Atheism makes life meaningless?

[Family Man]

Lately there has been a lot of talk from some of our theistic regulars about how atheism render life meaningless. Why that is, I have no idea, but I guess these folks have to hang there hat on something.

But I can tell you this: I certainly don't see life as meaningless, and I doubt that the great majority of non-theists would disagree with me. Granted, I don't think that meaning is decreed from above, which seems to be what luvluv and theophilius are talking about, but that hardly suggests that life has no value.

So, what gives life value? The same thing that gives money, food, diamonds or any other commodity value: scarcity.

I have one life. That's all I get. That suggests that I oughtn't throw it away lightly. It suggests that I ought to try to get it right, because I won't get a second chance.

So, how many people here think that atheism makes meaning in life impossible? Perhaps post what makes your life meaningful, or if you think that atheism makes meaning in life impossible, actually give a coherent reason why it must be so (instead of just asserting it).

[Jobar]

Hm. Despite the known risks, I'm assuming that all the atheists will answer 'no', and all (or most) of the theists will answer 'yes'.

FM, you should also put a choice in there for 'meaningless question.' ;)

And, I think this is more a GRD topic, but I'm not positive so I'll wait and see what my fellow mods decide.

[Family Man]

I would tend to agree that it is a GRD topic, but this sudden rash of "woe unto the meaningless lives of atheists" happen to be here.

And I wouldn't call it a meaningless question. I'd call it a stupid one.

[TheGreatInfidel]

I'm just amazed how in spite of the overwhelming evidence that atheists have meaning in their life, theist continue to assume we don't. Are they stupid or what?

Of course, theists are going to answer no to the poll, but how would they know if they are not atheists? Unless they were once atheists.

It is possible for an atheist to have meaning in his life as well as not to have it. The point I'm trying to make, is that whether a person has meaning in his life has more to do with that person's personality than with whether he is atheists.

[Godless Wonder]

I think there maybe a simple disconnect about what the expression "meaning of life" means.

I think the theist often takes "Meaning Of Life" (note caps) to mean "a mission assigned to me by god, which I am to discover, and attempt to carry out." In that sense, the atheist does not have a "Meaning Of Life".

When the atheist protests that his life does have meaning, he is not speaking of the same "Meaning Of Life" of which the theist is thinking, in which the "Meaning" is comprehended and intended by God. The atheist is thinking of a "meaning of life" (no caps) comprehended and intended by himself and other humans.

Atheism does not destroy the Meaning Of Life, because the Meaning Of Life never existed to be destroyed, even for the theist. Simply believing in the existence of a Meaning Of Life does not make it so.

If the theist deconverts to atheism, then his belief in the Meaning of Life will likely be destroyed, and he may change things in his life to try to find a new meaning of life. (no caps)

[Barcode]

I too am baffled by some theists who imply atheim = lack of meaning. I feel precisely the same things as them;I just don't see a need to ascribe my feelings or events that happen in my life to an other worldly being.

As the poem Invictus (William Henley) goes ... " I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. "

[Stephen T-B]

It makes life spiritually meaningless to the extent that Spirit is the kernel which our material lives surround, as a husk, and then fall uselessly away.

Atheists’ failure to acknowledge this fact gives them a distorted perspective, because all they see is a relatively unimportant segment of the total picture while deluding themselves that it is the total picture.

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
It makes life spiritually meaningless to the extent that Spirit is the kernel which our material lives surround, as a husk, and then fall uselessly away.

Atheists’ failure to acknowledge this fact gives them a distorted perspective, because all they see is a relatively unimportant segment of the total picture while deluding themselves that it is the total picture.
:confused:

Guess I'm just a simple, non-spritual atheist. Never seen anything spiritual in my life, and I honestly have no idea what the term "spiritual" means.

But, I am happy. My life, through my family, my work, has meaning (at least to me).

[Hopeful Monsters]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
It makes life spiritually meaningless to the extent that Spirit is the kernel which our material lives surround, as a husk, and then fall uselessly away.

Atheists’ failure to acknowledge this fact gives them a distorted perspective, because all they see is a relatively unimportant segment of the total picture while deluding themselves that it is the total picture.What utter arrogance infests this statement.

You misguidedly believe: (1) that we need to believe in ‘Spirit’ otherwise we lead lives with a distorted perspective and so shun an opportunity to invest our lives with meaning. This is a lie; and furthermore,

(2) there are 100,000,000,000 galaxies in a universe 27 billion light years across and it contains about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (conservative estimate) – what’s so significant and special about humans that they need Jebus, Gawd, ‘the Spirit’ and all that made up paraphernalia to invest their lives with meaning? What egotism humankind has to build these edifices around itself :notworthy :rolleyes:

Atheists are just people who have as much capacity to pursue a life of meaning as any others who might embrace nebulous, amorphous, ambiguous concepts in order to reassure themselves that their lives have meaning.

[Stephen T-B]

BioBeing, that’s because you’ve switched off the spiritual-sensitive side of your nature. How, then, can you be aware of anything spiritual?
It’s like you’re looking through a narrow-focus lens: you can see the hair on the bee’s leg; you can’t see the leg, the bee, the flower it’s standing on, and certainly not the surrounding fields, woods, mountains, nor the sky, the sun and the clouds.
The spiritually-aware person has intimations of all these things.
They exist, as it happens, in his / her imagination only, but they exist nevertheless.
The spiritually-aware person conceives them as being part of every-day reality, and it is these fantastic elements - I’m now over-stretching the metaphor, but fortunately it is a very elastic one - which gives his / her life meaning, and makes it impossible for him / her to understand that people who do not have the same ability to incorporate them into their world view are able, nevertheless, to lead meaningful, let alone moral, lives.

[Stephen T-B]

Hello TruthisTold. a former version of my proifile mentioned that I don't believe in gods - an important piece of information because it would have given you a hint as to where I come from on tbis one
best wishes
S.T-B

[Dreaming Skin]

It's been said before but why does there have to be a god for life to be meaningful? Apparently, athiests do not have the "spiritual" bonds with our family and friends that would render our lives so "meaningful."

"Meaningful" is quite subjective. What some people find rewarding and important others may see as shallow and trivial. I'm a firm believer in to each his own. However, I consider it pompous and arrogant on the parts of xtains to suggest the lives of non-believers are meaningless.

It's just my opinion, but I feel that the majority of people who are living their lives devoted to an imaginary diety are the ones selling themselves short. They spend every waking moment living and abiding by insipid rules in order to please God and avoid offending him. But I guess if that makes them happy...

[Gothic_J]

I got an email this morning saying the same thing. my reply was rather harsh.

atheism doesnt make life meaningless, religion does. ever since deconverting, I enjoy life a hundred times more.

[Hopeful Monsters]

Stephen T-B - Your profile reveals little about where you come from - unless you're a journalist Trolling for some reaction from us impoverished atheists. Perhaps you should flesh out your profile. IIDB does not like Trollers. They will be quite rightly inundated with postings of fishing vessel JPEGs.

As to your following post (to BioBeing) (thanks for further clarification) I would say a sense of ‘Spirit’ is merely a label for feelings all people experience (for we are all humans, and none of us are any more special than any others*) a label for those fleeting or ongoing times when people feel they perceive a huge vista of life, a moment when they stand back and their thoughts capture something beyond the concrete, mundane and everyday.

To assert that non-theists do not have such perspective(s) because they don’t believe in Allah, Mohammed, God or Jesus is downright strange.

*Except perhaps for Benny Hinn :rolleyes:

[Jobar]

I believe that Stephen T-B was speaking with tongue planted rather firmly in cheek. Difficult as that is to do, and hard though it is to understand people speaking that way... ;)

TruthisTold, we cultivate a certain degree of tolerance for what you are calling 'trolls' on II. Until they make themselves a sufficiently large nuisance, they can bumble about and make themselves unpleasant- it's one of the hazards of coming to, or in my case moderating, a discussion board. If you think someone is trolling, feel free to report their posts to the moderators, or even start a thread in the BP&C forum. However, constantly calling other posters 'troll' is not good manners, and in fact may do as much or more damage to ongoing conversations as the trolls do themselves. And the trolls may provide us with excellent bad examples- case studies of the ways in which religion makes lives worse, sort of thing.

Not to mention the fact that some of our most entertaining posters, over the years, have been trolls. I suggest you look up 'Eternal'. (But not until you are some where that uncontrollable outbursts of laughter won't get you in trouble!)

[Hopeful Monsters]

My 'Troller' accusation was made with tongue firmly in cheek.

[Eric Starnes]

Atheism does not make life meaningless. Life is meaningless whether a god exists or not.

[TomboyMom]

I agree with Family Man. Since I believe that this life is the only one I get, every moment of it is invested with full significance, and I do not wish to waste any of it. To me, those who believe that this life is only an audition for the next one devalue it and deprive it of its full meaning.

Rene

[Calzaer]

Does atheism make life meaningless, or does atheism simply accept the inherent meaninglessness of life?

[veniceboy]

In a cosmic sense, our lives have no great "meaning", but my life has meaning to me b/c I enjoy it and want other humans to have as good a time while they exist.

[BioBeing]

My post, of course, also found my tounge somwhere near the vicinity of my cheek.

What is described as spiritual - a flower, a field of flowers, a sunset - I too see beauty in, but I have never called it spiritual. Wonderful or awe-inspiring, maybe, but not spiritual. I am an atheist and a scientist not because I do not see wonder in the world, but because I do see it. And want to study it and understand it, so I can appreciate the complexity of the beauty even more. There is simply no need for a god.

[TheGreatInfidel]

Originally posted by veniceboy
In a cosmic sense, our lives have no great "meaning", but my life has meaning to me b/c I enjoy it and want other humans to have as good a time while they exist.

Yeap, that's what theist just can't seem to understand. There is no need for meaning in life, other than the meaning people give it. To atheists the absence of god does not mean absence of meaning because we still have the meaning we give to life.

They just can't understand that Jesus has no monopoly on meaning; maybe to them, but certainly not to us.

[Spenser]

Predestination makes life meaningless!!!

