Meaningless ???

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]He has made it quite clear that he disagrees with the theists' assertions that the lives of atheists are "meaningless".

Is that conclusion based on the following?
[quote]I must point out Agers that i am keen to distance myself from any type of we are meaningful and you're existence is meaningless unless you worship a deity, type of approach, I agrees with the "approach" for appearances sake and not necessarily the assertion itself.[/b]

for appearances only????, thank you once again thinkofone for assigning to me pure motives, your lack of cynicism is truly edifying!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for appearances only????, thank you once again thinkofone for assigning to me pure motives, your lack of cynicism is truly edifying!

You are what you are. Or to paraphrase Bill Parcels, "[Here] you are what your posts say you are." And I didn't say "appearances only".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You are what you are. Or to paraphrase Bill Parcels, "You are what your posts say you are." And I didn't say "appearances only".

sorry too, my mistake, 'for appearances sake', was your very words. I dont get personal any more, have a pleasant evening 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry too, i dont get personal any more, have a pleasant evening 🙂

Based on your previous post, seems that you do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Is that conclusion based on the following? [...robbie quote...]

If so, that's not what I got out of it. Seems to me that here he disagrees with the "approach" for appearances sake and not necessarily the assertion itself.

Based on this: "...all these things that you mention are under the realm of spirituality, for i do not harbour for one moment the belief, and i dont think you do either that it pertains simply to belief in the supernatural."

...plus his choice when I boiled it down to a 'supernatural spirituality' linked to theism and 'non-supernatural spirituality' linked to consciousness.

Like you, perhaps, I am not sure robbie will stick to this 'choice' in subsequent discussions. But it remains to be seen.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is claimed by certain theists that if it is true there are no gods then it must also be true that life is meaningless.
My contention here is that the theists who do this are essentially redefining 'meaningless' so to cast atheism or non-belief in gods in a negative light.
Indeed no definitions of meaningful, or meaningless I have come across make any refe ...[text shortened]... ying the ego of some magic deity??? Why should atheists agree that your answer is true???😕

Because Agerg we're not just talking about some silly little debate in some forum somewhere.

This isn't just about petty differences of opinions.

This isn't just about defining words or fumbling over meaning.

This is about life and death.

Atheism, by definition, is about the cessation of ones' life, permanently. Atheism means "no God". Therefore, "no life". Atheism has only one belief, "there is no God".

That is not to say that the one who ascribes to atheism is any different from the one who believes in God.

It is atheism and not atheists that is the subject that "certain theists" have made claims of and against.

As I said above, this is about life and death. My God, whether you believe He exists or not, has given His word that I will live forever.

But atheism offers only nothing. What meaning is there in that?

Originally posted by josephw
This is about life and death. [...] Atheism, by definition, is about the cessation of ones' life, permanently. [...] My God, whether you believe He exists or not, has given His word that I will live forever.

You say your God, whether other people believe He exists or not, has given you His word that you will live forever. So other peoples' beliefs do not affect you just as yours don't affect the atheists you talk to here. I can accept that you believe the things you say you believe - and that they affect you personally and the way you live your own life.

But do you really think that the things that you believe apply to people who don't share your beliefs and/or believe something else? We can all accept that we we will die. If you were to be right about the existence of life after death, why wouldn't Aberg (for example) live on after death too?

It's either a fact that we die and it's the end or it's a fact that we are immortal. How does the fact that you hope and believe you are immortal have any bearing on other people who don't hope and believe they are immortal?

Originally posted by josephw
But atheism offers only nothing. What meaning is there in that?

Experiencing the wonder of life is 'meaning' in itself surely. By my estimation the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous by speculating about what happens after it ends.

Your need for theology seems to be founded on what strikes me as nihilist feelings that "life is not good enough without imagining that there is more" and "life is meaningless unless it lasts forever" or "this life is nothing if it is only this life".

And then, amazingly, having revealed these things about your perception of 'life as it is', you turn to people who are experiencing the wonder of life, and call them nihilists.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is claimed by certain theists that if it is true there are no gods then it must also be true that life is meaningless.
My contention here is that the theists who do this are essentially redefining 'meaningless' so to cast atheism or non-belief in gods in a negative light.
Indeed no definitions of meaningful, or meaningless I have come across make any refe ...[text shortened]... ying the ego of some magic deity??? Why should atheists agree that your answer is true???😕

I wouldn't say life would be meaningless, I can have values that give my life
meaning, but enduring value, enduring meaning is another thing all together, if
all value or meaning is found just here, may as well do what was said, "Eat,
drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." Beggers and Kings all die in the end,
all educated, rich, poor, fools, wise, drug users, powerful, powerless, all end up
dead so the meaning would be only found here between our ears while we are
alive. Once dead your hopes go with you into nothing what you leave behind will
be left for others who did not work for it to be used wisely or carelessly it too would
not matter after they die.
Kelly

Originally posted by John W Booth
I don't accept anything that you are asserting. None of it. Your beliefs are not relevant to me and have no bearing on my mindmap. I am at a loss as to how to converse with you.

Exactly, and you are not alone in your bewilderment, because most are under illusion of who and what they really are.

