Life (1 Viewer)

[Sy123]

yeah I'm not going to waste my post:

-----------------------------------

There is no meaning of life on atheism, I think this is clear to anyone who really considers the question properly.

If you say, "the meaning of life is happiness" or "the meaning of life is to stay alive and survive", or "the meaning of life is freedom"

First thing I say, is how these people came to the impressive revelation that the meaning of life is such and such.
They will say "I constructed it", and then at this point their sleight of hand becomes apparent, if they constructed this "meaning", then how is it a "meaning"?

Are you saying that your "meaning of life", is as valuable as the one professed by an alcoholic drugged up sex-crazed hednoist, whose meaning is mere pleasure? Is your meaning of life just as valuable as that of a psychopath, who says that the meaning of life is to hurt other people?

Anyone who says that they are just as valuable has already conceded that there is no meaning in life, whether they say it with their tongues or not

----------

Then you say, "is that all?", but no that is not all, it gets much more worse than that.

An atheist says, that such and such a religious person did a morally wrong thing, this religious person indoctrinated a child, and such indoctrination is morally wrong.

Then I say, "what makes it wrong?", and the atheist says "since it hurts people", and I say, "what makes hurting people wrong?", and then you will encounter floundering about, the atheist will not be able to answer, the atheist will skate around the question without any understanding.

So not only is there no real meaning, there is no real right or real wrong!

----------

So instead of asking ME, "why should I believe in God", let me ask you "why should I disbelieve in God, if disbelief leads to such obviously counter-intuitive beliefs?"

Now let me ask YOU, "have you investigated the reasons to believe in God?", if you haven't then you ought to really do so before asking about the meaning of life, if you have, then you should have a formulated belief system already, if you are decidedly atheist, then you ought to bite the bullet.

As for my answer, our purpose in life, our meaning in life, is to know God and to worship God, for He is the only being worthy of our Worship, the creator of the heavens and earth, the cause of all things, the creator of all things, exalted is He

 

[Menomaths]

First

 

[Crobat]

Athiests by default can't suggest a meaning to life or even that life has meaning because to do so means that they acknowledge they were given a purpose or meaning to live up to.

It's not a question they're equipped to adequately grapple with.

(basically tl;dr'd Sy's post without meaning to) (no disrespect Sy)

But I suppose there are always ways of making it feel like your life has meaning... e.g. housing the homeless, feeding the poor, etc

 

[Menomaths]

Atheists can't suggest a meaning to life

(basically tl;dr'd Crobat's post without meaning to) (no disrespect Crobat)

 

[anomalousdecay]

(basically tl;dr'd everyone's post without meaning to) (no disrespect to anyone)


In all seriousness, I found Sy's response quite a good read and worthwhile to read.

 

[Speed6]

The meaning of life can also bee Mathematics, which I also enjoy.

 

[siggy]

I don't entirely understand what you're saying here, why should a disbelief in God result in not being able to express your moral concerns? Your meaning of life to me seems somewhat strange as I imagine you spend much of your time doing things which don't fulfill that goal of serving your leader. Wouldn't these things/acts be meaningless then, since they don't achieve your goal? Does that mean that loving your family is meaningless and serving yourself means nothing, or does that mean that everything the bible says is true - including the activities that are now judged as 'immoral.' Or something else entirely?

 

[Absolutezero]

I am a hotdog

 

[Kiraken]

Does meaning have to be universal?

 

[Kiraken]

Does everyone *have* to have the same purpose in life? Surely it isn't counter-intuitive, as u imply, considering that if everyone has their own individual life they have their own individual aspirations and aims and thus attach their own individual purpose and meaning to it?

 

[Sy123]

I don't entirely understand what you're saying here, why should a disbelief in God result in not being able to express your moral concerns? Your meaning of life to me seems somewhat strange as I imagine you spend much of your time doing things which don't fulfill that goal of serving your leader. Wouldn't these things/acts be meaningless then, since they don't achieve your goal? Does that mean that loving your family is meaningless and serving yourself means nothing, or does that mean that everything the bible says is true - including the activities that are now judged as 'immoral.' Or something else entirely?

