How does atheism supply meaning?

[Wootah]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Obviously, people do hold this view, less the meaningless part that was added to poison the well.
For those that are uncomfortable with said view, there are religious options available to fulfill the need to have purpose supplied to them.

What I can't understand is how it is a struggle for some to find purpose in this life and then seem to project that on to others that don't suffer from such a thing. I personally treat this life as something special and have plenty of purpose, because for all I know, it is the only one we will get. The idea of this life being a test for some other life actually would make this life less meaningful as the next would become the true goal. Therefore, could it be argued that atheism supplies more meaning/value for this life than religions in general? Those that struggle to find purpose without religion would obviously not be able to see this and would then be susceptible making claims like we see above.

"No one can truly hold that view" would therefore simply be a projection.

How does atheism supply meaning?

[theophile]

A lot of what you say is true. Notably, Christ does contrast the God of the OT. Purposefully so, because the God of the OT was itself a correction and a contrast to the God of Genesis 1. A bit like a pendulum, right?

Genesis 1 God (the ruach elohim) emphasizes the original and overarching intent of a world where every kind of life can be. i.e., we see God creating life and setting it free (under our oversight of course).

The God of the OT (Yahweh) emphasizes the necessity sometimes of correction through destruction, down to a single one even as you note. A world where every kind of life can be is always at risk. The very freedom inherent in the concept necessarily makes it so. (Freedom is a condition for totalitarianism...)

The God of the NT (Jesus Christ) swings the pendulum back to the original intent of Genesis 1, and healing and life, because many lost sight of this due to the intense displays Yahweh (you know, against various oppressive regimes like Egypt). But he doesn't distance himself from Yahweh. He tells us very clearly not to be confused, and that he still brings the sword... (You can't just disregard this fact, or other key teachings like the sheep and the goats.)

So none of these 'God's' are different per se. They're just emphasizing different but necessary aspects of what it means to serve life.

Doesn't it make more sense that culture and writers changed, that attitudes about God changed, rather than that there was an actual eternal God who changed?

I'm not trying to suggest that an actual, eternal God changes (that would be an oxymoron for starters, and we haven't even really talked about existence so far, let alone whether God is eternal or not). Rather, I'm suggesting that the different writers emphasized different aspects of the same God over time. And I say this precisely because of what you note here, i.e., the changing cultural context, and the writers therefore endeavoring to say what Israel most needed to hear at the time.

For instance, in Jesus' time, they needed to hear a strong message of love, forgiveness, and sacrifice because they had become way too obsessed with the law and justice (i.e., Yahweh, and the God of the OT). Jesus Christ doesn't become disconnected from Yahweh in the process, i.e., a new and improved 'God' -- again, he says himself that he still brings the sword (of justice) just like Yahweh. Rather his character is designed to remind us what God is really about (to swing the pendulum back to the God of Genesis 1), and to frame the law and justice of Yahweh in this context.

(Note, in my previous post where I first said Yahweh was a 'correction' on the God of Genesis 1, that was a mistake and I would edit that framing. What I meant to say using this term was that Yahweh was focused on correction, or correcting the course, after the fall in Genesis 3. And given the obstinacy of humankind, this often required some terrible but arguably necessary means.)

So all that said, where I see remarkable consistency and coherence across all these written manifestations of God (the ruach elohim, Yahweh, Jesus Christ...), you see independent writers doing their own thing. Which strikes me that you are perhaps thinking too much from our own cultural context and modern proclivity for independent authorship, versus the more communal mode of authorship prevalent at the time...

This is more food for thought than a decisive point against your comment, but let's remember that biblical texts were more like an oral tradition of stories passed down from generation to generation and refined over time (like a fine wine). This process would have invested each successive writer much more deeply in the core concepts and narrative of the tradition, and strengthened the consistency and cohesion of new books or iterations to the old. This is in pretty stark contrast to today where once a text is written it's done, i.e., a once and done and highly independent form of authorship that prides itself on individual genius. And where we as readers simply consume and move on from the writings and teachings of others versus truly investing ourselves in them and making them our own...

See where I'm going? The biblical tradition is much more likely to maintain consistency and cohesiveness across centuries of writers and changing cultural context because of the communal mode in which it was crafted, and how this keeps each successive writer anchored in the heart of what came before. This holds up to the NT even, and the gospels for instance, and why we have four of them versus just one. This gives us a clear snapshot of this process unfolding, and which unfortunately ground to a halt right around the time the gospels were crafted.

