Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Shaker on August 25, 2015, 09:32:37 AM
-
Interesting Buzzfeed article by Tom Chivers on the responses to his questioning of atheists if and how they find meaning in their lives:
I Asked Atheists How They Find Meaning In A Purposeless Universe
http://goo.gl/dcmTf3
-
Interesting, but they are each suggesting "tricks" to avoid staring into the abyss and getting "stuck", mesmerised, there.
Ie. They find ways to avoid the question and can get on with their lives. They are free to do that but some people want or need more.
-
Interesting, but they are each suggesting "tricks" to avoid staring into the abyss and getting "stuck", mesmerised, there.
Ie. They find ways to avoid the question and can get on with their lives. They are free to do that but some people want or need more.
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it. Why is that any more or less of a 'trick' than seeing no evidence of meaning outside of their life so presuming that it's there and building a religion about it?
O.
-
Interesting, but they are each suggesting "tricks" to avoid staring into the abyss and getting "stuck", mesmerised, there.
Isn't using the word "trick" a means of trivialising what these people say? No doubt it's all down to subjective perception but nothing in the article to me reads like a "trick" - all the responses come across to me at least as deeply serious, well thought-out and, in some cases, highly moving. Nothing of the "trick" about them.
They are free to do that but some people want or need more.
Doubtless; but as any atheist would say, the fact that you might want/need it doesn't mean that the thing you want/need is actually there.
-
There is nothing there. Hence the "tricks":
The way I find meaning is the way that most people find meaning, even religious ones, which is to get pleasure and significance from your job, from your loved ones, from your avocation, art, literature, music. People like me don’t worry about what it’s all about in a cosmic sense, because we know it isn’t about anything. It’s what we make of this transitory existence that matters.
Acknowledges superficially that there is no purpose, then pulls one out his pocket. Why does it matter what we make of "this transitory existence"? It obviously doesn't.
I can’t stop the inevitable so I’ll just enjoy what life I have got, while I’ve got it. I won’t, after all, be around to regret that it was all for nothing.
Ie. Doing his best not to think about it. That's perfectly acceptable but everyone is not able to do that. Why enjoy it, why not end it , if it's all the same at the end of the day?
... etc ...
-
There is nothing there.
It seems to be a very great deal to me.
Acknowledges superficially that there is no purpose, then pulls one out his pocket.
You're glossing over the difference between ultimate and proximate purpose(s). In the absence of the former, there are only the latter - the transient, subjective things we do that matter to us while we're alive. In some cases a few exceptional people have purposes that go on beyond their own individual death and who remain an inspiration to those who come after: the Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings and Nelson Mandelas of the world, etc. That's for the exceptional few: most people find meaning and purpose in more private and personal concerns - their children; a garden; the books they write; music and so forth.
Why does it matter what we make of "this transitory existence"? It obviously doesn't.
Because with the exception of people like Keith Maitland, most people find that they lead better, happier lives if they consider that those lives have worth, value, purpose, meaning - if they have things to do and to pursue that give shape and colour to their existences. People whose lives lack - according to them - worth, value, purpose and meaning are the obvious but also the slow-motion suicides: the chronic substance abusers (alcoholics and other drug addicts), aimless drifters and so forth. Ernest Hemingway painted the wall with his brains when he was no longer able to write because his memory for words had been fried by repeated sessions of ECT. His value-system and his meaning had gone, so he shot himself. What had always given his existence purpose had been removed.
Why enjoy it
I have to say that this sort of fatuous and facile question always sounds as though it comes from someone who has never enjoyed anything. It's the flip of asking "Why is pain bad?" - if you've experienced pain you know why it's bad. Likewise if you've ever enjoyed something - anything - then you know why enjoyment is good.
why not end it , if it's all the same at the end of the day?
It is all the same at the end of the day, and in cosmic terms we are barely here for a day. ("The summer of a dormouse," as Byron put it). But with the few exceptions such as the aforementioned Mr Maitland, most people would rather have a nice day than a crappy day.
-
Udayana
I certainly do not interpret what I've heard so far as you do which I think is a very negative way. I see the positive side of things straight away.
-
There is nothing there. Hence the "tricks":
No, there's nothing beyond 'here' - there's more than enough here to be getting on with.
Acknowledges superficially that there is no purpose, then pulls one out his pocket.
No, it points out that there's no externally mandated purpose - that doesn't invalidate self-determined purpose.
Why does it matter what we make of "this transitory existence"? It obviously doesn't.
To whom?
Ie. Doing his best not to think about it.
Or focussing on what does count, rather than what doesn't.