What I'm saying is that if an atheist says:

"Murder is wrong", she isn't wrong, but I say that she is not justified in believing that.

Reason being is that if I probe this belief, and I say, "what makes murder wrong", either she will say, "it just is wrong", or she will give a reason.
If she gives a reason I should say "what makes that reason true/wrong?", and then she will either have to concede and say "it just is wrong" or be confounded with an infinite regress/circular regress of moral reasons!

So in the end, if you say "it just is wrong", I say, "do you know this on the basis of self-evident truth, or do you know it by a non-ethical reasoning?"

If she says, "I know this on the basis of self-evident truth", then I say "this is not a reliable method of determining right or wrong", after all, all around the world, people consider self-evident completely contradictory things.

So some will say treating people is self-evidently morally good, but there will be whole communities of people who consider that which is morally good, to treat people non-equally, whether they be people of other races/tribes/gender/sexualities

So I say, that one is not justified in saying morals are self-evident.

So the only option remaining is "I know it by non-ethical reasoning", but this seems quite strange, how can we move from metaphyiscs to metaethics?

At this point my views will become apparent, and I give the following argument:

------------

1. What God says, must be true (Premise)
___1.1. If God says something, it comes from His attribute of speech
___1.2. If God lies, then a specific lie is being given preponderance over another lie
___1.3. So, if God lies, then there is an accident in His attribute of speech (1.1, 1.2)
___1.4. God cannot have accidents, otherwise He'd be caused by another which is impossible
___1.5. So, God cannot lie in His speech (1.3, 1.4)

2. Suppose God says it is good to do X

3. So, it is true that it is good to do X (1,2)

----------

I have successfully arrived at an ethical conclusion (that it is good to do X), using only metaphysical premises!

So I've bridged the gap between metaphysics and metaethics! (or at least I think so, these arguments of mine are very young so I would appreciate criticism)

So in this way, I am justified in saying, "Murder is wrong", but an atheist cannot be, because it seems the only way to bridge the gap between metaphysics and metaethics (which is needed for an ethical theory to be complete), is to invoke a willing, omniscient being!

--------------------------------------------------

So for the second part of your question, you say that my meaning of life is very narrow.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by worship, as a Muslim, worshiping can take many forms (some are compulsory, like the prayers 5 times a day), but for example, if I say that I want to help people for the sake of God, then this is a form of worship, and so is valid.

Does that mean one must completely do everything for the sake of God? I don't think so, we are not robots and sometimes we need a break and indulge in fulfilling pleasure from time to time (such as reading a good fiction book, playing some video games, doing stuff with one's spouse) (though even the latter can be seen as a form of worship!)

However such things cannot take the center of one's life

Does meaning have to be universal?

Well I say that if meaning has actual meaning then yes it must be universal, if I ask you, "what is the meaning of the word "car"", if I get an infinite range of possible responses (that pertain to different things), that are all equally true, then I think I should say that what you mean by 'car' is meaningless

If you are asking whether I can prove that there has to be a universal meaning, I do not claim to be able to do so, I'm not presenting this post as some demonstrative proof for the existence of God, but rather I am presenting what I think are the consequences of denying the existence of God, if someone feels that there *must* be a universal meaning of life, then they can very well take this post to be a proof for the existence of God. However I do not claim to be able to prove the existence of a real meaning of life.

If I wanted to present demonstrative proof, I'd present cosmological arguments of different kinds.

Does everyone *have* to have the same purpose in life? Surely it isn't counter-intuitive, as u imply, considering that if everyone has their own individual life they have their own individual aspirations and aims and thus attach their own individual purpose and meaning to it?

