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).
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.
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.
You might want to reread my posts, with particular attention to the places where I point out things and use the term “logical fallacy”.
Actually, I am requesting that you explain yours. And this seems to irritate you.
This is merely a restatement of the argument ad populum fallacy that you tried earlier.
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.
No, I am just pointing out that you aren’t making any sense. You are the one getting pissed off.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
As I pointed out, you might want to look up the definitions of the fallacies before misusing them.
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?
When it comes to dicussions of what I find meaningful, what other method do you propose?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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