That's perfectly acceptable but everyone is not able to do that.
Other people's alleged lack of capacity - can they not do it, or do they not want to do it? - does not invalidate the fact that this works perfectly well for him.
Why enjoy it, why not end it , if it's all the same at the end of the day?
Exactly - if none of it makes any significant difference on the cosmic scale, why not just look at the human scale?
O.
-
Udayana
I certainly do not interpret what I've heard so far as you do which I think is a very negative way. I see the positive side of things straight away.
Hi Susan,
I do not think I'm being negative, though I may be reacting to "over positive" statements. In fact, objectively, there can be no negative or positive here as, remember, there is no ultimate purpose or direction.
I think they could just say "There is no purpose or meaning, do whatever you feel like", or declare honestly their purpose "I feel I am here to enjoy my life and family, have a career, drive fast cars, save trees or whatever ...".
Such a statement being on an equal footing with: "I feel I must follow Christ, Buddha, some book in a forgotten language, Islam, or whatever ..." or "I'm happy enough blotted out on H" and so on.
Ultimately, we don't know and can admit that or pretend that we do know something, personally, to avoid feeling too uncomfortable.
-
Udayana
I certainly do not interpret what I've heard so far as you do which I think is a very negative way. I see the positive side of things straight away.
Hi Susan,
I do not think I'm being negative, though I may be reacting to "over positive" statements. In fact, objectively, there can be no negative or positive here as, remember, there is no ultimate purpose or direction.
I think they could just say "There is no purpose or meaning, do whatever you feel like", or declare honestly their purpose "I feel I am here to enjoy my life and family, have a career, drive fast cars, save trees or whatever ...".
Such a statement being on an equal footing with: "I feel I must follow Christ, Buddha, some book in a forgotten language, Islam, or whatever ..." or "I'm happy enough blotted out on H" and so on.
Ultimately, we don't know and can admit that or pretend that we do know something, personally, to avoid feeling too uncomfortable.
Very true!
-
Dearest Atheist,
Musing on atheism, well you have been around for a long time, nothing new under the sun.
The people in the link all seem to be a well educated lot, no not another argument about are atheists more intelligent than theists, just about who has been asked.
A difference, being a Christian is a way of life, I am told atheism is not.
The article talks of meaning, I would argue that a big part of science is the search for meaning, and no, most theists are not happy with godidit.
The article talks about reality, as I type this millions of Christians are doing just that, dealing with the harsh realities of life, working with the poor, the hungry, battling mans greed, why!!
Gonnagle.
-
A difference, being a Christian is a way of life, I am told atheism is not.
As Christianity is the background of our culture, it's easy to forget that Christianity is not the opposite of atheism, theism is. Theism is not a philosophy, it's a position on a singular issue, and atheism is the opposite position.
Humanism - which is one of the most prominent philosophies that atheists adopt if they look for a formal description - is a corollary of Christianity, with a statement of assumptions and moral precepts upon which to base judgments.
The article talks of meaning, I would argue that a big part of science is the search for meaning, and no, most theists are not happy with godidit.
As a scientist, I'd have to disagree with that. In the main, science is a search for mechanisms and tendencies from which explanations can be derived, but not 'meaning'. Meaning only happens inside people, science is the exploration of the natural world which (in the main) happens whether people are there or not.
The article talks about reality, as I type this millions of Christians are doing just that, dealing with the harsh realities of life, working with the poor, the hungry, battling mans greed, why!!
Millions of people - Christian and otherwise - are doing that. At the same time, millions of people - Christian and otherwise - are a part of the greed, a part of the explanation for why people are poor, hungry or facing harsh realities.
O.
Gonnagle.
[/quote]
-
Udayana
I certainly do not interpret what I've heard so far as you do which I think is a very negative way. I see the positive side of things straight away.
Whereas I would view your interpretation, and that of others on your side of the debate, as relatively negative. To me, it is a very limited, narrow interpretation.
-
What's negative about it?
It's only "limited, narrow" if you assume, as you do, that there's something outside/above/beyond it. Needless to say that this is merely a belief you happen to hold for what you recently confirmed were incredibly poor reasons and which you have signally failed to substantiate with anything even remotely resembling evidence of any kind whatever.
-
Dear Outrider,
Excellent reply, thank you.
A background to our culture, meaning it affects our thinking.
I wonder how many atheists would admit this and to what degree.
As for meaning, I was using it in its most broadest term, meaning of life, the universe.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
Excellent reply, thank you.
A background to our culture, meaning it affects our thinking.
I wonder how many atheists would admit this and to what degree.
As for meaning, I was using it in its most broadest term, meaning of life, the universe.
