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]

I suspect that if you can do anything you want then everything is meaningless.

So God's life is meaningless? Your words, not mine.

I don't believe God can do anything He wants. God cannot lie for example. This is a good thing. In all the ways we sin, God cannot and does not. So yeah, if that is a win in your box you can have it.

My goodness, then we have more free will than God? But how do you know that God cannot lie? After all, he said that Adam would die if he ate the fruit, but he didn't. But you know and I know that this is excused with this apologetic or that (it means spiritual death or it means he is no longer immortal (1) or Tyre was rebuilt even though God said it wouldn't be. Apologetics are then wielded to:
(a) deny the fact (Tyre was not where the present city is...no, it was underneath it)
(b) wangle the facts (Tyre was never rebuilt - they simply built a different city on top and called it Tyre)
(c) this is a mistake by the writers - not God's mistake or Lie.

yeahhh...but then if C is right, then every Biblecritic objection is valid as it could be a writers' error. Especially if it is a contradiction. Like Mark and Matthew (correction) does have Jesus say 'Go to Galilee', but it was Luke's 'error' that Jesus instructs 'Stay in Jerusalem'.

Nah. I'll go with human error...all the way through. Matthew's 2 donkeys where there was only one...Jesus misquoting 'Babes and sucklings', the eleven being there Sunday night when John says Thomas was absent. Yeah...witness error.

(1) but the rest of creation dies and man didn't? "Oh no - when Adam sinned and became mortal, the rest of creation became mortal, too." I cannot believe that tomatoes suddenly became subject to rot because Adam disobeyed, whereas before they would stay fresh forever. This makes no sense.

[boatsnguitars]

I don't believe God can do anything He wants. God cannot lie for example.

I honestly have never seen a Theist claim that God wants to lie. I wish theists would agree on this thing "God" they claim to know so well....

This is getting absurd. How can someone tell me they aren't making this up as they go along? How is God a serious hypothesis anymore?

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't believe God can do anything He wants. God cannot lie for example.

I honestly have never seen a Theist claim that God wants to lie. I wish theists would agree on this thing "God" they claim to know so well....

This is getting absurd. How can someone tell me they aren't making this up as they go along? How is God a serious hypothesis anymore?

Lying is not the only thing God can't do.


but of course the best laid plans of mice men and incompetent bronse age deities after go agley, as explained below

[Wootah]

I don't believe God can do anything He wants. God cannot lie for example.

Do you think that God wants to lie, but can't?

It could be that God literally cannot lie it could be that God speaks and His words become true.

[JoeyKnothead]

It could be that God literally cannot lie it could be that God speaks and His words become true.

It could be that God speaks and folks just assume he's telling the truth.

We can frame hypotheticals to support any conclusuion we wanna derive from em.

[brunumb]

I don't believe God can do anything He wants. God cannot lie for example.

Do you think that God wants to lie, but can't?

It could be that God literally cannot lie it could be that God speaks and His words become true.

Do you think that God wants to lie, but can't?

[Miles]

I don't believe God can do anything He wants. God cannot lie for example.

Do you think that God wants to lie, but can't?

It could be that God literally cannot lie it could be that God speaks and His words become true.

Well god is certainly no stranger to lies.

In fact, he was accused of lying.

Jeremiah 4:10
Then I said, “Alas, God! You’ve fed lies to this people, this Jerusalem. You assured them, ‘All is well, don’t worry,’ at the very moment when the sword was at their throats.”

He also lies by proxy

Ezekiel 14:9
If a prophet gives a false message, I am the one who caused that prophet to lie. But I will still reject him and cut him off from my people,

1 Kings 22:23
23 “So that is what has happened here. The Lord made your prophets lie to you. The Lord himself decided to bring this disaster to you.”

And induces people to believe a lie.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

.

[boatsnguitars]

I suspect that if you can do anything you want then everything is meaningless.

So God's life is meaningless? Your words, not mine.

We absolutely do get it - God does or says something, that is an objective Truth and thus everything has meaning and objectivity.

No god, then everything just came to be through random muddle. Where is the meaning?

I absolutely get it. But to me, an individual plan and opinion is no more than a personal opinion, no matter how big and bossy the boss is. To me, working things out for ourselves and devising what's important to us (yes, our own gods and idols, if one must use the terms) is far better than a divine plan and morality, as it would be to a Christian I guess, if Islam was deciding what the plan and morality was.

