Ask an Atheist

Irrelevant. I have ideals, even if they are not specifically theistic ones. The issue here isn't if I have the same range of ideals as Christians (or other theists) do, but if I have a range of ideals at all.

Of course, I could also point out that theistic purposes in our godless universe are either pointless or at best placebo-like, so it's not like I'm missing out on much.

There is no "must" here. Purpose for an atheist may be biocentric, as it is for me. Purpose for me isn't about mere desire.

That's a tricky question to answer. I'm strongly influenced by Ayn Rand's ideas, but I don't fit neatly into a box labelled "Objectivist". I like much of the broader Greek/Aristotelian philosophical tradition, and so I usually call myself a Eudaimonist, but in some contexts Objectivist may be appropriate enough.

You don't seriously mean to suggest that hope is only a theistic issue?

It's a human issue. Anyone can experience hope. Christians only have one specific form of hope.

The point of hoping is to avoid despair and to have the psychological resources to make the most of one's existence. Despair is anti-life and anti-flourishing. Hope need not be for eternal life, but for life of any desirable sort.

Montalban, are you trying to argue that only stasis can be considered relevant, because things mustn't change or transform? :scratch head:

I must confess that I don't quite understand your perspective. If life was eternal rather than finite, then every single moment would be completely meaningless in relation to infinity.

Why do you even have ideals?

You could, but then at the very least you're here to argue in truth that everyone's purpose is pointless

Why has your biology allowed you to realise that there's no more purpose than it?

I was just curious. Every Objectivist I've argued against has been impossible to argue against!!!

Each has arrived at some conclusion, and therefore thinks that their conclusion is logical.

You seriously mean to suggest that you think 'hope' is biological?

Only one? Is this a game of numbers?

For what purpose?

I never understand people arguing with purpose to argue that they have no real purpose! It's illogical.

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

So there's a thread going on in 'Exploring Christianity' Where the OP invited xtians to ask questions regarding atheism. This seems to be a more fitting place for such a discussion. So...

Hi! I'm RealityPixie and I'm an athiest!

Got a question about atheism? Wanna have a debate? Want to clear some things up about your religion? Or just looking to understand the atheistic world view?

Well here I am, your friendly neighbourhood atheist at your service! I dont claim to be an expert, but it seems there are a few of us floating around, and I'm sure the others will also be happy to help with your questions.

The only thing I ask from you is that if you provide a quote, statistic or any other information that is not your own thought, you must be willing to cite if it is asked of you. You don't have to write it out like a research paper, but if somebody asks where you got your info from you must be willing to supply the source, otherwise such info will be null and void.


Love;

Your friendly neighbourhood spider- I mean atheist

Montalban, are you trying to argue that only stasis can be considered relevant, because things mustn't change or transform? :scratch head:

I must confess that I don't quite understand your perspective. If life was eternal rather than finite, then every single moment would be completely meaningless in relation to infinity.