Atheism

Originally posted by King Kandy
So basically, you're defining meaning as "created to fill some sentient being's want".

Well then no, Atheism doesn't really allow for "meaning". But quite frankly I could live without it.

Well, that seems to me what "meaning" is in this sense, at least.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, and?

I feel that most morals come down to "would it bother you?" eg Would you like it if someone murdered you or someone you care about? Would you like it if someone stole your property? Would you like it if someone raped you? Would you like it if someone molested you as a child or molested your child?

Most people (ie the majority of a society) would answer "no", ergo, murdering, rape, child molestation and theivery are wrong and therefore outlawed.

I know. You hold to moral values being subjective. I'm not even saying that stance is right or wrong, I'm trying to figure out inimalist's stance. He seems to disagree, as he said killing someone would still be wrong even if everyone thought it was okay.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What's wrong with that?

Nothing. I disagree with it, but I'm not arguing against it either.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He's saying that human nature is the highest level of judgment there is. So to him, that IS being necessarily wrong, nothing "only" about it.

Yet he also stated that even if every person thought it was alright, it would still be wrong.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I know. You hold to moral values being subjective. I'm not even saying that stance is right or wrong, I'm trying to figure out inimalist's stance. He seems to disagree, as he said killing someone would still be wrong even if everyone thought it was okay.

Probably because he thinks murder is wrong, if it wasn't, it would cease to be murder; it'd be something else.

So in a fashion, he is right. Murder is always wrong, as it can't be any other way.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because he thinks murder is wrong, if it wasn't, it would cease to be murder; it'd be something else.

So in a fashion, he is right. Murder is always wrong, as it can't be any other way.

I don't think it would be anything other than murder. Murder has a definition. Even if the name changes, the act doesn't. It's possible he only considers things that are titled murder wrong, but I tend to think he was talking about the act itself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think it would be anything other than murder. Murder has a definition. Even if the name changes, the act doesn't. It's possible he only considers things that are titled murder wrong, but I tend to think he was talking about the act itself.

Then there is your answer why murder would always be wrong, it simply can't be any other way for it to be murder.

I don't know but I think killing a person that kills many is right.

Originally posted by Digi
- I wasn't talking about the subjective nature of language. I don't think theists are deluded, period. I think some theists are, but that's true of any walk of life, and I also don't think that on the basis of their theism alone.

Originally posted by Digi
- You're maintaining that theism and atheism are absolute statements, not beliefs. As such, what you're saying is fundamentally incompatible with what I actually believe, and like I said we're not going to accomplish anything with you telling me I am of a position that I'm not.

Originally posted by Digi
- You also have your atheist/atheism assessments backwards. No non-sentient thing is positive/negative. Doctrines, facts, beliefs, etc. Only people are (or similarly aware entities). You either don't understand this, or aren't doing a good job of explaining that you do.

If we are in the limbo that atheism suggests that we are in then you are right and the only things that can be positive or negative are things that are briefly aware of themselves.

Originally posted by Digi
- I find all of this amusing, because in this conversation you've repeatedly told me what atheism "is" and I've told you no. I wonder what special knowledge you have as a theist that I don't. I'm no authority, I'm one voice, but so are you, and you're the only one speaking subjectively about something you haven't actually experienced or believed.

Atheism is singular in it's description. It believes in no God/gods. Black is no color (for analogy purposes not trying to make atheism dark).Also singular is theism. Theism believes in God/s. White is all colors. How many different colors are in white? millions. How many different forms of worshiping God/s are in theism? Enough to demand an authority in order to have an idea. How many different colors in black? Zero. And since there is no required worship per atheism, it too, is simple to grasp entirely. That being said neither the color black or atheists are simple. They are just more easily described than their opposites.

Describing a person as a theist leaves a question mark remaining. It's like describing a color as one of the colors in white.

Describing a person as an atheist explains their stance on worshipping God/s entirely.

Originally posted by Digi
- You also didn't address my points that the existence of an afterlife is not by default a good thing. You're assuming atheism's negativity because it denies your personal opinion. Atheism denies a far broader range of possibilities, an infinite number of them unimaginably worse than nonexistence.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, that seems to me what "meaning" is in this sense, at least.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yet he also stated that even if every person thought it was alright, it would still be wrong.

Since he thinks those values are dependent on genetics, he believes that almost all humans will place value on these same principles; therefore, humans can decide what is right based on objective, logical analysis.

