What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Vendetta]

One religion says, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who mistreat you." The other says, "Kill the idolaters, wherever you find them."

So once we accept there is a god, it automatically follows that it's a "good" god?

No, that is for one to determine themselves. You can disagree with God and all he stands for, yet still accept that he exists. However, that makes meaning more difficult to find.

I'd just say, Listen to what they say, and decide which voice you think it speaking something worth hearing.

You mean decide what I would prefer to believe and then just believe it?

It's not about preference, it's about identifying the belief that seems most likely to be true given logic and evidence for/against. You can't just believe something- you need to understand what it is and why you're believing it or else it is irrational for you to believe it in the first place. You need to be willing to accept that something may be more likely to be true, even if it contradicts what you desire to believe in.

[Vendetta]

I have not denigrated Nietzsche. I've disagreed with some of what he says, but made common cause with him where possible. But had I denigrated him, it would not make a shred of difference to the main point: a point which you seem to throw convulsions in attempting to avoid.

Your denigrations of Nietzsche go beyond anything constructive you have to say mostly due to intentional misrepresentation. You're the grand distortionist as certain as you would be the Grand Inquisitor had you lived in the Middle Ages. As for the point I’m supposedly trying to avoid, I don’t know what that is. What I do know is that only God and theists can create something out of nothing.

Just as you refer to IC's apparent "denigrations" of Nietzsche as a means to distort and skew the argument, your consistent ad hominem attacks do the same for yours. Perhaps consider just stating your point clearly.

Prove it wrong.

This constant refrain of yours – contrary to anything atheistically or even theistically rational – reminds me of Trumps incessant “BELIEVE ME” codas to every thought he wishes to emphasize! It's the cheapest expression there is used as a default or temporary placeholder by those (who are many) who can't manage their own arguments.

Will you ever learn to forgo your incredibly stupid "PROOF" solicitations!? The very subject is impervious to proof which no logic can ever mandate! Amazing you still can’t figure that out and yet you're constantly on the alert to see if you can latch on to some kind of contradiction in others!

No question! What Trump is to politics you are to theism.

How do you reasonably expect one to believe your argument if you can provide no proof, or at least compelling evidence? Of course it's necessary to demand proof to that degree, as no intellectually sound individual will just believe something with no rationale.

[Harbal]

Harbal, like God, is a fictitious character.

Of course he's a fictitious character.

Which one of them do you mean? (just kidding)

He would need a means to show it to be the truth...

Only if it was important to him to persuade others of it.

Of course, he could avoid that by claiming his antipathy to the concept of God is merely irrational, but most of them seem to want to say they're rational. However, they never have any reasons at all...hardly the hallmark of a rational judgment.

It's the same as it is with lawyers: the smartest one wins the case, the truth comes second.

The Bible says, "He who comes to God must believe that He is,

There's not really much point in me making the journey then.

Of course, if you believe in gnostic "gods," then there's little prospect of you finding anything at all. But then, that's a dead end.

This has gone completely over my head, I don't know what it means. I suppose it's my own fault for trying to punch above my weight.

I just said that since you attribute importance to conscience, perhaps you want to consult it.

But I don't consider the matter of God's existence to be a moral one so I couldn't look to my conscience for the answer.

I mean decide which sounds like what you understand as moral, and judge whether it's worthy of investigation...

I already accept -for example- most Christian morality as being sound. Am I only allowed to practice it if I also accept that Jesus was the son of God?

[Dubious]

I have not denigrated Nietzsche. I've disagreed with some of what he says, but made common cause with him where possible. But had I denigrated him, it would not make a shred of difference to the main point: a point which you seem to throw convulsions in attempting to avoid.

Your denigrations of Nietzsche go beyond anything constructive you have to say mostly due to intentional misrepresentation. You're the grand distortionist as certain as you would be the Grand Inquisitor had you lived in the Middle Ages. As for the point I’m supposedly trying to avoid, I don’t know what that is. What I do know is that only God and theists can create something out of nothing.

Just as you refer to IC's apparent "denigrations" of Nietzsche as a means to distort and skew the argument, your consistent ad hominem attacks do the same for yours. Perhaps consider just stating your point clearly.

Prove it wrong.

This constant refrain of yours – contrary to anything atheistically or even theistically rational – reminds me of Trumps incessant “BELIEVE ME” codas to every thought he wishes to emphasize! It's the cheapest expression there is used as a default or temporary placeholder by those (who are many) who can't manage their own arguments.

Will you ever learn to forgo your incredibly stupid "PROOF" solicitations!? The very subject is impervious to proof which no logic can ever mandate! Amazing you still can’t figure that out and yet you're constantly on the alert to see if you can latch on to some kind of contradiction in others!

No question! What Trump is to politics you are to theism.

How do you reasonably expect one to believe your argument if you can provide no proof, or at least compelling evidence? Of course it's necessary to demand proof to that degree, as no intellectually sound individual will just believe something with no rationale.

..because there is NO rationale to asking for proof where proof isn't possible. Where is the PROOF content in either atheism or theism? Tell me since you're so clear on the subject!

It may also have escaped your notice that a "rationale" is based on rationalization which is not equivalent to proof but proceeds from the ability of the debater to make his arguments rational even if, at root, there may be nothing rational about it.

Also enlighten me as to what argument it is I've made in stating that proof is not possible in all instances. You seem to be chastising me for not supplying the necessary proof to make this conclusion valid!

