Where is the hope in atheism?

[gaara4158]

Significant for who? Significant for what? We get one shot to do what exactly?

No one can answer that for you. Is there anything you’d rather do than die, at this moment? Is there anything you’d like to do before you die? This life is your only chance to do those things.

Well...then prove me wrong. If there is no afterlife and we cease to exist after death, why then is life not futile?

Futile in what sense? If you don’t find significance in anything that eventually ends, that’s in some sense as incorrigible as firsthand sensory perception. All I can say is I’m sorry you feel that way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I say that atheists need to actually deal with the fact that atheism is harmful to some people.

lol

You respond with "atheism and nihilist, are two different things," which is irrelevant to anyone for whom atheism necessarily entails nihilism.

Those people are wrong, what do you want me to tell you?

Then we move on to crude assumptions about why people might find theism a more appealing framework. I have no idea what story you think I'm finding comfort in, since I mentioned above that I wasn't really Christian.

It doesn't have to be about you. You are literally stating here that the "appeal" of theism for people, is emotional. I sure understand that certain beliefs can bring psychological comfort...
But that doesn't make them true. I care about what's true.

And if I were, it wouldn't be because it's comfortable, but hey, let's caricaturize people we disagree with while complaining about other people caricaturizing us.

No caricatures here. Just responding to what you are saying.

And seriously, you've just assumed the burden of proof by equating atheism with reality.

In reality, there is no objective evidence for gods or anything supernatural. This is why you require "faith" to believe in those things.

Demonstrate for me that there's no transcendent dimension to reality that gives the universe meaning.

Atheism doesn't make the claim that such a thing does not exist. At best, it says that there is no evidence to believe there is.

 

[Skreeper]

Well...then prove me wrong. If there is no afterlife and we cease to exist after death, why then is life not futile?

Let me give you an analogy which may help you better understand why your reasoning is flawed:

I assume you've seen a movie or a tv show before. I guess you enjoyed at least some of them. Was your enjoyment diminishes by the fact that a movie eventually has to end? Do you think movies are only worth experiencing when they are infinite?

Why do you think life must be futile because it isn't infinite when you don't share the same sentiment for other things like movies?

Life is not futile because the journey and the experiences alone give it its worth.

 

[gaara4158]

But even as someone who doesn't necessarily believe in a traditional afterlife, I have to ask... we have one shot to do what, precisely? Buy into the illusion that any of our choices matter when everything will get wiped away sooner or later anyway? Even from my preferred panentheistic perspective, I have to wonder what the point of the whole thing is. The finite nature of life makes all of our choices and their consequences utterly insignificant, as far as I can tell.

I have a very hard time understanding people who claim not to value temporal significance. Is it pointless to eat a sandwich if eventually you’ll be finished? I don’t think so, but maybe some people do. I wonder how they survive, though.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This 'everything is worthless unless it's eternal' brand of theistic quasi-nihilism gets everything exactly backwards, with regard to the value of life. Scarcity is a basic economic concept that applies here.

If you find a diamond in a desert, you have something of value. That's life in the temporary view.

If you find a diamond in a desert made of diamonds, on a continent made of diamonds, on a planet made of diamonds, you have something worthless. That's life in the eternal view.

At the core of this thread there is an unearned assumption that eternity somehow magically imbues life with meaning, value and significance. It doesn't. It cheapens and degrades it.

 

[Silmarien]

I have a very hard time understanding people who claim not to value temporal significance. Is it pointless to eat a sandwich if eventually you’ll be finished? I don’t think so, but maybe some people do. I wonder how they survive, though.

A sandwich is a bad analogy, since you're asking from your perspective whereas the sandwich is the finite creature in this scenario. If anything, you should ask what is the point of being a sandwich (or to make it more coherent, the animal that became the sandwich), and that's a much more difficult question.

The point of eating a sandwich, on the other hand, is to provide your body with energy. The point of providing your body with energy is to continue living. The point of continuing living is... ??? So we can question what the point of eating a sandwich is in the context that all experience will end, not in the context that the sandwich itself will end.

And that's the problem, since on a naturalistic worldview, the only answer I see there is that we are evolutionarily programmed to value our lives and connections so that we can perpetuate the species. And the genuine point of perpetuating the species is where the whole thing really breaks down, because there's no actual reason that any species should exist at all. There may in fact be good reasons why they shouldn't, since ecosystems are at heart cycles of pain and death with life feeding off of life in a sacrificial frenzy.

If you find a diamond in a desert, you have something of value. That's life in the temporary view.

You have a piece of rock that we have arbitrarily attributed value to because we like the way it sparkles. There is no inherent value in tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms.

And I'm not a theistic quasi-nihilist. I was an actual nihilist, or at least heading in that direction.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You have a piece of rock that we have arbitrarily attributed value to because we like the way it sparkles. There is no inherent value in tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms.

