Can there be purpose in life without an afterlife?

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Plenty of atheists seem to think so. Some even go as far as to say that death is what *gives* life a purpose since it defines your time here on earth. So I ask everyone here who does not believe in the afterlife: what gives YOUR life purpose?

Personally I do not believe in an afterlife but it strikes me as shortsightedness, plain and simple, to say that your life has a purpose if this is the case. What do you do that's so noteworthy? You have kids? You do volunteer work? You cured cancer? Big deal. One day, you will die, and all your children and grandchildren and everyone you loved or came in contact with or read about in a newspaper or saw on the street will be dead as well if they aren't already. And then there's the sun blowing up, and the whole entropy thing. I mean, when the universe grinds to a halt, I doubt there will be anyone around to care about you *or* your offspring.

I don't think this sort of thinking translates well into writing, or maybe I'm just a bad writer so I'll stop here. I don't doubt that many people will see this and think "Hey, philosophical glurge, wangst wangst." I think the human mindset prevents us from thinking too much about this and if this is all there is, then it makes sense that we should think this way. But you know, abstract thought is a bitch and sometimes a human will stop and catch a glimpse of the world behind the cyclorama backdrop that sometimes I think we were never meant to see.

A friend of mine once commented on how remarkable it was that it was so easy to die in the bad old days and yet all 1024 or whatever of our ancestors managed to die horrible deaths since if even one of them didn't make it we wouldn't be here today. But I don't think it's that remarkable at all since if someone doesn't exist then they don't exist, it's not like there's a great crowd of potential people sitting in some sort of galactic hammerspace, and if we didn't exist we wouldn't be able to think these thoughts anyway. So I wonder if the purpose of life is something similar, as in there either is or is not a purpose, and if there is good for us but if there isn't then we're still not consumed by angst simply because it's the only reality we know?

Or, in other words, do people only believe in a purpose to life because they've never seriously considered the alternative?

[Scott Plaid]

Personally I do not believe in an afterlife but it strikes me as shortsightedness, plain and simple, to say that your life has a purpose if this is the case. Something doesn't seem right here. You admit to not believing in the afterlife, and yet you seem to think there is a purpose to there being as point to the thing that does not exist. Does not compute.

Anyway, I don't see how having your consciousness survive death would give life any purpose that it does not already have. To me, life is its' own purpose, your question and your assumption that being remembered post-end of the universe is a big non-sequtor.

[clairobscur]

Plenty of atheists seem to think so. Some even go as far as to say that death is what *gives* life a purpose since it defines your time here on earth. So I ask everyone here who does not believe in the afterlife: what gives YOUR life purpose?



And what makes you think that an afterlife would give life a purpose, exactly? Or what the purpose of an afterlife?

[dandrews02]

The purpose of life is to create offspring and perpetuate the species.

The notion of an afterlife was created by people afraid of death, and by rulers hoping to keep the flock in line.

[SentientMeat]

"Purpose", "meaning" or "significance" are neuropsychological responses to sensory input or memories being combined in a particular way ("thoughts") - they are cognitive outputs of this incredible biological computer in our skull. For those 13 billion years before these incredible organs evolved, there was no such thing as "purpose".

And so, if we effectively create it ourselves, let's try and make some here by the shapes we place upon our monitor.

[davenportavenger]

The purpose of life is to create offspring and perpetuate the species.And what's the point of that? When the heat death of the universe comes, it will be rendered pointless.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

I define "purpose" as having your existence come to something in the end.

Existence by itself is hardly a purpose.

Then again, it's a fallacy to assume that many other things in life have a purpose, like, say, evolution.

I would just like to know what people are talking about when they talk about having a purpose in life. ESPECIALLY the atheists who talk about "making the most of your life, since it's all you've got." If that's all you've got, it seems like a pretty good reason why it shouldn't really matter either way.

It's like going for a walk in the park: if you can't remember going to the park, then what was the point of that?

[Leaffan]

My purpose is to raise nice children, who will, raise nice children, who will raise nice children....... All toward the betterment of mankind. That, and by acting in a respectful manner toward all my fellow humans, not to mention most other living creatures, helps them with their life: smile, hold doors open, let people merge, go to parent/teacher night, pick up dropped mitts, empty the dishwasher or clean the toilets without being asked, have some fun, and a couple of beers now and again. :)

That's about it really; there is no other meaing in life.

[Der Trihs]

My purpose is whatever I choose; I'm not someone's tool.

Why would an afterlife give a purpose to life ?

[dandrews02]

And what's the point of that? When the heat death of the universe comes, it will be rendered pointless.

As I'm waiting for annihilation to come, I can think of no better pastime than attempting to create offspring.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

My purpose is to raise nice children, who will, raise nice children, who will raise nice children....... All toward the betterment of mankind. That, and by acting in a respectful manner toward all my fellow humans, not to mention most other living creatures, helps them with their life: smile, hold doors open, let people merge, go to parent/teacher night, pick up dropped mitts, empty the dishwasher or clean the toilets without being asked, have some fun, and a couple of beers now and again. :)

That's about it really; there is no other meaing in life.

Mankind won't be around forever.

[Leaffan]

Mankind won't be around forever.

Neither will the Earth. Nor the solar system. Some would argue the Universe itself. But mankind will be around for a long time yet. In the mean time, try not to be a jerk to others, and enjoy a beer or two. Good damned philosophy really.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Neither will the Earth. Nor the solar system. Some would argue the Universe itself. But mankind will be around for a long time yet. In the mean time, try not to be a jerk to others, and enjoy a beer or two. Good damned philosophy really.

See what I mean? Shortsightedness again. Just because it's a long time coming doesn't mean it's trivial. I'm afraid I can't tell you exactly what I'm trying to say because I have a real problem with words. But my thesis is that there is a level of realisation of the world that most people never achieve because there is simply no reason for anyone to think like that which is beyond what you're saying but as long as I continue to think in words I can't even recall what that is and the more I try the less coherent I become. Sorry. This, if you're interested, is why I suck balls at essays, because I can talk crap all day but there seems to be a coffee filter between my brain and my mouth that catches all my complex thoughts and prevents them from passing. And it's also why nobody believes me when I say this. Right now I'm feeling pretty stupid and hoping someone who knows what I'm trying to say will come along and say it more eloquently.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

If that's all you've got, it seems like a pretty good reason why it shouldn't really matter either way.I am explicitly not suggesting that you commit suicide, but tell me; why don't you?

[yojimbo]

I would just like to know what people are talking about when they talk about having a purpose in life. ESPECIALLY the atheists who talk about "making the most of your life, since it's all you've got." If that's all you've got, it seems like a pretty good reason why it shouldn't really matter either way.

It's like going for a walk in the park: if you can't remember going to the park, then what was the point of that?

Huh? Well yeah at the end of the day nothing matters because once you're dead that's it... finito.... game over.

However you may as well enjoy life while you can as it's all you're going to get. I'd rather experience the most from life than sit in a room for 60 odd years and die. But you're right at the end of the day nothing matters cause everything will die and it will all be ultimately pointless.

I still don't see why you shouldn't make the most out of what you have though just for the experience of it.

In fact I would say that religious people have less reason to experience things. Christians just need to accept Jesus and obey the rules to enjoy an afterlife of never ending joy. If I truly believed that I'd spend all of my years on my knees praying and accepting God because it would lead to a eternity of heaven.

[Leaffan]

See what I mean? Shortsightedness again. (Snip, snip, snip.....)

Shortsightedness? How so? I admit the Earth and mankind won't last forever, and that my life is infinitesimally insignificant in the overall scheme of things. So why not try to be nice and have a bit of fun in the mean time. That's being realistic, not shortsighted.

I would be shortsighted if I thought otherwise. I just don't believe that there's more to life than simply trying to raise nice kids, being polite, and courteous, and trying to help others now and again. In that way, the people who have contact with me might do the same, and if we all do this for another couple of thousand years we might have a really nice planet. Until the sun burns out, of course.

[davenportavenger]

So why not try to be nice and have a bit of fun in the mean time.But what's the point of being nice and having fun? It might give you some transient joy, but it doesn't MEAN anything. And you might think it doesn't matter that it doesn't mean anything, but still, the benchmark of one's life is usually that it has some kind of meaning. That's why we talk about "meaningless deaths" (as opposed to what, if we're all meaningless?) being bad and someone "giving their life meaning" by doing good acts.

