What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sure, reciprocity may exist

Non-answer. You forgot the follow-up question.

Why is any Atheist morally obligated to reciprocate anything?

Sure, reciprocity may exist within the realm of Atheists as a means of self-preservation, but there is no moral obligation or standard that they are held to.

Right. And if one of those Atheists decides his "self-preservation" is made better by not having to "reciprocate" kindnesses he has received from others, but rather from exploiting their beneficence while having none to perform of his own, who is there who will say he's "wrong"?

Himself! You really don't understand reciprocity, do you?

EXAMPLE:
Atheist: Punches Christian in face, knocks teeth down his throat.

After Christian files suit and is in court:

Judge: Hey Christian, "Did you file suit against Atheist because you don't like to be punched?"
Christian: Yes!
Judge: Hey Atheist, "Did you punch Christian because you like to be punched?"
Atheist: Yes!

Judge: Stands up, walks over to Atheist and punches his teeth down his throat and asks: Better?

If answers: Yes, Judge says: "Guilty!! pay damages, court costs, and spend some time in jail!! "That's all you had to do, punch your own teeth down tour throat. You should have understood SoB's FSA as it fixes the flaws in the GR by accounting for the differences in peoples expectations in a social setting."

If answers: No, Judge says: "Guilty!! pay damages, court costs, and some time in jail!! You're a liar just like IC. Obviously you don't adhere to SoB's FSA, the revised GR, which is built on a foundation of reciprocity."

And of course one can apply the above model in any slight one might impose upon another.

As to reciprocity, (the GR, or better yet, my FSA), it's always oneself that is ultimately accountable to themselves, thus others!

GR: 'Do unto others, as you would have others, do unto you.'
FSA: "Treat others, as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree, at the time.

My FSA yields full disclosure and understanding by all, at the time of the interaction, the GR does not!

[Immanuel Can]

You're not paying attention, the answer is "reciprocity."

Non-answer. You forgot the follow-up question.

The answer is Reciprocity!

Sorry, that's STILL no answer. And it doesn't become an answer through mere repetition, nor through ad hominems.

You can't show that anyone owes anyone reciprocity. Rather, what best suits the individual amoralist is if others practice reciprocity, but the individual amoralist does not have to. That way, he gets all the nachos, and he pays none out. He wins. So self-interest is not to play the reciprocity game, but rather to hope that others do, while not being bound by it yourself.

What in Atheism tells us that he is a "bad" person for knowing his own best self-interest and acting on that, rather than agreeing to play the "reciprocity" game?

[surreptitious57]

Christianity is only 2 000 years old but human beings have existed for at least 100 000 years so Christianity can not be
the origin of morality. For that accolade goes to evolutionary psychology not religion. And there are codes of morality
that exist within the animal kingdom. For it is not an exclusively human concept but something much more ubiquitous

[Dubious]

I can't answer if I don't know what you're specifically asking ...so, what's your question?

Go back up the thread. You'll find it, if you want it. Look for the bold font, and you'll find it in statement form too. In fact, at one point, you even quoted it yourself...

It must be this one. Atheism rationalizes amorality, and fails to rationalize any meaning to life. Thank you for pointing it out!

What you imply, as you constantly have, is that Atheism can only rationalize the amoral but powerless to justify morality according to biblical convention making its brand of theism the unquestionable arbiter of morality, the highest in the hierarchy of truth, in effect, that which gives morality its license. Atheism, in contrast, devoid of this authority, can't prove anything, except its own inability when it tries; consequently it exists only as an aberration. Have I got that right?

However its the other way around; atheism doesn't need to rationalize amorality into some objective creed of its own nor does it prevent rationalizing various types of secular based morality into existence. The sequel of your statement provides the opposite conclusion denoting a major advance against semitically based theistic morality.

The main rationalization immanent in theism is how to create acceptance of a human re-manufactured as a god who forgives sins, and offers salvation in an afterlife for those who believe in him and his moral injunctions.

I still can't imagine any rational adult yielding to anything so absurd!

