极速赛车168官网 Comments on: If Atheism Is True, Does Life Still Have Meaning?

极速赛车168官网 By: jimbo

jimbo — Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:30:00 +0000

In reply to Dana Harper. Dana is reinforcing the author's argument. Meaning, purpose, and value can be purely subjective. The author is arguing that if atheism is true then objective, or true/real meaning, purpose, or value do not exist. In atheism humans are little more than talking proof and history shows that many of the great atheists have treated other humas as such.

极速赛车168官网 By: Dana Harper

Dana Harper — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 13:30:00 +0000

Some people find meaning at sunset, conceiving a child, producing something at work, or fantasizing about an afterlife of bliss. The Universe could care less about any of it, that's the unfortunate truth.

极速赛车168官网 By: sheckyshabaz

sheckyshabaz — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 15:49:00 +0000

I thought atheists were supposed to be free thinkers? If life ceases to exist upon death and they believe in science then all of life in this universe will come to an end. Since we are in a closed system of the universe there's no way out and everything is dying until the last star fizzles out. Physicists claim that the laws of science are a death warrant for all life. That means it's predetermined that everyone and everything is going to die. There's no consciousness or hope upon death, you cease to exist. Because of this logic there's no reason to do anything at all in life because nothing matters. Everything is equal. Raping and not raping someone is the same thing, stealing and not stealing are the same, marriage and divorce are exactly the same. Nothing matters or has purpose when the end is literally the end. There's no point to create memories, accomplish and achieve anything, discover anything, build anything, love anything. It's all for nothing when the lights go out in your own life and in the universe. I have literally read thousands of atheist responses on the web in reference to the point of life and not a single person is intelligent enough to realize that it's all for nothing in the atheistic dogma. While this logical conclusion to the meaning of life under the atheistic approach is true, not a single atheist believes it to be so, because if they did, they'd throw caution to the wind and die, yet every biological creature is programmed to survive and want to survive. It would be illogical for a universe to pop into existence, establish intelligent biological life, program it to survive and want to survive when surviving is not possible. And i thought atheists were supposed to be intelligent.

极速赛车168官网 By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:56:00 +0000

In reply to FairyQueen FairyQueen. If by this you mean that some prominent thinkers share this view, then yes, I'm aware. That doesn't make it correct though. I've yet to see a good argument for it.

极速赛车168官网 By: FairyQueen FairyQueen

FairyQueen FairyQueen — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:26:00 +0000

In reply to Michael. On the off chance that one focuses on the predominant press as well as utilizations web-based social networking, they may have caught wind of various big names who have shared their perspectives on the transient emergency. evanewz

极速赛车168官网 By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 03:18:00 +0000

How is it the finitude of things makes them meaningless? By this logic, not just human life but anything which isn't eternal is meaningless. Furthermore, how any chemical basis of consciousness makes it meaningless is also something I'm not seeing here, or with any argument for that position. The author doesn't see how meaning can follow if either of these are true, yet I'm not seeing how the converse follows here. In fact an argument can be made for the opposite I think. We value things which are rare and fragile. Unique experience, precious objects, etc. Life is a rare and fragile thing, according to all we know. So there we are. If it were eternal and immortal, perhaps we would come to take it for granted.

极速赛车168官网 By: De Ha

De Ha — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:59:00 +0000

Philosophy and Atheism are unrelated. Philosophy is actually the subject Atheists disagree on more than anything. We vary from Rand to Nietzsche to Humanism to existentialism to "philosophy is bullshit" and everything in between. Philosophy is a sort of meta school of thought, It's thinking about thoughts themselves. Abstract concepts and all that. Atheism, however, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Is there a magic giant in the sky? Probably not. The only way Atheism, not other belief an Atheist might also have but Atheism itself, can have ANYTHING to do with "meaning" is if you use the reification fallacy, treating abstract concepts like physical objects and claiming they "came from" somewhere. And then claiming it had to be a god for some reason. Atheists, generally, don't do that. In short, the answer to "is there meaning if Atheism is true" is "that question makes no sense."

极速赛车168官网 By: Steve Lawlor

Steve Lawlor — Tue, 30 May 2017 23:08:00 +0000

In reply to Azubike Ononye. Well, we can't always find out why can we? There are plenty of things we don't know why, take archologists, they don't know why every thing they uncover was built, sometimes they can have a fair idea, but sometimes it is lost as the people that built them didn't leave behind any reasons in written form. Even when they "think they know" they could be wrong.

极速赛车168官网 By: Azubike Ononye

Azubike Ononye — Tue, 30 May 2017 22:18:00 +0000

In reply to Steve Lawlor. Hey Steve, yea i see what you are saying with regards to backwards engineering. The issue with that is you learn how something works not WHY it needs to work like that. The other issue is when you apply this principle to life, you can take it apart but you cannot put it back. Hence what is happening in the world today with regards to the environment. The things invented are based on principles that were not invented but observed. Example, physical laws (gravity, etc) were not invented but observed and their working principles applied to create something new. Without the consistency of these natural laws and conditions the invented things will fall apart. Why are those laws consistent and what "force" is behind their existence? That is the question is am saying we cannot answer from ourselves. Does my reasoning make sense?

极速赛车168官网 By: Steve Lawlor

Steve Lawlor — Mon, 29 May 2017 20:40:00 +0000

In reply to Azubike Ononye. I think you can know the functionality of an iphone without Apple informing you, I believe they call it "backwards engineering", by by taking apart and looking at how it works) not something I've ever tried myself, but it is possible. Not sure why you think meaning cannot come from us, all kinds of things have been invented/discovered when people are allowed to think for themselves.