I am explicitly not suggesting that you commit suicide, but tell me; why don't you?We just did this.

[Thudlow Boink]

Call the world if you Please "The vale of Soul-making" Then you will find out the use of the world (I am speaking now in the highest terms for human nature admitting it to be immortal which I will here take for granted for the purpose of showing a thought which has struck me concerning it)Many people who do believe in an afterlife believe that one purpose of this life is learning and spiritual growth, and that our learning and growing and becoming better people here on Earth will "pay off" when we come to the afterlife. Without an afterlife, of course, there is not this sort of purpose in life. But there are other sorts of purposes to life (e.g. enjoying it while we can, making this world a better place) that a person can live for whether or not they believe that this world is all there is.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

My purpose in life is to fight nihilism.

[Lilairen]

"Purpose", "meaning" or "significance" are neuropsychological responses to sensory input or memories being combined in a particular way ("thoughts") - they are cognitive outputs of this incredible biological computer in our skull. For those 13 billion years before these incredible organs evolved, there was no such thing as "purpose".

And so, if we effectively create it ourselves, let's try and make some here by the shapes we place upon our monitor.

Or, as I'd put it:

Purpose and meaning are things created by people. Looking outside of people's minds for some sort of objective source of meaning is doomed to failure, because meaning exists in those minds alone. The creation of meaning is, IMO, one of the most fundamental parts of the nature of humanity. I tend to think that obsession with finitude (often but not always manifesting in the form of afterlife focus) is a cop-out.

[FinnAgain]

Simple:
To leave this world better than I found it and in the process continually strive towards improving myself.

No heaven required. Yes, everybody will one day die, but if their lives, while they were alive, were made better because of me I am quite satisfied. In my view, that's purpose enough.

I don't view eternity as being necessary for purpose. The purpose to me playing a game is chess is to enjoy myself, even though the game is over when it's done.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

I am explicitly not suggesting that you commit suicide, but tell me; why don't you?

Because there is a marked difference between theory and practice, and just because I *think* there's no difference between dying now and dying in 60 years' time or by my own hand or from a heart attack doesn't mean I'm going to hop into the bathtub right now and slit my wrists, because there is the world and there is *us*, and as much as you may try to distance yourself from your own context when considering things like this it remains that you can only *think* about this because you *are* human, just like my ancestor example, and this fades into the background so that you may forget that you are looking at the world through human goggles but you are, and human goggles tells you that suicide is bad, life has a point, the earth is big and the universe is small etc etc. And the other thing about them is that they don't come off, ever. And people say "So why is death such a big deal?" because of them, but it's a VERY big deal precisely because it's a much smaller deal than most people realise. And yes, I realise the human goggles are wrong in the same way the homunculus theory is wrong.

[Voyager]

You got to cut out reading those existentialists before bed, FRM. :)

While I'm here, I'm going to maximize the enjoyment I get out of life, which involves doing things for others as well as enjoying myself. I've got kids, and watching them do stuff I could never do is great. Having a student tell me he's used one of my papers in his research is great. Enabling people to talk together and improve the quality of our computers which can improve the quality of life for a lot of people is great. I used to work on stuff that was a minute contribution to keeping telephone switches up and running, and maybe saving someone's life. That was great.

And how do you know humanity has no future? Maybe some of our genetic contribution, far into the future, can open up a new universe for us to go into when this one wears out.

And I also don't see how an afterlife gives purpose. Nothing seems less purposeful than sitting in stasis for eternity. And why should I structure my life to get in there? How selfish! Would you really do something that went against your ethics and morals to win entrance to an afterlife? I wouldn't.

[Cliffy]

I agree with the OP, I think, that there's no purpose to life. The idea of purpose smacks of hubris to me -- what the hell does it matter to the Universe that I exist? Nothing, that's what.

Doesn't really keep me up nights, though.

--Cliffy

[Hoodoo Ulove]

All of this suggests that philosophy, like life, is pointless. And yet, we can't stop!

[kimera]

You don't know that we are all going to die and mankind will all become nothing. Many influential scientists believe there are ways for us to escape the probable death of this universe if we advance our technology far enough.

I'm an atheist, I don't believe that there is anything after death. However, I do believe in the intelligence of mankind and I have hope that we will someday advance to the point where, if I can't live again, at least mankind will, in whatever form it takes. Death does not define my life, the way I live defines my life and gives it purpose.

[Kalhoun]

There's short-term "meaning" and long-term "meaning." Short term is important, as it affects the time you spend here in your life (providing you WANT to have a life). Long-term meaning is more the big picture stuff...and I don't think anything we conceive of or know on this planet today has any control or effect on that whatsoever. We're less than a blip on the screen of the universe.

[Apos]

If a finite amount of something is worthless, then I can't see how an infinite amount of it could be worth anything either. Either the experience of existing is meaningful and important to you however little of it you get, or it isn't. It doesn't matter if its eternal or not. Everything is eternal in the sense that it is what happened, will have happened, and will always be what happened.

Just like trying to bring God into a discussion of morality, trying to bring the afterlife into a discussion of purpose adds nothing of value to the debate.

[Lightnin']

There are nights when I lie awake, wondering "What's the point of it all? Sixty years from now I'll be dead, and not long after that I'll be forgotten. None of my life's work will last more than a hundred years, if that- and odds are, even my offspring won't survive more than a million years. And even the Universe won't last forever- so why bother?"

But then I realize that while I'm here, I can have fun. I have good friends, family that loves me, and if I don't make the best of it now, I won't get any other chance.

Frankly, I don't understand how theists can honestly see the purpose in life here on Earth if, when they die, they get to spend ETERNITY in heaven? Life here is just an infinitely small blip compared to eternity- and a crappy (comparitively) blip, at that? Why does what you do in THIS life matter at all compared to the afterlife? Heck, throughout the course of your life you're given millions of chances to screw it up; the only ones that are completely guaranteed eternal happiness are the ones who don't get the chance to screw it up- newborn infants.

Taking this sort of logic to the extreme, wouldn't it be the ultimate in self-sacrifice to go around killing babies, thereby guaranteeing their place in heaven? THAT'S why religion frightens me- at their core, all religions are "I know what's better for you than you do."

Back to the subject, though- why does life have to HAVE a purpose? What's wrong with just living, and having fun?

[Leaffan]

But what's the point of being nice and having fun? It might give you some transient joy, but it doesn't MEAN anything......


Well, that's my point exactly. Life really doesn't mean anything. It has no purpose, apart from what I stated: being nice and having fun.

There's no afterlife. You are judged by those with whom you interact, and those who depend upon you. 10 years after your death you'll be fondly remembered as a good friend, a great Mom/Dad, or as a selfish prick. I choose the former.

[Lilairen]

Frankly, I don't understand how theists can honestly see the purpose in life here on Earth if, when they die, they get to spend ETERNITY in heaven?

This is why I see afterlife-obsession as a religious failure. An abrogation of responsibility to deal with meaningfulness in the present, as it were.

The question of getting a cookie when I'm dead is spectacularly irrelevant to whether or not my life is conducted well.

[Revenant Threshold]

I agree - I don't think there's a point to life.



Doesn't mean I can't enjoy it while I have it, and try to make things a bit better for other people, though. And I might have kids - that could be good. What is the OP suggesting? We just all sit around and wait to die?

[xanthous]

The purpose of life is to create offspring and perpetuate the species.

The notion of an afterlife was created by people afraid of death, and by rulers hoping to keep the flock in line.

So if I'm planning to not have kids, does this mean I'm without a purpose and therefore fucked?

[Roderick Femm]

I'm going to hijack this for a minute, and then back to topic:

FRM, I had a philosophy professor in college who said to us "If you can't say what you mean, you don't know what you mean." If his intent is not obvious, I took it to mean that our inchoate thoughts may seem brilliant and deep to us, but they don't count as such unless we can express them well enough for someone else to understand them. I have found this to be true, especially here on this board. Reading through an interesting thread I may think I have a valuable new insight, but when I try to write it down it turns out that I hadn't thought it through and that there really wasn't much there.

Also, you seem to be saying that most people don't have these deep thoughts about the ultimate meaning of life, and I think you're dead wrong.

Now back to the topic. When anyone asks me, I tell them "the meaning of life is to live it", which seems to be pretty much what most other people are saying. My life is mine, thank you very much, and it has meaning to me. Once I'm dead, I won't be around to care whether it had meaning to anyone else.

