How does atheism supply meaning?

[Wootah]

We are either simply part of the world existing for a brief time, in a massive universe, with death waiting and no purpose and meaninglessness and not in control of anything or we can create something and be something. This is atheism on one end and creation on the other.

It's why I don't believe there are atheists. No one can truly hold that view and I certainly don't think any atheists on this site really drink that cup to the full. I tried. Once. A long time ago.

Obviously, people do hold this view, less the meaningless part that was added to poison the well.
For those that are uncomfortable with said view, there are religious options available to fulfill the need to have purpose supplied to them.

What I can't understand is how it is a struggle for some to find purpose in this life and then seem to project that on to others that don't suffer from such a thing. I personally treat this life as something special and have plenty of purpose, because for all I know, it is the only one we will get. The idea of this life being a test for some other life actually would make this life less meaningful as the next would become the true goal. Therefore, could it be argued that atheism supplies more meaning/value for this life than religions in general? Those that struggle to find purpose without religion would obviously not be able to see this and would then be susceptible making claims like we see above.

"No one can truly hold that view" would therefore simply be a projection.

How does atheism supply meaning?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #154]

It's a joke. The Nile is a river. Denial is a river.

Let's face it, your whole post was a joke.

It's definitely jarring to our cognitive dissonance.

If only it was. 'Denial is a river'. Ho ho, but it is also slinging mud (no joke intended) at atheists. Trying to pass off a smear as a joke? It's a disgrace. Nobody minds fair debate, but mucky tricks do nobody any favours.

Mind, 'we're all atheists' is an old atheist saw. Persons all disbelieve in some god - claims; atheists just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.

https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/what ... issonance/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cognitiv ... a-valenti/

edit: anger is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

I'm inclined to agree. At least it is a reactive symptom when the dissonance is pointed up, like which god? Bible contradictions and Dogmatic illogic. The we get anger, tears, attacks, accusations, evasions and a grab -bag of dirty tricks. These thar atheist polemicists are very familiar with these

Atheists, however, in my experience,do not do anger. They do not need to as they do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. Because atheism is a subset of rationalism and so dissonances are put aside as unexplained. They do not have to invest Belief unless we have confidence in the argument and evidence.

Now it is true that atheists may say stony things and dish out accusations, but there is no anger - just saying what we think needs saying.

[Wootah]

[Replying to brunumb in post #154]

It's a joke. The Nile is a river. Denial is a river.

Let's face it, your whole post was a joke.

It's definitely jarring to our cognitive dissonance.

If only it was. 'Denial is a river'. Ho ho, but it is also slinging mud (no joke intended) at atheists. Trying to pass off a smear as a joke? It's a disgrace. Nobody minds fair debate, but mucky tricks do nobody any favours.

Mind, 'we're all atheists' is an old atheist saw. Persons all disbelieve in some god - claims; atheists just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.

https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/what ... issonance/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cognitiv ... a-valenti/

edit: anger is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

I'm inclined to agree. At least it is a reactive symptom when the dissonance is pointed up, like which god? Bible contradictions and Dogmatic illogic. The we get anger, tears, attacks, accusations, evasions and a grab -bag of dirty tricks. These thar atheist polemicists are very familiar with these

Atheists, however, in my experience,do not do anger. They do not need to as they do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. Because atheism is a subset of rationalism and so dissonances are put aside as unexplained. They do not have to invest Belief unless we have confidence in the argument and evidence.

Now it is true that atheists may say stony things and dish out accusations, but there is no anger - just saying what we think needs saying.

Have you ever observed how uber-mensch atheists think they are?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #153]

If there is a reasoned line of argumentation taking place. You could try the same and let's see how it works out.

Mind you there is historical precedence for what you are suggesting

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dunce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

But basically, if you can present a reasoned argument that goes from Christian to Idiot go for it. I'll help, I am a fool for Christ.


The Bible says

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/1-18.htm
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.

I would go so hard as to suggest that if you don't think I am an idiot then either I am not a Christian or you are not an Atheist.

The argument is just being sketched out but something like that seems possible.

It just gasts my flabber that instead of not telling atheists what they believe or worship, you'd continue to argue about it.

Christianity. Not even once.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #163]

I struggle to understand what you say most of the time. I literally sketched out a line of argument you might use to say Christians are idiots. Why do we never connect meaningfully?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #154]

It's a joke. The Nile is a river. Denial is a river.

Let's face it, your whole post was a joke.

It's definitely jarring to our cognitive dissonance.

If only it was. 'Denial is a river'. Ho ho, but it is also slinging mud (no joke intended) at atheists. Trying to pass off a smear as a joke? It's a disgrace. Nobody minds fair debate, but mucky tricks do nobody any favours.

Mind, 'we're all atheists' is an old atheist saw. Persons all disbelieve in some god - claims; atheists just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.

https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/what ... issonance/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cognitiv ... a-valenti/

edit: anger is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

I'm inclined to agree. At least it is a reactive symptom when the dissonance is pointed up, like which god? Bible contradictions and Dogmatic illogic. The we get anger, tears, attacks, accusations, evasions and a grab -bag of dirty tricks. These thar atheist polemicists are very familiar with these

Atheists, however, in my experience,do not do anger. They do not need to as they do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. Because atheism is a subset of rationalism and so dissonances are put aside as unexplained. They do not have to invest Belief unless we have confidence in the argument and evidence.

Now it is true that atheists may say stony things and dish out accusations, but there is no anger - just saying what we think needs saying.

Have you ever observed how uber-mensch atheists think they are?

Ever noticed how finger - wagging judgemental Bible - apologists appear? I'm sorry if the atheists come across as uber - mensch to you, not because we say so, but because our arguments are better. That isn't because we are smarter or better, but our arguments are more based on evidence and reason. That's why we keep making the better case.

