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?

[William]

Ultimately, the question of meaning in life is a deeply personal one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ultimately, the question of meaning in life is a deeply personal one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs.

Yes; in the end the individual must decide, on matters of belief as well as matters of choice. But the point about human wisdom is that others have do the work and thinking before us and we don't have to do it all ourselves. We can choose between having a car or a bike, but we don't have to invent the things first. Individuality goes wrong if it refuses to listen to others. Which is why I have never been a Luddite nor a golden -ageist. Nor am I a cynic nor a nihilist, despite the view of not a few theists that, as an atheist, I must be.

[William]

Ultimately, the question of meaning in life is a deeply personal one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs.

Yes; in the end the individual must decide, on matters of belief as well as matters of choice. But the point about human wisdom is that others have do the work and thinking before us and we don't have to do it all ourselves. We can choose between having a car or a bike, but we don't have to invent the things first. Individuality goes wrong if it refuses to listen to others. Which is why I have never been a Luddite nor a golden -ageist. Nor am I a cynic nor a nihilist, despite the view of not a few theists that, as an atheist, I must be.

Re: How does atheism supply meaning? If you are an atheist, you should be able to say if it does of does not.

It can be the case that it is not directly atheism which supplies said meaning, but some other position to which atheism can be attached to.

[JoeyKnothead]

Re: How does atheism supply meaning? If you are an atheist, you should be able to say if it does or does not.

It can be the case that it is not directly atheism which supplies said meaning, but some other position to which atheism can be attached to.

I can sure see how my opinions are informed by my atheism, but what gives meaning to my life wouldn't change if I were to become a theist.

We all find our meaning where we will, some just tack on a god as a source for theirs.

I propose the person who can only find meaning for their lives by believing a god exists is, well, a pretty empty soul.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ultimately, the question of meaning in life is a deeply personal one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs.

Yes; in the end the individual must decide, on matters of belief as well as matters of choice. But the point about human wisdom is that others have do the work and thinking before us and we don't have to do it all ourselves. We can choose between having a car or a bike, but we don't have to invent the things first. Individuality goes wrong if it refuses to listen to others. Which is why I have never been a Luddite nor a golden -ageist. Nor am I a cynic nor a nihilist, despite the view of not a few theists that, as an atheist, I must be.

Re: How does atheism supply meaning? If you are an atheist, you should be able to say if it does of does not.

It can be the case that it is not directly atheism which supplies said meaning, but some other position to which atheism can be attached to.

Yes, one could say that. I suppose one could say Humanism, or Rationality (of which atheism is a subset), or Reality, or the database of atheism: scientific evidence and logical reasoning. When it comes down to it, 'Reality' (so far as we can see and can be proven) is the basis for Meaning IF we understand that it has no Cosmic morality, Meaningfulness and Plan for us, and we have to devise these things for ourselves on the only objective basis we have - evolved instinctive preferences.

Just take the human penchant for discovery. There are those who (even when I was a kid, delighted by space research) protested about the money being spent on it, and didn't see curiosity as a good reason for the research. There had to be practical benefit. I have already mentioned the ability to prevent an asteroid - strike, being worth all that money, but our lovely mobile phones would not work without satellites. Or not so well.

But the point is that human curiosity is a trait and is not only instinctively pleasant to satisfy, but is a survival mechanism and has done us very well, by and large. Thus, meaning in our lives, like morality as well as art and music, is a human construct based on instinctive preferences; and if they do not seem as unarguable as a meaning imposed by some Deistic Diktat, it is more in accordance with reality and is in fact makes more sense as a meaning for humans than one dumped on humans by some Cosmic entity.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #104]

Re: How does atheism supply meaning? If you are an atheist, you should be able to say if it does or does not.

It can be the case that it is not directly atheism which supplies said meaning, but some other position to which atheism can be attached to.

I can sure see how my opinions are informed by my atheism, but what gives meaning to my life wouldn't change if I were to become a theist.

Yes it would, because you would be filtering the meaning of the experience through the idea that you exist in a created thing AND some belief of a GOD.

We all find our meaning where we will, some just tack on a god as a source for theirs.

Yes. Theists do this, which is why they are called 'theists'.

I propose the person who can only find meaning for their lives by believing a god exists is, well, a pretty empty soul.

I propose that the nasty yellow-belly - even whilst medicated - still finds a way in which to add its voice to the mix.

Such are the things in which life involves us with.

Click the pic

[William]

Re: How does atheism supply meaning? If you are an atheist, you should be able to say if it does of does not.

It can be the case that it is not directly atheism which supplies said meaning, but some other position to which atheism can be attached to.

Yes, one could say that. I suppose one could say Humanism, or Rationality (of which atheism is a subset), or Reality, or the database of atheism:

I think it can be traced to a common source. The belief that one's consciousness derives from one's brain...which is not in itself something only atheists believe in, but also something many religious folk believe in - with the addition that they will be regenerated even after their brains have turned to dust.

scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Both important only when not first interpreted through Atheist or Theist belief-based bias.