[Shodan]

Well, that's my point exactly. Life really doesn't mean anything. It has no purpose, apart from what I stated: being nice and having fun.

There's no afterlife. You are judged by those with whom you interact, and those who depend upon you. 10 years after your death you'll be fondly remembered as a good friend, a great Mom/Dad, or as a selfish prick. I choose the former.
Which is fine as far as it goes. Just keep in mind that the person who is remembered as a selfish prick has made a decision that is exactly equivalent to yours. Neither of you has made any difference, both your purposes are equally valid because they are equally meaningless.

The problem comes when you need to argue in favor of something. Why should I do nice things to other people? It will make no difference. Why shouldn't I steal from the poor if I want to? It will make no difference.

Hitler and Gandhi made different choices, but they were equally valid, IOW. And things like murder, suicide, sadism, child molestation, are all just as valid as supporting your family or donating to the hurricane victims.

Since it doesn't matter anyway.

Regards,
Shodan

[Leaffan]

Which is fine as far as it goes. Just keep in mind that the person who is remembered as a selfish prick has made a decision that is exactly equivalent to yours. Neither of you has made any difference, both your purposes are equally valid because they are equally meaningless.

The problem comes when you need to argue in favor of something. Why should I do nice things to other people? It will make no difference. Why shouldn't I steal from the poor if I want to? It will make no difference.

Hitler and Gandhi made different choices, but they were equally valid, IOW. And things like murder, suicide, sadism, child molestation, are all just as valid as supporting your family or donating to the hurricane victims.

Since it doesn't matter anyway.

Regards,
Shodan

Yeah, but my point is that more Gandhis advance mankind; more Hitlers don't. If I was concerned about my impact 4 billion years from now it wouldn't matter. I'm concerned about my impact to my generation and the few more to come.

I don't know what Hitler's upbringing was like, but I'm guessing it's a little different from the way I'm raising my kids. My influence on my kids, and my friends, could potentially have world-changing implications. What if I taught my son that all non-caucasian people, or all Jews, or all Muslims were evil incarnate and we should destroy them by any means. What if he then decided to start his own personal agenda and fulfill his dad's dreams by attempting to eradicate other races.

Most of the time our little day-to-day actions aren't going to solve anything. But what if we continued, as a race, to be more accepting, understanding, tolerant? I think that's what we have indeed been doing since the beginning of time. And, like I said before, in a few thousand years we might actually have created a nice planet.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time.

[Baal Houtham]

"If a finite amount of something is worthless, then I can't see how an infinite amount of it could be worth anything either... It doesn't matter if its eternal or not."

Yepper.
If a worm ate muck on the ocean floor for two months 70 million years ago, how is that less meaningful than if that same worm eats muck on the ocean floor forever and ever?

Sorry FlyingRamen, but the only way to have a meaningful existence is to let yourself believe that something has meaning. Most humans automatically feel that some things are important. It's possible to reason away those feelings, but I don't think that's something you should do on a daily basis.

~Baal~

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Which is fine as far as it goes. Just keep in mind that the person who is remembered as a selfish prick has made a decision that is exactly equivalent to yours. Neither of you has made any difference, both your purposes are equally valid because they are equally meaningless.

The problem comes when you need to argue in favor of something. Why should I do nice things to other people? It will make no difference. Why shouldn't I steal from the poor if I want to? It will make no difference.

Hitler and Gandhi made different choices, but they were equally valid, IOW. And things like murder, suicide, sadism, child molestation, are all just as valid as supporting your family or donating to the hurricane victims.

Since it doesn't matter anyway.

Regards,
Shodan
Sure it matters. It matters to me and I'm the only one that counts. My life's "purpose" is defined only as it matters to me personally. Hurting people would make me unhappy and detract from my quality of life. I, and I alone, will decide what is "valid" for me.

Objectively speaking, you're sort of right. There is no objective purpose to the universe and nothing matters. Subjectively, though, my life matters greatly and all my choices are profoundly valid because I am the center and the point of my subjective universe. Once I am dead, my subjective universe ceases to exist so it's irrelevant what what happens objectively.

The question you raise is a common one from theists and it always sort of puzzles me. Essentially the question is "if you're not afraid of a venegeful, invisible sky god, then why don't you go out raping and murdering people?" Because I don't want to, that's why. Are you saying that if you didn't believe in an afterlife, you would go out raping and murdering?

[David Simmons]

The purpose of life is to glorify God and keep His commandments.

That's independent of any after life isn't it?

[Shodan]

Most of the time our little day-to-day actions aren't going to solve anything. But what if we continued, as a race, to be more accepting, understanding, tolerant? Then we all die, and nothing that we did makes any difference to us. Exactly the same situation, in fact, as if we had dedicated our lives to torture and genocide.

A difference which makes no difference is no difference.Sure it matters. It matters to me and I'm the only one that counts.Sure, but that identical argument can be used to justify murdering someone if I feel like it.
My life's "purpose" is defined only as it matters to me personally. Hurting people would make me unhappy and detract from my quality of life. I, and I alone, will decide what is "valid" for me. See above.

And my point was largely that there is no way that you can disprove any other decision, nor any valid basis to argue that someone else should make a different decision. Maybe you are happy with your subjective existence. There exists no logical way to show that I am not equally justified in murdering you. If it makes me happy, then my decision to kill you is just as valid as yours to remain alive.
Once I am dead, my subjective universe ceases to exist so it's irrelevant what what happens objectively.And so death answers all. It makes no difference what was done to you before death once you are dead, and therefore murder is not immoral.
The question you raise is a common one from theists and it always sort of puzzles me. Essentially the question is "if you're not afraid of a venegeful, invisible sky god, then why don't you go out raping and murdering people?" Because I don't want to, that's why. Are you saying that if you didn't believe in an afterlife, you would go out raping and murdering?
There isn't any logically valid reason not to. What difference would it make?

So you don't want to. What difference is there between you and someone else who does want to?

If meaning is just subjective preference, then it has no meaning to anyone besides the subject. So again, Hitler is just as valid as Gandhi.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hoodoo Ulove]

Which is fine as far as it goes. Just keep in mind that the person who is remembered as a selfish prick has made a decision that is exactly equivalent to yours. Neither of you has made any difference, both your purposes are equally valid because they are equally meaningless.A purpose is a property of actions. A meaning is a property of words. It make no sense to speak of a meaning of a purpose.Why should I do nice things to other people? It will make no difference. Why shouldn't I steal from the poor if I want to? It will make no difference.I don't know what you mean by "It will make no difference". Every action makes a difference in something.Since it doesn't matter anyway.To say that nothing matters is to make a moral judgment, and is thus self-contradictory.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sure, but that identical argument can be used to justify murdering someone if I feel like it.
Justify to who? Not to me and I'm the only one who desides what is just.
See above.[/quote]
Ditto.
And my point was largely that there is no way that you can disprove any other decision, nor any valid basis to argue that someone else should make a different decision.
Prove to who? valid to who? If it's valid to me it's valid.
Maybe you are happy with your subjective existence. There exists no logical way to show that I am not equally justified in murdering you. If it makes me happy, then my decision to kill you is just as valid as yours to remain alive.
And so death answers all. It makes no difference what was done to you before death once you are dead, and therefore murder is not immoral.
Once again, I decide all by myself what is just and not just. It is not just for you to kill me because I say so. My say-so settles everything in my universe.
There isn't any logically valid reason not to. What difference would it make?

So you don't want to. What difference is there between you and someone else who does want to?

If meaning is just subjective preference, then it has no meaning to anyone besides the subject. So again, Hitler is just as valid as Gandhi.
We're going in circles. The difference between me and everybody else is that it's MY UNIVERSE, not theirs. The purpose of life is to make the universe pleasant for ME. Anyone who thwarts that purpose is wrong by definition because I say so and I am the final authority.

The funny thing about this is that everybody else feels exactly the same way. Even the decision to submit to a perceived moral authority is rooted in a completely subjective personal decision that submitting to that authoruty is the "right" thing to do. It's not as though there's any way to determine what is objectively "moral" anyway so all anyone has is subjective morality. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

[Polerius]

If a finite amount of something is worthless, then I can't see how an infinite amount of it could be worth anything either.
In math at least, it is possible for an infinite amount of "something wortheless" to be "worth something".

