Atheists: How do you find meaning in life?

[bubbles]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

[LJB]

As a proud atheist, I find meaning and beauty in every moment and experience. As an INTJ, instead of looking ahead (or for the devil behind me), I simply live without angst or concern for what others (including any gods or monsters) think of me.

[Rohsiph]

Art, music, literature; generally, making the effort to consume & comprehend esoteric things.

[elsdfr]

Why does life need to have a meaning? Its not like you're going to remember it when you're dead.... did I miss the point here?

Meaning and beauty can exist in anything with or without the belief in a God.

Ahh the angst of "what if?" :suspicious:

[WavesSootheMe]

Interesting. It was when I stopped living for a proposed deity and took a breath of fresh air from my actual surroundings that I felt whole. As an atheist, there is no fluffed up general meaning of life that extends beyond your expiration. You are not hand-fed a purpose, you find it yourself for your own life (which has a start and an end). Do you have support from family, friends and/or pets in your life? Do you see beauty in these people/animals? in nature? in art forms? in science? in physical prowess? Do you find meaning in the process of learning, in progress, in meeting challenges? Despite what some may say (and even some shoddy psychological research may indicate), turning to religion is not the only way to lead a happy, fulfilling life.

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

The words in bold concern me. There are plenty of people that identify as theists that also feel they are missing something from their lives. Being a theist or an atheist is not likely the cause of this feeling. Is it that you feel that something is missing and do not find that this thing can be found in religion? Perhaps what you're missing is instead an understanding of a certain aspect of yourself? Self-actualization is often key to no longer feeling as though something is missing.

[INTroJect]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

Just a guess but maybe that feeling of missing something is the INTJs desire to consistently seek out new concepts and understandings. Maybe the 'inner you' is pushing at you to reach out for a bigger and broader understanding of the world? I only say this from comparing to my own experience. I am also an athiest and do sometimes feel as you feel but I find that it gets quelched when I am reading good books. Books about great people doing great things: B. Franklin, MK Gandhi, Marcus Aurelius, Caesar, John Adams, Einstein, Ulysees S. Grant, Carnegie, etc. If I turn away from these type of studies for too long I start to feel the way that you are describing like something pulling me by the scruff of the neck and leading me in that direction. There is no telling what it is but something is calling you.

[OneBadMother]

I find meaning and beauty in gaining new understandings of the world around me. I think that religion would make me feel like my existence had less meaning, in a way. Everything all neat and laid out before me, everything with its set purpose. I don't like to think of life as something that already has answers, that can be lived out for me.

[Cuivienen]

Like many of you others, I find happiness and "meaning" in many of the "little" things in life: a philosophical debate with friends, going on a long walks through the fields with my dog, an afternoon lying in my bed with a good book to read or just daydreaming, finding out new things about any topic I am currently interested in.
Also I am never happier than when I feel I have made some strides in understanding something I`ve been working on. Since I`ve been studying law, often when I walk home to my apartment in the evening I am positively skipping and feel almost like I do when I have had a few drinks, only better :).

Who needs a god when there is a whole world out there, just waiting for me to come, find out all about, understand and categorize it?

[Hdier]

I'm not an atheist, but I don't find the meaning in my life in my religion, so I figured that it couldn't hurt to post.

I have found (after thinking long and deeply on it when I was about 11 or 12) that my life's meaning is to put meaning into my life. If I do something that will cause repercussions a long time from now, or that I am remembered for, then I will feel that my life has been fulfilled. It is up to me, though, to figure out what to do, how to do it, and to actually do it.

[Race]

The meaning of life can easily be found in Darwinism. To survive and reproduce. Simple, eh?

[Hdier]

You do that. I'll thrive and not reproduce. So much more luxury without kids. ;)

[AgentofGaming]

The meaning of life can easily be found in Darwinism. To survive and reproduce. Simple, eh?

It's embedded in our instincts, it's not like we can completely refuse it. ;D


I myself probably seem like too much of a societal conformist. I exist to serve society and in doing so serve myself. That's the definition of paid labour. :)

In the end it's not the name of you, me or the name of that guy in a history book, but humanity and the descendants of humanity (be it robots if they takeover).

[Gavisi]

What does it mean for life to be meaningful?

I consider my life worth living, as there are a lot of enjoyable things I want to do. Is that what you guys mean by a meaningful life?

[Firelie]

I hadn't put much thought into it yet, but this thread has made me realize why I don't feel the "hole" that all of the preachers in my childhood claimed all those that didn't worship god felt.

Thanks guys!

[Rohsiph]

The meaning of life can easily be found in Darwinism. To survive and reproduce. Simple, eh?

As a primary motivation, alright . . . but what about singularity? What about expanding beyond the boundaries of biological limitation? Does the goal change?

[Hdier]

It's embedded in our instincts, it's not like we can completely refuse it. ;D


I myself probably seem like too much of a societal conformist. I exist to serve society and in doing so serve myself. That's the definition of paid labour. :)

In the end it's not the name of you, me or the name of that guy in a history book, but humanity and the descendants of humanity (be it robots if they takeover).

Reproducing isn't in my instincts!!! (Gay)

[Race]

As a primary motivation, alright . . . but what about singularity? What about expanding beyond the boundaries of biological limitation? Does the goal change?

Ah! A fellow transhumanist? I hypothesize that when we do transcend beyond being biological, a new form of Darwinism will be made to encompass technological add-ons.

[WavesSootheMe]

I hadn't put much thought into it yet, but this thread has made me realize why I don't feel the "hole" that all of the preachers in my childhood claimed all those that didn't worship god felt.

Thanks guys!

care to explain?

[Firelie]

The pastors in the churches I used to attend would speak about how people felt a "hole" (ie: some undefinable missing piece) in their lives if they didn't follow/worship God.

[brewmaster]

I think she was referring as to why you specifically don't feel that emptiness.

To the question of the OP. My two greatest interests being biology and astronomy are so astronomically complex that I find my meaning in the persuit of understanding and enjoying the complexity and beauty of the systems (sorry for the bad pun, couldn't resist)

[Tsuru]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

It's funny, I've always felt that viewing the world through strict dogma would make life feel meaningless. If everything is merely a test, merely an trial for you to follow certain rules so that you go to heaven, well... what's the point of life on Earth then? What's the purpose or point of uniquely conscious and sentient beings if they're supposed to behave in strict guidelines?

With no inherent meaning in life, then the sky is the limit. Your life is a blank canvas ready to be painted in any way you see fit.

If I were to say what the "meaning of life" was though, from an evolutionary standpoint it's to survive and reproduce (the latter of which I don't think I'll be doing. I don't plan on dying though. I'm going to be an immortal and indestructible cyborg overlord when I get older. ;P). From a moral standpoint it's to obtain happiness and make this brief time on Earth worthwhile. Nothing all that complex really.

I'm not a particularly happy atheist, but I find much more spirituality in music and art than I ever could at a church.


EDIT: I didn't bother reading others' responses until now. Both mentions of the obvious darwinian explanations AND mentions of robot bodies? Great minds... 8)

[brewmaster]

but I find much more spirituality in music and art than I ever could at a church.

Agreed, I find much more spirituality waist deep in a river with a fishing pole in my hand in absolute silence except for the movement of water than I could ever find in a church.

[bubbles]

Interesting. It was when I stopped living for a proposed deity and took a breath of fresh air from my actual surroundings that I felt whole. As an atheist, there is no fluffed up general meaning of life that extends beyond your expiration. You are not hand-fed a purpose, you find it yourself for your own life (which has a start and an end). Do you have support from family, friends and/or pets in your life? Do you see beauty in these people/animals? in nature? in art forms? in science? in physical prowess? Do you find meaning in the process of learning, in progress, in meeting challenges? Despite what some may say (and even some shoddy psychological research may indicate), turning to religion is not the only way to lead a happy, fulfilling life.



The words in bold concern me. There are plenty of people that identify as theists that also feel they are missing something from their lives. Being a theist or an atheist is not likely the cause of this feeling. Is it that you feel that something is missing and do not find that this thing can be found in religion? Perhaps what you're missing is instead an understanding of a certain aspect of yourself? Self-actualization is often key to no longer feeling as though something is missing.

Thank you for the insightful post (many of the other posts are insightful, too!). Your response made me realize that religion is not necessary to fill in the "holes." I think what I'm missing here is really self-actualization - I don't know much about myself and my desire and conscious effort to find out more about myself led me to this thought. But somehow, I still think that religion can give people motivation and lead them to do great things. Still, religion is not for everyone and that's why I'm an atheist.

Reading the above posts made me think that religion was created to help people find happiness and see beauty in the little things in life, but atheists don't need religion to help them achieve those things and there are other ways to do so.

[Henry]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

What is the meaning of a flower? Of a child? Of a piece of dead wood?

Meaning has nothing to do with life. The mass' focus on it has to do with a property of human consciousness that is constantly looking for causation and consequence. And there's little evidence, in a very macro sense, for either in life. Life is its own meaning, its own purpose because, well, there is nothing else and nothing beyond it.

[WavesSootheMe]

The pastors in the churches I used to attend would speak about how people felt a "hole" (ie: some undefinable missing piece) in their lives if they didn't follow/worship God.

and the posts here?

[Rohsiph]

Ah! A fellow transhumanist? I hypothesize that when we do transcend beyond being biological, a new form of Darwinism will be made to encompass technological add-ons.

Interesting & neat. Well done :) I'll have to think about this.

[Hdier]

Interesting, I believe that human will can, and does, albeit subtly and hiddenly, affect the reality around us. Is this an example of transhumanism?

[Firelie]

Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking.

I was referring to the posts about finding meaning elsewhere. I never really took all that much meaning from religion (even when I was heavily involved in church), so when I just stopped bothering with it...I didn't feel like I was missing anything.

[ScottH]

Consider what it might feel like to feel as though nothing were missing, incomplete. What would things be like if we all felt "done," "complete," "stable."

Though there are religions (Eastern, primarily) that seek that feeling, books and speakers who claim to sell you such fulfillment, I--for one--doubt it exists.

I think to yearn, want, strive and be motivated is central to being human, maybe even to being alive. At its simplest, it manifests through the classical motivators: food, safety, sex... but probably is more than that.

I think it is this constant drive for "more" that has--and will continue to--ensure our survival and change.

[Race]

Interesting, I believe that human will can, and does, albeit subtly and hiddenly, affect the reality around us. Is this an example of transhumanism?

In a nushell, transhumanism is using technology to advance all of humankind. Like, cyborgs and stuff. There is also the wish to build the first superintelligent computer, one that will be the last thing ever to be invented by man. After that, the computer will do all the inventing.

You might also want to wiki "the singularity".

[Danellian]

I've found this thread to be very interesting. I am not an atheist, but I now understand better the position of the atheist. From what I have read of this thread (as it has grown since I last looked at it, lol) I am surprised that so many atheists think there is meaning to life. I would have expected a lot of atheists to believe there really is no meaning and that we need to get over our need for that meaning. What surprised me was the conjunction of immersing ourselves in each moment of our lives with meaning. I always looked at these two things as distinct from one another. Perhaps this is not so. I always looked at meaning as having something to do with purpose, end, telos. I also looked at finding, and living in accordance with, this meaning, as driving us increasingly into a focus on the moment. I still believe this is the case, but I now have a better appreciation for the atheist position and think there is something I could learn from it myself and better living in the moment. I don't think it always good to live in the moment, since, from my perspective, it is possible to live in the moment without purpose. I wonder if you guys think it is posisble to live in the moment without purpose, or to you, are the two always combined into one entity? Further, do you guys agree that it is possible to live in the moment in a hedonistic sense that is negative? If my assumption is correct, an atheist who believes in some form of meaning would think that unqualified hedonism would be meaningless, hence negative. Also, it seems there is a large connection between the position of atheistic meaningfulness to life and existentialism. Would you guys consider yourselves to be existentialists?

My final concern is this: It seems that, for this position to be true, a proposition must have inherent meaning in itself. It would follow that, in this view, a proposition would not have meaning due to any objective standard of evaluation outside itself to give it mean, but that, rather, propositions are in themselves objective standards of evaluation about themselves. In this sense, would you guys agree that the rules of logic that govern the universe are, in themselves, objective self-referential recursive entities?

[Hypomanic]

I'm a firm believer in science, so what makes me happy are a number of things in my life right now.

I don't see reassurance in some make-believe being that 'created everything'. The existence of heaven and hell have not been scientifically proven. Why put so much faith in something that is so irrational and that can't be proven? Seems like a flawed ideology. Plus, everyone interprets faith differently.. sometimes faith is harmful or segregating. Sometimes it's helpful. I guess it is what it is... I see no reason to believe in it.

[Danellian]

The thing is this: To the person who does not believe meaning can be found strictly in the moment, there must be some form of objectivity outside the moment to impart that meaning. That's why we are willing to believe in something that there is no scientific evidence for, because otherwise, from our point of view, there would be no meaning, and we are not willing to sacrifice that, escpecially when we do not see it as at all intellectually dishonest or contrary to logic and reason.

[Hypomanic]

The thing is this: To the person who does not believe meaning can be found strictly in the moment, there must be some form of objectivity outside the moment to impart that meaning. That's why we are willing to believe in something that there is no scientific evidence for, because otherwise, from our point of view, there would be no meaning, and we are not willing to sacrifice that, escpecially when we do not see it as at all intellectually dishonest or contrary to logic and reason.

Although my question was rhetorical.. what about finding meaning on your own? Why fall into preconceived beliefs.. why not look for the answers yourself? I'd believe in god if I found out such a person existed. I have not found out that he has, so a lack of god does not bother me. It's more comforting to believe in real truths, to believe that something unproven is true is deceptive. Ultimately you have a 50% chance there is no god and a 50% chance there is. What if there isn't one?

[niffer]

Well, I'm very easily amused and pleased. I get natural highs. :) You know, everything is so amazing. You, and me. And...erasers..how when you write and you rub them on it...and the writing goes away then the rubber comes off. And how the grass loves the sun. And how I walk through the grass in the morning and the dew comes off onto my ankles...I just overflow with love sometimes..

I don't know about "meaning", but I am certainly enjoying myself.

When you touch another being and they are warm...you realize they have blood and a pumping heart just like you, and to me that's one of the best feelings in the world. I like to live in a world where there's such a thing as love, even though I may not get it all the time...as long as I know it's there, and I'll have hope.

edit:

Btw, I don't believe in "Hell". Only Heaven. Y'know, if I don't even know for sure if it exists or not, I'm not going to worry about having to go there throughout my entire time I'm living on Earth. When I have no evidence to rely on, I'm going to think positively. Besides, after all the fun I've had so far on Earth, I probably deserve to be burning in Hell already if there is one!

[Danellian]

Hypomaniac, I could return the question to you and ask: What if there is a God? In any case, I don't see objective meaning as contradictory to personal meaning. In fact, I see the personal journey toward a comprehension and apprehension of that objective meaning as a process in which the objective and personal coalesce.





Danellian added to this post, 24 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Niffer, I'm not saying necesserily that there is a hell, tha's beside the point I want to make. It's great if you are able to take great satisfaction in life and live in the moment a lot. However, this doesn't mean that it objectively matters that you live in the moment. I think we all crave that meaning that it really matters if we are happy.

[stasis]

I myself find the notion of 'meaning' in life itself to be completely unnecessary, if not essentially nonsensical. I am not prompted to create any such meaning, and nor do I suffer for the 'lack' of it. Other people surely seem to be preoccupied with the question for whatever reason though.

/shrug

[Danellian]

Stasis, see, this is the type of response I anticipated from an atheist. From another thread, there were many atheists who presented the proposition that meaning can be found in the moment without reference to an external source. I'm curious if you could tell me more about why you don't feel the need for any meaning, and how you experience this lack of need for meaning? It's something I don't relate to, and I'd like to have a better grasp of that position.

