39 PM


Re: No Such Thing as Objective Meaning
No i cannot. But it's entertaining to watch the 2 sects fight for their respective dogma. Atheists claim to know that there is no God/creator because they have sufficiently well explained reality(while science hasn't) and religious folks have the Bible as the ultimate tool for explaining everything(although their reality does not in any way conform to the reality we experience).
To anyone who's not attached to these 2 radical schools of "thought", watching the debate as it unfolds is pretty amusing.
So, tell us all, O amused one ... what do you think?
You who claim to be "watching", but who is actually pitching in and fighting against these "2 radical schools".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 5:39 PM Agobot has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 36 of 56 (494468)
01-16-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Agobot
01-16-2009 3:22 AM


Agobot writes:
And if you fight against those who believe in gods, it means that you vehemently believe that you are right.
Vehemently? Religion has been a mass killer historically, so don't you think it should be criticised, just as you would criticise a dogmatic political ideology if it had been responsible for millions of deaths? And how many posts have you made here "fighting vehemently" against atheists? And why do you need to lie to yourself about what they are? Do you think it's a radical position not to believe in fairies? Are you radical if you don't believe in the Hindu gods?
Agobot writes:
Certain religious ideas sound downright radical but that doesn't mean a Creator is out of the question(to those who have not embraced radicalism).
Just as we keep saying. Atheists do not necessarily believe gods (or fairies) are out of the question. A pantheon of 10,000 gods is not out of the question. On the basis of evidence, any given number of gods is just as likely as another. Now, strip away your subjective cultural conditioning, and work out the probability of there being just one god (or any specific number, because it's the same result). Then you can see that anyone with a specific religious belief is behaving in the same way as you would be if you believed that there was that treasure chest full of gold under your back yard that I mentioned earlier.
It is belief in specific supernatural propositions that is active and "radical", not disbelief in them.
Agobot writes:
ATHEISM according to dictionary.com:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
Right. And most people here, you notice, have defined themselves as something close to the second definition. Yet read your posts, and you keep insisting that all atheists are not only defined by the first definition, but dogmatic about it. Goddesses aren't an impossibility to me, just as fairies aren't. There's just no evidence for them at this point in time, so no reason to believe in them, and zero evidence does not make them a 50/50 proposition.
It's not wrong to have beliefs, IMO it is wrong if you fight for your beliefs because it conveys that you are taking your beliefs way too seriously. It means that you consider your beliefs are the right ones over the others.
So why are you fighting "vehemently" for the belief that you've just stated, my little hypocrite? And since when is disbelief (second definition) in relation to supernatural propositions belief? Unless you believe in all the gods of all the religions, your level of disbelief is actually approximately the same as an atheist's, minus apparently, about half a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 3:22 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 37 of 56 (494475)
01-16-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Agobot
01-15-2009 12:01 PM


Objective facts do not poof into purpose
Agobot writes:
What you all can objectively agree is that life is meaningless, and everyone has to infer some subjective feeling they can hold on to - love, romance, peace, etc.
No, life not having an objective meaning does not make life meaningless. It makes life have a subjective meaning. And since there are lots and lots of subjective meanings for life... that makes life far from meaningless.
I think you're ascribing a subjective feeling of "better" on something being objective. Objective is not "better" or "worse" than subjective... they are just two different words used to describe two different sets of viewing. One way can be verified by others, the other cannot. Objective is only "better" if we ascribe a purpose to what we're doing... such as finding the rules/laws of this universe (if they even exist). However, one can just as easily say that subjectivity is "better" when ascribed to other purposes such as finding your significant other, or finding a nice painting for on your wall.
Agobot writes:
But there is something else - according to your beliefs life came through extreme luck and randomness via Sex urge. You all agree that if this sex urge wasn't so powerful, there would be No Life. That's why i posit that what All atheists collectively can agree on as an objectively existing and scientifically proven purpose of life is - sex.
Let's say you're talking about reproduction instead of sex.
All life reproduces - objective fact
To take that and then say that this is an objective purpose for life is ridiculous. Why is this a purpose? What objectively shows that this is a purpose for life? Maybe that's just something life does.
All life contains carbon - objective fact
Are you seriously saying that "containing carbon" is also an objective purpose for life?
I agree that some people certainly do, subjectively, think that reproducing is a purpose for life. But just because it's an objective fact that all life shares does not make it an objective purpose as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 12:01 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 38 of 56 (494477)
01-16-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by dwise1
01-15-2009 3:02 PM