[Skyfurnace]

I can't speak for the atheists on this board, but being an agnostic, I can safely say that my beliefs have ultimately made my life meaningless. I have goals, but in the long run, I don't know why I'm here or what the purpose of my existence is.

[Heathen Dawn]

Laying aside the question of cosmic meaning (which I believe is 42), I think naturalism is infinitely more meaningful than theism. What does naturalism concentrate upon? Seen things, sensed things: atoms, molecules, plants, animals, stars and galaxies. What does theism concentrate upon? Invisible, unsensed things: gods, angels and demons. There is nothing more meaningless and foolish than worshipping what you can't see or sense in any way. Theists say God is the most beautiful and perfect thing there is. But heck, I can't even see Him! The things I worship are imperfect and ephemeral, such as trees, rocks, rivers and stars, but at least I can see them. It is infinitely more meaningful to be attached to a living tree or a fiery star than to the nebulous, elusive and imaginary God.

[Free Thinkr]

IMO, life is meaningless. Atheism, however, is not the cause.

[ScumDog]

This poll is innaccurate in that it leaves out a third option, which could be "Don't know/care" or "Maybe", and the question is biased, as a better version would be: Does atheism make life without an inherent meaning?

[Family Man]

Originally posted by ScumDog
This poll is innaccurate in that it leaves out a third option, which could be "Don't know/care" or "Maybe", and the question is biased, as a better version would be: Does atheism make life without an inherent meaning?

A better question is: is there an meaning to life that has been imposed by a higher being? If there is no meaning to life (in the theistic sense), then it isn't caused by atheism. As others have pointed out, atheism is simply reporting the facts as it sees them.

[Wyrdsmyth]

This is just one of those annoying stereotypes, on the level of "black people are thieves" or "Jews are greedy." It's just a nasty, bigoted thing to say that atheists' lives are meaningless -- often accompanied by suggestions to commit suicide. And as with most bigoted stereotypes, it is not well-thought out. It usually comes from those who don't converse with atheists at all, or who refuse to listen to what atheists say, or who misunderstand what atheists say.

For example, an atheist may say something like "life has no TRANSCENDENT meaning that is imposed on us from a higher being or an outside source," and then that is taken out of context. It doesn't mean atheists don't find MEANING in their lives, or that their lives don't MEAN anything to them.

[secular buddhist]

Perhaps a Christian (or other theist) can explain: what do you mean that life is meaningless?

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
This is just one of those annoying stereotypes, on the level of "black people are thieves" or "Jews are greedy." It's just a nasty, bigoted thing to say that atheists' lives are meaningless -- often accompanied by suggestions to commit suicide. And as with most bigoted stereotypes, it is not well-thought out. It usually comes from those who don't converse with atheists at all, or who refuse to listen to what atheists say, or who misunderstand what atheists say.


I've heard some theists say that, if they ever become convinced that God doesn't exist, they'd take out their Uzi and let everyone have it.

I don't think theists who say these things realize how poorly it reflects on them.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
I think there maybe a simple disconnect about what the expression "meaning of life" means.

I think the theist often takes "Meaning Of Life" (note caps) to mean "a mission assigned to me by god, which I am to discover, and attempt to carry out." In that sense, the atheist does not have a "Meaning Of Life".

I get the same issue running http://www.exchristian.org
with respect to the question "who counts as originally having been christian?". To the theist, only people who are "really" saved are christian, but of course no one has ever been "really" saved - there is in reality nothing to be saved from. So I have to go with accepting anyone who self-identifies as having been a christian.

[luvluv]

The theist's position is that the athiest is being inconsistent in his claim to posses value. In that spirit, I offer the following challenge:

I say that none of you have any value at all.

Neither you, your children, your loved ones, nor anyone who has ever lived.

You are all worthless.

Now, assuming that God does not exist, prove me wrong.

[CoffeeFiend]

Originally posted by luvluv
The theist's position is that the athiest is being inconsistent in his claim to posses value. In that spirit, I offer the following challenge:

I say that none of you have any value at all.

Neither you, your children, your loved ones, nor anyone who has ever lived.

You are all worthless.

Now, assuming that God does not exist, prove me wrong.

They have value in my eyes and since all of them are productive members of society they have value for many other people also. Even my cat's life has value in my eyes and I am sure she appreciates a warm place to sleep, a regular meal and the entertainment the aquarium and many other things provide for her.

If that isn't enough for you, I don't really care, it is enough for me :)

To be honest, I don't worry about life not having value in some larger context. As far as I am concerned, the experience of "me" is just a temporary state of affairs, when I die my mind will slowly dissolve and return into the state of non-existence it was in before I was born. The matter that use-to be "me" will become part of other life forms. This prospect is much more comforting than any form of eternal after-life.

Now, prove that life has more meaning if it is valuable in the eyes of some God than it would have when it is valuable only in the eyes of fellow humans.

[premjan]

life is purposeless rather than meaningless .

[HRG]

Originally posted by luvluv
The theist's position is that the athiest is being inconsistent in his claim to posses value. In that spirit, I offer the following challenge:

I say that none of you have any value at all.

This sense is as meaningless as "all of you are greater than", since you omitted to specify to whom we have value.

"Value" per se is a function which requires an argument, but hasn't been given one. Illustration: "Sinus" cannot be larger or less than zero, only the sinus of some angle x can be such.

And I have value to my family, to my friends and to myself. Ask them.


Neither you, your children, your loved ones, nor anyone who has ever lived.

My children, my loved ones, Einstein, Beethoven, Rembrandt etc. have value to me.

You are all worthless.

Now, assuming that God does not exist, prove me wrong.

For the proof, see above. Note that the existence of your God would mean at most that there would be another being to which we have value.

Regards,
HRG.

[spacer1]

How are one's metaphysical beliefs related to what one finds meaningful? Could we say that the theist derives their sense of meaning from their metaphysic, whereas the atheist shapes their meaning around or after their metaphysic? In the atheist case, I am thinking along the lines of "Okay, so there's no God to provide meaning in my life, so what will or does provide my life with meaning, and how can I go about bringing it to fruition?" Atheism seems more of a proactive search, compared to the reactive complacency of theism.

[Wyrdsmyth]

Well, drop the disco ball and put on your clogs, everybody. Look who just dropped in from Planet Lovetron. It's luvluv, famously not getting the point -- again.

Originally posted by luvluv
The theist's position is that the athiest is being inconsistent in his claim to posses value.

But only if 'value' is used in an exclusively theistic context. You know this, luvluv.

In that spirit, I offer the following challenge: I say that none of you have any value at all. Neither you, your children, your loved ones, nor anyone who has ever lived. You are all worthless. Now, assuming that God does not exist, prove me wrong.

Again, you're assuming that a term like 'value' can only have meaning in context to a god. As long as you're going to insist that words like 'value' and 'meaning' and so forth all have intrinsically as part of their definitions, an idea of a 'god' in them -- you're right. But that isn't the way everyone is using these terms. Obviously, as an atheist, I'm not going to concede that 'value' and 'meaning' have the concept of a 'god' tied up in their definitions. That would be absurd. I don't believe in any gods, so when I use words like 'value' and 'meaning' obviously (or it should be obvious) I'm not making any implicit reference to any gods -- yours or any others.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Spenser
Predestination makes life meaningless!!!


Cant't help not to respond to this one..........

If you knew what Predestination meant to reality, it is not meaningless!!!!

Reality is not something we give meaning to, it is just there for us to know. That is if we knew.

[premjan]

strikes me as just mapping a whole lot of unrelated concepts onto the same base categories. Actually all ideas and phenomena in the universe are distinct, however, having finite brains, we map many different types of phenomena (e.g. lightning, electricity) onto the same base concepts through some knowledge (sometimes good and sometimes bad). Then when we encounter electricity, we remember lightning. Meaning is just an artifact of our brains. All people and cultures do not have the same mappings for meanings.

Purpose is IMO a much more interesting concept.

[Nom]

In my experience, most arguments that life is meaningless/purposeless/valueless without God proceed from the false assumption that nothing has meaning/value/purpose unless it lasts forever. People find value and meaning and purpose in things that don't last forever virtually every single minute of the day. I invite any theist who doesn't to send me all those meaningles, valueless, purposeless white and green pieces of paper, and gold- and platinum-colored pieces of plastic, in their wallets. :D

[sophie]

Let me divide life up into two parts : living life (existential) and reflecting on life. Since Atheists believe there is no GOD then when Atheists reflect on life itself this is akin to reflecting on nothing which makes Atheist reflection on life meaningless.

However the meaning of existential life may or may not be meaningless.

[Nom]

Originally posted by sophie
Let me divide life up into two parts : living life (existential) and reflecting on life. Since Atheists believe there is no GOD then when Atheists reflect on life itself this is akin to reflecting on nothing which makes Atheist reflection on life meaningless.
It is only "akin to reflecting on nothing" if that nothing -- "existential" life -- is in fact meaningless. But you continue:
However the meaning of existential life may or may not be meaningless.
Thus, if existential life is meaningful, reflections on it are meaningful as well.

[sophie]

Nom : Thus, if existential life is meaningful, reflections on it are meaningful as wellHowever reflections on the essence of existential life is meaningless for the Atheist, which is reflections on life itself. Life itself is not the same as experiences in life, which signifies existential life.

Mabye you will want to play with dice instead. You should get your maximum joy from watching dice tumble.

[Heathen Dawn]

Oh, this is simply a reiteration of the “who created God?” tangle. Viz:

“The universe is not meaningful without God.”

“What gives God meaning?”

“God already has meaning, in and of Himself.”

“So why can’t we say the universe already has meaning, in and of itself?”

It’s the splitting image of the First Cause question.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by luvluv
The theist's position is that the athiest is being inconsistent in his claim to posses value. In that spirit, I offer the following challenge:

I say that none of you have any value at all.

Neither you, your children, your loved ones, nor anyone who has ever lived.

You are all worthless.

Now, assuming that God does not exist, prove me wrong.

There are two major, major problems with silly statements like this.

