What is the meaning of life for atheists?

the real ramon

Just wondering, do atheists think there is meaning in the universe? If so, what meaning does it have? Is there any agreement? If not, then why a universe at all?

As a corollary, is it possible that there's more to life than simple atoms in the eyes of atheists, could you believe there's something extra, something special, in addition to atoms, that separates life from non-life?

Zombrex

the real ramon wrote:

If not, then why a universe at all?

Bit of a loaded question. Who says there has to be any meaning to it?

I dropped my toast at coffee today, it landed butter side down (typical!). Did it land butter side down for a reason? Was it part of some plan, some intelligent design to piss me off at lunch? Is there meaning to the way it fell or landed? Or did it just land that way, due to the friction of the air and the way it fell?

I can't speak for "athiests" as it isn't a belief system or religion. Atheism doesn't instruct you what to believe. But personally I don't think there is any meaning or particular significance to the way things happen in nature.

the real ramon wrote:

As a corollary, is it possible that there's more to life than simple atoms in the eyes of atheists, could you believe there's something extra, something special, in addition to atoms, that separates life from non-life?

Again, depends on what you mean by "special". Do you mean pre-planned, designed? Doubtful. Doesn't mean life isn't incredabley fasinating.

It reminds me of a discussion I had with my dad once on a hill top in Wicklow. He was basically saying "Look at the beauty around us, how can you not believe there was some higher power behind all this". My response was that the beauty around us is infinately more beautiful and wonderous to me preciesely because it developed naturally. It would be very dissappointing to find out that some all powerful God or higher entity just created everything in one instant because he felt like doing that. Where is the "special" in that.

I would not get impressed if a builder errects a slab of concrete in the ground. But the the Giant's Causeway in N.I, now that is impressive, not because it is particularly spectacular structure (a builder could make a copy in a weekend), but because these interesting effects appeared completely naturally.

There is infinate beauty in nature, in the way nature arranges itself. In the way atoms join together, in the way stars expand, the way life evolves. To me the idea that this is happening due to some plan or intelligence detracts greatly from this beauty, rather than enhancing it in anyway.

Dades

I'm happy not to believe there is a meaning, or any particular force or reason behind our existence.
Even if there were, we wouldn't know what it was anyway.

I think the Vulcans said it best...

Live long, and prosper...

Red Hand

There is no meaning. Live life, like any other animal.

Beruthiel

I also believe there is no meaning to it, why do humans require one?
we are born, we live, we die, like everything else on the planet.
we should all just make the most of it and enjoy the ride while we are here.

Morrigan

When I was an athiest I believed life etc. was all just a happy (?) accident. I just put my head down and got on with the task of fulfilling the expectations around me (except the religious ones).

And I believed in science.

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain

Dades

Morrigan wrote:

When I was an athiest I believed life etc. was all just a happy (?) accident.

And now?

Canis Lupus

No.

Morrigan

The Atheist wrote:

And now?

Now, it's a happy accident that is suffused with an underlying sense, I believe. I'm not such a nihilist anymore. I don't think it's that straightforward. But I still believe in the possibility that this belief of mine is down to a psychological need to believe, a symptom of the human brain's chemistry.
That's why I say I'm not such a nihilist anymore.

toiletduck

i dont believe there's any meaning to life or to the universe but it doesnt bother me

Tar.Aldarion

We live, we die. We are ashes or dust. That's about it to be honest.
Enjoy your wink of conscious existance mon ami.

the real ramon

Wicknight wrote:

There is infinate beauty in nature, in the way nature arranges itself. In the way atoms join together, in the way stars expand, the way life evolves. To me the idea that this is happening due to some plan or intelligence detracts greatly from this beauty, rather than enhancing it in anyway.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly there. I wasn't in any way asking if there was a plan, design or higher power. What I was trying to get at was is there anything, a sprk if you will, which happened naturally, which divided life from non-life?

the real ramon

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

We live, we die. We are ashes or dust. That's about it to be honest.
Enjoy your wink of conscious existance mon ami.

Definitely best to enjoy it. Life is what you make it. I think that was from a Talk Talk song.

I choose to believe there's a special spark to life. Probably out of psychological need. No meaning or non-existence after death also seems to nihilistic for me. I'd be happier beieving life is special and all life lives on after death.

