Is a consistent atheism possible?

Originally posted by vistesd
Any good Nazi can act consistently: all they have to do is to refuse the rigorous challenge of (subjectively) analyzing and interpreting the putative existential facts for themselves—and daring to draw ethical and aesthetic conclusions (meanings!)—in favor of arbitrarily accepting the “objective” “truth” of the given dogmatic ideology. And they might even ...[text shortened]... ur life! And then criticizing those who will not follow you into that self-deceptive labyrinth…

Any good Nazi can act consistently...

True, but besides the point.

LJ, in his post on the previous page, demonstrated pretty clearly the logical contradiction in your thinking.

LJ spent about one sentence of his post on the subject of this thread: "As to the substance of your opening post, I'm afraid it really has next to nothing to do with atheism." That seems to be our only relevant disagreement.

Also, your attempt at objectifying the word “meaning”... seems to be a kind of category error...

If atheists, like Dawkins (example: quote above), can distinguish between a universe that has a purpose and one that does not, why can't I make the same distinction? And why do you refuse to accept it?

After all these years, you still insist on deceiving yourself about your own participation in deciding what has meaning in your life! And then criticizing those who will not follow you into that self-deceptive labyrinth…

On the contrary, I do believe that I participate in what has meaning for me, however, I don't believe the entire process is in my hands. I doubt you would make that argument either. Surely, there is a natural empathy which exists in normal functioning adult minds that helps guide the process, not to mention what society in general deems right and wrong which we are inculcated with from birth, etc. Much of this is out of our hands. We find ourselves reacting to moral situations with either disgust or admiration, and can never pin point the exact cause. I would wager that most of our convictions about what is morally good or bad are based in large part on what is out of our control rather than that which we arrive at via the largely intellectual process you've just described.

I believe that atheists, for the most part, probably react to the world no differently than I do, that their moral compass is informed in much the same way that mine is; the only difference is that my moral convictions are consistent with my beliefs (as a Christian) and their moral convictions are not consistent with theirs (as atheists), for reasons I've already described at length.

Originally posted by Agerg
Not the case. We don't accept the definition of "meaningless" you just contrived to fit your religious world-view.

You might as well go the whole hog and with the assumption of morality sourced only from your god; argue we atheists are all a bunch of evil bastards dissuaded from our inherent desire to murder babies only through our inability to think rationally (since we're God hating atheists) and realise there is no reason why we shouldn't.

We don't accept the definition of "meaningless" you just contrived to fit your religious world-view.

Whether or not you accept it doesn't matter, the implication of atheism is that life is devoid of purpose (no one has yet asserted otherwise in this thread with anything like a logically arrived at response). In other words, meaningless. Here's the dictionary definition if you will not accept mine: "without meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeless; insignificant: a meaningless reply; a meaningless existence." Is there enough normative meaning left in the word meaningless for us to carry on a sane discussion? I think so.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Richard Dawkins is wrong when he says, "there is at bottom no design, no purpose (italics mine), no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference"? Or is Richard Dawkins using the term 'purpose' in a contrived way to? 😉

Originally posted by Agerg
Not the case. We don't accept the definition of "meaningless" you just contrived to fit your religious world-view.

You might as well go the whole hog and with the assumption of morality sourced only from your god; argue we atheists are all a bunch of evil bastards dissuaded from our inherent desire to murder babies only through our inability to think rationally (since we're God hating atheists) and realise there is no reason why we shouldn't.

You might as well go the whole hog and with the assumption of morality sourced only from your god; argue we atheists are all a bunch of evil bastards dissuaded from our inherent desire to murder babies only through our inability to think rationally (since we're God hating atheists) and realise there is no reason why we shouldn't.

No, thanks.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]We don't accept the definition of "meaningless" you just contrived to fit your religious world-view.

Whether or not you accept it doesn't matter, the implication of atheism is that life is devoid of purpose. In other words, meaningless. Here's the dictionary definition if you will not accept mine: "without meaning, significance, purpose, or v ...[text shortened]... Is Richard Dawkins using the term 'purpose' in a contrived way to? Give me a break.[/b]

Richard Dawkins here is merely positing that there is not a god steering the course of our universe. It's funny that with your definition I see no reference to gods; in particular I see no reference to epiphinehas-God.

Indeed, the question I would ask (as per my other thread) is: What is any more meaningful about an existence that pointlessly carries on for all eternity to appease the self-admiring nature of some magic god? Why is this more meaningful than endeavouring to maintain the lives we have for now, and seeking ways to be happy, and induce happiness in others, so to ensure this is a pursuit worthy of undertaking?

Because you say so??? 😕

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Forgive my incredulousness in the face of all this fuss over the meaning of words.

Your mischievous, partisan use of the words "objective meaning" and "consistency" and "self-delusion" and "mere opinion" is all sophistry. Hence the "fuss over the meaning of words". Methinks your incredulousness is feigned too, because you are not dull and no doubt you have been here before.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
the implication of atheism is that life is devoid of purpose (no one has yet asserted otherwise in this thread with anything like a logically arrived at response). In other words, meaningless.