First, what one values is a purely subjective thing. How I prove that your subjective evaluation is "true" is, of course, impossible. Conversely, I can't prove that anyone's subjective evaluation that humans have value is true either. What I could prove, theoretically, is that more people feel that humans have value and very few feel that they don't.

Which brings me to my second point: we don't live in a vacuum. In fact, we live in a society that tends to reward those that value human life, and tends to punish those that don't. That's one of the reasons we have jails. So, to a point, the belief that human life has value is forced upon us, probably wisely so.

A very sterile argument, luvluv.

[Nom]

Originally posted by sophie
However reflections on the essence of existential life is meaningless for the Atheist, which is reflections on life itself.
Well, that certainly takes gibberish to a new level. Now we've gone from "reflections on life" to "reflections on the essence of life." However, we *still* haven't established that life itself is meaningless -- which you admit. Add all the qualifiers you want, sophie, but as long as I have those little, everyday, transient meaning in my life, my reflections on life are meaningful.
Life itself is not the same as experiences in life, which signifies existential life.
Feel free to prove that life does not equal experiences in life. What is life other than experience? Hell, what is *existence* other than experience?
Mabye you will want to play with dice instead. You should get your maximum joy from watching dice tumble.
Actually, the point where the dice tumble is the point of maximum thrill. Like the old Deep Purple song says, "it's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase."

[sophie]

Nom : Well, that certainly takes gibberish to a new level. If you spent a little more time thinking about what was written, you would not wrap yourself up in your own estimations.

[Nom]

Originally posted by sophie
If you spent a little more time thinking about what was written, you would not wrap yourself up in your own estimations.
I might, if you could coherently explain whatever it is you're trying to say. This...
However reflections on the essence of existential life is meaningless for the Atheist, which is reflections on life itself. Life itself is not the same as experiences in life, which signifies existential life.
...is gobbledygook. What exactly is a "reflection on the essence of existential life"? For that matter, what's the "essence of existential life?" If "reflections of the essence of existential life" is "reflections on life itself," then haven't you just restated your original, unproved assertion in a new way? If not, then what *are* you talking about? As for the second sentence, it's simply a second, unproven, assertion.

[sophie]

then haven't you just restated your original, unproved assertion in a new way? If not, then what *are* you talking about? As for the second sentence, it's simply a second, unproven, assertionOK, I'll try to be fair.


People live their lives, in other words they have experiences. This is self evident and therefore asserts itself as true. People can reflect on their past experiences, which are events they experienced. This is also a self evident assertion.

Atheists have experiences and can reflect on those experiences. They themselves can attach meaning and value to those events.

This is as far as Atheists can ponder meaningfully. Atheists cannot ponder the essence of the events they experienced because there is no grand design, the world from their eyes occurred by chance, for no reason at all.

This means Atheists cannot find any meaning in the deeper value of events unlike Theists who can ascribe some grand thought or thoughts to the deeper meaning of life.


Life itself, its origins and absolute meaning therefore escapes the Atheist simply because there is no purpose to life itself for an Atheist.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by sophie
OK, I'll try to be fair.


People live their lives, in other words they have experiences. This is self evident and therefore asserts itself as true. People can reflect on their past experiences, which are events they experienced. This is also a self evident assertion.

Atheists have experiences and can reflect on those experiences. They themselves can attach meaning and value to those events.

This is as far as Atheists can ponder meaningfully. Atheists cannot ponder the essence of the events they experienced because there is no grand design, the world from their eyes occurred by chance, for no reason at all.

This means Atheists cannot find any meaning in the deeper value of events unlike Theists who can ascribe some grand thought or thoughts to the deeper meaning of life.


Life itself, its origins and absolute meaning therefore escapes the Atheist simply because there is no purpose to life itself for an Atheist.

Soooo...if an Atheist were to experience the effects of gravity, and from that derive a theory of gravity, leading to a deeper understanding of the universe around him and an appreciation of its beautiful order and simplistic complexity; this would be less "deep" or "grand" than a Theist who ascribes a chance event to an old guy in the sky?

Cheers

[sophie]

Spurious Quirk : this would be less "deep" or "grand" than a Theist who ascribes a chance event to an old guy in the sky?Try not to confuse yourself.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by sophie
Try not to confuse yourself.

All right, then I won't read any more of your posts.

Cheerio!

[luvluv]

Essentially, you’ve all proven my point, which is this:

The best arguments for the existence of values are equivalent to the WORST arguments for the existence of God. They break down into claims about subjective feelings, and the overwhelming number of people who have those subjective feelings.

Well, I have a subjective feeling that God exists, and the overwhelming majority of people have this subjective feeling that God exists. Is this sufficient reason to believe in God?

Most of you would say no, but you support your belief in values with the same argument.

Family Man, in fact, even correctly noted that treating humans as if they have value is a practice that is FORCED on us by society. He even considers this a wise, and I assume, just action on the part of the government.

That is to say, he considers it wise (and probably just) that the government acts to incarcerate, intimidate, and even kill those who choose to disagree with the idea that humans have inherent value. He endorses the government, in other words, in persecuting those who choose not to believe in a subjective, unscientific, non-empirical, concept.

Now let’s say this concept, instead of being values, is the concept of God. Would it still be a “wise” decision for the government to use whatever means at it’s disposal to ensure a belief in that God? If not, then how does the existence of God differ from the existence of values epistemologically? Why is it okay to physically coerce adherence to one widely held but totally subjective concept and not another?

HRG, at best you have only established there are people who have different opinions about the value of the human race, or any particular member of the human race, than I do.

You haven’t proven me wrong, which is what I asked you to do. Further, you CANNOT prove me wrong, as the notion that humans have value is merely a subjective idea that is common, but non-binding.

So what, your family thinks you have value? Why shouldn’t I kill you for your ham sandwich if I disagree with them? If the best answer you can up with to that is “because I’ll go to jail” then what is the problem with a theocracy which jails people for not praying? If the idea that it is necessary to pray at certain times of the day holds the same place in certain Islamic countries as the idea that all humans have value occupies in this country, why shouldn’t those Islamic countries use force to enforce their subjective values like we use force to enforce ours?

Note that the existence of your God would mean at most that there would be another being to which we have value.


I disagree. God could justify our value system via his omniscience. If an omniscient God held the belief that

1) All human beings have inherent value.

Then it would be objectively true that all human beings have inherent value, it being that it is impossible for God to hold a false belief. Thus the existence and knowledge of God could provide a foundation for our notion that humans have value. It would in fact justify precisely the kind of value that atheists already give to everyone, but cannot justify or ground. That is the presuppositionalist’s point regarding the grounding of moral knowledge: it is impossible given atheism.

Thus even though God’s existence isn’t necessary to justify 1) (since 1 states that humans have INHERENT value, absent even the existence of God) God’s existence is necessary to GROUND 1): there is no way to know if 1) is true absent God’s omniscient belief that it is true.

Wyrdsmyth:

But only if 'value' is used in an exclusively theistic context. You know this, luvluv.



Well, I’m afraid it is you who are missing the point in this exchange (though hopefully you will not do this so much that you will become famous for it).

My point is that atheists justify their acceptance of values with arguments that are equally applicable to theism. Yet they deny theism and affirm value. This is the first inconsistency.

Secondly, atheists are willing to use physical, legal, and social coercion to enforce values, when they would call the same endeavor used to enforce theism evil.

Again, you're assuming that a term like 'value' can only have meaning in context to a god. As long as you're going to insist that words like 'value' and 'meaning' and so forth all have intrinsically as part of their definitions, an idea of a 'god' in them -- you're right. But that isn't the way everyone is using these terms. Obviously, as an atheist, I'm not going to concede that 'value' and 'meaning' have the concept of a 'god' tied up in their definitions. That would be absurd. I don't believe in any gods, so when I use words like 'value' and 'meaning' obviously (or it should be obvious) I'm not making any implicit reference to any gods -- yours or any others.


Doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the idea of God is in your concept of value.

Try proving to me that you have objective value in the atheistic sense of the term. It still can’t be done.

At best, you can say that you believe you have value and that many other people believe in human value. That is an ad populum argument that is not now and never will be sufficient to make any claim true.

So it seems to me that not only have all of you failed to prove me wrong in denying human value, you have all essentially failed to justify your own belief in human value. All you have produced is subjective opinion and an ad populum argument. So I say again that the affirmation of anything but subjective claims to value in atheism is inconsistent. For an atheist to claim to know that any act is evil is inconsistent given that he cannot justify his own notion of value. He can only believe that an act is evil, he cannot state it as a fact. To be consistent, the atheist will have to either jettison his belief in any possibility of an objective value, or he will have to jettison his atheism.

[Stephen T-B]

Sohie wrote: “Atheists cannot ponder the essence of the events they experienced because there is no grand design, the world from their eyes occurred by chance, for no reason at all. “

In another thread Bill wrote at length about the need of human beings to attach meaning to symbols; the way the human mind works (he didn’t exactly say this, but I don’t think I misrepresent him) is to conceive everything in the world around us as a symbol. Thus, the Universe is a symbol to which we instinctively attach meaning.
We might, perhaps, see how this came about in terms of our ancestor’s need to understand what was going on around them: when they saw a herd of stampeding buffalo, what did it mean? That a dangerous predator was present? That there was a fire they were fleeing ? That something dangerous and catastrophic was in the offing? The very survival of our ancestors required them to comprehend the meaning which lay behind their every-day experiences.
Our highly-developed brains not only give us the ability to interpret everything we encounter, and ascribe meaning to everything we encounter, but also to detect patterns in everything we see.
Sophie chooses to ascribe a particular meaning and pattern to her experiences, and this enables her to make sense of what is going on. But it is a meaning drawn from the human imagination. We may, indeed, imagine any meaning and pattern we choose - and throughout the history of mankind, many have been chosen. The Christian god and the dogmas which go with it are just one of them.

It doesn’t matter that these imagined meanings and patterns are demonstrably spurious; thanks to our highly-developed brains, we are able to rationalise absolutely anything, if the need to do so is great enough.

[sophie]

Stephen T-B : The very survival of our ancestors required them to comprehend the meaning which lay behind their every-day experiences. This is termed existential meaning.

