What is the meaning of life for atheists?

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Requiring a meaning to life is a selfish notion, unless it involves leaving the world a better place than as you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same.
Could you expand on this a bit? I don't understand.

Maybe I can throw a little light on it. The idea that we are so superior to everything else, or are created by an entity to be so superior, that we have a special place after death where we will be rewarded as befits our high station on this earth is IMO the selfish notion. Accordingly, this concept infers that the meaning of life is therefore to seek out this reward. I agree with the Atheist, seeking to make the world a better place than you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same and helping those around you is a very good description of the meaning of life for me at least.

robindch

> [Wicknight] Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is
> supposed to be a sin?

There are two reasons which spring to mind why sex before marriage is a "sin":

1. At the biological level, kids born outside of marriage, during the times when the various commandments were written down, seem to have been subject to pretty brutal treatment, as were their unfortunate mothers (behaviour which continues in many countries around the world today, as it did in Ireland until quite recently too). Consequently, in order to reduce social conflict at the same time as ensuring that your society produces lots of well-cared-for offspring to continue the society, you declare sex before marriage to be a "sin" and so requiring the kinds of punishment which the various religious laws lay down. As an aside, these punishments were completely asymmetrical -- women take the rap, even in cases where they're raped, while men get to say that they were "led on" and therefore largely blameless.

2. At the cultural level, most religions (a) define sex before marriage as a sin (or declare virginity a pre-requisite for marriage) and (b) require the parents-to-be to raise kids within that religion, so that the religion can gurantee its own propagation by feeding off the strong sexual desires of normal human beings (see some of the Vatican's rules on the duties of parents here).

coffee_cake

Inheritance is the main one I can think of.
Out of wedlock,guy has no legitimate heirs, or the illegitimate ones cause trouble.
Plus, if his wife wasn't a virgin, who knows who the real father of his children might be if she's already pregnant.

I could just be talking rubbish, I'm very tired.

is_that_so

I think the meaning of life is making sense of where you are in relation to everything that affects you or you allow to affect you. This is not constant. Naturally your own belief structure will dictate how you interpret that "meaning". At most life can only offer a sense of purpose to challenge us.
More often than not that lack of a "sense of purpose" or some kind of attributable value to life is what causes people to pose the question in the first place. It is human to question whatever you believe.
IMHO your belief structure will only affect the answer you come up with.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> [Wicknight] Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is
> supposed to be a sin?

There are two reasons which spring to mind why sex before marriage is a "sin":

1. At the biological level, kids born outside of marriage, during the times when the various commandments were written down, seem to have been subject to pretty brutal treatment, as were their unfortunate mothers (behaviour which continues in many countries around the world today, as it did in Ireland until quite recently too). Consequently, in order to reduce social conflict at the same time as ensuring that your society produces lots of well-cared-for offspring to continue the society, you declare sex before marriage to be a "sin" and so requiring the kinds of punishment which the various religious laws lay down. As an aside, these punishments were completely asymmetrical -- women take the rap, even in cases where they're raped, while men get to say that they were "led on" and therefore largely blameless.

2. At the cultural level, most religions (a) define sex before marriage as a sin (or declare virginity a pre-requisite for marriage) and (b) require the parents-to-be to raise kids within that religion, so that the religion can gurantee its own propagation by feeding off the strong sexual desires of normal human beings (see some of the Vatican's rules on the duties of parents here).

Oh I know the real reasons why a tradition like that would emerge, was just wondering what the religous justification reason was.

robindch

> was just wondering what the religous justification reason was.

Gotcha. There isn't any justification -- it's just said to be "immoral" and that's that. If you've some spare time, the Vatican has produced plenty of text on the topic:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm ("Moral Law")
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html ("Human Sexuality")

...though I can't imagine that one believer in a thousand reads any of this frightful waffle!

staple

Wicknight wrote:

The goal in life should be to find your own purpose, find things that you want that make you happy, give your life meaning.[...]

I think the point is that Atheism frees a person to look at what they actually believe, not what they are told to believe.

Example would be sex before marriage. Catholics believe it is "wrong" but most don't follow this teaching and I would imagine much less even understand the actually rational behind the belief. It is often tried to be fit around modern circumstances, such as the AIDS epidemic, but AIDS wasn't around then the Bible was written. Does anyone really understand why sex before marriage is supposed to be a sin?