[clairobscur]

Or, as I'd put it:

Purpose and meaning are things created by people. Looking outside of people's minds for some sort of objective source of meaning is doomed to failure, because meaning exists in those minds alone. The creation of meaning is, IMO, one of the most fundamental parts of the nature of humanity. I tend to think that obsession with finitude (often but not always manifesting in the form of afterlife focus) is a cop-out.



I'm interested by your concepts, and I would like to suscribe to your newsletter....

[clairobscur]

Nothing seems less purposeful than sitting in stasis for eternity.


An important point, I think. Assuming an eternal afterlife that would be absolute bliss, I've a hard time finding something that would differentiate it from stasis. Or from half a second of absolute bliss.

[clairobscur]

There's short-term "meaning" and long-term "meaning." Short term is important, as it affects the time you spend here in your life (providing you WANT to have a life). Long-term meaning is more the big picture stuff...and I don't think anything we conceive of or know on this planet today has any control or effect on that whatsoever. We're less than a blip on the screen of the universe.


I would disagree with that. I would tend to support the buddhist view : everything we do, even the smallest moves, has consequences on both the large scale and the long term.

[Leaffan]

Then we all die, and nothing that we did makes any difference to us. (snippage....)
Shodan

Well, in all probability it won't make much difference to us. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it could make a difference to my kids and to future generations.

And yes, I'll be in a cold dark grave at the time. So?

[Apos]

I agree - I don't think there's a point to life.

I don't believe you. People's lives are filled with purpose and points. We can't HELP it.

[Apos]

In math at least, it is possible for an infinite amount of "something wortheless" to be "worth something".

Explain. How is N times 0 ever anything but 0?

[Apos]

Which is fine as far as it goes. Just keep in mind that the person who is remembered as a selfish prick has made a decision that is exactly equivalent to yours. Neither of you has made any difference, both your purposes are equally valid because they are equally meaningless.

Big round of applause for our token nihilist everybody! He believes in NOOOOSHING!!!!
(Remember: Do not tip the nihilists! They hate it.)

Seriously though, is there any point to your exercise here? Do you believe that life is only meaningful if there is an afterlife? Are you attacking some particular short-sighted comment made by one of the posters in particular? It seems like you are playing devils advocate here, but not obvious as to what view or purpose your sarcasm is directed towards.

[Agnostic Pagan]

"End and Goal. Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; and yet, as long as the melody has not reached its end, it also has not reached its goal. A parable."
Nietzche

The purpose of life? To sing a little song, do a little dance, make a little love.

I struggled with the same question as the OP for a long time. And then realized that the question itself is part of the purpose of life - to decide for oneself what that purpose is. And then aim for it.

Life does not have any grand purpose or design, it merely is. And that is good enough for me. Yet even if life lacks meaning in the beginning, it does not mean it cannot be instilled with meaning.

Originally Posted by Lilairen
Or, as I'd put it:

Purpose and meaning are things created by people. Looking outside of people's minds for some sort of objective source of meaning is doomed to failure, because meaning exists in those minds alone. The creation of meaning is, IMO, one of the most fundamental parts of the nature of humanity. I tend to think that obsession with finitude (often but not always manifesting in the form of afterlife focus) is a cop-out.

I agree, and following Buddha, what is the mind that creates the meaning...I decide the purpose of my life, which is partly determining the answers to 'I', 'purpose', 'life', and 'nature'.

As far as any afterlife, I will deal with that when I get there. It has no bearing on my current existence. This life has plenty to offer on its own.


AP

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Okay, now that my thinking is a little less impaired, I will try to explain myself a little better. Just saying that made my brain function go down a little, so we'll see how we go.

An afterlife in itself does not give life any more purpose, but I assume that an afterlife implies the existence of a God of some description who has created us to have a purpose. And also if the human race would be around forever then it might actually be worth something to improve it. And let's say you are working for a company, and then you go work somewhere else and you say you are satisfied that you have done your part for the company. But the only reason you can be satisfied is you can remember working there and feel a sense of purpose, since purpose is a part of you. But after you die there is no more you and therefore no more purpose. Which means there was never a purpose in the first place. And Voyager I have not been reading existentialists before bed but I *am* wearing a Kafka t-shirt. I still don't understand why some people treat the death of the human race as something different from their own death because it seems to me it is just as inevitable and can be thought of as simply the death of the last human as opposed to them, the 24 352 308 134th human or something. And since everything an atheist does is ultimately for another *person* it would no seem very productive.

[Apos]

An afterlife in itself does not give life any more purpose, but I assume that an afterlife implies the existence of a God of some description who has created us to have a purpose.

Well, that's a pretty big addendum: why not just say that and leave the afterlife out of it in the first place?

The problem being that if God created people with a purpose, then so what? Being created by somebody for a purpose just means that THEY have an intention for you. That doesn't mean that YOU find it meaningful or find purpose in that. Purpose is still something you have to find in what you are doing.

As with most things, bringing God into the equation, despite initial appearances, adds precisely nothing, gets us nowhere towards answering our questions. How does the existence of God demonstrate that a finite, or even an infinite, life, is inherently meaningful? God is a dude that is eternal, but why does that make his purposes or desires particuarly important or moral? Does power do that, in your view? Why? I don't see how any of that helps resolve the quest for knowledge.

And also if the human race would be around forever then it might actually be worth something to improve it.

This makes no sense to me. Why doesn't it make sense to improve the human condition regardless of whether we all will continue to experience existence forever? I mean, forgive me for saying this, but if you and what I'm trying to read might be Shodan's position is correct, that really IS the ultimate sort of nihilism. If you guys don't see the value in improving peoples lives for its own sake, instead of because of some sort of metaphysical payoff of eternity, or at least the promise that you're actions will persist forever, then I really can't see that you sincerely value anything in any way that I can understand.

In fact, to turn this around, if there is an afterlife in which we'll continue forever, THEN it hardly seems worth the effort to improve everything, especially since supposedly everything will all just be made/screened out to be perfect anyway?

And let's say you are working for a company, and then you go work somewhere else and you say you are satisfied that you have done your part for the company. But the only reason you can be satisfied is you can remember working there and feel a sense of purpose, since purpose is a part of you. But after you die there is no more you and therefore no more purpose. Which means there was never a purpose in the first place.

What? Why is there no purpose in the first place? The fact that there is no Martin Luther King now doesn't mean that there never was a Martin Luther King. The dude lived. Now he's dead. But while he was here, and after he made a huge difference in people's lives. Is that worth nothing to you just because he and all the people he affected will some day die?

What the heck DO you value then? What sort of bizarre value doesn't find meaning and value in what people do, regardless of whether it's recorded in some sort of eternal Guiness Book of Universe Records?

I still don't understand why some people treat the death of the human race as something different from their own death because it seems to me it is just as inevitable and can be thought of as simply the death of the last human as opposed to them, the 24 352 308 134th human or something. And since everything an atheist does is ultimately for another *person* it would no seem very productive.

Dude. People are alive. NOW. Doing things affect their lives. That MEANS something to them. It doesn't matter that they will someday die, that you will die, that no one will remember. If none of that matters, would that mean you wouldn't mind being tortured in a cell for ten years since it doesn't matter in the end? Does that make ANY sense?

[wayward]

And also if the human race would be around forever then it might actually be worth something to improve it. And let's say you are working for a company, and then you go work somewhere else and you say you are satisfied that you have done your part for the company. But the only reason you can be satisfied is you can remember working there and feel a sense of purpose, since purpose is a part of you. But after you die there is no more you and therefore no more purpose. Which means there was never a purpose in the first place. And Voyager I have not been reading existentialists before bed but I *am* wearing a Kafka t-shirt. I still don't understand why some people treat the death of the human race as something different from their own death because it seems to me it is just as inevitable and can be thought of as simply the death of the last human as opposed to them, the 24 352 308 134th human or something. And since everything an atheist does is ultimately for another *person* it would no seem very productive.
To take your company analogy further - Sure, if I don't remember working there, the good work I've done there would mean nothing to me afterwards. But while I'm there, it would be very important to me indeed. I'd be proud of my work, happy to receive compliments from my colleagues, and happy to know that I'm improving the lives of all of them it at least some small way.
The thing is, if this life is all we have, that's exactly why it's meaningful. This little block of space-time, 80-odd years across (hopefully) is the whole universe from my point of view, and I want to make it as nice a universe as possible. I can imply that other people want to have nice universes too, and do my little bit to help them achieve that.
As you say, eventually there won't be any people left so nothing will matter because there won't be anyone for it matter to. I say, so what? Between now and then, there's going to be countless people to whom the quality of life will matter. I know it matters to me, and I know I'm grateful to all the people in the past who made that possible, even if they're completely forgotten in the grand scheme of things. Why not try my best to let that continue in the future?

