So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[Doug Shaver]

So say many atheists, Doug.

"Many atheists say X" is true for a great many X's. "X is the logical outcome of atheism" is not therefore true for any of those X's.

[seer]

"Many atheists say X" is true for a great many X's. "X is the logical outcome of atheism" is not therefore true for any of those X's.

But Doug, tell me exactly what you disagree with in the definition:

Existential nihilism: is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

[Doug Shaver]

But Doug, tell me exactly what you disagree with in the definition:

Existential nihilism: is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

I don't disagree with the theory. I disagree with two supplementary claims. (1) I disagree with the claim that atheism entails the theory. And (2) I disagree with the inference from the theory to the conclusion "Therefore, life has no meaning."

[seer]

I don't disagree with the theory. I disagree with two supplementary claims. (1) I disagree with the claim that atheism entails the theory. And (2) I disagree with the inference from the theory to the conclusion "Therefore, life has no meaning."

That life has no intrinsic meaning or value. Why wouldn't you agree with that and why isn't that the logical consequence of atheism?

To quote Dawkins:

nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

[Doug Shaver]

That life has no intrinsic meaning or value. Why wouldn't you agree with that and why isn't that the logical consequence of atheism?

I don't disagree about there being no intrinsic meaning. I disagree about "no intrinsic meaning" implying "no meaning."

The existence or nonexistence of meaning is not a logical consequence of atheism because atheism is not about meaning. It is about the existence of God. The logical relationship between God and meaning is not an existential issue. It is a theological issue.

[seer]

I don't disagree about there being no intrinsic meaning. I disagree about "no intrinsic meaning" implying "no meaning."

Well the definition makes clears that you can invent meaning.

The existence or nonexistence of meaning is not a logical consequence of atheism because atheism is not about meaning. It is about the existence of God. The logical relationship between God and meaning is not an existential issue. It is a theological issue.

Except without a God there is no possibility of intrinsic meaning.

[carpedm9587]

Right we can pervert our God designed purpose, or any designed purpose.

I don't believe in god, so I have no response to that part. And I do not see the purpose of a user being different from the purposes of a designer to be a "perversion." My hammer was designed to hammer and pull nails, but it also has attributes like length and weight. That I use the "length" attribute to locate my electrical boxes is not a "perversion." That my friend uses the "weight" attribute to hold down paper is not a perversion. It simply means that a sentient, thinking mind can envision uses that transcend what the designer originally had in mind.

The teleology for human sexuality is for intimacy between a man and a woman, and procreation. But we can choose to use our sexual prowess to bed a sheep.

Personally, bedding sheep is Many confuse with "immoral." I don't.

So you agree that we are ultimately purposeless.

The universe will someday end, and sentience will cease. Purpose will end when sentience ends. So no one and nothing has "eternal" and "absolute" purpose. We only have purpose so long as there is a purposer. I am a purposer. So as long as I exist, I have purpose.

You mean like your unsubstantiated assertion that you have value?

I don't need to substantiate it. Value is assessed by a valuer. I am a valuer. Ergo, I know if I have value (to myself). My wife is a valuer, so she knows if I have value (to her). I may have no value to you whatsoever. There is no way to prove to you that anyone else sees value in me. They can tell you that they see value in me, but all of those will be "assertions." I'm pretty sure the local library thinks I have "value." After all, I just donated and cooked 200 chickens for their barbecue!

Let me put it this way, did human being HAVE to develop as they did, or even SURVIVE as a species in the first place?

Of course not. Evolution could have taken any number of twists and turns that would have resulted in humans not evolving at all. And humans have only survived so far. In the grand scheme of things, the few hundred thousand years we have existed as homosapiens is an eye-blink. We have developed amazing technologies and dominated this planet. But we are also destroying many of the things we depend on to live. We are a short-sighted, self-absorbed species, willing to trade the future for short-term economic health and satisfaction and convinced that we are at the center of everything in this universe. It may turn out that sentience is actually NOT good for long-term survival, because it causes a species to completely focus on itself and ultimately destroy what it needs long-term. If that is true, humans will burn themselves out and die...and this planet will spin on without us.