'Should be to find your own purpose'? Should? Why?

I quite agree that we should look at what we believe, and examine it. Atheism might free you to do that, but two caveats. It presupposes a certain fact that limits what you can think (viz. God does not exist). Many atheists also seem to presuppose the uselessness of wisdom of ages or tradition, meditation or their spiritual selves. They seem to think the solitary individual, his senses and his reason can find the answers. All of these would seem to limit you.

Second, atheists may be free to think but do they? The responses to the question of meaning are
A. 'just enjoy it', which is an invitation to mindless search for pleasure and
B. 'the question is meaningless', which is an invitation to stop questioning where science can no longer inform us.

No, you can't wait around for other people to make you happy. But you have to realize you can make other people happy or sad. If our only obligation is to ourselves, and we have no sense of obligation to other people, we're going to cause a lot of hurt. You might think that's fine.

And finally...Catholics and sex. Ah, the old reliable for Irish atheists. We were talking about meaning of life for non-Catholics, but hey, we're not really interested in looking at our own beliefs, we're interested in bashing Catholicism. Quite frankly, I'm not surprised you find RC teaching meaningless: if you don't accept the premises, you won't accept the conclusions.

staple

Asiaprod wrote:

I agree with the Atheist, seeking to make the world a better place than you found it, or bringing new life into the world to do the same and helping those around you is a very good description of the meaning of life for me at least.

Yes, but why is that the meaning of life for you? Why that rather than anything else? Did you put twenty meanings in a hat and draw out that one? If we're all just dust, why even bother with that?

Scofflaw

staple wrote:

Second, atheists may be free to think but do they? The responses to the question of meaning are
A. 'just enjoy it', which is an invitation to mindless search for pleasure and
B. 'the question is meaningless', which is an invitation to stop questioning where science can no longer inform us.

Hmm. If someone is actually an atheist - that is to say, they have rejected God - they usually have done some thinking. There are poseurs, of course, but there always are. An awful lot of people describe themselves as agnostics in order not to think about it, and many of these will certainly give answers A or B.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

staple wrote:

Yes, but why is that the meaning of life for you? Why that rather than anything else? Did you put twenty meanings in a hat and draw out that one? If we're all just dust, why even bother with that?

Why not?


regards,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. If someone is actually an atheist - that is to say, they have rejected God - they usually have done some thinking. There are poseurs, of course, but there always are. An awful lot of people describe themselves as agnostics in order not to think about it, and many of these will certainly give answers A or B.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Don't just fluffle away the amount of thought agnostics put into their beliefs or lack thereof. The same could be applied to any group.

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Don't just fluffle away the amount of thought agnostics put into their beliefs or lack thereof. The same could be applied to any group.

True, and no disrespect was intended to the thinking agnostics! However, it's true that a lot of people do describe themselves as "agnostics" when what they mean is "hard question, brain hurty, you go away now". Just like those who say they're "atheists" when what they mean is "me cool, wear black, please have sex with me".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

True, and no disrespect was intended to the thinking agnostics! However, it's true that a lot of people do describe themselves as "agnostics" when what they mean is "hard question, brain hurty, you go away now". Just like those who say they're "atheists" when what they mean is "me cool, wear black, please have sex with me".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah very well then.
Although, it is a hard question, my brain does indeed hurty, I wear black, i'm cool and please have sex with me is always a good comment.
What i'm trying to say is, agnostical atheism ftw.

EDIT: For good measure. http://dogwelder.com/images/365/t0128.jpg

Asiaprod

staple wrote:

Yes, but why is that the meaning of life for you? Why that rather than anything else? Did you put twenty meanings in a hat and draw out that one? If we're all just dust, why even bother with that?

Darwin and Genetics:)

No, seriously. to answer that I would need to see the other 19 alternate choices. The choice I selected goes hand-in-hand with my beliefs. For me it was a no-brainer and The Atheist expressed it very eloquently.

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Just like those who say they're "atheists" when what they mean is "me cool, wear black, please have sex with me".

Your just too old man. Sorry, but people don't care about your old-timer "gay-theism" now.

Zombrex

staple wrote:

'Should be to find your own purpose'? Should? Why?