Everyone might have different aspirations in regards to specifics, but the universal goal behind meaning must be fixed. If it was not fixed then as I say above, you have no meaning in that case.

If I ask you for the meaning of the word "car", and you give me 2 different equally true answers, then I will say that the word "car" is meaningless.

Likewise, if I take 100 people, and I ask them what they think the meaning of life is, if I get even 2 different answers and you say that they are both meaningful, then I say that it is not meaningful at all.

So say someone says "the meaning of life is to help those in need", and another says, "the meaning of life is to teach people"

And say you probe them and ask them "why" they consider that to be the meaning of life, the first may say:

"it is the meaning of life since it is a morally good thing to do", and the other says the exact same thing.

In this case we have 2 different answers with 1 underlying message, if that is the case then I say that what you have presented is NOT meaningless and has some meaning, but I will still probe you further and say:

"If you say that the meaning of life is to do that which is morally good, why is that the case? And whwat do you mean by morally good?"

I hope that answers your question

 

[Kiraken]

What I'm saying is that if an atheist says:

"Murder is wrong", she isn't wrong, but I say that she is not justified in believing that.

Reason being is that if I probe this belief, and I say, "what makes murder wrong", either she will say, "it just is wrong", or she will give a reason.
If she gives a reason I should say "what makes that reason true/wrong?", and then she will either have to concede and say "it just is wrong" or be confounded with an infinite regress/circular regress of moral reasons!

So in the end, if you say "it just is wrong", I say, "do you know this on the basis of self-evident truth, or do you know it by a non-ethical reasoning?"

If she says, "I know this on the basis of self-evident truth", then I say "this is not a reliable method of determining right or wrong", after all, all around the world, people consider self-evident completely contradictory things.

So some will say treating people is self-evidently morally good, but there will be whole communities of people who consider that which is morally good, to treat people non-equally, whether they be people of other races/tribes/gender/sexualities

So I say, that one is not justified in saying morals are self-evident.

So the only option remaining is "I know it by non-ethical reasoning", but this seems quite strange, how can we move from metaphyiscs to metaethics?

At this point my views will become apparent, and I give the following argument:

------------

1. What God says, must be true (Premise)
___1.1. If God says something, it comes from His attribute of speech
___1.2. If God lies, then a specific lie is being given preponderance over another lie
___1.3. So, if God lies, then there is an accident in His attribute of speech (1.1, 1.2)
___1.4. God cannot have accidents, otherwise He'd be caused by another which is impossible
___1.5. So, God cannot lie in His speech (1.3, 1.4)

2. Suppose God says it is good to do X

3. So, it is true that it is good to do X (1,2)

----------

I have successfully arrived at an ethical conclusion (that it is good to do X), using only metaphysical premises!

So I've bridged the gap between metaphysics and metaethics! (or at least I think so, these arguments of mine are very young so I would appreciate criticism)

So in this way, I am justified in saying, "Murder is wrong", but an atheist cannot be, because it seems the only way to bridge the gap between metaphysics and metaethics (which is needed for an ethical theory to be complete), is to invoke a willing, omniscient being!

--------------------------------------------------

So for the second part of your question, you say that my meaning of life is very narrow.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by worship, as a Muslim, worshiping can take many forms (some are compulsory, like the prayers 5 times a day), but for example, if I say that I want to help people for the sake of God, then this is a form of worship, and so is valid.

Does that mean one must completely do everything for the sake of God? I don't think so, we are not robots and sometimes we need a break and indulge in fulfilling pleasure from time to time (such as reading a good fiction book, playing some video games, doing stuff with one's spouse) (though even the latter can be seen as a form of worship!)