[Nom]

Originally posted by sophie
OK, I'll try to be fair.

People live their lives, in other words they have experiences. This is self evident and therefore asserts itself as true. People can reflect on their past experiences, which are events they experienced. This is also a self evident assertion.
OK, I'm with you so far.
Atheists have experiences and can reflect on those experiences. They themselves can attach meaning and value to those events.
I'm still hangin' in there.
This is as far as Atheists can ponder meaningfully. Atheists cannot ponder the essence of the events they experienced because there is no grand design, the world from their eyes occurred by chance, for no reason at all.
Hmmm. Precisely what you mean by "the essence of the events" remains unclear. It would seems to be a synonym for "why;" i.e. atheists can reflect on the who, what, where, when and how of their lives, but since they don't believe in God, don't get to ask why. But this is placing the cart before the horse. It isn't that "atheists cannot ponder the essence of the events they experienced because there is no grand design," but rather, atheists *have pondered* the essence of the events they experienced *and concluded* there is no grand design
This means Atheists cannot find any meaning in the deeper value of events unlike Theists who can ascribe some grand thought or thoughts to the deeper meaning of life.
No, it means that atheists say there *is no deeper value of events,* a.k.a. God. WYSIWYG. Your argument assumes that some "deeper level of meaning" exists. You have not shown why anyone should accept that it does.
Life itself, its origins and absolute meaning therefore escapes the Atheist simply because there is no purpose to life itself for an Atheist.
First, "Life itself, and its origins" certainly do not "escape" the Atheist simply because they ascribe those things to natural instead of supernatural causes. Arguably, such a mindset actually serves them better when exploring such questions.

Second, you haven't established that "there is no purpose to life itself for an Atheist." In fact, you granted that Atheists can have lives filled with meaning (and presumably, purposes derived from those meanings) in your second paragraph.

Third, your appeal to "absolute meaning" betrays the same kind of thinking I was talking about in my first post in this thread. When I encounter the argument that Atheists' lives are without meaning, people almost always base that belief on the idea that, unless a thing (at least, a "grand thought" like life or humanity or love) lasts forever -- in other words, is an absolute -- then that thing is without meaning (or purpose or value or whatever your preferred term is). This is demonstrably not true. People, believers and non, routinely ascribe meanings, purposes, and values to transient things (again, as we already established in your second paragraph). People even sometimes ascribe value to "grand thoughts" even if they *are* transient. 'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, right?

If Atheism really did make life meaningless, it would be simple matter to demonstrate. Certainly we would expect to see higher rates of self-destructive behavior (suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, etc.), violent behavior and depression among atheists compared to theists. But as far as I know, this is not the case. In fact, it seems that theists are the ones more likely to demonstrate such behavior. I'm unaware of any atheistic counterparts to the likes of Waco or Jonestown, for example.

[mosaic]

Luvluv, have you ever considered that the world would be the same without or without god? Why do you assume the existence of a god neccesarily means it cares, agrees with or created our values?

And I can only appeal to logic and our shared experience for someone not to kill me for a ham sandwich. If you think "because god said so," is a better explanation then you have serious issues. How is that even value to us? Its only god's meaning. My offense to murder means nothing if its something just decried by god. It not a value, its not significant. Its infact as empty as you claim the athiest reasons are. What is the use of a system of laws open to debate and consistent change if none of it matters? We can just turn to whatever quack has had a conversation with god and decide things.

You're also doing an awful lot of equivocating but I'll let that to the people you answered. I really find it troubling that theists consistently use nihlism to justify their objective view of the world. They dont give a single reason like the athiest may attempt why murder is "wrong" but instead offer the empty "because god said so." Which says nothing about the act. Fact is, thiest and naturalists may have the same reasons for abhoring things. The theist simply adds god to buffer its claim.

[luvluv]

None of that alters the fact that you believe in value for demonstrably bad reasons, and that you reject these same bad arguments when they are brought to bear for Christianity or any other religion. I said you were inconsistent, and yuo are.

Further, I didn';t say that murder was wrong because God said it was wrong. I said we could ground our belief that it is wrong in an omniscient God's KNOWLEDGE that it was wrong.

[Family Man]

luvluv, you're comparing apples and oranges.

God, at least theoretically, has an objective existence. Now you appear to be claiming that because people hold valid subjective values, it is valid to assume that subjective feelings that God exists means we can objectively claim that God exists.

You have it completely backwards. The BEST argument for the existence of God doesn't come anywhere close to the WORST argument for the value of human life.


Now let’s say this concept, instead of being values, is the concept of God. Would it still be a “wise” decision for the government to use whatever means at it’s disposal to ensure a belief in that God? If not, then how does the existence of God differ from the existence of values epistemologically? Why is it okay to physically coerce adherence to one widely held but totally subjective concept and not another?


If you can prove that the concept of God in some way promotes social order, then you'd have an argument. But if you'd study history, you find that one of the reasons that the founding fathers of the country you and I live in didn't enforce belief in any particular religion is that they knew that religion can, and does, cause a great deal of strife. For example, while an overwhelming majority of people would agree that incarcerating murderers is important to maintain social order, what do you think would happen if someone seriously suggested what you're suggesting here? The immediate question would immediately be, which god are you talking about? The uproar would be instanteous. Move the conception of God too far in one direction, and the fundamentalists would complain. Move it too far in the other, and the Jews, Catholics, and Muslims might start worrying about persecutions.

In short, it would be momumentally idiotic to suggest such a thing, which is why, in the United States at least, it hasn't and never will happen. And, of course, a very effective demonstration that you haven't thought this through very well.

[edited to add] Worse yet, even if you could demonstrate that god-belief promotes social stablility as well as incarcerating murderers, you still wouldn't any closer to demonstrating the existence of God.

But I do believe there are countries that have officially implemented your suggestion. But I understand that Saudi Arabia and Iran are not the most desirable countries to live in right at the moment.

[luvluv]

God, at least theoretically, has an objective existence. Now you appear to be claiming that because people hold valid subjective values, it is valid to assume that subjective feelings that God exists means we can objectively claim that God exists.


None of which disproves my point. It is a valid subjective opinion that humans have value. It is also a valid subjective opinion that humans do not have value. It's a valid subjective opinion that God objectively exists.

My challenge was carefully worded. I asked you to prove me wrong specifically because you can’t do it.

Moreover, if it is your subjective belief that humans have objective value, such that those who do not recognize that value are objectively wrong, then you are in precisely the same boat as the theist.

And if you are saying that it is your subjective opinion that values exist only subjectively, then all attempts at a binding social law based on the value of human life are wrong-headed and immoral.

And by the way, all subjective opinions about objective facts are valid, so long as the objective fact is a logical possibility. What criteria are you using which makes values “valid” and God’s existence “invalid” as a subjective belief?

If you can prove that the concept of God in some way promotes social order, then you'd have an argument. But if you'd study history, you find that one of the reasons that the founding fathers of the country you and I live in didn't enforce belief in any particular religion is that they knew that religion can, and does, cause a great deal of strife.


And values can’t? What if my subjective system of value causes me to say that whites have more inherent value than other races? Or men more than women?

For example, while an overwhelming majority of people would agree that incarcerating murderers is important to maintain social order, what do you think would happen if someone seriously suggested what you're suggesting here? The immediate question would immediately be, which god are you talking about? The uproar would be instanteous. Move the conception of God too far in one direction, and the fundamentalists would complain. Move it too far in the other, and the Jews, Catholics, and Muslims might start worrying about persecutions.



Um, excuse me, but are you under the impression that there is only one system of value? The attempt to legislate any one system of value over any other, even if they are completely atheistic, is just as open to disagreement and conflict as adopting any God concept as central.

Are you of the opinion that the question “whose subjective value” is any less problematic than “whose God”?

Particularly when, unlike the question of God, there is by definition no correct answer, and no prospect of there ever being one???

In short, it would be momumentally idiotic to suggest such a thing, which is why, in the United States at least, it hasn't and never will happen. And, of course, a very effective demonstration that you haven't thought this through very well.


Um, taking into account that you forgot that the very BASIS of your argument is that value is subjective, and thus many people differ as to what values are the correct ones, and taking into account that you seem to think that no one will ever ask (or has ever asked) whose value system is the correct one with which to govern society…

… who hasn’t thought this through very well…???

I’ll give you two hints:

1) It’s either me or you.

2) It isn’t me.

But I do believe there are countries that have officially implemented your suggestion. But I understand that Saudi Arabia and Iran are not the most desirable countries to live in right at the moment.


I don’t believe theocracies are moral, because I believe in the value of free will. I believe in a God who can serve as a grounds for the value of free will. Thus I only hold that other regimes are accountable to this valuation because there is a means for me to ground this claim in objective fact, not subjective opinion.

If all values are opinions, I could of course have an opinion that the Saudis were wrong, but then opinions are like this other thing which we sit on that everybody has.

You however, seem to believe that it is okay to persecute, incarcerate, and if necessary kill those in the population who do not share your totally unverifiable subjective opinion.

[luvluv]

If you can prove that the concept of God in some way promotes social order, then you'd have an argument.

And lest I forget, there is far more social order in Saudi Arabia than there is here, what there is less of is freedom.

What could ensure social order more than everyone being mandated to believe in precisely the same God in precisely the same way?

Theocracy preserves order, it is democracy that promotes disorder. We have the divorce, high murder rate, high crime rate, rampant drug use, and illegitimate children that countries like Saudi Arabia lack.

Religion is an excellent means of preserving social order. What it violates is your subjecitve calue of freedom. But who says that you are right and the Saudis are wrong?

In fact, if vaules are subjective, you cannot say their values are wrong and yours are right.

You have it completely backwards. The BEST argument for the existence of God doesn't come anywhere close to the WORST argument for the value of human life.

I'm supposed to take your word for it? I at least offered you two arguments commonly offered for the existence of inherent human value, the only two arguments that have been offered so far on this thread. First, that the individal has the subjective opinion that humans have value, and secondly that there are many people who share that opinion.