Atheism in contrast is much less confined by dogma or doctrine making rationalizations which predefine the premise to match the conclusion unnecessary. In effect, atheism as a secular mode of thought defaults to amorality even though on an individual basis atheists are not required to be amoral in any way. What makes atheism inherently amoral is that it won't objectivize itself into any monolithic moral configuration as happens with theism. By the same logic it also doesn't need to rationalize or ascribe any meaning to life. Atheism and its first cousin secularism collude to create a nearly blank slate where any number of such meanings can be asserted, the valorization of "no meaning" being equal to all the rest.

To reason out a legitimization for morality is precisely what a Theist is NOT intended to do for such would be heresy within any theistic system. Instead he is to accept the objectivized written version of it as unequivocal. Any further perspectives on the subject even those theistically applied were usually rewarded with a gruesome execution.

The hard work of rationalizing morality into secular based legitimacy happened as theism was waning in its authority against the rise of secular powers. The Enlightenment philosophers had a big part in that regardless of just how "enlightened" some may or may not have been. It was a work in progress, hence all the revolutions of the period, when many different "rationalizations" collided and strove for legitimacy and legality. Deny that and you deny history.

As a historical process it could only proceed from the bottom up and not from the top down where legitimization is expected to follow the proclamations of some supposed uber-mensch defined as a god. It didn't even have to be the likes of Jesus; the same stamp of authority would have licensed the Pharaohs or even Alexander the Great to proclaim laws unilaterally as incarnations of a Divine or semi-divine being.

Contrary to theism, what is rationalized seldom renders an absolute value such as those you derive from the bible.

Ironically, had you reversed the references in your argument only then would it have made sense. Instead you created your own paradox!

To say that Atheism is a rational position would require rational justification; every bit as much as to be a Theist would.

Atheism could ONLY unfold by the erosion of what appears irrational in theism, in effect, giving birth to atheism by a developing rational process. How could secularism or atheism even exist if not by rational means which does not inherently denote truth, only changing perspectives? What could have brought about its historical unfolding if not by a process of thinking and rationalizing? Whether that created more problems than it solved is another question. If that is not the reason what would have been its cause? It was only then that "rational justification" of atheism began to appear as the false facade of theism began to crack.

I agree that Atheism has no value unless it creates those in its wake whether faster or slower but never concluding and not by negating the past. It's inherent uncertainties forces the powers of rational thought forward whereas theism once established would find any such "continuation" more in league with heresy.

If there is one thing which makes both theism & atheism full siblings it is that they derive from ONE source ONLY that being the uppermost tier of one's anatomy and nowhere else. After that it's only an uncivil war of opinions.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity is only 2 000 years old but human beings have existed for at least 100 000 years so Christianity can not be
the origin of morality. For that accolade goes to evolutionary psychology not religion. And there are codes of morality
that exist within the animal kingdom. For it is not an exclusively human concept but something much more ubiquitous

Nobody said morality is a product of Christianity. Rather, Christianity itself is a product, a product of the worship of the true God. But the practice of worship predates Christianity, and even Judaism, going back into the ancient past. The question, then, is not what the "religion" is called at a particular time in history, but rather whether or not it is premised on relationship to the one God who actually exists. That's the only issue there.

Morality is a product of the existence of that very same God, the objective Giver or moral truth and Judge of human action. Morality is an expression of his nature and his intentions for his creatures. And those creatures, whether they will to be or not, will give account to their Creator. Those are the parameters that define morality.

However, Atheism has no such basis. There is no Judge. There are no rules. There is no good and evil. Or to quote noted putative Atheist Richard Dawkins...

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (from "River Out of Eden")

Nothing makes anything in the empty universe that Atheism posits "right" or "wrong." And you can see it, because Atheists cannot explain the necessity of one moral precept. Not one. Not even an interdiction against rape, slavery, murder or incest. All are quite permissible within an Atheist universe. Dawkins knows and admits it; if anyone doesn't, then that person knows less than Dawkins does about it.

As for animal "codes," they have no moral power, justification or authority. If apes, or crows, or whales usually have a few habits that require them to serve the interests of the herd instead of the individual, they are not "immoral" if they fail to live up to any of them. And the existence of any such behaviours does not, as per an Atheist understanding of their origin, make them either "good" or "bad." They're just brute facts.