However such things cannot take the center of one's life



Well I say that if meaning has actual meaning then yes it must be universal, if I ask you, "what is the meaning of the word "car"", if I get an infinite range of possible responses (that pertain to different things), that are all equally true, then I think I should say that what you mean by 'car' is meaningless

If you are asking whether I can prove that there has to be a universal meaning, I do not claim to be able to do so, I'm not presenting this post as some demonstrative proof for the existence of God, but rather I am presenting what I think are the consequences of denying the existence of God, if someone feels that there *must* be a universal meaning of life, then they can very well take this post to be a proof for the existence of God. However I do not claim to be able to prove the existence of a real meaning of life.

If I wanted to present demonstrative proof, I'd present cosmological arguments of different kinds.



Everyone might have different aspirations in regards to specifics, but the universal goal behind meaning must be fixed. If it was not fixed then as I say above, you have no meaning in that case.

If I ask you for the meaning of the word "car", and you give me 2 different equally true answers, then I will say that the word "car" is meaningless.

Likewise, if I take 100 people, and I ask them what they think the meaning of life is, if I get even 2 different answers and you say that they are both meaningful, then I say that it is not meaningful at all.

So say someone says "the meaning of life is to help those in need", and another says, "the meaning of life is to teach people"

And say you probe them and ask them "why" they consider that to be the meaning of life, the first may say:

"it is the meaning of life since it is a morally good thing to do", and the other says the exact same thing.

In this case we have 2 different answers with 1 underlying message, if that is the case then I say that what you have presented is NOT meaningless and has some meaning, but I will still probe you further and say:

"If you say that the meaning of life is to do that which is morally good, why is that the case? And whwat do you mean by morally good?"

I hope that answers your question

The point i was trying to make is that your view is entirely dependent on meaning being interpreted as universal. In this case, an argument for a universal meaning of life being something atheists don't have becomes trivial and not really worth arguing because by definition they don't care for having some higher purpose attributed by another cause.

As for ur car analogy, do you believe a 3 wheeled vehicle is a car? How many seats must a car have? Even such basic definitions have debatable points.

More on topic, the analogy is ill-suited for this discussion because when you talk about meaning in ur car analogy, ur talking about definition, when u talk about meaning with life ur talking about purpose. The "meaning" you apply to both examples istherefore used fundamentally differently.

 

[SylviaB]

Does meaning have to be universal?

well in the context that it's usually discussed, yes, otherwise its a meaningless concept

 

[Sy123]

The point i was trying to make is that your view is entirely dependent on meaning being interpreted as universal. In this case, an argument for a universal meaning of life being something atheists don't have becomes trivial and not really worth arguing because by definition they don't care for having some higher purpose attributed by another cause.

But I'm saying that 'meaning' must be universal or at least somewhat so if it is to have any weight at all. So if you say, "the meaning of life according to me is to seek pleasure", then really what you're saying is "my goal in life is to seek pleasure", but this is an not a good answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?", since by asking the question, one is not asking "what is your goal in life?", it is the real meaning of it.

As for ur car analogy, do you believe a 3 wheeled vehicle is a car? How many seats must a car have? Even such basic definitions have debatable points.

More on topic, the analogy is ill-suited for this discussion because when you talk about meaning in ur car analogy, ur talking about definition, when u talk about meaning with life ur talking about purpose. The "meaning" you apply to both examples istherefore used fundamentally differently.

There is no use in picking on the specifics of my analogy, we can use a simpler example if you wish, but if I say "car", everyone has the same idea in their heads, but if I say "meaning of life", everyone has their own opinion, so by saying that life's meaning is constructed, then you are attributing to it everyone's opinion, consequently making it meaningless.

Secondly you say that my analogy is ill suited since I equivocate on the word "meaning", using it as definition in one sense and as "purpose" in another.

Again this is a non-issue, make the meaning of "meaning", purpose all throughout, my analogy still works

So if I say "the meaning of a car (i.e. purpose) is to go places", then all sane people understand this statement.

This cannot be said of "the meaning of life", since what people mean by purpose of life, everyone differs, so to say that the meaning of life is constructed by ourselves, is to really deprive it of all meaning, this point seems clear to me

 

[Absolutezero]

There's no "we". There's no "our". There's just me and my swamp.