[WavesSootheMe]

I myself find the notion of 'meaning' in life itself to be completely unnecessary, if not essentially nonsensical. I am not prompted to create any such meaning, and nor do I suffer for the 'lack' of it. Other people surely seem to be preoccupied with the question for whatever reason though.

/shrug

It seems that we are all perhaps using the word 'meaning' with different associated ideas about it. Can you (or anyone else) explain your position in more words without using the word 'meaning'?

This thread is now taking a bit of a different direction than I think was intended. It didn't seem to be asking the philosophical question: What is the meaning of life? Rather it asked: Why do I feel that something is missing from my life and how do I find it?

I reread my post and found that my words were a bit misleading. To clarify, when I wrote my post, I was not thinking of an overall purpose of my life or life in general. I feel no need for a purpose to live. There does not need to be a reason why life itself exists. Meanings and intentions, to me, do not extend beyond the human mind. I understood the other posts to be taking a similar point of view. My cat, for example, lives. She too is life. I love having her around, but she does not live to make me happy. There is no purpose to her life, but I find value (gain happiness) from it.

I cringe when people say that everything happens for a reason. They're completely mixing up cause, effect and correlation. Things happen, it's what we learn from them and how we act after them that forms these "reasons," but there is no real purpose.

[stasis]

I'm curious if you could tell me more about why you don't feel the need for any meaning, and how you experience this lack of need for meaning? It's something I don't relate to, and I'd like to have a better grasp of that position.
I can try -- however, from my perspective, the question you're asking is a bit odd. To use a crude analogy, it would be somewhat like me asking you why you don't feel a need to wear a bracelet on your wrist, and how you experience that lack of need. You ask why I don't feel a need for meaning. Well, why would I have such a need in the first place? Should I normally feel a need? I'm not experiencing a lack of something and so, apparently, it's not necessary. Much like a bracelet, I find the search itself to be an accessory. An invention. Contrived. The 'meaning question' is fabricated as far as I am concerned, which makes my not catering to it nothing in experiential particular. It isn't something I experience one way or the other. It has nothing to do with me. I am complete without it.

I'm not sure what else I can say about that.

[niffer]

I agree with what stasis posted.

I didn't know that life..*meant* something. I kind of just assume that life meant...live?

It's like you're making up reasons for things that are going to happen no matter what.

What is the purpose of good? Why does it exist? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES does it exist?
What is the purpose of evil?
What is the meaning of my fingernail clipping?
What is the PURPOSE of God?

Ftr, what is the purpose of non-atheists anyways? Does anyone seriously stay alive for one single purpose?

[INTroJect]

We can all apply whatever meaning we want to our lives or we can just apply nothing and enjoy the ride. It doesn't last that long anyway.

[AgentofGaming]

Life's purpose is life.
So the planet doesn't become empty and species don't let themselves get wiped out.
Living isn't too much of a problem after civilizations formed, would that make people seek another so called purpose?

[Antares]

In my opinion, there's no higher 'purpose' of my life. I'm just the coincedential joining of egg and sperm at one given moment, but I find meaning in life in achieving my dreams. Although I focus on the results, to me, the process is enjoyable as well. I find joy and meaning in getting away from my busy lifestyle once in a while and indulging myself. I like to notice the small details of life - and their beauty. I enjoy viewing landscapes and other sceneries with music and introspecting. I go stargazing to relax and reflect upon my life. While doing that, a good photo or two will always be a good addition to my collection. My meaning in life: To be the best I can be and experience as much as possible.

[Lucid]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

Why does anyone thing that meaning/beauty/etc is a product of one's belief in a deity?

I suppose that believing in a higher power might affect how you view the meaning/beauty/etc in your life, but it is not dependent on such a belief.

I mean no offense when I say this, but I kind of feel sorry for people who need a religious belief to experience meaning/beauty/etc. It may be that those who need a religious belief to experience that have a religious belief because of that need, not that they have meaning/beauty/etc because they have a religious belief. If that makes any sense.

[elsdfr]

The thread is titled Atheists but I think there is a mix up between those who posted about life not needing to have a meaning and those that consider themselves Atheists. I think they are mutually exclusive in that just because we don't believe in a God our life is somehow meaningless.

You should also consider Agnostics and the like as well as include those who have life philosophies like Humanists and Existentialists, all of which don't have a God but if studied can bring meaning to some people... it's just that you won't see the lessons televised therefore you get the raised eyebrow when mentioning it publicly... Oh, low blow :)

[Danellian]

No one seems to be ackowledging the problem of how feeling that one's life has meaning translates into one's life objectively and actually having meaning.

[Drayakir]

I don't need to be religious to appreciate Michelangelo's paintings of the Madonna. Religion does nothing but constrict people- it imposes a code of morals that they have to follow for some form of reward when they die. It has nothing to do with truth or beauty.

[Danellian]

What makes you think morals are contrary to truth and beauty?





Danellian added to this post, 2 minutes and 41 seconds later...

What makes you think morality cannot be intrinsically rewarding as opposed to done for the sake of future reward? Could you even call the latter moral, or merely self-interest? What makes you think spirituality cannot be divored from religion?





Danellian added to this post, 0 minutes and 53 seconds later...

What makes you think morality must be a system of rules?

[Gavisi]

No one seems to be ackowledging the problem of how feeling that one's life has meaning translates into one's life objectively and actually having meaning.
That translation is impossible unless "meaning" is defined. And I still haven't seen a good, clear definition of "meaning".

What's your definition of "meaning", Danellian?

[Danellian]

Well, wikipedia defines it as "the end, purpose, or significance of something". So, if I'm going to be objective, this should be my starting point. If I ask "what is the meaning of life?" then I'm asking "what is the end, purpose, or significance of life?". You might say the end of life is to reproduce and be happy. But who says this is so? What I'm suggesting is that there is an objective correlate to our subjective notions of meaning to show us what life really means. Otherwise, we are left with a Darwinian, humanistic contruct to tell us what life means. I wonder, is this your "objective standard"? Anyhow, the way I see it, for something to have meaning, there must be something outside the system to dictate what that meaning is. Otherwise, all there is the system itself and the best we can say is "this is what actually is", but we have little foresight about what "this" actually means, since we are limited to our own perspectives without any objective input. If we are limited merely to our own perspectives (which, if you have read my other posts, you know I think we NEED our own perspectives) then there is no objectivity about it.

[Drayakir]

I'm not saying they are contrary, I'm saying they don't equate to truth and beauty. And morals never pay off. Sure, people might look up to you, but what good is that?

[Danellian]

True morality has nothing to do with people looking up to me. It has to do with what I think of myself.

Morality does not equate to truth and beauty, as they are separate entitites. What I am suggesting is that there is a connection between these separate entities.

[blueback]

Danellian: I think that constantly appealing to your audience to agree with you that there is "something out there" is an overrated strategy. Either they will agree with you, in which case you don't have much to talk about, or they will disagree with you, in which case you will both tell each other how wrong you are until one of you gets tired.

I, personally, don't think there is anything "out there" because if there was then there should be some evidence of it. Simply saying that there is no evidence of it because it's not the sort of thing it's possible to have evidence of, but that it's still there, means that you have faith. I don't have that faith. In fact, the world can be divided into two groups, those who have faith in "something evidence-less out there" and those who don't have that faith.

You can spend all your time talking to the group that agrees with you, but you seem to want to spend at least part of your time talking to the group that doesn't.

Speaking for the group that "doesn't", any logic which you present which can be traced back to the founding argument "it's just there, even if there's no evidence" is not logical. You can repeat it over and over again but it's all based on faith.

The stuff you said in your last post is exactly right. I do think that the "end" of life is to reproduce and be happy. I don't need anyone else to tell me so, that's what I think. I do think that this is what "actually is" and that anything which "actually isn't" can be safely ignored. So, you see, there is nothing more to it then that. You think that there is some unspecified "more" and I don't.

[Gavisi]

What I'm suggesting is that there is an objective correlate to our subjective notions of meaning to show us what life really means.
Why are you suggesting this? Is there some proof or experience you have to back up this suggestion?

[Danellian]

Blueback, there are a couple of points you are missing here. Yes, I am basing some of my argument on my faith that there is something more out there. Here are the two things you are missing that I base my argument on:

1. You are taking a gamble by not being willing to investigate something with any other than your pragmatist methodology. If there is a non-observeable reality, it is possible that there is some way to apprehend it, but it is apparent that it cannot be apprehended by the senses. You simply don't know one way or the other if it exists, by your own methodology. By definition, you are taking a stance not to believe in the existence of something you don't know one way or the other about. Granted, you cannot know, either way, based on your methodology, if it is universalized - that is, used in all situations and for all fields of inquiry.

2. The universalization of your methodology is unwarranted on it's own grounds, since, again, it has nothing to say about the supernatural field of inquiry. It precludes the very possibility of supernatural realitites because, by definition, it must explain all things in physical terms and base all apprehension upon sensory observation. It precludes this field of inquiry without having any grounds to do so, thereby creating a conceptual contradiction.

These two objections must be met for my argument to be refuted, in my opinion. So far, they have not been. Maybe they haven't been made clear, but this post should meet that end.

[Gavisi]

Why do you believe in God, Danellian, and why is your belief valid?

[Danellian]

Gavisi, I believe in God, for one thing, because everything I know about myself tells me that there is a part of myself that is not of this world, that is not physical, but rather, spiritual, in nature. This is not an attempt to repress my physical nature, as I acknowledge it. But there is also a spiritual nature present in myself that I also must acknowledge. As I am just as human as the rest of us, I doubt that I am qualitatively different in this regard from anyone else.

Also, I have felt the presence of God. You might call this the Holy Spirit in terms of the Christian tradition, but I am not limiting it to a mere tradition. A way to put it would be this: I can tell when I am more or less in touch with that something greater. When I am closer, I can feel His presence. When I am farther away, I can feel the emptiness that is left in His place.

[Drayakir]

Well, the thing about the supernatural is this- if it does exist, it has rules and laws. Before, humanity put almost everything in the supernatural, except for stuff that was readily observed and explained. When more stuff became more readily observed and explained, it shifted from the supernatural into the natural.

Eventually, we will either run out of things that are supernatural (and at this point, it is a) creation of the universe, b) what happens when we die) and figure out how they belong in the natural world; or we will find the supernatural, but it will not be supernatural- because all things are governed by laws and rules. Even fantasy authors don't make things omnipotent- Dracula had limitations, Gandalf couldn't interfere directly, most fantasy wizards have some form of limitation.

[Danellian]

Drayakir, you're making the fundamental assumption there is no distinction between spirituality and superstition. You are proposing a pattern to history, but your conclusion that eventually everything will be explainable in physical terms has no evidence to support it.

Besides, certain things are by nature intangible, and those are the things that will never be explainable in physical terms.

[blueback]

Danellian: There is no argument to refute. You don't have a position. You have specifically stated that you lack a position.

You keep saying that I can't "refute" your argument because I am limiting myself to only the expanse of reality which can be observed. . .which is exactly right. Your "position" is that you are standing on things that can't be observed. If your position is one that can't be observed, then you don't have a position. How can I prove your position is invalid when it doesn't even exist in the first place?

You continue to abuse the English language by saying things like "...investigate something with any other than your pragmatist methodology..." and "...If there is a non-observeable reality, it is possible that there is some way to apprehend it, but it is apparent that it cannot be apprehended by the senses..." It's obvious that you either have a much deeper understanding of the language then I do, or a much shallower understanding. You have put words together, but you have managed to do less communicating then if you had stuck to one word replies.

So, I might be asking for trouble here, but try to humor me.

How, exactly, do you "apprehend" things without the senses?

[Danellian]

Blueback, it is sufficient to reply that the only way I don't have a position is according to your point of view. Inherently, that means you are not being rational, since you will not take my argument on it's own terms and then try to deconstruct it and say I am wrong. All you are doing is reiterating some version of "Your view doesn't agree with mine, hence it must be wrong". The only way that believing in something intangible equals not having a position is if you are right that there is nothing intangible. It is you who, on the one hand, admits to not having a position since the existence of the supernatural is not empirically verifiable, while on the other hand, stating you do hold the position that there is nothing supernatural.

The only way you are asking for trouble is by your insults directed at my use of the english language. If you wish to speak with me, treat me with respect. If you want an answer to your final question, address the aforementioned argument.

[Gavisi]

You said before, Danellian, that you can feel the presence of God. I'm assuming that you don't feel his presence with your senses. How then do you feel his presence?

[Danellian]

Gavisi, that is a very good question. It is not easily answered, especially from the standpoint of a pragmatist. I think a good starting point is the philosophy of Ken Wilbur. Have you heard of him? He proposes that, just as there are objective correlates to physical sensation - sensibilia, in the Russellian term - there are also objective correlates to spiritual apprehension. Said correlates would, of course, not be tangible or observeable through the senses, and would not constitute sense data. I think this is a good argument because a purely empirical methodology simply has areas of reality that it cannot address. These areas of reality also cannot be explained away by said methodoloy, since, by definition, it has nothing to say about it. Empirical methodology can at best lead us to the conlusion that there may or may not be an intangible reality, but the truth value of said proposition would be null, not yes or no. The universal empiricist has no rational basis for assigning a positive value to the question of whether or not there is an intangible reality. Anyone who tries is contradicting themselves.

This leaves us in the position having a proposition with null value. Neither is it an inconsequential proposition, it is the most important propostion imagineable. The meaning of our very lives and the purpose and function of all observeable reality is determined by the answer to said proposition. If it is false, the plainly, this physical reality is all there is, and we should do our best to live in the moment and not concern ourselves with abstract concepts like "morality", "purpose", and "meaning". If it is true, then we better inquire into the nature of intangible reality, since it will affect the values of "morality", "purpose", and "meaning" in our lives. If these abstract concepts do have objective correlates, then if we are to be happy, we must address them, and live accordingly. So, there is MUCH at stake in simply ignoring the question by refusing to give it a truth value, or by pretending to answer the question without a rational basis for doing so.

Given this predicament, we are left with the task of constructing a rational methodology for inquiring into the possibility of intangible reality. How do we have any apprehension of it? The starting point is always the self, just as in pragmatism. Many of us find that we have has some form of spiritual experience, be it a major experience of God or nondual reality or something like that, or a minor experience of experiencing the presence of God in our lives or the touch of His energies, or even the nihilistic peace of the void.

People who have had these experiences are just as convinced of the reality of them as the rest of us are convinced of the reality that we simply do exist, or the reality we sense around us that takes the form of our homes and other things we experience through the senses. There are certain things that are by nature intangible, and we can establish this on a rationalistic basis. For example, take the example of qualia. When we experience something, when we apprehend something through the senses, we have an mental experience of it. We know what the color green looks like, though it is impossible to explain that to someone else or even to prove to them that your experience of green is the same as theirs. But that experience of green is a reality nonetheless, and even if every person on the face of the planet experienced the color green differntly, we would all still be utterly convinced that the experience of green was real, and we would have no rational basis for denying this claim. The same can be said for all sensations. When we experience the taste of an olive, or the sound of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonatta, the texture of our lover's skin, or the smell of an orchard, the subjective experience, or quale, in each case, is something that we take for granted to exist, that we cannot rationally deny the existence of, and that functions as the staring point of our inquiry into the objective correlates of said sensations.

The same can be said of associations we make between objects. This is where abstract concepts come into play. If we find a particular piece of music, or a person, or the sight of a sunset over a mountain top, to be beautiful, we have introduced the concept of beauty into the equation. Is there an objective correlate for beauty? Are the objects we sense inherently beautiful? Is beauty merely a subjective category? Is there something objective, outside the object, that makes it beautiful? All these answers are possibilities, but what is certain is that the experience of beauty itself is a reality. And when we experience it, it is just as real as the sensory correlate that contributed to it.