Thanks to everyone for answering my question honestly BTW.:D

samb

the real ramon wrote:

.What I was trying to get at was is there anything, a sprk if you will, which happened naturally, which divided life from non-life?

The definition of Life is not easily defined. Viruses do not reproduce on there own, etc it is not clear whether we should consider them alive. So to answer your question I don't think there is any spark that magically seperates live from non-life?

Zillah

In scientific terms, there is nothing inherently different between life and other matter. A lifeform is simply an incredibly complex electro-chemical reaction that has the capacity to reproduce. Ultimately its all matter, based on the same sub atomic particles. Get small enough and everything is the same.

As for the "meaning" of life? Well, my reluctant opinion is that the very idea of a purpose is naive and pointless, we're just astounding accidents and the universe is an incredible experiment in chaos. It'd be nice to imagine more, but I simply can't ignore my education.

Beruthiel

the real ramon wrote:

I'd be happier beieving life is special and all life lives on after death

it does
the millions of atoms which make up your body will be around for a long, long time after your death, eventually they will make up something else, so in a way, you will always be here...

Morrigan

^ That's how I see it too...

Raiser

For me the best analogy concerning heaven/afterlife etc. is like Q-ing up for a lifetime for tickets in the company of strange & pious people to an event that is never going to happen because said event is based on rumours and hearsay from ancient times.

Second to that I believe that the Universe is so vast and that we are so insignificant that we will all die none the wiser - just as Socrates, Aristotle, Newton and Gallileo passed on without ever finding out all of the answers, so will Hawking, and every Cardinal, Bishop, Pope, Rabbi, Preacher and sin-burdened-believer alive today move on without ever being enlightened on a Universal level.

Thirdly I believe in tolerance and just as religious folks are entitled to their faith and to freely worship - so too am I entitled to my beliefs. I regard it as a certain intolerance when religious people condemn us non-believers. But I am even more incredulous when faced with the spectacle of all of the World religions existing just mere borders away from each other while steadfastly maintaining that they have exclusivity on the one true God and a first class ticket, with front row seats, to the opening night of the Afterlife.

Finally its probably important to say that this post is a direct response to the original posters query on how atheists think - its not my intention to cause offence to anyone and I hope my views will be read and considered on that basis.

Dades

Good points, well made.

the real ramon

Raiser wrote:

Thirdly I believe in tolerance and just as religious folks are entitled to their faith and to freely worship - so too am I entitled to my beliefs. .

I thoroughly agree with you. I was trying to expand my knowledge on what Atheists think - I was fairly ignorant of that: just knew atheists didn't believe in God, what else Atheists think I didn't know. I didn't mean to come accross as attacking you in any way.

everything else you said are good points too.

so you know me a bit better my head says atheist, my heart says spark, and i prefer to go with my heart on this one. we will never know as you said and my position on belief is your guess is as good as mine!

Tobias Greeshman

Raiser definitely made some interesting points there.

I used to be an Atheist and as far as a meaning to life, well I always thought of it in a sort of hedonistic sense. Enjoy the body and mind you have, use them to their full potential because you only have a limited time with them. Which is pretty much a point that's already being echoed anyway.

kiffer

the real ramon wrote:

Just wondering, do atheists think there is meaning in the universe? If so, what meaning does it have? Is there any agreement? If not, then why a universe at all?

Right, I'm not great at getting my point across online so if what I say next makes little or poor sense stick with me for a little while and I'll try to word things better.

"What is the meaning of life" is a question that people have been asking since the dawn of time...
You now are asking what Athiests think the meaning of the universe is ...
Well I have often wondered what believers think the meaning and reason are?
"If there are no gods what is the reason for the universe?"
Um... the existance of a god does not tell us why the universe is here.
The bible does not tell us why God made the Earth... religion does not give any more reasons for the existance of the universe than science does... It just gives a supposed mechanism by which the world was created, the will of God.[1]
But it does not tell us why it was done...
I feel this is the question that is asked of Atheists.
I think this is a non question.
Turned round, and pointed at a Christian, "What is the meaning of the universe?"
The answer I would expect would be something to do with God creating the universe[1]...
but again does this tell us why? or what the meaning is?
Think of a artist, they've made a wonderful creation, and some one looking at the picture asks, "What does it mean?" and the person next to them responds, "The artists name is Paul..."
This doesn't answer the question...