What's curious is the complete blind spot Theists have on the reason or source of their God. They can't handle a Universe with random properties, but it needs to be designed. But their God, they simply say, "God is eternal. He didn't just happen to be the way he is, he's always been that way." As if that answer why God is the way God is. As if they've given a reason for why their God is, for example, definitely not Allah, or Krishna - there's no way their God could have been that!

They just plug their ears and completely ignore the problem by asserting dogma as fact. But, then, too often, they reveal the ad hoc nature of their beliefs: Like saying God wants to sin (lie). This is a major character development for Ol' Yahweh! Is he aware of this?!
But more importantly:
1. How do they know this?
2. How did God develop his nature? (How is it that God manifests as he does?) I imagine they would say Brute Fact - which means God is at the mercy of a Brute Fact?

[TRANSPONDER]

I suspect that if you can do anything you want then everything is meaningless.

So God's life is meaningless? Your words, not mine.

We absolutely do get it - God does or says something, that is an objective Truth and thus everything has meaning and objectivity.

No god, then everything just came to be through random muddle. Where is the meaning?

I absolutely get it. But to me, an individual plan and opinion is no more than a personal opinion, no matter how big and bossy the boss is. To me, working things out for ourselves and devising what's important to us (yes, our own gods and idols, if one must use the terms) is far better than a divine plan and morality, as it would be to a Christian I guess, if Islam was deciding what the plan and morality was.

What's curious is the complete blind spot Theists have on the reason or source of their God. They can't handle a Universe with random properties, but it needs to be designed. But their God, they simply say, "God is eternal. He didn't just happen to be the way he is, he's always been that way." As if that answer why God is the way God is. As if they've given a reason for why their God is, for example, definitely not Allah, or Krishna - there's no way their God could have been that!

They just plug their ears and completely ignore the problem by asserting dogma as fact. But, then, too often, they reveal the ad hoc nature of their beliefs: Like saying God wants to sin (lie). This is a major character development for Ol' Yahweh! Is he aware of this?!
But more importantly:
1. How do they know this?
2. How did God develop his nature? (How is it that God manifests as he does?) I imagine they would say Brute Fact - which means God is at the mercy of a Brute Fact?

While i find the subject interesting enough - it's a pity that one can't be a paid Phd in atheist apologetics - it was and is the Thinking that was most puzzling and interesting. i am as sure as I am that the Bible us not reliable or the word of God that Religious thinking is the same as flat earthism, alternative science and UFO enthusiasm.

This doesn't disprove those things, but it does mean that we have a Belief (Faith) speculation presented as plausible hypotheses (and when supernatural messages become involved 'Fact') and evidence fiddled to suit the belief. Science was attacked as a mindset and rival creed rather than a study method, and Projection was noted, with appeal to have an open mind meaning 'accept what we say without question' and supposition that the Skeptical side thought the same way.

There was this ambivalent attitude towards science which is ...they know the Authority and clout that science has and they dearly want science to support them (as they claim it does) but they turn on it and treat it like a criminal global conspiracy when skeptics (of religion, alternative science/history or supernatural stuff) show their claims are false, or at least, not properly validated
Very quickly the debate switches from the evidence to how we assess the evidence (Interpretation) and we very soon get alternative logic. Reversal of burden of proof for instance is simple What atheism is and is not is simple, and yet we get tortured and denialist argument to try to make the belief the established hypothesis. The discussion I had recently about the 'Philistine' anachronism in Exodus led to some back to front thinking like dismissal of the research -evidence and dismissal of the contemporary inscriptions as 'hearsay' when something like that for Jesus would be the strongest evidence even when it wasn't. e. g the touting of Thallia, Pliny and bar Serapeon as evidence for Jesus when they aren't.

Well, I've just now cancelled a lot of stuff about Christianity and alternative science, the apologetics lifted from a source book, and the predictable method of argument (evidence, fiddle the evidence, abuse) as it's lengthy as well as contentious. But I will end on this odd theist claim to use evidence, science, logic, critical thinking, study and research with an open mind, when that's absolutely not what they do, but fiddling any and all of that to fit the faith and then accuse the skeptics of doing the same. Which gets personal very quickly .

cue 'Ah...You're getting angry - that means you must know I'm right'. And the whole trying to hi -jack the argument often with an irrelevant one shot win. Understanding how culthink works and why (personal faith) is the clue, key and essential to understanding what looks like playing chess with a pigeon, as they say. There is method behind what appears random confusion.