What about things we cannot sense, but still have an experience of? If I experience the presence of God, or a sense of unity with reality, or the expanse of the void, am I merely fooling myself that these realities exist, or do they actually correspond to some objective reality? One thing is again for certain: said experiences exist. Another thing is certain: I have no rational basis for denying the objective correlation that could have contributed to their existence. Such experiences have such a character for us that they provide meaning and direction of our lives, and they teach us lessons to help us transcend our egoes. There has been research done on people how have has spiritual experience and people who have had schizophrenic experiences. The common character of the former is that they lead to improvement in people's lives, while the common character of the latter is that they do not improve, but rather, hinder people's lives. So, there is some qualitative difference between an experience that doesn't correspond to reality and one that does. Give this data, we have a stronger rational basis for believing in the objective correlate to spiritual experience than for not believing that in tangible reality has objective existence.

What this leaves us with is the following conclusion: The most meaningful experiences in our lives, the peak experiences, the spiritual experiences, those experiences which seem to correlate to something utterly intangible, provide us with direction in our lives in a way that sensory experience cannot, and in fact, they alter the way we see sensory epxerience altogether. The things of this physical universe begin to fit into a bigger picture of reality, and we see their nature and purpose all the more clearly. However, none of this makes any sense to someone who holds steadfast to a universally empirical approach to reality. But to those of us who have had some intimations of intangible reality, we have more of a rational basis for believing in it that those who have not had such intimations have for not belieiving in it. Pure empiricists do not understand that, to those who have had such intimations, the inquiry into spiritual reality is by far the most useful pursuit possible.

My conclusion is that there is some form of objective correlate to spiritual experience that differs qualitatively from sensibilia. These objective correlates to spiritual experience provide us with the highest source of meaning in our lives.

[Gavisi]

So you've felt some presence through some kind of stimulus that you can't define or show. I've never felt anything outside of what I get from the senses, so I can't relate.

There's nothing else I can say on this topic then. But I do have a question.

How did your spiritual experiences translate into your mind? How did they teach you to be more aware of the underlyings of nature and such?

[terencec]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

You can choose the meaning/purpose of the life here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I will agree with the German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. Basicially, he said that the life was meaningless (in the universe). We just like other animals, keep reproducing due to sex drive (irrational), even though the life is meaningless. We are doing the same things again and again, generation after generation, do similar jobs, watch movies, play games, buy stocks, create wealth, buy new cars/boats/toys ... , travel, have sex etc (meaningless in the universe.) These activities do not create any lasting impact to the universe and we cannot see any purpose why we are doing them in the universe. We (most of us) do that because of boring, winning the mate, self glorification and/or supporting the life. (Similar point of view To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. by Richard Taylor.)

Even God does exist, he creates us with purpose (whatever purpose it is). However, we are just the "instruments" to realize His purpose (His purpose could do by unthinking machine/robot/engine). The life is still meaningless since we don't live our purposes. God can give us happiness when we realize His purpose but happiness is not equal to meaning of life.

We could not overcome it (life is meaningless). So that is no answer to the question. But, it does not mean we cannot be happy with a meaningless life!

[Danellian]

Gavisi, your question is difficult to answer, since you have had no such experiences. The best example I can give you is the sense that all things emerge from some sort of purposeful first cause, and that in a sense, all things serve the purpose of returning to that cause. That very first cause can seem like an emptiness, unless you look deeper, and you see there is this ultimate reality behind that emptiness that we can never completely comprehend due to it's infinite and unqualified nature. I haven't made these things up. To me, they are a real experience of the ultimate nature of reality. I'm not the only one. If you've studied the world religions or humanistic psychology, you'll see what I mean. Not all followers of religions follow them blindly or for no valid reason, and it's very likely the founders of these religions has some profound experiences themselves. Humanisitc psychology tries to study spiritual experiences from a scientific persepctive, a task which I don't think is completely possible. Also, note that when I used the term "humanistic" in a previous post to describe modern cultural thought, I was talking about using the self as a starting point for inquiry. I'm not saying this is bad in itself, indeed, as stated, it is necessary. But in the end, in my view, we must end at a point outside ourselves.

[SolitaryWalker]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

The answer here is finding spirituality without the help of religious orthodoxy.

See my thread on spirituality.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[WavesSootheMe]

Danellian, I am happy that you have found such a strong conviction in your belief. I, too, know the feeling of reading something that resonates so strongly with my own sense of things. I am, however, a bit irked that you claim to have a "stronger rational basis for your belief," when your conclusions are based on some questionable assumptions. Below is one example of such an assumption:

There has been research done on people how have has spiritual experience and people who have had schizophrenic experiences. The common character of the former is that they lead to improvement in people's lives, while the common character of the latter is that they do not improve, but rather, hinder people's lives. So, there is some qualitative difference between an experience that doesn't correspond to reality and one that does. Give this data, we have a stronger rational basis for believing in the objective correlate to spiritual experience than for not believing that in tangible reality has objective existence.

Consider that perhaps the reason why schizophrenia hinders their lives is because they must function in a society that does not accommodate this minority. Quite the opposite is true for spiritual/religious experiences, and, even so, spiritual experience does not always improve a person’s life. Without controlling for such factors, the comparison is not as clear cut as your words make it seem. The classification of a disorder is based on a norm and the ability to function within a particular society. In some cultures and societies, people that we would label as mentally unstable are/were revered for their vision and are/were found to be functional members of society. Without the resistance of the people around them, their quality of life is not diminished. Then by the logic you have presented, we have no rational grounds to say hallucinations are not real. They meet the requirements: a) They can be very real to the person who experiences them and b) One can argue that if hallucinations elevate a person’s status in a society, then those hallucinations have improved that person’s quality of life.

Simply feeling or experiencing something does not make it true. I may feel that my sister hates me, but this does not mean that she hates me. All we can conclude is that the experience itself is real.

My conclusion is that there is some form of objective correlate to spiritual experience that differs qualitatively from sensibilia. These objective correlates to spiritual experience provide us with the highest source of meaning in our lives.

I doubt that this was intentional or perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems that your conclusion has ironically left out the entire frontal lobe among other things. We are not merely beings that process sensory information or objective correlates. We have memory, we have emotion, we have rational thought. In your pursuit of the spiritual, is it rational to ignore that which is right in front of you?

All any of this says to me is that there are things about ourselves and the world around us that we do not yet comprehend. You may call this unknown what you wish, but any theory at this point is a guess and those theories will make sense to different people based on their subjective experiences. If one sees the assumptions of the theory as false, then they will not find meaning within it. As an atheist, I do not subscribe to any theory that tries to explain this unknown as a single entity, a higher power or a god. This does not satisfy my craving to answer the millions of questions that remain. To say that we deny anything is false, since the word "deny" implies that the thing which is being denied has some inherent truth.

I believe I said something similar in an earlier post, but the atheists that used the term “meaning” most likely were not thinking of “an end, a purpose or a goal.” They were not proposing a universal purpose for life. It sounds like they were listing things that they enjoy in their lives, things that give them the subjective experience of self-fulfillment. Ultimately this may be meaningless, but while we’re alive our experience is real.

[terencec]

I believe I said something similar in an earlier post, but the atheists that used the term “meaning” most likely were not thinking of “an end, a purpose or a goal.” They were not proposing a universal purpose for life. It sounds like they were listing things that they enjoy in their lives, things that give them the subjective experience of self-fulfillment. Ultimately this may be meaningless, but while we’re alive our experience is real.

I believe in philosophy, if someone asks what is the meaning of life, it means "what is the purpose of human existence?"

If people reply "what they enjoy/feel self-fulfillment in life", it is nothing wrong. We understand the question differently.

I am not interested in later question since the answer depends on each individual (They can pretty much say anything they like). However, in the former question, there may be a purpose (or no purpose) of human existence/life so we can "think" about it.

[elfece]

There has been research done on people how have has spiritual experience and people who have had schizophrenic experiences. The common character of the former is that they lead to improvement in people's lives, while the common character of the latter is that they do not improve, but rather, hinder people's lives. So, there is some qualitative difference between an experience that doesn't correspond to reality and one that does.

Danellian, I can't understand how can you say that, by the sole fact that 'spiritual experience' and 'schizophrenic experience' lead to different outcomes, they have to be provoked by different causes as well; there are plenty of autistic persons who have severe problems to learn in our system, and there are others, a few, who are authentic geniuses in certain areas, and both of them are autistics; we don't say that the former is autistic and the latter is 'touched by god' (at least, not in a literal way).

It's clear, by what you're saying, that the 'spiritual experience' is some kind of 'constructive schizophrenia', and I find nothing mystic or spiritual in it. I'm rather unhappy because it seems that I wasn't 'gifted' with that 'positive illness' that would allow me to 'feel God', but maybe i can feel Him by taking some magical pills... Or maybe you could take some other magical pills and then stop experiencing Him... It seems magic, but it's science :)

Why then, the 'spiritual experience' of experimenting God have to have more validity than some schizophrenic saying that Satan speaks to him telling him to murder his family? His Satan, or the little gnomes that mess with his things, or those aliens who contact him every full moon night are as real as the 'God felt by the spiritual experience'.

I would never expect the scientific approach to support the 'divinity of the spiritual experience', but to explain it as an abnormal brainwaves pattern, a brain chemical disorder... maybe there can be spotted some genes involved in making you more likely to experiment a 'spiritual experience'.

Also, I find it really selfish to believe that, just because the most meaningful experiences in your life are in some kind of 'intangible reality', the physical reality get can be reduced to a mere piece that 'fits into a bigger picture of reality'.


What you're doing here is defending a world that cannot be sensed; that you don't have any objective proof of its existence, or maybe it exists somewhere outside the time and the space, and by that reason it could perfectly not exist.

We all know that our senses often betray us, and so we mustn't trust fully the sensitive experience, but if some day I find myself with some kind of experience that 'plopped in my head' without being sensed, and that experience points to the existence of any supernatural being, that day I will get seriously worried about my mental health.

You're right, those who follow the empirical approach (me included) will never understand that 'spiritual world'; you could say that we're in 'different plains', but the fact is that everything is false until you can't prove the opposite, otherwise I could somewhat have the 'nonsensing experience' that my neighborhood is into a secret international conspiracy to kill me and my dog, that I am the real incarnation of the Dalai Lama, or that Britney Spears is in love with me (hope God doesn't allow that!), or why not? I could even 'experience God', and I find that the most prudent position against any of these 'inner manifestations that came from an outer intangible reality' is the DOUBT.


I, scientifically, can't prove the existence (nor the non-existence) of God.

You, 'spiritually' neither can prove any of them.

The fact is, I defend the non-existence of God based on my empirical approach of reality, because, as I said before, anything that cannot be proven that way, must be probabilistically false.

And you defend its existence based on some subjective experience, but even if I accept the possibility of the objectiveness of that experience, it stills being probabilistically as true as me experiencing to be the authentic incarnation of the Dalai Lama.

You believe in God, and give the 'spiritual experience' as a proof. You're taking it as a truth just because you find it useful, because, it is intense and enlightening to your life experience...

Somewhat, you have learned empirically that it's better to believe than to not to believe!!! (in other words, you are empirically believing in an intangible realm of reality, another big reason to be suspicious about it...)


Believing in some kind of God on an objective basis is ingenuity, believing in it from a subjective point of view is selfishness, and pretending to find objectiveness into the subjectiveness is pure autohypnosis (and a signal of a big ego, too)...

I have to go eat lunch, so I'm concluding here...

And also, Spanish is my native language, so sorry if I'm expressing myself like Tarzan

Happy new year to everybody! :thumbsup:

[Antares]

Gavisi, your question is difficult to answer, since you have had no such experiences. The best example I can give you is the sense that all things emerge from some sort of purposeful first cause, and that in a sense, all things serve the purpose of returning to that cause. That very first cause can seem like an emptiness, unless you look deeper, and you see there is this ultimate reality behind that emptiness that we can never completely comprehend due to it's infinite and unqualified nature. I haven't made these things up. To me, they are a real experience of the ultimate nature of reality. I'm not the only one. If you've studied the world religions or humanistic psychology, you'll see what I mean. Not all followers of religions follow them blindly or for no valid reason, and it's very likely the founders of these religions has some profound experiences themselves. Humanisitc psychology tries to study spiritual experiences from a scientific persepctive, a task which I don't think is completely possible. Also, note that when I used the term "humanistic" in a previous post to describe modern cultural thought, I was talking about using the self as a starting point for inquiry. I'm not saying this is bad in itself, indeed, as stated, it is necessary. But in the end, in my view, we must end at a point outside ourselves.

If by profound experiences, you mean psychic or paranormal experiences, I can definitely tell you that they are attributes of hallucination. The trick of the mind is that it is able to make things that is non-existent appear in front of you, life-like. I've had such experiences myself when I believed that I saw the face of devil on my window and I've heard footsteps in the middle of the night when everyone was clearly asleep. I swore to myself that it was the face of devil which later changed into an old woman with a haunted face, then into that of a menacing skeleton. What was it really? When I approached the said 'face', it turned out to be branches and twigs. I think that Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World has an excellent explanation to apparitions, visions and spiritual/paranormal experiences. I do not believe that personal experiences are a good point in this debate. The human mind is a powerful machine that deserves a little credit. I swore that my 'vision' was real. I saw the face as clearly as I see my computer, but was it real? No. Also, by ultimate reality, I'm not sure what you mean. I see reality as the world now. Are you by any chance trying to convey that the 'truth' or ultimate 'purpose' is beyond our comprehension? Can you define it? Because... I don't see an underlying truth to the emptiness.

[gzeus]

Life does have a meaning and has even more (i'd say MUCH more) meaning to a non-religious person. We know this is our one chance, one shot at living. We tend to live it fully and appreciate nature, people we care about and life itself much more, precisely because we know this will alll end one day and that day might come sooner than we think.

Religions tend to teach obedience and survitude in this life, so you will be rewarded in heaven. What a waste of life that is.

There is a meaning of life and it is different for each individual:

It is this: "The meaning of your life: YOU."

You are the meaning of your life.


Ask your parents, they'll tell you...

Steve Jobs (loosely): "There is no better way to make you live, than to know your life might end soon." or something to that accord. Here have a look at this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)...

[blueback]

Blueback, it is sufficient to reply that the only way I don't have a position is according to your point of view.


Well. . .I can't argue with that.


Inherently, that means you are not being rational, since you will not take my argument on it's own terms and then try to deconstruct it and say I am wrong.


I have been, actually, doing just that. It's my fault, though, that you aren't getting it. I've been trying to figure out how to translate my arguments into your language, but it's basically hit or miss.

I've explained, in detail, why you are wrong. I've used only your own statements and I've laid out my logic at each step. If you choose to think that my conclusions are wrong because of the logic I've used, then good for you. However, if you choose to believe that my conclusions are wrong because they contradict your feelings on the matter, then you are making the exact same mistake that lead you to your false conclusions in the first place.


All you are doing is reiterating some version of "Your view doesn't agree with mine, hence it must be wrong".


No, I've explained why I think what I think. You just want to ignore my logic because my conclusions don't agree with yours. You are projecting your own decision making process onto me. You are the one who starts from your conclusion and then generates a framework to support it. I start from the evidence and work towards a conclusion. As you could see if you bothered to read what I write.


The only way that believing in something intangible equals not having a position is if you are right that there is nothing intangible.


Correct!


It is you who, on the one hand, admits to not having a position since the existence of the supernatural is not empirically verifiable, while on the other hand, stating you do hold the position that there is nothing supernatural.


See, this is where I start to lose you. You seemed to be responding to what I had posted right up until you responded to something I never said.

I never said that there is nothing supernatural. I said that the very definition of supernatural prohibits it from being listed with things that do exist. The supernatural might "exist" in the sense that it is real. But if it is impossible to measure then it doesn't exist in the sense that everything which can be measured is real. People have been trying to measure paranormal activity for decades, and their research is still "inconclusive."