Not so different
dwise1 writes:
Very little need to differentiate between atheists and theists here. Both groups need to find meaning and will seek meaning in very much the same ways. In this, both groups are virtually identical.
Agreed, I did not intend to imply otherwise. This certainly is a very important clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2009 3:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 39 of 56 (494480)
01-16-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by bluegenes
01-15-2009 3:54 PM


Re: Who's an Igtheist?
bluegenes writes:
Anyway, I thought I'd introduce the synonymous terms "Igtheist" and "Ignostic" to EvC, just to add to the general confusion.
I think I'll be an Igtheist/Atheist myself for a few weeks, to see what it feels like.
Interesting concept. I certainly think I share some of the Igtheistical ideas.
The igtheistic answer to the O.P. question on the meaning of life for atheists is that it's a meaningless question.
Why is that? If an Igtheist is simply "someone who thinks that a meaningful definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be discussed," then why is the meaning of life a meaningless question?
Or.. perhaps you are saying there are too many interpretations to the phrase "meaning of life" so as to make it similar to the "does God exist" question? I suppose I can understand that.
Although, I kind of think there's only two ways to interpret the meaning of life... one in a human-race (or all beings alive) sense, and the other in a single life, per-person sense.
I tend to think of the question on a per-person basis since I don't think the meaning of life can be applied to a signifcantly large group because of it's inherent subjectiveness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 01-15-2009 3:54 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 01-16-2009 11:13 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 56 (494481)
01-16-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Woodsy
01-15-2009 4:10 PM


One Life to Live
Woodsy writes:
For common notions, I suspect that the phrase "meaning of life" may be a category error. In other words,is "life" the sort of thing that "meaning" can be applied to? As an example, it makes no sense to talk of a square circle.
I agree that the question does not make sense if we're talking about "all life" or even "a certain species of life."
However, I think the phrase does take on meaning when applied to a single life, as in a single person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Woodsy, posted 01-15-2009 4:10 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 41 of 56 (494486)
01-16-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
01-16-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Who's an Igtheist?
Stile writes:
bluegenes writes:
The igtheistic answer to the O.P. question on the meaning of life for atheists is that it's a meaningless question.
Why is that? If an Igtheist is simply "someone who thinks that a meaningful definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be discussed," then why is the meaning of life a meaningless question?
Because we Igtheists cannot discuss the meaning of life for a group who are defined merely in their relationship to an undefined word: God. (Although it could be argued, in that way, that we can't discuss ourselves for the same reason).
I'm glad you have something in common with us. Why not try Igtheism/Igonosticism for a week or two, like me? Trouble is, it would be hard to stay on topic in your own thread according to what I've just stated above.
Some interpreters of Igtheism think that you can be a soft atheist or an agnostic at the same time, but I suppose that could be problematic, considering the interpretation I've made!
Being an Igtheist may be difficult, but I think that their attitude is reasonable. Does what exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 01-16-2009 10:24 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 01-16-2009 11:30 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 42 of 56 (494489)
01-16-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by bluegenes
01-16-2009 11:13 AM


Ha ha
Heh... that link clears things up a bit. I guess I should probably click on provided links when I'm confused about the topic
Some interpreters of Igtheism think that you can be a soft atheist or an agnostic at the same time, but I suppose that could be problematic, considering the interpretation I've made!
Being an Igtheist may be difficult, but I think that their attitude is reasonable. Does what exist?
Agreed. But I must refrain from agreeing too much because I think the number of assumptions flying around are possibly a bit too much.
If it weren't for all the assumptions I'd have to make, I'd also call Mr. Rabbi Sherwin "Whine" a bit of a pedantic fool. Especially if he thought about anyone staying consistent with his analysis for any other part of life

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 01-16-2009 11:13 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by bluegenes, posted 01-16-2009 11:53 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 43 of 56 (494491)
01-16-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
01-16-2009 11:30 AM


Re: Ha ha
Stile writes:
If it weren't for all the assumptions I'd have to make, I'd also call Mr. Rabbi Sherwin "Whine" a bit of a pedantic fool.
You may well have a point. I just discovered the term a few days ago, and put it in the thread to lighten things up, really. I like the sound "Igtheist".
I've just come up with an opposite for it. It's a "Dogtheist". The dog is from dogma or dogmatic, and it means someone who is absolutely sure on the specific definition of the one true God. We have quite a few on EvC, I think.
I want the copyright on that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 01-16-2009 11:30 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 44 of 56 (494494)
01-16-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Agobot
01-16-2009 7:18 AM