I think one of the key things is that with out gods there is no need for a meaning to the universe...
Does my life need meaning? as an individual I need meaning in my own life, just like every one else does... but does life in a general sense ... that of all organisms need a meaning? I don't even think the question makes sense any more...

the real ramon wrote:

As a corollary, is it possible that there's more to life than simple atoms in the eyes of atheists, could you believe there's something extra, something special, in addition to atoms, that separates life from non-life?

Is there some thing that separates life from non-life?
Special? Yes. Magical? No.
Chemistry is not simple ... I wish there was such a thing as simple atoms...

[1](Either as a literal 7 day event, or as a metaphor for the creation of the universe by god at the big bang)

the real ramon

kiffer wrote:

I think one of the key things is that with out gods there is no need for a meaning to the universe...
Does my life need meaning? as an individual I need meaning in my own life, just like every one else does... but does life in a general sense ... that of all organisms need a meaning? I don't even think the question makes sense any more...

Very interesting point, I'd never really thought of it that way before. Meaning for a dog (without the need of a dog to think about this) would be very different to a human.

I guess I've just been influenced too much by a friend who describes himself as an Atheist but I think would be better described as a Nihilist: he focusses on the non-existence after death and what he sees as the pointlessness of life.

Atheism, though, I can see now is a very life-affirming (if that's the right word) view, and I can see the benefit and incorporate it into my Eclectic Agnosticism.

Thanks all again (and I'm thinking I should spend less time around this particular friend of mine!)

Rev Hellfire

The meaning of the life and atheism are totally unconnected making the question kind of point less. You may as well ask what do stamp collectors think the meaning of life is.

I'm curious as what you actually mean by 'meaning of the universe' would it be 'purpose' you refer to or is it some other more esoterical idea you have in mind.

For example when I make a slice of toast, the toast has no meaning its just that I'm hungry. The same is true of life the question just doesnt make sense.

staple

If you had to dig a hole every day and fill it in the next day, would you go on doing that? Wouldn't the futility of it all get to you? So why go on living? It's all meaningless. What is the point in doing anything? Why not just give up? Reading Viktor Frankl's book 'Man's Search for Meaning', he reckons we all need meaning, but how do you pick a meaning/reason to live and then devote time and energy to it when you know ultimately it's all dust?

This is not an urge for you all to commit suicide, it is a question from someone with occassional despair.

Dades

staple wrote:

how do you pick a meaning/reason to live and then devote time and energy to it when you know ultimately it's all dust?

You know when you go on holidays they will end in a week or two. Doesn't stop you from enjoying that holiday, does it?

Requiring a meaning to life is a selfish notion, unless it involves leaving the world a better place than as you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same.

staple

The Atheist wrote:

You know when you go on holidays they will end in a week or two. Doesn't stop you from enjoying that holiday, does it?

Well, yes it does a bit because I can't stop thinking. Life is not like a holiday for most people is it? It's full of work and disappointments and grief. And if you do enjoy material wealth, you have to consider all the misery around you.

The Atheist wrote:

Requiring a meaning to life is a selfish notion, unless it involves leaving the world a better place than as you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same.

Could you expand on this a bit? I don't understand.

Dades

staple wrote:

Life is not like a holiday for most people is it? It's full of work and disappointments and grief.

Okay, life is neither a holiday, nor the endless drudgery of digging and refilling a hole. It is somewhere in between. Suffice to say there is (for most) enough to make it worth living on its own without the requirement of a prize.

staple wrote:

Could you expand on this a bit? I don't understand.

Who does?

Zombrex

staple wrote:

If you had to dig a hole every day and fill it in the next day, would you go on doing that? Wouldn't the futility of it all get to you?

You would if you enjoy digging holes.

To me life is about finding things you enjoy and like, find people to spend your time with, and trying to be a good person and be happy. When I eventually have children my prioities will probably shift to trying to provide for them and make them happy.

It is perfectly possible to lead a rewarding fulling life even if you think life has no grand purpose. In fact I would say it is easier, I know a lot of people who are miserable trying to live life to someone elses plan, be that their parents, partners or religions.

staple

Wicknight wrote:

I know a lot of people who are miserable trying to live life to someone elses plan, be that their parents, partners or religions.