 

[Kiraken]

But I'm saying that 'meaning' must be universal or at least somewhat so if it is to have any weight at all. So if you say, "the meaning of life according to me is to seek pleasure", then really what you're saying is "my goal in life is to seek pleasure", but this is an not a good answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?", since by asking the question, one is not asking "what is your goal in life?", it is the real meaning of it.



There is no use in picking on the specifics of my analogy, we can use a simpler example if you wish, but if I say "car", everyone has the same idea in their heads, but if I say "meaning of life", everyone has their own opinion, so by saying that life's meaning is constructed, then you are attributing to it everyone's opinion, consequently making it meaningless.

Secondly you say that my analogy is ill suited since I equivocate on the word "meaning", using it as definition in one sense and as "purpose" in another.

Again this is a non-issue, make the meaning of "meaning", purpose all throughout, my analogy still works

So if I say "the meaning of a car (i.e. purpose) is to go places", then all sane people understand this statement.

This cannot be said of "the meaning of life", since what people mean by purpose of life, everyone differs, so to say that the meaning of life is constructed by ourselves, is to really deprive it of all meaning, this point seems clear to me

But again, the meaning of car as in purpose is debatable

What about car collectors who don't intend on driving many of the cars they own to go to any particular destination? What about people who buy cars simply to sell them to other people at a higher price? And doesn't the exact place a person travels to with a car differ from person to person? A car's purpose to "go places" isn't universal to everyone, nor does it take everyone to the same place independent of a person's choice.

As for ur argument about a non-universal meaning being meaningless, why so? Why must everyome have the exact same meaning to life? It appears you're only saying it is meaningless based on a definition of meaning being inherently universal, which again is a trivial argument.

By your own admission you stated that you can't prove meaning has to be universal, in which case you cannot say with certainty that the meaning of life has to do with God, it just becomes a matter of opinion then.

 

[Kiraken]

Not to mention the moral absolutism is completely irrelevant to the topic of meaning in life and also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how moral relativism works lol

 

[Sy123]

But again, the meaning of car as in purpose is debatable

What about car collectors who don't intend on driving many of the cars they own to go to any particular destination? What about people who buy cars simply to sell them to other people at a higher price? And doesn't the exact place a person travels to with a car differ from person to person? A car's purpose to "go places" isn't universal to everyone, nor does it take everyone to the same place independent of a person's choice.

Oh come on, even car collectors know that although cars have multiple purposes, its primary purpose is to go places, this is not in dispute, seeking to tear apart an analogy does you no good, the analogy is there only to explain the fact.

Does the meaning of life have to have only 1 answer? No, for example, one can say that "the meaning of life is X and Y and Z", but no matter how you answer the question, you are precluding an infinite number of other possible responses.

It seems entirely obvious that if you say, "the meaning of life is what you make of it", then this "meaning" no longer possesses any meaning at all

As for ur argument about a non-universal meaning being meaningless, why so? Why must everyome have the exact same meaning to life? It appears you're only saying it is meaningless based on a definition of meaning being inherently universal, which again is a trivial argument.

The meaning of life for people may differ in their particulars, but they must point to the same universal behind it.

So, "the meaning of life is to worship God, but I do so by helping people learn", or "the meaning of life is to worship God, but I do so by giving charity" etc.

If the meaning of life is unrestricted and is determined by the opinions of other people, then both of these are true:

- The meaning of life is A
- The meaning of life is not-A

To affirm both of these statements results in the pain of irrationality, and there is no need to deal with those who are comfortable with irrationality

By your own admission you stated that you can't prove meaning has to be universal, in which case you cannot say with certainty that the meaning of life has to do with God, it just becomes a matter of opinion then.