You mean like your illusion of value?

I have no "illusion" of value, Seer. I have value - to me. I have value - to my wife (or so she tells me). I have value to the local community (or so they tell me). I have value to my students (or so they tell me). I may or may not have value to you. No one has value to everyone. No one has "absolute" or "eternal" value - and I have never claimed otherwise.

To love and know God and to love our fellow man.

So your god apparently created you to love him/her/it, and to love the other creations this being has made? And you find satisfaction in this?

I'm trying to imagine the man who finally creates a sentient robot, telling this now self-aware being that it was created to know and love it's creator, and all of the rest of the creations. I can imagine that sentient robot raising an artificial eyebrow and saying, "I guess you shouldn't have made me sentient with a free will then, right?"

Seer, I have no desire to live my life in homage to anything else. I also have no desire to live my life in homage to myself. I love my fellow man because he/she IS my fellow man - not because some god tells me I'm supposed to. I do what I find to be right because it IS right - not because some god says "do it this way."

And that's a good thing - because humanity's gods have demanded some very ugly thing, IMO - and I have no desire to be part of them.

[carpedm9587]

"Many atheists say X" is true for a great many X's. "X is the logical outcome of atheism" is not therefore true for any of those X's.

[seer]

I don't believe in god, so I have no response to that part. And I do not see the purpose of a user being different from the purposes of a designer to be a "perversion." My hammer was designed to hammer and pull nails, but it also has attributes like length and weight. That I use the "length" attribute to locate my electrical boxes is not a "perversion." That my friend uses the "weight" attribute to hold down paper is not a perversion. It simply means that a sentient, thinking mind can envision uses that transcend what the designer originally had in mind.

So you don't see the rape of children as a perversion of our sexual abilities?

The universe will someday end, and sentience will cease. Purpose will end when sentience ends. So no one and nothing has "eternal" and "absolute" purpose. We only have purpose so long as there is a purposer. I am a purposer. So as long as I exist, I have purpose.

Correct you invent your purpose, Stalin his, Mao his, etc....

I don't need to substantiate it. Value is assessed by a valuer. I am a valuer. Ergo, I know if I have value (to myself). My wife is a valuer, so she knows if I have value (to her). I may have no value to you whatsoever. There is no way to prove to you that anyone else sees value in me. They can tell you that they see value in me, but all of those will be "assertions." I'm pretty sure the local library thinks I have "value." After all, I just donated and cooked 200 chickens for their barbecue!

Right so your so called value is based on an unsubstantiated assertion. So I guess unsubstantiated assertions actually do have weight and meaning for you. And concerning one of the most important questions in life.

Of course not. Evolution could have taken any number of twists and turns that would have resulted in humans not evolving at all.

So there is randomness involved. So why did you balk when I suggested that?

I have no "illusion" of value, Seer. I have value - to me. I have value - to my wife (or so she tells me). I have value to the local community (or so they tell me). I have value to my students (or so they tell me). I may or may not have value to you. No one has value to everyone. No one has "absolute" or "eternal" value - and I have never claimed otherwise.

So you get to make up your own value and call it real and meaningful? Nice that...

And that's a good thing - because humanity's gods have demanded some very ugly thing, IMO - and I have no desire to be part of them.

And in the end you won't...

[Starlight]

So you don't see the rape of children as a perversion of our sexual abilities?

What a horrific view.

So, are you seriously saying that in your mind, when you think about the rape of children, the primary problem with it, the primary reason it is "wrong" in your mind, is that it is a mis-use of the God-given abilities? That it's a case of us, essentially, not reading the instructions on the label and following them accurately? And that's the crime?

So in your mind, the primary problem is not... say... I don't know, let's think about this... hmm... maybe THE HARM CAUSED TO THE CHILDREN?!