Re: No Such Thing as Objective Meaning
quote:
You see - even at the first paragraph you start making assumptions. You claim you know that there is no meaning involved in evolution. How do you know this?
No, it is you who is making assumptions, with the apparent aim of making me agree with the imaginary atheists in your head.
I am not making assumptions that I "know" anything. I am offering you my opinion. That I don't couch every last sentence with "possibly" or "to the best of our knowledge" or "in my humble opinion" is simply a matter of writing style. I refuse to clutter my writing with unnecessary disclaimers that any reasonably intelligent reader ought to be able to take for granted.
I do not know everything. I am stating my opinions. Okay?
Of course, by the same token, I might ask you how you know that there is objective meaning, and with a good deal more justification, since, if there is objective meaning, you should be able to point out some evidence of it. But I have no problem with you stating your opinion.
quote:
Because you know there is no god and because you assume mutations are completely random.
Meaning is entirely unconnected to belief in deities. Even if there were a God, that would not provide objective meaning. Mutations are completely off topic.
quote:
Maybe it's so, but that's an assumption, it doesn't involve the absolute certainty that shines through the posts of atheists.
Don't be absurd. Where on Earth did I give the impression that I had absolute knowledge of the universe. You are attempting to put words in my mouth again and I do not appreciate it. Telling other people what they think is exactly the kind of radicalism that you are complaining of. Please stop it and let me voice my own opinions, not your ridiculous straw men.
quote:
We don't have any idea what causes randomness. We have to believe determinism is false and true uncaused randomness exists in Nature(whatever nature is).
All irrelevant. You are trying to obfuscate by retreating into your usual MO of confused gibbering about physics. It's totally off topic.
quote:
I am not telling anyone what they think. I merely said that life is objectively meaningless according to atheism.
Are you seriously telling me that you can't see the contradiction in that statement? I will try to spell this out for you as simply as I can;
You are not an atheist.
I am an atheist.
You said "i posit that what All atheists collectively can agree on as an objectively existing and scientifically proven purpose of life is - sex.".
I told you that I do not agree with your premise.
By definition, that means that not all atheists agree that sex is the objective meaning of life.
Okay? Why not let other people decide for themselves what they believe, instead of trying to shoehorn them into your preconceived ideas about what they ought to think so that they might fit your idea of a radical atheist.
quote:
And I challenge each and everyone to produce a single objective purpose. Sujective(at the individual level) - yes, there are countless purposes, but objective there are none.
I am of the opinion that there is no objective meaning, so we appear to agree at last.
Agobot writes:
Granny writes:
From my point of view, reproduction is simply part of the "how" of life.
When worded like that, atheism is not radical and even makes sense.
Great. Except that the above comment has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 7:18 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 45 of 56 (494505)
01-16-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Agobot
01-16-2009 7:18 AM


Perhaps an english confusion
Agobot writes:
I am not telling anyone what they think. I merely said that life is objectively meaningless according to atheism. And I challenge each and everyone to produce a single objective purpose. Sujective(at the individual level) - yes, there are countless purposes, but objective there are none.
Maybe you're just confused about english.
"Obectively meaningless" is most certainly not equivalent to "no objective purpose".
Objectively meaningless - this is when you are able to verify, to anyone and everyone, that there is absolutely no meaning whatsoever to something. The existence of a subjective meaning would render this statement false.
No objective purpose - this is when you are unable to verify, to anyone and everyone, that there is an unavoidable purpose that has to be attached to something. The existence of a subjective meaning would have no effect on the veracity of this statement.
Examples:
A hammer has an objective purpose, it was imagined and created for the specific purpose of pounding nails. A hammer may have other subjective purposes... like ice-climbing or art. None of these meanings can honestly be claimed as "better" or "worse" than the other in an objective sense, this kind of claim would be subjective upon what the hammer is being used for and who is judging. A hammer is not objectively meaningless.
A speck of dirt has no objective purpose. It is simply the remains of something else that has broken away. A speck of dirt may have other subjective purposes... like combining with other specks of dirt in order to grow vegetables or simply art as a lone speck of dirt. (Art is rather versatile as a subjective purpose) None of these meanings can honestly be claimed as "better" or "worse" than the other in an objective sense, this kind of claim would be subjective upon what the speck of dirt is being used for and who is judging. A speck of dirt is not objectively meaningless.
I can't think of a subject that is objectively meaningless. All it takes to overturn such a silly notion is for any intelligent being to think it's art, or fun, or useful - not even necessarily in a beneficial sense - in any way.
Perhaps the only subjects or things that are objectively meaningless are those that will never, ever be discovered or imagined by any intelligent being? ...we may even have to include the restriction that these subjects or things never effect other subjects or things that are one day discovered...
Life has certainly been discovered, even by atheists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 7:18 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024