I myself am a theist but if I may offer a little conjecture perhaps.

Seizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about what happens after it ends or fretting about being punished for sins by a God. Indeed, conjuring up some sort of 'extra meaning' or claiming to transcend the "meaninglessness" through speculation and surmise strikes me as being rather pointedly nihilistic on the part of theists.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Now, from there, why is that I should think that the addition of some mind or observer in the form of 'God' suddenly brings about objective meaning?

In the Christian world-view God created the world for a specific purpose. This alone establishes an objective meaning. Further, God, as judge, upholds an absolute standard of right and wrong. Fu e of whether or not God's mind alone metaphysically constitutes objective meaning.[/b]

In the Christian world-view God created the world for a specific purpose. This alone establishes an objective meaning.

How exactly? That does not seem to follow at all. What does God's creating the world for a specific purpose have to do with establishing objective meaning? Please explain.

If LemonJello were to create something for a specific purpose, does that alone establish objective meaning? If so, then I have the same question as above: how exactly? If not, then that brings me back to my other concern that you have failed to address, which relates to your metaphysically privileging God's perspective. You seem to think if God stands in a particular mental attitude toward something (like a creation of his), then somehow that thereby establishes "objective meaning"; but, if LemonJello or any other agent besides God stands in the same mental attitude toward the same something or something structurally similar, the same does not follow. So, again, you need to explain what exactly privileges the attitudes of one particular mind over others. If, for example, God's valuing and having some purpose for LemonJello's existence were sufficient to establish objective meaning, then why isn't some other agent's (say, LemonJello himself or anyone else besides God for that matter) valuing and having some purpose for LemonJello's existence sufficient to establish objective meaning? (Here I am leaving aside the fact that I do not think you are using the term 'objective' properly to begin with.)

Further, God, as judge, upholds an absolute standard of right and wrong.

It is 'absolute' in what sense? And why is this relevant? What does this have to do with establishing objective meaning?

Further still, the believer can expect to live forever in fellowship with God, rather than all his efforts in life ending in nothing.

Again, even if true, why is this relevant? What does this have to do with establishing objective meaning?

Of course it does.

I disagree. Your opening post touches on the tension that exists between nihilism and agency. I would agree with you that there is genuine tension there. But what does that have to do with atheism? Atheism does not entail nihilism. Atheism is compatible with nihilism; but it is also compatible with the denial of nihilism. If you really think atheism entails nihilism, then please just explicitly demonstrate the incompatibility for the case of strong atheism. Show us the contradiction (in the form of P and not-P) that you think follows from the conjunction of the propositions (1) that God does not exist and (2) that there are objective values and moral facts. And don't just beg the question.

I admit, I don't understand the relevance of whether or not God's mind alone metaphysically constitutes objective meaning.

How could God's mind alone metaphysically constitute objective meaning? That idea seems to make no sense. The whole point of 'objectivity' is that it is supposed to relate to mind-indepedence. A further question is, given that objectivity is supposed to be about mind-independence, why should we think that God's mind would be material to the explanation of what makes any objective features objective?

Originally posted by John W Booth
I myself am a theist but if I may offer a little conjecture perhaps.

Seizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about wh ation and surmise strikes me as being rather pointedly nihilistic on the part of theists.

=======================================
Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about what happens after it ends or fretting about being punished for sins by a God.
=======================================

Why does this not produce in one an attitude that there is no real ultimate accountability ?

It tempts one to think "While it is nice to think an ultimate Governor exists, we really can rest assured that we simply will all melt peacefully into the dust of the ground, no matter what we do. We really will not have to answer for anything in the end. "

This theism you express is a benigh and polite way of giving God "some" place in our lives while masking a real belief that He is either unconcerned or incompetent or powerless to really enact ultimate justice or reconciliation.

While implying that any other view would be "fretting" about being punished, this view ignores the abundant provision a just God has made that we may be not judged but justified and reconciled to Himself.

The Bible reveals a loving but righteous God who has removed for the saved any need to "fret" through His plan of full salvation. Rather, being justified, the forgiven sinner has boldness to approach the throne of God without fretting.

In short, I don't see God wanting man to fret but to believe in His salvation. I see God taking no pleasure in us fretting but rather believing and accepting His salvation.

It is of course good to enjoy the wonder of life. But I can enjoy the wonder of life while also enjoy the wonder of God's loving provision for eternal justification, a necessary justification from actual real guilt which He in His nature cannot simply ignore.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Declaring your own sense of meaning - which is, after all, a set of aspirations and surmises - to be 'objective' simply does not, in and of itself, make it so.

If it would please you, I can refrain from the use of the term 'objective', as it isn't essential to the point I'm making. That point being, basically, that human existence, according e or not, the fact is, Christians are able to live consistently while atheists are not.[/b]

If it would please you, I can refrain from the use of the term 'objective', as it isn't essential to the point I'm making.

I think it would be helpful, since I for one think your use of the term was confused.

That point being, basically, that human existence, according to atheism, has no meaning outside of what individuals arbitrarily ascribe to it.