That misses the important point about scarcity, of course.

But to the point that you are making here - you mean to tell me that...value judgements are necessarily subjective? Knock me over with a mouse fart.

That's not a problem for me. That's a problem for people who believe value can be magically prescribed from on high by a 'god' or other nebulous supernatural non-concept.

 

[Silmarien]

That misses the important point about scarcity, of course.

What important point about scarcity? Scarcity only matters because you have subjectively decided it matters. Your entire post was empty emotivism.

And I reject divine command theory. Of course value judgments are necessarily subjective, but this only means that they have no basis whatsoever in reality and are ultimately illusory if naturalism is true. It's all superstition and delusion. Might as well go back to believing in fairies if you think anything really matters.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What important point about scarcity?

That a thing becomes less valued the more you have of it. Pretty simple economic concept.

As it applies to the topic - if life exists on a timeline stretching to eternity, then your time on Earth is an infinitesimal speck of nothing on that line. Infinitely insignificant.

So you're right, maybe it wasn't a great analogy. A better analogy would be finding a diamond in a universe made of diamonds.

And of course value judgments are necessarily subjective, but this only means that they have no basis whatsoever in reality and are ultimately illusory if naturalism is true.

That is an utterly vacuous naked assertion and complete non-sequitor that you're going to have to substantiate somehow. I'm not going to just meet you there.

 

[gaara4158]

A sandwich is a bad analogy, since you're asking from your perspective whereas the sandwich is the finite creature in this scenario. If anything, you should ask what is the point of being a sandwich (or to make it more coherent, the animal that became the sandwich), and that's a much more difficult question.

The point of eating a sandwich, on the other hand, is to provide your body with energy. The point of providing your body with energy is to continue living. The point of continuing living is... ??? So we can question what the point of eating a sandwich is in the context that all experience will end, not in the context that the sandwich itself will end.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my sandwich analogy. We consume the bodily materials that temporarily give rise to our experiences just the same as we consume the sandwich that temporarily replenishes those materials. The answer to “why bother living” is the same as “why bother eating the sandwich.” Because you want to. Eating a sandwich and preserving your own life are rewarding in many of the same physiological ways; in fact, they aren't even necessarily separate endeavors. Now, you can opt out of life any time you want, but you’re physically wired not to want to do that. There's nothing waiting for you on the other side. You do what you want to do because you want to do it, and you want to do it because you're wired that way. Looking for motivation outside of your own physiological reward system is like looking for a digital camera's film. Digital cameras don't run on film, and humans don't choose what they want. If you disagree, explain why anyone would choose pedophilia.

And that's the problem, since on a naturalistic worldview, the only answer I see there is that we are evolutionarily programmed to value our lives and connections so that we can perpetuate the species. And the genuine point of perpetuating the species is where the whole thing really breaks down, because there's no actual reason that any species should exist at all. There may in fact be good reasons why they shouldn't, since ecosystems are at heart cycles of pain and death with life feeding off of life in a sacrificial frenzy.

The bluntest way I've seen this expressed is that our function in the universe is as mules for our genetic information. You do get it. It just doesn't seem to satisfy you. Not to sound like a broken record, but I truly have nothing to say to that but I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[gaara4158]

DP

 

[Silmarien]

That a thing becomes less valued the more you have of it. Pretty simple economic concept.

As it applies to the topic - if life exists on a timeline stretching to eternity, then your time on Earth is an infinitesimal speck of nothing on that line. Infinitely insignificant.

So you're right, it wasn't a great analogy. A better analogy would be finding a diamond in a universe made of diamonds.

You could take this in the other direction too. Life is just a chemically complex form of non-life, and intelligent life merely a matter of a sufficient number of neurons acting together to produce the illusion of conscious thought. We're pieces of carbon who made the error of thinking we were diamonds. Life is utterly insignificant because there is nothing special about it at all, nothing that separates it from non-life.

There is nothing to value, because in the end, there is nothing. No diamonds, no universe of diamonds. Just category errors.

That is an utterly vacuous naked assertion and complete non-sequitor that you're going to have to substantiate somehow. I'm not going to just meet you there.

You believe that something that is subjective can have a basis in reality? You believe it can be anything except illusory? The fact of the matter seems to be that purely material evolutionary processes underly everything that we value in life. We're being manipulated by mindless matter, and to what end? Perpetuation of the species simply for the sake of perpetuation, with no genuine purpose.

I'm sorry, but from within a subjective human value system, given naturalism, I think life is genuinely evil. Outside of that, obviously we're back to it not mattering one way or the other, but from where I'm standing, it's those of you who go on about how wonderful and awe-inspiring it is that are making utterly vacuous naked assertions.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You could take this in the other direction too. Life is just a chemically complex form of non-life, and intelligent life merely a matter of a sufficient number of neurons acting together to produce the illusion of conscious thought. We're pieces of carbon who made the error of thinking we were diamonds. Life is utterly insignificant because there is nothing special about it at all, nothing that separates it from non-life.