If there are better arguments, please present them now. But if that's all you got, the subjective opinion argument and the ad populum fallacy, then you are in bad shape.

There are better arguments for God, certainly, than the "I just feel God exists" argument and the "Lots of people just feel that God exists" argument. And those are the best (and the only) arguments produced for the existence of human value thus far.

In short, friend, put up or shut up.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by luvluv
And lest I forget, there is far more social order in Saudi Arabia than there is here, what there is less of is freedom.

What could ensure social order more than everyone being mandated to believe in precisely the same God in precisely the same way?

Theocracy preserves order, it is democracy that promotes disorder. We have the divorce, high murder rate, high crime rate, rampant drug use, and illegitimate children that countries like Saudi Arabia lack.


Um, I'm not arguing that social order is the be all and end all, only that a certain amount of social order is a good thing. I also think a certain amount of freedom is also a good thing, and I'll take a bit of disorder to do that. But like most things human, it's a little more messy than that. If you'd like to live in a Saudi Arabian theocracy, be my guest. In the meantime, I suggest avoiding strawman in the future.


Religion is an excellent means of preserving social order. What it violates is your subjecitve calue [?] of freedom.


Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. But it isn't the only method of preserving social order. And considering that there are countries that maintain a low degree of religiousity and a high degree of social order -- Japan comes to mind -- I fail to see your point. After all, speaking entirely hypotheically (since I don't think religion will ever really go away, and I wouldn't support suppressing it) if there is other means of maintaining reasonable social order with religion, and religion is false, then what's the advantage of having religion?


But who says that you are right and the Saudis are wrong?


I don't. If that's what they like, they have every right to structure their society anyway they want. I just wouldn't care to live in it myself, and I'd hate to see our country turned into a forced theocracy, which you seem to be advocating here. Chalk up one more strawman.


In fact, if vaules are subjective, you cannot say their values are wrong and yours are right.


You're right, I can't. Nor have I claimed any such thing. I'm suggesting that most people in Western society would be appalled at the argument your making here. I'd claim another strawman, but it's essentially the same one as above.


I'm supposed to take your word for it?


No, but my arguments would seem to indicate that the best arguments for the existence of God don't even approach the worst arguments for the value of human life. Heck, since they are two different things, they can't really be compared, can they?


I at least offered you two arguments commonly offered for the existence of inherent human value, the only two arguments that have been offered so far on this thread. First, that the individal has the subjective opinion that humans have value, and secondly that there are many people who share that opinion.


You offered those arguments?!! luvluv, I'm the one that introduced that argument when I said this:


First, what one values is a purely subjective thing. How I prove that your subjective evaluation is "true" is, of course, impossible. Conversely, I can't prove that anyone's subjective evaluation that humans have value is true either. What I could prove, theoretically, is that more people feel that humans have value and very few feel that they don't.

Which brings me to my second point: we don't live in a vacuum. In fact, we live in a society that tends to reward those that value human life, and tends to punish those that don't. That's one of the reasons we have jails. So, to a point, the belief that human life has value is forced upon us, probably wisely so.


I suggest that you check my first post after your first post.


luvluv:
If there are better arguments, please present them now.


Why should I argue against my own opinion?


But if that's all you got, the subjective opinion argument and the ad populum fallacy, then you are in bad shape.


Um, I don't think you're expressing yourself very well here, since I have no idea what you're referring to.


There are better arguments for God, certainly, than the "I just feel God exists" argument and the "Lots of people just feel that God exists" argument.


Actually, that is the best evidence for God, which sort of sums up how bad the evidence for God really is. To be clear, there is no evidence at all for his existence.


And those are the best (and the only) arguments produced for the existence of human value thus far.


You're confused again. God, if he exists, objectively exists. Thus, subjective feelings that he exist can't be used to say he objectively exists.

Values exists. However, any claim for one value being "good" while another being "bad" is completely subjective. It can only be solved by arguing whether the value benefits society, or harms it (and even then, it can get very sticky.) You could make an subjective argument that Christianity benefits society, because that is a subjective judgement. You can't make a subjective argument that God objectively exists. It's ludricrous.


In short, friend, put up or shut up.


Well, seeing how you spent most of this thread knocking down strawmen, then stealing my argument, then descending into incoherency, I'd say I'm holding up very well. Until you can answer these questions, my friend, I'd say you're the one struggling here.

1. Please explain how subjective arguments can be used to prove the objective existence of anything.

2. Why has no one, in one of the most religious nations of the world, ever suggested turning the US government into a theocracy? (Hint: explain how this is possible in one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world.)

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by luvluv


Further, I didn';t say that 1- murder was wrong because God said it was wrong. 2-I said we could ground our belief that it is wrong in an omniscient God's KNOWLEDGE that it was wrong.

Sorry to intrude ...

How would you know God had concluded or decreed it was wrong? :confused: :confused:

unless that message was somehow transmitted to you ? :confused:

Please Clarify the effective differance ...
(edited to a) 1- & 2

Could killing someone under God's order ever be considered murder or wrong to a Thiest ? :confused:

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by luvluv





I don’t believe theocracies are moral, because I believe in the value of free will. I believe in a God who can serve as a grounds for the value of free will. Thus I only hold that other regimes are accountable to this valuation because there is a means for me to ground this claim in objective fact, not subjective opinion.



Sorry to ask this, but where did you get these "Objective Facts"?

1 - The God I believe in Exists.
2 - This God is grounds for free will existing & having value.


You however, seem to believe that it is okay to persecute, incarcerate, and if necessary kill those in the population who do not share your totally unverifiable subjective opinion.


And your Opinion (belief) is not subjective or
unverifiable because ....



Oh That's right because God Exists!
:p :p :p

[mosaic]

Luvluv, you really are not being consistent yourself.

Would you care to answer this question for me?

1) Do you have any reasons for not advocating murder, or evil in general independent of a belief in god?


2) If so, how can you claim that belief is in god is neccesary to ground these beliefs?

3) If not, how can you claim that you believe in morality or freewill? Or "value,' them at all?

Morality is not equal to " God said so,:" and this is the alternative you've given athiests. Claiming that you're right because some absolute being said so says nothing about how we view acts. That I find murder immoral is of no consequeunce as to why god sees it immoral. Like theo as argued, god doesnt want us to murder cause he reserves that right for himself. Is this the kind of ground you really want to stand on?

[Thomas Ash]

Hi,

I'm sure someone else has already said this, but the phrase 'the Meaning of life' makes about the sense as 'the Meaning of a coffee pot.' That's not to say we can't find a purpose for a coffee point, or a value in it. And if that's true of coffee pots, it's certainly true of human life.

Anyway, that's enough about coffee pots...

I often thing that the philosophy of cheesy 80s pop songs is underrated ;) . I mean if Alvin Plantinga can be considered a great philopher, why not Paddy McAloon of uber-cheese band Prefab Sprout :D. On the question of the 'Meaning' of life, he offers plenty of good truisms, like:

"[Life - and the good things in it - is] all we can have, yes it's all we can trust,
It's a hell of a ride but a journey to dust."

That more or less sums up my view. Focusing on what happens after life diminishes the value of what we actually have.

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

[Wyrdsmyth]

Originally posted by luvluv
Well, I’m afraid it is you who are missing the point in this exchange (though hopefully you will not do this so much that you will become famous for it).

<...long sigh...> No matter how clearly and simply I explain something, you still manage not to get it or respond to what I actually said. Sometimes you're very frustrating, luvluv... but if it's any consolation, never as frustrating as, say, theophilus.

My point is that atheists justify their acceptance of values with arguments that are equally applicable to theism. Yet they deny theism and affirm value. This is the first inconsistency.

Where is the inconsistency? We're social beings, and from that brute fact we justify our that we need social values, laws, etc. Just what social values we endorse is arguable, but the fact that we need to have some values and some codes of behavior in order to get along is beyond dispute -- either for theists or atheists.

Secondly, atheists are willing to use physical, legal, and social coercion to enforce values, when they would call the same endeavor used to enforce theism evil.

Perhaps not "evil" but undesirable, certainly. Yes, we're willing to enforce values since we recognize (Fact 1) we're social beings and (Fact 2) we need certain codes of behavior to coexist peacefully and effectively. But enforcing theism... theism isn't based upon anything factual. And, one of theism's oldest tricks is to try to link itself up with the two facts I just listed above... But there's nothing about FACT 1 and FACT 2 that intrinsically proves the existence of anything like a god.

Doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the idea of God is in your concept of value. Try proving to me that you have objective value in the atheistic sense of the term. It still can’t be done.

Try proving to me that you have objective value in the theistic sense of the term. That can't be done either. If you're going to make the point that "I can't step outside of my own skin" or that I can't stop being subjective and touch upon true objectivity... you're right. But that is true about you, also. So bringing up this sort of Cartesian doubt against atheists is a two-edged sword, because it equally applies to theists.

At best, you can say that you believe you have value and that many other people believe in human value. That is an ad populum argument that is not now and never will be sufficient to make any claim true.

Perhaps not true in an absolute sense. But human values are not absolute. We can argue about them, and hold different values... we can change and modify our values, over time. The best we can do to have knowledge about some things, especially things like morality, law, and values, is to bounce our ideas off of others. Establishing values and laws is an ongoing, organic and political process -- sometimes consecrated with a myth of a transcendent, objective, divine law-giver... that is itself unprovable. But you cannot separate the thing that is 'valued' from the thing doing the 'valuing.' That is where I think you are getting confused, and defining a term like 'value' differently from someone like me, when you introduce an idea that the 'value' has some kind of objective, absolute quality. So, to pull that Cartesian blade out of your hands and turn it on you... Can you prove that it does?

[Stephen T-B]

Just wanted to pick this up (late in the day, but I’ve been detained elsewhere). Luluv, asked to prove that that the “concept of God in some way promotes social order” told us: “And lest I forget, there is far more social order in Saudi Arabia than there is here...”
He might have added that if we really want to see examples of strict social order, we should look at Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany.
Tyranny does have the knack of producing (temporary) social order.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Just wanted to pick this up (late in the day, but I’ve been detained elsewhere). Luluv, asked to prove that that the “concept of God in some way promotes social order” told us: “And lest I forget, there is far more social order in Saudi Arabia than there is here...”
He might have added that if we really want to see examples of strict social order, we should look at Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany.
Tyranny does have the knack of producing (temporary) social order.