People today often want to use this as a point against the biblical tradition because it means there is no single, authoritative source. I think it's lamentable that we've lost touch with what is really going on here, and how powerful this mode of writing can be to both unify us as a people across history and to produce works of art much finer than anyone on their own could ever hope to achieve.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #51]

I don't buy it. It looks like the usual Bible -apologist excuse for the Bible being a shambles, contradictory and often wrong.

While we are very fortunate in having four gospels,since they show up the tatty state of the narrative when compared (which theists don't do as they would rather not know) but I simply do not buy the lie that God is somehow consistent. He was ready to destroy Israel's enemies, because they had other gods. But suddenly he gets all partial towards Gentiles just when (on evidence) the Bible starts to be written by Gentiles, because Jews they aren't, if Matthew is supposed to be the most Jewish.

of course we got off meaning in an atheist life, but it always happens - God and Bible -apologists trying to make a case for a case that failed decades ago.

first cause - irrelevant

Genesis literalism - anti evolution, demonstrably wrong

Morality - done and dusted

Prophecy, - receipted and filed

miracles - at best in the pending tray; neither here nor there.

Gospels - nailed down and buried, though the Big Lie is the one everybody knows.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #51]

I don't buy it. It looks like the usual Bible -apologist excuse for the Bible being a shambles, contradictory and often wrong.

While we are very fortunate in having four gospels, since they show up the tatty state of the narrative when compared (which theists don't do as they would rather not know) but I simply do not buy the lie that God is somehow consistent. He was ready to destroy Israel's enemies, because they had other gods. But suddenly he gets all partial towards Gentiles just when (on evidence) the Bible starts to be written by Gentiles, because Jews they aren't, if Matthew is supposed to be the most Jewish.

of course we got off meaning in an atheist life, but it always happens - God and Bible -apologists trying to make a case for a case that failed decades ago.

Well, I'm not surprised you don't buy it. I'm pretty sure you're beyond buying anything with even a whiff of theism. That said, I'm still waiting for your defense of how you aren't in a religious relationship with reason and evidence. (As much as you want to deny a leap of faith in your worldview, it doesn't mean it isn't there.)

And look, harp all you want on biblical apologists who you think you've gone and figured out. But there is some sense in what I'm saying, and they are not at all common apologetics that I know. Both (1) the mode of authorship in ancient Israel compared to today, and how this would have strengthened consistency across generations of writers and a changing cultural context, and (2) in the proposal that everything God says or does in the bible can be shown to follow from one basic principle, i.e., love of life. (Versus reason and evidence as you would suggest of the atheist life, and which to me only find meaning when applied to this greater end, and therefore are secondary.)

But your point about the bible opening up to Gentiles is a good one. This too is 100% consistent with seeking out an end where every kind of life can be. In this case Gentile life, which I would argue was included from the beginning, when it was human kind, both Jew and Gentile, that was chosen. (What a beautiful vision and end Genesis 1 provides, even if it takes a long time for us to get there...)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #51]

I don't buy it. It looks like the usual Bible -apologist excuse for the Bible being a shambles, contradictory and often wrong.

While we are very fortunate in having four gospels, since they show up the tatty state of the narrative when compared (which theists don't do as they would rather not know) but I simply do not buy the lie that God is somehow consistent. He was ready to destroy Israel's enemies, because they had other gods. But suddenly he gets all partial towards Gentiles just when (on evidence) the Bible starts to be written by Gentiles, because Jews they aren't, if Matthew is supposed to be the most Jewish.

of course we got off meaning in an atheist life, but it always happens - God and Bible -apologists trying to make a case for a case that failed decades ago.

Well, I'm not surprised you don't buy it. I'm pretty sure you're beyond buying anything with even a whiff of theism. That said, I'm still waiting for your defense of how you aren't in a religious relationship with reason and evidence. (As much as you want to deny a leap of faith in your worldview, it doesn't mean it isn't there.)

And look, harp all you want on biblical apologists who you think you've gone and figured out. But there is some sense in what I'm saying, and they are not at all common apologetics that I know. Both (1) the mode of authorship in ancient Israel compared to today, and how this would have strengthened consistency across generations of writers and a changing cultural context, and (2) in the proposal that everything God says or does in the bible can be shown to follow from one basic principle, i.e., love of life. (Versus reason and evidence as you would suggest, and which to me only find meaning when applied to this greater end...)