It reminds me of Wittgenstein who said that any question that is 100% precisely defined can have a definite answer. Basically, as long as people operate from the same starting premise, ethics are governed by logic in the same why science is.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm pointing out the extreme positions that these beliefs take. Your statement that theists are not deluded, period, is something that more closely represents a belief that a theist may hold. I'm not trying to give you a hard time when I point out that it's confusing. You believe that there is/are no God/s. You believe that the people who disagree, are not deluded, period. To me this isn't actually that confusing, it means that you have an open mind, period.

Cool. But again, just remember that atheism itself is almost always a belief. Maybe a strongly held belief, but a belief nonetheless. I doubt you'd say that every other religion is deluded as a Christian...Christianity doesn't imply that by its nature. Same for atheism.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I maintain that they are contrasting. Opposites. I hope that this isn't fundamentally incompatible with what you believe. You seem hung up on this so I'll elaborate. Atheists and theists can agree on all points but one. God. That still leaves countless areas where there can be agreement but If one man is an atheist and the other is a theist, you know, without knowing anything more about them, something that they don't agree upon. Call atheism light, and theism darkness if you will ,they are as opposite as that.

Opposites, sure. But again, beliefs. Not absolute statements of fact. The beliefs of others can be conceded as possible, even if you believe them to be wrong or the chances remote.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I disagree. We ascribe positivity/negativity to things so while we exist anything can be viewed as one or the other.

You just proved my point. If anything can be viewed as either positive or negative, the distinction is in the person, it's not inherent in the belief or belief system.

But you, as a theist, exist in a universe of absolute morality (albeit perhaps an unattainable goal) because of God. So you can view things as positive and negative inherently. I maintain that religion, or irreligion, isn't good or bad in and of itself. It's only good or bad because people make it such within them. Again, it's an internal phenomenon.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I hope you're enjoying the discussion actually. I'm not an a$$hole or anything but I enjoy debating things in an effort to expand my own awareness by hearing the ideas of others, especially creative thinkers. I won't claim to be an authority either but I don't think that we have a problem that requires one.

I'm not sure I'm enjoying it necessarily, I think we're going in circles on a couple points. But I appreciate the candor.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'll address that point. It's a good point and I can't argue with it. I'm only human and I may be wrong whether I believe I am or not. I'd prefer that you be right rather than for people to be tormented unnecessarily. I do see atheism as more negative than positive because of it's suggestion of an unnecessary, unimportant, completely neutral existence in limbo. You may think that those statements sound negative but per atheism they are facts, neither positive or negative.

Unnecessary and unimportant are your feelings on atheism, not inherent in atheism itself. I'm very f-ing important, thanks very much. I don't need God to make me or my life important. This goes back to what I've found numerous times, that people can't find meaning in life outside religion. It's actually very, very easy, but very, very hard to describe to someone whose worldview revolves around a divine creator.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I don't know everything but I oppose the idea that we exist accidentally, born purely out of an unexplainable coincidence, with no plan or purpose.

Actually, it's not really unexplainable. A lot of atheists believe what they do because the universe and how we came to be are indeed quite explainable.

And no plan or purpose? Bullocks. The plan is ours, the purpose our own. We are creators of meaning, not receptacles for it.

I'm going to give an effort at explaining this in a way that would make sense to a theist.

Humans, collectively, create a separate universe, the "universe of ideas". As you believe the creator has power over the purpose of their creation, humans are free to define what is ethical in this universe they have created. Society decides this based on logic, customs, etc...

As part of society, humans form a covenant with the rest of the human race to follow the rules of the universe of ideas; in exchange, humans are able to cooperate and advance with the help of society. This is like how God in Judaism, followed the rules he created for the universe; in that covenant, it was "if you the hebrews follow the rules of the bible, I will follow the rule of holding you as my chosen people".

It IS objective; it comes from beyond any individual. It is not something inherent in the fabric of the universe, but that does not make it subjective, nor any less meaningful in my view.

Originally posted by inimalist
sort of. I think all your asking me to say is that my morals aren't absolute, as in, I don't think the universe has any inherent morality and that all such morality, objective/subjective/absolute/etc, is anthropic, sure, yes.

At some ultimate point, humans are the ones who would be using objective methods to derive morals from core axioms.

However, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your statement. We don't really have control over our morals, so much as we have the ability to decide what we think the best axioms might be.