Also, if Saudi Arabia didn't have the artificial politico-economic support of the vast and continuous influx of oil-wealth, I doubt the regime would enjoy as much stability as it does. Stability comes, at least partially, from being economically well off. Godliness has very little to do with economic wellbeing (unless you believe god is the 'invisible hand'). :)

Cheers

[Jim Larmore]

Heathen Dawn, I can understand why, to a degree, many of you feel and believe the way you do, I too had feelings of doubt many times in my life. God is hard to figure out and His ways are beyond our understanding. I guess I finally came to the conclusion that we all just couldn't have happened by some fluke of nature . The final things that tipped me toward theistic philosophies was eliminating the other possibilties. Mathematically, scientifically and weighing the evidence that layed before me it all pointed towards a intelligent creator. I know there will never be totally convicting evidence that will take away all doubt. there will always be room to doubt if you want too. God gives that to us all. However , if you really look at this beautiful creation you just talked about and really study the complexities which are "irreducible" you have to come to the realization that it had to come from an almighty intelligence.
This debate over meaningless lives is not productive. I believe meaningful is in the life of the liver. If you feel your life is meaning ful then it matters not if your an atheist or a christian, its meaningful to you and thats all that matters. I can tell you though that the One who hung the galaxies and made the hummingbird loves us all passionately ,atheist or not ,and wants us all to love Him back. Just because we can't see Him doesn't mean He doen't exist. I can't see radio waves or cosmic energy but I can tell you they exist. This world is resplendent with the finger prints of its creator. Latent evidence surrounds us all that God exists. Life itself is so miraculous its beyond our total understanding and the more we learn the more we see how much we don't know . You want to study some facinating work , study enzymes and proteins for awhile and look for a way for these miraculous entities to just happen. No way!!!!!! The interelationships between all of livings systems and the dependence of each one on the other makes them "irreducible" tod their primary constituents in a primordial soup per se'. If you take a mouse trap apart to its basic constituents and put in a work shop where there are tools and manuals for assembly and shake the whole thing around for a billions years you still wouldn't have a mouse trap. The mouse trap is " irreducible" , it has to be put together by an intelligent mind in a certain way to make it work. A mouse trap is a simple machine so infinitley simple compared to the most basic amino acid . There are so many of us who look thru miraculous eyes and listen with miraculous ears and reason with a miraculous brain and give no credit at all to the one who made it all. Amazing!!!!!:confused:

[Keith Russell]

People who freely state that--were they to lose their faith in 'God'--they would feel no compunction against raping and/or murdering their fellow human beings, scare the hell out of me!

K

[luvluv]

This is really sad, kids. I’m being perfectly clear.

First, let’s get rid of all the command theory of ethics questions.

I am not commenting on this thread about what MAKES a wrong action, like murder, wrong.

I am commenting on how we can GROUND the claim that it is wrong.

What makes murder wrong? I’m inclined towards the Divine Nature theory. That says that what is in God’s nature is good, not what God commands.

But this is not the question at hand. The question is whether there is any POSSIBLE ground for value within atheism, and the answer is an emphatic no. Is there a POSSIBLE ground for values within theism?
That is to say, is it possible to ground values as objective facts given the truth of theism? Yes, a very simple way. God is omniscient, and by definition cannot hold false beliefs. Therefore his knowledge that an action is wrong would be enough to ground the claim that an action is wrong. No, the theist can’t prove that God exists or that He says that any particular action is wrong, but he can make the claim that an action is wrong which is logically consistent with his core beliefs, and the atheist can’t.

Given the existence of God, it is possible that the theist’s valuation is wrong, and it is possible that it is right. Given atheism, no valuation can be wrong or right. It is an ESSENTIALLY and ETERNALLY groundless, empty claim, easily refuted by the invocation of the grand “sez who?”

My point is not that I am right and you are wrong. My point is that the theist, in valuing human beings, and in claiming that this valuation is an objective fact, IS BEING CONSISTENT WITH HIS BELIEFS.

The atheist, when he values and insists that others agree with his values (even if he has to use force) is being completely inconsistent with his beliefs. Read my original post. What does it say? It says that the atheist is being inconsistent.

Now am I right on that point or not?

That was the issue, not how the atheist or theist knows WHAT MAKES A WRONG ACTION WRONG, but how they JUSTIFY A CLAIM THAT A WRONG ACTION IS WRONG.

Family Man:

An ad populum argument is an argument from popular opinion. Example: “I know God exists because most people believe in God.”

It really can’t be the best argument for theism, you see, because it’s a fallacy. Meaning that logically, it can’t prove anything.

According to some big time thinkers, including atheists like David Hume, the teleological argument is the strongest argument for God’s existence. Most people would consider that much more compelling than the ad populum fallacy. You see, the logical form of most versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments are sound. If their premises are true, then the conclusion follows. They fail to prove that God exists, to most folks, because of some disputed premises. But the ad populum argument is fallacious, meaning that even given the truth of it’s premise, the conclusion doesn’t follow. So I fail to see how you can consider a known fallacy a better argument for God’s existence than a sound argument with some disputed premises.

Actually, that is the best evidence for God, which sort of sums up how bad the evidence for God really is.


The rules of evidence and the rules of formal argument are different. The standards of evidence are generally speaking much lower, as evidence is used to make inferential judgments. Formal argument make deductive judgements, and the bar is much higher in that arena. For instance, while the ad populum argument is inadmissible in a formal syllogism, it is totally admissible in a court of law.

So yes, the fact that many people believe in God is definitely evidence for His existence, but we were talking about arguments.

You're confused again. God, if he exists, objectively exists. Thus, subjective feelings that he exist can't be used to say he objectively exists.



No, I’m fairly lucid. I only said that the SUBJECTIVE OPINION that God objectively exists is a valid SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I never said that subjective opinion can be used to prove that He objectively exist.

Actually, if you read that post closely I was lampooning the notion that there are valid and invalid subjective opinions. All subjective opinions are valid, provided that they are about something which is logically possible.

Your post seemed to suggest that there were valid and invalid subjective opinions. I happen to think that is ridiculous, so I pointed out that all subjective opinions are “valid.” If you disagree, and have some criteria for discriminating between valid subjective opinions and invalid ones (other than logical possibility) please present them.

You can't make a subjective argument that God objectively exists. It's ludricrous.


Ha! Listen, FM, you were the one saying, earlier in your very last response, that precisely this kind of argument (the fact that many people believe in God) is the best argument for God! I was the one saying that it was fallacious!

Now you want to call it ludicrous? Really guy. It’s just not necessary to type a response if you don’t know what you want to say.

I never said that you could make an argument for God’s existence from the subjective opinion that he exists. I said that the subjective opinion that God exists is a valid opinion. But even in saying that I was being sarcastic, because just about every opinion is valid so long as it doesn’t contradict logic or a known fact (like the fact that the world is round, for instance).

1. Please explain how subjective arguments can be used to prove the objective existence of anything.



Never said it could.

2. Why has no one, in one of the most religious nations of the world, ever suggested turning the US government into a theocracy?


What part of the sentence

I don’t believe theocracies are moral, because I believe in the value of free will.


did you not understand?

However, even your question is wrong. Plenty of people have suggested turning the US government into a theocracy, and some people have even tried to do it. They’ve just all failed, thank God.

JEST2ASK:

How would you know God had concluded or decreed it was wrong?


I don’t know precisely what you’re asking. How do I know or how could I know?

The point is, I can know consistently with my core beliefs. When I try to get others to obey the moral law, I am not forcing what I know to be only my subjective opinion down their throats. I am being consistent, as a theist, and the atheist cannot.

unless that message was somehow transmitted to you


Is that impossible?

Sorry to ask this, but where did you get these "Objective Facts"?

1 - The God I believe in Exists.


There are any number of reasons why I believe that God exists, and that he has verbalized his infallible beliefs regarding morality.

The point is that I can endorse morality and advocate it on grounds other than my own subjective feelings about what is right and wrong if God exists. If he doesn’t, then I can’t. If there is no good, real values cannot be known. So for those who claim that God does not exist to claim that they have any knowledge of any value that is binding in any sense is hypocritical and inconsistent.

2 - This God is grounds for free will existing & having value.


It’s a pretty simple argument. Given the existence of the Christian God, we know:

1) God is omniscient.
2) God holds the belief that humans have value and that free will is good.
3) It is impossible for an omniscient God to hold a false belief.
4) Therefore, it is true that humans have value and that free will is good.

And your Opinion (belief) is not subjective or
unverifiable because


If God exists, and can speak to us, then it IS verifiable. And if He verifies it, it is no longer subjective, it is objective.

So my claim that theocracy is wrong is consistent with my theistic beliefs. But your claim that theocracy is wrong is inconsistent with your atheism.

My major point in this thread has always been the inconsistency of the value-holding atheist.

Mosaic:

1) Do you have any reasons for not advocating murder, or evil in general independent of a belief in god?


First of all, what is evil? And how do you know? I can’t answer that question as regards evil until you come up with some criteria for deciding what is evil. Is it “your” evil or “my” evil?

As for murder? I’ve got one very good reason, I don’t want to go to jail. And I’ve been socialized to respect human life. Is that a grounds for making the claim that morality is wrong? No. I could have been brought up in Nazi Germany where I would have the same reason for avoiding aiding the Jews (it would risk a jail sentence and I would have been socialized to have no respect for Jewish life).

2) If so, how can you claim that belief is in god is neccesary to ground these beliefs?


Because reasons are not grounds.

The fact that my girlfriend won’t marry me unless I believe in God is a reason to believe in God. It is not a proper ground for the claim that God exists.

The fact that I fear jail and that I have been socialized to respect human life is not ground for the claim that murder is wrong. I could have been socialized to adhere to any number of values that we consider wrong, and our society could jail people for any number of activities that we consider right.

