Meaning in life for an atheist

[crowonsnow]

Wrong on many accounts.

Hey Psalm89,

How would you answer the following as to what’s most important?

***1. Personal salvation is the most important thing to me, and I am Catholic.

1. Personal salvation is the most important thing to me, and I am not Catholic.
2. Personal Salvation is less important or only as important to me as lots of other important things, like caring for my children, but it isn’t any more important.***

That’s about as simple as I can make it. Suggestions are appreciated.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I

I agree with Peter Singer. I think my purpose in life is to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty from the world.

I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

So what makes your life meaningful?

Why?

Why do you want poverty to end?

Why would this make your life meaningful?

 

[crowonsnow]

Why do you want poverty to end?

I associate poverty with ignorance, malnutrition, disease and starvation. So I don’t want my children or any children to starve or die of disease if I can help it. If I could end the starvation and death of children tomorrow I would.

Are you saying this is not a good thing to desire and work toward? Even if you only eliminate poverty in the lives of fifty children isn’t that a good thing? Are you saying that do do so wouldn’t give your life some degree of satisfaction and impart some sense of meaning?

 

[Nullasalus]

They’ve told me it’s more important to them than the welfare of the next thousands of human generations. And I have not embellished that statement.

Then I feel the people you have been talking to are either bizarre exceptions, or were being given a question that was deceptive.

Or maybe you could start a thread to that effect and ask Catholics and other Christians and other believers in afterlives, asking them if their afterlife is more important than making the planet more peaceful and productive, or caring for needy kids, or the elderly, or other honorable such aspirations, or having a positive vision of the human future. Let me know. Or maybe I could do it myself.

From the article I referred to: In his second encyclical, Benedict also critically questioned modern Christianity, saying its focus on individual salvation had ignored Jesus’ message that true Christian hope involves salvation for all.

And honestly, I get the feeling that your question comes down to an ultimatum: “Either you’re willing to give up salvation to help people in any way at all, or you’re selfish.” If someone supports ‘making the planet more peaceful and productive, caring for needy kids, the elderly, or other such honorable aspirations’ yet believes that such things are compatible with a life God desires of us, by your logic it does not count.

And you ignore many christian ideas in the process: That there is a right and wrong in life, and that helping the poor is desirable even if a person’s salvation is otherwise assured. That Christ, while certainly being personally assured of salvation, still helped the poor and healed the sick. And that, certainly in the Catholic church, while it’s considered that good works are part of a faithful life, works alone do not ‘guarantee salvation’ or reward in the afterlife. Casting every good thing a theist does as ‘essentially selfish’ while every good thing an atheist does is ‘essentially selfless’ is deception writ large.

 

[Psalm89]

Hey Psalm89,

How would you answer the following as to what’s most important?

***1. Personal salvation is the most important thing to me, and I am Catholic.

1. Personal salvation is the most important thing to me, and I am not Catholic.
2. Personal Salvation is less important or only as important to me as lots of other important things, like caring for my children, but it isn’t any more important.***

That’s about as simple as I can make it. Suggestions are appreciated.

I already answered these questions in my above post. Did you not understand it, or did you ignore it?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I associate poverty with ignorance, malnutrition, disease and starvation. So I don’t want my children or any children to starve or die of disease if I can help it. If I could end the starvation and death of children tomorrow I would.

Why?

I originally was asking ribozyme but if you are an athesist and feel the same way I guess I would ask you as well.

Why?

 

[porkscratchings]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

I think my life now has no purpose, but I will reiterate, my life will be endowed purpose in the future as I would have reached a preferred state of affairs. I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

So what makes your life meaningful?

do u mean a person’s own life, or life as in existence, or life as in life on planet earth?

Life, as in life on planet earth, follows its own path and achieve its own purpose. A purpose that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with man. I don’t think the actions of the universe revolves around man and his puny existence.