Gonnagle.
All of our background comes under the heading of our history; all ideas of what humans have believed to be god/s have originated in human minds and none, ever, has had any substance.
-
As a sort of theist but one who is very uncertain about much of what theism is supposed to mean - especially about there being something of us that continues into an afterlife - I find meaning in the fact that I am matter - I have been something and will be remade into something else after I die (specifically tree food, as I've asked for a woodland burial). And I'm made from star stuff. The continual making and remaking - all interconnected, and on a cosmic scale.
This thing we call a soul, it's real for whilst we are here and I feed that by finding meaning in remade star stuff all around us. Snails are mind-blowingly awesome.
-
Dearest Atheist,
Musing on atheism, well you have been around for a long time, nothing new under the sun.
The people in the link all seem to be a well educated lot, no not another argument about are atheists more intelligent than theists, just about who has been asked.
A difference, being a Christian is a way of life, I am told atheism is not.
The article talks of meaning, I would argue that a big part of science is the search for meaning, and no, most theists are not happy with godidit.
The article talks about reality, as I type this millions of Christians are doing just that, dealing with the harsh realities of life, working with the poor, the hungry, battling mans greed, why!!
Gonnagle.
Science doesn't deal with meaning, just facts and data.
-
Dear Outrider,
Excellent reply, thank you.
A background to our culture, meaning it affects our thinking.
I wonder how many atheists would admit this and to what degree.
As for meaning, I was using it in its most broadest term, meaning of life, the universe.
Gonnagle.
All of our background comes under the heading of our history; all ideas of what humans have believed to be god/s have originated in human minds and none, ever, has had any substance.
LOL
-
As a sort of theist but one who is very uncertain about much of what theism is supposed to mean - especially about there being something of us that continues into an afterlife - I find meaning in the fact that I am matter - I have been something and will be remade into something else after I die (specifically tree food, as I've asked for a woodland burial). And I'm made from star stuff. The continual making and remaking - all interconnected, and on a cosmic scale.
This thing we call a soul, it's real for whilst we are here and I feed that by finding meaning in remade star stuff all around us. Snails are mind-blowingly awesome.
yes ''star stuff'' is one of the awe and wonder elements of scientism but is the idea merely romanticised? After all the elements that make each and everyone of us have probably been through numerous rectums before becoming us.
''Arse-stuff'' doesn't quite have the same ''ring'' to it as ''star-stuff''.
-
Dear Outrider,
Excellent reply, thank you.
A background to our culture, meaning it affects our thinking.
I wonder how many atheists would admit this and to what degree.
As for meaning, I was using it in its most broadest term, meaning of life, the universe.
Gonnagle.
All of our background comes under the heading of our history; all ideas of what humans have believed to be god/s have originated in human minds and none, ever, has had any substance.
Absolutely true to date! Whether the future will change that we can't know.
-
As a sort of theist but one who is very uncertain about much of what theism is supposed to mean - especially about there being something of us that continues into an afterlife - I find meaning in the fact that I am matter - I have been something and will be remade into something else after I die (specifically tree food, as I've asked for a woodland burial). And I'm made from star stuff. The continual making and remaking - all interconnected, and on a cosmic scale.
This thing we call a soul, it's real for whilst we are here and I feed that by finding meaning in remade star stuff all around us. Snails are mind-blowingly awesome.
yes ''star stuff'' is one of the awe and wonder elements of scientism but is the idea merely romanticised? After all the elements that make each and everyone of us have probably been through numerous rectums before becoming us.
''Arse-stuff'' doesn't quite have the same ''ring'' to it as ''star-stuff''.
Very amusing!!! Puts a whole new meaning on the song Star Man...
-
yes ''star stuff'' is one of the awe and wonder elements of scientism but is the idea merely romanticised? After all the elements that make each and everyone of us have probably been through numerous rectums before becoming us.
''Arse-stuff'' doesn't quite have the same ''ring'' to it as ''star-stuff''.
Being in the shit teaches us that life is not meant to be all sunshine and roses. We just have to learn from it that all we can do is make the best of it.
-
Being in the shit teaches us that life is not meant to be all sunshine and roses. We just have to learn from it that all we can do is make the best of it.
Careful Len, that suggests purpose.
You might end up describing a universe where God is possible.
-
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it.
Clearly they feel the need for meaning in life, O. Surely, if they feel the need for it in their own lives, that must mean it exists outside of their lives? Otherwise, where does the idea come from?
-
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it.
Clearly they feel the need for meaning in life, O. Surely, if they feel the need for it in their own lives, that must mean it exists outside of their lives? Otherwise, where does the idea come from?
