To Atheists

[michabo]

Anyway, in a nutshell, it is a pantheism wherein god is nonetheless a "self" who purposely forgets he even exists, in order to have fresh experiences.

It sounds like a form of afterlife suicide. But if it were available, I'm sure I would take advantage of it.

 

[JGL53]

It sounds like a form of afterlife suicide. But if it were available, I'm sure I would take advantage of it.

Except the theory is YOU are god and god is you and everything is god and god is everything. - Sort of a way of solving all problems in one fell swoop.

Buddhism just makes it even simpler by not personalizing ultimate reality and instead came up with the Nirvana idea and, naturally, Taoists with their concept of the "Tao". All are really the same idea, IMO - all are just pantheistic monism - or what I call panmonism (if G.Bush can make up new words, so can I.).

The western monotheistic religions with their bearded father god up in the clouds, who rules over his heavenly host, and we humans down on earth are his black sheep children, who he punishes for being bad and rewards for being good - the parent/child relationship kind of god - now that is a really psychopathological idea. Muslims, Jews, and christians are welcome to it.

 

[NCStein]

I've honestly never been more at peace with myself than I am an atheist. Religion has never really made any sense to me, and I'm not an atheist for emotional reasons ("What kind of God would take my child," etc.), but for logical reasons that took me a while to sort out. I find nothing about it depressing, and am quite happy, thank you.

 

[one love]

If you label me, I do not want anything to do with you.

 

[Zed]

Couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread but had to have some input:

I've never understood how people could draw the conclusion that if there is no afterlife then there is no point to life. ??? Doesn't it stand to reason that if there is no afterlife then that makes your time on Earth even more important as that's all we've got?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've never understood how people could draw the conclusion that if there is no afterlife then there is no point to life. ??? Doesn't it stand to reason that if there is no afterlife then that makes your time on Earth even more important as that's all we've got?

One would think so. I can think of three reasons why they might think this way.

I suspect that people who are taught to view that life only has worth or meaning as a preliminary (a "test", or something) to an all-meaningful afterlife will find themselves unable to relate to how people who take the death-is-final view view life as meaningful and precious. After all, if life is seen as merely a "test", that suggests that it is only a means to an end, which means that it only has meaning in terms of something else -- what it is a "test" for. Take that afterlife away, and life appears to be a means without an end, which makes it meaningless (i.e. pointless, without a purpose).

But the view that death-is-final does not view life as a pure means. It is also an end-in-itself. Life has meaning for us because life is the point of life. Life isn't just a test, and if we can be said to be tested through our trials in life we are tested "in the field", not "in the classroom".

Of course, some Christians may accept this argument and say instead that a life that doesn't provide an absolute guarantee of perfect bliss is disappointing. But those Christians must admit that this doesn't mean that life is meaningless -- just that life is a challenge.

And I suppose the third group may have difficulty seeing how anyone can have purposes that matter to them unless a God assigns it to them. This may be due to a difficulty in seeing how one's own chosen purposes can matter to oneself, which may relate back to the "life as a test" view. Or it could relate to the second view, which is that if one's purposes can be frustrated, then one will end up disappointed.

Anyway, my view is that life is finite, an end-in-itself, a challenge, and worth it!


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[JGL53]

...Anyway, my view is that life is finite, an end-in-itself, a challenge, and worth it!


eudaimonia,

M.

You sound like a rational, educated, and mentally healthy individual. It's a pity that folks like you are in such a minority.

So, anyhow, I congratulate your mother on doing such a good job.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You sound like a rational, educated, and mentally healthy individual. It's a pity that folks like you are in such a minority.

So, anyhow, I congratulate your mother on doing such a good job.

Yes, I think she did a great job. I'm sure I owe a lot to both my parents.

Thank you for your kind words.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Life is an end, indeed. Yet, we have seen and know that not all ends are final. That is, some ends may also be means to other ends. In fact, it seems that most ends are also means. Aristotle believed that there was only one final, ultimate end: happiness.

