On your first point, I think the confusion is his. He's putting the cart inside the horse.
Atheism is just the failure of theism. Its scope is theism and theism's problems, so if he wants arguments for atheism-compatible worldviews, he shouldn't be putting his questions to atheism but to those worldviews themselves or to the projects that created them.
On the second point, I don't think Veritas48 is contradicting himself.
He believes that his religion is correct and that meaning comes from on high for everyone, even those incorrect nonbelievers.
He compares that to the supposed atheistic view, in which nobody's life has any meaning.
It's contrast, not contradiction. It's only confusing because, instead of a clean hypothetical comparison, he keeps interrupting with his assurances--a habit that does more harm than good.
Man, I'm so glad I've never had to worry about this stuff. I've not even considered that a "god" could be possible, as the whole concept always seemed just plain silly, to me.
Atheists think for themselves. That is positive. As is deciding for themselves what a meaningful life is.
Theists that believe in some "holy" scripture do not think for themselves, they follow that scripture's set of rules. That is negative. As is letting that scripture's text describe for them what a meaningful life is.
Atheists do follow a set of rules: they are found in science. Meaning is found within that set of rules. By your feeling towards scripture's set of rules that is also a negative - right? As letting evolution and other scientific theories and facts define what the meaning of life is.
Not always. I will use an example. In the Bible, I can't think of the passage, there is a section that talks about what to eat and what not. When the Bible was constructed, eating pig, an animal labeled unclean, was in fact a serious carrier of disease at that time. That was a fact. How is that philosophical? Not everything in the Bible is philosophical and not all science is absolute fact. What is considered a fact by now can change with a new discovery. Just like the eating pig thing.
??? What did I miss something? Eating pigs has nothing to do with the meaning of life. Nor does the bible. For an atheist to understand the meaning of life it take philosophy, not science. That was all I was saying.
I was referring back to what is philosophical. We find meaning often times through a series of rules. Whether the rules come from the Bible or science doesn't change that "the meaning of life" comes from any kind of established rules. What I am questioning is Xenolupa's positive and negative stance. Who determines what is positive or negative? Any "meaning of life" is going to have positive and negative elements.
I am somebody who is allowed to determine what is positive and what is negative. Fortunately, you are such a somebody too.
In my opinion, thinking for myself is positive. Likewise, not thinking for yourself is negative.
Not thinking for yourself as in following the sets of rules from a so-called holy scripture, just because that scripture is "holy", is like shifting responsibility for your actions away from yourself.
Negative in my opinion is somebody who would think:
"I don't have to think for myself, since my morals are described in my holy book; the actions that come from my morals are not my responsibility, since I do what is described in my holy book."
I agree with you in saying not thinking is negative. Whether you are a theist or atheist doesn't matter in that.
So you do not feel science has nothing to support atheist ideals? Really? What do you base not believing in God in? Where do you find your meaning of life? An individual's interpretation of "meaning" reflects off of something.
Science supports some of my ideals. As a person, I do have ideals, but these are separate from me being an atheist. I can't think of any ideals that are connected to my being an atheist. I want to live a good and useful life. I don't want to do to others what I don't want others to do to me. I want to learn about as much as possible. And in the process, enjoy my life. This life is just the one I have, so I have to make it a good one, there will be no second one. See, no atheist ideals.
Not believing in "God" (or any other god) because:
- No prove available for the existance of any.
- No scientific need for any.
- Descriptions of any of the gods sofar are clearly the product of human imagination. They reflect the scientific knowhow at the moment of invention of such gods, and the intellectual capabilities of those people, which means the stories are contradictory and absurd.
- The descriptions depict horrible beings, not worthy of worshipping.
I certainly would not like to find meaning of life in the "holy" books. Killing, maiming, betraying... not fun. Not exactly the best examples of virtue. I did find meaning of life by thinking for myself, by developing a moral compass by myself and for myself. By looking how other people lead their lifes and deciding whether certain examples would be worth to follow up or quite the opposite. Worshipping a god just for the sake of worshipping is absurd.
I don't understand why people find it disturbing that I use science as an example for finding boundaries. Me...well I find it refreshing! Anyway, it does give "the what" and with these guidelines people develop "the why." The only thing I find odd is the negative element as mentioned by me before. There is purpose in negatives.
Being an atheist does not mean one supports science. My hobby is not "not collecting" stamps. It just means I get my entertainment elsewhere. So as an atheist, I get my meaning and enjoyment of life some place other than a belief in god.
I am not talking about collecting or not collecting stamps. I also don't consider the meaning of life as entertainment. Whether your a theist or atheist doesn't impress or amuse me. What I am taking about here is that any belief system, "your entertainment," is a response to guidelines or rules.
The only rule you can say that in atheism is that for an atheist to believe in a god there must be proof. Atheism is not a world view or belief system. It is merely the statement of not blindly believing in a god. There is no rule book or guide lines. Atheism is not a replacement or substitute for religion. It makes no positive statements. There is nothing to prove in atheism. Atheist wait for the proof.
On your first point, I think the confusion is his. He's putting the cart inside the horse.
Atheism is just the failure of theism. Its scope is theism and theism's problems, so if he wants arguments for atheism-compatible worldviews, he shouldn't be putting his questions to atheism but to those worldviews themselves or to the projects that created them.
AtSwimTwoBricks 3 years ago
On the second point, I don't think Veritas48 is contradicting himself.
He believes that his religion is correct and that meaning comes from on high for everyone, even those incorrect nonbelievers.