Why 'must' it mean it exists outside of their own lives?
What does 'outside' even mean?
People - if they are lucky at any rate - find meaning and purpose in their lives in the things that they value.
-
The way I find meaning is the way that most people find meaning, even religious ones, which is to get pleasure and significance from your job, from your loved ones, from your avocation, art, literature, music.
An interesting assumption that 'even religious people' "find meaning ..(by getting) .. pleasure and significance from your job, from your loved ones, from your avocation, art, literature, music". I would say that I get pleasure and significance in all those, because of their all having meaning and purpose. I don't find meaning from them, because I already have meaning and purpose.
-
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it.
Clearly they feel the need for meaning in life, O. Surely, if they feel the need for it in their own lives, that must mean it exists outside of their lives? Otherwise, where does the idea come from?
Why 'must' it mean it exists outside of their own lives?
What does 'outside' even mean?
People - if they are lucky at any rate - find meaning and purpose in their lives in the things that they value.
Don't you think rolling your own meaning is to accept what is imagined?........something I thought was contrary to any self respecting atheist if some of the guys on this site are to be believed.
-
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it.
Clearly they feel the need for meaning in life, O. Surely, if they feel the need for it in their own lives, that must mean it exists outside of their lives? Otherwise, where does the idea come from?
Why 'must' it mean it exists outside of their own lives?
What does 'outside' even mean?
People - if they are lucky at any rate - find meaning and purpose in their lives in the things that they value.
Don't you think rolling your own meaning is to accept what is imagined?........something I thought was contrary to any self respecting atheist if some of the guys on this site are to be believed.
I don't think that was even comprehensible English.
-
In the absence of the former, there are only the latter - the transient, subjective things we do that matter to us while we're alive. In some cases a few exceptional people have purposes that go on beyond their own individual death and who remain an inspiration to those who come after: the Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings and Nelson Mandelas of the world, etc. That's for the exceptional few: most people find meaning and purpose in more private and personal concerns - their children; a garden; the books they write; music and so forth.
Sorry, Shaker, that is a prime example of dismissing the one, and then conveniently resurrecting it. Whilst I'd agree that the Gandhis, Martin Luthers and Luther-Kings, and Nelson Mandelas have had very public impacts beyond their own individual deaths, just how many other Jo and Joe Bloggs have had far less public, but no less valid impacts beyond their own deaths - most grandparents, friends, parents, even children. Often those impacts aren't carefully planned by those people - they just are.
Ernest Hemingway painted the wall with his brains when he was no longer able to write because his memory for words had been fried by repeated sessions of ECT. His value-system and his meaning had gone, so he shot himself. What had always given his existence purpose had been removed.
So, are you saying that he had created this meaning for himself? Surely it had been given him by external influences - his parents/siblings/friends/experiences/ ... ?
It is all the same at the end of the day, ...
And you have definitive evidence for this assertion, Shakes? If you have, you will be the very first person that I know, perhaps even the world knows, to have such evidence.
-
Sorry, Shaker, that is a prime example of dismissing the one, and then conveniently resurrecting it. Whilst I'd agree that the Gandhis, Martin Luthers and Luther-Kings, and Nelson Mandelas have had very public impacts beyond their own individual deaths, just how many other Jo and Joe Bloggs have had far less public, but no less valid impacts beyond their own deaths - most grandparents, friends, parents, even children. Often those impacts aren't carefully planned by those people - they just are.
Are you actually following this discussion at all? That's exactly what I already said.
So, are you saying that he had created this meaning for himself? Surely it had been given him by external influences - his parents/siblings/friends/experiences/ ... ?
It wasn't chosen by him, since - based on my own experience at any rate - we can't, and don't, choose what we value (or don't value). I can pretend to be interested in football and go through the motions of giving an appearance of being interested in it, but I can't make myself value it if I actually don't. Conversely I can't compel myself to un-value the things that I do in fact value. The music I love, the books I enjoy, the pursuits I find absorbing - I can't choose to un-value these things. I may lose interest in something and gain an interest in something else, but these aren't matters of deliberate choice under conscious control.
As I said in a post that wigginhall responded to not long ago, lives are given meaning and purpose by the things we value yet we don't choose the things we value - the conclusion being that lives can have meaning and purpose but not by choice.
And you have definitive evidence for this assertion, Shakes? If you have, you will be the very first person that I know, perhaps even the world knows, to have such evidence.
Which assertion?
-
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it.
Clearly they feel the need for meaning in life, O. Surely, if they feel the need for it in their own lives, that must mean it exists outside of their lives? Otherwise, where does the idea come from?
