Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[Perhaps]

Perhaps, you took my statement out of context. Those weren't prerequisites for reality, ya knucklehead.

Fair enough, so then if I may ask, how do you define what is real apart from what is illusory or ideal?

[Shell B]

Best be careful, some of the mods here dont like when n00bs post the way you just did.

Including myself. That's okay. Just keep baiting him. He'll hang himself eventually.

[Rev. Rye]

Can life have meaning w/o God?

Clearly, we can find examples of atheists who claim to have lives with purpose. If you can find one counterexample, you void the right to utter this sweeping statement.

I mean I understand how we could perceive it to be have meaninb w/o God, but that perception is just illusory isn't it?

And it's impossible for meaning with God to be illusory because? And what is the difference between a real and an illusory sense of meaning?

Without God aren't life and death ultimately meaningless?

I honestly think that the idea of God makes life and death even less meaningful. Life because, in many theistic worldviews, man is brought into existence primarily to populate God's cult of personality. Death because, in many cases, belief in God comes with a belief in an afterlife, which, the way I see it, reduces death to just a change of venue, and life to a game of "catch the soul."

As far as I can understand EITHER life has real meaning and there must be something real which we call "God" or "meaning" OR any "meaning" in life is illusory and people choose to believe in the illusion of God to give their life meaning.

So why is "meaning" something that must be equated with God? Why can't it just be a sense like "I have to go on. I must tell the world about my experiences and the ideas I've developed as a result."?

Believing that meaning is real but that "God" is illusory doesn't make any sense. It's exactly the same belief. It would just be another unverifiable belief for which the word "God" has been replaced with the word "meaning".

And why is it?

If someone could explain how life has real meaning without "God" I am all ears. Honestly I'm not trying to get into an argument I just want to hear the rationalization.

Here's a collection of writings by nontheists about how life can have meaning without God.
Come to think of it, even Victor Frankl, the writer of Man's Search For Meaning, a book anyone interested in questions of life's meaning should read, admitted that, for all his talk of God (as transcendental and far removed from that of organized religion as it was), meaning could be found even without giving it the name "God."

Furthermore, since all of our understanding of reality is based upon our perceptions, isn't the belief in the validity of human "perception" exactly the same as a belief in "God"? They are both ultimately beliefs in the unverifiable.

If we have anything else that's more verifiable, I'd like to hear it.

[Shell B]

Perhaps, you took my statement out of context. Those weren't prerequisites for reality, ya knucklehead.

Fair enough, so then if I may ask, how do you define what is real apart from what is illusory or ideal?

I define it as neither. What is real is what exists. How I, or others, perceive it or even if we perceive it is irrelevant. Do you think the sun was here before you were? Well, I do. I don't have to see something for it to be real. However, I handle those things with scales of likelihood. For example, it is highly unlikely that a giant green monster encircles the Earth. It is slightly more likely that there is such a thing as the Loch Ness monster and so on.

[Perhaps]

I define it as neither. What is real is what exists. How I, or others, perceive it or even if we perceive it is irrelevant. Do you think the sun was here before you were? Well, I do. I don't have to see something for it to be real. However, I handle those things with scales of likelihood. For example, it is highly unlikely that a giant green monster encircles the Earth. It is slightly more likely that there is such a thing as the Loch Ness monster and so on.

I see, so if it isn't too daring of me to make this leap - to identify something as existing, truly and concretely, what is required? I would say conscious perception of said item (which we then fall into a difference in perception, but let's assume that our perception does not alter so greatly). From this is it possible to make the assertion that conscious perception of things existing presupposes consciousness from which conscious perception arises? Thus meaning that consciousness is real for the simple fact that it exists?

[reverendjeremiah]

My children give me purpose and meaning.

The music I write gives me purpose and meaning.

Good food and drink gives me purpose and meaning.

Doing electro mechanical work gives me purpose and meaning.

Handing all of my paycheck to my wife gives me purpose and meaning.

Honestly, if you think purpose and meaning must be connected to a God, then I argue that you arent really living it.

[amkerman]

We could try it this way:

Do you believe in reality?

if so

Where do you form your belief?

If you answered, "I form my belief using my conscious mind" then

If so, do you believe that your conscious mind is real? (if you answered the previous question differently we can go from there too, just state where you form your belief).

If yes we can continue in my argument.

If no, (return to first question).

[frankiej]

This is why I hate philosophy. It always manages to put up a barrier that isn't needed and usually doesn't really exist... Only in the pretentious mind of the philosopher.

[reverendjeremiah]

This guy is an idiot, even an elementary school kid can put him in his place.

him - "without god there is no meaning"
Me - "yeah, whatever, I have to go to work"
him - "but if you dont believe in my god, then why go to work? nothing would have meaning or purpose"
Me - "the purpose i go to work is to make money"
him - "but its not permanent. Its all an illusion!"
Me - "So Im not supposed to work now for being an atheist? Fucking-a man, chill the fuck out. Nothing is permanent. Get the fuck over it already."
him - "but it has no meaning without god"
Me - "Yes it does. The meaning for me to go to work is so I can support my family."

[Shell B]

I see, so if it isn't too daring of me to make this leap - to identify something as existing, truly and concretely, what is required?

Only in my opinion for me to identify it as real, it has to be observed by myself or by a trustworthy source who conveys it to me. However, all that is real does not fall under my conscious observation nor does it require my observation to be real.

I would say conscious perception of said item (which we then fall into a difference in perception, but let's assume that our perception does not alter so greatly). From this is it possible to make the assertion that conscious perception of things existing presupposes consciousness from which conscious perception arises?

Of course. However, that is not the argument that acky is making. He is asserting that people must believe in consciousness if they "believe" in reality. It's really a bunch of silly hokum designed to make an endless argument.

Thus meaning that consciousness is real for the simple fact that it exists?

Yes, for the simple fact that it exists, not because someone believes it exists.