1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou responded strongly whe I wrote "It is equally true that the life of every theist is equally meaningless, seen from the other side."
[b]"Atheism is not "a 'light' of objective meaninglessness". From where did you get this? It is equally true that the life of every theist is equally meaningless, seen from the other side."
How bizarre can you be?
If you can state objectively that the life of one who believes in God is as meaningless as the life of one who doesn't, then my point ...[text shortened]... jectivity and state that both atheism and theism leads to an equally meaningless life. 🙄[/b]
Of course a life wich demands worshipping of a god, who punish you whenever you do something wrong, can be seen as meaningless by an atheist. That is bizarre for any atheist. But accepted.
Do you find it insulting when an atheist think a christian life to be meaningless? Don't you think an atheist can be equally insulted when someone says his life is meaningless? If you want to understand the matter, you have to see it from both sides.
And, as a not, there is nothing immoral to be an atheist.
You wrote: "If there were no God theism and atheism alike would have no meaning."
For you, josephw, for you.
Originally posted by epiphinehaswhat does this purport to say? I have read more than ten times and still it evades me? Can someone explain this to me in terms that I can understand?
Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness, without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCanadian philosopher John Ralston Saul has written interestingly on the exclusionary and turf marking use of terminology and "specialized" modes of expression designed to demarcate those inside the fold and those outside. It all often falls somewhere tantalizingly between defensiveness and assertiveness.
Why not is the concept so hard that you are unable to explain it in simple unambiguous terms, well then, unless you can, i state that you dont understand it either.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk then, I'll tell you what it means.
Why not is the concept so hard that you are unable to explain it in simple unambiguous terms, well then, unless you can, i state that you dont understand it either.
It means different things to different people. It all depends on your particular perspective.
If one is an atheist it means nothing.
But to the one who knows there is a God it simply means that atheism means nothing, gives nothing, serves no one, and is the purveyor of purposelessness and meaninglessness and truthlessness.
See my thread on atheism. 😉
Originally posted by John W Boothwow thats quite amazing, and sure enough it often is the case when one actually strips away the veil of 'in-house', terms and 'the cloak of language', that the essence of the ideas are rarely, if ever beyond comprehension, if expressed in a simple and unambiguous way. It appears to me to be counter productive to express ideas in a way that is exclusive, perhaps even bordering on a deficiency of communication, for it fails to acknowledge that there are differing levels of understanding.
Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul has written interestingly on the exclusionary and turf marking use of terminology and "specialized" modes of expression designed to demarcate those inside the fold and those outside. It all often falls somewhere tantalizingly between defensiveness and assertiveness.
Originally posted by josephwSee my thread on atheism,
Ok then, I'll tell you what it means.
It means different things to different people. It all depends on your particular perspective.
If one is an atheist it means nothing.
But to the one who knows there is a God it simply means that atheism means nothing, gives nothing, serves no one, and is the purveyor of purposelessness and meaninglessness and truthlessness.
See my thread on atheism. 😉
umm i did and well, can i take the fifth 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is quite the opposite of counter productive for those wishing to defend and mystify their intellectual or professional patches.
It appears to me to be counter productive to express ideas in a way that is exclusive, perhaps even bordering on a deficiency of communication, for it fails to acknowledge that there are differing levels of understanding.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe light of objective meaninglessness???
Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness, without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning?
What is meaningless, and why? 😕
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas“...Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? ...”
Is there an atheist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God doesn't exist? In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness, without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning?
what are you talking about?
All atheists “live as if God doesn't exist” because they just 'live'.
In what way do I (or any other atheist) 'live AS IF God exists' ?
For example, do I go to Church? Answer, no. do I pray to the 'gods'? Answer, no.
“....In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective meaninglessness,...”
what is “objective meaninglessness”?
Are you saying something that is “objective” is also “meaninglessness”? Or are you saying we can be “objective” about something that is “meaninglessness”?
“.... without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes ...”
atheists usually have moral beliefs just like theists and for the same reasons. There is nothing “ accident” about moral beliefs.
“...or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning? ...”
what do you mean by “meaning” in the context of “ their life”? If what you mean by “meaning” in that context is “purpose” then each of us decides for ourselves what our purpose in life is to be. In other words, we make our own purpose. But if you don't mean “purpose”, then what do you mean?
Note: My life isn't without purpose.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't know about Joseh or not, but without God I don't see how you can have
Display your ignorance to us, joseph, do you think moral absolutism requires theism?
a moral absolute. Without a single source for this absolute you have nothing but
desire and opinion from several sources that would argue over what is and is not
absolutely moral. Without a single source for morals you have shifting powers
that would be want or feel the need to setup their 'absolute' morals.
Kelly
Originally posted by josephw“...and state that both atheism and theism leads to an equally meaningless life ..”
[b]"Atheism is not "a 'light' of objective meaninglessness". From where did you get this? It is equally true that the life of every theist is equally meaningless, seen from the other side."
How bizarre can you be?
If you can state objectively that the life of one who believes in God is as meaningless as the life of one who doesn't, then my point ...[text shortened]... jectivity and state that both atheism and theism leads to an equally meaningless life. 🙄[/b]
-which is the same as stating that both atheism and theism leads to an equally meaningful life.
Therefore, you should note that “ equally meaningless life” does not equate with “meaningless life”.