P.s and I'm still looking at the oversold feed - line (e.g NDE's oh yes) as the start of the hard sell spiel. Later on that Method.

[boatsnguitars]

I suspect that if you can do anything you want then everything is meaningless.

So God's life is meaningless? Your words, not mine.

We absolutely do get it - God does or says something, that is an objective Truth and thus everything has meaning and objectivity.

No god, then everything just came to be through random muddle. Where is the meaning?

I absolutely get it. But to me, an individual plan and opinion is no more than a personal opinion, no matter how big and bossy the boss is. To me, working things out for ourselves and devising what's important to us (yes, our own gods and idols, if one must use the terms) is far better than a divine plan and morality, as it would be to a Christian I guess, if Islam was deciding what the plan and morality was.

What's curious is the complete blind spot Theists have on the reason or source of their God. They can't handle a Universe with random properties, but it needs to be designed. But their God, they simply say, "God is eternal. He didn't just happen to be the way he is, he's always been that way." As if that answer why God is the way God is. As if they've given a reason for why their God is, for example, definitely not Allah, or Krishna - there's no way their God could have been that!

They just plug their ears and completely ignore the problem by asserting dogma as fact. But, then, too often, they reveal the ad hoc nature of their beliefs: Like saying God wants to sin (lie). This is a major character development for Ol' Yahweh! Is he aware of this?!
But more importantly:
1. How do they know this?
2. How did God develop his nature? (How is it that God manifests as he does?) I imagine they would say Brute Fact - which means God is at the mercy of a Brute Fact?

While i find the subject interesting enough - it's a pity that one can't be a paid Phd in atheist apologetics - it was and is the Thinking that was most puzzling and interesting. i am as sure as I am that the Bible us not reliable or the word of God that Religious thinking is the same as flat earthism, alternative science and UFO enthusiasm.

This doesn't disprove those things, but it does mean that we have a Belief (Faith) speculation presented as plausible hypotheses (and when supernatural messages become involved 'Fact') and evidence fiddled to suit the belief. Science was attacked as a mindset and rival creed rather than a study method and Projection was noted, with appeal to have an open mind meaning 'accept what we say without question' and supposition that the Skeptical side thought the same way.

There was this ambivalent attitude towards science which is they know the Authority and clot science has and they dearly want science to support them (as they claim it does) but they turn on it and treat it like a criminal global conspiracy when skeptics (of religion, alternative science/history or supernatural stuff) show their claims are false.

Very quickly the debate switches from the evidence to how we assess the evidence and we very soon get alternative logic. reversal of burden of proof for instance is simple What atheism is and is not is simple, and yet we get tortured and denialist argument to try to make the belief the established hypothesis.

The discussion I had recently about the 'Philistine' anachronism in Exodus led to some back to from thinking like dismissal of the research -evidence, dismissal of the contemporary inscription as 'hearsay' when something like that for Jesus would be the strongest evidence even when it wasn't. e. g the touting on Thallia, Pliny and bar Serapeon as evidence for Jesus when they aren't.

Well, I've cancelled a lot of stuff about Christianity and alternative science, the apologetics lifted from a source book, and the predictable method of argument (evidence, fiddle the evidence, abuse) as it's lengthy as well as contentious. But I will end on this odd claim to use evidence, science, logic, critical thinking, study and research with an open mind, when that's absolutely not what they do, but fiddling any and all of that to fit the faith and then accuse the skeptics of doing the same. Which gets personal very quickly .

cue 'Ah...You're getting angry - that means you must know I'm right'. And the whole trying to hi -jack the argument often with an irrelevant one shot win. Understanding how culthink works and why (personal faith) is the clue, key and essential to understanding what looks like playing chess with a pigeon, as they say. There is method behind what appears random confusion.

It's amazing to me that Religion has been so effective at self-propagation. I can really see why Dawkins calls it a Meme or a mental virus. For thousands of years, it has been able to infect people who then in turn infect others, all on the basis of some guys writing it in a book.
And this idea of a mental virus is scary since it's so easy to replicate: Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

All these millennia and still the same lack of evidence, and the same final conclusion, "It's all about Faith".... There is nothing more apparent to me that religion is a con, but how do billions (maybe millions, since there are many people who reject religion, but they still insist on something supernatural) not see it?

I don't get it. I used to, until the scales fell from my eyes....