And I know a lot of people despair because they feel their lives are pointless and meaningless. I know a lot of other people are hurt because they've been treated carelessly by those without any moral compass.

The Atheist wrote:

I think the Vulcans said it best...Live long, and prosper...

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Live life, like any other animal.

Beruthiel wrote:

we should all just make the most of it and enjoy the ride while we are here.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Enjoy your wink of conscious existance mon ami.

the real ramon wrote:

Life is what you make it. I think that was from a Talk Talk song.

silas wrote:

Enjoy the body and mind you have, use them to their full potential because you only have a limited time with them.

Kiffer wrote:

with out gods there is no need for a meaning to the universe...
Does my life need meaning? as an individual I need meaning in my own life, just like every one else does... but does life in a general sense ... that of all organisms need a meaning? I don't even think the question makes sense any more...

The Atheist wrote:

Suffice to say there is (for most) enough to make it worth living on its own without the requirement of a prize.

Some atheists caricature religion as discouraging thought, as if their own atheism was some intellectual achievement. To judge from the posts here, lots of (other) atheists don't think intellectual depth is terribly important.

Zombrex

staple wrote:

And I know a lot of people despair because they feel their lives are pointless and meaningless.

Well there you go. Believing there is no universal meaning to life is not the same as not finding/giving yourself a purpose in life.

I would imagine it is equally bad to have no personal purpose in life as it is to follow someone elses perscribed purpose.

The goal in life should be to find your own purpose, find things that you want that make you happy, give your life meaning.

staple wrote:

I know a lot of other people are hurt because they've been treated carelessly by those without any moral compass.

Well I think if people are looking to others to make them happy they are always going to eventually end up disappointed because not everyone is going to be able/willing to do the "job" of making their life happy. So eventually the person has to realise that they are the ones responsible for their life and only they can make themselves truely happy, and often happiness only comes when you stop looking to others to make you happy.

staple wrote:

Some atheists caricature religion as discouraging thought, as if their own atheism was some intellectual achievement. To judge from the posts here, lots of (other) atheists don't think intellectual depth is terribly important.

I think the point is that Atheism frees a person to look at what they actually believe, not what they are told to believe.

Example would be sex before marriage. Catholics believe it is "wrong" but most don't follow this teaching and I would imagine much less even understand the actually rational behind the belief. It is often tried to be fit around modern circumstances, such as the AIDS epidemic, but AIDS wasn't around then the Bible was written. Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is supposed to be a sin?

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Requiring a meaning to life is a selfish notion, unless it involves leaving the world a better place than as you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same.
Could you expand on this a bit? I don't understand.

Maybe I can throw a little light on it. The idea that we are so superior to everything else, or are created by an entity to be so superior, that we have a special place after death where we will be rewarded as befits our high station on this earth is IMO the selfish notion. Accordingly, this concept infers that the meaning of life is therefore to seek out this reward. I agree with the Atheist, seeking to make the world a better place than you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same and helping those around you is a very good description of the meaning of life for me at least.

robindch

> [Wicknight] Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is
> supposed to be a sin?

There are two reasons which spring to mind why sex before marriage is a "sin":

1. At the biological level, kids born outside of marriage, during the times when the various commandments were written down, seem to have been subject to pretty brutal treatment, as were their unfortunate mothers (behaviour which continues in many countries around the world today, as it did in Ireland until quite recently too). Consequently, in order to reduce social conflict at the same time as ensuring that your society produces lots of well-cared-for offspring to continue the society, you declare sex before marriage to be a "sin" and so requiring the kinds of punishment which the various religious laws lay down. As an aside, these punishments were completely asymmetrical -- women take the rap, even in cases where they're raped, while men get to say that they were "led on" and therefore largely blameless.

2. At the cultural level, most religions (a) define sex before marriage as a sin (or declare virginity a pre-requisite for marriage) and (b) require the parents-to-be to raise kids within that religion, so that the religion can gurantee its own propagation by feeding off the strong sexual desires of normal human beings (see some of the Vatican's rules on the duties of parents here).

Inheritance is the main one I can think of.
Out of wedlock,guy has no legitimate heirs, or the illegitimate ones cause trouble.
Plus, if his wife wasn't a virgin, who knows who the real father of his children might be if she's already pregnant.