Life, as in existence, can be meaning or meaningless - it depends on the individual. Life, as in my life or ur life - it depends on u (if its ur life), or me (if its my life).

If u feel that u r just drifting towards old age and death - then i suppose ur life has no meaning for u. But if u feel that u r making a difference, maybe to the lives of others or just the people u love - then life has meaning.

I help out this old guy from time to time. He is slowly dying, and he is aware of this. He regrets some of the choices he has made in the past and can see no future for himself, except weakness and more sickness before death. For him, life truly has no meaning for him.

I once knew another old guy. He had terminal cancer (he’s no longer alive). This dude didn’t really worry about death - he reckoned death is something that happens to all of us and is nothing to fret about. He found purpose in reading and spending the last few months of his life surronded by his family and friends.

I think the whether life has meaning lies in how we view the world. If we see the world as being outside our control/influence, and we can’t make a difference to our lives - then we are more likely to see life as meaningless/purposeless. But if we think that we have choices over our existence (even if these choices are imaginery), then we are more likely to see life as being full of meaning.

So u can have two old guys who are in the same situation, but one is positive and the other negative about their life because they both see life differently.

This has nothing to do with belief in God, but in how we view our relationship with the world around us.

 

[crowonsnow]

Why?

I originally was asking ribozyme but if you are an athesist and feel the same way I guess I would ask you as well.

Why?

I don’t have any religious beliefs so I just thought to answer.

Why?

Why what? Could you please be more specific? You asked three why questions and I answered the last two. The first one is unanswerable as stated.

 

[Chancellare]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

I have read *Practical Ethics *about a week ago, and I remember reading this quote:

I do support abortion because parents might decide it might not be possible for their child to reach the preferred state of affairs and embryos and fetuses do not have the capacity to have a preferred state of affairs.

I agree with Peter Singer. I think my purpose in life is to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty from the world. I also remember reading The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil where he describes a future where everyone can have a meaningful life.

I think my life now has no purpose, but I will reiterate, my life will be endowed purpose in the future as I would have reached a preferred state of affairs. I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

So what makes your life meaningful?

Concluding that life has no meaning, means a lot. It means that one has missed so much in life that it is worth looking into again. It’s like landing in a hundred countries on a guided tour about airports and then on the 100th airport, finally conclude that there is no such thing as an elephant.

Sometimes we need to change the tour guide.

 

[crowonsnow]

Nullasalus:

And honestly, I get the feeling that your question comes down to an ultimatum: “Either you’re willing to give up salvation to help people in any way at all, or you’re selfish.”

Not at all. I’m just asking what’s most important to a person who believes in personal salvation. Heck, I can ask you:

Is your personal salvation more important to you than the welfare of your children?

Of course I’m assuming you have children, but if you don’t, is there anything more important to you than your personal salvation? Maybe you have a sick parent. Maybe you care about the situation in Darfur or the fact that ten million infants die on this planet every year before they’re a month old. Or something else. I don’t know what you might consider important.

You mentioned a Pope. Is there anything more important to him than his personal salvation. Is he saying our collective salvation is more important than personal salvation? Is that what he said? That would be a step in the right direction.

I can honestly say mine is not important, and everyone I’ve talked to says I have this supernatural soul and it will be judged. I could not care less about such things. The welfare of my family and children will always be more important than souls and salvation. Is that fair enough?

Now what about you?

Nullasalus:

Then I feel the people you have been talking to are either bizarre exceptions, or were being given a question that was deceptive.

Again, not at all.

All those people seemed otherwise normal in their behavior. They certainly didn’t strike me as bizarre exceptions. It just shocked me when the first person volunteered that information. So ever since I’ve made it a piece of conversation if the conversation lent itself. People seem unprepared for the question.

No Christian has ever told me that there is anything more important than - or as important as - their personal salvation. And I’ve asked them this directly, just as I’m asking you and have asked Psalm 89. Your reactions thus far have been typical, to talk about the question but not answer it as I did. No problem though and certainly no hard feelings. Your response is the norm and is therefore quite the expected.

