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?

[TRANSPONDER]

I've been thinking a bit about the nature of human thought. In fact there was a discussion about it, just after I joined my former Forum and there was a three way discussion about the validity of the (probably evolved) religious instinct, apparently based on some hypothesis of Plantinga's. It went like this: We evolved a religious instinct which makes God known to us and helps us. A sort of survival instinct perhaps given by God. It ended up with me arguing after 80 pages that human perceptions (as Theists like to point out) are imperfect and prone to mistaken assumptions. Therefore instinctive ideas, beliefs and suppositions are not to be trusted, especially those claiming the supernatural, since none of them agree with the others on what they are 'seeing'. Which is why you need religions, Dogmas and authorities to keep them in order and burn heretics, doubters and blasphemers to try to keep a semblance of Unity in supernatural and revelationary thought, because if you think organising atheists is like herding cats, you try to keep a bunch of Prophets of the order of Melchizedek (1) toeing the party line.

So, while I agreed that religion was a great tribal survival instinct (otherwise we wouldn't have evolved it), it could not be regarded as an instinct designed to reveal the truth. For that, you need research, study, repeat, checks, double blind testing and verification. In fact, to get at the truth, you need science, because, reasonably, revelation doesn't do it.

(1) that is, given the Job on God's say -so.

[brunumb]

It's amazing to me that Religion has been so effective at self-propagation. I can really see why Dawkins calls it a Meme or a mental virus. For thousands of years, it has been able to infect people who then in turn infect others, all on the basis of some guys writing it in a book.
And this idea of a mental virus is scary since it's so easy to replicate: Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

It is a very apt analogy. It spreads through close contact. Some people have a natural immunity. Particular strains are able to mutate into slightly different variants. It can be fatal. Those who recover often experience long-term detrimental effects. No completely effective vaccine has been discovered to prevent infection.

[Wootah]

It's amazing to me that Religion has been so effective at self-propagation. I can really see why Dawkins calls it a Meme or a mental virus. For thousands of years, it has been able to infect people who then in turn infect others, all on the basis of some guys writing it in a book.
And this idea of a mental virus is scary since it's so easy to replicate: Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

It is a very apt analogy. It spreads through close contact. Some people have a natural immunity. Particular strains are able to mutate into slightly different variants. It can be fatal. Those who recover often experience long-term detrimental effects. No completely effective vaccine has been discovered to prevent infection.

Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Secularism, Nihillism, etc.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Wootah in post #233]

You don't distinguish between an idea like Hinduism where some believe there is a literal monkey ripping open his chest to an atheist saying, "I don't believe that" , do you?

I'd encourage you to discover some nuance to your thinking.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #233]

You don't distinguish between an idea like Hinduism where some believe there is a literal monkey ripping open his chest to an atheist saying, "I don't believe that" , do you?

I'd encourage you to discover some nuance to your thinking.

Most atheists I know think ripping a baby out of a mother or vacuuming it out is normal behaviour.

It's because I have not found the rational secular atheist I was promised that I find Christ so compelling.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's amazing to me that Religion has been so effective at self-propagation. I can really see why Dawkins calls it a Meme or a mental virus. For thousands of years, it has been able to infect people who then in turn infect others, all on the basis of some guys writing it in a book.
And this idea of a mental virus is scary since it's so easy to replicate: Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

It is a very apt analogy. It spreads through close contact. Some people have a natural immunity. Particular strains are able to mutate into slightly different variants. It can be fatal. Those who recover often experience long-term detrimental effects. No completely effective vaccine has been discovered to prevent infection.

Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Secularism, Nihillism, etc.

No, because as is usual with theisthink you fail to distinguish between isms based on evidence and those based on myth.

[Replying to Wootah in post #233]

You don't distinguish between an idea like Hinduism where some believe there is a literal monkey ripping open his chest to an atheist saying, "I don't believe that" , do you?

I'd encourage you to discover some nuance to your thinking.

Most atheists I know think ripping a baby out of a mother or vacuuming it out is normal behaviour.

It's because I have not found the rational secular atheist I was promised that I find Christ so compelling.

Even if you do know any atheists, it doesn't seem you ever listen to what they really think rather than imposing your own prejudices onto them.

[brunumb]

It's amazing to me that Religion has been so effective at self-propagation. I can really see why Dawkins calls it a Meme or a mental virus. For thousands of years, it has been able to infect people who then in turn infect others, all on the basis of some guys writing it in a book.
And this idea of a mental virus is scary since it's so easy to replicate: Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

It is a very apt analogy. It spreads through close contact. Some people have a natural immunity. Particular strains are able to mutate into slightly different variants. It can be fatal. Those who recover often experience long-term detrimental effects. No completely effective vaccine has been discovered to prevent infection.

Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Secularism, Nihillism, etc.

It would help if you at least tried to understand the analogy. For instance, atheists are the ones who haven't been infected, or recovered from the infection.

[brunumb]

Most atheists I know think ripping a baby out of a mother or vacuuming it out is normal behaviour.

Perhaps the following statistics will give you pause for thought:

7 in 10 Women Who Have Had an Abortion Identify as a Christian

Insights| Church Life & Ministry | Dec 3, 2021
Paola Chaaya photo | Unsplash

By Aaron Earls

Seven in 10 women who have had an abortion identify as a Christian, according to a 2015 Lifeway Research study sponsored by Care Net, a nonprofit organization supporting pregnancy centers across North America.
7 in 10 women who have had an abortion identify as a Christian, according to a 2015 Lifeway Research study, closely mirroring the overall religious makeup of the U.S.
Click To Tweet

The 70% of women who’ve had abortions that self-identify as a Christian includes Catholics (27%), Protestants (26%), non-denominational (15%), and Orthodox (2%).

Among Protestants, more identify as Baptists (33%), Methodist (11%), Presbyterian (10%), or Lutheran (9%).

Far fewer women who’ve had abortion identify as agnostic (8%), atheist (4%), Jewish (3%), Muslim (2%), Hindu (1%), Buddhist (1%), Latter Day Saint or Mormon (1%), or Jehovah’s Witness (1%). Another 3% say “other,” and 7% say they have no religious preference.

I guess they're happy to vacuum more than just the carpets.

[Cue: No True Christian™.....]

[otseng]

Kindly address the current points under discussion and do not wriggle and evade. We are wily old birds and will not fall for the Briar Patch ploy.

Moderator Comment

Creating a new thread that is not related to the OP is allowed and even expected.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wootah]

[Replying to brunumb in post #237]

That would be a misconception.

Maybe those myths were holding clown world back?