I could just be talking rubbish, I'm very tired.

is_that_so

I think the meaning of life is making sense of where you are in relation to everything that affects you or you allow to affect you. This is not constant. Naturally your own belief structure will dictate how you interpret that "meaning". At most life can only offer a sense of purpose to challenge us.
More often than not that lack of a "sense of purpose" or some kind of attributable value to life is what causes people to pose the question in the first place. It is human to question whatever you believe.
IMHO your belief structure will only affect the answer you come up with.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> [Wicknight] Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is
> supposed to be a sin?

There are two reasons which spring to mind why sex before marriage is a "sin":

1. At the biological level, kids born outside of marriage, during the times when the various commandments were written down, seem to have been subject to pretty brutal treatment, as were their unfortunate mothers (behaviour which continues in many countries around the world today, as it did in Ireland until quite recently too). Consequently, in order to reduce social conflict at the same time as ensuring that your society produces lots of well-cared-for offspring to continue the society, you declare sex before marriage to be a "sin" and so requiring the kinds of punishment which the various religious laws lay down. As an aside, these punishments were completely asymmetrical -- women take the rap, even in cases where they're raped, while men get to say that they were "led on" and therefore largely blameless.

2. At the cultural level, most religions (a) define sex before marriage as a sin (or declare virginity a pre-requisite for marriage) and (b) require the parents-to-be to raise kids within that religion, so that the religion can gurantee its own propagation by feeding off the strong sexual desires of normal human beings (see some of the Vatican's rules on the duties of parents here).

Oh I know the real reasons why a tradition like that would emerge, was just wondering what the religous justification reason was.

robindch

> was just wondering what the religous justification reason was.

Gotcha. There isn't any justification -- it's just said to be "immoral" and that's that. If you've some spare time, the Vatican has produced plenty of text on the topic:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm ("Moral Law")
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html ("Human Sexuality")

...though I can't imagine that one believer in a thousand reads any of this frightful waffle!

staple

Wicknight wrote:

The goal in life should be to find your own purpose, find things that you want that make you happy, give your life meaning.[...]

I think the point is that Atheism frees a person to look at what they actually believe, not what they are told to believe.

Example would be sex before marriage. Catholics believe it is "wrong" but most don't follow this teaching and I would imagine much less even understand the actually rational behind the belief. It is often tried to be fit around modern circumstances, such as the AIDS epidemic, but AIDS wasn't around then the Bible was written. Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is supposed to be a sin?

'Should be to find your own purpose'? Should? Why?

I quite agree that we should look at what we believe, and examine it. Atheism might free you to do that, but two caveats. It presupposes a certain fact that limits what you can think (viz. God does not exist). Many atheists also seem to presuppose the uselessness of wisdom of ages or tradition, meditation or their spiritual selves. They seem to think the solitary individual, his senses and his reason can find the answers. All of these would seem to limit you.

Second, atheists may be free to think but do they? The responses to the question of meaning are
A. 'just enjoy it', which is an invitation to mindless search for pleasure and
B. 'the question is meaningless', which is an invitation to stop questioning where science can no longer inform us.

No, you can't wait around for other people to make you happy. But you have to realize you can make other people happy or sad. If our only obligation is to ourselves, and we have no sense of obligation to other people, we're going to cause a lot of hurt. You might think that's fine.

And finally...Catholics and sex. Ah, the old reliable for Irish atheists. We were talking about meaning of life for non-Catholics, but hey, we're not really interested in looking at our own beliefs, we're interested in bashing Catholicism. Quite frankly, I'm not surprised you find RC teaching meaningless: if you don't accept the premises, you won't accept the conclusions.

staple

Asiaprod wrote:

I agree with the Atheist, seeking to make the world a better place than you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same and helping those around you is a very good description of the meaning of life for me at least.

Yes, but why is that the meaning of life for you? Why that rather than anything else? Did you put twenty meanings in a hat and draw out that one? If we're all just dust, why even bother with that?

Scofflaw

staple wrote:

Second, atheists may be free to think but do they? The responses to the question of meaning are
A. 'just enjoy it', which is an invitation to mindless search for pleasure and
B. 'the question is meaningless', which is an invitation to stop questioning where science can no longer inform us.

