Where is the hope in atheism?

[Silmarien]

Their lives had no meaning -- and certainly they were free to make that decision for themselves... why should anyone else feel compelled to think that other people's personal decisions are applicable for their own lives?

I don't know. I'm interested in social commentary, not apologetics. I've been pretty up front about that since page 1, so I'm not sure why anyone is taking anything I say as a conversion attempt.

I just think that the type of non-theist who thinks that the world would be better if religion were eliminated ought to be aware of the consequences. There is no coherent answer to the sort of fullblown disillusionment that someone like Tolstoy experienced. I am not happy with the orthodoxy I see emerging in certain segments of the atheistic movement: if you are not one of us, you are an idiot, and if you are not happy to be one of us, then the problem is with you, because our worldview could never lead anywhere except to rainbows and kittens.

And what Christians believe may not necessarily be what others believe -- that is kind of central to what "non-Christians" are. Too many people (on both sides, to be sure) are trying a hard sell on folks who have already said "no thanks."

Well, if a non-theist can avoid Nietzschean conclusions without just closing their eyes and saying that they're unconvinced, I'd love to hear about it. I think the Aristotelian naturalists might be able to, but as far as I can tell, they're the only ones even trying to provide a coherent worldview. Everyone else seems to be subjectively deciding they can fly.

 

[bhsmte]

I think they can as long as they understand it won't last, but it seems that understanding is what can drive the yearning for something transcendent that does last. I understand not everyone feels that way though.

To some, when something has an apparent end, the time they do have, takes on more meaning.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't know. I'm interested in social commentary, not apologetics. I've been pretty up front about that since page 1, so I'm not sure why anyone is taking anything I say as a conversion attempt.

I'm not, although I can't speak for others. I'm speaking in terms of proselytizing in general.

I personally believe that it is up to all of us to find and assign meaning to our own lives. If someone wishes to do that through religious faith, good for them. If someone tries to push me towards that direction -- there may be a problem.

I'll argue apologetics with nearly anyone as an intellectual exercise -- Proverbs 27:17 is one of my favorite Bible verses for a reason. I only take it seriously when I think conversion is the goal...

I just think that the type of non-theist who thinks that the world would be better if religion were eliminated ought to be aware of the consequences.

100% agreed -- baby with the bathwater, and all that.

There is no coherent answer to the sort of fullblown disillusionment that someone like Tolstoy experienced. I am not happy with the orthodoxy I see emerging in certain segments of the atheistic movement: if you are not one of us, you are an idiot, and if you are not happy to be one of us, then the problem is with you, because our worldview could never lead anywhere except to rainbows and kittens.

Such an attitude is sadly prevalent on both sides -- not that that excuses it in the slightest. I fondly remember the good old days when I and other non-theists were referred to as a Child of the Devil, or something equally poetic.

Ah... truly the good ol' days...

 

[Chriliman]

To some, when something has an apparent end, the time they do have, takes on more meaning.

For sure, it's definitely meaningful to live in the now, but at the same time, once we come to the final conclusions of our different worldviews, we shouldn't ignore those conclusions as if we don't think they're actually going to happen. It's either a darkening fade into everlasting death or a brightening light into everlasting life.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not, although I can't speak for others. I'm speaking in terms of proselytizing in general.

Well, I'm a Platonist with an interest in Christian theology, i.e., the closest you can get to a Christian without actually being one, so not really interested in proselytization. I could have my status changed to "Pagan" and mean it in the classical sense, but I think that would just cause too much confusion in the opposite direction. (Also, I don't pay cult to the Roman gods, so classical atheist would probably be more appropriate. And then the screaming over the definition of atheism would really start! )

I personally believe that it is up to all of us to find and assign meaning to our own lives. If someone wishes to do that through religious faith, good for them. If someone tries to push me towards that direction -- there may be a problem.

Do we really think that this happens in a vacuum, though? If someone decides that the ultimate meaning in life is their stamp collection, does that not strike you as somewhat absurd?

I do agree that meaning has a strongly subjective component, but for it to be entirely so seems to discount the reality of disillusionment. If someone can wake up one morning and suddenly realize that their stamp collection does not actually mean anything in the greater scheme of things, what should we take away from that?