[FlyingRamenMonster]

This makes no sense to me. Why doesn't it make sense to improve the human condition regardless of whether we all will continue to experience existence forever? I mean, forgive me for saying this, but if you and what I'm trying to read might be Shodan's position is correct, that really IS the ultimate sort of nihilism. If you guys don't see the value in improving peoples lives for its own sake, instead of because of some sort of metaphysical payoff of eternity, or at least the promise that you're actions will persist forever, then I really can't see that you sincerely value anything in any way that I can understand.

Payoff? Nope. I don't want any payoff. But the sense of having achieved something is a fallacy because if humans won't be around forever, then everything you did *for* humans amounts to exactly nothing.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

That includes MLK, by the way. What he did for people will be irrelevant after there are no more people.

[wayward]

...everything you did *for* humans amounts to exactly nothing.

Not from the point of view of each of us whilst we still exist. And isn't that the only point of view that really matters?

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Not from the point of view of each of us whilst we still exist. And isn't that the only point of view that really matters?

No.

[wayward]

To put it another way:
Yes, you're right, but shouldn't we just make the best of it anyway?
I know that's looking at things through 'human goggles', but what's so bad about that? I like these goggles. They really suit my eyes.

[Shodan]

Well, in all probability it won't make much difference to us. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it could make a difference to my kids and to future generations.

And yes, I'll be in a cold dark grave at the time. So?So will your kids and future generations. And nothing you do will then affect them in any way. Therefore nothing you do will make any difference. To anyone.
Once again, I decide all by myself what is just and not just. It is not just for you to kill me because I say so. My say-so settles everything in my universe.Nonsense. I kill you, and you no longer say anything. Therefore, even by your subjective standard, it is not immoral to kill you. It wasn't immoral for Hitler to kill the Jews, because dead people don't object.

Unless you can come up with some rational basis for your subjective judgement, you haven't succeeded in saying anything.
Seriously though, is there any point to your exercise here? Do you believe that life is only meaningful if there is an afterlife? Are you attacking some particular short-sighted comment made by one of the posters in particular? It seems like you are playing devils advocate here, but not obvious as to what view or purpose your sarcasm is directed towards.What sarcasm? I am looking for logical consistency, or the admission that it doesn't exist and that arguments about atheist morality are meaningless noises.

Saying "we create our own meaing" is exactly the same as saying "there is no meaning". Unless you can come up with some consistent, rational standard, then you can "create your own meaning" based on anything - altruism, racism, the Red Sox - anything - and it is exactly as valid as anything else.

Therefore, it is meaningless for atheists to say "the invasion of Iraq was immoral", or "the government should provide universal health care", or "it was wrong to gas the Kurds", or "the Holocaust was not nice". All these are begging the question. Unless you can establish some standard for morality which is better than nothing, every statement about morality is a string of noises meaning exactly nothing.

Regards,
Shodan

[norinew]

Y'know, this it the kind of OP that really irks me. FRM starts out asking "non-believers how do you find purpose in life?" Then goes around, answering each response with "Nope, not purposeful enough". It's apparent to me, from the responses, that there isn't anything that will make the OP say "Oh, so that's where you get your purpose from!"

I, myself, am a theist. My husband is an atheist. There is very little difference in what we find purpose in in our lives. There's very little difference in our morality, except that I'm pro-SSM, and he's undecided, although he can't say why.

If I am correct, and there is a God, and there is an afterlife, then the life I'm living in this world serves to strengthen and prepare me for the next life, and to do things that are meaningful in the here and now. If hubby is right, and there is no God and no afterlife, then the life he's living in this world serves to do things that are meaningful and relevant in the here and now. We know that in the Waaaaay long term, it won't really matter any more, but it matters now, and that's what we must concern ourselves with, because it's all we really have.

[Apos]

Unless you can come up with some rational basis for your subjective judgement, you haven't succeeded in saying anything.
What sarcasm? I am looking for logical consistency, or the admission that it doesn't exist and that arguments about atheist morality are meaningless noises.

But in that case, you're making a terribly empty argument. Do you have any account of morality that is immune to your own insistence that everything is meaningless other than the generally agreed upon standards by which most people judge common morality, regardless of their origin or justification?

Saying "we create our own meaing" is exactly the same as saying "there is no meaning".

No, it isn't. And again, you've made no argument to the contrary other than to insist it's so. Nor have you presented any alternative idea about what makes "real" meaning or what meaning even is. I'd say you're leaning increasingly towards "wasting everyone's time" if this is your angle, devoid of any counter-example.

Unless you can come up with some consistent, rational standard, then you can "create your own meaning" based on anything - altruism, racism, the Red Sox - anything - and it is exactly as valid as anything else.

First of all, subjective meaning, however transitory is not in the least "no meaning." Second of all, three's nothing _inconsistent_ or _irrational_ about any of the standards you list. Comparing them in terms of which is more _valuable_ may require some meta-ethic, but internally there's nothing that need be susceptible to what you're complaining about. Thirdly, despite all you say, it's pretty clear that people DON'T consider all moral standards exactly as valid as anything else. In fact, there is rboad consensus in human society about what is moral and immoral in general how we can tell. Sure, ultimately to some superman on a hill devoid of human feeling empathy and values, that doesn't mean anything, but arguing that you ARE that being isn't all that impressive a point, particularly when you are just faking it to try and smear your opponents anyway.

Therefore, it is meaningless for atheists to say "the invasion of Iraq was immoral", or "the government should provide universal health care", or "it was wrong to gas the Kurds", or "the Holocaust was not nice". All these are begging the question.

I don't think that concept means what you think it means. I don't think you understand what "meaningless" means (since if it means something to me then it clearly isn't meaningless). And I don't think you understand what "begging the question" involves, because bare statements of value certainly dont' contain their own premises: they aren't even arguments. How can you use language this sloppily?

Here's an actual fallacy for you: saying that because I'll die, my feelings and values don't matter is a complete non seqitur.

Unless you can establish some standard for morality which is better than nothing, every statement about morality is a string of noises meaning exactly nothing.

Okay. I thought you might be trying to make a deeper or more interesting point. This is about 2nd grade level philosophy.

If you can establish a morality that in any way satisfies your complaints (complaints which I don't think you've even really bothered to justify outside of blind assertions), go right ahead and try. Otherwise, what's the point of your complaint andd why single out atheists?

[Apos]

Payoff? Nope. I don't want any payoff. But the sense of having achieved something is a fallacy because if humans won't be around forever, then everything you did *for* humans amounts to exactly nothing.

Again, to hold this view is to be an advocate of nihilism, regardless of whatever else you might believe.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Shodan seems to be criticizing others' purpose in life because it does not prevent murder (and presumably other antisocial behavior in general). There are of course many fallacies inherent in this line of argument. Among the most obvious:

1. No reasonable definition of "purpose" includes the requirement that murder is prevented. Perhaps Shodan is conflating the concepts of purpose with "ethic" or "moral."

2. No evidence exists that other constructions of purpose, most notably ones that include the concepts of God and the afterlife, prevent murder. One could circularly argue that those who commit murder must not really have conceived of purpose to include afterlife and God, even if they claim otherwise.

However, we would have to ask why we are limiting harm to only murder, and what cut-point along the continuum of harmful behavior would end up yielding a meaningful number of people who conceive of purpose to include an afterlife and have yet never harmed others.

3. And of course, as Diogenes has observed, one's subjective definition of purpose is just that - one's subjective definition. I'm hard pressed to understand how someone's concept of purpose could prevent a second person from killing someone.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Payoff? Nope. I don't want any payoff. But the sense of having achieved something is a fallacy because if humans won't be around forever, then everything you did *for* humans amounts to exactly nothing.Can you say that your parents did nothing for you? Perhaps it would be better to ask if you feel that generally, parents do nothing for their children. I know that I would be hard pressed to claim that my parents did nothing for me simply because I will not be around forever. Regardless of my impermanence, my parents have had a meaningful and marked impact on my life.