Why 'must' it mean it exists outside of their own lives?
What does 'outside' even mean?
People - if they are lucky at any rate - find meaning and purpose in their lives in the things that they value.
Don't you think rolling your own meaning is to accept what is imagined?........something I thought was contrary to any self respecting atheist if some of the guys on this site are to be believed.
I don't think that was even comprehensible English.
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
-
No, they say that they see no evidence of meaning outside of their life so they find meaning within it.
Clearly they feel the need for meaning in life, O. Surely, if they feel the need for it in their own lives, that must mean it exists outside of their lives? Otherwise, where does the idea come from?
No, it just means that we're capable of comprehending the concept of 'meaning' - we've created enough concepts which don't have a direct external correlate. We have a concept of 'two', but that doesn't mean that 'two' exists outside of ourselves.
As for 'feeling a need' - perhaps they do, but I feel a need for money, yet I'm aware it's merely a construct of the society in which I live, not a universal absolute. 'Feeling' is an unreliable indicator, at best - you 'feel' that there's a god out there somewhere, I 'feel' that there isn't, so we know that feelings can't be counted upon.
O.
-
Sorry, Shaker, that is a prime example of dismissing the one, and then conveniently resurrecting it. Whilst I'd agree that the Gandhis, Martin Luthers and Luther-Kings, and Nelson Mandelas have had very public impacts beyond their own individual deaths, just how many other Jo and Joe Bloggs have had far less public, but no less valid impacts beyond their own deaths - most grandparents, friends, parents, even children. Often those impacts aren't carefully planned by those people - they just are.
That's exactly what I already said.
So are you now denying that, in post #6, you said In the absence of the former, there are only the latter - the transient, subjective things we do that matter to us while we're alive. In some cases a few exceptional people have purposes that go on beyond their own individual death and who remain an inspiration to those who come after: the Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings and Nelson Mandelas of the world, etc. That's for the exceptional few: most people find meaning and purpose in more private and personal concerns - their children; a garden; the books they write; music and so forth.
In other words, only the exceptional few intend that their lives should have an impact on anything beyond their own deaths? Of all the people I know well, and that probably numbers in the one or two hundreds now, I know of almost no-one who doesn't want their life to have had some form of impact on their extended family, community, perhaps even nationally or internationally after their death. For instance, I believe that, having been involved in the training of 120 or so teachers whilst I was in Nepal, the quality of education in Nepal will have been raised at least a little bit for the foreseeable future. I also know that some of those students have now gone to become teacher trainers in their own right thus extending that legacy both longitudinally and laterally, as it were.
It wasn't chosen by him, since - based on my own experience at any rate - we can't, and don't, choose what we value (or don't value).
Something that I wopuld only partially agree with. Take, for instance, the situation of a number of College and University Christian Union leaders over the years. I can think of several who were dedicated to their roles whilst at College/University, who then moved on into the world of work and, over time, decided/chose to ditch their Christian faith. In some cases this was as a result of their later experiences (both within and without the church context), for some as a result of what can only be termed peer pressure and for some (a minority) to satisfy others' opinions.
I may lose interest in something and gain an interest in something else, but these aren't matters of deliberate choice under conscious control.
From my experience, I would have to disagree.
As I said in a post that wigginhall responded to not long ago, lives are given meaning and purpose by the things we value yet we don't choose the things we value - the conclusion being that lives can have meaning and purpose but not by choice.
Whereas in my experience, we value things and people because of an underlying, pre-existing meaning in our lives. So, for instance, I believe that we ought to protect and support refugees and migrants, not so much because of what they can bring into our lives, but because they are human beings who have a purpose and a meaning to their lives even without our intervention. Our intervention doesn't give them purpose and meaning - which is how I understand what you are trying to say.
And you have definitive evidence for this assertion, Shakes? If you have, you will be the very first person that I know, perhaps even the world knows, to have such evidence.
Which assertion?
The one that my comment was in response to - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6)
-
In other words, only the exceptional few intend that their lives should have an impact on anything beyond their own deaths?
No. Where on earth did you get this twaddle from? I wrote:
That's for the exceptional few: most people find meaning and purpose in more private and personal concerns - their children; a garden; the books they write; music and so forth.
*
Whereas in my experience, we value things and people because of an underlying, pre-existing meaning in our lives. So, for instance, I believe that we ought to protect and support refugees and migrants, not so much because of what they can bring into our lives, but because they are human beings who have a purpose and a meaning to their lives even without our intervention. Our intervention doesn't give them purpose and meaning - which is how I understand what you are trying to say.
