Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Whateverist]

Why you bein' mean MH? 

I said thanks. I think Hammy should always speak for me.

Lucky bastard.  I only speak for myself because I don't find anyone else doing it.

---

EP is just mad because he changed his username to something stupid.

Hmmm .. EP, EP ... where have I seen that before?  Sounds kind of distinguished.

---

---

I know you indicated that you weren't making an argument, Steve, but since one broke out anyway, I thought I'd add my two cents.  It seems that atheists and theists are talking about two different kinds of meaning.  There is the meaning which is experienced in the moment as a result of participating in an event or process which they find meaningful.  Winning a sporting event can be experienced as meaningful and will still have been meaningful whether anyone remembers or reflects upon that moment ever again.  Similarly for such things as raising a child or getting an education or discovering something important.  That type of meaning exists in the present and is not erased by what comes after.  The theists seem to want to concentrate on the type of meaning associated with remembrance and identity.  This is a different kind of meaning than the first and its absence doesn't invalidate the first, despite theists' claim to the contrary.  This type of meaning comes in a variety of forms, from the meaning one attaches to being a member of a family to the meaning one attaches to the events of one's history.  A theme, however, is appearing here, and it relates to your comment about values, purpose, and their relation to a person.  

In some sense you may be right that meaning ultimately relates to a person.  However, I would argue that meaning derives not from a relationship toward any person, but specifically a relationship towards the self.  All other forms of meaning are derivative.  A person must first embrace a meaning as one's own, and only secondarily do other things or persons obtain meaning from that initial commitment.  We can see the failure of the attempt to derive meaning through an external third party in examples such as the student who is pressured into a college career by one's parents, despite not being committed to the endeavor oneself, leaving one feeling that the exercise is ultimately pointless and empty.  A similar example occurs whenever parents try to live vicariously through the lives of their children by involving them in sports or learning a musical instrument or whatever.  Many times the child ends up feeling that the pursuit and their participation in it is empty and meaningless.  A theist may, as they choose, find it valuable having a God living vicariously through them by forcing them through a dreary theater dominated by obsession with sin and fruits promised but never obtained, but I do not care for it personally.  

---

Regardless, at best, the theist is overplaying their hand by claiming that the atheist's life is meaningless.  While an atheist lives, they are bathed in meaning to the same extant that the theist is.  The theist has no advantage there.  The theist simply wants to count their chickens before they are hatched, crow about an eternal life that may not exist, and derive meaning from dancing to the tune of an imaginary piper.

---

 

As an addendum, I find it a dubious proposition that deriving one's meaning by relating it to a transcendent object, whether God or something else, ultimately makes a person's experience of life more meaningful than if one doesn't.  This appears to be a form of Pascal's wager in which you essentially assert that you've made a better deal than the atheist by hitching your wagon to God.  Not only is it unclear how that actually alters your day to day experience of meaning, it seems to be a grasping for something one doesn't actually possess.  Beyond that, many things can fill the role of the transcendent in a person's life.  God isn't the only option.  Living a good life, being virtuous, most things related to the good have an element of the transcendent in them, whether one links that up to God or not.  Even simple things like appreciation of art or the passing of the seasons can yield a sense of transcendent meaning.  The Japanese have the aesthetic of wabi sabi which is about as transcendent as one can get.  The Buddhist and Hindu have the unending struggle against samsara.  And so on.  Theists don't have a monopoly on transcendent meaning.

---

QFT because fricking brilliant!

---

Jor, if you burn a book its meaning is gone regardless of any meaning it had in the past.

Meaning is not to be found in books.  Meaning is an event/state that happens in a human mind (at least).  A book can convey that meaning from one mind to another.  Burn one book and another copy of it can go on conveying the same meaning.  Burn all copies of it and the meaning that had been conveyed earlier will not be subtracted from anyone's experience which already received that meaning.  Even if no one to whom the meaning was transferred manages to convey it to anyone else, the same ideas/meaning can arise again and make its way into print or some other medium or just become part of an oral tradition.

I must be missing your point but for the life of me I have no idea then what your point may be.