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?

[boatsnguitars]

2 - People need meaning.

I'm a person and I don't need meaning. What now Sherlock?

Exceptions don't make the rule.

But since you are an exception are you open to talking about it? edit: I mean they would be personal questions and I don't want to violate any rules. Of course if you are claiming you are a 'person that doesn't need meaning' the way anyone can claim to be 'Christian' and not be challenged on the website then I guess we are at an impasse.

You miss the point.

Do people need meaning, or do you just want meaning? (And, do you claim they need, deep, profound, absolutely true and important meaning - or do they just need something to live by until they find something else?)

If you say you need meaning, well, the exception doesn't make the rule...

I think this is a poor direction to take, honestly. It doesn't help falsify or prove Christianity or Atheism.

You might as well say, "How does Atheism allow a person to have a favorite band?"

Pink Floyd

This is an automated response provided when folks mention favorite bands.

haha Yes, but is that the Objective, Absolute favorite band as decreed by God?

[Miles]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #167]

Hi,

All your mind reading isn't needed. I am fairly matter-of-fact.

It's just a syllogism

1 - Atheism does not provide meaning.
2 - People need meaning.
3 - The sources of our meaning are our idols or gods.
Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is their idols or gods.

Now that is one crazy syllogism you've got going there. Are you sure you want to stick with it? Okay, but one small correction if I may, you can't change horses midstream. You can't substitute "their idols or gods" for "our idols or gods." So if you want to properly construct this so-called "syllogism" you'd have to at least say:

"Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is our idols or gods."

which, of course, is ludicrous. Other than the position of "a lack of belief in the existence of god" there is no meaning to atheism. It doesn't supply anything. Period. As for the need of meaning itself, atheist find meaning in the world around them and how they interact with it. It may not provide them with the comforts religion does, but we feel that taking life as it comes is far more honest and satisfying than hanging our hats on faith, fear, and fabrications.


.

When I say 'our' I was referring to 'people'. So 3 - could be written: the sources of peoples means are considered their idols or gods?

Is that clearer?

Only somewhat because "people's" (I assume you mean the possessive) means, would include all people, including atheists, which is incorrect.

.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Miles in post #182]

Atheists are people. I wouldn't deny them personhood.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #182]

Atheists are people. I wouldn't deny them personhood.

Good for you, but it's irrelevant to your statement. It's a matter of categorization. You can't include people in a category where they don't belong. For instance, although both males and females are people, you can't say that because all men have penises they belong to category of people regarded as males, which also includes all women.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Miles in post #184]


Yes.it shows up the invalidity of this supposed syllogism:

It's just a syllogism

1 - Atheism does not provide meaning.
2 - People need meaning.
3 - The sources of our meaning are our idols or gods.
Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is their idols or gods.

People need meaning, yes, generally we do. Without the 'meaning' provided by causes and dogmas (and it can be many other Causes and Dogmas than Religious) people find meanings of their own. Secularism finds meanings of its own and call them gods or idols or not...it is what it is. So what?

Atheism does not provide Meanings,or it is not intended to, so it forms no part of the syllogism whatsoever. That's where the wangle fails, as the appearance of the syllogism is distorted to fit the bash of atheism that was intended. It is far from the only time I've seen logical constructs fiddled to try to make Philosophy disprove atheism.

Kalam is a good example of this. The 'Cosmos' had to have a start
Something must have started it off.

Mendaciously the 'Conclusions' are left open so there are no claims to defend. The reader or hearer is expected to leap to the conclusion(as with the empty tomb) that this proves the Theist hypothesis.

There was (probably) an origin to everything. Apart from the loaded wording 'A Creation', an origin is probable and we are expected to conclude an intelligent start. But we don't know that and we have had the 'something from nothing' debate, where something from nothing is a Problem - and intelligence with no origin is Two problems.

So, even before we get to'which god?' Kalam fails, as did the Ontological argument. And for the same reasons, even if the logical contruct is sound - it needs to assume a god (name your own) or the parameters are invalid.

In fact our pal's syllogism above was ok in that it said that in the absence of a god (theism) secularism has to provide its' own substitutes (for gods or idols) Ok. And atheism doesn't do this. Fair enough.So what is so wrong about that?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #184]


Yes.it shows up the invalidity of this supposed syllogism:

It's just a syllogism

1 - Atheism does not provide meaning.
2 - People need meaning.
3 - The sources of our meaning are our idols or gods.
Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is their idols or gods.

People need meaning, yes, generally we do. Without the 'meaning' provided by causes and dogmas (and it can be many other Causes and Dogmas than Religious) people find meanings of their own. Secularism finds meanings of its own and call them gods or idols or not...it is what it is. So what?

Atheism does not provide Meanings,or it is not intended to, so it forms no part of the syllogism whatsoever. That's where the wangle fails, as the appearance of the syllogism is distorted to fit the bash of atheism that was intended. It is far from the only time I've seen logical constructs fiddled to try to make Philosophy disprove atheism.

Kalam is a good example of this. The 'Cosmos' had to have a start
Something must have started it off.

Mendaciously the 'Conclusions' are left open so there are no claims to defend. The reader or hearer is expected to leap to the conclusion(as with the empty tomb) that this proves the Theist hypothesis.

There was (probably) an origin to everything. Apart from the loaded wording 'A Creation', an origin is probable and we are expected to conclude an intelligent start. But we don't know that and we have had the 'something from nothing' debate, where something from nothing is a Problem - and intelligence with no origin is Two problems.

So, even before we get to'which god?' Kalam fails, as did the Ontological argument. And for the same reasons, even if the logical contruct is sound - it needs to assume a god (name your own) or the parameters are invalid.

