Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If something always existed, then nothing need make it.Me either, but I do know it's illogical to think absolutely nothing could make something. So maybe, at least we can be willing to throw that theory out in favor of some eternal existence as the causal force.
You dont have to do anything, but you are the one that keeps claiming something cant come from nothing. To supportnthis claim, it may be beneficial to show nothing has ever existed.
You are creating the idea of "meaning of life". You are presupposing it exists, in any sense, then address it.My "ill chosen words" come straight out of the school of philosophy known as absurdism, as I would have thought obvious from the fact that I've alluded to it and mentioned it out right a number of times. The Absurd in this sense specifically refers to the human need to seek value and meaning in a universe devoid of either. Take a look at this article on Albert Camus if you'd like to learn more on the subject.
I am not saying that belief in atheism means that a particular person sees no meaning in life; I am saying that if atheism is true, then there is objectively no meaning in anything. None of this is a matter of projecting and biases--I did not get these views from the Christian community but the atheistic one.
If that works for you, stick to it. For others, there is something to be said about being honest with one's self and simply not being able to reconcile a belief, if they dont believe it is true.
You are creating the idea of "meaning of life". You are presupposing it exists, in any sense, then address it.
It is biased and projecting.
You can create a problem/idea/concept and then talk about it all you want, but you can't say it inherently exists and then talk about it in any objective sense.
Christians, too.I also don't know why you keep on saying I'm biased and projecting. I spent a fair amount of time in the intellectual orbit of the atheist existentialists, so my assumption until fairly recently was that objective meaning did not exist. If atheism as an intellectual movement has devolved to the point where nobody even cares about these questions anymore, that's unfortunate. Atheists used to have something interesting to say.
Atheism does not have morality as meaningless, nor life is absurd as a consequence, despite whatever flowery language you surround it with. If you say it does, which is why you appear to see it as unhappy, that's your meaning and you have injected it with that unhappiness. But it comes from a biased POV.Because atheism inherently entails that life is absurd, morality is meaningless, and humanity a maddened animal that, due to the whims of evolution, cannot help but grasp for a transcendence that ultimately does not exist.
It's entirely possible to think that all of that is true and not be happy about it. There's no cognitive dissonance, unless you're going to claim that any atheist who ever dabbled in Absurdism is not a real atheist.
There's really nothing dishonest about Pascal's Wager, at least when pulled out of the "hedging your bets" framework. Doubt and disbelief are two entirely different things. Being able to step back and ask, "And what if I'm wrong?" isn't a sign of dishonesty; it's a sign of sanity.
I've been both a practicing and non-practicing theist, and I was pretty Pascalian during the transition period. It wasn't a matter of trying to believe when I didn't; it's that committing yourself to theism in more than just some vague sense is a gamble. You're suddenly invested and the question of whether or not you're right is much more relevant.
When did I say that it inherently existed? I explicitly said that if atheism is true, objective meaning does not exist, so I'm not sure why you think I'm presupposing its existence at all.
I also don't know why you keep on saying I'm biased and projecting. I spent a fair amount of time in the intellectual orbit of the atheist existentialists, so my assumption until fairly recently was that objective meaning did not exist. If atheism as an intellectual movement has devolved to the point where nobody even cares about these questions anymore, that's unfortunate. Atheists used to have something interesting to say.
Christians, too.
Atheism does not have morality as meaningless, nor life is absurd as a consequence, despite whatever flowery language you surround it with. If you say it does, which is why you appear to see it as unhappy, that's your meaning and you have injected it with that unhappiness. But it comes from a biased POV.
You've yet to show how it inherently entails either of those.
That's cool.
My comment was geared towards the Christians that will tell a former Christian (now atheist), you were never a real Christian, you didn't try hard enough to find God, you didn't study the bible properly, etc. etc. etc.
These types of folks, just struggle that someone else doesn't agree with their personal faith belief and they can't reconcile something in their mind as true, when they don't believe it is even close to true.
Yes, Christian scholarship has somewhat degenerated into a polemical mess as well, but there's still some great work out there. Mostly coming out of England.