The only way you are asking for trouble is by your insults directed at my use of the english language. If you wish to speak with me, treat me with respect. If you want an answer to your final question, address the aforementioned argument.


Uh oh, are you going to cause trouble for me? Are you going to do it because you're insulted or because you're threatened?

The only reason I keep responding to you is because I am allergic to the idea of "giving up" by granting you the floor. If I stop telling you why you're wrong, you might start to think that you're right. Then, lord forbid, you might start to persuade other people too.

[blueback]

... a purely empirical methodology simply has areas of reality that it cannot address. These areas of reality also cannot be explained away by said methodoloy, since, by definition, it has nothing to say about it.


Dude, this is one of those abuses of the English language again.
Reality: That which exists objectively and in fact (AHD)
Objectively: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices; Based on observable phenomena; presented factually (AHD)
Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment (AHD)

There. Reality is that which is described empirically. Therefore, there is no such thing as a portion of reality that can't be described empirically.

Now, this doesn't mean that there is nothing outside reality. It does mean that if you want to talk about something which can't be described empirically you can't use the word "reality" in doing so.


... there may or may not be an intangible reality, [...] it is the most important propostion imagineable. The meaning of our very lives and the purpose and function of all observeable reality is determined by the answer to said proposition.


No. Once again, you are making a leap of faith.
You jump from the accurate question that non-reality might somehow exist in its own right, to the idea that the question is somehow the most important question it is possible for our minds to form.

If you aren't making a leap of faith, and in fact have a train of logic to get you from one to the other, then please share it.


If it is true, then we better inquire into the nature of intangible reality, since it will affect the values of "morality", "purpose", and "meaning" in our lives.


But wait, if non-reality affects reality then it should do so in a measurable way. If ignoring the question leaves us to wander blindly from one false assumption about "purpose" to another then there should be a measureable difference in the lives of people who found their purpose and people who didn't.

Careful. You are getting dangerously close to a testable hypothesis... (sarcasm)


If these abstract concepts do have objective correlates, then if we are to be happy, we must address them, and live accordingly. So, there is MUCH at stake in simply ignoring the question by refusing to give it a truth value, or by pretending to answer the question without a rational basis for doing so.


...and there we have it.

You have managed to accidentally present a theory for peer review, I hope you appreciate the significance of participating in the scientific method.

Hypothesis: Abstract concepts like "purpose", when understood, increase relative levels of "happiness" in individuals.

Now you can set up a test in which people rate their level of happiness before and after an experience which should help them "understand their purpose" and see whether or not the event has any effect on their satisfaction with life.


When we experience the taste of an olive, or the sound of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonatta, the texture of our lover's skin, or the smell of an orchard, the subjective experience, or quale, in each case, is something that we take for granted to exist, that we cannot rationally deny the existence of,


Just because we think we see something doesn't necessarily mean it is there, or that we saw it for what it actually was. The people who see the virgin mary in oil stains are convinced that it looks like the virgin mary for a reason, but other people just think it is a coincidence or that it doesn't even look like the virgin mary at all. Who is right?


...what is certain is that the experience of beauty itself is a reality. And when we experience it, it is just as real as the sensory correlate that contributed to it.


The feeling is real, the thing that inspired it is real, but the connection between the two is not. The association happens inside our head, where our imagination makes anything possible. Beauty isn't the same as a color, it doesn't have a wavelength, so it can't be measured. It is an accidental agreement between some random preference inside someone's head and a thing or event in the real world. Have you ever seen American Beauty? Few people agree that watching a plastic bag float in the wind is the most beautiful thing they've ever seen, but that doesn't matter to the one person who thinks it's beautiful. On the other hand, everyone agrees on what the color white is.

Everyone agrees that beauty is a feeling it is possible to have, because everyone's experienced it at one point or another, but it can't really be defined because it can't be measured.


What about things we cannot sense, but still have an experience of? If I experience the presence of God, or a sense of unity with reality, or the expanse of the void, am I merely fooling myself that these realities exist, or do they actually correspond to some objective reality? One thing is again for certain: said experiences exist.


Sure, the experience exists, but what inspired it could be anything.
A person can believe they are Napoleon Bonaparte, and their experience of feeling like they are Napoleon will be real, but that doesn't make them Napoleon. Just because you feel like you were touched by the holy spirit doesn't mean the holy spirit is real. Just because you feel like you became one with the "void" doesn't make the void real.

Actually, there is research data to support the hypothesis that feeling like you are "one with reality" can be easily induced by suppressing the portion of the brain that is responsible for distinguishing between the self and not-self. They used magnetic waves or something high tech like that to reduce bloodflow to that part of the brain and the subjects reported feeling like they became one with everything. But that doesn't mean they did, it just means they were confused.


Give this data, we have a stronger rational basis for believing in the objective correlate to spiritual experience than for not believing that in tangible reality has objective existence.


Again with the misuse of words.
If you have data to support your conclusion, then it isn't belief.


...The most meaningful experiences in our lives, the peak experiences, the spiritual experiences, those experiences which seem to correlate to something utterly intangible, provide us with direction in our lives in a way that sensory experience cannot...


1) Those might be the most meaningful experiences in your life, but don't assume they matter to anyone else

2) Just because you can't come up with something tangible it correlates to, doesn't mean the correlation doesn't exist.

3) You might find direction in experiences that you feel correlate to the supernatural, but don't assume anyone else does.

4) Just because you don't find direction in sensory experiences doesn't mean that other people can't.


...However, none of this makes any sense to someone who holds steadfast to a universally empirical approach to reality. But to those of us who have had some intimations of intangible reality, we have more of a rational basis for believing in it that those who have not had such intimations have for not belieiving in it.


This, right here, feels like deja vu. . .
How about you expand on this point. Explain why you think that you have more of a rational basis for belief in the supernatural then I have for dismissing the supernatural.

[Blacklustre King]

Meaning is irrelevant, one most take life for what it is whether it possesses meaning or not.

You exist therefore you are, find something constructive or destructive to do.

[Capt57]

There's more meaning in good beer and chicken wings then there is in this thread.
"Meaning" is a term best discarded. Throw in "happiness" for that matter. Smarter people then you and I have spent a lifetime trying to define these terms...all have failed. In my opinion, the more you understand about primates the more you will understand yourself and your fellow Homo sapiens.

[dandylion]

I didn't read the entire thread, just a few posts, so sorry if anything I say sounds redundant.

I don't understand how one's life can have meaning just by being religious or having faith or whatever... But I think the "meaning" of life is what one makes of it. We all start out as nothings, but it's our actions and decisions we make until the end of our life that really define who we are. Hmm, does this make me an existentialist?

[Capt57]

I didn't read the entire thread, just a few posts, so sorry if anything I say sounds redundant.

I don't understand how one's life can have meaning just by being religious or having faith or whatever... But I think the "meaning" of life is what one makes of it. We all start out as nothings, but it's our actions and decisions we make until the end of our life that really define who we are. Hmm, does this make me an existentialist?

Yes indeed it does. Many INTJs are existentialists. I myself am a 'evolutionary existentialist'.

[dandylion]

^Well, that's a relief! When my English class was reading "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, everyone kept complaining that Meursault was strange and that they didn't understand him. I identified with him to a great extent, but I didn't want to mention that to anyone because they would've thought I was soulless or something.

[Saurus]

I think people who believe in a god who "created" the world are people who need to know where things starts. They are insecure if they dont know that.

[AgentofGaming]

The problem is it might not be possible to know the beginning and end of time.
There also might be no beginning and end at all.

[NephilimAzrael]

Im not an atheist, but rather fond of apatheism.
Life and meaning? We don't need one, and beauty can be anything and everything. Meaning would spoil the essence of life and as for faith, why not have faith in the lack of order?

[Seppuku Savant]

"Meaning" is a term best discarded. Smarter people than you and I have spent a lifetime trying to define these terms... all have failed.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, it won't stop people from pondering these questions over and over.

[PHS Philip]

I'll tell you what. Spend an hour or two reading up on astrophysics or biology or something of that nature, and answer me this: "how could I not?"

[Julien]

"I think, therefore I am." - Descartes
"Become who you are." - Nietzsche

I feel close to Rationalism (my good side) and Nihilism (my dark side).

[Antisocialite]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

The meaning of my life is made up of whatever I value the most. Honestly, this is true for everyone on the face of the planet. Some just don't admit it.

Not to get off subject but this is exactly why I don't think it is better to spend your life being completely selfless than to spend it doing whatever you want. People who become philanthropists aren't doing what they do out of selflessness. They need what they do to fulfill them, just like everyone else. Selfish but OK because what actions aren't selfish in nature on some level?

[127001]

Interesting. It was when I stopped living for a proposed deity and took a breath of fresh air from my actual surroundings that I felt whole. As an atheist, there is no fluffed up general meaning of life that extends beyond your expiration. You are not hand-fed a purpose, you find it yourself for your own life (which has a start and an end). Do you have support from family, friends and/or pets in your life? Do you see beauty in these people/animals? in nature? in art forms? in science? in physical prowess? Do you find meaning in the process of learning, in progress, in meeting challenges? Despite what some may say (and even some shoddy psychological research may indicate), turning to religion is not the only way to lead a happy, fulfilling life.


Admirable, but I do not believe that this liberation that you feel necessarily requires a lack of belief in a supreme being. I'm not Christian but there are still some worthwhile thoughts scattered throughout the Bible. The same can be said for other religious texts. There have been many intelligent people that have believed wholeheartedly in their chosen religion, and to discount some of their teachings based on the fact that they devoted themselves to something you don't believe in is folly.

[PHS Philip]

Admirable, but I do not believe that this liberation that you feel necessarily requires a lack of belief in a supreme being. I'm not Christian but there are still some worthwhile thoughts scattered throughout the Bible. The same can be said for other religious texts. There have been many intelligent people that have believed wholeheartedly in their chosen religion, and to discount some of their teachings based on the fact that they devoted themselves to something you don't believe in is folly.

Cute straw man. Does he do tricks?

[Nihilum]

Simple. For me it is being competent. Always having a paddle. If not, we fail.

[kedelfor]

To be quite honest what drives me is curiosity. I want to know. I want to know what happens tomorrow. What will I find and what can I learn new that I did not know yesterday. There are always and will always be something to solve.

Sometimes knowing also has its disadvantages. When you find something simple or the "magic" is no longer there you tend to lose interest. I guess this would be why I like technology and most other forms of what if or how can we make it better. This also explains why I don't care much for history, but realize history can also give me answers to the future.

What you must realize is that everyone's drive is different. I have days where I think I am going to someday die so why should I care. I have other days where I think someday I will die which is much the more reason to care now.

There is no one true meaning of life. For life is a concept that is still being debated upon what constitutes life. Until you can have a meaning that you can define then you can start finding what it truly means.

[Tocsin]

When I want to find out the "meaning" of things, the first place I look is a dictionary.

Which is what the problem of finding a "meaning" in life boils down to. This "meaning" that some people crave seems to be a desire to look in some sort of external "dictionary of life" that will validate and justify their existence or choices.

Some people feel the need for an external guide, deity, or principle to tell them what to do or inform them whether or not they are "doing the right thing" with their lives. Other people do not. And people who do not share that external need for meaning may regard it the same way they now regard training wheels, or parental curfews; which is to say, unnecessary.

[MrDoom]

The meaning of life can easily be found in Darwinism. To survive and reproduce. Simple, eh?

That does not account for homosexuals and willful celibates and ascetics.

When science steps outside of its bounds and attempts to rationalize life and existence within a specific framework, it becomes just as self-limiting as religious dogmatism. Science, as any idea-system, is a tool created by humanity that is used because people can find benefit in it; and all tools have the necessary property that their use can be willfully forgone when such is in the interest of the individual. When the laws of science and logic (or even religious systems, or secular political ideology) are imposed upon a person without hope of rejection of or revolt against those laws, they cease to be tools and become ideological shackles.

I find meaning in life on my own terms, in my own ways. I do not need anyone else to give me their spiritual or secular "theories" of why I am here and where I am going.

[Nomadofthehills]

That does not account for homosexuals and willful celibates and ascetics.


Well, there are many example of species with individuals who do not reproduce, but a homosexual or ascetic/celibate that helps their kin at all would fall under natural selection. They are helping their kin, thus increasing "their" fitness.

[Drienne]

I don't look for the "meaning in life". I just need lots of problems to work on fixing. Why must there be meaning???? Maybe that's why my dog looks so confused all the time, he can't find the meaning in life :undecided:

[Deliberator]

I don't think about my life needing some underlying meaning. I just do what I want to do to be fulfilled personally. I've only got one life, and I'm damn well going to enjoy it as best I can with this difficult personality of mine.

[zahcary]

someone may have already said this, but i think relgion takes away the meaning in life. it reduces life to a competition forcing you to do/believe things in a way that you think will make your afterlife awesome.
basically, the thought of heaven or hell or an afterlife ruins life.

[Pandemonium]

I am a nihilist.

[Ool]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

Well, if I were a theist person I'd wonder what kind of meaning God would find in his life. I mean, he doesn't have any authority to look up to, no one who created him, and nothing really matters from his perspective because there's nothing he can't do or undo.

So if you find meaning in worshiping a being whose life is ultimately as meaningless as your own would be if there were no God then, by all means, be my guest! But speaking for myself I couldn't see the point...

[mplogue]

What is the meaning of life?

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[adjectivenoun]

It appears that I am in the minority in that I am an atheist who does have an intense longing for the certainty that some religions bring. The only religion that ever appealed to me is Catholicism, and this is because all of the rules, expectations, explanantions, and so forth are laid out very clearly and methodically. Also, a noble attempt is made at justifying each rule on the basis of evidence. Obviously this evidence fails to convince me, but I appreciate the comfort and order that one can encounter within such a system.

I certainly don't have a "God-shaped hole" but I do have a wistful fantasy about good, evil, and a strict, morally correct way of doing things. I think it would be lovely if things were so orderly. I also think it would be lovely to have a predefined purpose or an end goal for my existence. It is not in my nature to enjoy journeys for the sake of what's along the way--I am a person who endures journeys for the sake of the end product or destination.

The concept of living my life "in the moment" or "like a dance" is repulsive (and often nonsensical) to me. It simply does not compute. Sure, I will engage in pleasurable activities just because I feel like it, but I do not find this fulfilling.

The best I can do to avoid crippling existential depression is to create my own code and live by it. It does feel rather futile to me, but my biological drive to survive and raise my child is strong enough to ensure my obedience of that urge.

[Algol]

If we are strictly talking about "meaning" or "purpose" then I would, somewhat reluctantly, take a nihilistic view and say that the only purpose of life is life itself.

This does not contradict my view that the most noble human activity is the search for knowledge. If we can overcome the tendencies that threaten to kill us off as a species prematurely, we may yet, albeit many generations from today, transcend the limitations of "life" as we know it and truly become masters of our universe. We would then truly be creators, though we may not really understand the implications of it until we reach that point.

[Zombicide]

Atheists: How do you find meaning in life?


The lexicon of course (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[onlyparallel]

To be frank, I don't understand how theists find meaning in life. What use is life if some all powerful being is running the show, if your destiny is predetermined, or if our existence on earth is really some test to judge whether you are worthy enough to attain heaven (or your version of it)? Then life is nothing more than a sadistic game god plays, watching all of the suffering and tallying up mistakes. Perhaps this point has already been said, and if that is the case I apologize. However, the only meaning I get from life is taking responsibilty for my existence. Meaning, not that I created my physical being, but that I create the type of person I am, I forge my path, I make the decisions.