So I suppose, the real answer to the question of the point or purpose of life is happiness, if we are to agree with Aristotle. If we are not happy, then life seems pointless. I think this idea permeated your question, even though you may not have intended it.

If life is 50% crappy, then are you really happy? I think that's the idea at hand. Because if you aren't really happy, not really satisfied, then what's the point, right?

Furthermore, we also seem to want to make others happy. After all, doesn't making life better for others make us happy, knowing that future generations will be happier on account of our efforts? Isn't this one of the reasons people strive for the "advancement of our race"?

And after all, isn't that exactly what religions promise for our "afterlife" (as if existence after this life wasn't still life), everlasting bliss? Or, the same coin, but flipped over, the removal of suffering?

So, religious or not, happiness is the point to life. Happiness in this life, and hopefully (if you so believe), happiness in the life to come. It is the man who isn't happy who commits suicide, but for the sake of happiness (or the removal of suffering). It is the man who can't see his own self-worth, and the man who chooses not to make life worth living, who isn't happy. Not the man who doesn't believe in an afterlife (though it's entirely possible that an unhappy man may also not believe in an afterlife, but that may be purely coincidental).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Life is an end, indeed. Yet, we have seen and know that not all ends are final. That is, some ends may also be means to other ends. In fact, it seems that most ends are also means. Aristotle believed that there was only one final, ultimate end: happiness.

Yes, this is my view as well, with the qualification that Aristotle didn't refer to an emotional state when he spoke of happiness (eudaimonia). He meant something more like personal "flourishing". (Aristotle apparently believed that certain good feelings tend to accompany acts that contribute to one's flourishing, so eudaimonia entails something like happy feelings.)

So I suppose, the real answer to the question of the point or purpose of life is happiness, if we are to agree with Aristotle. If we are not happy, then life seems pointless.

I suppose it can seem that way, but with flourishing, one need not take an all-or-nothing view, as one might have to with the feeling of being "happy". Life can have purpose without that purpose being completely fulfilled in the moment.

So, religious or not, happiness is the point to life.

I'm not so sure that Aristotle's analysis applies to considerations of afterlives. His analysis was focused on the finite life of a human being. But you could be right.

It is the man who can't see his own self-worth, and the man who chooses not to make life worth living, who isn't happy. Not the man who doesn't believe in an afterlife (though it's entirely possible that an unhappy man may also not believe in an afterlife, but that may be purely coincidental).

True!

It seems that you do have a brain.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Brimshack]

(Firstly, this may be the wrong forum, and if it is my apologies but I think it may be correct.)

To atheists... isn't it very depressing to be what you are, an atheist? I remember when I was one, and everything was very disheartening. I mean, to believe that by some random chance humans were created,
and now you're on one planet out of millions or even billions, and life generally sucks. Sure, some things are good, but in general life isn't all that grand. You go to school, college, work, retire, and die. Or you can be homeless, or your life could be nothing but sex parties.

My point is, there is such a slim chance that you will leave any large mark in human history such as those we learn about in history textbooks, that what is the point of living? You're just another person out of billions, to eventually die and everything will go on. And when you die and your mostly bad life is over (this is more of an opinion, though regarding work, colleges, etc. there leaves little free time to do what you please), you're gone. Forever.

Is that depressing to you? When I was an atheist, all of these thoughts were circulating throughout my mind and I thought of suicide numerous times. I mean, without a God or an afterlife, what's the point of really living when life is, at the least, 50% crappy? That is what was on my mind, anyways. So... what about atheists in this forum?T

Have you ever held a kitten or smiled at a baby. Did the kitten purr? Did the baby smile back at you?

When the kitten stoped purring or the baby stopped smiling, did you regret your efforts? Did that moment of happiness become less profound because it was fleeting?*

The value of life is not a function of metaphysics. If you feel happy for one moment, that is reason to breathe. If you make another creature happy, that is reason to live. Nothing else is needed. Not a God in the skies, nor a place in eternity for your own soul.

Never make your happiness hostage to metaphysics. It's just not that important.