Wether you find atheism a positive thing or not depends on the personality but I think if you're honest it is kinda depressing, it doesn't particularly help when you have an athiest admitting that. Unless you're an inherently good person I can't really see it being a strong motivation to be good or positive. Let the flame begin.
[QUOTE=13328613]Originally posted by Bardock42
God created things that can do a huge amount of things but then says they have a very specific meaning within these abilities. It's like I made a watch-flamethrower-tv-skateboard and said it's meaning is to tell time and nothing else, no? [/QUOTE
well things do tell a time frame..
Originally posted by King Kandy
But I don't see why the reason they were brought into the world matters. They can do the other things just as well, so, there is no reason to apply any special significance to the one that was their original intention.
Because the reason they were brought into the world is their purpose. "What is the meaning of life?" Is a big question a lot of people struggle with. "Why was I put on this earth?"
People want to know. They want to know their life has some kind of objective meaning. Not everyone, of course, but a lot.
Originally posted by Bardock42
God created things that can do a huge amount of things but then says they have a very specific meaning within these abilities. It's like I made a watch-flamethrower-tv-skateboard and said it's meaning is to tell time and nothing else, no?
I wouldn't say, "and nothing else". Think of it as a main quest in a video game with a bunch of side missions. Just because we were made for a specific purpose, doesn't mean we can't do all the other things we have the ability to do. Like the watch (again). It's purpose is to tell time. But that doesn't mean it CAN'T be used as a paper weight, or any of the other examples. It just means those aren't it's reason for existing.
Originally posted by inimalist
Tac, I think you are confusing terms again...a watchmaker makes a watch with the [b]intent
of it being used as a timepiece, however, whoever has the watch defines it purpose through how they use it. It might have the purpose of being a paperweight, though the intent was that it be a watch [/B]
If a watch changes hands and someone uses it for something else, that does not change the watches purpose. That means the other person is using it for something other than it's purpose.
Only the creator of the watch gets to decide what the reason for the watches existence is. That's what the watches purpose is. Why it was brought into the world.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, what you have defined are intent and purpose. if a person uses a watch for something different, they have changed it's purpose, not the artisan's intent.
No they have not. They are using it for something outside it's purpose.
Maybe purpose isn't the correct word... I don't want to start another definition debate.
When something comes into the world, it has a reason for being born and being placed in the world. The entire reason for the watches very existence is to tell time. I call that it's "purpose". It's "meaning." Even if technically that isn't the definition of "purpose" I think everyone knew what I meant considering the subject of the debate it was used in. And if it wasn't, then let's clear that up now.
I'm talking about an objective (my version) reason behind man's existence on the face of the earth. "What is the meaning of life?"
Atheism does not allow for an objective reason behind man's existence on the face of the earth, I would argue. There is no "objective meaning of life" for atheists, even if they try to claim there is. Any reason behind their existence they come up with is purely subjective.
Originally posted by DigiAtheism does have one command. It does command that all theists be viewed as deluded. Other than that it commands nothing of a person. They are free to do anything except believe a theist is correct about there being rules that were not made by us.
Mister, you're missing the point entirely. You're ascribing reactions to atheist beliefs. The beliefs themselves are neither negative nor positive.It's why any negative slant on it is just your opinion, just as a positive slant is mine. Atheism is neither. It's a set of beliefs, devoid of inherent good or bad. So like I said, you weren't describing atheism at all. You were only describing how you view it in terms of potential meaning.
Also, atheism doesn't "command" anything. More than anything, it's a lack of a particular worldview, not a rigid dogma like many religions. You'd likely find a lot of variance in atheist worldviews. Thus, there's no central command, as you put it, or goal.
So basically, this:
But since none of that will likely sway you, you wanted a positive? Ok. Atheism allows you complete freedom to create your own meaning to life. It's empowering and exciting. There.
🙄
I could name more, but it would reinforce your ideology on how we should approach atheism, which is silly.
Atheists are not guilty of believing this, as that word describes people, who could become theists just as theists become atheists.
Atheism is not a people, but an opposite idea. It will always exist with theism. The facts are that theism demands that there is a plan and ultimate purpose that a sentient power that is indescribable made happen.Atheism demands that idea to be considered a lie, or a delusion. It demands that the opposite is the case and that there is definitely no plan or ultimate purpose and definitely no indescribable sentient making anything happen.
Positive? I still have a hard time seeing what's positive about a stance based upon viewing people who feel that good things are planned for us, are all wrong, inherently.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Maybe purpose isn't the correct word... I don't want to start another definition debate.
but the thing is, much like with objective/absolute, the semantics are very important here.