[vertex]

pragmatic agnostic here

first of all, most people i had the unfortune of talking to them about religion are either duped into it by family or are good so their "place" is secured.

not ONE, seemed smart to me

theres way more to life than sucking the dick of some imaginary god

and its usually people who have no meaning in their lives. im talking about 21st century lives here. I could understand if we were at the 19th century, people didnt know better.

I have more respect for community workers than i do for religious people that just go to church. 2 hands working do more than 100 000 hands praying.
I would say if being good to others is a part of the goal in life, community workers and people of non profits are closer to the solution than religious people.

but honestly, youre never gonna prove it anyway so whats the use in offering all this time to some imaginary guy, that could be put to better use

[VinceVanGo]

I find meaning in everything. I live in New York City, and on the subway I am in contact (sometimes literally) with people from all walks of life. I hear hundreds of languages while I walk around and marvel at buildings that are hundreds of years old. I feel so tiny and can feel how big and old the world is. I feel like that when I travel to other countries too.

I find meaning in life when I help others too. From giving food to a homeless person or helping a short person get her can of soup from the top shelf at the grocery store. The simplest little interaction with other humans--holding a door for someone, smiling at a child.

All of this joy without once ever having to judge someone. It's amazing! Bible-thumpers should try it.

[Reptilian]

Existentialism was a start for me then just deciding that i create my own meaning

[Only Forward]

The spirit of the human race is inspiration and meaning enough to want to achieve and live plus because there's no after life we have a limited amount of time to do things in. The only immortality you can hope to achieve is in the minds of others.

[Rudy]

My sisters; the beauty of nature; music; learning; irony; melancholy.

I generally don't like to be so abstract, but it's an abstract sort of question, isn't it? We all make our own meaning in life, and I find mine in countless ways.

[smashy]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

I´m an atheist and actually I feel the opposite, I feel I'M NOT missing anything!

Recently there was here an atheist campaign saying: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and start living". I find this fantastic (although I would cut off the word "probably" and keep it just "There is no God".
It's really spot on. When you don't believe in God and all the religious bullshit all you have is yourself. And yourself is all you need in life. God and religion are just walking sticks. Is what I always say, if you really want to connect with the Universe, go and do volunteer work for a charity, help a homeless have food, don't waste time looking to someone (God) that you never saw when there are real people needing you.

You're free to do whatever you want whenever you want (as long it means you're not hurting anyone else in the process).

So, you find meaning in yourself. In your dreams, in your will power, in your stamina, in your inner strenght, in your love for YOURSELF, not God. This may sound egotistical, but if you look closely, you'll see egotistical are the people that believe you have to please someone they never saw in order to get what they want in life (and after life as well). If you truly love yourself and are in peace with yourself, you'll able to give good things to other people as well and really appreciate the good things in life.

And this for me is what gives my life meaning.





smashy added to this post, 5 minutes and 30 seconds later...

The only immortality you can hope to achieve is in the minds of others.

This is a powerful quote, and very true. That's why you find so many people wanting to be famous.

[Nordenstorm]

LOL I can't help but laughing when I think of that the religious are the majority outside of Scandinavia

[Rudy]

LOL I can't help but laughing when I think of that the religious are the majority outside of Scandinavia

Even as an atheist myself, I have to point out that condescension does not help your case.

[zibber]

Even as an atheist myself, I have to point out that condescension does not help your case.

I don't think there's much of a case involved, just mockery of those not in a region where atheists dominate. Can you blame him? :laugh: (I'm crying on the inside.)

[Kuroyue]

Firstly, what exactly do you mean by a "meaning"? A "meaning" in terms of your life's purpose? A lesson you were meant to learn? I need further clarification, because this word is extremely vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

As an athiest, I find satisfaction (and... fulfillment, perhaps) in trying to live out my full potential and becoming the best person I can be: trying out different hobbies, learning and understanding as much as I can... Beyond that, I suppose I do feel the urge to leave a permanent mark here on the earth so that I will be remembered forever and therefore immortal in some way, but that's just my fear of non-existance.

If you're referring to "meaning" as a "purpose" (and sometimes those two do overlap), then I find no use for it. In fact, I feel that any sort of predetermined "purpose" in life is restricting and serves only to narrow life's horizon.

[Omega Point]

I don't see the need for life to have a perticular 'meaning'. I suppose you could say that the meaning to my life comes from getting where I want to go in life and understanding the world around me a little better, but they are more goals than meanings to me.

[The Digger]

What meaning?

[crackpotjack]

I live life contemplating it. No need for religion.

[Lohengram]

The biological meaning of life is reproduction, beyond that a human being has the mental capacity to make creative subjective decisions and can create a purpose and therefore give a special self-defined meaning to their life.

[Beulah]

Similar to many posters I believe the meaning is in maximising every moment (for good humane purposes). This can be more burdensome than lives proscribed and given direction / meaning by orthodox religion, as it requires efforts to educate and to act be taken up at every moment, and lost opportunities represent a possible step down the ladder of manifesting positive contributions to the world... through active self evolution & interactive other assistance.

I find religion the antithesis of and often destructive to this as people have an after life focus, which can cause complacency. So long as they're living by the book they feel they are on track - but may be missing opportunities to do better (extend) by applying some original thought and autonomy. Religion also tends to be dualistic characterising people as good or bad, which is disabling and disempowering to problem solving of many pressing issues, as there is a cut out or short circuit - where responsibility for things in the too hard basket is handed over to God or the Devil.

I believe Jesus was a great role model for atheists as he taught the importance of the here and now with the "love others as yourself" concept. I think he is today grossly misunderstood to the point almost of non recognition. Particularly the way people have interpreted his claim to be god on earth as an exclusive one. I think he meant we all are christs (splinters of cosmic consciousness).

When he said "only through me" I don't think he meant "me" in the sense of "this guy here". The me he was talking about was likely a wider transpersonal creative life force that he was aware he (like others) was a manifestation of.

My conception of heaven, in fitting with some gnostic christians, is what I believe Jesus was promoting. To seek ascension to higher spiritual realms WHILE on earth by developing your values awareness and values based behaviour.

This naturally culminates in a heaven (experiential bliss and paradise as in maximised positive interactions and lifestyles) on earth, if the bulk of people become their highest self.

Reading biography you will often find peoples sense of meaning, unity and of an organising thread or principle to their life grows over time - if they develop positively

Writing autobiography can help clarify the meaning/s of our own lives which are often not fully comprehended even as we are living them out. Choices and leaps in understanding of our own and others experiences create and consolidate personal meaning. And will at the end of the day define the meaning of our lives from outside judgers standpoints.

I'm far more concerned (tho not that concerned) to be judged as productive from a human history standpoint than by any religion branded god identity or god principle (on the theory that god is just an energetic force without any personal identity of a human like nature).

[Trym]

This is your life:

<Birth>--------------------------------------------<Death>

What you do in you life is what counts, there is no higher meaning in life. For me this is a big motivation for realizing all my dreams while I'm alive...

[Zombicide]

I find the meaning in life in the dictionary. I don't quite grasp the concept of a so called "meaning" in life beyond that. We're just germs on a larger scale, a bunch of chemicals, aside from the definition of life, there is not meaning to life but eh, if people want to believe there's some magical fairy tale "meaning" in life type shit, so be it. . .unless the meaning they come up with interferes with my own life or someone I should care about. . .which would be virtually just as problematic as someone with no "meaning" in their life doing the same, so it still wouldn't make a difference.

Ok, ok, semantics, the "meaning" I can find is to futilely seek this elusive thing called happy and as an extension of myself give this to the few people / beings I can fundamentally relate to (or even recognize as my betters), including such beings as dolphins because dolphins are relatively sapient beings or i.e. to say they seem to generally be more sapient than most humans I've witnessed. Also, it's to self preservation or something like that because evolution has forced me to possess an instinct which forces me to live through incentives e.g. getting hungry.

[Ntwadumela]

The pursuit of knowledge. To gno.

[stuntgp2000]

In what I do.

[endless]

So much meaning in life without god.

So much to question, to deconstruct, to understand.

So fulfilling, not to mention the importance of reproductive success, the cornerstone of evolution.

[Chibi]

'Meaning' I think is one of those very subjective words, which change so drastically from person to person.

Myself, my meaning is love, to be truly loved and to love is the most important thing in the world.

Also, I find meaning in my existence. Just to exist, I think leads to many meanings or at least a search for a meaning. I think people tend to look outwards for meaning but my meaning has been inside myself all along.

For me I can't help but think that for some people religion is the easy way out, everything is already laid out for you, values, God and a community. But I could never be religious in that kind of way, personally I think its too dogmatic.

[Zsych]

I'm of the opinion that without God, you end up with 'I'm enjoying myself, or I feel good, and that's all the meaning I need'... not based on any universal truths, but just personal experience.

Unfortunately, I have a very low opinion of human existence, so my emotions telling me that things are good, just isn't going to cut it.

[Chibi]

Unfortunately, I have a very low opinion of human existence, so my emotions telling me that things are good, just isn't going to cut it.

I wonder if the implications of this world on world are much worse for 'God.'

[HeyZeus]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

I would consider reading your Joseph Campbell. I'd start with "Transformations of Myth Through Time." Campbell does not bash religion. He does, however, argue that much of what organized religions observe as literal fact are based on mythic archetypes that pre-date a conception of a G-d.

I have come to view much of organized religion in its rigidity to dogma as a form of branding as we would think of the term in a marketing class.

I think the spirit in our interactions with people, familiar and stranger, are the places and times when our sincerity and encouragement contribute to something beyond selfish interests. Campbell talks about the many things that are "imprinted" upon us as all people grow up in differing cultures. Reflection on these imprints can be a liberating thing, but it takes a continuous effort. I have far to go myself, but I am appreciative for the vector provided by Campbell's books.

[VinceVanGo]

... I think the spirit in our interactions with people, familiar and stranger, are the places and times when our sincerity and encouragement contribute to something beyond selfish interests. ...

This is such a great answer to the question posed "... how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life."

I don't understand the assumption that some people have that without religion you can't find meaning in life. In fact, spending less time with ritualistic behavior and less time hiding behind the preconceived notions implanted by religion opens up a world of beauty and meaning.

On a gorgeous day like today (in New York), I can't help but feel connected to the world when I walk around my neighborhood and the city. It's a beautiful and uplifting feeling. And it comes from interacting with people and the world, not with a ghost.

Every interaction, which in Manhattan can be thousands of opportunities, is an affirmation of my place in this world and how I can affect the world and other people in the smallest of ways. Give up my seat on the subway to an old person; give a dollar to a homeless person; hold the door for the person behind me. It's amazing how these little things put forth such great karma into the universe and can fill one's soul.

It's so much more meaningful than going to church and listening to someone else tell you stories that, as the previous post points out, are just old myths. It's real life!!

[Zombicide]

there isn't any meaning to life. how would there be meaning to life? that question makes little if any sense, i guess you mean dictionary wise what is the meaning in life for atheist, that can be found in the dictionary. the meaning of life is to live i guess

what the fuck is the meaing of life for christians or whatever? To suck up to an imaginary friend that in all likelihood doesn't exist? Just because god wants people to suck up to him doesn't mean that's the meaning in life, how would god be the authority on what the meaning in life is? even if god exist he's just som dick who doesn't know shit and isnt the boss of no body, he's just a bully who cannot literally define what one's life is suppose to be. theism, that's like saying that the guys who invented fire and the guy who invented lightning literally invented these things and have authority over them. just because god (hypothetically) created us doesn't explain how he's always right and shit

There is no meaning to life, life is just life, the definition of life is the closest thing to giving meaning to life that we're gonna get. You're asking the wrong question. I believe you meant something more along the lines of "What is your motivation?" that seems like what the question is suppose to be about

my motivation is surival instinct, vengeance and the discovery of that ever elusive thing called happy, those two things are some of my prime motivations

[PunkinA]

Meaning torments me. I wish instead to escape my existence. Pondering and defining meaning, as well as pondering and defining my existence, offers me no salvation.

I refuse to acknowledge my existence. As such, I will not cop to being atheist or christian. If a god exists then I am of his creation, but if not, no loss on the question. Meaning does not for me develop from either perspective.

I do enjoy eating, and feeling full. I enjoy the thought of others too. I enjoy the thought of others satisfying their needs. My actions reflect my enjoyments. I enjoy watching the hungry eat. I would hate to muddy my actions with an obstacle of meaning. I would hate to miss out on my experience of watching another eat, by supplanting instead the question of "What is the meaning of my experiencing this?"

I deny the meaning's existence. Thereby it becomes fruitless to ponder the nature of the meaning.

Even if God exists, he would want me to value the experience of the other man, not to value the calculated gains of my actions. His command was to "love one another...", not to ponder the meaningfulness of acting lovingly. Meaning denies us.

[Tsumaranai]

I personally have never had any need to find a meaning to life. Just set a goal for yourself and work for it, what you do doesn't need to serve a "higher purpose" in order to be worthwhile. If you really need something to help your provide yourself with meaning, "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand is a pretty good read.

[ReiJi]

As I said in a previous thread that I started about Nihilism, I don't think theres a meaning to life. But not having meaning isn't depressing for me as it is for many other people. In fact, it comforts me. As an Atheist, I of course don't believe in an afterlife, or for that matter, any type of conciousness after death. I choose to continue living because it seems like more fun than the alternative.

[kwago]

For me the purpose of my life is to accomplish something that will hopefully leave a lasting impression on future generations while also helping others by sharing what I know with them. Of course, I just wont share with anyone >:]

[Tsukasa]

I find that some atheists and agnostics become haughty with the knowledge that they are free from religion and have discovered 'truth'. I don't really understand it since they have chosen science and logic instead. They seem to like the hard facts and reason more than anything. I would love to know why they place so much emphasis on science.

[Synchronicity]

I would love to know why they place so much emphasis on science.

Science has revealed a multitude of information about our world over the centuries, and still is. Is there a better substitute?

[Tsukasa]

No. I just wonder why everyone flocks to science. Because of the proof? Because you can reproduce experiments and see for yourself?

[Synchronicity]

That's right. It's based on objective observations (reproducible experiments, like you said) that hold true under all circumstances. Things like gravity, friction, thermodynamics, and other scientific principles are governed by rules that, while not necessarily complete, are consistent.

[Tsukasa]

So it's being able to prove ideas is what they are looking for. But can't that lead to an incorrect answer? There are schools of thought in science that I can prove to you that are dead wrong.

[Synchronicity]

Science is popular because it has produced results. Technology in general emerges from scientific discoveries. Cars, computers, drugs and medicine, plumbing, the list goes on. There are less practical avenues of science that people pursue, but you never know when these might lead to an important revelation. Many great discoveries over the centuries have been accidents of science, or someone blindly exploring some area of science that had long been thought useless.

But yes, science is important because it gives us answers to questions. The answers are not always correct, but science is self-correcting. That is, if something that science says is correct is in fact not correct, it will eventually be discovered. For example, Ptolemy (I believe) was the one who developed an early working model of the rotation of the planets that had hitherto eluded early astronomers. Because it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, he used that as a basis on which to formulate his model. However, he was incorrect in this assumption. It wasn't until his model began to malfunction and cease to be accurate over time that people realized something was wrong. Nowadays, we know from our observations that the sun is the center of the solar system and we used that to develop a model that is to this day 100% accurate. If for whatever reason that model is faulty, we'll figure it out when it stops agreeing with our observations, and we will improve it as necessary.

[Tsukasa]

Seems like a lot of upkeep though... seems impossible to know everything about science as well since there are so many things to read. You could spend you life trying to catch up and wouldn't even come close.