Then you don't 'understand' at all.
The one that my comment was in response to - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6)
A statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one. At some point, sooner or later, not only all human life but all life in general will be gone from this planet. In the longer term that might be when the planet is fried by the expansion of the sun in about five billion years; in the shorter term it could be for any number of reasons. Last night Deep Impact was on yet again, a mediocre Hollywood almost-end-of-the-world disaster movie where a comet slams into the Earth and almost succeeds in totalling life on the planet. Should such an event happen in real life with an object not greatly larger than the one depicted, which is distinctly possible, the chance of all life on this ball of rock being eradicated is not only very high but, depending on size, speed and other factors, guaranteed. Wikipedia:
Several asteroids have collided with earth in recent geological history. The Chicxulub asteroid, for example, is theorized to have caused the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous. If such an object struck Earth it could have a serious impact on civilization. It is even possible that humanity would be completely destroyed. For this to occur the asteroid would need to be at least 1 km (0.62 mi) in diameter, but probably between 3 and 10 km (2–6 miles). Asteroids with a 1 km diameter have impacted the Earth on average once every 500,000 years. Larger asteroids are less common. Small near-Earth asteroids are regularly observed.
In such a case everything every human being has ever known - every book, every film, every poem, every piece of music, every war, every kindness, every act of cruelty and every humanitarian gesture, anything and everything - will be gone for ever and, moreover, will be destroyed in such a way as though it had never even existed in the first place. In any ultimate sense it will be as though the Earth need never even have been here at all. Hence my comment that it's all the same at the end of the day. Absolutely nothing that humanity has ever done will matter then; what humanity does matters now.
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Why is a meaning "imaginary"?
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Has anyone posted either that they establish meaning by imagining it, or that any use of the imagination is unacceptable?
I haven't seen any such posts on here. Can you point to them?
-
All of our background comes under the heading of our history; all ideas of what humans have believed to be god/s have originated in human minds and none, ever, has had any substance.
And do you have any supporting evidence for this assertion, Susan, or has it just 'originated in you (and other humans') mind'?
-
Most humans are not just content to be ... they each have an aim. That is what gives our lives meaning.
-
Most humans are not just content to be ... they each have an aim. That is what gives our lives meaning.
my aim is to be
-
Most humans are not just content to be ... they each have an aim. That is what gives our lives meaning.
my aim is to be
Hedonism is an aim. :)
-
Most humans are not just content to be ... they each have an aim. That is what gives our lives meaning.
my aim is to be
Hedonism is an aim. :)
It's also a very interesting holiday resort in Jamaica ;)
-
Most humans are not just content to be ... they each have an aim. That is what gives our lives meaning.
my aim is to be
Hedonism is an aim. :)
It's also a very interesting holiday resort in Jamaica ;)
Wow! Wish I were younger! ;D
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Has anyone posted either that they establish meaning by imagining it, or that any use of the imagination is unacceptable?
I haven't seen any such posts on here. Can you point to them?
How does an atheist distinguish the meaning of stuff from making shit up?
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Has anyone posted either that they establish meaning by imagining it, or that any use of the imagination is unacceptable?
I haven't seen any such posts on here. Can you point to them?
How does an atheist distinguish the meaning of stuff from making shit up?
By whether they find it in the 'non-fiction' or 'religion and spirituality' section of the library?
O.
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Has anyone posted either that they establish meaning by imagining it, or that any use of the imagination is unacceptable?
I haven't seen any such posts on here. Can you point to them?
How does an atheist distinguish the meaning of stuff from making shit up?
By whether they find it in the 'non-fiction' or 'religion and spirituality' section of the library?
O.
So the meaning of life is found in the library?
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Has anyone posted either that they establish meaning by imagining it, or that any use of the imagination is unacceptable?
I haven't seen any such posts on here. Can you point to them?
How does an atheist distinguish the meaning of stuff from making shit up?
By whether they find it in the 'non-fiction' or 'religion and spirituality' section of the library?
O.
So the meaning of life is found in the library?
For some people, I'd suspect, yes it does. You keep falling prey to this assumption that there is A purpose to life, despite the complete absence of any decent evidence for that idea.
O.
-
Evasion noted and an object lesson about trying to have meaningful dialogue with fundamentalist antitheists learned.
Not an evasion, Vlad - you're just an incredibly poor writer who can't express your meaning in clear English.
Shaker, I think we need to know one thing.
If one is finding one's meaning by imagining what it is....why is that suddenly acceptable in antitheists for whom imagining things is usually unacceptable?
Has anyone posted either that they establish meaning by imagining it, or that any use of the imagination is unacceptable?