I might mention one idea that prevents we atheists from thinking that we are better than theists - about half of us used to BE Theists. Once they deconvert, their arguments are every bit as good as ours.

[JoeyKnothead]

I struggle to understand what you say most of the time.

I don't know that I can help that on my end. I ain't got much in the way of a formal schooling.

I literally sketched out a line of argument you might use to say Christians are idiots.

My point was how goofy it is to apply religiously charged terms and notions to atheists.

When coming from a Christian, the charge of worshipping idols is loaded with implications of "sin", or "evil". When the charge is worshipping gods, it's either an ignorance of what it means to be atheist, or an implication the atheist isn't sincere.

Why do we never connect meaningfully?

Considering you think I, an atheist, worship idols and gods, I don't reckon we'll ever have a meaningful connection. It's a bit off putting when folks project their beliefs onto folks who don't share em.

[TRANSPONDER]

I struggle to understand what you say most of the time.

I don't know that I can help that on my end. I ain't got much in the way of a formal schooling.

I literally sketched out a line of argument you might use to say Christians are idiots.

My point was how goofy it is to apply religiously charged terms and notions to atheists.

When coming from a Christian, the charge of worshipping idols is loaded with implications of "sin", or "evil". When the charge is worshipping gods, it's either an ignorance of what it means to be atheist, or an implication the atheist isn't sincere.

Why do we never connect meaningfully?

Considering you think I, an atheist, worship idols and gods, I don't reckon we'll ever have a meaningful connection. It's a bit off putting when folks project their beliefs onto folks who don't share em.

what was the Topic again? Ah - that'll do. It's always interesting to try to penetrate the thinking (or at least ideology) behind the arguments that believers make. This idea that those who do not worship a god simply put other gods (idols) in their place. Not really. And after all the Theists contradict themselves because they also say that those who reject God's meaning in their lives have no meaning - not that we just have other meanings, which is of course what we do.

They haven't thought this through; they never think it through. They just dish out accusations like we goddless have gods, idols and religions like the Church of Darwinist sciencism, which only exists in their fantasies, and we never assemble after gaining entry with our pink plastic swipe -cards in crimson robes by flickering candle -light at 1 a.m to cry 'Hail Darwin, Dawkins is his prophet' before the drunken orgy with Australian rather than french wine because it's cheaper. such absurd misrepresentations are coming from this blinkered theist thinking where they cannot imagine that anyone does not have a god or religion, it just has to be something else.

They certainly do not get reasoning and rationality. At least, not when it comes to religion (1) and they suppose that we unbelievers do Dogmatic thinking just like they do - only we use the science Book as the Bible. which is why they crow that science is always changing its'mind.I f it was dogma, it should always be right. They do not get the idea that a mindset that constantly revised to fit new evidence is better and stronger than an unbending dogma that reject new information. They simply cannot think that way.

That's assuming there is any thought behind it rather than just throwing accusations at us. The abuse, storming out and underhand planning is also a cult - related thing, but a whole other study.

(1) need a separate prara. it seems that this is hived off from the world of practical thought,where they DO use reason and scientific evidence. But the Other half of the brain is activated when religion comes up. It is why scientists can still do good science work while believing that bread and wine turns into black pudding because someone mumbled an incantation.

[JoeyKnothead]

what was the Topic again? Ah - that'll do. It's always interesting to try to penetrate the thinking (or at least ideology) behind the arguments that believers make. This idea that those who do not worship a god simply put other gods (idols) in their place. Not really. And after all the Theists contradict themselves because they also say that those who reject God's meaning in their lives have no meaning - not that we just have other meanings, which is of course what we do.

They haven't thought this through; they never think it through. They just dish out accusations like we goddless have gods, idols and religions like the Church of Darwinist sciencism, which only exists in their fantasies, and we never assemble after gaining entry with our pink plastic swipe -cards in crimson robes by flickering candle -light at 1 a.m to cry 'Hail Darwin, Dawkins is his prophet' before the drunken orgy with Australian rather than french wine because it's cheaper. such absurd misrepresentations are coming from this blinkered theist thinking where they cannot imagine that anyone does not have a god or religion, it just has to be something else.

They certainly do not get reasoning and rationality. At least, not when it comes to religion (1) and they suppose that we unbelievers do Dogmatic thinking just like they do - only we use the science Book as the Bible. which is why they crow that science is always changing its'mind.I f it was dogma, it should always be right. They do not get the idea that a mindset that constantly revised to fit new evidence is better and stronger than an unbending dogma that reject new information. They simply cannot think that way.

That's assuming there is any thought behind it rather than just throwing accusations at us. The abuse, storming out and underhand planning is also a cult - related thing, but a whole other study.

(1) need a separate prara. it seems that this is hived off from the world of practical thought,where they DO use reason and scientific evidence. But the Other half of the brain is activated when religion comes up. It is why scientists can still do good science work while believing that bread and wine turns into black pudding because someone mumbled an incantation.

You said that good. As an amateur, I'm very curious how the brain / mind works to uphold errant thought - accepting it may well be mine that's errant

You've touched on the biology of morals, and I see a link to "does god exist" in our decision making. My ready example, of which I'm sure you're aware, is the "is it a lion or the wind" question.

Then we get into primitive religion, with a god for everything, to eventually monotheism.

And nigh on every step of the way, the gods fall as our knowledge creeps ever forward.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #167]

Hi,

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

It's just a syllogism

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

Now what I am getting feedback on is the use of the word idols and gods. I really would like to find a secular word for this.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eidolon

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

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inamorata

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

[brunumb]

2 - People need meaning.

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