When someone doesn't know what they are or who they are ....their mad, and 99% of the world is like this.

And it is only when one surrenders to the truth of the Vedas, that they become released from this predicament.

But the strange thing is most do not want to change this situation....their happy in their ignorance, just like pigs in mud....their happy

Originally posted by josephw
Because Agerg we're not just talking about some silly little debate in some forum somewhere.

This isn't just about petty differences of opinions.

This isn't just about defining words or fumbling over meaning.

This is about life and death.

Atheism, by definition, is about the cessation of ones' life, permanently. Atheism means "no God". Therefore ...[text shortened]... ill live forever.

But atheism offers only nothing. What meaning is there in that?

On the contrary; definitions are very important.

Not so sure it's an assertion you have made but a number of your theist colleagues have defined us atheists to be immoral. Why?
because all morality comes from God - Why?
because you define your god to be so - Why?
Because you say so; by scriptural decree!
and if we allow ourselves to be guided down that road then we'll be walking ourselves to the quiet fields of ostracism (or worse) as the idea takes root in the majority.

For now you personally define the lives we atheists lead to be meaningless; why?
Because you have arbitrarily decided that meaning comes only through the assumption that God exists - Why?
Because you believe you can insist that be the case - by fiat - Why?
Because you find the notion of your own death distasteful and would like more life afterwards - you believe only the God you believe in can provide this

I and other atheists reject your definition of "meaningless". It has absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Yes, I am an atheist ergo I suffer from the madness disease! If
only I could suspend my scepticism for one moment and accept
unquestioningly the proposition our universe is trillions of years old!

Maybe I should also open my mind to the truth in tea leaf readings,
or perhaps a bit of astrology. That aside however; given k that you
now make a positive contribution to this thread, or just clear off!


🙂[/b]

==============================
Maybe I should also open my mind to the truth in tea leaf readings,
or perhaps a bit of astrology.
==============================

Agerg, I can see someone being skeptical of the existence of the supernatural.
Suppose a skeptical person decided to consider its existence as a possibility.

Suppose a skeptical person opened his mind to the benefit of the supernatural. Does that mean that he has to open his mind to the benefit of all supernatural things ?

If one were to consider that perhaps there is some benefit in the supernatural, does he have to jump to the opposite extreme that ANY and ALL and EVERY supernatural experience is ipso facto benefitial ?

Is it possible that in opening up to the supernatural one could still excercise wise choice as to which he finds helpful and which he finds harmful ?

Does opening to the supernatural insist that the former skeptic now plunge into ALL manner of the supernatural without any discrimination whatsoever ?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Exactly, and you are not alone in your bewilderment, because most are under illusion of who and what they really are.[...]

But the strange thing is most do not want to change this situation....their happy in their ignorance, just like pigs in mud....their happy

I am not bewildered. If you are not a troll (parodying Christian cant and certainty, as I have speculated) - and therefore genuine - then I think you have some sort of intellectual incapacity that makes it almost pointless conversing with you. Occasionally you are slightly offensive. But this is not really an issue as you are a peripheral figure getting your cyber rocks off which is just fine. If you honestly think you have the power to bewilder anyone in terms of intellectual and spiritual discourse, then this is the surest indication of your delusion which is saying something, as such indications - real juicy ones - emanate from you every single day. You said you were going to stop, which I thought was a good idea. You do a gross disservice to your faith and beliefs on this forum. But you seem to have decided to continue which is of course your prorogative.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
Maybe I should also open my mind to the truth in tea leaf readings,
or perhaps a bit of astrology.
==============================

Agerg, I can see someone being skeptical of the existence of the supernatural.
Suppose a skeptical person decided to consider its existence as a possibility.

...[text shortened]... ic now plunge into ALL manner of the supernatural without any discrimination whatsoever ?[/b]

We have walked down this road before Jaywill; I answered that question in the affirmative where you then went off seeking to prove Divine Jesus was more plausible than Thor by appealing to the majority belief in the former - an appeal to the masses.

Without getting drawn into the same discussion again, if I were to assume that one supernatural thing was plausible then to remain honest to my own mindset I would have to regard all things supernatural equally plausible. I have no valid way to favour one above another.

Originally posted by Agerg
We have walked down this road before Jaywill; I answered that question in the affirmative where you then went off seeking to prove Divine Jesus was more plausible than Thor by appealing to the majority belief in the former - an appeal to the masses.

Without getting drawn into the same discussion again, if I were to assume that one supernatural thing was pla ...[text shortened]... gard all things supernatural equally plausible. I have no valid way to favour one above another.

================================
We have walked down this road before Jaywill; I answered that question in the affirmative where you then went off seeking to prove Divine Jesus was more plausible than Thor by appealing to the majority belief in the former - an appeal to the masses.

Without getting drawn into the same discussion again, if I were to assume that one supernatural thing was plausible then to remain honest to my own mindset I would have to regard all things supernatural equally plausible. I have no valid way to favour one above another.
===============================

Oh. I think we did have a discussion like this. And you still display some not too sober thinking, but rather blanket generalizations.

And I would not necessarily feel compelled to press you any further.

Now, suppose I said " I simply cannot accept science. After all, no one has yet turned common metal into gold " ?