I haven't seen any such posts on here. Can you point to them?
How does an atheist distinguish the meaning of stuff from making shit up?
By whether they find it in the 'non-fiction' or 'religion and spirituality' section of the library?
O.
So the meaning of life is found in the library?
For some people, I'd suspect, yes it does. You keep falling prey to this assumption that there is A purpose to life, despite the complete absence of any decent evidence for that idea.
O.
No, I'm happy with the question ''Is there a purpose to life?''.
Your discomfort at this question is evidenced by you dishonestly describing the question as an assumption that there is a purpose to life. The idea is enough for the question to be legitimately asked.
That you wish to prevent it being asked is intellectual totalitarianism on your part.
-
Don't you mean anti-theistic Stalinism, Vlad? ;)
-
Don't you mean anti-theistic Stalinism, Vlad? ;)
That as well, Shakes.
-
Thought so ;D
-
No, I'm happy with the question ''Is there a purpose to life?'.
Your discomfort at this question is evidenced by you dishonestly describing the question as an assumption that there is a purpose to life. The idea is enough for the question to be legitimately asked.
That would be the point where you beg the question 'is there purpose to life' in your question 'So the meaning of life is found in the library" - that's not my dishonesty (nice ad hominem, by the way) but the implication of your phrasing. The idea might be enough for the question to be asked for you, but unless you demonstrate there's a reason to presume there is an underlying reason I can keep pointing out that you're question begging.
That you wish to prevent it being asked is intellectual totalitarianism on your part.
Yeah, my pointing out your unwarranted assumptions is 'intellectual totalitarianism'... is that the new 'philosophical naturalism'?
O.
-
No, I'm happy with the question ''Is there a purpose to life?'.
Your discomfort at this question is evidenced by you dishonestly describing the question as an assumption that there is a purpose to life. The idea is enough for the question to be legitimately asked.
That would be the point where you beg the question 'is there purpose to life' in your question 'So the meaning of life is found in the library" - that's not my dishonesty (nice ad hominem, by the way) but the implication of your phrasing. The idea might be enough for the question to be asked for you, but unless you demonstrate there's a reason to presume there is an underlying reason I can keep pointing out that you're question begging.
That you wish to prevent it being asked is intellectual totalitarianism on your part.
Yeah, my pointing out your unwarranted assumptions is 'intellectual totalitarianism'... is that the new 'philosophical naturalism'?
O.
The question is a legitimate one because we humans naturally create a narrative for ourselves to engage our being into the community in which we live, and to do this our society and culture has to be given some form of 'solid' meaning and foundation, some ultimate clarity and form, and therefore, purpose.
The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.
And also, what do we mean by purpose or meaning?
-
The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.
And also, what do we mean by purpose or meaning?
Romanticism ... we all daydream at times, even atheists. :)
It's nice, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality.
-
The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.
And also, what do we mean by purpose or meaning?
Romanticism ... we all daydream at times, even atheists. :)
It's nice, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality.
But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned? Where does the capacity to do so come from? Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.
-
But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned? Where does the capacity to do so come from? Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.
That's not necessarily true. That point of view - panadaptationism - has a long and distinguished history in evolutionary biology; it has been and is held by some very, very smart people indeed, so there's nothing inherently intellectually disreputable about it. But it's an opinion or perhaps an interpretation, not definitively settled and conclusive fact.
-
But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned? Where does the capacity to do so come from? Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.
That's not necessarily true. That point of view - panadaptationism - has a long and distinguished history in evolutionary biology; it has been and is held by some very, very smart people indeed, so there's nothing inherently intellectually disreputable about it. But it's an opinion or perhaps an interpretation, not definitively settled and conclusive fact.
So you are saying dreaming in the context I have set it is a secondary feature, one that is not fundamental to the function and survival of the species. For example a bird acquiring a set of long ornamental blue feathers due to say genetic drift?
-
But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned?
I said daydream. Our imagination often indulges in it.
Where does the capacity to do so come from?
It happens when the brain is not being used in everyday living. I suppose it is because it is very difficult to think of nothing ... so the brain just does its own thing.
Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.
I don't think that is true. Many mutations occur that are neither advantageous nor harmful, so they just get passed on.
-
The question is a legitimate one because we humans naturally create a narrative for ourselves to engage our being into the community in which we live, and to do this our society and culture has to be given some form of 'solid' meaning and foundation, some ultimate clarity and form, and therefore, purpose.
Within the context of a social and societal structure, yes it does - however, that's not the context in which it was being used.
The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.
That feeling, though, isn't predicated on anything demonstrable.