So your point about the bible opening up to Gentiles towards the end, even as the writers may have been becoming more Gentile as you suggest here (proof?). This too is 100% consistent with seeking out an end where every kind of life can be. In this case Gentile life. (What a beautiful vision and end Genesis 1 provides, even if it takes a long time for us to get there...)

No surprise. You people will of course tell yourself it's bias on our part, as though your belief in what has no shred of decent evidence for it wasn't bias. Your harping on 'consistency' in the Bible which is not there at all is totally based on bias. Take the supposedly same god (which it isn't) taken over by the Gentiles and turned into a Christianised Zeus. This God of the Jews, suddenly went all pro Gentile and the Jews were no longer his people, because a Romanised Jew wanted to recruit gentiles into his church? You know it makes no sense other than it is not consistently the same god or Bible. Yet you tell yourself it is a 'beautiful vision' that the Jews' own religion was wrong and they ought to convert. Well it opens up new vistas wot you never wotted of to be an atheist, but of course you can't imagine it. I understand that very well, but like the old Samurai used to say 'The frog knows nothing outside of the pond'.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

It is a delusion, just like God's morality.

The delusion is thinking your life really means anything if all vanishes forever. I remember you said, us existing is an accident. In your view, you are just an accident that comes and goes and will eventually not be remembered by anyone. Your living made no difference. In the end, there is just the big freeze. Your living or not made no difference. The end is the same. Your life meant nothing.


But, if there is life after death, if we continue existing, then our life can make a difference. This is not a reason to believe in life after death. It is just a good consequence of the belief.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

It is a delusion, just like God's morality.

The delusion is thinking your life really means anything if all vanishes forever. I remember you said, us existing is an accident. In your view, you are just an accident that comes and goes and will eventually not be remembered by anyone. Your living made no difference. In the end, there is just the big freeze. Your living or not made no difference. The end is the same. Your life meant nothing.


But, if there is life after death, if we continue existing, then our life can make a difference. This is not a reason to believe in life after death. It is just a good consequence of the belief.

There's the delusion, right there. Your life does not mean anything and my life does not mean anything, in the universal scheme of things. Even if it continues forever (for which there is no very good evidence) it is a meaningless life that never ends. I know, fear of death which has been exploited shamelessly by religion, has made you feel that a hopeful escape from - not death, which it won't since we all have to die in the end, but avoiding not existing, as though that was something wonderful, gives you meaning you feel you need. It is a human instinctive delusion, like the need for money, Things and display. Life has meaning if we give it meaning, and that is the only actual one there is. That a big invisible human cares about you is as meaningless even if it was true, as your cat cares about you. Less so,as you have a good reason for thinking the cat exists.

No, this 'religion gives life meaning' is a cultural trick as man -made as morality, literature and art. And the sooner we understand the sham and divisiveness of religion and the spurious 'Meaning' it gives to life, and understand what meaning there really is, the better. A good time for you to start, is now. You have everything you need by now, you have nothing you need but to open the door of your mental box; you have nothing to lose but your mental chains.

I know; I can feel the tremor of terror you have at the mere idea of Losing Faith. That's the grip it has on you. Well, the choice is yours,and I wish you a great life, either way, but bottom line, your argument from meaning in Life is no argument at all.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

It is a delusion, just like God's morality.

The delusion is thinking your life really means anything if all vanishes forever. I remember you said, us existing is an accident. In your view, you are just an accident that comes and goes and will eventually not be remembered by anyone. Your living made no difference. In the end, there is just the big freeze. Your living or not made no difference. The end is the same. Your life meant nothing.


But, if there is life after death, if we continue existing, then our life can make a difference. This is not a reason to believe in life after death. It is just a good consequence of the belief.

What is so broken with theists, that they think only they get to determine what, and when meaning applies to someone's life?

I spit in your general direction.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

It is a delusion, just like God's morality.

The delusion is thinking your life really means anything if all vanishes forever. I remember you said, us existing is an accident. In your view, you are just an accident that comes and goes and will eventually not be remembered by anyone. Your living made no difference. In the end, there is just the big freeze. Your living or not made no difference. The end is the same. Your life meant nothing.