 

[Nullasalus]

Not at all. I’m just asking what’s most important to a person who believes in personal salvation. Heck, I can ask you:

Is your personal salvation more important to you than the welfare of your children?

Is your life and job more important to you than the welfare of your children?

See, it sounds like a straightforward question. But it isn’t really, is it? Because your life and your job are linked to the welfare of your children. In fact, if you neglect both of those things, you’re neglecting your children.

And that’s my response. My personal salvation is not just ‘my going to heaven’. It’s my acting responsibly, honestly, morally and ethically, and in good faith. It’s caring for not just my children, but other people’s children, and all people. You’re trying to make salvation distinct from good and selfless behavior, but it’s a transparent game - just like my question in reply is.

You mentioned a Pope. Is there anything more important to him than his personal salvation. Is he saying our collective salvation is more important than personal salvation? Is that what he said? That would be a step in the right direction.

I think the Pope’s words are straightforward: He rejects the modern trend that the only thing that is important is our personal salvation, and urges us to consider not only the welfare of others, but their moral and ethical choices.

I can honestly say mine is not important, and everyone I’ve talked to says I have this supernatural soul and it will be judged. I could not care less about such things. The welfare of my family and children will always be more important than souls and salvation. Is that fair enough?

I have a feeling you don’t even understand what the word ‘supernatural’ means, what ‘judged’ means, or frankly, what ‘Pope’ means. Maybe this game works with other people, but it gains you nothing here.
Want another question, one that’s just as fair and lacking duplicity as yours? I have one for you.

Would you kill innocent people to maintain the well-being of your family? And notice the dishonest angle evident in that question. If you say ‘no’, then your family’s well-being isn’t all that tantamount to you, is it? You talk the talk, but when push comes to shove you’ll give them up. But if you say ‘yes’, well, now you’re willing to kill innocent people just to maintain your family’s well-being. Other people’s families mean less to you, and if it’s worth it to you, you’ll ruin them.

See, if you really believed that your position - not to care about souls, or God, or faith - was superior, you wouldn’t be playing this game. You’d make your argument, and stick to it. Instead, you’re trying to make it sound like every person who has concern for morality, God, and religion is a cheat, and only the people who reject God are truly selfless. You ask a question that has no right answer, and can’t, because it’s salvation divorced from a good and moral life. It’s almost as if you don’t really care if people care about generosity or goodness - you just really want them to give up on their faith, and if you think a trick will lead them that way, you’ll go for it. I hope you treat your family with more honesty, amigo.

 

[ateista]

From my college days. You don’t think it’s more fun to be “bad” than to be “good”? Maybe it’s better phrased that it’s much more difficult to do “good” than “bad” or do “the right thing”.

I wonder if we use the words: “good” and “bad” in the same manner? Doing things for “fun” while not hurting anyone else is not considered “bad” in my vocabulary.

Again, what is the standard by which an athiest would define a “decent” person? Is there a standard of good and evil? If so, what is it, and is it objective? And how is it derived?

The same as you, probably. Helpful, caring, etc… There is a standard of good and evil, it is also objective, though not absolute. The basis for it is simple: pain is bad, pleasure is good. Therefore causing pain is bad, giving pleasure is good - caeteris paribus.

If it’s based on cultural norms, then there’s no true objective moral standard i.e. murder of an innocent person could be OK in some existing or developing culture.

Sure thing. It happened in all the ancient, tribal societies. According to their culture, killing the other tribe and consuming the protein from their meat was acceptable.

Back to the feeding the hungry person; why bother? It’s no skin off my neck if they’re hungry or not, or if they die from hunger…one less person to feed, one less person that I’m taxed for “Are there no poor houses?”

Let’s see a very selfish answer: “because what goes around, comes around”. If I help others in need, I am spreading goodwill. In case some misfortune happens to me, maybe I will receive help, too? I am sure you know just as well as I do, that giving a smile to others will cheer them up, and they will smile at someone, too… It is infectious.