He compares that to the supposed atheistic view, in which nobody's life has any meaning.
It's contrast, not contradiction. It's only confusing because, instead of a clean hypothetical comparison, he keeps interrupting with his assurances--a habit that does more harm than good.
AtSwimTwoBricks 3 years ago
Man, I'm so glad I've never had to worry about this stuff. I've not even considered that a "god" could be possible, as the whole concept always seemed just plain silly, to me.
Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts...
ShortbusMooner 3 years ago
nailed it
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I want to be at points A & B at the sametime; kind of arguement?
UndeadLight 3 years ago
Atheists think for themselves. That is positive. As is deciding for themselves what a meaningful life is.
Theists that believe in some "holy" scripture do not think for themselves, they follow that scripture's set of rules. That is negative. As is letting that scripture's text describe for them what a meaningful life is.
Xenolupa 3 years ago
Atheists do follow a set of rules: they are found in science. Meaning is found within that set of rules. By your feeling towards scripture's set of rules that is also a negative - right? As letting evolution and other scientific theories and facts define what the meaning of life is.
Cherri59 3 years ago
Science only defines and study what life is, but does not give mean or purpose to life. That is more philosophy than anything else.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Indeed, science is about how and not why
silentbob36 3 years ago
Not always. I will use an example. In the Bible, I can't think of the passage, there is a section that talks about what to eat and what not. When the Bible was constructed, eating pig, an animal labeled unclean, was in fact a serious carrier of disease at that time. That was a fact. How is that philosophical? Not everything in the Bible is philosophical and not all science is absolute fact. What is considered a fact by now can change with a new discovery. Just like the eating pig thing.
Cherri59 3 years ago
??? What did I miss something? Eating pigs has nothing to do with the meaning of life. Nor does the bible. For an atheist to understand the meaning of life it take philosophy, not science. That was all I was saying.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
I was referring back to what is philosophical. We find meaning often times through a series of rules. Whether the rules come from the Bible or science doesn't change that "the meaning of life" comes from any kind of established rules. What I am questioning is Xenolupa's positive and negative stance. Who determines what is positive or negative? Any "meaning of life" is going to have positive and negative elements.
Cherri59 3 years ago
I am somebody who is allowed to determine what is positive and what is negative. Fortunately, you are such a somebody too.
In my opinion, thinking for myself is positive. Likewise, not thinking for yourself is negative.
Not thinking for yourself as in following the sets of rules from a so-called holy scripture, just because that scripture is "holy", is like shifting responsibility for your actions away from yourself.
Xenolupa 3 years ago
Negative in my opinion is somebody who would think:
"I don't have to think for myself, since my morals are described in my holy book; the actions that come from my morals are not my responsibility, since I do what is described in my holy book."
Not thinking is always negative in my opinion.
Xenolupa 3 years ago
I agree with you in saying not thinking is negative. Whether you are a theist or atheist doesn't matter in that.
So you do not feel science has nothing to support atheist ideals? Really? What do you base not believing in God in? Where do you find your meaning of life? An individual's interpretation of "meaning" reflects off of something.
Cherri59 3 years ago
Science supports some of my ideals. As a person, I do have ideals, but these are separate from me being an atheist. I can't think of any ideals that are connected to my being an atheist. I want to live a good and useful life. I don't want to do to others what I don't want others to do to me. I want to learn about as much as possible. And in the process, enjoy my life. This life is just the one I have, so I have to make it a good one, there will be no second one. See, no atheist ideals.
Xenolupa 3 years ago
Not believing in "God" (or any other god) because:
- No prove available for the existance of any.
- No scientific need for any.
- Descriptions of any of the gods sofar are clearly the product of human imagination. They reflect the scientific knowhow at the moment of invention of such gods, and the intellectual capabilities of those people, which means the stories are contradictory and absurd.
- The descriptions depict horrible beings, not worthy of worshipping.
Just a few of the reasons.
Xenolupa 3 years ago
I certainly would not like to find meaning of life in the "holy" books. Killing, maiming, betraying... not fun. Not exactly the best examples of virtue. I did find meaning of life by thinking for myself, by developing a moral compass by myself and for myself. By looking how other people lead their lifes and deciding whether certain examples would be worth to follow up or quite the opposite. Worshipping a god just for the sake of worshipping is absurd.
Xenolupa 3 years ago
I don't understand why people find it disturbing that I use science as an example for finding boundaries. Me...well I find it refreshing! Anyway, it does give "the what" and with these guidelines people develop "the why." The only thing I find odd is the negative element as mentioned by me before. There is purpose in negatives.
Cherri59 3 years ago
Being an atheist does not mean one supports science. My hobby is not "not collecting" stamps. It just means I get my entertainment elsewhere. So as an atheist, I get my meaning and enjoyment of life some place other than a belief in god.
SouthernRaisedAtheis 3 years ago
I am not talking about collecting or not collecting stamps. I also don't consider the meaning of life as entertainment. Whether your a theist or atheist doesn't impress or amuse me. What I am taking about here is that any belief system, "your entertainment," is a response to guidelines or rules.
Cherri59 3 years ago
The only rule you can say that in atheism is that for an atheist to believe in a god there must be proof. Atheism is not a world view or belief system. It is merely the statement of not blindly believing in a god. There is no rule book or guide lines. Atheism is not a replacement or substitute for religion. It makes no positive statements. There is nothing to prove in atheism. Atheist wait for the proof.
SouthernRaisedAtheis 3 years ago