I said you can't prove that there exists a universal meaning, it doesn't mean at all it does not exist.
I can still say with certainity that if there is a meaning of life, then God exists, easily with the following argument:

1. If there is no meaning of life, God does not exist
2. There is a meaning of life
3. Therefore, God exists

So it all comes down to if you personally affirm premise 2. I don't claim to forward a proof for premise 2.

Just because one cannot prove (2) does not mean one is not justified in affirming (2).

For instance, I cannot prove demonstrably that you exist, but I am justified in believing you exist since it just seems right to me that you exist

For some people, it just seems right to them that there must be a meaning of life, in their case, they are justified in inferring a creator, this is ALL I am defending, a very modest conclusion you must admit

 

[Kiraken]

Oh come on, even car collectors know that although cars have multiple purposes, its primary purpose is to go places, this is not in dispute, seeking to tear apart an analogy does you no good, the analogy is there only to explain the fact.

Does the meaning of life have to have only 1 answer? No, for example, one can say that "the meaning of life is X and Y and Z", but no matter how you answer the question, you are precluding an infinite number of other possible responses.

It seems entirely obvious that if you say, "the meaning of life is what you make of it", then this "meaning" no longer possesses any meaning at all



The meaning of life for people may differ in their particulars, but they must point to the same universal behind it.

So, "the meaning of life is to worship God, but I do so by helping people learn", or "the meaning of life is to worship God, but I do so by giving charity" etc.

If the meaning of life is unrestricted and is determined by the opinions of other people, then both of these are true:

- The meaning of life is A
- The meaning of life is not-A

To affirm both of these statements results in the pain of irrationality, and there is no need to deal with those who are comfortable with irrationality



I said you can't prove that there exists a universal meaning, it doesn't mean at all it does not exist.
I can still say with certainity that if there is a meaning of life, then God exists, easily with the following argument:

1. If there is no meaning of life, God does not exist
2. There is a meaning of life
3. Therefore, God exists

So it all comes down to if you personally affirm premise 2. I don't claim to forward a proof for premise 2.

Just because one cannot prove (2) does not mean one is not justified in affirming (2).

For instance, I cannot prove demonstrably that you exist, but I am justified in believing you exist since it just seems right to me that you exist

For some people, it just seems right to them that there must be a meaning of life, in their case, they are justified in inferring a creator, this is ALL I am defending, a very modest conclusion you must admit

"Tearing up an analogy seeks to do you no good"

Lol the point being that ur analogy does not prove ur point, cars have a different purpose depending on the individual and the destination of choice depends on the individual. If anything, ur analogy proves the point that different things hold a different purpose for different people, which contradicts the claim there is one universal purpose for everyone.

But if u acknowledge the meaning of life doesn't have one answer, doesn't that contradict everything u just said about the meaning of life being to worship God?

And no it doesn't seem immediately "obvious", that's my entire point, it's only obvious if u define meaningas having to be universal in the first place, which makes the entire argument trivial. It's the debating equivalent of saying "let there be an object A that exists, therefore A exists!".

I agree that it doesn't mean that ur wrong in stating there might be a universal meaning and personally i agree with u. I do contend however with ur statements that suggested it as fact that meaning was universal and that atheists must have no meaning or purpose in their lives. In short, i contend with the notion that ur personal beliefs and opinions should be expressed in a way that tries to come across as a factual denunciation of an atheist's position.

What u presented was ur opinion on the meaning of life, so the statement that it is clear to "anyone" that atheists have no meaning or purpose in life is wrong, it's clear to u and those who hd ur opinion or definition (i among them) but it definitely does not apply to those who have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what exactly constitutes meaning.

 

[Kiraken]

Similarly going back to ur original post, how is constructing a purpose for something an inadequete means of giving it meaning? Are u saying language and words have no meaning because we made them?

If someone used sticks to create fire, does that mean those sticks can't have possibly been used to make the fire because we constructed that use for them? That the sticks cannot have purpose for creating fire because we can't give it a purpose?