But, if there is life after death, if we continue existing, then our life can make a difference. This is not a reason to believe in life after death. It is just a good consequence of the belief.

What is so broken with theists, that they think only they get to determine what, and when meaning applies to someone's life?

I spit in your general direction.

And never mind your private parts and their aunties. But you are right, the monumental hubris of supposing that only they and their mythologies can give meaning to our life, either in imagination or reality. Now they had better go away or we shall taunt them some more.

[JoeyKnothead]

What is so broken with theists, that they think only they get to determine what, and when meaning applies to someone's life?

I spit in your general direction.

And never mind your private parts and their aunties. But you are right, the monumental hubris of supposing that only they and their mythologies can give meaning to our life, either in imagination or reality. Now they had better go away or we shall taunt them some more.

It's infuriating to have to repeatedly tell some religious zealot that my life ain't meaningless simply because I don't believe their favorite fairy tale.

Repeatedly told. More'n just the once.

I wonder if flinging boogers violates site rules.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #51]

I don't buy it. It looks like the usual Bible -apologist excuse for the Bible being a shambles, contradictory and often wrong.

While we are very fortunate in having four gospels, since they show up the tatty state of the narrative when compared (which theists don't do as they would rather not know) but I simply do not buy the lie that God is somehow consistent. He was ready to destroy Israel's enemies, because they had other gods. But suddenly he gets all partial towards Gentiles just when (on evidence) the Bible starts to be written by Gentiles, because Jews they aren't, if Matthew is supposed to be the most Jewish.

of course we got off meaning in an atheist life, but it always happens - God and Bible -apologists trying to make a case for a case that failed decades ago.

Well, I'm not surprised you don't buy it. I'm pretty sure you're beyond buying anything with even a whiff of theism. That said, I'm still waiting for your defense of how you aren't in a religious relationship with reason and evidence. (As much as you want to deny a leap of faith in your worldview, it doesn't mean it isn't there.)

And look, harp all you want on biblical apologists who you think you've gone and figured out. But there is some sense in what I'm saying, and they are not at all common apologetics that I know. Both (1) the mode of authorship in ancient Israel compared to today, and how this would have strengthened consistency across generations of writers and a changing cultural context, and (2) in the proposal that everything God says or does in the bible can be shown to follow from one basic principle, i.e., love of life. (Versus reason and evidence as you would suggest, and which to me only find meaning when applied to this greater end...)

So your point about the bible opening up to Gentiles towards the end, even as the writers may have been becoming more Gentile as you suggest here (proof?). This too is 100% consistent with seeking out an end where every kind of life can be. In this case Gentile life. (What a beautiful vision and end Genesis 1 provides, even if it takes a long time for us to get there...)

No surprise. You people will of course tell yourself it's bias on our part, as though your belief in what has no shred of decent evidence for it wasn't bias. Your harping on 'consistency' in the Bible which is not there at all is totally based on bias. Take the supposedly same god (which it isn't) taken over by the Gentiles and turned into a Christianised Zeus. This God of the Jews, suddenly went all pro Gentile and the Jews were no longer his people, because a Romanised Jew wanted to recruit gentiles into his church? You know it makes no sense other than it is not consistently the same god or Bible. Yet you tell yourself it is a 'beautiful vision' that the Jews' own religion was wrong and they ought to convert. Well it opens up new vistas wot you never wotted of to be an atheist, but of course you can't imagine it. I understand that very well, but like the old Samurai used to say 'The frog knows nothing outside of the pond'.

Are you suggesting here that I'm so biased I can't even imagine what atheism is like and the new vistas it opens up? Pretty sure if you scroll back to the beginning of my posts in this debate, and other debates on this site, you'll see I embrace atheism perhaps as much as you insofar as it clears the slate of stodgy old God-thinking and other biases. How many times have I said in this debate alone we need to start from a position of atheistic nihilism? That means new, open vistas... So with all respect to your characterization, I've been there, lived that, and said as much long ago. The difference perhaps is that I took atheism as a starting point versus an end.

And you're still avoiding the questions aimed at you and your own biases when it comes to reason and evidence... I know it's easier to knock something down than to build something up, but as you noted, this debate is about atheism. So start building

(As a reminder, how do you avoid a leap of faith, no matter how small, in your affirmation of reason and evidence? How do tools like reason and evidence provide a meaningful end that they could, in turn, be used to help us achieve?...)