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]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

From what I can gather, our preamble conversation isn't really about answering the OPQ.
Perhaps whatever our interaction is about, can be formalized and debated in a 1on1 setting.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

From what I can gather, our preamble conversation isn't really about answering the OPQ.
Perhaps whatever our interaction is about, can be formalized and debated in a 1on1 setting.

From what I recall of our exchange here it was right on the topic and set out what i consider the facts here and the Question is actually not correct (1) as atheism does not of itself supply meaning but does not prevent meaning from whence it does come. I fail to see how a 1 on 1 formal debate could produce any different result. But just so the 'afraid to debate me' card can't be played, I would agree to debate on a correctly formulated topic with (necessary condition) a moderator to keep order. And I would like to propose, keep count of points sustained and points not sustained so to underline the result.

(1) stemming from a common misconception that atheism is some sort of alternative religion or Worldview that sets out a plan for living. Humanism, rationalism and science does that, but atheism is only a response to the god - claim. No more.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

From what I can gather, our preamble conversation isn't really about answering the OPQ.
Perhaps whatever our interaction is about, can be formalized and debated in a 1on1 setting.

From what I recall of our exchange here it was right on the topic and set out what i consider the facts here and the Question is actually not correct (1) as atheism does not of itself supply meaning but does not prevent meaning from whence it does come. I fail to see how a 1 on 1 formal debate could produce any different result. But just so the 'afraid to debate me' card can't be played, I would agree to debate on a correctly formulated topic with (necessary condition) a moderator to keep order. And I would like to propose, keep count of points sustained and points not sustained so to underline the result.

(1) stemming from a common misconception that atheism is some sort of alternative religion or Worldview that sets out a plan for living. Humanism, rationalism and science does that, but atheism is only a response to the god - claim. No more.

Seems reasonable.

I agree with (1) so we have no issue re that.

I think our issue has to do with your belief that consciousness is the sole product of the brain, due to the evidence of science re measuring brain activity in relation to conscious activity.

I agree with the science in that regard.

However, it is my understanding that this gives us something to measure but does not show us that it is therefore the case that consciousness emerges from said brain activity, as the same evidence can be interpreted that it is consciousness using the brain as a device for its own purpose, and that this is what is being seen through the science.

While I accept that both interpretations are valid, you do not.

This is our issue, as far as I can currently tell.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

From what I can gather, our preamble conversation isn't really about answering the OPQ.
Perhaps whatever our interaction is about, can be formalized and debated in a 1on1 setting.

From what I recall of our exchange here it was right on the topic and set out what i consider the facts here and the Question is actually not correct (1) as atheism does not of itself supply meaning but does not prevent meaning from whence it does come. I fail to see how a 1 on 1 formal debate could produce any different result. But just so the 'afraid to debate me' card can't be played, I would agree to debate on a correctly formulated topic with (necessary condition) a moderator to keep order. And I would like to propose, keep count of points sustained and points not sustained so to underline the result.

(1) stemming from a common misconception that atheism is some sort of alternative religion or Worldview that sets out a plan for living. Humanism, rationalism and science does that, but atheism is only a response to the god - claim. No more.

Seems reasonable.

I agree with (1) so we have no issue re that.

I think our issue has to do with your belief that consciousness is the sole product of the brain, due to the evidence of science re measuring brain activity in relation to conscious activity.

I agree with the science in that regard.

However, it is my understanding that this gives us something to measure but does not show us that it is therefore the case that consciousness emerges from said brain activity, as the same evidence can be interpreted that it is consciousness using the brain as a device for its own purpose, and that this is what is being seen through the science.

While I accept that both interpretations are valid, you do not.

This is our issue, as far as I can currently tell.

Pretty much, but it is the old problem - where the burden of proof lies. All the evidence appears to support mind, consciousness and awareness being a working product of the brain, and producing individual results, too; which an overall consciousness- source shouldn't do (cue excuses). Detectable in animals too so on evidence a product of evolutionary biology.

It seems to me that The Something More advocates have it all to do, and asserting that one view is as good as the other is invalid.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

From what I can gather, our preamble conversation isn't really about answering the OPQ.
Perhaps whatever our interaction is about, can be formalized and debated in a 1on1 setting.

From what I recall of our exchange here it was right on the topic and set out what i consider the facts here and the Question is actually not correct (1) as atheism does not of itself supply meaning but does not prevent meaning from whence it does come. I fail to see how a 1 on 1 formal debate could produce any different result. But just so the 'afraid to debate me' card can't be played, I would agree to debate on a correctly formulated topic with (necessary condition) a moderator to keep order. And I would like to propose, keep count of points sustained and points not sustained so to underline the result.

(1) stemming from a common misconception that atheism is some sort of alternative religion or Worldview that sets out a plan for living. Humanism, rationalism and science does that, but atheism is only a response to the god - claim. No more.

Seems reasonable.

I agree with (1) so we have no issue re that.

I think our issue has to do with your belief that consciousness is the sole product of the brain, due to the evidence of science re measuring brain activity in relation to conscious activity.

I agree with the science in that regard.

However, it is my understanding that this gives us something to measure but does not show us that it is therefore the case that consciousness emerges from said brain activity, as the same evidence can be interpreted that it is consciousness using the brain as a device for its own purpose, and that this is what is being seen through the science.

While I accept that both interpretations are valid, you do not.