That is the sort of monstrous immorality I'm afraid I'm used to seeing from people who think about everything in terms of "God's intentions for our bodies and their function" rather than in terms of actual harm done to real people.

[seer]

So, are you seriously saying that in your mind, when you think about the rape of children, the primary problem with it, the primary reason it is "wrong" in your mind, is that it is a mis-use of the God-given abilities? That it's a case of us, essentially, not reading the instructions on the label and following them accurately? And that's the crime?

That certainly is part of it. Of course in your world there is no design or purpose for human sexuality, therefore there can be NO violation of design. But I'm asking Carp if he thinks that there is anything that is a perversion of our sexual faculties. He seems to be good with bestiality.

So in your mind, the primary problem is not... say... I don't know, let's think about this... hmm... maybe THE HARM CAUSED TO THE CHILDREN?!

Of course that enters in also. But to some the potential harm does not trump the potential pleasure. That is a matter of personal opinion.

That is the sort of monstrous immorality I'm afraid I'm used to seeing from people who think about everything in terms of "God's intentions for our bodies and their function" rather than in terms of actual harm done to real people.

It doesn't have to be either/or. But if we held to God's purpose for human sexuality we would not have these problems, including the harm caused by rape, adultery, molestation, STDs etc...

[Doug Shaver]

But to some the potential harm does not trump the potential pleasure. That is a matter of personal opinion. . . .
But if we held to God's purpose for human sexuality we would not have these problems

To some, your demand to be believed when you claim to know God's purposes does not trump the potential pleasure. Seeing how much Christians disagree about God's purposes, that too seems to be a matter of personal opinion.

[seer]

To some, your demand to be believed when you claim to know God's purposes does not trump the potential pleasure. Seeing how much Christians disagree about God's purposes, that too seems to be a matter of personal opinion.

Well given your ideas about language there isn't much we can know about anything.

[carpedm9587]

So you don't see the rape of children as a perversion of our sexual abilities?

Please point out the part of ANY response that I made that leads to this conclusion.

Correct you invent your purpose, Stalin his, Mao his, etc....

Every human being determines purpose, so purpose is always "invented." There is nothing requiring me to devote as much time as I do to supporting programs for children and the elderly. It is a purpose I choose for myself. That's how it works. It's not clear to me why that is a problem.

Right so your so called value is based on an unsubstantiated assertion. So I guess unsubstantiated assertions actually do have weight and meaning for you. And concerning one of the most important questions in life.

No one can "substantiate" what is going on in and for another person, Seer. You cling to a belief in "absolute and objective purpose" from a god you cannot substantiate exists. I find value in things for the various reasons I have, none of which I can "substantiate" to you. Value is about what a thing is worth to someone. Sometimes that is measured in dollars; sometimes in peace of mind; sometimes in happiness, etc. No one can "prove" value to someone else - it's an internal assessment. If you are a fearful person, and I have the ability to relieve your fear, you will likely value me for that ability. If you are a poor person and I have the ability to feed or clothe you, you will likely value me for my ability to provide for those needs. It's not subject to "proof."

So there is randomness involved. So why did you balk when I suggested that?

Because you speak in absolutes, and absolutes mostly don't exist. Nature acts according to describable laws. But nature is also extremely complex. Our inability to grasp and quantify that complexity does not translate to "random." Nature is not either "random" or "predictable." Those are the extremes of a continuum. Most of nature lies along that continuum. I find that religious extremists and evangelicals tend to operate in this binary world - it's either random - or it's predictable. It's either true - or it's false. It's either black - or it's white. It's either heterosexual or it's homosexual.

The world is host to a great deal of gray...

So you get to make up your own value and call it real and meaningful? Nice that...

Yep.

So do you, by the way, and you do it regularly. A bit disingenuous of you.

And in the end you won't...

Indeed. In the end - none of us will. When death comes for us - we are all going to the same fate.

[Tassman]

Well the definition makes clears that you can invent meaning.

Except without a God there is no possibility of intrinsic meaning.