1) If the Absurd is defined as the human need to seek meaning in a universe that is devoid of meaning, human life is inherently absurd as long as 1) humans seek meaning, and 2) the universe is devoid of meaning. I really do not understand how anyone can fail to see a conflict between these two premises.
2) If there is no meaning, then morality is by definition meaningless. It's a matter of personal preference, cultural biases, or evolutionary psychology. Either way, poke it with a stick long enough and the whole house of cards comes falling down. If rape is only taboo because it was a poor reproductive strategy, it could conceivably have been otherwise. This is not in and of itself an argument against atheism, but it is certainly a difficulty for it as a feasible worldview.
Oh, absolutely. I don't condone that type of behavior at all.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment? I thought you were responding to the appeal to Pascal's Wager--if so, it's worth pointing out that Pascal's Wager was initially aimed at agnostics, not atheists. It's for fence sitters, not for people who have made up their minds.
It is only when, a certain group need to negatively judge a non believer, make statements that go completely against well evidenced reality and or deny well evidenced science, is when I will question someone.
Agreed, but keep in mind that all of those things apply to New Atheists as well, who will attack all theists as delusional, deny the well-evidenced reality that consciousness exists, and go after atheistic scientists like Denis Noble for challenging their particular metaphysical commitments. So this particular problem isn't exactly one sided!
I see a connection between the two premises, because that philosophy assumes that humans seeks meaning.1) If the Absurd is defined as the human need to seek meaning in a universe that is devoid of meaning, human life is inherently absurd as long as 1) humans seek meaning, and 2) the universe is devoid of meaning. I really do not understand how anyone can fail to see a conflict between these two premises.
You keep leaving out the word "objective", where it necessarily has to be.2) If there is no meaning, then morality is by definition meaningless. It's a matter of personal preference, cultural biases, or evolutionary psychology. Either way, poke it with a stick long enough and the whole house of cards comes falling down. If rape is only taboo because it was a poor reproductive strategy, it could conceivably have been otherwise. This is not in and of itself an argument against atheism, but it is certainly a difficulty for it as a feasible worldview.
If you cannot find yourself able to imagine/role-play the scenario (not how, whether it is plausible, etc), please don't comment or vote; it's not a debate.
Thought challenges fail if they turn into a "legitimacy challenge".So, basically, you are saying that we must agree with a flawed premise in order to comment here.
That is not very rational. If you were positing a fair thought challenge, then you would not fear an opposing view point. Truth does not have to fear those who attempt to oppose it.
I see a connection between the two premises, because that philosophy assumes that humans seeks meaning.
Therefore, if you accept that, you're entering things already accepting humans seek meaning.
Since atheism doesn't have anything to do with humans seeking meaning, I'm not sure why you're using that as evidence to support why you'd be unhappy as an atheist.
You keep leaving out the word "objective", where it necessarily has to be.
However, I can see that if you keep asserting issues/problems into things, you'll have non-happy thoughts about them.
I'm just not sure why you'd do that, if you are trying to come from a non-biased POV.
You are conflating (making) sense and meaning.Seeking meaning appears to be a defining trait in our species. If it weren't, we wouldn't have looked at the stars and seen constellations there. We wouldn't have developed astrology and other elaborate fortune telling systems. We wouldn't have the ability to convey meaning through our languages or explore it through our myths and literature. We would have no science, because we would not care to try to make sense of the universe.
One of the few interesting objections to theism is that it reflects the very human need to see meaning and patterns where none actually exist. I disagree with the argument, since it undercuts the very concept of rationality and, if taken seriously, would render scientific endeavor void as well, but the realization that humans have always been obsessed with meaning is one of the foundations of atheism. How else would you explain away all of the world's mythologies and religions?
It doesn't require that anymore than becoming a Christian requires checking your brain at the door. Don't know why you would insinuate that.Well , I honestly didn't realize that becoming an atheist required checking your brain at the door. You're pretty much telling me that I'd be a happy little atheist if I simply didn't think about anything, which may well be true, but thinking is really not a bias!
Anyway, that I was talking about objective morality was implied by the fact that I mentioned various theories of subjective morality as alternatives. I find moral relativism very troubling regardless of whether or not morality is grounded in anything objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?