In fact our pal's syllogism above was ok in that it said that in the absence of a god (theism) secularism has to provide its' own substitutes (for gods or idols) Ok. And atheism doesn't do this. Fair enough.So what is so wrong about that?

I would say our pal's syllogism

1 - Atheism does not provide meaning.
2 - People need meaning.
3 - The sources of our meaning are our idols or gods.
Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is their idols or gods.

fails on several levels.

1. It appears to have three premises. Proper syllogisms have only two.
2. Two of the three premises are false or unproven.

a. There are people who do go through life without any need for meaning. Premise 2 would have to be shown to be true before being acceptable.
b. It is false that "the sources of our meaning are our idols or gods." Quite a few people have meaningful lives that lack both idols or gods

3. IF 3 happens to be the conclusion it is so poorly constructed as to warrant derision. Its major term, "our idols or gods" doesn't appear in either premise, nor does its minor term, "sources." A person can't simply pull terms out from under their shorts and plug them in. In short, the argument's form is not only invalid, but not all its premises are true. It isn't even in the same country as a sound argument.

The only thing in the whole mess that is correct is the first premise, "Atheism does not provide meaning," although its proper syllogistic form is better stated as: "No atheism provides meaning."


.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Miles in post #186]

I have to say that I think it is better as it is "Atheism does not provide meaning" "No atheism provides meaning" is either false - the absence of atheism does not provide meaning where there was none before....unless one is arguing a Theistic canard that atheism prevents meaning in life - or like 'no dog has eight tails' is open to misunderstanding.

The fallacy is in the premise (stated or implied) 'Atheism ought to provide meaning (being an alternative provider of idols or gods) but it doesn't, because those idols and gods are false'.

Which is both a canard and a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

[boatsnguitars]

Also, how does Theism provide meaning? To exist for eternity next to God just basking in the glow? Is that a meaningful life? How so?

Even if God exists, which hasn't been shown, I don't see how Theism provides meaning beyond the same kind of meaning available to Atheists: we make it up for ourselves.

I think the OP is another case of a Theist believing the propaganda from their pastor and letting their love of Theism write checks their Reason can't cash.

Edit: Come to think of it. If I were to have to simply bask in the glow of God for eternity, I think I'd freak out. It'd be like being buried alive. No wonder Satan rebelled!
God, you gotta let your pets out for a walk every once in a while!

[Wootah]

Also, how does Theism provide meaning? To exist for eternity next to God just basking in the glow? Is that a meaningful life? How so?

Even if God exists, which hasn't been shown, I don't see how Theism provides meaning beyond the same kind of meaning available to Atheists: we make it up for ourselves.

I think the OP is another case of a Theist believing the propaganda from their pastor and letting their love of Theism write checks their Reason can't cash.

Edit: Come to think of it. If I were to have to simply bask in the glow of God for eternity, I think I'd freak out. It'd be like being buried alive. No wonder Satan rebelled!
God, you gotta let your pets out for a walk every once in a while!

Anyway, you are turning the question around.

First - it shows you are defeated on the topic in question. My point in this thread is that if atheism supplies meaning then that is awesome but if it doesn't then really debating against atheism is pointless, atheists should debate on what gives them meaning versus Christianity.

But let's run with it, how does Theism provide meaning? Well, my first response is I guess we could be literal - God gives you meaning like He gave you a body.

But really what is meaning is a fair question. I never regarded meaning as having some kind of glow from God. I mean what gets you out of bed each day apart from biology? maybe what do you do with your day after you have had breakfast? Given how much effort goes into surviving meaning might just come from that?

[TRANSPONDER]

Also, how does Theism provide meaning? To exist for eternity next to God just basking in the glow? Is that a meaningful life? How so?

Even if God exists, which hasn't been shown, I don't see how Theism provides meaning beyond the same kind of meaning available to Atheists: we make it up for ourselves.

I think the OP is another case of a Theist believing the propaganda from their pastor and letting their love of Theism write checks their Reason can't cash.

Edit: Come to think of it. If I were to have to simply bask in the glow of God for eternity, I think I'd freak out. It'd be like being buried alive. No wonder Satan rebelled!
God, you gotta let your pets out for a walk every once in a while!

Anyway, you are turning the question around.

First - it shows you are defeated on the topic in question. My point in this thread is that if atheism supplies meaning then that is awesome but if it doesn't then really debating against atheism is pointless, atheists should debate on what gives them meaning versus Christianity.

But let's run with it, how does Theism provide meaning? Well, my first response is I guess we could be literal - God gives you meaning like He gave you a body.

But really what is meaning is a fair question. I never regarded meaning as having some kind of glow from God. I mean what gets you out of bed each day apart from biology? maybe what do you do with your day after you have had breakfast? Given how much effort goes into surviving meaning might just come from that?

No. You have no call to try to control the discussion like a show trial. Atheism does NOT supply meaning. It is no more expected to than 'No, 2+2 does not = 5" 'provides meaning'. It is a rejection of a claim.That's all. Now you next point is ok. Humanism Is, I would say, what you mean when you say that atheism should provide meaning. But humanism does not reject the god claim. It is open to anyone who thinks the world should run on secular thought not religious. And that is how a lot of theists think and act, even if they drag religion into it.

Maybe it's just a small tweak.If you say 'humanist' or 'secularist', then we can talk, but to demand that atheism do what you demand (it provide a worldview of Meaning) or it fails if it doesn't is a false argument from the start.

And with your final line, there is obviously room for agreement if you don't confuse atheism with humanism. The fact is that people find meaning in their lives without dragging religion into it, atheist or not. It is true that some let religious belief dictate or at least control their life, and even worse, those of others (or try to). Which is at least why we have to push back against religion, apart from offering an alternate view to those who have questions but get no satisfactory answers from religion.