Similarly, by less directly, MLK has influenced my life as well, despite having died before my birth.

Why does the concept of "purpose" (or by extension "benefit") have to include "eternity"? I really don't think it does, and by confusing the two you are causing yourself some difficulties comprehending others' responses to you.

I would not recommend that you see the film "March of the Penguins."

[UnwrittenNocturne]

I am somewhat puzzled by the idea that their ought to be a purpose to life. It looks suspiciously like trying to derive an ought (the purpose) from an is (life). Meaning I can understand - we create that for ourselves all the time, completely within the confines of our own minds.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Y'know, this it the kind of OP that really irks me. FRM starts out asking "non-believers how do you find purpose in life?" Then goes around, answering each response with "Nope, not purposeful enough". It's apparent to me, from the responses, that there isn't anything that will make the OP say "Oh, so that's where you get your purpose from!"

I changed my mind in the middle of my thread.


If I am correct, and there is a God, and there is an afterlife, then the life I'm living in this world serves to strengthen and prepare me for the next life, and to do things that are meaningful in the here and now. If hubby is right, and there is no God and no afterlife, then the life he's living in this world serves to do things that are meaningful and relevant in the here and now. We know that in the Waaaaay long term, it won't really matter any more, but it matters now, and that's what we must concern ourselves with, because it's all we really have.

Which, according to my theory, is nothing. Do you begin to understand now?


If you can establish a morality that in any way satisfies your complaints (complaints which I don't think you've even really bothered to justify outside of blind assertions), go right ahead and try. Otherwise, what's the point of your complaint andd why single out atheists?

Probably because most religious people believe their God gives them a purpose. This argument is about *lack* of purpose.

Again, to hold this view is to be an advocate of nihilism, regardless of whatever else you might believe.

And believing one's own subjective view is all there is is solipsism.

[Shodan]

But in that case, you're making a terribly empty argument. Do you have any account of morality that is immune to your own insistence that everything is meaningless other than the generally agreed upon standards by which most people judge common morality, regardless of their origin or justification? No, you are trying to change the subject. I am asserting that, given the premises of the OP, no morality can be established. I am under no obligation to argue that I can - I am granting the premises and arguing the conclusions.
No, it isn't. And again, you've made no argument to the contrary other than to insist it's so.On the contrary, I am pointing out that all suggestions for meaning or purpose are based on non-rational assumptions - articles of faith, in other words.
Nor have you presented any alternative idea about what makes "real" meaning or what meaning even is. I'd say you're leaning increasingly towards "wasting everyone's time" if this is your angle, devoid of any counter-example.See above. Pointing out a logical fallacy does not obligate anyone to change the premise of the discussion.

If you don't like my points, then propose some rational basis for thinking that life has meaning or purpose. If you don't have any, too bad.
First of all, subjective meaning, however transitory is not in the least "no meaning." Second of all, three's nothing _inconsistent_ or _irrational_ about any of the standards you list. Comparing them in terms of which is more _valuable_ may require some meta-ethic, but internally there's nothing that need be susceptible to what you're complaining about.The lack of a meta-ethic is exactly what I am talking about. Certainly if you grant the premise - "racism is the Good" - then a life devoted to racism is a meaningful one. But there is no possible rational basis on which you can decide that racism is the Good that cannot be equally refuted if you claim that the welfare of your family is the Good, or altruism, or anything else.
Thirdly, despite all you say, it's pretty clear that people DON'T consider all moral standards exactly as valid as anything else. In fact, there is rboad consensus in human society about what is moral and immoral in general how we can tell. Argument ad populum is a logical fallacy. You haven't established that the broad consensus is either correct, or based on anything, or that it leads to some different outcome that can be rationally defended.

There once was a broad consensus that the earth was flat. Can we decide therefore that this is based on reality?
Sure, ultimately to some superman on a hill devoid of human feeling empathy and values, that doesn't mean anything, but arguing that you ARE that being isn't all that impressive a point, particularly when you are just faking it to try and smear your opponents anyway.At least I don't resort to ad hominems. ;)
If you can establish a morality that in any way satisfies your complaints (complaints which I don't think you've even really bothered to justify outside of blind assertions), go right ahead and try. Otherwise, what's the point of your complaint andd why single out atheists?
One last crack at changing the subject again, eh? Didn't work then either.

Regards,
Shodan

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Can you say that your parents did nothing for you? Perhaps it would be better to ask if you feel that generally, parents do nothing for their children. I know that I would be hard pressed to claim that my parents did nothing for me simply because I will not be around forever. Regardless of my impermanence, my parents have had a meaningful and marked impact on my life.

My parents did plenty for me, but it was a wasted effort in the same way that everything is a wasted effort and yes, in the same way MLK's work was a wasted effort. Would you bother reupholstering a car that was about to be crushed? Hang on, lemme try and predict you answer:

But EVERY car gets crushed someday! Are you suggesting it's not worth it to reupholster a car that still has years of useful life left?

Yep.

Here is thing thing: religious people get satisfaction from knowing that they are following God's plan. Atheists get satisfaction solely from knowing that they are helping their fellow man. The crucial difference being that God is forever and humans are not, at least not if you're an atheist. And I posit that the only reason atheists are not all wallowing in existential angst is that most people never really think about this at all.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Which, according to my theory, is nothing. Do you begin to understand now?
No, actually, I don't. Subjective experience is everything. Just because objective "meaning" does not exist does not invalidate the subjective or make it "nothng." There is no such thing as objective beauty either. That doesn't mean beauty doesn't exist subjectively and that it doesn't exist meaningfully.
Probably because most religious people believe their God gives them a purpose. This argument is about *lack* of purpose.
What is the purpose of God? Believing that your purpose is to serve God is ultimately still nihilistic because God himself has no objective meaning or "purpose."
And believing one's own subjective view is all there is is solipsism.
Not quite. The position here is not that one's subjective view is all that objectively exists, but that it's all that matters (i.e. "has purpose").

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Here is thing thing: religious people get satisfaction from knowing that they are following God's plan. Atheists get satisfaction solely from knowing that they are helping their fellow man. The crucial difference being that God is forever and humans are not, at least not if you're an atheist. And I posit that the only reason atheists are not all wallowing in existential angst is that most people never really think about this at all.
I can't see how "lasting forever" has the slightest bearing on the subjective meaning I choose to attach to my life. I don't "wallow in existential angst" because I don't care that I won't last forever. The idea of immortality holds no attraction for me at all and I would turn it down if offered the choice.

[norinew]

Which, according to my theory, is nothing. Do you begin to understand now?
No, not really. If my husband and I are living our lives in pretty much the same way, and I'm a theist and he is not, how does being a theist make my life any more purposeful than his? And if it doesn't, then why are you going on about the afterlife and belief in God?

I still maintain that you posed a question in the OP that you were entirely uninterested in having answered. It still seems to me that all you really wanted to do was say "This is what I believe, and nothing you say can convince me otherwise", leaving me wondering why you posed a question at all.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

My parents did plenty for me, but it was a wasted effort in the same way that everything is a wasted effort and yes, in the same way MLK's work was a wasted effort. Would you bother reupholstering a car that was about to be crushed? Hang on, lemme try and predict you answer:

But EVERY car gets crushed someday! Are you suggesting it's not worth it to reupholster a car that still has years of useful life left?No, my response is to first point out what a bad analogy to human existence a car is. However, my second response is to ask why you focused on upholstery. Surely the purpose of a car has much more to do with transporting you from one place to another than to be upholstered. If the upholstery of a car is useful to this argument, it would be more analogous to the wholeness or quality of life of a person. I would not argue that an aged or disabled person should be crushed. Hopefully you would not do so either.

The question regarding a car is whether it can be driven any more or not. If its purpose cannot be achieved, I have no problems with the concept of making something else out of it (although there are non-drivable cars that still have historical, sentimental or aesthetic purpose). I’m just not sure how this really relates to the question at hand.

Here is thing thing: religious people get satisfaction from knowing that they are following God's plan. Atheists get satisfaction solely from knowing that they are helping their fellow man. I’m more agnostic than athiest, but I do place importance on altruism. Who says, however, that “atheists get satisfaction solely from altruism”? Certainly part of one’s purpose on a daily basis is to survive another day, and for most people, to minimize pain and maximize pleasure (pleasure including abstractions like satisfying altruistic drives or planning for the future, in addition to masturbating or playing videogames).