Or to use Hume's expression, they are an "is" with no "ought".

[Immanuel Can]

It must be this one. Atheism rationalizes amorality, and fails to rationalize any meaning to life. Thank you for pointing it out!

Very good. You found it.

Now, do you have a refutation?

For here's what you do in your last response: instead of refuting that claim, you say, "Yeah? Well, Theism doesn't work either." (Either because, you say, it's "absurd," or "very old" or "unhistorical," or whatever empty cant you wish to add). The problem with this as a response, though, is not merely that it isn't true (though that would be enough, surely), but that even if it were true, it wouldn't help your case!

Why? Because it still leaves Atheism as amoral and meaningless. That (you claim) there are any other ideologies around which have problems with grounding morality does not take Atheism one step in the direction of doing it. To save Atheism, you'd have to show that it DOES rationalize some moral precept, and that it DOES imply some real meaning for existence...not just to assert that some other system also fails, just as Atheism does.

In other words, at present, you and I are actually agreeing: Atheism only rationalizes amorality, can offer no light to morality, and allows that there is ultimately no real meaning to existence. We only disagree on whether or not Theism can do better...but not on the complete bankruptcy of Atheism.

That is, unless you can show that Atheism does rationalize morality and meaning.

Go ahead.

[Dubious]

It must be this one. Atheism rationalizes amorality, and fails to rationalize any meaning to life. Thank you for pointing it out!

Very good. You found it.

Now, do you have a refutation?

For here's what you do in your last response: instead of refuting that claim, you say, "Yeah? Well, Theism doesn't work either." (Either because, you say, it's "absurd," or "very old" or "unhistorical," or whatever empty cant you wish to add). The problem with this as a response, though, is not merely that it isn't true (though that would be enough, surely), but that even if it were true, it wouldn't help your case!

Why? Because it still leaves Atheism as amoral and meaningless. That (you claim) there are any other ideologies around which have problems with grounding morality does not take Atheism one step in the direction of doing it. To save Atheism, you'd have to show that it DOES rationalize some moral precept, and that it DOES imply some real meaning for existence...not just to assert that some other system also fails, just as Atheism does.

In other words, at present, you and I are actually agreeing: Atheism only rationalizes amorality, can offer no light to morality, and allows that there is ultimately no real meaning to existence. We only disagree on whether or not Theism can do better...but not on the complete bankruptcy of Atheism.

That is, unless you can show that Atheism does rationalize morality and meaning.

Go ahead.

Continue with your infinite loop of atheism having to rationalize itself. The almost zero time it took to respond proves you have no better argument and purposely avoided mine namely that it's theism which has the problem you ascribe to atheism. Valid arguments were made none of which you addressed as expected. It would have been interesting to see how it could have been refuted if only as a debate exercise. But that would have been impossible considering the virtual minutes between my posting (longer than usual) and your response.

You believe in the "true god" of the bible. Others consider that worn out nonsense which lasted long enough, hence atheism, agnosticism, etc. Clearly the twain shall never meet not even subject to proper debate by the likes of you who consider history and historical research as empty cant!

To save theism you have to show why its still imperative for morality today since it never rationalized anything, morality least of all, pronouncing instead ex cathedra which requires no further justification. The rationalization process became the function of atheism as a reaction to theism's overbearing authority as centered in your "true god" of the bible.

No wonder you're in a state of Eternal Recurrence! Your bogus conclusions against atheism becomes immediately valid when applied against theism for all the reasons mentioned in my previous post...and then some.

If I'm wrong don't be shy in proving so! Go ahead!

[ken]

It can be hard for human beings to just see some thing as it is without applying conscious or sub conscious bias

In fact it is not hard at all to do. But I admit that to not do it becomes a habitual.

The reason why you say it is hard to do is exactly because of how the brain works. The negative self-talk here, which is solely coming from the brain, is the actual application of conscious, subconscious, and even unconscious biases at work.

Learning and understanding how the brain works in conjunction with and against the Mind provides the solution for how to detach from ALL biases, which then allows the ability to see EVERY thing as it IS, very easily and very simply by the way.