You could think equality is a more important axiom than volunteerism, or I could think individualism is better than reducing harm, or whatever. This would be the only "subjective" part of how I look at things, and even then, I think all but the most solipsistic definitions of "morality" already give us a fairly good idea of what axioms we should choose, and I believe evolution has engrained others into our cognition. Long story shory, this is hardly "subjective" in the way "subjective morality" is defined.

However, we don't have a lot of control over the morals that come from these axioms. Like I said before, the two most important ones to me are a measure of personal harm and consent. From those axioms, I have no choice but to see murdering an innocent as wrong, and regardless of how many people might agree with it, the act of killing is wrong. So ya, my tldr about why I don't specifically disagree with you, lol...

The [b]morals can't change. Unless it is discovered that killing innocent people is either harmless or consentual, it is immoral. Unless something happens, to me, as a person, that makes me want to change how I evaluate the axioms I base my morality from.

However, I can't imagine you would agree that the fact you could change religions means your morals aren't absolute. It is the same principle (changing the underlying basis upon which morals are founded)

Based on what the term "morality" is supposed to convey, that is, the way to correctly interact with people, and given that the actual truth of any absolute principle can't actually be proven without God/whatever revealing itself to us, the only scale that makes any sense upon which to judege the morality of our actions is one that is grounded in objective observation of the consequenses and motivations of our actions.

Again, derived from the definition of morality itself, and based on what appear to be not only cross cultural, but also cross species constants in group behaviour, there are some very basic principles to morality that we can suppose that I believe it would be very hard to argue against. Things like the suffering of innocents being bad, equality being good. We would all have our own core values, to be sure, but there are some so basic, we include them in our lists of symptoms of mental disorder. We don't look at torturing an animal as a "different idea about morals", we know it to be wrong, and the people who don't see it as such are justifiably labeled as psychopaths. This requires no absolute power, just the simple aknowledgement that all organisms share some common experience of the universe. I honestly do think it comes down to our biology to feel this way.

So yes, it is "wrong" because people have made it "wrong" because "wrong" is an anthropic concept in the first place in a non-absolutist universe, as I have made clear, I'm not a moral absolutist [/B]

Just sounds like semantics really.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm going to give an effort at explaining this in a way that would make sense to a theist.

Humans, collectively, create a separate universe, the "universe of ideas". As you believe the creator has power over the purpose of their creation, humans are free to define what is ethical in this universe they have created. Society decides this based on logic, customs, etc...

As part of society, humans form a covenant with the rest of the human race to follow the rules of the universe of ideas; in exchange, humans are able to cooperate and advance with the help of society. This is like how God in Judaism, followed the rules he created for the universe; in that covenant, it was "if you the hebrews follow the rules of the bible, I will follow the rule of holding you as my chosen people".

It IS objective; it comes from beyond any individual. It is not something inherent in the fabric of the universe, but that does not make it subjective, nor any less meaningful in my view.

You're making a subjective argument that something is objective. Please stop being arrogant.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm very f-ing important, thanks very much. I don't need God to make me or my life important. This goes back to what I've found numerous times, that people can't find meaning in life outside religion. It's actually very, very easy, but very, very hard to describe to someone whose worldview revolves around a divine creator.

Why are you so important? I'm pretty sure you yourself described an aspect of atheism as depressing. I personally think it comes down to the individual but I'm still wondering how you're going to use atheism as a strong motivator to do good.

Originally posted by Deadline
Just sounds like semantics really.

considering we are talking about the definintion of objective morality, that is entirely appropriate

Originally posted by Robtard
Then there is your answer why murder would always be wrong, it simply can't be any other way for it to be murder.

I'm not talking about the word, murder. I'm talking about the act of taking an innocent person's life against their will. Is that always wrong no matter what? Or would that be alright if society said it was?

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK. Well then I agree with you, but, I don't see why lacking that kind of meaning has anything to do with being negative or positive...

I don't think it necessarily does. I'm just pointing out that, as atheists, they have to come to terms with this being that case. Some atheists have absolutely no problem with this fact. Some do. It really comes down to the individual and what they think.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think I understand what he's saying. He's saying that if we, as a society, choose to put value in certain things (such as equality), then we can objectively determine what is "good" (actions that benefit equality) using analysis of the actual effects of the action.

Since he thinks those values are dependent on genetics, he believes that almost all humans will place value on these same principles; therefore, humans can decide what is right based on objective, logical analysis.

