(May 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm)whateverist Wrote: Perhaps we should be more humble in accepting the gift of existence on its own terms.

The word "should" to me, just doesn't hold, under an Atheistic view point. There is no really "should do" objectively. And subjectively, we give value, with believe it's objective, even if we are wrong.

Everyone talks as if there is purpose and should and intrinsic value to actions, but is it really possible with naturalism?

Even the very existence of the "I" under naturalism, which is so dear, is conceptual, with no real entity. The entity is purely conceptual, there is no substance, no soul.

Perhaps the soul is the most manifest existence and perhaps why most societies believed in a soul.

(May 3, 2013 at 9:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The word "should" to me, just doesn't hold, under an Atheistic view point.

Naw, I find I still have use for the word "should" as an atheist. I just don't find it useful as a lever in trying to manipulate the behavior of others. My use of "should" is always as a suggestion, never an imperative. They express my values and preferences and invite agreement. Those more comfortable with coercion can try to make the moral imperative work for them. I've sworn off.

You have use for it. Just as you have use of morals, praise, and a concept of self. But for it to be even a suggestion, or that you hold it as a value, it implies you believe in it to a degree. Anyways, humans can't stop being humans. Even if all creatures with a concept of self were deluded for example, they would not be able to cease to have that concept.

You can't function without the belief in "should" even if it is relative and not universal. You need it as much as any other human. But the question is, does it really hold as possible under naturalism?

I loathe to use the term 'atheist viewpoint', but if you don't believe in the existence of an objective source of what 'should' means, then everybody uses 'should' in the same way, and some merely attempt to attach objectivity to their opinions to create the illusion that theirs deserve more respect.

(May 3, 2013 at 10:04 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I loathe to use the term 'atheist viewpoint', but if you don't believe in the existence of an objective source of what 'should' means, then everybody uses 'should' in the same way, and some merely attempt to attach objectivity to their opinions to create the illusion that theirs deserve more respect.

Naturally I agree. But atheists on this site have argued that morals can be objective without gods. I was never convinced that was even a coherent position but some seem to think reason and logic alone will get you there. I wonder how prevalent that idea is among atheists.

(May 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm)whateverist Wrote: Perhaps we should be more humble in accepting the gift of existence on its own terms.

In doing so I think you have embraced an "as-if" approach. Meaning you do not actually believe in a universe that supports meaning and purpose, but you will live life "as-if" that were the case.

(May 3, 2013 at 11:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm)whateverist Wrote: Perhaps we should be more humble in accepting the gift of existence on its own terms.

In doing so I think you have embraced an "as-if" approach. Meaning you do not actually believe in a universe that supports meaning and purpose, but you will live life "as-if" that were the case.

Not so far as I can tell. People matter to me. My students matter to me. I get satisfaction from having a role where I can contribute. Hell my dogs and my garden matter to me. There isn't anything missing that I can tell. You may be mistaking an experience that is simply different than your own with one that is deficient. I would find trying to live according to an established set of criteria stultifying.

Religion say - your body is a tool and if it will be used for praying to God, thinking about Him, reading spiritual Scriptures, donating money to the church, inviting other people based on your own deeds to the same thing(serve to God) then you will attain Heaven. The whole life of religiosity person is work and reward is proportional.
Simple people that are satisfied whit life whitout God say that I am body,there is no soul, God, there is nothing. I'm here to experience this world, taste it, enjoy it.
Theists offer conscious slavery to a God and after becoming slave, seduce others.
I see a dilemma - being a soulless chemical bag who believes in one flight from birth to death and then, nothing, void. Or Gods slave, servant who is immortal soul that just working on earth then going to paradise(religious belief).

(May 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: They may be referring to specific ideas associated with atheism. One common atheist position is that all phenomena can be reduced to physical processes. Physical processes consist of causal chains that just are. It does not make sense to say they are directed toward desired ends.

This is a non sequitor. Physical processes which consist of causal chains that "just are" are only bereft of supernatural teleology imposed from outside of knowable reality. Your assertion ignores such things as emergent properties and systems. A bacterium is an integrated system of physical processes. I don't know of any version of theism which asserts that it must have a soul/spirit/astral body/whatever in addition to its constituent energy-matter. Yet, it is able to move itself to find food and avoid predators, and undergo mitoses in order to reproduce itself. It exhibits teleology, "about-ability" (within the limits of its perceptual abilities, it can recognize some objects as food and others as predators--those things are "about" eating, or the threat of being eaten, to the bacterium), intentionality, and so forth...all without a need for the involvement of magic or pixie dust.

(May 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And purposes are defined by reference to their desired ends.

Which means that an omnimax* monotheistic god cannot be the ultimate origin of purpose. An entity can only desire an end if it does not already possess it. It can only adopt a course of purposeful action if its capacities are limited, so that purposeful action is necessary in the first place. By definition, an omnipotent entity can attain any end on the merest whim. An omniscient entity, again by definition, must know all possible ends it could ever intend to seek, in advance. Its omnipotence makes attainment automatic. It cannot fail, or even need to struggle in a quest for any goal. There is no need for it to "plan" or "take action" or "strive" or "desire." It is already standing on every conceivable finish line holding every trophy.

Instead, concepts like purpose, desire, intentionality, planning, and so forth are only applicable to living entities of limited abilities: entities like humans, animals, and microorganisms, for whom not attaining ends is possible. It is only when attainment of ends is not instant and automatic by definition that "attainment" as such becomes a thing. Likewise for the web of related concepts (purpose, end/goal, intention, plan, etc.).

(May 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Thus any form of atheism that denies teleology makes life a hollow gesture.

"Life" (as we know it, Jim), not gods, is the source and sphere of relevance for teleological concepts. They don't need to be imposed on life by magic (as if that idea even made sense). They are aspects of the nature of life.


*Possessing the set of "omni-" attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc..

(May 3, 2013 at 10:04 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I loathe to use the term 'atheist viewpoint'...

It doesn't matter what you like or dislike. Everyone has a worldview, whether explicit or tacit. You are an athiest, therefore you have an atheist worldview. If the shoe fits, wear it.