Morality is not equal to " God said so,:" and this is the alternative you've given athiests.


I never said it was. I said the claim of moral knowledge could be grounded because an omniscient God “knows so.” I don’t claim to know what makes an action wrong. I only claim that it is possible, only within theism, to know THAT a wrong action is wrong.

Wyrdsmyth:

Where is the inconsistency? We're social beings, and from that brute fact we justify our that we need social values, laws, etc. Just what social values we endorse is arguable, but the fact that we need to have some values and some codes of behavior in order to get along is beyond dispute -- either for theists or atheists.



“in order to get along” you say. Can’t you see that you are trying to ground values in another value, the value of getting along? That’s a circular argument.

Why should we get along? To survive? Why should we survive? Because human life has value.

One big happy circle. And no justification in sight.

Perhaps not "evil" but undesirable, certainly. Yes, we're willing to enforce values since we recognize (Fact 1) we're social beings and (Fact 2) we need certain codes of behavior to coexist peacefully and effectively. But enforcing theism... theism isn't based upon anything factual.


Now you’re trying to justify values on the basis of the value of peaceful and effective coexistence. But why should I value peaceful and effective coexistence? Would I be wrong if I didn’t? How could you know I was wrong?

And, one of theism's oldest tricks is to try to link itself up with the two facts I just listed above... But there's nothing about FACT 1 and FACT 2 that intrinsically proves the existence of anything like a god.


Nothing about FACT 1 and FACT 2 proves the existence of anything like value in human beings.

Try proving to me that you have objective value in the theistic sense of the term. That can't be done either.


It CAN be done. Maybe I can’t do it, but God certainly can. All God would need to do is believe it, and if He is omniscient, that would be proof that it is so.

Perhaps not true in an absolute sense. But human values are not absolute. We can argue about them, and hold different values... we can change and modify our values, over time. The best we can do to have knowledge about some things, especially things like morality, law, and values, is to bounce our ideas off of others.


Incorrect. If there is no God, there is no such thing as moral knowledge. Subjective opinion changes and modifies over time, not knowledge. But then subjective opinion about fashion changes over time, but are you under the impression that as time goes on we are closing in on “true” fashion?

Then what makes you think that by changing and modifying our opinion on morality we are approaching “true” morality, if there is no possibility of grounding any moral claim?

My work here is done, kids. I’m hunkering down for Isabelle, so I could be out of commision for up to two weeks if my power goes out. I’m sure that makes you all very sad. But I’ll be back to deal with your comments. You will probably have forgotten about this thread by then, but such is life.

[Family Man]

luvluv:
An ad populum argument is an argument from popular opinion. Example: “I know God exists because most people believe in God.”


I'm not a idiot, don't treat me like one. I'm perfectly aware what an ad populum argument is. My problem was that your post wasn't clear about what you were referring to. It is not normal to talk about an argument positively then talk about it negatively without a transition to help your reader understand the point you were making. Believe me, luvluv, I know more than just a little bit about the art of writing, and clear you were not.


It really can’t be the best argument for theism, you see, because it’s a fallacy. Meaning that logically, it can’t prove anything.


Agreed. Your explanation was clear and convincing.


No, I’m fairly lucid.


This post, yes. Your other posts, no.


I only said that the SUBJECTIVE OPINION that God objectively exists is a valid SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I never said that subjective opinion can be used to prove that He objectively exist.

Actually, if you read that post closely I was lampooning the notion that there are valid and invalid subjective opinions. All subjective opinions are valid, provided that they are about something which is logically possible.


And if I were promoting the idea that there are valid and invalid subjective opinions, then I probably would have caught it. But as you were reading in something that wasn't there, your posts only engendered confusion. I respectfully suggest you read me more carefully in the future.


Your post seemed to suggest that there were valid and invalid subjective opinions. I happen to think that is ridiculous, so I pointed out that all subjective opinions are “valid.” If you disagree, and have some criteria for discriminating between valid subjective opinions and invalid ones (other than logical possibility) please present them.


No, luvluv, I never suggested anything of the kind. I was suggesting that certain subjective arguments are stronger and more convincing than others, but not that one subjective opinion is more valid than others. That all opinions are valid does not mean that all opinions are equally sound. I'm sure you can agree with that.


Ha! Listen, FM, you were the one saying, earlier in your very last response, that precisely this kind of argument (the fact that many people believe in God) is the best argument for God! I was the one saying that it was fallacious!


Perhaps so, but you certainly didn't make it clear. I will accept this explanation.


I never said that you could make an argument for God’s existence from the subjective opinion that he exists. I said that the subjective opinion that God exists is a valid opinion.


I have to mildly disagree here, though in retrospect it may be a case that you weren't explaining yourself very well. First you opened with this ludricrous proposition.


I say that none of you have any value at all.
Neither you, your children, your loved ones, nor anyone who has ever lived.
You are all worthless.
Now, assuming that God does not exist, prove me wrong.


Which seems to imply that values can be objectively argued. When I pointed out that you can't "prove" a value statement, given it's subjective nature, you said this:


Well, I have a subjective feeling that God exists, and the overwhelming majority of people have this subjective feeling that God exists. Is this sufficient reason to believe in God?
Most of you would say no, but you support your belief in values with the same argument.


But as I pointed out, existence of God is an objective question, not a subjective one. You never recognized the distinction I was making, nor did you make clear the distinctions you were making until this post. I support my values with subjective arguments, but my position about God with objective ones. Thus, it was very confusing to me to see "belief in values" to be equated with "belief in God" because, like most atheists, I don't look at the latter question subjectively. Hence, my bafflement.

In short, if your point is now that you have a right to your opinion about God, I wholeheartedly agree. I hope you'll agree that I have the right to my opinion also.

I don't think, however, that you can get that point from your initial post on this thread. That was an ill-considered, offensive, and ludicrous post that made no sense, as well as your "defense" of Saudi Arabian culture. Post with sarcasm and condescension, luvluv, don't be surprised that you get it back in spades. Post with the clarity and understanding of this last post (minus the personal animus please) and you'll find understanding and acceptance (though probably not agreement).

And by the way, we're not kids on this board. Suggesting so only reflects on your own maturity level.

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by luvluv
This is really sad, kids. I’m being perfectly clear.

First, let’s get rid of all the command theory of ethics questions.

I am not commenting on this thread about what MAKES a wrong action, like murder, wrong.

I am commenting on how we can GROUND the claim that it is wrong.

What makes murder wrong? I’m inclined towards the Divine Nature theory. That says that what is in God’s nature is good, not what God commands.


My point is not that I am right and you are wrong. My point is that the theist, in valuing human beings, and in claiming that this valuation is an objective fact, IS BEING CONSISTENT WITH HIS BELIEFS.

I said that the subjective opinion that God exists is a valid opinion. But even in saying that I was being sarcastic, because just about every opinion is valid so long as it doesn’t contradict logic or a known fact (like the fact that the world is round, for instance).






*** JEST2ASK:

I don’t know precisely what you’re asking. How do I know or how could I know?

The point is, I can know consistently with my core beliefs. When I try to get others to obey the moral law, I am not forcing what I know to be only my subjective opinion down their throats. I am being consistent, as a theist, and the atheist cannot.



Is that impossible?



There are any number of reasons why I believe that God exists, and that he has verbalized his infallible beliefs regarding morality.

**The point is that I can endorse morality and advocate it on grounds other than my own subjective feelings **about what is right and wrong if God exists. If he doesn’t, then I can’t. If there is no good, real values cannot be known. So for those who claim that God does not exist to claim that they have any knowledge of any value that is binding in any sense is hypocritical and inconsistent.



It’s a pretty simple argument. Given the existence of the Christian God, we know:

1) God is omniscient.
2) God holds the belief that humans have value and that free will is good.
3) It is impossible for an omniscient God to hold a false belief.
4) Therefore, it is true that humans have value and that free will is good.



If God exists, and can speak to us, then it IS verifiable. And if He verifies it, it is no longer subjective, it is objective.

So my claim that theocracy is wrong is consistent with my theistic beliefs. But your claim that theocracy is wrong is inconsistent with your atheism.

My major point in this thread has always been the inconsistency of the value-holding atheist.


Because reasons are not grounds.

The fact that my girlfriend won’t marry me unless I believe in God is a reason to believe in God. It is not a proper ground for the claim that God exists.

The fact that I fear jail and that I have been socialized to respect human life is not ground for the claim that murder is wrong. I could have been socialized to adhere to any number of values that we consider wrong, and our society could jail people for any number of activities that we consider right.



I never said it was. I said the claim of moral knowledge could be grounded because an omniscient God “knows so.” I don’t claim to know what makes an action wrong. I only claim that it is possible, only within theism, to know THAT a wrong action is wrong.




Incorrect. If there is no God, there is no such thing as moral knowledge. **Subjective opinion changes and modifies over time, not knowledge. ** But then subjective opinion about fashion changes over time, but are you under the impression that as time goes on we are closing in on “true” fashion?

Then what makes you think that by changing and modifying our opinion on morality we are approaching “true” morality, if there is no possibility of grounding any moral claim?

My work here is done, kids. I’m hunkering down for Isabelle, so I could be out of commision for up to two weeks if my power goes out. I’m sure that makes you all very sad. But I’ll be back to deal with your comments. You will probably have forgotten about this thread by then, but such is life.

To summarize my impression / coclusion of your arguement which I am sure you will point out the misconceptions later.

1) God is omniscient.
2) God holds the belief that humans have value and that free will is good.
3) It is impossible for an omniscient God to hold a false belief.
4) Therefore, it is true that humans have value and that free will is good.

**5
If God exists, and can speak to us, then it IS verifiable. And if He verifies it, it is no longer subjective, it is objective.

:D an awful lot of IFs in your arguements

All appear to be (IMO) unfounded assumptions based on your beliefs which as you have pointed out may have subjective reasons.