Hmm. If someone is actually an atheist - that is to say, they have rejected God - they usually have done some thinking. There are poseurs, of course, but there always are. An awful lot of people describe themselves as agnostics in order not to think about it, and many of these will certainly give answers A or B.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

staple wrote:

Yes, but why is that the meaning of life for you? Why that rather than anything else? Did you put twenty meanings in a hat and draw out that one? If we're all just dust, why even bother with that?

Why not?


regards,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. If someone is actually an atheist - that is to say, they have rejected God - they usually have done some thinking. There are poseurs, of course, but there always are. An awful lot of people describe themselves as agnostics in order not to think about it, and many of these will certainly give answers A or B.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Don't just fluffle away the amount of thought agnostics put into their beliefs or lack thereof. The same could be applied to any group.

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Don't just fluffle away the amount of thought agnostics put into their beliefs or lack thereof. The same could be applied to any group.

True, and no disrespect was intended to the thinking agnostics! However, it's true that a lot of people do describe themselves as "agnostics" when what they mean is "hard question, brain hurty, you go away now". Just like those who say they're "atheists" when what they mean is "me cool, wear black, please have sex with me".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

True, and no disrespect was intended to the thinking agnostics! However, it's true that a lot of people do describe themselves as "agnostics" when what they mean is "hard question, brain hurty, you go away now". Just like those who say they're "atheists" when what they mean is "me cool, wear black, please have sex with me".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah very well then.
Although, it is a hard question, my brain does indeed hurty, I wear black, i'm cool and please have sex with me is always a good comment.
What i'm trying to say is, agnostical atheism ftw.

EDIT: For good measure. http://dogwelder.com/images/365/t0128.jpg

Asiaprod

staple wrote:

Yes, but why is that the meaning of life for you? Why that rather than anything else? Did you put twenty meanings in a hat and draw out that one? If we're all just dust, why even bother with that?

Darwin and Genetics:)

No, seriously. to answer that I would need to see the other 19 alternate choices. The choice I selected goes hand-in-hand with my beliefs. For me it was a no-brainer and The Atheist expressed it very eloquently.

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Just like those who say they're "atheists" when what they mean is "me cool, wear black, please have sex with me".

Your just too old man. Sorry, but people don't care about your old-timer "gay-theism" now.

Zombrex

staple wrote:

'Should be to find your own purpose'? Should? Why?

Why? To stop you being miserable because you don't have a purpose. I mean you don't have to. This only applies to people who actually want a purpose in life. Lots of people probably don't care.

staple wrote:

It presupposes a certain fact that limits what you can think (viz. God does not exist).

An atheist is not limited to believing there is no God, but if he/she does believe in gods he/she wouldn't be an atheist anymore. You speak about Atheism as if you can never become a theist again. An atheist can become a theist when ever they want, just the description changes.

staple wrote:

Many atheists also seem to presuppose the uselessness of wisdom of ages or tradition, meditation or their spiritual selves.

Not really, but they do recongise that a lot of the "moral" traditions, especially those within religion, are in fact nothing to do with morality but rather to do with other issues, like control.

staple wrote:

They seem to think the solitary individual, his senses and his reason can find the answers. All of these would seem to limit you.

I don't remember saying anything about the "solitary" individual. I certain think it is possible for a person to develop their own moral code, but mostly it is done in a communial manner, with ideas from all areas of society, including the religious, mixing together to form a frame work for society.

staple wrote:

Second, atheists may be free to think but do they? The responses to the question of meaning are
A. 'just enjoy it', which is an invitation to mindless search for pleasure and
B. 'the question is meaningless', which is an invitation to stop questioning where science can no longer inform us.

No the responses were largely "no". The bits you have in A and B follow on from the "no" as in "no, just enjoy it" or "no, and the question is meaningless"

There are very good reasons, logical reasons, why people in this thread said "no". You make is sound like they were all just a cop-out.

And btw those who said "just enjoy it" were not advocating some kind of pleasure for pleasure sake life-style like a drugged up sexed out rock and roll star. They were simply saying that the goal in life should be to live a joyful, happy fullifed life, and to not obsess over living life to someone elses guidelines/standards, be that a religions or simply your parents/teacher/partner etc. Do you disagree?

staple wrote:

If our only obligation is to ourselves

I'm not sure anyone has said that in this thread, and it also goes against a lot of what others have said. We have evolved into communal animals. We have a large number of basic biological instincts to be good to others around us, and we have developed a large number of logical laws and morals to also be good to others around us.