So the first step therefore to becoming more open minded is to actually acknowledge that one has such biases

This will help as it is the very first step. Just taking the other nine steps, and learning and understanding from them fully, uplifts you to understanding that a person can not become more open minded because the Mind IS already always completely open.

Then the next step is to just observe without trying to interpret beyond this what is actually known to be true
Though it is entirely acceptable to ask necessary questions as they are just highlighting what is not yet known

Exactly, I have not heard this better expressed. That is a part of what I have been trying to explain. I wish I could express as clearly as you can.

I would just like to add that in order to learn more questions are needed to be asked. As you have stated, they are NECESSARY questions.

Unless of course a person knows every thing, then they do not need to ask questions. But for the rest of us asking, clarifying, questions is NEEDED and a very necessary part of learning more and anew.

The very reason I ask so many clarifying questions is because of the humongous amount of things I do NOT know.

An open mind can ask such questions and even provide possible answers but it should still carry on being open

Do not worry about this. The Mind can NOT be not open. But the brain can certainly stop a person from being open and seeing openly, especially when there are assumptions, biases, and beliefs being held onto and maintained within the brain.

[surreptitious57]

Your entire argument Mr Can rests on the assumption that atheism is amoral so therefore morally inferior to theism. But it is not a moral
philosophy so your rejection of it on such grounds is pure strawman since that has already been explained to you. But you have to ignore
that as otherwise you have no argument at all even though the strawman being what it is is not really a valid argument in the first place

[ken]

It can be hard for human beings to just see some thing as it is without applying conscious or sub conscious bias

It is not hard, it is impossible. Bias is your opinion, without it you have no opinion at all.

At birth, or soon abouts, did you have an opinion? If so, then what was your bias?

If you had no opinion then, then it was not impossible at all to see some thing as it is. In fact it was probably not only just possible to see every thing exactly as what it IS, but seeing that way was probably the only way you were seeing. Unfortunately though this way if seeing gets quickly distorted and blocked because we are so open we start believing those ones that we have put all of our faith and trust in, that is those older ones who are already so opinionated and biased, that we end up starting to believe what they say and teach us.

The negative connotation of bias implies that there is such a thing as a perfectly balanced view; nothing of the sort could be possible,

If I was you I would not be so sure of yourself.

and the 'balanced view' tends to be simply the bias of the observer who declares the other person as extreme or offering an unbalanced view.

This is very true though.

Everything is relative to the observer.

[surreptitious57]

All opinion is biased as it is subjective and this includes both informed and uninformed opinion. Anything that is not a fact or genuine
question therefore constitutes an opinion. So loaded or presumptuous questions are opinions even though they are posed as questions

[Harbal]

God, the objective Giver or moral truth and Judge of human action.

But how can we know this to be the case, how do you evaluate the truth in it? If you say, yes, I'm sure there is a God and I believe he wishes me to behave according to his morality, what then leads you to believe that morality worthy of following? How do you know it's the right thing to do, the good thing to do?

However, Atheism has no such basis. There is no Judge. There are no rules.

I agree with this but to put it into context we have to compare it with its counterpart, theism. What are the rules of theism? I don't particularly mean your theism, I mean any theism, of which there are many varieties. Theism, in itself, requires nothing more than a belief in the existence of a supernatural being.

If you are a theist you could be a Christian or a Muslim etc. and draw your beliefs from these systems. If you are an atheist you could be a Humanist or a Buddhist etc. and do the same. Your assertion that there needs to be an ultimate authority figure to whom we are answerable in order for there to be an imperative to act morally is just your belief. I'm sure there must be many non theistic systems where people feel obliged to follow some moral code or other because of a belief.

[Dontaskme]

because of a belief.

What do you mean by belief..is that the same belief you hold to when making claims you have seen your own face? ..now why you being hypocritical?

.

[Harbal]

because of a belief.

What do you mean by belief.

I'm not telling you.

[Dontaskme]

because of a belief.

What do you mean by belief.

I'm not telling you.

You have no authority to act upon telling anyone anything even if you wanted to.

Your assertion that there needs to be an ultimate authority figure to whom we are answerable in order for there to be an imperative to act is just your belief.

Any telling (story telling) aka fiction, is nothing more than a believed fictional tell tale.

.