So are there or not Objective Standards which God does not dictate but simply acknowledges (another layer of assumptions)

Thank You ... very pleasant interacting with you and more importantly thought provoking ... I will be sure to respond more fully (and bump this thread up) when Isabelle has passed and you are able to respond.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Family Man
.....So, how many people here think that atheism makes meaning in life impossible?.....
So the poll is now about "atheism always makes life meaningless...". I'd say no to that.
If the poll was "atheism sometimes makes life meaningless" then I'd probably say yes.
For some atheists, life can have meaning, for others, it can seem meaningless.
At the moment I get my meaning from responsibilities and self-gratification...

[Wyrdsmyth]

Originally posted by luvluv
“in order to get along” you say. Can’t you see that you are trying to ground values in another value, the value of getting along? That’s a circular argument. Why should we get along? To survive? Why should we survive? Because human life has value. One big happy circle. And no justification in sight.

Of course there is. And I just gave the justification, if you're willing to get off the philosophical merry-go-round. There are some incontrovertible facts about our existence, and at a certain basic level we don't do things because we 'value' them, but because we have impulses. You can say I want to eat because I 'value' food, but that's not really accurate. I do value food, and some over others -- for various reasons, yes. But if I've gone an entire day without any food, then I'm not eating because I value food in some aesthetic or philosophical way... I'm driven to eat by the basic impulse of hunger. When my stomach growls, it's not because I 'value' life in a philosophical way.

Now you’re trying to justify values on the basis of the value of peaceful and effective coexistence. But why should I value peaceful and effective coexistence? Would I be wrong if I didn’t? How could you know I was wrong?

Well, some people are hermits, or choose to be hermits. And that's not going to get you branded as wrong, from most societies. But if you go the more natural route, and chose to be a member of a society, then there are certain rules and laws you must abide. There's a pecking order, and sorts of behavior that are tolerated and not tolerated. And although we can intellectualize this process, it is a very animalistic thing, actually. Do dog packs 'value' effective coexistence? What about other animal species? These things arise from necessity or effectiveness, and can get more complex as the species gets more complex.

Nothing about FACT 1 and FACT 2 proves the existence of anything like value in human beings.

It shows where the ground for most of our most basic rules and moral values come from. It's a fact, not an opinion, that for the most part humanity is a social species.

It CAN be done. Maybe I can’t do it, but God certainly can. All God would need to do is believe it, and if He is omniscient, that would be proof that it is so.

I'm talking about what we can prove to each other, not what God (if one exists) can prove to himself.

If there is no God, there is no such thing as moral knowledge. Subjective opinion changes and modifies over time, not knowledge. But then subjective opinion about fashion changes over time, but are you under the impression that as time goes on we are closing in on “true” fashion? Then what makes you think that by changing and modifying our opinion on morality we are approaching “true” morality, if there is no possibility of grounding any moral claim?

I don't think there is any "true" fashion just as I don't think there is any "true" morality. However, I do not think morality is just a matter of aesthetic taste, as fashion is. Morality is not as whimsical or insignificant as fashion. Morality is much more closely tied to our survival and success. But it could be argued that fashion comes out of the same natural grounding... colorful crests, peacock feathers and all that.

[mosaic]

I think you're confusing the issue Luvluv. Picture two groups fighting and absolutely no signs of either group relinquishing. Now, if these two say "you know, this is stupid. We're not getting anywhere. Lets come to some other deal," how is this circular? They dont like pain. They want to live. But your tangent claim is that "not liking pain" and "wanting to live" are values in of themselves that we havent justified. Therefore, it was circular for these people to come to an agreement. This is absurd. These are instincts that rise or decline in value. We lived quite a time of our lives completely unaware of morality and cried when we felt pain and lived for absolutely no other reason than its instinctive to do so. Does a one month old child place value on not feeling pain or living? It doesnt even know what value is. It doesnt like feeling pain, and it cant help but live. Once we become cognitive we begin to discuss the actual value of these things. We may become callous but the point of reference for all of us is our shared experience.


I do appreciate that you seem more willing to answer questions than this theo person.

[Jamie_L]

If you are an atheist, you must admit that life has no meaning in an external, universally objective sense.

Life can still have great meaning and value to the living, however.

So, to answer the poll: Yes and No.

[mosaic]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
If you are an atheist, you must admit that life has no meaning in an external, universally objective sense.



I'm not even an atheist but this to me is an utterly meaningless question. It has no content. Does money have any external, objective value? Not one yet we live and depend on it like it was part of the universe itself. An athiest doesnt have to admit anything. Infact, the athiest doesnt know. For all we know, we fulfill some mechanical purpose of the universe. Earth maybe a step to something else. Who knows. And I agree with you. I just feel the question itself as no value.

[Keith Russell]

Jamie said:
"If you are an atheist, you must admit that life has no meaning in an external, universally objective sense."

But, life isn't lived in an 'external, universally objective sense', so I have no idea why a theist would claim that the meaning of life should be--or even could be--'external, universally objective'.

(Most theists I know don't even believe that the universe has meaning, being that many religions teach that this existence is illusory. So, how could a 'real' life have 'real' meaning in a 'real' universe, when--according to most theistic views--'true' meaning must come from a supernatural realm/being?)

K

[Family Man]

I suspect this is where atheists and theists are talking at cross-purposes. The theist appears to assume that meaning must be externally derived. The atheist sees no reason why meaning can't be assigned by the individual.

[Jamie_L]

Mosaic and Keith,

Agreed on both counts.

And what Family Man points out is really what's going on here.

The theist accusation is: Without God, life lacks quality X.
The atheist response is: But life does have quality Y.

It just so happens we are calling X and Y the same thing: "meaning".

I say the theist is absolutely right: without God, we don't have objective "meaning".

And like Mosaid and Keith, I say "so what?" I have all the subjective "meaning" I need.

I never even worried about whether or not my life had "meaning" until I started having theological debates.

Jamie

[Family Man]

luvluv --

Upon reflection, one of the things you seem not to understand about my (and most other atheist's I suspect) position is the nature of subjective judgements. Just because subjective judgements can't be deemed right or wrong based on objective external criteria, it doesn't mean we can't come to a judgement based on the effect a subjective position has on people and the society around them. Let me give you some examples that ought to please you in some ways.

I recently read a book on the history of the early Christianity in an attempt to explain why your religion became so successful. His argument centered around certain advantages that the Christian moral position had over the pagan society it was competing against.

For example, pagan society had the practice of committing infanticide, especially if the offspring was female. The Christian community, on the other hand, prohibited this practice. As a result, pagan birth rate was suppressed and the Empire was actually losing population during that time due to a high death rate. The Christian community, on the other hand, maintained a higher birth rate and thus gained in population. And yet Galen, the noted physician, condemned the Christian community as immoral as it did not practice infanticide, clearly indicating how accepted of a practice it was. Why infanticide was practiced, I do not know. But the Christian valuing of human life gave it a competitive advantage over pagan society, and on those grounds, we can claim that the Christian sense of morality during those times (and ony during those times) was superior to the pagan sense of morality.

Perhaps a clearer example is the different reaction each society had towards epidemics. Pagan society tended either to isolate the sick, or isolate the healthy. The sick were generally not tended to. The idea was to not let the healthy become sick due to exposure to the ill, which is not an unreasonable idea.

Christian society, however, tended to consider it a duty to tend to the sick. Thus, the sick were generally nursed and provided basic sustenance. The result was that Christian mortality was roughly half that of pagan mortality, which mean Christian population grew would pagan population fell. Once again, the subjective standards of one group gave it an advantage over another.

And these advantages did not go unnoticed. A lot a conversions to Christianity at the time can be attributed to the feeling that Christians did a better job of taking care of one another than pagan society, allowing yet one more avenue for Christian growth.

Note that none of these factors suggest that the growth was due to God or any supernatural effect.

As I noted earlier, we don't live in a vacuum. Moral standards only make sense in relation to the society they serve. To claim we need a god to make sense of morality appears to me to be false.

[TerryTryon]

I hate to break in on a tangent at this point, but why hasn't someone questioned the quality that Christians and other religionists assign to the Meaning of Life (with caps).

Somehow making oneself a willing slave (Matthew 22:37) of an external entity (however glorious, transcendent, and powerful) only shows an abject abnegation of one's own value and purpose and hence robs life of any meaning it might have.

Slave-mindedness is the assertion that one is in oneself worthless and insignificant. As an atheist, I stand on my own feet. I am my own master. I live and die according to standards I set for myself. This is purpose, meaning, and value. Throwing that basic responsibility on a phantasm is ultimately impossible. To assert that it gives meaning to anything is absurd.

[Jamie_L]

It also seems that, as one of the "big questions", the question of meaning isn't really answered by the existence of God. It is just pushed up a level. The presence of God may provide a meaning to human existence, but the fact that we have given validity to the question of external meaning forces us (or me, anyway) to then ask "what is the meaning of God's existence?" Certainly, there is meaning to God which is external to God. By definition (Christian definition, anyway), there is nothing external to God.

So, we're back to the same problem. What's the meaning of it all? And, if a God can provide meaning to his own existence, why is can't human beings?

Jamie

[sophie]

Nom : No, it means that atheists say there *is no deeper value of events,* a.k.a. God. WYSIWYG. Your argument assumes that some "deeper level of meaning" exists. You have not shown why anyone should accept that it does.OK.

[TerryTryon]

I posted challenge to those who claim that atheists have no meaning in their lives and were so eager to throw the word "worthless" at us who reject god. It seems that when challenged on their own turf, they have nothing to say.

I reiterate: A life lived with autonomy and without intellectual compromise is a thing of value and purpose. It has meaning intrinsically because it has integrity.

If one thinks of the very best payoff of Pascal's wager, what can one expect to gain by adopting the fake virtue of faith and jettisoning reason in favor of blind belief? Well, when one dies, that person gets an eternal life of praising a deity whose only purpose of existence seems to be the pleasure of being worshiped. One gets to be a sorry parasitic suckass for all of eternity! Worship seems to me, at least, to be a most abject, repugnant hook on which to hang the meaning of life.

What am I missing? Answer this challenge or stop making assertions you can't support!

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by sophie
OK.

Cryptic as always.

Cheers

p.s. Have you learned physics yet?