The crucial difference being that God is forever and humans are not, at least not if you're an atheist.If you’re an atheist, there is no God.

And I posit that the only reason atheists are not all wallowing in existential angst is that most people never really think about this at all.What is the term for this – argument ad conceitium? Yes - "those who do not think as I do have simply not thought about it." I think about it, and am free of existential angst. I remember feeling nihilistic for about a week when I was 15 or so. Perhaps it is something one needs to grow out of. (Is that an example of argument ad smug superciliousnessium?)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Two points that I recalled after submitting the last post.

First, returning to your analogy, you would agree that a car has a purpose, would you not? Yet it is also impermanent.

Secondly, if you want to define purpose to necessarily include "lasting forever," then I would have to agree that there is no purpose, because nothing lasts forever. However, we may as well come up with a new word for purpose, since, again, very few people would insist on purpose including "lasting forever." Let's call it "geehumpstanzibus."

I agree with you that life has no geehumpstanzibus.

[Digital Stimulus]

I am looking for logical consistency, or the admission that it doesn't exist and that arguments about atheist morality are meaningless noises.
snip
Saying "we create our own meaing" is exactly the same as saying "there is no meaning". Unless you can come up with some consistent, rational standard, then you can "create your own meaning" based on anything - altruism, racism, the Red Sox - anything - and it is exactly as valid as anything else.
It seems to me that you're conflating logical consistency and rationality where it's not required. You seem to want to assert a meta-ethic that relies on an afterlife and $DEITY, which is question begging in and of itself. One might assume a meta-ethic of altruism, and apply game theory to arrive at rationality.

Certainly not as clean and simple as positing an afterlife and a $DEITY, but then atheists bear the burden of not having their morality dictated to them in the first place. Just because it is not perfectly lucid to me, you, or anyone else does not mean such a morality cannot be rational.
Therefore, it is meaningless for atheists to say "the invasion of Iraq was immoral", or "the government should provide universal health care", or "it was wrong to gas the Kurds", or "the Holocaust was not nice". All these are begging the question. Unless you can establish some standard for morality which is better than nothing, every statement about morality is a string of noises meaning exactly nothing.
No, I think it is not meaningless. The standard of morality, as I said, might be a (possibly qualified) altruism. The measure would be how well that standard is met. Unless you are saying that positing any meta-ethic is question begging? In which case, there's no difference between positing altruism and $DEITY's rules.

[Marley23]

And also if the human race would be around forever then it might actually be worth something to improve it.
With evolution (on top of the Sun dying and such), it seems impossible this version of 'the human race' will be around forever. If humanity as we know it no longer exists, does that render everything equally pointless?
You're saying that there's no point in doing anything unless somebody else can appreciate it. That sounds like old-fashioned egoism to me.
But after you die there is no more you and therefore no more purpose. Which means there was never a purpose in the first place.
I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. You keep saying that these answers to life's purpose are 'too short-term.' Life itself is pretty short-term. Your natural life is the only time you'd need to find a purpose for yourself, so what's wrong with something that'll just get you through 80 years? If there's some sort of divine or supernatural purpose, you'd be aware of it after you die, and possibly before you live, and so you'd know how your actions fit into it. That'd be that. (Many people feel they know what life's purpose is while they're alive; I'm talking about those who don't.)

[Lilairen]

In fact, to turn this around, if there is an afterlife in which we'll continue forever, THEN it hardly seems worth the effort to improve everything, especially since supposedly everything will all just be made/screened out to be perfect anyway?

Well, that depends on which afterlife one subscribes to (which partly depends on religion).

[Apos]

Probably because most religious people believe their God gives them a purpose.

But that's no more special than saying that your job gives you a purpose, or that your parents had you for a purpose, or so on. It's still

This argument is about *lack* of purpose.

But it seems to me that the burden is on you to establish WHY all purposes are meaningless. Human lives seem unavoidably chock full of purpose and meaning: yet you are arguing that they are not. How do you justify such an odd belief?

And believing one's own subjective view is all there is is solipsism.

First of all, no one said anything about a subjective view being "all there is" so that's just nonsense. Second of all, that's not even what solipsism is anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[Apos]

Sorry: left off there: it's still just yet another in what you think are arbitrary choices of purpose.

[Apos]

No, you are trying to change the subject. I am asserting that, given the premises of the OP, no morality can be established.

But that assumes that the premises of the OP have anything to do with that problem. I'm saying they don't, and that your argument is about as useful as someone saying that you can't bake a cake because there's no such thing as a black hole. Unless you can demonstrate that length of life has something, ANYTHING, to do with morality, then you're just being nasty for no purpose.

On the contrary, I am pointing out that all suggestions for meaning or purpose are based on non-rational assumptions - articles of faith, in other words.

Sorry cowboy, but values are not the same thing as faith beliefs. They assert no factual claims. As I pointed out, at the very simplest, the mere fact that I find my life and actions meaningful and experience my life as having a purpose is pretty much game over for you. It doesn't really much matter if you don't agree or think it arbitrary (though for me, it's the farthest thing from arbitrary since I find it rather than get to decide it). You can ask for some rational justification of it, but that's beside the point: I find purpose in my actions and that's that. Asking whether I can prove to YOU, who refuses to even explain what sort of proof he's looking for, is beside the point.

See above. Pointing out a logical fallacy does not obligate anyone to change the premise of the discussion.

But you haven't pointed out any logical fallacy (and you've completely sidestepped any responses that argue this point with you). In fact, you haven't even bothered to define or explain your terms. You've entered this discussion in the worst kind of bad faith.

If you don't like my points, then propose some rational basis for thinking that life has meaning or purpose. If you don't have any, too bad.

Again, at bottom, my life at least has meaning and purpose (does yours?). There's no more need for a rational basis for that statement than saying that I feel cold. Discussing whether this or that morality is "correct" is an additional question on top of that.

Argument ad populum is a logical fallacy. You haven't established that the broad consensus is either correct, or based on anything, or that it leads to some different outcome that can be rationally defended. There once was a broad consensus that the earth was flat. Can we decide therefore that this is based on reality?

Values are not the same things as physical facts about the external world. What people value is inherently pretty darn important to what people consider meaningful. It certainly isn't the whole story, but then no one seems to have the whole story. But I'd say that because most people value not getting murdered its a little hard to think of a moral system that could not take that into account in some way.

One last crack at changing the subject again, eh? Didn't work then either.

Your whole line of argument isn't working, because you won't explain what your idea of "meaning" or "value" is. All you do is run around saying that other people's accounts don't mean anything without explaining what sort of justification you would find acceptable, if anything. That's just a waste of everyone's time, the argument equivalent of saying "oh, yeah, but what am I?"

Philosophers and theologians have debated whether there is any sense in which morality is "true" or some can be justified as better than others, and all the difficult issues of figuring out what "morality" even is for millenia. No one has very good answers. And you're adding nothing to the discussion but an unjustified and unexplained amitus towards non-believers as somehow being in a special position in regards to these questions.

[Shodan]

It seems to me that you're conflating logical consistency and rationality where it's not required. You seem to want to assert a meta-ethic that relies on an afterlife and $DEITY, which is question begging in and of itself. One might assume a meta-ethic of altruism, and apply game theory to arrive at rationality.No, I haven't gotten there. Certainly if you assume a moral standard, you can examine if your life coincides with that standard or not, but I am asking what basis you have for assuming that standard (or any other).
The standard of morality, as I said, might be a (possibly qualified) altruism. The measure would be how well that standard is met. Unless you are saying that positing any meta-ethic is question begging? In which case, there's no difference between positing altruism and $DEITY's rules.
Positing a moral standard without justifying it with a meta-ethic is question begging. So yes, if you assume the non-existence of God and the afterlife, then there is no meta-ethic to justify the moral standard of "God's will". There is equally no meta-ethic to justify altruism.