 

[bhsmte]

For sure, it's definitely meaningful to live in the now, but at the same time, once we come to the final conclusions of our different worldviews, we shouldn't ignore those conclusions as if we don't think they're actually going to happen. It's either a darkening fade into everlasting death or a brightening light into everlasting life.

As a general rule, when one has a finite period of time to do anything, the meaning elevates. I only had a certain amount of time to raise my kids, before they became adults, so that time took on an elevated meaning for me, to do the best job I could.

You can apply whatever meaning you like to a belief of an afterlife, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't change my main point.

 

[Chriliman]

As a general rule, when one has a finite period of time to do anything, the meaning elevates. I only had a certain amount of time to raise my kids, before they became adults, so that time took on an elevated meaning for me, to do the best job I could.

The meaning elevates because you have an important future goal in mind. A goal that’s achieved after the finite period of time ends.

 

[bhsmte]

The meaning elevates because you have an important future goal in mind. A goal that’s achieved after the finite period of time ends.

And to achieve the goal, you have a finite period of time to put in the work, or the goal is not achieved.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do we really think that this happens in a vacuum, though? If someone decides that the ultimate meaning in life is their stamp collection, does that not strike you as somewhat absurd?

Of course it would -- but what business is that of mine?

If I were a Christian, I'd probably say something along the lines of "God bless the weirdos, the goofballs, the outcasts, the malcontents, and the wackos -- this world is far more interesting with them in it."

As it is, I try not to fret too much about the choices other people make with their lives -- as long as those choices don't harm themselves or others, of course.

I do agree that meaning has a strongly subjective component, but for it to be entirely so seems to discount the reality of disillusionment. If someone can wake up one morning and suddenly realize that their stamp collection does not actually mean anything in the greater scheme of things, what should we take away from that?

That they changed their minds -- when is a person not allowed to do that?

I don't see how Mr. Stamp Collector is obligated in the slightest to justify his life choices to you, I, or anyone else but himself (again, so long as his stamp habit doesn't harm himself or others).

 

[Chriliman]

And to achieve the goal, you have a finite period of time to put in the work, or the goal is not achieved.

Yes, and the goal is analogous to the after life, where you reap all the rewards from your labor in this finite life. Maybe you're not making that connection though, if yes, then great, if not, okay.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, and the goal is analogous to the after life, where you reap all the rewards from your labor in this finite life. Maybe you're not making that connection though, if yes, then great, if not, okay.

Since i have no reason to believe an after life exists, no i am not making the connection. I know i have this life, hence making the most of it.

 

[Silmarien]

As it is, I try not to fret too much about the choices other people make with their lives -- as long as those choices don't harm themselves or others, of course.

That's a dangerous qualifier, since now you need to decide what actually counts as harm to oneself or others. I see all of relativism as actively harmful and am therefore quite happy to criticize it at every opportunity. And a Christian could potentially see not being Christian as self-harm.

That they changed their minds -- when is a person not allowed to do that?

I don't see how Mr. Stamp Collector is obligated in the slightest to justify his life choices to you, I, or anyone else but himself (again, so long as his stamp habit doesn't harm himself or others).

Is disillusionment actually a matter of changing one's mind, though? This happens to me fairly often--something seems subjectively all important, and then in a flash it just isn't anymore. If you're completely caught up in whether your favorite sports teams wins a tournament, and then realize that it doesn't matter, does that have the same weight as any other subjective determination of meaning?

I don't know why you immediately think that talking about this involves justifying life choices to one another. I'm just trying to determine how well subjectivism works at explaining what's going on here. It seems to ignore quite a bit.

 

[apogee]

As a general rule, when one has a finite period of time to do anything, the meaning elevates. I only had a certain amount of time to raise my kids, before they became adults, so that time took on an elevated meaning for me, to do the best job I could.

As a father, I completely relate to this, well at least for two of the three, I only had 8 minutes with one of them, hardly long enough to make many mistakes, but i can still say those 8 minutes may as well have been 8 decades for their impact me, so in some senses, finite time is both heightening and irrelevant.

You can apply whatever meaning you like to a belief of an afterlife, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't change my main point.

I don’t tend to concern myself with the idea of an afterlife, and have no major problem with the idea of simply not existing, after all, by current estimates I’ve already spent 13.8 billion years not existing, so I’m a bit of an expert.

