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?

[Wootah]

2 - People need meaning.

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

Exceptions don't make the rule.

But since you are an exception are you open to talking about it? edit: I mean they would be personal questions and I don't want to violate any rules. Of course if you are claiming you are a 'person that doesn't need meaning' the way anyone can claim to be 'Christian' and not be challenged on the website then I guess we are at an impasse.

[Miles]

[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 that is one crazy syllogism you've got going there. Are you sure you want to stick with it? Okay, but one small correction if I may, you can't change horses midstream. You can't substitute "their idols or gods" for "our idols or gods." So if you want to properly construct this so-called "syllogism" you'd have to at least say:

"Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is our idols or gods."

which, of course, is ludicrous. Other than the position of "a lack of belief in the existence of god" there is no meaning to atheism. It doesn't supply anything. Period. As for the need of meaning itself, atheist find meaning in the world around them and how they interact with it. It may not provide them with the comforts religion does, but we feel that taking life as it comes is far more honest and satisfying than hanging our hats on faith, fear, and fabrication.


.

[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 that is one crazy syllogism you've got going there. Are you sure you want to stick with it? Okay, but one small correction if I may, you can't change horses midstream. You can't substitute "their idols or gods" for "our idols or gods." So if you want to properly construct this so-called "syllogism" you'd have to at least say:

"Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is our idols or gods."

which, of course, is ludicrous. Other than the position of "a lack of belief in the existence of god" there is no meaning to atheism. It doesn't supply anything. Period. As for the need of meaning itself, atheist find meaning in the world around them and how they interact with it. It may not provide them with the comforts religion does, but we feel that taking life as it comes is far more honest and satisfying than hanging our hats on faith, fear, and fabrications.


.

When I say 'our' I was referring to 'people'. So 3 - could be written: the sources of peoples means are considered their idols or gods?

Is that clearer?

[TRANSPONDER]

[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 that is one crazy syllogism you've got going there. Are you sure you want to stick with it? Okay, but one small correction if I may, you can't change horses midstream. You can't substitute "their idols or gods" for "our idols or gods." So if you want to properly construct this so-called "syllogism" you'd have to at least say:

"Since atheists are people and people need meaning the source of the atheists meaning is our idols or gods."

which, of course, is ludicrous. Other than the position of "a lack of belief in the existence of god" there is no meaning to atheism. It doesn't supply anything. Period. As for the need of meaning itself, atheist find meaning in the world around them and how they interact with it. It may not provide them with the comforts religion does, but we feel that taking life as it comes is far more honest and satisfying than hanging our hats on faith, fear, and fabrications.


.

When I say 'our' I was referring to 'people'. So 3 - could be written: the sources of peoples means are considered their idols or gods?

Is that clearer?

Putting on my Theist hat (the one that attracts flies) I could argue that in fact All people divide into two - the atheist with their false idols and the ones who believe in the true idol..I mean god, even if they don't use the right name.

[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.

That doesn't even come close to working.

1 - Atheism does not provide meaning. That is ok - it doesn't provide a meaning for life; that is not what it is supposed to do.
2 - People need meaning. Maybe not. some people may only bother to get out of bed because they are hungry or need the bathroom,and only live from day to day because topping yourself it too much trouble. But let's say that most people seem to want some interest or motivation in their lives and not all find it in the spurious meanings of religions.

3 - The sources of our meaning are our eidolon. This is of course the fallacy of equivocation (the Theist' favorite)
Idol - a monument to a false god
Idol - something of great importance to us.

They do not mean the same, even if the same word is used. I can say so without even looking up the dictionary.

Even if meanings...and you may say that my pet theory (of the gospels) is an incentive and motivation to me, almost as much as brewing up my next curry, replace the spurious motivation of a godfaith (name your own) that neither makes it invalid, nor discredits it nor makes the Christian god -alternative any more valid than any other godfaith.

This particular house of cards doesn't stand up to the first huff of disbelief.

[brunumb]

2 - People need meaning.

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

Exceptions don't make the rule.

Your claim doesn't make the rule either. Perhaps you should have tried justifying it before crafting your dodgy syllogism.

[Kylie]

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?

Who says atheism has to supply the meaning? Why can't an atheist gett meaning from other parts of their life, like their family, or a hobby they are passionate about?

[boatsnguitars]

2 - People need meaning.

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

Exceptions don't make the rule.

But since you are an exception are you open to talking about it? edit: I mean they would be personal questions and I don't want to violate any rules. Of course if you are claiming you are a 'person that doesn't need meaning' the way anyone can claim to be 'Christian' and not be challenged on the website then I guess we are at an impasse.

You miss the point.

Do people need meaning, or do you just want meaning? (And, do you claim they need, deep, profound, absolutely true and important meaning - or do they just need something to live by until they find something else?)

If you say you need meaning, well, the exception doesn't make the rule...

I think this is a poor direction to take, honestly. It doesn't help falsify or prove Christianity or Atheism.

You might as well say, "How does Atheism allow a person to have a favorite band?"

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Who says atheism has to supply the meaning? Why can't an atheist gett meaning from other parts of their life, like their family, or a hobby they are passionate about?

Exactly.

2 - People need meaning.

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

Exceptions don't make the rule.

But since you are an exception are you open to talking about it? edit: I mean they would be personal questions and I don't want to violate any rules. Of course if you are claiming you are a 'person that doesn't need meaning' the way anyone can claim to be 'Christian' and not be challenged on the website then I guess we are at an impasse.

You miss the point.

Do people need meaning, or do you just want meaning? (And, do you claim they need, deep, profound, absolutely true and important meaning - or do they just need something to live by until they find something else?)

If you say you need meaning, well, the exception doesn't make the rule...

I think this is a poor direction to take, honestly. It doesn't help falsify or prove Christianity or Atheism.

You might as well say, "How does Atheism allow a person to have a favorite band?"

Also exactly. Though atheism might have an impact on choice of music (heavy metal rather than Christian country) it is not supposed to assist in musical preferences. Nor is it supposed to provide our motivations and inspirations in life. Nor does it prevent us finding those meanings elsewhere

[JoeyKnothead]

Ancouple quick definitions for them unaware...

Ignorance is not knowing something.

Stupidity is not learning something even after ya done been told that something.

[JoeyKnothead]

2 - People need meaning.

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

Exceptions don't make the rule.

But since you are an exception are you open to talking about it? edit: I mean they would be personal questions and I don't want to violate any rules. Of course if you are claiming you are a 'person that doesn't need meaning' the way anyone can claim to be 'Christian' and not be challenged on the website then I guess we are at an impasse.

You miss the point.

Do people need meaning, or do you just want meaning? (And, do you claim they need, deep, profound, absolutely true and important meaning - or do they just need something to live by until they find something else?)

If you say you need meaning, well, the exception doesn't make the rule...

I think this is a poor direction to take, honestly. It doesn't help falsify or prove Christianity or Atheism.

You might as well say, "How does Atheism allow a person to have a favorite band?"

Pink Floyd

This is an automated response provided when folks mention favorite bands.