You can say "I choose the standard", but that is no different from the fundamentalist who chooses to believe the Bible as the basis for his morality. There is no rational reason for either. And therefore, no basis to argue that one is better than the other. Or, as I said, any other - any other at all.
But it seems to me that the burden is on you to establish WHY all purposes are meaninglessNo, exactly the opposite. The burden in on those who claim there is a meaing, by citing what that meaning is, and why is it better than nothing.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

But you haven't pointed out any logical fallacy (and you've completely sidestepped any responses that argue this point with you).You might want to reread my posts, with particular attention to the places where I point out things and use the term "logical fallacy".
In fact, you haven't even bothered to define or explain your terms. You've entered this discussion in the worst kind of bad faith.
Actually, I am requesting that you explain yours. And this seems to irritate you.
But I'd say that because most people value not getting murdered its a little hard to think of a moral system that could not take that into account in some way.This is merely a restatement of the argument ad populum fallacy that you tried earlier.
All you do is run around saying that other people's accounts don't mean anything without explaining what sort of justification you would find acceptable, if anything. That's just a waste of everyone's time, the argument equivalent of saying "oh, yeah, but what am I?"Actually that's a pretty close description of your mode of moral argumentation - 'I think so, therefore it is real.'

I'm saying that there isn't any justification for believing in a purpose or meaning to life, given the premises of the OP. I can't supply one under those premises, because it doesn't exist. So saying that you won't accept the argument unless I give you an alternative is a cop out. There is no alternative. If you think you can supply one, have at it. But if you say "when people die, their souls go to Venus", and an atheist responds "what is your basis for thinking that?", you are going to look foolish if you won't believe him unless he tells you where souls do go. Maybe they don't go anywhere, and so he can't say where they go.
Philosophers and theologians have debated whether there is any sense in which morality is "true" or some can be justified as better than others, and all the difficult issues of figuring out what "morality" even is for millenia. No one has very good answers. And you're adding nothing to the discussion but an unjustified and unexplained amitus towards non-believers as somehow being in a special position in regards to these questions.
No, I am just pointing out that you aren't making any sense. You are the one getting pissed off.

Regards,
Shodan

[Digital Stimulus]

You can say "I choose the standard", but that is no different from the fundamentalist who chooses to believe the Bible as the basis for his morality. There is no rational reason for either. And therefore, no basis to argue that one is better than the other. Or, as I said, any other - any other at all.
I'm trying really hard to understand your point. It seems to me that what you're saying ends up arbitrary (or with no basis) either way. A fundamentalist chooses the Bible, an atheist may choose altruism. Neither has a "better" claim, for neither has a rational reason for their choice.

Do I have that right?

[Apos]

Positing a moral standard without justifying it with a meta-ethic is question begging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Good grief, get it right. Positing a moral standard without explaining why it is better than any other may be as unsatisfying as any supposition (or, for that matter, aesthetic appraisal), but it isn't a circular argument and it doesn't beg the question.

So yes, if you assume the non-existence of God and the afterlife, then there is no meta-ethic to justify the moral standard of "God's will".

As statement that currently has the status of "if you assume it's not Tuesday, then there is no justification for banning torture. i.e. non-sequitur (which is an actual, relevant fallacy).

You can say "I choose the standard", but that is no different from the fundamentalist who chooses to believe the Bible as the basis for his morality. There is no rational reason for either. And therefore, no basis to argue that one is better than the other. Or, as I said, any other - any other at all.

If your position is really that there is no rational reason for ANY meta-ethic, no sound basis for perferring one morality over antoher, then you could have simply said this from the start. IS that your position? If so, then I'm not sure you're wrong, but why bring atheists into it specifically? You're like the guy that somehow manages to work references to race into subjects that no one else can see have anything to do with race.

No, exactly the opposite. The burden in on those who claim there is a meaing, by citing what that meaning is, and why is it better than nothing.

Well, I've already met this burden, sorry. I find my life meaningful. It's better to me than nothing. You've offered no argument as to why this is wrong and doesn't answer the OP right on the nose.

[Apos]

You might want to reread my posts, with particular attention to the places where I point out things and use the term "logical fallacy".

As I pointed out, you might want to look up the definitions of the fallacies before misusing them.

This is merely a restatement of the argument ad populum fallacy that you tried earlier.

Again, if moral values were facts, sure. But when trying to ferret out what moral values are and if there is any common standard for them, it's actually not so crazy to suggest that the values of the beings to which moral acts are done or not done might be of some reference or interest. Was C.S. Lewis a prat for trying to do the same thing? Would it be ad populum if someone suggested that if the question at hand is "what is wrong to do to someone" that we consult those someones in order to find out what it is they value or don't value?

Actually that's a pretty close description of your mode of moral argumentation - 'I think so, therefore it is real.'

When it comes to dicussions of what _I_ find meaningful, what other method do you propose?

I'm saying that there isn't any justification for believing in a purpose or meaning to life, given the premises of the OP. I can't supply one under those premises, because it doesn't exist.

Your argument implies that the problem lies IN THE PREMISES. But you haven't bothered to explain why the premises have anything to do with the problem. That's why you're being a pest instead of engaging in the debate. You want to say that the premises lead to so and so, but you refuse to explain why. It's no different than someone who is arguing that there is no justification for war and keeps inserting references to the fact that women are allowed to vote. Well, yes, that's one of the premises of modern US politics, what does it have to do with anything that makes you keep going on about it?

No, I am just pointing out that you aren't making any sense.

And yet, it seems that most of your listeners can't make sense of what you are saying (perhaps because you are being deliberately obtuse and avoidant by your own admission). And guess what: that's not an ad populum fallacy, since the goal is communicating an idea. If by and large people agree that you've failed, then you've indeed failed.

As I've said: I'm not sure there is any sort of final rational justification anyone can give as to why rape is wrong from the perspective of some sort of robotic alien overlord who demands an answer. If that's what you are saying (which is a different question from the OP, in case I haven't pointed that out to you enough) then I'm not sure I disagree with you. The problem comes when you extraneously claim that the shortness of ones existence has anything to do with it and refuse to explain the connection and why you keep bringing it up.

Then again, I'm not sure it matters much that we have some coldly logical argument, because human beings in general, as well as potential rapees (as Kant noticed: they do almost by definition) largely share the same basic values (regardless of their origins) and at least enough to hold sensible discussions comparing the logical consistency of the principles based on these values.

[Tibby or Not Tibby]

Barring an afterlife, I believe that there are many purposes to ones life, but they all grind slowly toward total insignificance post mortem. Including an afterlife, they grind slightly less slowly.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The continual attempts to assert that a subjective "purpose" must be justified by a meta-ethic are not only a non-sequitur in relationship to the OP it also presupposes the impossible. Even IF there is a meta-ethic (or objective "purpose") in the universe, it's not relevant to any human life because neither a meta-ethic nor an objective purpose is discoverable or accessible to humans. If we have no way of knowing what is objectively "moral" or what the "purpose" of life actually is then there is no reason to even discuss them. They're just nonsense words. The human condition is not altered one whit. We're all still just pulling "meaning" and "morality" completely out of our asses and a luife "purpose" which is predicated on a belief that Santa Claus will reward you with an eternity in Disneyland is no less a premise, no less arbitrary and no more justified by a demonstrable meta-ethic than a premise that the purpose of life is to smoke pot and play Halo. It's ALL arbitrary. It's ALL objectively unjustified. There is no difference in this regard between an atheist and a theist.

[Apos]

Been awhile, but I'm still waiting for Shodan to explain how the premise "there is no afterlife" has any bearing on whether or not anyone can demonstrate an objective foundation for morals: or whether such a concept even makes intelligible sense.

[Gainey]

Humans no longer struggle to find shelter tools and food
Our challenge now is finding purpose for our existence to
Change pleasure from a prison, snap desires ball and chain
Live our lives to live them though to say it sounds inane
Your name may be forgotten, Your body may decay
Your talents may not be the best, Your life may be mundane
But every action has its reaction although you may not see
Every event has its importance though equality is not guaranteed
On this plane we're mortal and eternity is in question
Accept this limitation Transcend fear of the unknown
Not to be a stoic, but to live by your own code
Live by your own volition Not by another's will
Whether your opinion comes from cognition
or your knowledge based on proof
If you know a Deity through utter faith
Or have questions that do nothing but refute
Whatever you believe in reference to your question
Your existence has a purpose even if you cant accept it
Your actions on this planet will be magnified by time
Multiplied by their recipient and dispersed in their mind
Your existence will leave a mark its value may be intrinsic
The merit of life is more substantial than any can consider
You may not gain fame or fortune or anything you seek
You may think life is pointless and your thought is not unique
You may enjoy pursuing happiness rather than pursuing truth
You may find being positive to be very obtuse
What ever path you choose in life, one thing I hope you think
Make your mark upon this world the best you can conceive

[Gainey]

Horray for not being able to edit!