I would however say that, if I believe my words and actions, have the potential for eternal consequences on other people, then that should really be influencing how I lead my life, much more than it currently is. Not that I really consider it my job to infect people with my own peculiar ailment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's a dangerous qualifier, since now you need to decide what actually counts as harm to oneself or others. I see all of relativism as actively harmful and am therefore quite happy to criticize it at every opportunity.

To which I say... good for you.

And a Christian could potentially see not being Christian as self-harm.

Many of them do -- hence the proselytizing.

Is disillusionment actually a matter of changing one's mind, though? This happens to me fairly often--something seems subjectively all important, and then in a flash it just isn't anymore.

Happens to a lot of us -- so what's the problem?

If you're completely caught up in whether your favorite sports teams wins a tournament, and then realize that it doesn't matter, does that have the same weight as any other subjective determination of meaning?

Who or what determines what that weight was in the first place?

I don't know why you immediately think that talking about this involves justifying life choices to one another. I'm just trying to determine how well subjectivism works at explaining what's going on here. It seems to ignore quite a bit.

Well, if you want to propose an objective standard, the question becomes where that standard comes from...

 

[Silmarien]

To which I say... good for you.



Many of them do -- hence the proselytizing.



Happens to a lot of us -- so what's the problem?



Who or what determines what that weight was in the first place?



Well, if you want to propose an objective standard, the question becomes where that standard comes from...

If you're going to reply to a post, it's generally a good idea to not break it up into tiny bits and offer contentless one sentence responses. If you don't want to have a conversation, just say so. Or don't say anything at all. That works too.

But, yeah. If you think that genuine meaning can revolve as equally around what your favorite sports team is doing as it can around something like your family (without there being something terribly wrong about your priorities), that's the nihilism I keep on seeing. And I think we've established that anyone who thinks this is harmful is certainly justified in telling you so.

 

[bhsmte]

If you're going to reply to a post, it's generally a good idea to not break it up into tiny bits and offer contentless one sentence responses. If you don't want to have a conversation, just say so. Or don't say anything at all. That works too.

But, yeah. If you think that genuine meaning can revolve as equally around what your favorite sports team is doing as it can around something like your family (without there being something terribly wrong about your priorities), that's the nihilism I keep on seeing. And I think we've established that anyone who thinks this is harmful is certainly justified in telling you so.

Did I miss something? Who claimed following sports teams, was as meaningful as raising and spending time with a family?

You keep saying something is harmful, but have yet to see you give a valid reason as to why. You also have failed to demonstrate this objective standard and how it is indeed, objective.

You seem miffed some disagree with your personal ideology. Do others disagreeing with you, somehow harm you, or keep you from living your personal life the way you choose?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you're going to reply to a post, it's generally a good idea to not break it up into tiny bits and offer contentless one sentence responses. If you don't want to have a conversation, just say so. Or don't say anything at all. That works too.

I prefer to address issues point by point, so that people can clearly see exactly what I'm responding to without having to wade through a block of text. If you find this upsetting or disconcerting, then you have my promise... you'll get used to it.

But, yeah. If you think that genuine meaning can revolve as equally around what your favorite sports team is doing as it can around something like your family (without there being something terribly wrong about your priorities), that's the nihilism I keep on seeing. And I think we've established that anyone who thinks this is harmful is certainly justified in telling you so.

Agreed on all points. The world is full of people whom, in my opinion, have their priorities severely out of whack. And if I thought those priorities were causing harm to themselves or to others, I'd feel justified in telling them so.

Pretty much exactly what I said earlier. So what's the problem?

 

[Silmarien]

Did I miss something? Who claimed following sports teams, was as meaningful as raising and spending time with a family?

Every subjectivist, since the two things can be equally subjectively meaningful. Your sports team can in fact be more meaningful to you than your family, if that's the way the cards fall. And there's no objective reason why they shouldn't.

You keep saying something is harmful, but have yet to see you give a valid reason as to why. You also have failed to demonstrate this objective standard and how it is indeed, objective.

Define "harmful." Then give me a valid reason why suicide is "harmful" that doesn't assume that life is objectively better than death. The fact that you won't be able to do so is precisely why I view your position as harmful.

I discussed possible objective standards pages ago. You refused to engage entirely, for reasons that escape me. I don't see the point in trying again.