If you define purpose as intent, then sure, someone who doesn't believe there was any intent in the creation of life cannot have purpose, however, if you don't conflate the terms, one can easily have purpose without intent. Purpose is defined by use, or in terms of people, by the meaning they give their own lives (even if that meaning is to devote oneself to god, which is just as subjective as devoting ones life to other things).
the language you use frames the debate...
think of it like this: I make a shirt, I intend it to be worn. You buy the shirt, for the purpose of having a dust rag. The intent for which something was created is different from the purpose of why someone has or uses it. So to with things that were never "created". I can find a large rock, with no intent behind its creation, and give it purpose by using it in my garden, or as a door stop. This is, essentially, how all gems and diamonds work. The idea that the intent of these rocks was the same as the purpose we have for them presumes a very vain and shallow god.
Like, I get you think I'm addressing stuff that isn't really important, but it changes, fundamentally, what you are saying if you use the wrong terms to express it.
Originally posted by inimalist
but the thing is, much like with objective/absolute, the semantics are very important here.If you define purpose as intent, then sure, someone who doesn't believe there was any intent in the creation of life cannot have purpose, however, if you don't conflate the terms, one can easily have purpose without intent. Purpose is defined by use, or in terms of people, by the meaning they give their own lives (even if that meaning is to devote oneself to god, which is just as subjective as devoting ones life to other things).
the language you use frames the debate...
think of it like this: I make a shirt, I intend it to be worn. You buy the shirt, for the purpose of having a dust rag. The intent for which something was created is different from the purpose of why someone has or uses it. So to with things that were never "created". I can find a large rock, with no intent behind its creation, and give it purpose by using it in my garden, or as a door stop. This is, essentially, how all gems and diamonds work. The idea that the intent of these rocks was the same as the purpose we have for them presumes a very vain and shallow god.
Like, I get you think I'm addressing stuff that isn't really important, but it changes, fundamentally, what you are saying if you use the wrong terms to express it.
Good point!
Originally posted by inimalist
but the thing is, much like with objective/absolute, the semantics are very important here.If you define purpose as intent, then sure, someone who doesn't believe there was any intent in the creation of life cannot have purpose, however, if you don't conflate the terms, one can easily have purpose without intent. Purpose is defined by use, or in terms of people, by the meaning they give their own lives (even if that meaning is to devote oneself to god, which is just as subjective as devoting ones life to other things).
the language you use frames the debate...
think of it like this: I make a shirt, I intend it to be worn. You buy the shirt, for the purpose of having a dust rag. The intent for which something was created is different from the purpose of why someone has or uses it. So to with things that were never "created". I can find a large rock, with no intent behind its creation, and give it purpose by using it in my garden, or as a door stop. This is, essentially, how all gems and diamonds work. The idea that the intent of these rocks was the same as the purpose we have for them presumes a very vain and shallow god.
Like, I get you think I'm addressing stuff that isn't really important, but it changes, fundamentally, what you are saying if you use the wrong terms to express it.
Perhaps. I assumed what I meant was known. Then let's clear it up now.
My version of "purpose" as used in my previous posts was meant to portray a sort of "meaning" in existing. The reason why we are here. Much like the watch example. The watches reason for existing is to tell time. Even if it isn't used for that, that is the reason it was placed on this earth.
That is the meaning I placed on "purpose" in my previous posts.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Because the reason they were brought into the world is their purpose. "What is the meaning of life?" Is a big question a lot of people struggle with. "Why was I put on this earth?"People want to know. They want to know their life has some kind of objective meaning. Not everyone, of course, but a lot.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Atheism does have one command. It does command that all theists be viewed as deluded. Other than that it commands nothing of a person. They are free to do anything except believe a theist is correct about there being rules that were not made by us.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh. Well, I don't really see why lacking objective meaning means that life has to be depressing and nihilistic. Subjective meaning is just as important as objective meaning.
I don't think lack of objective meaning to life has to be depressing. It's really up to the individual and what they think.
I was simply clarifying that Atheists can't hold to objective meaning to life. Though some may try.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think lack of objective meaning to life has to be depressing. It's really up to the individual and what they think.I was simply clarifying that Atheists can't hold to objective meaning to life. Though some may try.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I was simply clarifying that Atheists can't hold to objective meaning to life. Though some may try.
provided one uses a definition of objective that is different from what the term objective actually means, sure
but, then you also have to agree that Christianity is evil, but jus in the way I define it evil.
Originally posted by inimalist
provided one uses a definition of objective that is different from what the term objective actually means, surebut, then you also have to agree that Christianity is evil, but jus in the way I define it evil.
Grrr... I'm taking your dictionaries away. sneaky2
I didn't make up a definition for objective, I simply used the more common, if incorrect, definition of it. That's how I've always heard it used.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Something external from humans? Like what?
Seriously, this is a problem many philosophers have tried to answer throughout history. If you really want to know you should look beyond discussion forums...