An atheists guide to reality

[Mothonis]

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?

OK, lets stick to this one point of contention, no asking for evidence of Gods existence or other red herrings

Simple question, Is life is simply the chance combination of matter and destined ultimately for decay and nothingness?

I want to establish something we can agree that atheists believe.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods nothing more nothing less .Not a worldview.

Tell me how life has meaning for without lord Talos?

[Esquilax]

You really are clueless about the infinite regress of getting meaning from something else that gets its meaning from something else, etc.

Then explain it to me, smart guy. This is the problem I have with you people: you seem remarkably unwilling to expound upon why it is, exactly, that having a supposed objective meaning- that you can't confirm, let's just keep that in mind- is superior to the meaning I derive for myself. In fact, you can't even explain what's so logically inconsistent with the idea of a personally derived meaning, you just keep asserting it, over and over.

The other guy got scared and ran away rather than actually standing accountable for his views. Let's see if you'll do any better: can the assertions, start backing them up with a rationale.

[Bittersmart]

His views on supervenience are rather flawed.

He has considerations that social hierarchy is predicated upon the simplest forms of natural existence. This position largely excuses us as responsible moral beings and thus encourages a nihilistic outlook on life.

It's rather bleak to hold that regard yes. But he doesn't define all atheists, just as the Westboro Baptists don't represent all of Christianity.

The problem for atheists is that his position is logically consistent with atheism, its the atheists that try to maintain that intentionality, meaning, purpose in life etc are consistent with atheism that have the problem. I agree with Rosenberg, I just wish other atheists would face the problem and admit that's logically where you end up, empty, meaningless and pointless existence

Why would a life that objectively has no higher purpose mean that I must live my life without my own personal purposes?

I do not believe life has a pre-destined purpose or that my life MUST mean something in the vast universe or anything like that, but that doesn't mean that is how I have to live. I fill my life with things that are personally meaningful, just as everyone else does. I don't need purposes and morals to be handed down from on high, I can choose my own. And I lead quite a happy life with great priorities. In the "grand scheme" of things, we're ALL pretty pointless. But in this moment, I choose a life with personal goals that make it worth living to me.

[max-greece]

Nicely put Bittersmart - my take to a T.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Equilax, since “significance” speaks to two closely related thoughts, it muddies your thoughts about it.

Firstly, the word carries with it the connotation of “lasting value”. Anyone can see that apart from an afterlife, mankind’s achievements are, to borrow a line from Kansas, “dust in the wind.” When confined to the brief span of their days, the meanings people assign to the things of their life vanish with them. In some sense, atheists can take comfort in this notion and the sense of liberty it can give them. As a former atheist, I say this from personal experience.

Other people, including non-atheists, get the meaning of their lives through, as Woody Allen said, “…their work, their families, and the idea that future generations will know more.” These people try to borrow meaning from the future. But the future does not exist, except as a current hope. And a current hope falls within the vain striving for “lasting value”, as shown in the paragraph above.

As it relates specifically to the OP, Alex Rosenberg focuses more narrowly on the semiotic relationship between signs and that which they signify. In semiotics, pictures and ideas are about things because we assign meaning to them. For example, a picture of Mount St. Helens is about the actual Mount St. Helens. The letter D-O-G mean the same in English and the letters C-H-E-I-N in French because they both point to the same kind of animal. In contrast to this fact, physical things, in themselves, have no intentionality. For example, rocks, trees, and chemical reactions, are not “about” anything, i.e. they do not point to anything beyond themselves. They exist simply as rocks, trees, and chemical reactions.

Rosenberg argues, and I agree, that since physical things do not have meaning, then any philosophy of mind that makes mental properties identical to the brain and its physical states, undermines the notion very of meaning. It sets up an infinite regress. Marks, like words & pictures, dramatic life events, and scientific “evidence”, are signs that take their significance from other signs that take their significance from others signs, and so on. In physical monist philosophies, the brain is just another sign among signs. In physical monist theories, which nearly all the AF atheist accept, the knowing subject is an illusion, a uniquely compelling one, but an illusion nonetheless. Anyone with an open mind can see the incoherence of this notion: who exactly is having the illusion!

Clearly, intentionality is a part of reality, whether fundamental to it or emanating into it. Either way, I do not know what else to call this source of intentionality other than God.

So, Esq, no matter how strenuously you assert the opposite, you cannot escape the fact that atheism entails nihilism.

[Mothonis]

Equilax, since “significance” speaks to two closely related thoughts, it muddies your thoughts about it.

Firstly, the word carries with it the connotation of “lasting value”. Anyone can see that apart from an afterlife, mankind’s achievements are, to borrow a line from Kansas, “dust in the wind.” When confined to the brief span of their days, the meanings people assign to the things of their life vanish with them. In some sense, atheists can take comfort in this notion and the sense of liberty it can give them. As a former atheist, I say this from personal experience.

Other people, including non-atheists, get the meaning of their lives through, as Woody Allen said, “…their work, their families, and the idea that future generations will know more.” These people try to borrow meaning from the future. But the future does not exist, except as a current hope. And a current hope falls within the vain striving for “lasting value”, as shown in the paragraph above.