You seem miffed some disagree with your personal ideology. Do others disagreeing with you, somehow harm you, or keep you from living your personal life the way you choose?

Yes, any ideology that refuses to insist that women are of equal intrinsic value to men is potentially harmful to me. Relativism is such an ideology, as it makes "equal intrinsic value" a matter of personal opinion, and given how civilizations usually oppress women, I don't relish our odds if public opinion turns against us once more and you guys have nothing of any real value to say.

I prefer to address issues point by point, so that people can clearly see exactly what I'm responding to without having to wade through a block of text. If you find this upsetting or disconcerting, then you have my promise... you'll get used to it.

I'm already used to it. It's an obstruction tactic used by quite a few of the atheists on this forum, so I was surprised since you'd previously seemed reasonable. If you're not going to give a response that actually furthers conversation, why bother at all?

Agreed on all points. The world is full of people whom, in my opinion, have their priorities severely out of whack. And if I thought those priorities were causing harm to themselves or to others, I'd feel justified in telling them so.

Pretty much exactly what I said earlier. So what's the problem?

I don't know. You were the one who initially had a problem, though we now seem to have established that proselytization is perfectly fine and Christians justified in declaring your existence meaningless, since they might see your approach to meaning as a case of self-harm. So I'm not sure why you were speaking out against this before.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Every subjectivist, since the two things can be equally subjectively meaningful. Your sports team can in fact be more meaningful to you than your family, if that's the way the cards fall. And there's no objective reason why they shouldn't.

Precisely -- and If I were someone besides them, I'd see a serious problem with that... which I am, so I do.

Define "harmful." Then give me a valid reason why suicide is "harmful" that doesn't assume that life is objectively better than death. The fact that you won't be able to do so is precisely why I view your position as harmful.

Who says it is? From the terminally ill person who signs a "DNR" order, to the soldier who jumps on a grenade in order to save his buddies, to the people trapped at the top of the World Trade Center who thought jumping out the window was a better alternative than facing the fire... There are situations where death may very well be the "better" (for lack of a better term) option.

I've never been in any of those situations (and I hope I never am, obviously) so I can't say what I would do... can you?

I'm already used to it. It's an obstruction tactic used by quite a few of the atheists on this forum, so I was surprised since you'd previously seemed reasonable. If you're not going to give a response that actually furthers conversation, why bother at all?

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I admit I have no idea why it seems to infuriate you so, but I think the conversation has been progressing forward quite nicely.

I don't know. You were the one who initially had a problem, though we now seem to have established that proselytization is perfectly fine and Christians justified in declaring your existence meaningless, since they might see your approach to meaning as a case of self-harm. So I'm not sure why you were speaking out against this before.

When did I ever say it wasn't fine? When did I ever say they weren't justified? When, for that matter, did I say or imply that my opinion on their justification is worth a hill of beans? It certainly isn't to them.

Christians are going to justify their actions regardless of what you or I have to say about it. If they feel justified in engaging me (and clearly they do, else why would they?), I see no need to deny them their right to express their concerns for my well being.

Of course, I will respond. And my experience with them has been that a lot of them don't seem too fond of me when it becomes clear that I don't find their proselytizing as compelling as they do.

 

[Silmarien]

Precisely -- and If I were someone besides them, I'd see a serious problem with that... which I am, so I do.

Where's the problem?

Who says it is? From the terminally ill person who signs a "DNR" order, to the soldier who jumps on a grenade in order to save his buddies, to the people trapped at the top of the World Trade Center who thought jumping out the window was a better alternative than facing the fire... There are situations where death may very well be the "better" (for lack of a better term) option.

I've never been in any of those situations (and I hope I never am, obviously) so I can't say what I would do... can you?

By saying that in specific situations, death may be the better option, you're reaffirming that under normal circumstances, it is not. I am not talking about extreme scenarios (none of which qualify as suicide)--I'm talking about the suicidally depressed person for whom death is subjectively better than life. If the preference for life over death is merely subjective, then there's no reason for them not to kill themselves.

When did I ever say it wasn't fine? When did I ever say they weren't justified? When, for that matter, did I say or imply that my opinion on their justification is worth a hill of beans? It certainly isn't to them.

Why are we talking about proselytization at all if you think it's perfectly acceptable? If someone starts complaining about something to me, I tend to assume they have a problem with it.