[Synchronicity]

That's why people specialize. Take me, for example. I'm an engineer. I focus my study on computers. This means a lot of study about electricity and electronics, as well as a bit of physics and chemistry. I know plenty about other fields of science, but purely out of personal interest. For example, I know a lot about quantum physics: what it is, what it does, why it's important, but I have no idea how one would actually use quantum physics to solve a problem. That takes much longer to understand, and I've got my hands full just figuring out how to make computers do what they're supposed to. It is indeed a difficult task, but it helps that I have people at my back who have slightly different specialties to bolster me in areas where I am weaker. They can also keep an eye on my work to make sure I don't make a mistake. That's another great part about science: peer review.

[Dzepxich]

Seems like a lot of upkeep though... seems impossible to know everything about science as well since there are so many things to read. You could spend you life trying to catch up and wouldn't even come close.

Yes, the scientific method does require "upkeep". Is your main goal to find a system that is "easy" and requires no "upkeep", or would you rather search for "truth"?

Why would one credit nomadic herdsmen, 2K or more years ago, with a more superior understanding of the world than we have today?

It is considered "impossible" to "know everything" (at the same time) about science. The universe is a really big place, there is a whole lot to learn about it, definately more than one person can know in any sort of detail, this is no-ones' fault, and nothing can be done to change it.

The vastness and complexity of the observable universe is one of the reasons that I reject simplistic (IMO) religious dogma that supposedly "explains everthing".

If a question is answered by "it's just God's will", then it = /fail, for me.

[Tsukasa]

I would say it is a shame to think the great minds of yesterday could not understand our world today. If they had the concepts of modern science at their fingertips, I'm sure they could learn just as easily if not better. I'm sure the same holds true for us when we reach a certain point in the future.

As far as upkeep goes... I just find it difficult to drink water from a fire hose on full blast. Our time, energy, and mortal coil limit what we can learn. I wish there was a better way for our brains to keep updated with information without having to spend effort to learn new things when our old facts become obsolete. If a mind machine interface was created, perhaps this would be possible. Our brains are a complex series of circuits and chemicals, but both are transmitters of information much like DNA bases in genetics and 0's and 1's in computer science.

Perhaps if we could create a better system for information storage we could transcend limits imposed on us by biology.

Truth is an elephant being examined by 3 blind men; one at the trunk, another at the leg, another at its tail. The first believes it to be a serpent, the second a tree, and the third a bush. All statements are correct, and are all wrong. One of the things I find irritating with science is how constrained we are in observing things and how ideas are being treated like the person owns them. It also irritates me that some scientific principles are of no use to describe observable or 'true' phenomena.

[Rudy]

I like science for many reasons, but the foremost among them is it's ability to admit that it was wrong, to change when new information comes to light.

[Synchronicity]

I would say it is a shame to think the great minds of yesterday could not understand our world today. If they had the concepts of modern science at their fingertips, I'm sure they could learn just as easily if not better. I'm sure the same holds true for us when we reach a certain point in the future.

Well, science evolves over time. We may not be able to see the big picture as individuals, but we can each contribute in a small way to the whole. Rome wasn't built in a day. It took millions of hours of labor by individuals over the course of centuries, each of whom could not comprehend the scope of the project. The same holds true today. Our cities, our politics, our economics, our technologies, they're all beyond the scope of the individual, but they nevertheless function via the combined efforts of 6.5 billion humans.

Isaac Newton said famously, "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants," referring to the great minds who came before him and paved the way for new discoveries.

One of the things I find irritating with science is how constrained we are in observing things and how ideas are being treated like the person owns them. It also irritates me that some scientific principles are of no use to describe observable or 'true' phenomena.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with this. It seems contrary to the ideals of science. Science is made to be freely accessible to all. Just because someone makes a discovery doesn't mean they own it. They still receive the credit for it, naturally, and people will consider them the leading authority on the subject, but as soon as someone publishes their discoveries it becomes public knowledge, free to be discussed, challenged, tested, and expanded upon.

Neither is science particularly constrained in its observations. It is, but only insofar as we as humans are constrained by our physical and intellectual abilities.

[Bregen]

I just wonder why everyone flocks to science.

My personal view is: for its predictive power.

If you understand a phenomenon, you can make predictions about it, and therefore you can utilize it. As Synchronicity well stated, scientific theories are held until the predictions made by those theories start to fall apart. Science is the one unique human enterprise where established canon is jettisoned when its failings are discovered.

[RBM]

Science is the one unique human enterprise where established canon is jettisoned when its failings are discovered.

Theoretically, Of Course !!

[Bregen]

Theoretically, Of Course !!

I sense a knowing smile behind that sentence. You allude, of course, to the time and the twists and turns that science takes in making a course correction. But that is fodder for a different thread …

The reason I like to think of science in terms of its predictive value is that when the theory starts making consistently lousy predictions even the strongest advocates know it’s time for a change.

[PeterIMC]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

You feel that you´re missing something because you´re an atheist? I guess that means you´re not an atheist. Perhaps you´re just not religious.

I'm not religious and I don't believe God exists as a separate entity. God exists only in the minds of people, but does have the power to move whole populations without anybody individually being in control.

I personally don't understand the need that most people have,.. that they somehow were put on this earth for a reason. So meaning is more related to being content/happy with what I make of my life.

[Tsukasa]

I would argue that a lack of religion limits a person in a this way: they are not able to experience what others claim to experience. Has any atheist in here ever felt faith (geniune question)? So long as the person is telling the truth, it makes me wonder whether an atheist can fully understand the concept of faith and such. It would be interesting to find out though.

[PeterIMC]

I would argue that a lack of religion limits a person in a this way: they are not able to experience what others claim to experience. Has any atheist in here ever felt faith (geniune question)? So long as the person is telling the truth, it makes me wonder whether an atheist can fully understand the concept of faith and such. It would be interesting to find out though.

Don't you think that works both ways? How many things do you have to say no to because of your religion? And if you really believe, then you also really believe that many of those things you can not allow in your life.

[Night Runner]

I would argue that a lack of religion limits a person in a this way: they are not able to experience what others claim to experience. Has any atheist in here ever felt faith (geniune question)? So long as the person is telling the truth, it makes me wonder whether an atheist can fully understand the concept of faith and such. It would be interesting to find out though.

I suppose I would be a lot more open to the idea of believing in deities if it weren't for the fact that the very first memory I have is that of being water-boarded during a Greek-Orthodox baptism ceremony. As you can see from all of my atheist posts here, it wasn't much of an encouragement to accept Yahweh into my heart.

And if you insist on a serious answer - no, I have never experienced the blind faith that some religious people claim to have. However, the sword cuts both ways: religious folks will never understand my astonishment with this world, my appreciation for each passing moment because I know that this is the only life I have (or, rather, I lack their belief in heaven/ascension/Valhalla/etc.), the understanding of the beauty and unparalleled persistence of evolution and natural selection...

My view may be oversimplified and based on (admittedly extensive) anecdotal evidence, but I have met many evangelicals who believed, with all their heart, that they'd go to heaven the moment they die - and instead of enjoying this life, they spent ridiculous amounts of time going to and working/volunteering for their church. It seemed almost as if they were trying to score brownie points for the afterlife and make this life pass as fast as possible. Then again, the people I speak of were evangelicals - the folks on the far end of the bell curve.

[Tocsin]

I would argue that a lack of religion limits a person in a this way: they are not able to experience what others claim to experience.

I have heard the same claims made regarding the use of heroin, speed, coke, LSD, or homosexual or sadomasochistic sex. I have not tried any of those things, but I don't really regard thier absense in my life as something that I have been "lacking."

[Tsukasa]

My point is to show how difficult something is to understand if you haven't experienced it before. We are taught by experience, not bias and preconceptions. I was merely showing how something that many people have embraced is lacking from an atheist's life (unless the atheist believes their beliefs to be a kind of religion).

You don't have to try everything in order to gain experience from it though. You could always read about it or ask someone what their experience with it was.

[Prunesquallor]

My point is to show how difficult something is to understand if you haven't experienced it before. We are taught by experience, not bias and preconceptions. I was merely showing how something that many people have embraced is lacking from an atheist's life (unless the atheist believes their beliefs to be a kind of religion).

You don't have to try everything in order to gain experience from it though. You could always read about it or ask someone what their experience with it was.

Lacking yes, but my life is also lacking in clowns, artichokes, murder and Norwegians. So what?

[TheLastMohican]

Lacking yes, but my life is also lacking in clowns, artichokes, murder and Norwegians. So what?
How can you be satisfied in life without Norwegians? :(

[Tsukasa]

So read about them (don't commit murder to experience it!!). You may find out something you didn't know about clowns, artichokes, murder, and Norwegians.

[Prunesquallor]

So read about them (don't commit murder to experience it!!). You may find out something you didn't know about clowns, artichokes, murder, and Norwegians.

I do read.
Point is, lacking is not the same thing as missing out. Your life is always going to be lacking in something - best if it's something you don't value. If you don't value religion, then there's no problem.

[Tsukasa]

Have you tried it?

[Prunesquallor]

Have you tried it?

Nope.
I'm not ignorant of it, I've been dragged to church occasionally and studied the Bible in literature class, but I'm really not good at the wilful self-delusion thing.
I've not tried murder, either.
Or clown college.
Or cocaine.
And yet somehow I know neither are for me...and life still goes on...

[Tsukasa]

And do you think that there is nothing in religion or spirituality that interests you?

[Prunesquallor]

And do you think that there is nothing in religion or spirituality that interests you?

I like studying propaganda. But no, there is nothing found exclusively in religion that I need.

[Tsukasa]

Fine. What is something that interests you that you would like to learn about?

[Prunesquallor]

Fine. What is something that interests you that you would like to learn about?

Quantum physics, history, politics, architecture, some mathematics...hundreds and thousands of things.

[Tsukasa]

Then go out and do what you love. It will make you happy and you'll enjoy doing it. And hopefully it pays the bills too :D

[Prunesquallor]

Then go out and do what you love. It will make you happy and you'll enjoy doing it. And hopefully it pays the bills too :D

That's what I'm doing.

[Tsukasa]

Lol alright. You don't have to tell me :) Go tackle quantum physics, history, politics, architecture, some mathematics, and the other things you want until you are satisfied. And, if you would, please tell me what you learn in the process.

[TheLastMohican]

Lol alright. You don't have to tell me :) Go tackle quantum physics, history, politics, architecture, some mathematics, and the other things you want until you are satisfied. And, if you would, please tell me what you learn in the process.
It would probably be more efficient for you to just go and study those things for yourself.

[Prunesquallor]

It would probably be more efficient for you to just go and study those things for yourself.

But if you show up at any library I'm working at, I'll be happy to answer your reference questions...

[Tsukasa]

Anyone can read up on a great deal of knowledge. What is more important is the system that they use to integrate and find that knowledge. You can tell me that fish are in the sea but if you can show me how to catch whichever one I want, which is more useful?

[TheLastMohican]

But if you show up at any library I'm working at, I'll be happy to answer your reference questions...
Why not copy all the best books into your forum posts? :wiseguy:

[Prunesquallor]

Anyone can read up on a great deal of knowledge. What is more important is the system that they use to integrate and find that knowledge. You can tell me that fish are in the sea but if you can show me how to catch whichever one I want, which is more useful?

Totally false analogy. Irrelevant.

[Tsukasa]

For example, you can tell me that there are new articles (released in the past week) about a link between hypertension and Christianity on PubMed. Great. But isn't it more worthwhile to know that they are probably not in Me-SH headings (since it's relatively new) and wouldn't be found without a different type of search (like articles without having Me-SH headings assigned to them yet)? I find relevance in knowing how to manipulate a search engine to be relevant.

[Prunesquallor]

For example, you can tell me that there are new articles (released in the past week) about a link between hypertension and Christianity on PubMed. Great. But isn't it more worthwhile to know that they are probably not in Me-SH headings (since it's relatively new) and wouldn't be found without a different type of search (like articles without having Me-SH headings assigned to them yet)? I find relevance in knowing how to manipulate a search engine to be relevant.

I have no idea what you are arguing or how on earth it relates to religion. This is extremely strange and bizarre and I have no idea how you're rationalising any of this conversation.

[Tsukasa]

You called my analogy false. I'm trying to make it more applicable to your background since you said something reference questions (I assume a library). I apologize if the analogy doesn't work any better than the previous one. I just picked something random as far as the topic heading to try to illustrate how manipulation of systems is better in the search for specific information rather than having a great body of information, but not being able to search for it.

Back to the thread: no, religion is not the only way that people can find meaning, importance, whatever in their life. There are other avenues which are acceptable and may be better for a particular person. But what may not work for one person may work for another. Just because religion may mean propoganda to you doesn't mean that to everyone else (atheists and other faith traditions alike). Every one is different in their approach to the topic. From reading what you and others have posted, you seem to have had negative responses to religion. I'm curious why you think so.

Perhaps I have assumed that every atheist has rejected religion for reasons other than what my preconceptions currently are. That's all.

[Prunesquallor]

Perhaps I have assumed that every atheist has rejected religion for reasons other than what my preconceptions currently are. That's all.

Yes, thats the impression I'm getting.

I have no problem with religion or religious people, until they turn patronising and tell you you're missing out on their way of seeing which is so wonderful, poor you, you don't understand how much you're missing.

[Tsukasa]

Then I have learned a limit. I will respect it now and in the future.

[Prunesquallor]

cool

[PeterIMC]

For example, you can tell me that there are new articles (released in the past week) about a link between hypertension and Christianity on PubMed. Great. But isn't it more worthwhile to know that they are probably not in Me-SH headings (since it's relatively new) and wouldn't be found without a different type of search (like articles without having Me-SH headings assigned to them yet)? I find relevance in knowing how to manipulate a search engine to be relevant.

manipulate a search engine? Are you in SEO?

[Tsukasa]

I don't understand the acronym.

[PeterIMC]

SEO = search engine optimization

but that's got nothing to do with this thread, so lets leave it at that.. :)

[Night Runner]

Perhaps I have assumed that every atheist has rejected religion for reasons other than what my preconceptions currently are. That's all.

Hmm, we seem to have different definitions of atheism... The kind of atheists you're talking about - folks who actually reject religion - are borderline militant atheists. If they start attacking religion (like, for example, PZ Myers and his desecration of the Eucharist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)), they are militant atheists. And then there are people like me, who (with all due respect) don't even bother rejecting religion (if only because there are so many religions out there - rejecting each of them would take too much time :) ) and who just don't care about it. They are literally a-theistic, i.e. devoid of religion.

That said, I'm an atheist with teeth, a pretty good knowledge of common arguments and a degree in political science, so whenever somebody makes a sweeping fallacy-ridden accusation against us (no moral core, no goal in life, sheepish, dangerous, etc.), I reluctantly come out of the hiding and try to explain why we're not monsters. :) It's a boring and repetitive task, but if no one speaks out, things like Kansas Board of Education (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._controversy) tend to occur...

[Hinun]

Same way as anyone else does, make up something and say "hey this seems like it is meaningful!" and so it goes.

I also like cooking and reading books, these things bring meaning to my life besides just being alive... God it is awesome to just be alive (pun intended).

[Insight]

The beauty of life is that we are free to create meaning for ourselves. We do this wittingly and unwittingly. Observe all things that make you feel . . . that induce a judgment of value from you. Figure out why and you've found your meaning. Do these comprise *the* meaning of life? No, because such a thing does not exist. It is yours, and ultimately, that is all that matters.

[Kathryn]

I find atheism very liberating. I believe I won the greatest lottery ever -- my birth -- am grateful for every day I spend on the planet and don't have any worries, guilt or other wasteful thoughts about where I'll go when the carcass wears out.

[gregoire]

If you have the time, read Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. Supposedly he was a phenomenologist, or something... actually he was the first atheist existentialist.

There are no inherent meanings to anything. Heidegger's idea was to abandon religious-inspired ideas of *good* and instead concentrate on *authenticity*. Basically, if you want meaning (and everyone does) you have to use your brain and decide the meaning you want to make, and then go make it.

There's much more to Being and Time than this, but that's what your question reminded me of. Check it out if you get a minute... you might like it.