But the true reason is, because that is the way I was brought up by my parents. It is impossible for me not to give a few bucks when I see someone begging for food, even if I suspect that I am being a sucker. I was “brainwashed”, if you will. We all are…

BTW, I take issue with the notion that the God of Christianity doesn’t/won’t help people in need or in pain. Since you don’t believe he exists, how can you comment on his MO?

I see no sign of such help. I see millions of children dying due to the lack of rain (and because of it - no food). No “big” interference is needed, just a little rain. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I don’t have any religious beliefs so I just thought to answer.

Why what? Could you please be more specific? You asked three why questions and I answered the last two. The first one is unanswerable as stated.

Why do you care if some child you will never know starves? His starving has no impact on your life.

 

[crowonsnow]

Why do you care if some child you will never know starves? His starving has no impact on your life.

You’ll have to demonstrate how a starving child does not impact my life, or that I do not care or should not care. Or are you simply stating that starving children do not impact people’s lives?

If that’s the case I would ask you why you think that starving children do not impact people’s lives. If they didn’t impact our lives we would have no knowledge of them. But we do. Therefore they impact our lives. Seems pretty simple to understand.

 

[crowonsnow]

Is your life and job more important to you than the welfare of your children?

That’s an easy one. My life and job is not more important to me than the welfare of my children. My children, their lives and welfare will always come first. My child’s life will always be more important than my own.

More to the point, salvation and my personal salvation is so far down the scale in relation to my children’s lives that it isn’t even on the radar. It doesn’t exist.

I’m beginning to understand something about Christianity and Christians, and that is that there is a difference between secular Christianity and theological Christianity. Theological Christianity is the selfish part whereas secular Christianity is indistinguishable from normal, decent human behavior.

Even in your case I believe you would have no qualms about putting the welfare of a child ahead of your own, even though you won’t say it, but I do believe you would not do the same thing theologically.

Why do you think this is so? Why is there this dichotomy between Christian behavior and Christian belief?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic. Please take any side issues to new or existing threads or I will have to close the thread. Thank you all.

 

[freesoulhope]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

You can imagine ones life to have meaning and purpose; but such concepts ultimately remain products of the human imagination, and gain no real authority other then that of a fantasy. Objective reality, is the reality in which we exist, and it is what lies at the root of our reality that will define ones value, purpose and ultimate meaning. Nothing else counts accept objective truth; being the most important.

Assuming that objective truth is the thing that we seek.

 

[freesoulhope]

I do support abortion because parents might decide it might not be possible for their child to reach the preferred state of affairs and embryos and fetuses do not have the capacity to have a preferred state of affairs.

One’s inability to choose, doesn’t justify my temination.

Think of it like this; the people who fight for the right to abortion, wouldn’t be here to enjoy there life if there Mothers and Fathers went back in time and took there advice (Thank God they cannot). I find abortion ultimately offencive to my life and all human life.

 

[crowonsnow]

This thread has gone off topic. Please take any side issues to new or existing threads or I will have to close the thread. Thank you all.

I’ve taken the importance of personal salvation to a new thread. Here’s the link:

Is there anything more important to a Christian than personal salvation?

I hope to see everyone there.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You’ll have to demonstrate how a starving child does not impact my life, or that I do not care or should not care. Or are you simply stating that starving children do not impact people’s lives?

If that’s the case I would ask you why you think that starving children do not impact people’s lives. If they didn’t impact our lives we would have no knowledge of them. But we do. Therefore they impact our lives. Seems pretty simple to understand.

The starving child takes nothing away from you, adds nothing to you. The only impact you have is emotional. As an atheist, what drives you to react to this emotionally? What makes us more than an animal who cares nothing about another animal starving other than its own young.

Is it for betterment of the human race? I guess I don’t understand to point of doing good solely for that reason.