Why? To stop you being miserable because you don't have a purpose. I mean you don't have to. This only applies to people who actually want a purpose in life. Lots of people probably don't care.

staple wrote:

It presupposes a certain fact that limits what you can think (viz. God does not exist).

An atheist is not limited to believing there is no God, but if he/she does believe in gods he/she wouldn't be an atheist anymore. You speak about Atheism as if you can never become a theist again. An atheist can become a theist when ever they want, just the description changes.

staple wrote:

Many atheists also seem to presuppose the uselessness of wisdom of ages or tradition, meditation or their spiritual selves.

Not really, but they do recongise that a lot of the "moral" traditions, especially those within religion, are in fact nothing to do with morality but rather to do with other issues, like control.

staple wrote:

They seem to think the solitary individual, his senses and his reason can find the answers. All of these would seem to limit you.

I don't remember saying anything about the "solitary" individual. I certain think it is possible for a person to develop their own moral code, but mostly it is done in a communial manner, with ideas from all areas of society, including the religious, mixing together to form a frame work for society.

staple wrote:

Second, atheists may be free to think but do they? The responses to the question of meaning are
A. 'just enjoy it', which is an invitation to mindless search for pleasure and
B. 'the question is meaningless', which is an invitation to stop questioning where science can no longer inform us.

No the responses were largely "no". The bits you have in A and B follow on from the "no" as in "no, just enjoy it" or "no, and the question is meaningless"

There are very good reasons, logical reasons, why people in this thread said "no". You make is sound like they were all just a cop-out.

And btw those who said "just enjoy it" were not advocating some kind of pleasure for pleasure sake life-style like a drugged up sexed out rock and roll star. They were simply saying that the goal in life should be to live a joyful, happy fullifed life, and to not obsess over living life to someone elses guidelines/standards, be that a religions or simply your parents/teacher/partner etc. Do you disagree?

staple wrote:

If our only obligation is to ourselves

I'm not sure anyone has said that in this thread, and it also goes against a lot of what others have said. We have evolved into communal animals. We have a large number of basic biological instincts to be good to others around us, and we have developed a large number of logical laws and morals to also be good to others around us.

I'm not sure anyone is advocating that we simply look out for number one at the cost of others around us. That is a gross mis-understanding of human evolution theory.

staple wrote:

And finally...Catholics and sex. Ah, the old reliable for Irish atheists. We were talking about meaning of life for non-Catholics, but hey, we're not really interested in looking at our own beliefs, we're interested in bashing Catholicism.

My own beliefs? When I comes to sex before marriage I have no moral object to that at all. To me there are a number of moral/emotional/practical issues around sex, but none of them concern the marriage status of the people involved.

Plus I can't even think of a moral objection to it that I've heard, that was why I was asking what is the moral logic used by the Catholic church.

staple

Wicknight wrote:

Why? To stop you being miserable because you don't have a purpose. I mean you don't have to. This only applies to people who actually want a purpose in life. Lots of people probably don't care.
...
I don't remember saying anything about the "solitary" individual. I certain think it is possible for a person to develop their own moral code, but mostly it is done in a communial manner, with ideas from all areas of society, including the religious, mixing together to form a frame work for society.
...
There are very good reasons, logical reasons, why people in this thread said "no". You make is sound like they were all just a cop-out.
...
And btw those who said "just enjoy it" were not advocating some kind of pleasure for pleasure sake life-style like a drugged up sexed out rock and roll star. They were simply saying that the goal in life should be to live a joyful, happy fullifed life, and to not obsess over living life to someone elses guidelines/standards, be that a religions or simply your parents/teacher/partner etc. Do you disagree?
...
I'm not sure anyone has said that in this thread, and it also goes against a lot of what others have said. We have evolved into communal animals. We have a large number of basic biological instincts to be good to others around us, and we have developed a large number of logical laws and morals to also be good to others around us.
...
I'm not sure anyone is advocating that we simply look out for number one at the cost of others around us. That is a gross mis-understanding of human evolution theory.

I'm still confused. There's a whole mix of evolution, 'logic', societal norms, and individualism in there. What I'm wondering here, and on the 'systematic belief system' thread is whether individual atheists think their own personal beliefs are systematic, coherent, consistent and rational? At the risk of repeating myself, there seems to be a contradiction between the idea that you are rational and choose freely, and that you are driven by evolutionary instincts.