When it comes down to it, 'Reality' (so far as we can see and can be proven) is the basis for Meaning IF we understand that it has no Cosmic morality, Meaningfulness and Plan for us, and we have to devise these things for ourselves on the only objective basis we have - evolved instinctive preferences.

Which best work when not influenced by belief based bias.

One can view the reality as being that everything that has happened to date, is based upon an original initiated reason which has meaning propelling it towards something specific and that our reactions to that might require adjusting, but overall the collective human direction shows clearly that meaning has been derived from the experience. To what end, we - in general - appear not to be sure...but it is undeniable purpose underlines our efforts re the efforts of nature - perhaps not the mindless beast folk take Her for.

Just take the human penchant for discovery. There are those who (even when I was a kid, delighted by space research) protested about the money being spent on it, and didn't see curiosity as a good reason for the research. There had to be practical benefit. I have already mentioned the ability to prevent an asteroid - strike, being worth all that money, but our lovely mobile phones would not work without satellites. Or not so well.

It's a kind of magic which can also be explained. I think it plausible that human intelligence, leading to discovery and invention, is influenced by a mind of a larger language system beyond immediate human awareness - remaining unseen unless looked for and found and is intimately attached to the overall human experience.
It is plausible that it is from this larger language system that we get our inspiration to explore where our curiosity takes us re remaining within the -rather vast -confines of the objective thing we subjectively experience.

But the point is that human curiosity is a trait and is not only instinctively pleasant to satisfy, but is a survival mechanism and has done us very well, by and large. Thus, meaning in our lives, like morality as well as art and music, is a human construct based on instinctive preferences;

Well - according to those who believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, yes.

and if they do not seem as unarguable as a meaning imposed by some Deistic Diktat, it is more in accordance with reality and is in fact makes more sense as a meaning for humans than one dumped on humans by some Cosmic entity.

A bit too melodramatic with the slightly bitter seasoning of victimhood, for me to swallow.
Each to their own.
Ultimately, the question of meaning in life is a deeply personal one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs.


GOD knows - the only way up is higher! Higher!

[TRANSPONDER]

Re: How does atheism supply meaning? If you are an atheist, you should be able to say if it does of does not.

It can be the case that it is not directly atheism which supplies said meaning, but some other position to which atheism can be attached to.

Yes, one could say that. I suppose one could say Humanism, or Rationality (of which atheism is a subset), or Reality, or the database of atheism:

I think it can be traced to a common source. The belief that one's consciousness derives from one's brain...which is not in itself something only atheists believe in, but also something many religious folk believe in - with the addition that they will be regenerated even after their brains have turned to dust.

scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Both important only when not first interpreted through Atheist or Theist belief-based bias.

When it comes down to it, 'Reality' (so far as we can see and can be proven) is the basis for Meaning IF we understand that it has no Cosmic morality, Meaningfulness and Plan for us, and we have to devise these things for ourselves on the only objective basis we have - evolved instinctive preferences.

Which best work when not influenced by belief based bias.

One can view the reality as being that everything that has happened to date, is based upon an original initiated reason which has meaning propelling it towards something specific and that our reactions to that might require adjusting, but overall the collective human direction shows clearly that meaning has been derived from the experience. To what end, we - in general - appear not to be sure...but it is undeniable purpose underlines our efforts re the efforts of nature - perhaps not the mindless beast folk take Her for.

Just take the human penchant for discovery. There are those who (even when I was a kid, delighted by space research) protested about the money being spent on it, and didn't see curiosity as a good reason for the research. There had to be practical benefit. I have already mentioned the ability to prevent an asteroid - strike, being worth all that money, but our lovely mobile phones would not work without satellites. Or not so well.

It's a kind of magic which can also be explained. I think it plausible that human intelligence, leading to discovery and invention, is influenced by a mind of a larger language system beyond immediate human awareness - remaining unseen unless looked for and found and is intimately attached to the overall human experience.
It is plausible that it is from this larger language system that we get our inspiration to explore where our curiosity takes us re remaining within the -rather vast -confines of the objective thing we subjectively experience.

But the point is that human curiosity is a trait and is not only instinctively pleasant to satisfy, but is a survival mechanism and has done us very well, by and large. Thus, meaning in our lives, like morality as well as art and music, is a human construct based on instinctive preferences;

Well - according to those who believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, yes.

and if they do not seem as unarguable as a meaning imposed by some Deistic Diktat, it is more in accordance with reality and is in fact makes more sense as a meaning for humans than one dumped on humans by some Cosmic entity.

A bit too melodramatic with the slightly bitter seasoning of victimhood, for me to swallow.
Each to their own.
Ultimately, the question of meaning in life is a deeply personal one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs.