[Ava]

I really don't think anything has an inherent objective meaning - my life, your life, any life in general - it's really just all chemistry and physics and coincidences.

But of course I think my life has a meaning to me, otherwise I'd see no reason to go on living it. I'm here, I exist, I may as well make the most of the experience and work towards achieving optimum happiness. I did used to be Christian, in my childhood (at least as much as children can really be said to be one religion or another) and I didn't find my life to be made any more meaningful by the belief that there was some higher power with a preordained purpose for each person and a list of rules we had to follow throughout our lives unless we wanted to suffer for all of eternity. I actually think believing that would make my life feel less meaningful - as if I were just a pawn created to fill a specific role and not an independent person.

[Ramadulla]

To find my inner strengths and help society out of its general sheath of ignorance.

[Xanthippe]

"Meaning" is, as many have noted, the wrong word. What is the meaning of elbows? Banana splits? War? Albanians? These things simply exist; their meanings are their definitions.

Now, the purpose of life is a different matter. There is, of course, the procreative instinct, but on a higher level, there is happiness. The purpose of life, I think, is whatever you think happiness. I became atheist a few months ago, and the first thing I noticed was that I had to take responsibility for everything I did. If I didn't do well in a competition, or if I forgot my lines onstage, that wasn't because a god had deserted me. It was because I hadn't prepared. I realised that I have power over my own choices, and while circumstances may affect me, I can choose how to see them. Life, as I see it, is a learning experience and a power trip, and its purpose is happiness.

[zibber]

"Meaning" is, as many have noted, the wrong word. What is the meaning of elbows? Banana splits? War? Albanians? These things simply exist; their meanings are their definitions.

Now, the purpose of life is a different matter. There is, of course, the procreative instinct, but on a higher level, there is happiness. The purpose of life, I think, is whatever you think happiness. I became atheist a few months ago, and the first thing I noticed was that I had to take responsibility for everything I did. If I didn't do well in a competition, or if I forgot my lines onstage, that wasn't because a god had deserted me. It was because I hadn't prepared. I realised that I have power over my own choices, and while circumstances may affect me, I can choose how to see them. Life, as I see it, is a learning experience and a power trip, and its purpose is happiness.

But how is happiness purpose? We are capable of feeling happy, but that does not imply that this exact ability is what one should focus on. Is it because it is the most good (least bad)?

(I'm reminded of the Lacanian interpretation of the superego as an imperative to Enjoy. (Screw the Pursuit of Happiness, even the mere drive to seek a meaning or purpose might be interpreted as a manifestation of this superego. "ENJOY!" "But how?"))

[Sxq]

I don't look for meaning, and I believe there is none other than what you want it to be.

[Tocsin]

Give up looking for meaning - shoot for perspective instead...

The Galaxy Song (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) :surprised:

[Xanthippe]

But how is happiness purpose? We are capable of feeling happy, but that does not imply that this exact ability is what one should focus on. Is it because it is the most good (least bad)?

(I'm reminded of the Lacanian interpretation of the superego as an imperative to Enjoy. (Screw the Pursuit of Happiness, even the mere drive to seek a meaning or purpose might be interpreted as a manifestation of this superego. "ENJOY!" "But how?"))

We do everything we do for some reason; the reasons we do things generally contribute to our overall happiness in life, or at least should. Happiness can be defined as different things - for me, it means being successful as an academic, knowing a lot about the world, and having a satisfying personal life; for someone else, it might mean partying hard and marrying well.

Happiness is, perhaps, the wrong word. I think it was Aristotle who said it was impossible to tell if a man was happy until he had died. By 'happiness' I meant the feeling of having attained one's goals and lived a satisfying life, remaining true to one's own values (which, as I say, may vary from person to person). Part of the purpose of life is determining what kind of life will satisfy one.

[Rudy]

Give up looking for meaning - shoot for perspective instead...

The Galaxy Song (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) :surprised:
Perhaps it makes me a hick, but I far prefer this version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Eric Idle wrote a brilliant song, but he's not great at singing.

But, yes, perspective is very important. The vastness of the universe makes me feel small, in a good way. It means that any mistakes I make don't really matter in the long run; it frees me to enjoy my life, doing the best that I can.

[Tocsin]

Perhaps it makes me a hick, but I far prefer this version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Let me know when he does a cover of "The Lumberjack Song." (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Cesare Borgia]

We find beauty in living for ourselves and others for the sake of doing it, not for the sake of a reward or fear of eternal damnation, that's the beautiful thing about being an atheist.

[Debbie]

Honestly, I don't find any meaning or sense in life =) .

[WaeV]

I live for pleasure and happiness. A person consists of three parts: body, mind, and soul. The mind, is really the only part that's under conscious control. A body breathes and whatnot automatically. I'm not quite sure how the soul works, but I'm pretty certain it does whatever it does automatically. Thinking isn't automatic. My conscious mind does not reject the desires of my body in the name of satisfying my soul, nor does it reject the desires of my soul in the name of satisfying my body. Rather, it chooses to keep all three in balance.

One's person has two barometers of health - one for the body and one for the soul. The body can experience pleasure or pain. Pleasure shows that good is happening, and pain shows that something is wrong. Likewise, the soul can experience happiness or suffering. When one's mind is being used correctly, the conscious will be rewarded with pleasure and happiness.

[Night Runner]

I live for pleasure and happiness. A person consists of three parts: body, mind, and soul. The mind, is really the only part that's under conscious control. A body breathes and whatnot automatically. I'm not quite sure how the soul works, but I'm pretty certain it does whatever it does automatically. Thinking isn't automatic. My conscious mind does not reject the desires of my body in the name of satisfying my soul, nor does it reject the desires of my soul in the name of satisfying my body. Rather, it chooses to keep all three in balance.

One's person has two barometers of health - one for the body and one for the soul. The body can experience pleasure or pain. Pleasure shows that good is happening, and pain shows that something is wrong. Likewise, the soul can experience happiness or suffering. When one's mind is being used correctly, the conscious will be rewarded with pleasure and happiness.

Are you sure you are an atheist? :suspicious: Sounds an awful lot like a typical agnostic/Deist thinking.

Reminds me of an old anthropological anecdote: a man in a third-world country said, "It's a good thing I don't believe in witches - if I did, they could curse me!" :)

[Ither]

A person consists of three parts: body, mind, and soul. The mind, is really the only part that's under conscious control. A body breathes and whatnot automatically. I'm not quite sure how the soul works, but I'm pretty certain it does whatever it does automatically.

Not so fast. What is a "soul"? All would concur that the body exists. Pragmaticly most would stipulate that the mind exists. But the soul? This is a culturally determined mental construct whose existence is hypothetical.

I suggest that your categories of body, mind, and soul is a substitute for aspects of a person -- the material, the mental, and the moral/ethical (Viva Kierkegaard?). The ethical can analyticly be reduced to consequences of the material and the mental. In that sense its functionality may be seen as derivative and automatic.

Personally, I do not see this tripartition as useful in non-theistic contexts.

[Tristan]

I really don't think anything has an inherent objective meaning - my life, your life, any life in general - it's really just all chemistry and physics and coincidences.This total desolation of purpose is what leaves me disgusted with atheism. I do not think I will ever grow comfortable with these conditions. I am atheistic and can defend atheism well enough, but unlike many I yielded to its logic while hating it. Once you exile yourself from Eden, and accept that there is nothing in the range of the five senses which proves things have an objective meaning or purpose, you are logically an automaton. The sense of self, the idea that the electro-chemical pathways in your brain amount to a mind, a something that can be distinguished from the nondescript world outside of it, is an act of faith. When you put your faith in the existence of such a thing, you're no longer a real atheist, because you're accepting the same assumptions made by theists in their faith.


But frankly, I'd leap at any excuse to return to the garden. And so do you guys, evidently:We find beauty in living for ourselves and others for the sake of doing it, not for the sake of a reward or fear of eternal damnation, that's the beautiful thing about being an atheist.Living "for the sake" of anything without regarding its inherent meaning or consequences is living purely arbitrarily. It makes entirely as much sense to devote yourself to domination, cruelty, vore, and schadenfreude. And indeed, there are plenty of people who take the low road simply because their tastes differ from yours, accepting and drawing ultimate peace from the fact that morals, and beauty, are imaginative constructs.Life and meaning? We don't need one, and beauty can be anything and everything. Meaning would spoil the essence of life and as for faith, why not have faith in the lack of order?Why not "faith in the lack of order," indeed? It is the very idea which gives meaning to your views and order to your existence."Meaning" is a term best discarded. Throw in "happiness" for that matter. Smarter people then you and I have spent a lifetime trying to define these terms...all have failed.I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, it won't stop people from pondering these questions over and over.I will, at least, admit that struggling with "meaning" is an abstract and often unrewarding task. It's nice to wind down afterward and return to being a true atheist: a purposeless automaton. Which is why I'm gonna go make a taco and watch anime for now. Excuse me. :nice:

[WaeV]

Are you sure you are an atheist? :suspicious: Sounds an awful lot like a typical agnostic/Deist thinking.
Not so fast. What is a "soul"? All would concur that the body exists. Pragmaticly most would stipulate that the mind exists. But the soul? This is a culturally determined mental construct whose existence is hypothetical.

I suggest that your categories of body, mind, and soul is a substitute for aspects of a person -- the material, the mental, and the moral/ethical (Viva Kierkegaard?). The ethical can analyticly be reduced to consequences of the material and the mental. In that sense its functionality may be seen as derivative and automatic.

I consider myself an atheist because I don't believe in a creator or magic. I don't quite know how to define what a soul is, but I would say that it is immaterial and separate from the mind, perhaps representing self-esteem and unsolicited emotions. Perhaps I can correlate this with Freudian psychology? Body ~= Id, Mind ~= Ego, Soul ~= Superego?

Personally, I do not see this tripartition as useful in non-theistic contexts.
Why not?

[Ither]

I consider myself an atheist because I don't believe in a creator or magic. I don't quite know how to define what a soul is, but I would say that it is immaterial and separate from the mind, perhaps representing self-esteem and unsolicited emotions. Perhaps I can correlate this with Freudian psychology? Body ~= Id, Mind ~= Ego, Soul ~= Superego?


Why not?

Fine, the word "soul" is a representation and is separate from the mind. In any given tradition (with the usual complications of Buddhism -- its 'solution' being discussion of the nature of the 'buddha-germ'), surely true. But material or immaterial it is, or is not -- it exists or does not exist. I aver that whether it does or does not is a cultural matter having no logical-philosophical or biological basis. Which is not to say that the soul is not a subject of philosophy.

It seems to me that the question of the existence of the soul, or in Hindu and Buddhist terms, a/the self, reduces to the attitude towards the existence of an afterlife (the three major monotheistic religions of the West) or the existence of rebirth (Hinduism). The contorsions into which some Buddhist philosophers must go in order to defend the existence of rebirth while denying existence to a self and a creator deity are wondrous.

[uneingenue]

if by meaning you mean the purpose for living, or why humans exist, i don't think there needs to be a universal answer. let's assume that everyone is an atheist and there is no afterlife. then for those people the point would be to be happy enough of the time to want to continue living. what makes you happy is for you to find out.

or, let's assume that everyone believes that there is an afterlife that depends on one's actions during actual life. in that case, one would need to know what they believe to be correct actions to do them. this would be either one's own morality based on experience or the experiences of others (one mustn't commit murder to know it is wrong). or one could get lazy and follow the morality of others (holy scripture, etc.). but then there would be hundreds of options because it is difficult to know which holy book, man, etc., is right.

so, it seems to me that finding purpose in life is easier if one is an atheist.

[Kenne936]

well im catholic. but i don't think i derive the "meaning" in my life from my religion. YOU define where you find meaning.
I think the pursuit of "the meaning of life" is mind-game that is meant to lead people around in circles. furthermore, defining your life by your religion is IMO a cop out. the onus is on you when it comes to defining yourself and finding meaning. and the truth of the matter is there is no final destination. IMO being at peace with the world is realizing that you can't be at peace with the entire reality of life. that may seem bleak. but at least its not futile (it works for me anyway)

[potsic]

If you wanna find beuaty in life all that matters is trying to find meaning in things, trying to understand the world around you. I've got a mainly scientific idea of the world around us but I like to think of everything as one whole entity. Everything having its own meaning and purpose. As in everything happens for a reason. But in all honesty the only way you can increase your understanding (what it means to you) of anything you just need to look at the subject in a completely open mind and just plain try to learn. Literally try to change your belief

[Obsidean]

I don't

[GrnEyz]

I believe a person cannot select the correct life path until they are certain what path they are now on. Humans are mammals and as such are subject to the laws of nature. The basics of which are survival and reproduction. Learning your personality type along with it's strengths and weaknesses is a good first step.

In general it is assumed that in the final analysis all human beings have comparable needs. According to which of these needs have already been satisfied, according to age, the experiences of life and the culture, each person however sets his own priorities for the priorities which are still open in different ways. The best known here is probably the representation of these human needs and priorities in the form of a Maslow pyramid (maslows hierarchy of needs).

Maslow put forward the theory that human beings assign clear, hierarchical priorities to their individual needs (maslows hierachy of needs). As soon as a person has reached a particular level in his own needs pyramid, the need to achieve the next higher level is aroused.

Human beings initially set their priorities according to their existential needs such as food, clothes and sleep. If the existential needs are not met survival is threatened and life itself is in danger.

If the existential needs are satisfied the need for safety is awakened: The desire for protection from the risks to life such as war, sickness, accident, environmental catastrophes etc. take centre ground.

The next level in the priority pyramid according to Maslow concerns the social needs: The human being wants to be with like-minded people, he wants to be accepted and loved.

The following level is concerned with self-regard and the esteem of other people: The human being wants to strengthen his self-confidence and for this purpose seeks regard and recognition from other people.

The next objective is the need for self-realization: The human being wants to be able to be himself and to permanently be able to experience inner peace, happiness and harmony.

Self-transcendence carries us to the spiritual level beyond self-realization.Self-transcendence level recognizes the human need for ethics, creativity, compassion and spirituality.

However each person usually finds that his needs priorities change during the course of his life. Older people set many of their priorities differently from younger people. Astonishingly in virtually all investigations into the motives for human actions two great commonalities are found:

Existential needs are the first priority. It is certainly clear that not only the human being but also in general every being upon the earth first of all seeks the resources necessary for survival, in particular food and an environment in which it is actually possible to live.

The top priority level is that of inner harmony. The more the other human needs are satisfied the stronger is aroused the desire for a perpetual state of happiness, harmony, security, inner peace and calmness. Humans like to be themselves everywhere and at all times and at the same time wish to be fully accepted and to feel loved. Since this concerns an abstract idea of the quality of life this state is difficult to describe. Religions for example describe this as entry to heaven, the achievement of nirvana, a life of unconditional love, total peace on earth, breaking out of the cycle of reincarnation etc. The highest objective of life is actually not so surprising (meaning of life).

Once we accept that the human needs described above are «somehow» attainable, must not such a state be glorious? Just imagine you are constantly in a state where nothing can worry you ever again, where you are completely satisfied and calm. You can feel love and radiate love. No sickness, no accidents, no quarrels, no cares, simply just harmony. Surely this is worth striving for by everyone on earth? If you don’t believe that this is attainable would it not be sensible to develop in this direction, to at least try to get as close as possible to this goal?

Self-actualizing people are more aware of their environment, both human and nonhuman. They are not afraid of the unknown and can tolerate the doubt, uncertainty, and tentativeness accompanying the perception of the new and unfamiliar.

Self-actualizing persons are not ashamed or guilty about their human nature, with its shortcoming, imperfections, frailties, and weaknesses. Nor are they critical of these aspects of other people. They respect and esteem themselves and others. Moreover, they are honest, open, genuine, without pose or facade. They are not, however, self-satisfied but are concerned about discrepancies between what is and what might be or should be in themselves, others, and society.