Some atheists suggest people are religious because they haven't examined their beliefs, and if they did they would become atheists. It seems that some atheists also live unexamined lives, and don't have the intellectual high ground.

Zaphod B

staple wrote:

What I'm wondering here, and on the 'systematic belief system' thread is whether individual atheists think their own personal beliefs are systematic, coherent, consistent and rational?

Yes. Or at least more coherent, consistent and rational than the alternatives.

staple wrote:

Some atheists suggest people are religious because they haven't examined their beliefs, and if they did they would become atheists. It seems that some atheists also live unexamined lives, and don't have the intellectual high ground.

Of course some atheists haven't really examined their beliefs. The same is true of people in all belief systems, and I don't think most atheists would claim that all other atheists are rational or consistent (just as members of religious groups do not always agree) so I'm not entirely sure what your point is there.

No one has either intellectual or moral high ground - least of all those who claim to.

Son Goku

staple wrote:

there seems to be a contradiction between the idea that you are rational and choose freely, and that you are driven by evolutionary instincts.

We can be "driven" in the direction evolution has made the most probable course for our minds, but on top of that we have the ability to reason. The drives are on a lower "pre-moral" level.

the real ramon

I'm wondering if even if Atheists are right, that for most people it might just be better to believe, much like the difference between determinism, and soft-determinism (soft-Atheism anyone?).

Someone said to me that the point of the universe, wheteher you believe in God or in 'survival of the fittest' (hate that phrase btw- but I know what they meant), is to overcome adversity. It makes a lot of sense to me, and makes the universe seem less cold or heartless.

But I guess if people are happy with their 'point' or lack there-of then thats good. If their not happy with their view of the universe it's a different matter, and no belief/disbelief I've ever come accross has ever made everyone of that belief/disbelief happy or a better person.

I don't think anything will ever change that either. I don't understand though why if some people are unhappy because of what they believe that they don't look for something that makes them happy, gets them to think that the universe doesn't suck, or that God isn't a b*****d

Ah well.

Zombrex

staple wrote:

What I'm wondering here, and on the 'systematic belief system' thread is whether individual atheists think their own personal beliefs are systematic, coherent, consistent and rational?

Well I can't speak for all atheists, since atheist just means you don't believe in God, it doesn't explain what you do believe in.

But me personally I certainly believe that the morals I believe in are consistent and rational. I can explain why I believe everything I do, the logic behind it, and probably how I came to that conclusion (if I remember)

staple wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself, there seems to be a contradiction between the idea that you are rational and choose freely, and that you are driven by evolutionary instincts.

Not really.

No one (I hope) is suggesting that instinct is the only factor in play when making a moral choice. In fact I would say it is a quite small factor, our high brain functions are much more dominant that our instincts, unlike other animals. Our instincts and base emotions like appathy, guilt etc, only form a framework on which our morals are eventually based.

It would be silly to ignore the evolutionary side of our moral behaviour but at the same time it would be equally silly to suggest that our moral structures in society are based solely on them.

staple wrote:

Some atheists suggest people are religious because they haven't examined their beliefs, and if they did they would become atheists.

That might be true for some, but I don't think someone could make such a general statement either way.

Some people when they really examine religious teaching reject it. Others spend there whole lives studying religious moral teaching and that study only makes them more faithful to the religion.

What is being suggested by me is that following a religion's moral structure restricts discussion and debate over the moral issues, because by definition in a religion you are following someone elses moral beliefs and that moral belief system is normal beyond repute. As I said, how do you argue that God is wrong.

Of course some people choose a particular religion because it better suits their own, already determined, moral perspective. But it is more likely that a person is raised in a certain religion and therefore has less choice in picking a religion to follow.

staple wrote:

It seems that some atheists also live unexamined lives, and don't have the intellectual high ground.

Again, totally possible. But I would think that it is more likely that an atheists would have to examine his feelings on a particular moral issue to be able to come to a conclusion either way as an atheists is less likely to blindly subscribe to a moral code or system through faith alone.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Your just too old man. Sorry, but people don't care about your old-timer "gay-theism" now.

Young people, grrr! I'll get 'em yet, yus yus, them and their little dogs, mumble mumble drool...


senilely,
Scofflaw