As it relates specifically to the OP, Alex Rosenberg focuses more narrowly on the semiotic relationship between signs and that which they signify. In semiotics, pictures and ideas are about things because we assign meaning to them. For example, a picture of Mount St. Helens is about the actual Mount St. Helens. The letter D-O-G mean the same in English and the letters C-H-E-I-N in French because they both point to the same kind of animal. In contrast to this fact, physical things, in themselves, have no intentionality. For example, rocks, trees, and chemical reactions, are not “about” anything, i.e. they do not point to anything beyond themselves. They exist simply as rocks, trees, and chemical reactions.

Rosenberg argues, and I agree, that since physical things do not have meaning, then any philosophy of mind that makes mental properties identical to the brain and its physical states, undermines the notion very of meaning. It sets up an infinite regress. Marks, like words & pictures, dramatic life events, and scientific “evidence”, are signs that take their significance from other signs that take their significance from others signs, and so on. In physical monist philosophies, the brain is just another sign among signs. In physical monist theories, which nearly all the AF atheist accept, the knowing subject is an illusion, a uniquely compelling one, but an illusion nonetheless. Anyone with an open mind can see the incoherence of this notion: who exactly is having the illusion!

Clearly, intentionality is a part of reality, whether fundamental to it or emanating into it. Either way, I do not know what else to call this source of intentionality other than God.

Life doesnt have meaning,we give life meaning.
just because something doesnt last forever, doesnt mean it doesnt have purpose.its all up to the individual to decide.these people have disproven you because they have purpose.Its completely subjective and you cant dictate wether others find meaning.

[Silver]

So, Esq, no matter how strenuously you assert the opposite, you cannot escape the fact that atheism entails nihilism.

I fail to understand how nihilism is a bad philosophy.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So, Esq, no matter how strenuously you assert the opposite, you cannot escape the fact that atheism entails nihilism.

I fail to understand how nihilism is a bad philosophy.

Good and bad have no meaning in nihilism.

---

Equilax, since “significance” speaks to two closely related thoughts, it muddies your thoughts about it.

Firstly, the word carries with it the connotation of “lasting value”. Anyone can see that apart from an afterlife, mankind’s achievements are, to borrow a line from Kansas, “dust in the wind.” When confined to the brief span of their days, the meanings people assign to the things of their life vanish with them. In some sense, atheists can take comfort in this notion and the sense of liberty it can give them. As a former atheist, I say this from personal experience.

Other people, including non-atheists, get the meaning of their lives through, as Woody Allen said, “…their work, their families, and the idea that future generations will know more.” These people try to borrow meaning from the future. But the future does not exist, except as a current hope. And a current hope falls within the vain striving for “lasting value”, as shown in the paragraph above.

As it relates specifically to the OP, Alex Rosenberg focuses more narrowly on the semiotic relationship between signs and that which they signify. In semiotics, pictures and ideas are about things because we assign meaning to them. For example, a picture of Mount St. Helens is about the actual Mount St. Helens. The letter D-O-G mean the same in English and the letters C-H-E-I-N in French because they both point to the same kind of animal. In contrast to this fact, physical things, in themselves, have no intentionality. For example, rocks, trees, and chemical reactions, are not “about” anything, i.e. they do not point to anything beyond themselves. They exist simply as rocks, trees, and chemical reactions.

Rosenberg argues, and I agree, that since physical things do not have meaning, then any philosophy of mind that makes mental properties identical to the brain and its physical states, undermines the notion very of meaning. It sets up an infinite regress. Marks, like words & pictures, dramatic life events, and scientific “evidence”, are signs that take their significance from other signs that take their significance from others signs, and so on. In physical monist philosophies, the brain is just another sign among signs. In physical monist theories, which nearly all the AF atheist accept, the knowing subject is an illusion, a uniquely compelling one, but an illusion nonetheless. Anyone with an open mind can see the incoherence of this notion: who exactly is having the illusion!

Clearly, intentionality is a part of reality, whether fundamental to it or emanating into it. Either way, I do not know what else to call this source of intentionality other than God.

Life doesnt have meaning,we give life meaning.
just because something doesnt last forever, doesnt mean it doesnt have purpose.its all up to the individual to decide.these people have disproven you because they have purpose.Its completely subjective and you cant dictate wether others find meaning.

I have already show your objections to be both unsupported and illogical. Please reread my post carefully and you should see your error.

[Silver]

Good and bad have no meaning in nihilism.

False. Nihilism is the rejection of traditional morality. As individuals, we create our own meaning of good and bad. In general, the majority of people, theists and atheists alike, agree on the fundamentals of what is good and bad. Where the difference in morality shifts can usually be pinpointed to the silly theistic laws found in mythological theology.

[Mothonis]

I fail to understand how nihilism is a bad philosophy.

Good and bad have no meaning in nihilism.

---

Life doesnt have meaning,we give life meaning.
just because something doesnt last forever, doesnt mean it doesnt have purpose.its all up to the individual to decide.these people have disproven you because they have purpose.Its completely subjective and you cant dictate wether others find meaning.

I have already show your objections to be both unsupported and illogical. Please reread my post carefully and you should see your error.

the meaning of life is not objective.so you cant tell mw iam wrong because there is no right answer.