[Immanuel Can]

This constant refrain of yours –

You've got no answer, though. Just a bunch of ad hominems, ranting rhetoric and sundry distraction.

That's alright. Not Atheist I've ever met has any answer, so I didn't expect you'd come up with anything.

[Immanuel Can]

He would need a means to show it to be the truth...

Only if it was important to him to persuade others of it.

Or, if for his own sake, he preferred to be rational, not irrational. The hallmark of rationality is reasoning that shows justification.

Of course, he could avoid that by claiming his antipathy to the concept of God is merely irrational, but most of them seem to want to say they're rational. However, they never have any reasons at all...hardly the hallmark of a rational judgment.

It's the same as it is with lawyers: the smartest one wins the case, the truth comes second.

That's often true. But not all "courts" are the same. At the end of the day, it is as Claudius says in Hamlet:

In the corrupted currents of this world
Offense’s gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But ’tis not so above.
There is no shuffling. There the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence.

The Bible says, "He who comes to God must believe that He is,

There's not really much point in me making the journey then.

That would be a choice in its own right, of course.

I suppose it's my own fault for trying to punch above my weight.

Ah, I wouldn't undersell yourself. You seem capable of holding your own.

I mean decide which sounds like what you understand as moral, and judge whether it's worthy of investigation...

I already accept -for example- most Christian morality as being sound. Am I only allowed to practice it if I also accept that Jesus was the son of God?

No, of course. Sometimes people who are neither Jews nor Christians have long chosen to behave according to Judeo-Christian morality. The only problem is that the deep explanations, the justification for Judeo-Christian morality is taken away by Atheism. And then the question becomes, "How long will Judeo-Christian morality endure, when the people who are practicing it no longer believe the claims that rationalize it?" And I think the answer to that is "Not forever," as we certainly see a decline away from those basic moral precepts in our public lives, with the expected consequent problems, of course.

[Dubious]

This constant refrain of yours –

You've got no answer, though. Just a bunch of ad hominems, ranting rhetoric and sundry distraction.

That's alright. Not Atheist I've ever met has any answer, so I didn't expect you'd come up with anything.

Wow! It's not possible to argue against such a powerful, logical and coherent argument. Brilliance personified! How do you do it!

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted:

But not all "courts" are the same. At the end of the day, it is as Claudius says in Hamlet:

In the corrupted currents of this world
Offense’s gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But ’tis not so above.
There is no shuffling. There the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence.

And Immanuel Can believes that he knows God's true nature all right.

[henry quirk]

"No Atheist I've ever met has any answer"

What's the question again, Mannie?

I wanna shot at it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Atheism rationalizes amorality, and fails to rationalize any meaning to life.

Only in your mind because you can't be moral unless you are punished by the promise of hell.
For us mere atheists, we behave morally by choice, and give our live and care for free with no hope of later reward.
How fucking sick are you?

[Immanuel Can]

This constant refrain of yours –

You've got no answer, though. Just a bunch of ad hominems, ranting rhetoric and sundry distraction.

That's alright. Not Atheist I've ever met has any answer, so I didn't expect you'd come up with anything.

Wow! It's not possible to argue against such a powerful, logical and coherent argument. Brilliance personified! How do you do it!

Still no answer. Nothing, nada, zip.

Well, I've offered you the opportunity to answer refute the OP problem decisively. You know what you've got to do answer. If you just can't do it, then what does that tell you? Maybe that you're stuck.

Right now, you're fighting instead of thinking. It's like you imagine there's an audience we're competing to impress, and something's at stake, other than the truth. But I'm not feeling that. And the problem with trying to "win" a rhetorical barrage is that it forces one to forget the topic, and to stop thinking about the issues.

Now, if you look up to the top of the page, you'll notice that we're working on whether or not a "meaning of life" is reasonable to assert for Atheists. At least, that's what I'm doing. Are you fine with that, or are you doing something else?

If you're in, fine. If not, happy trails.

[davidm]

Now, if you look up to the top of the page, you'll notice that we're working on whether or not a "meaning of life" is reasonable to assert for Atheists.
If you're in, fine. If not, happy trails.

Of course it is. Atheists make their own meanings. This has been explained to you roughly a billion times. Why do you find it so hard to grasp?

[Immanuel Can]

"No Atheist I've ever met has any answer"

What's the question again, Mannie?

I wanna shot at it.

Okay. Can Atheist premises be used to show that:

a) life has a plausible meaning, (as in the OP) and that

b) an Atheist has any moral duties, and thus cannot be an amoralist (as per subsequent discussion)?

What do you think, Henry?

[Immanuel Can]

Now, if you look up to the top of the page, you'll notice that we're working on whether or not a "meaning of life" is reasonable to assert for Atheists.
If you're in, fine. If not, happy trails.

Of course it is. Atheists make their own meanings. This has been explained to you roughly a billion times. Why do you find it so hard to grasp?

Because you've given no reason for a rational person to think it's true.

To "make" a meaning has no difference from to "make up" a false meaning. If you think it does, then explain.

[Harbal]

Or, if for his own sake, he preferred to be rational, not irrational. The hallmark of rationality is reasoning that shows justification.

If by this you mean that it's irrational to be an atheist, all I can say in my defense is that I'm not aware of the rational argument for being otherwise.