It reminds me of Wittgenstein who said that any question that is 100% precisely defined can have a definite answer. Basically, as long as people operate from the same starting premise, ethics are governed by logic in the same why science is.

But the hypothetical was that everyone agreed that murder was okay. That means that people don't place value on the same principals.

So... Are you saying that killing someone will always be wrong because we, as a people, will always find it wrong? Because, logically, it's bad for us?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm going to give an effort at explaining this in a way that would make sense to a theist.

Humans, collectively, create a separate universe, the "universe of ideas". As you believe the creator has power over the purpose of their creation, humans are free to define what is ethical in this universe they have created. Society decides this based on logic, customs, etc...

As part of society, humans form a covenant with the rest of the human race to follow the rules of the universe of ideas; in exchange, humans are able to cooperate and advance with the help of society. This is like how God in Judaism, followed the rules he created for the universe; in that covenant, it was "if you the hebrews follow the rules of the bible, I will follow the rule of holding you as my chosen people".

It IS objective; it comes from beyond any individual. It is not something inherent in the fabric of the universe, but that does not make it subjective, nor any less meaningful in my view.

But the universe of ideas was created by PEOPLE. So PEOPLE can change the universe of ideas, right? Or is it a first come first serve sort of deal?

You said morality comes from more than an individual. But the hypothetical was that murder was accepted by EVERYONE. Not just one person. In that case, wouldn't it be acceptable? Since now the people who are making the universe of ideas are filling it with the idea that murder is okay?

Originally posted by inimalist
sort of. I think all your asking me to say is that my morals aren't absolute, as in, I don't think the universe has any inherent morality and that all such morality, objective/subjective/absolute/etc, is anthropic, sure, yes.

At some ultimate point, humans are the ones who would be using objective methods to derive morals from core axioms.

However, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your statement. We don't really have control over our morals, so much as we have the ability to decide what we think the best axioms might be.

You could think equality is a more important axiom than volunteerism, or I could think individualism is better than reducing harm, or whatever. This would be the only "subjective" part of how I look at things, and even then, I think all but the most solipsistic definitions of "morality" already give us a fairly good idea of what axioms we should choose, and I believe evolution has engrained others into our cognition. Long story shory, this is hardly "subjective" in the way "subjective morality" is defined.

However, we don't have a lot of control over the morals that come from these axioms. Like I said before, the two most important ones to me are a measure of personal harm and consent. From those axioms, I have no choice but to see murdering an innocent as wrong, and regardless of how many people might agree with it, the act of killing is wrong. So ya, my tldr about why I don't specifically disagree with you, lol...

The [b]morals can't change. Unless it is discovered that killing innocent people is either harmless or consentual, it is immoral. Unless something happens, to me, as a person, that makes me want to change how I evaluate the axioms I base my morality from.

However, I can't imagine you would agree that the fact you could change religions means your morals aren't absolute. It is the same principle (changing the underlying basis upon which morals are founded)

Based on what the term "morality" is supposed to convey, that is, the way to correctly interact with people, and given that the actual truth of any absolute principle can't actually be proven without God/whatever revealing itself to us, the only scale that makes any sense upon which to judege the morality of our actions is one that is grounded in objective observation of the consequenses and motivations of our actions.

Again, derived from the definition of morality itself, and based on what appear to be not only cross cultural, but also cross species constants in group behaviour, there are some very basic principles to morality that we can suppose that I believe it would be very hard to argue against. Things like the suffering of innocents being bad, equality being good. We would all have our own core values, to be sure, but there are some so basic, we include them in our lists of symptoms of mental disorder. We don't look at torturing an animal as a "different idea about morals", we know it to be wrong, and the people who don't see it as such are justifiably labeled as psychopaths. This requires no absolute power, just the simple aknowledgement that all organisms share some common experience of the universe. I honestly do think it comes down to our biology to feel this way.

So yes, it is "wrong" because people have made it "wrong" because "wrong" is an anthropic concept in the first place in a non-absolutist universe, as I have made clear, I'm not a moral absolutist [/B]

Sorry, inimalist, I didn't see this post until Deadline quoted it.

It seems to me you do hold to objective moral values. At least in the way I define objective. You agree that an act is wrong regardless of who thinks it's not. Thus, it is absolutely wrong, right? We cannot change it, we cannot get rid of it. It is wrong. Will always be wrong, and no matter how many people think it's okay they will never change the fact that it's wrong.