GOD knows - the only way up is higher! Higher!

You may think whatever you like, but you will have to present some reason to credit this 'mind of a larger language system' beyond a claim of'plausibility'. If you would like to show that art and music, not to mention literature is Not an emergent property of the brain but is down to some .'mind of a larger system', then i may be willing to consider mind and consciousness as also something other than a product of the brain.

The melodrama and embittered victimhood is something you (at best) read into my post when it is in fact a cooly rational position on which is the better - a consensus morality or one 'Given' (if you don't care for 'imposed') by a Creative Cosmic mind which, if I may also be permitted to detect meanings beyond what is actually posted, is what you are trying to push.

In fact I am pleased and rather amused, rather than wallowing in embittered victimhood, as you clearly agree with what I proposed: "one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs." - plus drawing on accumulated validated knowledge and understanding, not doing it it in isolation.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #108]

You may think whatever you like,

As you and the rest of the royal we, do

but you will have to present some reason to credit this 'mind of a larger language system' beyond a claim of 'plausibility'.

Well, I do that every day, for my own enjoyment - and share that with others who are interested.

If you would like to show that art and music, not to mention literature is Not an emergent property of the brain but is down to some .'mind of a larger system', then i may be willing to consider mind and consciousness as also something other than a product of the brain.

It is not up to me to provide you with evidence which might shatter any belief-based bias you have.

The melodrama and embittered victimhood is something you (at best) read into my post when it is in fact a cooly rational position on which is the better - a consensus morality or one 'Given' (if you don't care for 'imposed') by a Creative Cosmic mind which, if I may also be permitted to detect meanings beyond what is actually posted, is what you are trying to push.

If you do not wish to be misunderstood, chose your words more carefully.

Yes - it is a kind of "giving" in that light. Those who believe that their minds are the product of the brain will of course struggle with the concept, because it means that they cannot contribute either their intelligence, or the way reality unfolds in order that their intelligence is useful, to be entirely of their own brains making.
Reality is gifted upon our individual sentient small language systems.

In fact I am pleased and rather amused, rather than wallowing in embittered victimhood, as you clearly agree with what I proposed: "one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs." - plus drawing on accumulated validated knowledge and understanding, not doing it it in isolation.

Sure. One can stick with the group and even imply one is some type of spokes-person for the group - and the group altogether is affected by belief-based bias, whereas my position affords me a way in which to navigate around such obstacles which belief-based bias builds.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #108]

You may think whatever you like,

As you and the rest of the royal we, do

but you will have to present some reason to credit this 'mind of a larger language system' beyond a claim of 'plausibility'.

Well, I do that every day, for my own enjoyment - and share that with others who are interested.

If you would like to show that art and music, not to mention literature is Not an emergent property of the brain but is down to some .'mind of a larger system', then i may be willing to consider mind and consciousness as also something other than a product of the brain.

It is not up to me to provide you with evidence which might shatter any belief-based bias you have.

The melodrama and embittered victimhood is something you (at best) read into my post when it is in fact a cooly rational position on which is the better - a consensus morality or one 'Given' (if you don't care for 'imposed') by a Creative Cosmic mind which, if I may also be permitted to detect meanings beyond what is actually posted, is what you are trying to push.

If you do not wish to be misunderstood, chose your words more carefully.

Yes - it is a kind of "giving" in that light. Those who believe that their minds are the product of the brain will of course struggle with the concept, because it means that they cannot contribute either their intelligence, or the way reality unfolds in order that their intelligence is useful, to be entirely of their own brains making.
Reality is gifted upon our individual sentient small language systems.

In fact I am pleased and rather amused, rather than wallowing in embittered victimhood, as you clearly agree with what I proposed: "one that each individual must answer for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs." - plus drawing on accumulated validated knowledge and understanding, not doing it it in isolation.

Sure. One can stick with the group and even imply one is some type of spokes-person for the group - and the group altogether is affected by belief-based bias, whereas my position affords me a way in which to navigate around such obstacles which belief-based bias builds.

Aside that you appear to claim that you are 'doing that every day' (providing evidence), you say it's not up to you to provide evidence, which looks like you can't provide it and want to hide behind not wanting to shatter my illusions. I can assure you that if I am mistaken about anything i prefer hard truths to comfortable illusions. And no matter how carefully I choose my words, I can't prevent people reading more into it than is actually there. Especially those who want to accuse me of acting like i was some kind of spokesbod, when all I'm doing is what everyone else does - including yourself: putting their own ideas and arguments. I'll leave the accusations of bias to you.

P.s your link was to a lot of faithbased assertions without a shred of validation and the videos embedded, while interesting, did nothing to add to that. I believe that I did my best to explain both that atheism does not have to provide meaning, but neither does it eliminate meaning which comes from elsewhere and why secularity does well enough. You are welcome to show how anything you posted calls any of that into question.