An atheists guide to reality

[The Valkyrie]

Alex Rosenberg, (in his book "An atheists guide to reality") at last an honest atheist who admits that ultimately atheism when taken to its logical conclusion leads to lack in intentionality, lack of meaning or purpose in life and nihilism. If only a few more atheists admitted this to the general public we would be a lot better off. The true colours of atheism are coming out.

Seems this atheist is lying, not an atheist or, more likely, describing what HIS atheism is to HIM.

And trying to claim that this attitude is true of all atheists is ridiculous.

After all, you wouldn't like to be categorised with the CHristians who have been responsible for various evils committed in the name of yor religion by other CHristians, now, would you?

[max-greece]

Alex Rosenberg, (in his book "An atheists guide to reality") at last an honest atheist who admits that ultimately atheism when taken to its logical conclusion leads to lack in intentionality, lack of meaning or purpose in life and nihilism. If only a few more atheists admitted this to the general public we would be a lot better off. The true colours of atheism are coming out.

Why would it be an admission?
Why do you assume it is the only position an atheist might hold?
Why do you think "a point" is the be all and end all?

After you've answered those here's a few more:

How does having "a point" relate to freedom?
Suppose you've got "the point" wrong - assuming there is one?
What does it mean if "the point" is depressingly banal - like praising a deity who doesn't actually need that praise?

If there is "a point" what does that say of the value of things that are off-point - you know - irrelevant things like art, music, science, literature, architecture, sport, drama, comedy, democracy, mathematics - the minor stuff that ancient Greece gave us........

Gotta say I hear theists talk about a point to life and all I hear is:

"I'm glad I am a Delta."

Yea - we got an old book. Long live the point.

[Alex K]

The Point! The Point!

[StatCrux]

Actually, without explicit reference, I proposed the argument of parsimony (using Occam's razor) which largely contends that since natural theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in God's, both the claim of existence and the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

I dismiss those claims as being superfluous. That doesn't remove meaning from my life.

God is superfluous if you're looking for a God that "explains" things, we can all exist not accepting God, in that sense God can be superfluous, that is missing the entire message.

George Coyne explains it from 38:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4

[Faith No More]

Yep, you're definitely not getting the point. I don't need to provide evidence...

So, let me get this straight. You've come here claiming there is a problem with our worldview, yet when asked to demonstrate the actual substance behind this problem, you attempt to sidestep the burden of proof?

If you don't have anything more than that, just stay quiet and let the grownups do the talking.

[StatCrux]

Why would it be an admission?
Why do you assume it is the only position an atheist might hold?
Why do you think "a point" is the be all and end all?

After you've answered those here's a few more:

How does having "a point" relate to freedom?
Suppose you've got "the point" wrong - assuming there is one?
What does it mean if "the point" is depressingly banal - like praising a deity who doesn't actually need that praise?

I think everyone is missing what I'm actually saying, I'm not saying that atheists don't believe or have any meaning in their lives, I'm saying its logically inconsistent with atheism. If we are simply whizzing through space destined to nothingness, nothing we do here on earth has any real meaning, we may think it has meaning but that is different from actually having any meaning.

I don't think its the only position an atheist can hold, I think its the only logically consistent one.

Life have objective meaning (a point as you say) has huge implications on how we view things, intrinsic worth of human beings, equality, value of life etc, thats why it is so important, athesim paves the way for euthanasia, abortion, sexual promiscuity etc in some cases even infanticide has been proposed. So life having "a point" has huge moral implications.

[Whateverist]

Yep, you're definitely not getting the point. I don't need to provide evidence of any kind, I'm not trying to prove God exists. What I am saying is that if atheism is true then ultimately there is no meaning in life. We may "think" our lives have meaning and I'm sure most people do, it's whether this belief we have is true or not. So the focus is not on what I believe, but how atheists can logically claim meaning in life other than an imaginary one which they have created. Have you even looked at Rosenbergs book? He is an atheist and he wants atheists to face up to this problem.

Wonder if I have your own perspective correct on the possibility of meaning in ones life. Apparently you think there is no need to really believe that God exists in order to maintain a robust sense of meaning in your life. The problem, if I understand you correctly, is for those who deny the unquestioned existence of God. Those who don't rock the boat will be untroubled by questions of meaning. So you are really arguing for living an unexamined life devoid of any open reflection.

Does that actually work for you? Did it require transorbital lobotomy surgery?

[Esquilax]

I think everyone is missing what I'm actually saying, I'm not saying that atheists don't believe or have any meaning in their lives, I'm saying its logically inconsistent with atheism. If we are simply whizzing through space destined to nothingness, nothing we do here on earth has any real meaning, we may think it has meaning but that is different from actually having any meaning.

Okay, listen to me, very closely. Are you paying attention? 'Cause here goes:

Why is the meaning we have logically inconsistent with atheism? In what way is our meaning different from an objective one?

Furthermore, just chucking a god in there doesn't add objective meaning either! It just adds another subjective one. God's "meaning" for us still comes from a mind, which is the definition of subjective!

I don't think its the only position an atheist can hold, I think its the only logically consistent one.

A position you haven't at all tried to demonstrate yet. Asserting it over and over isn't an explanation, it's just repetition.

Life have objective meaning (a point as you say) has huge implications on how we view things, intrinsic worth of human beings, equality, value of life etc, thats why it is so important, athesim paves the way for euthanasia, abortion, sexual promiscuity etc in some cases even infanticide has been proposed. So life having "a point" has huge moral implications.

So, you're just being a ridiculous buffoon with that infanticide crack, but unless you can provide solid reasoning for why euthanasia, abortion and sexual promiscuity are bad, then my response is going to be a mighty "so the fuck what?"

[StatCrux]

Yep, you're definitely not getting the point. I don't need to provide evidence...

So, let me get this straight. You've come here claiming there is a problem with our worldview, yet when asked to demonstrate the actual substance behind this problem, you attempt to sidestep the burden of proof?

If you don't have anything more than that, just stay quiet and let the grownups do the talking.

No, I wasn't asked to demonstrate the substance of the argument, I was asked to provide evidence for the existence of God, which has nothing to do with the argument, as I stated, if you had bothered to read the thread.

[Alex K]

I think everyone is missing what I'm actually saying, I'm not saying that atheists don't believe or have any meaning in their lives, I'm saying its logically inconsistent with atheism.

Logic... you keep using that word...