That... sounds like an absolute moral value if you ask me.

Though you think that absolutes only apply to specific values, and some are not absolute? I don't see why some values are absolute and some aren't.

Not that it really matters. This topic was originally about the meaning of life. I have no idea how it got onto moral values. 😛

Nor am I really interested in debating moral values. If you ask me, it's pretty well impossible to prove one way or the other.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It seems to me you do hold to objective moral values. At least in the way I define objective. You agree that an act is wrong regardless of who thinks it's not. Thus, it is absolutely wrong, right? We cannot change it, we cannot get rid of it. It is wrong. Will always be wrong, and no matter how many people think it's okay they will never change the fact that it's wrong.

That... sounds like an absolute moral value if you ask me.

it is close, except the axioms themselves are subject to change, and the morals themselves reflect only human understanding, not some immutable constant of the universe

Originally posted by TacDavey
Though you think that absolutes only apply to specific values, and some are not absolute? I don't see why some values are absolute and some aren't.

situations can become more or less easy to classify as good or bad, sure, and in reality, nothing will ever be entirely one or the other, but no, the morals themselves would be treated the same, and the underlying axioms are all not absolute.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not that it really matters. This topic was originally about the meaning of life. I have no idea how it got onto moral values.

well, it is related. Instead of morality, think of axioms underlying the meaning one experiences from reality. Sure, if you define existence as having meaning independent of this, as religion does, it is easy to find. However, for myself, I am interested in how people work and I enjoy studying things academically, so it is very easy to derive an objective and meaningful purpose from that. Or I could talk about my music, or my friends/family, etc.

simply because it is not a constant quality of the universe, doesn't mean I cant have some purposeful meaning in my life that I could express to you

Originally posted by inimalist
it is close, except the axioms themselves are subject to change, and the morals themselves reflect only human understanding, not some immutable constant of the universe

So murder isn"t necessarily wrong. If it's axiom changes, then it becomes okay. Heck, maybe it even becomes the right thing to do.

Originally posted by inimalist
situations can become more or less easy to classify as good or bad, sure, and in reality, nothing will ever be entirely one or the other, but no, the morals themselves would be treated the same, and the underlying axioms are all not absolute.

Situations may be harder to classify as good or bad, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer as to which one it is. It just means we have a hard time figuring out what it is.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, it is related. Instead of morality, think of axioms underlying the meaning one experiences from reality. Sure, if you define existence as having meaning independent of this, as religion does, it is easy to find. However, for myself, I am interested in how people work and I enjoy studying things academically, so it is very easy to derive an objective and meaningful purpose from that. Or I could talk about my music, or my friends/family, etc.

simply because it is not a constant quality of the universe, doesn't mean I cant have some purposeful meaning in my life that I could express to you

But this purpose you take from your skills is a purpose you invented. Or it's a purpose society invented, right? It's connected to an axiom of some kind, and who made these axioms?

Originally posted by TacDavey
So murder [B]isn"t necessarily wrong. If it's axiom changes, then it becomes okay. Heck, maybe it even becomes the right thing to do. [/B]

yes, there is some inherent subjectivity in how the axioms are formed.

However, once we abandon the religious connotation of "morality", it is fairly easy to suggest what these axioms should be.

so yes, while it might be ultimately subjective that harm is a good axiom for morality, I think it is a very easy axiom to make an argument for.

This is where the break from subjective to objective morality is, imho. People who hold morality is subjective feel that there is no way to reasonably define an axiomatic system, whereas someone like myself, thinks there is some consensus or logic to it.

So, sure, I suppose one could select an axiomatic system that says they should kill, I feel they would have a hard time defending those axioms. Further, so long as the axiom was consistent and definable, these would be objective, just in disagreement with what other objective moral systems might conclude

Originally posted by TacDavey
Situations may be harder to classify as good or bad, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer as to which one it is. It just means we have a hard time figuring out what it is.

I'd say we are more likely to encounter situations that have both good and bad elements, than merely complex situations that are wholely good or bad themselves.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But this purpose you take from your skills is a purpose you invented. Or it's a purpose society invented, right? It's connected to an axiom of some kind, and who made these axioms?

people

hence the distinction between absolute and objective. The universe gives no purpose, true, but since I don't believe the universe/god is a good place to look for purpose anyways, so why should this bother me?

like, you are correct, if by "purpose" you mean "a-specific-intent-to-your-life-designed-by-a-supernatural-higher-power", ok, sure, atheists don't have and probably don't want that purpose, but that definition is incredibly restrictive, and certainly not how the term is used generally.

you might think an absolute purpose is superior somehow, but it is not the exclusive type of purpose in the universe...