Self-actualizing persons are not hampered by convention, but they do not flout it. They are not conformists, but neither are they anti-conformist for the sake of being so. They are not externally motivated or even goal-directed- rather their motivation is the internal one of growth and development, the actualization of themselves and their potentialities.

Self-actualizing persons are not ego-centered but focus on problems outside themselves. They are mission-oriented, often on the basis of a sense of responsibility, duty, or obligation rather than personal choice.

The self-actualizing person enjoys solitude and privacy. It is possible for him to remain unruffled and undisturbed by what upsets others. He may even appear to be asocial. This is a characteristic that does not appear in other descriptions. It is perhaps related to a sense of security and self-sufficiency.

Self-actualizing people have deep interpersonal relations with others. They are selective, however, and their circle of friends may be small, usually consisting of other self-actualizing persons, but the capacity is there. They attract others to them as admirers or disciples.

The self-actualizing person does not discriminate on the basis of class, education, race, or color. He is humble in his recognition of what he knows in comparison with what could be known, and he is ready and willing to learn from anyone. He respects everyone as potential contributors to his knowledge, merely because they are human beings.

Transcenders are people who consciously build the characteristics of peak experiences into everyday life. Transcenders were "less appalled by elitism" than self-actualizers.

For the transcender, peak experiences become the high spots and validators of life. Transcenders "speak easily the language of being," finding it relatively easy to express thoughts and feelings about the nature of existence. They are "perpetually in awe of reality" and perceive sacredness in everyday things. In their daily work they are "conspicuously metamotivated," pursuing the B-needs such as truth and justice. Transcenders tend to beautify things, and they are more likely to have feelings of oneness with the environment. They are likely to be innovators, coming up with truly new ways of doing things instead of just following established paths.

The transcenders are far more apt to be innovators, discoverers of the new, than are the healthy self-actualizers. Transcendent experiences and illuminations bring clearer vision of the B-Values, of the ideal, of what ought to be, what actually could be, and therefore of what might be brought to pass.

[Alex]

I create my own meaning in life. Everything we see - everything that exists, everything we do, life, birth, death, war, etc - is completely and utterly irrational and absurd. And truly, I don't think the presence of a god would negate that; the idea of a deity creating people "just because" is equally as absurd as the idea of the universe happening as the result of a sudden giant explosion.

Therefore, I think it's everyone's individual responsibility to find or create the meaning in their lives. The meaning of my life? To be happy. Luckily, I possess empathy, so oftentimes, my happiness is contingent on the happiness of others (like my son, my husband, etc) and I'm compelled to help and take care of them. As well, I'm generally obliged not to harm others unnecessarily in the course of my pursuits.

Ultimately, I think my life possesses all the meaning and has the same capacity for morals and ethics as any religious person's life. The only difference is, I don't expect a reward in an afterlife, and I don't live my life as if it doesn't matter, because I expect to inherit a "better" life after I die. I live life to the fullest now, because I presume (logically) it's the only one I'll have.

[DocOrange]

Meaning is simple. What we do today will without doubt have impact tomorrow. We could effect countless others once we are gone. The who, what, why and how, we don't control until we can't anymore, aka, once we are dead.

[Trang]

Families are very important from an Asian point of view. For me, I adore my mother and see her as equal as someone like God (I am not religious). That's enough to give me strength in any challenge.

[RafaelVerolla]

hmm, like, trang, er, i dont want to be rude, but adore your mother like God...
Do you always do waht she says? do you never question her? never lied to her?
I really doubt that.

And , dude, are most INTJ atheist? Man, we are so elite XD

[DarkfireSG]

My meaning is my girl.

[tome]

There is no meaning in life, life is just something that happened due evolution.

[Roland Ansgar]

Whoa! Define the deity, or god. Westerners assume far too much on the subject, whether it is a Western atheist, or a Western theist. For example, I hear even the so-called New Atheists, assuming the literal existence of Jesus Christ in the course of their discussions amongst themselves, and even in debates. It's an astonishing assumption, and very sloppy thinking.

From what I've seen in life, no matter who you are, or what you "believe in", it is one's experiences and actions that give life meaning.

[noobcakesmcgee]

It appears that I am in the minority in that I am an atheist who does have an intense longing for the certainty that some religions bring. The only religion that ever appealed to me is Catholicism, and this is because all of the rules, expectations, explanantions, and so forth are laid out very clearly and methodically. Also, a noble attempt is made at justifying each rule on the basis of evidence. Obviously this evidence fails to convince me, but I appreciate the comfort and order that one can encounter within such a system.

I certainly don't have a "God-shaped hole" but I do have a wistful fantasy about good, evil, and a strict, morally correct way of doing things. I think it would be lovely if things were so orderly. I also think it would be lovely to have a predefined purpose or an end goal for my existence. It is not in my nature to enjoy journeys for the sake of what's along the way--I am a person who endures journeys for the sake of the end product or destination.


Interesting. I often cite this as the reason Catholicism appeals to me as well. (Although I am still Catholic, so I guess the 'evidence' convinces me better.)

I feel my life has meaning pretty much for the same reasons all the atheists were posting (plus the God/religion aspect). Most if not all of the things you all live for are not mutually exclusive with religion (well, some religions) and I too take joy from these aspects of life. If you used to or still follow a religion and feel trapped or controlled or stifled, take a step back and relax for a sec and discover your own motivations for being in that religion. I don't think people should automatically choose a religion (or choose atheism) simply because they were forced or brought up into one. Everyone's gotta think for themselves, and I've done that and in turn have found both secular and spiritual aspects of my life extremely rewarding!

[daydreamer]

enjoying life and what the world has to offer with the people (and dog lol) i love

[Avelas67]

My personal meaning to life is love, friendship and science.
Man I sound like a hippy, but anyway, helping people and using science to discover and advance our species as a whole are my main goals. Everything else is cream.

[BlizzarD]

well i cant seem to find meaning in life, religion or atheism it do not matter for me...
i dont have any goals in my life, iam just live becous the life is pulling me...

[dungeonguy88]

I asked myself, sometime after coming to the conclusion that I was an atheist, of sorts, that very question. After more than a few nights of puzzling it over, pulling apart the workings of the universe as I understood it, I came to the conclusion that our actions and lives are, in a sense, meaningless. Now by no means, was I particularly discouraged by this, or heartened by it rather I went as I've always done. Then sometime later, I asked myself: If all my actions are meaningless and my existence ultimately will amount to little, why do I continue to act as I do? The conclusion that I did come to is that, when all things are pointless, and little more than interpretations of our mind and so forth, all our choices suddenly gain real meaning. As with so many of my thoughts I doubt my ability to express this well, but if we're to take an example, let's say in everyday life I'm walking along and I'm provided the opportunity to kill an animal, without anyone's knowledge or judgments and if ultimately nothing I do or don't do matters, and I have no real idea as to the consequences of my actions why should I decide one way or another?...In Short, I don't know, but somehow knowing that I would choose not to harm said animal, somehow does have meaning to me, that I decided that even without consequences that the decision was important to me, was in itself important to me. So we gain meaning by recognizing that all our actions are meaningless yet still continuing to act, I suppose.

[Firebrand9]

I give it to myself by doing what's valuable to me.

[Priori]

There is no meaning in life, life is just something that happened due evolution.

I feel for you, but take a tip from pretty much every single woman in this thread - enjoy life and what you have. Even if you think the person next to you is meaningless, she (or he if your a girl... or gay I guess lol) does not think the same of you.

Grouping you in with all the others that have no ambition or goals (perhaps incorrectly); just because you don't know what your meaning or purpose is... doesn't mean you or they don't have one - not talking about theology or anything like that, but rather you have things that make you happy - you have things you are capable of doing to make you happy - .... do I seriously need to continue?

But hey, maybe I'm just tritefully touchy-feely, go fuck myself right?



Anyways, to response to the question at hand - the same way any person of faith does, I find it.

[zibber]

Still -theism.

I love nature for what it is. Nature and community are all the meaning I need.

[Still Standing]

Firstly I'd say I'm an agnostic because I consider atheism as a belief too, in the sense that atheists are certain that God does not exist but have a hard time proving it.

I find meaning in living mindfully and doing things with a purpose. I didn't choose to be on this planet but I can at least choose how I spend my time here and where to invest my emotional, intellectual and physical energy. For the time being, achieving financial independence, having more music in my life, becoming more playful and carefree and developing my people skills are the goals that I have set for myself and keep me going every day.

[Aronnax]

The meaning of life is to make the most of it while you have it, religion teaches the exact same concept, they just define "making the most of it" in a different manner than an atheist or agnostic would.

[Transmorfer]

The meaning of life is life itself. That it is here at all, and that we are here to experience it and add to it.

For those fighting for their existence every day, the meaning of life is to survive and see their that their closest relatives survive.

For myself, I found at a certain time in life, that the answer was a combination of producing something of value that will be here when I am gone, making processes work optimal, and giving and taking love and kindness.

[dead]

There's no meaning whether you like it or not. My interest is in pursuing the things that make me happy and appreciating the things in the world that I find wonderful.

ATHEISTS LOVE LIFE.

[bubbles]

I am the OP of this thread (never thought that I will end up on this forum again after 2 years...). Ironically, I discovered more about life from the religious than the atheists though I am still not a theist, but no longer atheist. As I learned more about religion, I realize that each religion proclaims that they are the 'only one' and that all others are wrong. It doesn't matter whether it is Christianity, Islam, or whatever, but religion only tells one how to live and what to believe. That seems very confining to me.

Religion seems no longer relevant to me. Yes, there is that hole that religion fills...but it doesn't necessarily have to be filled by religion.

[crow]

We can exist without a power-source, but we are limited in what we can achieve.
Connected to the source, our capabilities are limitless.
In the first case: we exist but can not fulfil our purpose.
In the second case: we can perform to design specification.

Whose design specification?
The design specification.

[Delarge]

I don't believe life is meaningful. I'm a hedonist.

[crow]

We should take some time to define the term "life".
Everyone's definition would be slightly different.
Or very, very different.

I see life as miraculous x10.
Not just my life: life itself, especially the lives of wild creatures.

[N0c7urn3]

There is no meaning other than the one you've chose for yourself. (Or one you have somehow managed to get deluded into, not that I'm saying a choice isn't self-delusional)

[Vic]

Do whatever the hell it is you want and get as much enjoyment as you can with the little time that you have left, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

That's my meaning. Which basically says just find out whatever yours is and do that. And don't bother others in the process.

[Lucius]

Im not atheist , im deist. However, my meaning of life is to achieve immortality.

[Night Runner]

Im not atheist , im deist. However, my meaning of life is to achieve immortality.
By having kids, by achieving something that would immortalize your name, or by doing something else?

[AnnoyingPony]

Meaning =/= Everything. Regardless, I can find meaning in artwork and literature and basically everything else I enjoy. To me, this is the only life we have so we better use every second well and avoid worrying about things that won't worry in the long run.

[Geminii]

I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

Funny, I wondered how the religious could find genuine personal meaning in life when it's being horked out in pre-sized identical chunks from the impersonal slop bucket of the One True Reference (variation #3872).

But then I remembered that people shop at Wal*Mart.

[ArtistTyrant]

three words: will to power

[Phil E]

It doesn't follow that a lack of a "cosmic" meaning equals a lacking of valuable (as valuable as it can get) meaning in each person's life. I'm not going to try to argue about the logical mistakes in most theistic belief; that should probably be for some other thread.

However, if we take a look at a hypothetical scenario, it might help illuminate where atheists are coming from. Suppose a cult were to indoctrinate some children. The cult leader to tell stories about how the children have "Blorgs" that arise from their "Procks" and that gives them "purpose" in their lives. Also, the leader gave the children definitions of "purpose" that were completely different from the rest of the world's understanding of "purpose." If the children were to grow up sincerely believing this and one day they found their way out to the real world, they could legitimately ask others who weren't indoctrinated how those people could possibly have "purpose" if they don't believe in "Blorgs" and "Procks."

Regardless of one's theistic or non-theistic-based beliefs, how might one respond to such a question? A simple answer might be to explain that the idea of "Blorgs" and "Procks" aren't necessary for having a feeling of "purpose." After further investigation about their use of the word "purpose", regardless of one's theistic or non-theistic-based beliefs, we might tell those indoctrinate people that the question is rather meaningless all together. It presumed too much and hasn't been shown to justify holding belief in any of the axiomatic assumptions made.

[Dodeca]

Religious people often say that religion helps support them and gives them meaning to live. Since I'm an atheist and feel that I'm missing something (because I'm not religious), I was wondering how atheists find meaning/beauty/etc... or whatever in life.

Being who I am makes me happy.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Oxxy]

I'm Agnostic, but I believe more in Atheism than Creationism.

However, the meaning of life is for me to help other people.

[Beryl]

The Universe is much more amazing and beautiful than a contrived entity. You don't need a lie in the sky to give your life meaning.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Liason]

Well, I am driven by my own ambitions. If I did not have such, perhaps I would find something missing, bet I do possess such, and thus I feel "complete".

[Arbo]

The meaning of life is life itself.
Enjoy it ...

[Darren]

Im not atheist , im deist.

I am Deist as well after really looking into why I was a Christian prior to. I no longer believe in a "Jesus" or "Muhammed" form of savior, nor do I buy into the need for one to go to some Elysian place where all my loved ones will live with me happily ever after. I do believe that matter can neither be created nor destroyed because E=MC2. Our energy continues to survive after our bodies die and decay. Whether or not this energy has consciousness, who is to know? But, I no longer believe in following a religion just because I think it is all dogma. I am much happier now as a free-thinking human and I definitely get along with and treat people much better.

[Thakur]

I believe that everyone wants their life to have meaning. Some people find God as a perfect way to do that. Weither or not he exsist is beside the point. Find something you love, or someone you love and do everything in your power to make that the best you possibly can. It all falls down to your moral structure. When you do what feels "right" that act becomes meaningful. So in short, do what makes you happy and your life will have meaning.

[Aster]

Life have absolutetly no meaning, apart from the ''I wanna live happy''.

But, the real question is ''What happiness is'' ? For me it's love and self improving.
I didn't manage to achive any of the abone yet, so what keep me alive ?
Hope.

[SurpriseMe]

Finding meaning in life, for me, has to do with accepting uncertainty. (I am agnostic.) Accepting uncertainty is really difficult for many religious people - or at least that's my impression. There is so much emphasis on attaining some form of nirvana, or pleasant afterlife, based upon the merit of one's actions on Earth. Many draw a sense of comfort from the idea that they have something to look forward to, or even just knowing that something positive will follow once their time here is up.

I understand why many people subscribe to this general belief system, but I think it's an imbalanced one. Obviously, as an agnostic I accept the limitations of my mortality and I don't speculate about the existence of deities. For me, that kind of speculation would just be frustrating, and I wouldn't be able to invest any kind of faith in it. I know that not all religions operate this way, but too many use the promise of an afterlife as a means of social control through guilt. That doesn't sit well with me, either. Live according to what you believe to be right until you change your mind about what is right, and then live according to that.

In the same vein, I make plans for tomorrow knowing it isn't guaranteed to come, and I reach for the things I desire knowing they aren't guaranteed to stay long or, if they're a person, want me back. So long as I feel like I'm doing my best, I'm pretty happy. I know when I'm not doing my best, and I do a good enough job of internal brow beating without the input of an omniscient score keeper.

Besides, if there is to be judgment about whether you're living ethically, shouldn't that have more to do with what you're doing now than the reward you aim to receive?

[Brian125]

As a hard atheist, I personally think there is no purpose to life. It's not the end of the world, I just choose to not cuddle up in the security blanket of metaphysics. I'm also a pretty nice guy.