The Meaning of Life for Atheists

That's your subjective interpretaion that certainly doesn't hold for every atheist. 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.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. (A Big Bang of sorts, sorry )Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi Granny Magda, True but i was referring to humans as we are the only species that ask these types of questions. My position is that atheists can agree on sex between humans as the purpose of life that can be scientifically tested and verified. After all there wouldn't be humans if there wasn't this strong sex urge between us, isn't that a basic tenet of atheism?I was wrong that there wouldn't be life without sex, but my position about the purpose of life remains the same. I have yet to see something that atheists can all agree upon and that can be objectively tested and that's not sex-related.By replication i meant replication through the urge for sex.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This is not a philosophical question, it's an objectively verifiable situation. That life is objectively meaningless(not subjectively) and all our ancestors that hanged on trees continued our lineage and made possible our existence because of this sex urge. That i posit is the purpose of life, from a god-free perspective(i will no longer label anyone "atheist" as some seem to get hurt. Sorry). The purpose of life in a god-free universe is replication and the continuation of life. Is there anything else non-belivers can add as an objectively existent purpose?

Objectively yes(sorry i don't mean to be harsh). Subjectively, no, no way. I am sure you have a thousand reasons to live.But your ancestors made you possible through sex. Not because they found philosophical reasons, or love or peace 40 millions years ago. From the POV of a God-free nature, the objective purpose of human life is replication.

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.

Exactly, you believe god(s) do not exist. And you fight for your beliefs. As I said it's fun to watch the 2 belief systems, which are radical to anyone who's not brain-washed into believing any of the 2 "options", fight for their dogma. Yes, belief. It's also the foundation of all religions. Including Atheism. Cool, sounds logical but dismissing all possibilities of a creator of some kind is radical. If that were the case, there would be no atheism, but just religion and agnosticism. Yeah right, and not all bears are bears, some are birds. I guess Bertot is an athesist who believes in god. I obviously didn't mean the Bible is the only holy book, but thanks for finding "holes" in my position. Why? Because I don't believe what you believe? No, I don't claim to know how nature works with 100% certainty. No scientist does. No biologist does. Only atheists do, you know everything about evolution with great certainty. That's great! Stick to your beliefs, it seems all human need some form of religion - whether it's christianity, judaism or atheism. Yes I am. Because I don't know everything that you know with the certainty you believe you know it. BTW, I have no desire to "process information and learn" about your beliefs because to an unpredjudiced observer both positions are radical.

And if you fight against those who believe in gods, it means that you vehemently believe that you are right. 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).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 beingsIt'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. And the certainty implied in the debates here of both sides is what i have been referring to as a "rather amusing" circus. Now i don't plan to reply no matter how stupid i look from the POV of individuals belonging to one of the belief systems as this is offtopic. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

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).

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). 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. When worded like that, atheism is not radical and even makes sense. Agreed. As long as we use "believe" this is the only right way to stay away from radicalism. 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. 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.

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.