Originally posted by Deadline
Why are you so important? I'm pretty sure you yourself described an aspect of atheism as depressing. I personally think it comes down to the individual but I'm still wondering how you're going to use atheism as a strong motivator to do good.

The "I'm important" comment was joking, I had hoped obviously so. But anyway, who would willingly live their life believing their existence to be meaningless? It's really all a matter of perspective. Existence is great and I can contribute to it, therefore I'm important. There's no cosmic plan and my life is a blip in the larger scheme, therefore I'm unimportant. Neither is more valid than the other, but it comes down to the person.

I don't remember describing atheism as depressing in some way. It's not as ideal as a Christian afterlife, but there's an infinite number of awesome afterlives I don't believe in (and an infinite number of awful ones). So it's really pretty neutral as a stance. In atheism, this is all you have, which can indeed be scary and poignant, but also empowering and exciting at the same time.

Also, I don't use atheism as a motivator to do good. Despite the fact that religion understandably dominates this forum, it's not a central aspect of my everyday life. There's lots of other reasons to "do good."

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, there is some inherent subjectivity in how the axioms are formed.

However, once we abandon the religious connotation of "morality", it is fairly easy to suggest what these axioms should be.

so yes, while it might be ultimately subjective that harm is a good axiom for morality, I think it is a very easy axiom to make an argument for.

This is where the break from subjective to objective morality is, imho. People who hold morality is subjective feel that there is no way to reasonably define an axiomatic system, whereas someone like myself, thinks there is some consensus or logic to it.

So, sure, I suppose one could select an axiomatic system that says they should kill, I feel they would have a hard time defending those axioms. Further, so long as the axiom was consistent and definable, these would be objective, just in disagreement with what other objective moral systems might conclude

Alright then. You hold to morals being invented by people. So, applying that same thought process to the meaning of life, this is also made by people, right? So what I said at the very beginning, about the meaning of life being left up to people wasn't incorrect?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd say we are more likely to encounter situations that have both good and bad elements, than merely complex situations that are wholely good or bad themselves.

Good and bad elements, but one must hold more good or more bad than the other. I'm betting there is exceptionally few, if any, situations that are completely equal in the "good and bad" area. So there is still a good choice and a bad one, even if it's hard to tell the difference.

Originally posted by inimalist
people

Exactly.

Originally posted by inimalist
hence the distinction between absolute and objective. The universe gives no purpose, true, but since I don't believe the universe/god is a good place to look for purpose anyways, so why should this bother me?

I never said it should.

Originally posted by inimalist
like, you are correct, if by "purpose" you mean "a-specific-intent-to-your-life-designed-by-a-supernatural-higher-power", ok, sure, atheists don't have and probably don't want that purpose, but that definition is incredibly restrictive, and certainly not how the term is used generally.

you might think an absolute purpose is superior somehow, but it is not the exclusive type of purpose in the universe...

I don't think you have to use such a narrow definition. I would say "a set reason that you exist on this planet."

That's what I've been saying the whole time. According to atheism, there is no absolute meaning to life. Whatever meaning we give to life on this planet we make ourselves.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright then. You hold to morals being invented by people. So, applying that same thought process to the meaning of life, this is also made by people, right? So what I said at the very beginning, about the meaning of life being left up to people wasn't incorrect?

Good and bad elements, but one must hold more good or more bad than the other. I'm betting there is exceptionally few, if any, situations that are completely equal in the "good and bad" area. So there is still a good choice and a bad one, even if it's hard to tell the difference.

Exactly.

I never said it should.

I don't think you have to use such a narrow definition. I would say "a set reason that you exist on this planet."

That's what I've been saying the whole time. According to atheism, there is no absolute meaning to life. Whatever meaning we give to life on this planet we make ourselves.

fair enough, all I was saying is that these man made meanings can be objective.

I guess I'd also say it a little more complicated than "people just make it up" but whatever

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's what I've been saying the whole time. According to atheism, there is no absolute meaning to life. Whatever meaning we give to life on this planet we make ourselves.