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 #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'.

I answered that case put forward by writing 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]

The whole thread seems to have been about addressing the OP question. i have also said that I don't see what more can be done in a formal 1 on 1 format, but I'll do it if you think it would be useful.

[William]

As I pointed out in #117, there is no reason I can see why we need to proceed.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

There is an unspoken assumption in the OP that Meaning is something that must accompany our existence. I don't see how Theism answers the question any differently than that of the atheist: we invent our own meaning. For the theist, their meaning is to serve the God of the religion they choose.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I pointed out in #117, there is no reason I can see why we need to proceed.

Nor do I since it is pretty clear that you have no evidence to present or you would have done so many posts ago. Thus I'd say that my case that consciousness as an emergent property of the human brain, as indicated by tracing brain activity related to thoughts and the evidence of evolution of animal brains is the default theory, even if the material default did not obtain even without any such evidence.

In support of your contention that there is a sort of overarching Cosmic Mind (aka God as you let slip), you have produced no evidence. Not a scrap. I do hope that we don't have to have this discussion again.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

There is an unspoken assumption in the OP that Meaning is something that must accompany our existence. I don't see how Theism answers the question any differently than that of the atheist: we invent our own meaning. For the theist, their meaning is to serve the God of the religion they choose.

I think that sums up the position fairly well. Aside from the rather pathetic bribe of eternal life from people who cannot see past the evolved instinct of fear of death, the easy answers or religious observance do not mean that human aspirations are not just as valid, and in fact are holistic rather than tribal as in the various religions.

[William]

As I pointed out in #117, there is no reason I can see why we need to proceed.

Nor do I since it is pretty clear that you have no evidence to present or you would have done so many posts ago. Thus I'd say that my case that consciousness as an emergent property of the human brain, as indicated by tracing brain activity related to thoughts and the evidence of evolution of animal brains is the default theory, even if the material default did not obtain even without any such evidence.

In support of your contention that there is a sort of overarching Cosmic Mind (aka God as you let slip), you have produced no evidence. Not a scrap. I do hope that we don't have to have this discussion again.

I identify the bolded part of your statement as you making a positive claim, and as such you are required to back this assertion with evidence, rather than assert that your interpretation of the evidence is the actual evidence.

As to the rest, I agree that there is no practical point in us attempting to discuss anything due to your mind already being made up re your belief in the interpretation of the evidence being that consciousness derives solely from brain activity.

Further to that, the type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone, is exampled at the following link:
viewtopic.php?p=1113006#p1113006

Go well.
Over and Out.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I pointed out in #117, there is no reason I can see why we need to proceed.

Nor do I since it is pretty clear that you have no evidence to present or you would have done so many posts ago. Thus I'd say that my case that consciousness as an emergent property of the human brain, as indicated by tracing brain activity related to thoughts and the evidence of evolution of animal brains is the default theory, even if the material default did not obtain even without any such evidence.

In support of your contention that there is a sort of overarching Cosmic Mind (aka God as you let slip), you have produced no evidence. Not a scrap. I do hope that we don't have to have this discussion again.

I identify the bolded part of your statement as you making a positive claim, and as such you are required to back this assertion with evidence, rather than assert that your interpretation of the evidence is the actual evidence.

As to the rest, I agree that there is no practical point in us attempting to discuss anything due to your mind already being made up re your belief in the interpretation of the evidence being that consciousness derives solely from brain activity.

Further to that, the type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone, is exampled at the following link:
viewtopic.php?p=1113006#p1113006

Go well.
Over and Out.

This is just dickering with words. The Data, as research into brain activity correlated with thought), animal awareness and evolution of animal brains correlated with their activities and the study of human individual thinking is 'interpreted' as you say to suggest that evolutionary biology is the go -to hypothesis. Unless you can provide evidence for Something More. There is little point in twitting me for 'having my mind made up' when you have presented nothing but a faith - claim to change it (1).

I am very familiar of course. with the ploy misdirection to an implanted link (which is a different discussion anyway) or the 'There is no point in talking to a closed mind' evasion of one who has failed to make their case, or in your case, any case.

Do better, game over and counted out.

(1) I can give some examples of points made here that I have taken on board, so far as they go

Universal constants
Babylon was destroyed (though it was rebuilt)
use of Hebrew -sounding names in Egypt before the time of the Hyksos expulsion.

I haven't forgotten any of those arguing - points as a closed mind would have.

[William]

Further to that, the type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone, is exampled at the following link:
viewtopic.php?p=1113006#p1113006

Out.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #129]

As I recall that said, that seems to be a discussion of possibles within a faith - claim, not about evidence. That said, you are welcome to drop out of the discussion, since it seems that you have no evidence to present.