The Meaning of Life for Atheists

The inspiration for this thread came from here:
Message 117Where it was basically claimed that all atheists share the same meaning of life and that it is "to reproduce".I think this is clearly incorrect for the following reasons:- The only thing "all atheists" share is that they have no belief in God or any gods.
- Purpose for any living being is subjective and discovered by the intellent agent making the decisions.
- I am an atheist and my purpose for life is to get better, not to reproduce. In fact, I'm currently in a stage of my life where I do not want to reproduce, ever.It's quite possible that the inspiration for this thread simply meant that reproduction (the continuance of life) is the only agreed upon goal (purpose?) of evolution. I would agree with that statement.However, I was unable to find a thread that is focused on the meaning of life for an atheist anyway, so I thought this would be a good topic regardless of the original intentions of the inspiration.My main points:1. Taking into account all current knowledge, the "meaning of life" is an individual, subjective concept. We must all find our own purpose for our lives and there is no objective standard to guide our search.2. Many people may claim that there is an objective, absolute, external meaning of life. But they will be unable to show that this is actually a part of reality. They will be unable to show the difference between this "objective, absolute, external" claim and other subjective claims that come from our own imagination. Which then results in their claim being no more then their own subjective imagination at work.Forum Suggested: Faith and Belief or maybe Social Issues or even Miscellaneous.

I've noticed it, yes. But I haven't found (or looked for, even..) any actual studies on the matter.My guess is that atheists are more likely to not bend to social pressures. Atheists tend to do what atheists want to do, not what everyone is telling them they should do. Since, basically, that's the reason for becoming an atheist. There's no reason to believe in gods other than the social pressure of having everyone tell you that you should, as discussed here:
Message 1An atheist resists this pressure. It's quite possible that this same resistance to social pressure could lead to a significant number of atheists not wanting to reproduce, which has a rather large social pressure behind it as well.But that's simply some thoughts.Personally, I don't want kids for selfish reasons. If I ever had kids, I would want those kids to be my entire life. I don't want to "try and have a life of my own" as well as try to take care of a kid. If I bring a life into this world, I want to make sure I invest 100% of my time and effort into caring for that life.I'm not ready to make that kind of commitment for the next 20 years. I want to spend my money on me and my wife (vacations, entertainment, hobbies...). I don't want to share my available resources with a kid right now. As long as I think like this, I don't think it would be very nice to add a kid into my life.Perhaps one day I will want to devote all my time, money and resources into raising a child. Until that day... I don't want to reproduce because I don't want to short-change a child.Reproducing and having children is a wonderful purpose. But I hold that purpose in very high regard, and I'm just not in a position where I want to start doing what I'll need to do in order to pursue that purpose.Right now, I like the purpose I have now... making myself and the relationships I already have better. And, to me, it is currently a higher-valued purpose then having children.

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. Let's say you're talking about reproduction instead of sex.All life reproduces - objective factTo 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 factAre 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.

Agreed, I did not intend to imply otherwise. This certainly is a very important clarification.

Interesting concept. I certainly think I share some of the Igtheistical ideas. 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.

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.

Heh... that link clears things up a bit. I guess I should probably click on provided links when I'm confused about the topic 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

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