Well, that seems false. Exactly how would atheism entail that individuals ascribe meaning "arbitrarily"; and exactly how would atheism entail that such meaning is the only meaning the could be attached to our existence? For that matter, how does atheism entail anything of interest related to the subject of 'meaning'?

If humans value aspects of their existence and imbue their existence with meaning according to their values and projects and affairs, etc, then in what sense are you claiming that this is 'arbitrary'? And how is this different from when God values our existence? How are His valuations and ascriptions not 'arbitrary' in the same sense?

Given this, atheists cannot live consistently. Either they must be nihilists, or practice self-deception (i.e., create meaning for themselves and ignore the fact that the meaning they create is merely a fabricated meaning without ultimate consequence).

You're not given "this" until you can explain how "this" makes any sense. As far as I can tell, you seem to be projecting entailments on atheism that do not actually belong to atheism.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]We don't accept the definition of "meaningless" you just contrived to fit your religious world-view.

Whether or not you accept it doesn't matter, the implication of atheism is that life is devoid of purpose (no one has yet asserted otherwise in this thread with anything like a logically arrived at response). In other words, meaningless. Here' ifference"? Or is Richard Dawkins using the term 'purpose' in a contrived way to? 😉[/b]

the implication of atheism is that life is devoid of purpose

Where exactly do you get this stuff? That is not the implication of atheism. The implication of atheism (let's say, an active or strong version of atheism) would be that God does not exist; or that we are not warranted in asserting that God exists; or that our evidence is not sufficient to warrant belief in God; or some such.

By the way, you seem to be simply contradicting yourself now. Are you just making stuff up as you go? What you stated before implied that atheism is consistent with their being meaning or purpose attached to life but that it can only be of "arbitrarily" ascribed sort (whatever exactly that means).

Originally posted by jaywill
Why does this not produce in one an attitude that there is no real ultimate accountability ?

It tempts one to think "While it is nice to think an ultimate Governor exists, we really can rest assured that we simply will all melt peacefully into the dust of the ground, no matter what we do. We really will not have to answer for anything in the end. " ...[text shortened]... sary justification from actual real guilt which He in His nature cannot simply ignore.

I accept that you look to the supernatural to add meaning to your life and I understand that it gives you comfort and satisfaction - as too does vishvehatu's beliefs for him. But I don't accept any of the things that you have asserted about God, humans' relationship with God, the role of Jesus, what the Bible is purported to reveal etc. I simply do not believe the things that you believe. Therefore, your beliefs are not relevant to me and have no real bearing on my mindmap nor on the meaning that I find in life.

Originally posted by John W Booth
I accept that you look to the supernatural to add meaning to your life and I understand that it gives you comfort and satisfaction - as too does vishvehatu's beliefs for him. But I don't accept any of the things that you have asserted about God, humans' relationship with God, the role of Jesus, what the Bible is purported to reveal etc. I simply do not ...[text shortened]... relevant to me and have no real bearing on my mindmap nor on the meaning that I find in life.

======================================
I accept that you look to the supernatural to add meaning to your life and I understand that it gives you comfort and satisfaction -
====================================

Okay. This is the standard "I'm happy that it makes you happy."
Thankyou. Yes, I do feel fortunate.

=======================
as too does vishvehatu's beliefs for him.
===========================

Okay.


=====================
But I don't accept any of the things that you have asserted about God, humans' relationship with God, the role of Jesus, what the Bible is purported to reveal etc.
======================

I see. Okay.

===============================
I simply do not believe the things that you believe. Therefore, your beliefs are not relevant to me and have no real bearing on my mindmap nor on the meaning that I find in life.
===============================

Understood.

Originally posted by jaywill
This is the standard "I'm happy that it makes you happy."

Actually, no, not really. It's more the standard 'I can't really take seriously lectures on the meaningfulness of life from those who look to the supernatural and to their unilaterally declared immortality to add meaning to their otherwise self-declared meaningless lives'. Having said that, of course, I AM happy that it makes you happy.

Originally posted by jaywill
This theism you express is a benign and polite way of giving God "some" place in our lives while masking a real belief that He is either unconcerned or incompetent or powerless to really enact ultimate justice or reconciliation.

My "real" belief? Alas, people can see your lips moving, so your ventriloquy has missed its mark. 😵

Originally posted by John W Booth
Actually, no, not really. It's more the standard 'I can't really take seriously lectures on the meaningfulness of life from those who look to the supernatural and to their unilaterally declared immortality to add meaning to their otherwise self-declared meaningless lives'. Having said that, of course, I AM happy that it makes you happy.

=============================

Actually, no, not really. It's more the standard 'I can't really take seriously lectures on the meaningfulness of life from those who look to the supernatural and to their unilaterally declared immortality to add meaning to their otherwise self-declared meaningless lives'. Having said that, of course, I AM happy that it makes you happy.

========================================

I have no reply except that I have to take seriously Jesus Christ.

I had to deal with Him. I just had to come to the point that I had to deal with Him.