This is our issue, as far as I can currently tell.

Pretty much, but it is the old problem - where the burden of proof lies. All the evidence appears to support mind, consciousness and awareness being a working product of the brain, and producing individual results, too; which an overall consciousness- source shouldn't do (cue excuses). Detectable in animals too so on evidence a product of evolutionary biology.

It seems to me that The Something More advocates have it all to do, and asserting that one view is as good as the other is invalid.

The burden of proof would lay with whomever is making an actual positive claim and what the nature of the claim is, re the scientific evidence as it is interpreted.

It seems to me that it has not been established that "one view is as good as the other is invalid" so that could be the focus of any future discussion we might have.

However, if your position prevents you from accepting that both views are valid and neither view has been established as the valid view, we needn't proceed.
_______________________________________________
Note: The logical fallacy known as "false dilemma," is where one presents only two options and assumes that one is true and the other is false without considering other possibilities.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #110]

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.

It was called into question because it derives from belief-based bias. If you are unable to acknowledge that as being the case, that is your call. If it adds meaning to your position, then as mentioned, 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...and bias.

Bias is irrelevant. What you can or cannot produce an argument to support is relevant. Personal views of meaning of life is also irrelevant; what arguments you - or I - can produce as to where the meaning of life is derived from is relevant.

I have argued that reality (or a 'Creation' if you prefer) is that the evolved results of physics on matter/energy has produced us through adaptation to survive conditions without any intended plan. It follows that there is no cosmic Meaning for us and it is up to us, individually and collectively, to find what meaning life has for us. You seem to be on the edge of agreeing that which is fine, but if not, we may expect some evidential support, or at least an argument for that.

From what I can gather, our preamble conversation isn't really about answering the OPQ.
Perhaps whatever our interaction is about, can be formalized and debated in a 1on1 setting.

From what I recall of our exchange here it was right on the topic and set out what i consider the facts here and the Question is actually not correct (1) as atheism does not of itself supply meaning but does not prevent meaning from whence it does come. I fail to see how a 1 on 1 formal debate could produce any different result. But just so the 'afraid to debate me' card can't be played, I would agree to debate on a correctly formulated topic with (necessary condition) a moderator to keep order. And I would like to propose, keep count of points sustained and points not sustained so to underline the result.

(1) stemming from a common misconception that atheism is some sort of alternative religion or Worldview that sets out a plan for living. Humanism, rationalism and science does that, but atheism is only a response to the god - claim. No more.

Seems reasonable.

I agree with (1) so we have no issue re that.

I think our issue has to do with your belief that consciousness is the sole product of the brain, due to the evidence of science re measuring brain activity in relation to conscious activity.

I agree with the science in that regard.

However, it is my understanding that this gives us something to measure but does not show us that it is therefore the case that consciousness emerges from said brain activity, as the same evidence can be interpreted that it is consciousness using the brain as a device for its own purpose, and that this is what is being seen through the science.

While I accept that both interpretations are valid, you do not.

This is our issue, as far as I can currently tell.

Pretty much, but it is the old problem - where the burden of proof lies. All the evidence appears to support mind, consciousness and awareness being a working product of the brain, and producing individual results, too; which an overall consciousness- source shouldn't do (cue excuses). Detectable in animals too so on evidence a product of evolutionary biology.

It seems to me that The Something More advocates have it all to do, and asserting that one view is as good as the other is invalid.

The burden of proof would lay with whomever is making an actual positive claim and what the nature of the claim is, re the scientific evidence as it is interpreted.

It seems to me that it has not been established that "one view is as good as the other is invalid" so that could be the focus of any future discussion we might have.

However, if your position prevents you from accepting that both views are valid and neither view has been established as the valid view, we needn't proceed.
_______________________________________________
Note: The logical fallacy known as "false dilemma," is where one presents only two options and assumes that one is true and the other is false without considering other possibilities.

Right. You disregard the case i put that underpins the idea that mind/consciousness does originate (emerge) with the individual brain and you haven't presented your evidence that I can recall and you want to draw a line under it with the assertion that you have no more burden of proof than I do. I've done my bit; when are you going to do yours?

Oh - it is not a false dilemma. It appears that we have only one claim - a cosmic mind or not. Other hypotheses there may be, but let us hear any such claim and the evidence for it. Until then we have only the two propositions here - yours and mine.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #118]

You disregard the case i put

What case did you put. Please show the reader where I have disregarded it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a positive claim, and that the nature of the claim would need to be established in order to determine where that burden lies.

Additionally, it is important to consider that both views may be valid and that further research and evidence may be needed to establish the true nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #118]

You disregard the case i put

What case did you put. Please show the reader where I have disregarded it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a positive claim, and that the nature of the claim would need to be established in order to determine where that burden lies.

Additionally, it is important to consider that both views may be valid and that further research and evidence may be needed to establish the true nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain.

I put the case above #112 and #108 before that. You have disregarded that or waved it off and just restated faithclaims about 'original initiated reason' and 'language system beyond human awareness'.

That 'beyond awareness' means that you haven't a shred of evidence for this and you are making faithclaims. The burden of proof is on you to provide more than dismissing the evidence of evolved animal consciousness and individual human thought that calls into question a Mind that originated it all. Matter,energy, physics and evolution is the go -to theory. You need to provide evidence for Something More.