There is nothing to value, because in the end, there is nothing. No diamonds, no universe of diamonds. Just category errors.

Thankfully, I know what emergence is, so thinking in that manner is not an option for me.

You believe that something that is subjective can have a basis in reality?

My value judgements are a product of my cognitive faculties, in relation to the environments I occupy. Both of those things exist in reality. So, yes.

You believe it can be anything except illusory? The fact of the matter seems to be that purely material evolutionary processes underly everything that we value in life. We're being manipulated by mindless matter, and to what end? Perpetuation of the species simply for the sake of perpetuation, with no genuine purpose.

I'm sorry, but from within a subjective human value system, given naturalism, I think life is genuinely evil. Outside of that, obviously we're back to it not mattering one way or the other, but from where I'm standing, it's those of you who go on about how wonderful and awe-inspiring that are making utterly vacuous naked assertions.

I can see how someone would feel that way, if they believe the only 'genuine purpose' a life can have is one that is imposed on them by some nebulous, magical force outside the universe. Which of course, still leaves the puzzle of reliably gleaning what that purpose is, even granting that it exists.

I don't believe that, so I don't feel that way.

 

[Silmarien]

You do what you want to do because you want to do it, and you want to do it because you're wired that way. Looking for motivation outside of your own physiological reward system is like looking for a digital camera's film.

The problem is that some of us are actually disturbingly good at slipping past subjective perspectives, and then the physiological reward system is not good enough, because it's ultimately empty. That can have psychological consequences.

The bluntest way I've seen this expressed is that our function in the universe is as mules for our genetic information. You do get it. It just doesn't seem to satisfy you. Not to sound like a broken record, but I truly have nothing to say to that but I'm sorry you feel that way.

Don't worry, it's fine. The good thing about being able to slip in and out of subjective perspectives is that it becomes really obvious that naturalism is just another culturally informed way of looking at the world. It takes a while to escape from since it's our framework, but if you really want to tear it apart, you can.

It's finding the most solid replacement that's the tricky part.

 

[Silmarien]

Thankfully, I know what emergence is, so thinking in that manner is not an option for me.

Me too. It's naturalists sneaking in classical Aristotelianism and pretending they're not. Either that or it's a non-sequitur when applied to life and consciousness instead of to physical systems producing additional physical effects.

I can see how someone would feel that way, if they believe the only 'genuine purpose' a life can have is one that is imposed on them by some nebulous, magical force outside the universe. Which of course, still leaves the puzzle of reliably gleaning what that purpose is, even granting that it exists.

Again, not a divine command theorist, so none of this is really relevant.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Me too. It's naturalists sneaking in classical Aristotelianism and pretending they're not.

Or it's just a brute fact of nature, and we don't need to ascribe bizarre, clandestine motives to people, a propos of nothing.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Again, not a divine command theorist, so none of this is really relevant.

So it's not a problem for either of us. I'm glad we can leave it behind.

 

[gaara4158]

The problem is that some of us are actually disturbingly good at slipping past subjective perspectives, and then the physiological reward system is not good enough, because it's ultimately empty. That can have psychological consequences.

That... sounds like clinical depression, to be honest. There is no transcending subjectivity for the individual. The reward system either does its job or it doesn't. When it doesn't, we tend to get very nihilistic indeed.

Don't worry, it's fine. The good thing about being able to slip in and out of subjective perspectives is that it becomes really obvious that naturalism is just another culturally informed way of looking at the world. It takes a while to escape from since it's our framework, but if you really want to tear it apart, you can.

It's finding the most solid replacement that's the tricky part.

Hard naturalists get what they deserve when they try to argue that naturalism is actually correct. I'm fine sticking with it as a useful framework while the true nature of reality may be unknowable. What we see too often is people latching on to any worldview that has all the "unknowable" answers, just for closure's sake, and then trying to sell that worldview as the Truth. I'm fine with people telling themselves whatever they need to believe to get through the day; we all do that to some extent. I'm not fine with them telling me I need to believe the same lies they tell themselves and I will rip their arguments apart with alacrity every time.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are thoroughly confused.

Firstly, atheism isn't a worldview, religion or a philosophy. One can be atheist and have any number of views on life and meaning. That's a basic category error.

Secondly, you, not me, are the one who purports to derive their life's meaning from a 'god'. Therefor it is you, not me, whose life is without meaning if this 'god' doesn't exist. That's your problem, not mine.

So your response to a suicidal atheist who doesnt believe in a afterlife is what exactly?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are thoroughly confused.

Firstly, atheism isn't a worldview, religion or a philosophy.

Do atheist even know what atheism is? They are really quick about telling me what it isnt. Which is pretty much everything.