I'm not sure anyone is advocating that we simply look out for number one at the cost of others around us. That is a gross mis-understanding of human evolution theory.

staple wrote:

And finally...Catholics and sex. Ah, the old reliable for Irish atheists. We were talking about meaning of life for non-Catholics, but hey, we're not really interested in looking at our own beliefs, we're interested in bashing Catholicism.

My own beliefs? When I comes to sex before marriage I have no moral object to that at all. To me there are a number of moral/emotional/practical issues around sex, but none of them concern the marriage status of the people involved.

Plus I can't even think of a moral objection to it that I've heard, that was why I was asking what is the moral logic used by the Catholic church.

staple

Wicknight wrote:

Why? To stop you being miserable because you don't have a purpose. I mean you don't have to. This only applies to people who actually want a purpose in life. Lots of people probably don't care.
...
I don't remember saying anything about the "solitary" individual. I certain think it is possible for a person to develop their own moral code, but mostly it is done in a communial manner, with ideas from all areas of society, including the religious, mixing together to form a frame work for society.
...
There are very good reasons, logical reasons, why people in this thread said "no". You make is sound like they were all just a cop-out.
...
And btw those who said "just enjoy it" were not advocating some kind of pleasure for pleasure sake life-style like a drugged up sexed out rock and roll star. They were simply saying that the goal in life should be to live a joyful, happy fullifed life, and to not obsess over living life to someone elses guidelines/standards, be that a religions or simply your parents/teacher/partner etc. Do you disagree?
...
I'm not sure anyone has said that in this thread, and it also goes against a lot of what others have said. We have evolved into communal animals. We have a large number of basic biological instincts to be good to others around us, and we have developed a large number of logical laws and morals to also be good to others around us.
...
I'm not sure anyone is advocating that we simply look out for number one at the cost of others around us. That is a gross mis-understanding of human evolution theory.

I'm still confused. There's a whole mix of evolution, 'logic', societal norms, and individualism in there. What I'm wondering here, and on the 'systematic belief system' thread is whether individual atheists think their own personal beliefs are systematic, coherent, consistent and rational? At the risk of repeating myself, there seems to be a contradiction between the idea that you are rational and choose freely, and that you are driven by evolutionary instincts.

Some atheists suggest people are religious because they haven't examined their beliefs, and if they did they would become atheists. It seems that some atheists also live unexamined lives, and don't have the intellectual high ground.

Zaphod B

staple wrote:

What I'm wondering here, and on the 'systematic belief system' thread is whether individual atheists think their own personal beliefs are systematic, coherent, consistent and rational?

Yes. Or at least more coherent, consistent and rational than the alternatives.

staple wrote:

Some atheists suggest people are religious because they haven't examined their beliefs, and if they did they would become atheists. It seems that some atheists also live unexamined lives, and don't have the intellectual high ground.

Of course some atheists haven't really examined their beliefs. The same is true of people in all belief systems, and I don't think most atheists would claim that all other atheists are rational or consistent (just as members of religious groups do not always agree) so I'm not entirely sure what your point is there.

No one has either intellectual or moral high ground - least of all those who claim to.

Son Goku

staple wrote:

there seems to be a contradiction between the idea that you are rational and choose freely, and that you are driven by evolutionary instincts.

We can be "driven" in the direction evolution has made the most probable course for our minds, but on top of that we have the ability to reason. The drives are on a lower "pre-moral" level.

the real ramon

I'm wondering if even if Atheists are right, that for most people it might just be better to believe, much like the difference between determinism, and soft-determinism (soft-Atheism anyone?).

Someone said to me that the point of the universe, wheteher you believe in God or in 'survival of the fittest' (hate that phrase btw- but I know what they meant), is to overcome adversity. It makes a lot of sense to me, and makes the universe seem less cold or heartless.

But I guess if people are happy with their 'point' or lack there-of then thats good. If their not happy with their view of the universe it's a different matter, and no belief/disbelief I've ever come accross has ever made everyone of that belief/disbelief happy or a better person.

I don't think anything will ever change that either. I don't understand though why if some people are unhappy because of what they believe that they don't look for something that makes them happy, gets them to think that the universe doesn't suck, or that God isn't a b*****d

Ah well.