O.
-
Daydreams are also a form of escape 😉
I suppose so! We can create a perfect world where nothing bad happens and everybody is happy.
And don't let anybody be creepy enough to suggest it would be boring! If you're bored, you aren't happy, so it would be an impossible thought! :)
-
But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned?
I said daydream. Our imagination often indulges in it.
Where does the capacity to do so come from?
It happens when the brain is not being used in everyday living. I suppose it is because it is very difficult to think of nothing ... so the brain just does its own thing.
Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.
I don't think that is true. Many mutations occur that are neither advantageous nor harmful, so they just get passed on.
You would need to explain why we have the capacity to daydream (which is way more than we need to function; over capacity) and not just be sufficient in dealing with our worldly needs as animals. Most non-functional mutations are very low cost in their energy requirements which is why they are tolerated. Our brains consume 20 - 25 % of all our energy requirements which is substantial if some of that is just there by chance by genetic drift, so that we can dream of being part of some magnanimous cosmic plan.
-
The question is a legitimate one because we humans naturally create a narrative for ourselves to engage our being into the community in which we live, and to do this our society and culture has to be given some form of 'solid' meaning and foundation, some ultimate clarity and form, and therefore, purpose.
Within the context of a social and societal structure, yes it does - however, that's not the context in which it was being used.
The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.
That feeling, though, isn't predicated on anything demonstrable.
O.
I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.
-
I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.
I think feelings are an important part of living, but I think they are a woefully unreliable guide to any sort of 'facts' or 'truth' in most instances. Life would be irrevocably worse without them, but it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what we do or do not know about reality.
O.
-
You would need to explain why we have the capacity to daydream (which is way more than we need to function; over capacity) and not just be sufficient in dealing with our worldly needs as animals.
But day-dreaming is not over functioning. It is simply unoccupied with any living 'problems', so it does its own thing. I suppose it's a form of it relaxing, as in sleeping and dreaming.
Most non-functional mutations are very low cost in their energy requirements which is why they are tolerated. Our brains consume 20 - 25 % of all our energy requirements which is substantial if some of that is just there by chance by genetic drift, so that we can dream of being part of some magnanimous cosmic plan.
Being able to think of the future results of present actions is, I would say, a very important part of our survival mechanism we couldn't do without. But it isn't always in use, and thus gives itself to recreational activity at times.
-
I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.
I think feelings are an important part of living, but I think they are a woefully unreliable guide to any sort of 'facts' or 'truth' in most instances. Life would be irrevocably worse without them, but it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what we do or do not know about reality.
O.
But just because they don't immediately lead to an answer doesn't mean we should totally disregard them as being invalid and what they may be indicating to us. They are real and they do imply some content, even though we are not always sure what the full content of them are or their ramifications, and the reality behind them.
If science conducted itself in the way you have proposed for feelings then it would have ignored a long list of phenomena because they weren't immediately obvious what they meant or the validity of them for understanding reality, all because science lacked the tools to understand them and investigate them.
-
But just because they don't immediately lead to an answer doesn't mean we should totally disregard them as being invalid and what they may be indicating to us. They are real and they do imply some content, even though we are not always sure what the full content of them are or their ramifications, and the reality behind them.
Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply in any way that they were invalid - to some extent, they are the only point, if we didn't feel for the things in life we wouldn't be interested in point or purpose and we'd just mechanically go through the biological necessities.
If science conducted itself in the way you have proposed for feelings then it would have ignored a long list of phenomena because they weren't immediately obvious what they meant or the validity of them for understanding reality, all because science lacked the tools to understand them and investigate them.
As things stand, we are still extremely poor at understanding feelings and emotions. Whilst neurology is beginning to develop, the ethical constraints we (rightly) place on ourselves when we investigate people's emotional lives make it one of the more challenging areas to work in.
O.
-
I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.
I think feelings are an important part of living, but I think they are a woefully unreliable guide to any sort of 'facts' or 'truth' in most instances. Life would be irrevocably worse without them, but it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what we do or do not know about reality.
O.
But if they are part of reality, experience, knowledge, and control of them would make a difference about what we know about reality.
-
But if they are part of reality, experience, knowledge, and control of them would make a difference about what we know about reality.
Absolutely, if we knew more about them they might well become a better guide. Given what we know of them at the moment, though, they are currently a very poor guide to anything concrete about reality.
O.
-
I lost my faith when I no longer felt it was real. If long given up trying to make the nuts and bolts of Christian belief fit together, but it didn't matter whilst it felt real. Once that stopped, I couldn't believe it any more, and I couldn't force myself to feel the way that I used to either.