Meaning and purpose to Atheists...

[MarcusOfLycia]

If that's the way to interpret it, I fall with the others in seeing it as a totally subjective form of meaning/purpose - especially if it is 'open-ended' as you say. I acknowledge subjective meaning/purpose. But what Christianity claims is objective meaning/purpose.

[Byblos]

1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

The life I wish to build and can live with is to kill everyone who wishes to build a life they can live with. You're absolutely right, it does fit 2 very well so you cannot deny me such a life.

Greetings Byblos,
Cool handle btw. If that is one of the goals you've established in securing a lifestyle you can live with, you are free to want that for yourself. However, i would remind you that wanting anything does not automatically provide you with the possession of the want or desire. And, as I'm sure you know, some things come with a higher price than others. You may learn, along the path of laboring to secure this value, that others also have their own personal subjective desires and goals which may include preventing you from doing them harm. Under such conflicting circumstances, if you find yourself in a place where acquiring number two values conflicts with number one axiom..."the desire to live as long as possible"...you will have to choose which is the more important axiom. Obviously, if you are dead, the acquisition of number two purposes becomes a moot issue.

Byblos: Unless of course I have already acquired the means of being untouchable. I set the rules, I break them at will, I answer to no one but me.

Whynot: And history is paved with just such dramas...not so much from individuals but from societies and large groups. Every success brings with it the burden of responsibility. We live in a world of limited resources, thus competition is inevitable. Cooperative competition appears to be the most effective means of securing axiom 2 values. So even if your desires/goals are not quite so dramatic, there will always be the necessity to act, often competitively, in the procurement of your values.

That's a very nice speech you gave there, full of sound bites and all but you really are not bringing anything new to the table Whynot.

Let me give you an example that will fit perfectly in both 1 and 2:

I am an atheist scientist who absolutely cannot live in a world where there is any kind of religion or talk of God. My desire is to live a long healthy life and the only way to do that is to get rid of those pesky religious people and their god. I develop a nano-technology weapon that can detect religious people and kill them instantaneously. The weapon is self-replicating and spread through the air. Within mere minutes every single person on earth who believes in any kind of deity is eradicated. I have fulfilled 1) because now I can live a long life devoid of any stress, and fulfilled 2) because I've built a life I can certainly live with. I can think of million examples that fit this model. Either you have to accept them as permissible because they fit your prescription or you must admit there is something intrinsically evil about them. So which is it?

Bottom line is you are basically attempting to stand on the shoulders of 'do unto others' which in turn attempts to stand on the shoulders of objective morality. Otherwise you simply will not be able to justify complete and utter anarchy as anything out of the ordinary or as simply mere preference.

[MarcusOfLycia]

You forgot the other half of that argument: If two groups of people wanted to do the same thing to each other, what group should be sided with? In a purely naturalistic universe, the correct answer is: whichever one wins, not the one that started it. Something about that clashes with everything I know to be right.

[whynot]

If that's the way to interpret it, I fall with the others in seeing it as a totally subjective form of meaning/purpose - especially if it is 'open-ended' as you say. I acknowledge subjective meaning/purpose. But what Christianity claims is objective meaning/purpose.

Whynot: The axioms derive their objectivity from the human behaviors they ascribe purpose to and for. Inter-subjective agreement is non-sequitur as human behavior is objectively verifiable regardless of whether we agree or not. You and I might dis-agree on what to call a specific human behavior but that we have both observed a behavior to be defined we cannot deny. These are not matters of faith but matters of fact. I would simply ask, "Does your life of faith incur an improvement over your previous lifestyle?"

Also, if you see the "open endedness" of axiom two as a flaw, what restrictions would you place upon which humans to actively pursue their own "life worth living" goals, in order to render the axiom more functional? Keep in mind humans already have basic laws, ethics and morals that are suppose to guide many human behaviors so is it your opinion that the axiom ought to somehow further restrict certain choices and behaviors above and beyond what is already established, in order to gain your approval?

[whynot]

1. To live as long as possible, and

2. To find, create, build a life one can live with

Byblos earlier: The life I wish to build and can live with is to kill everyone who wishes to build a life they can live with. You're absolutely right, it does fit 2 very well so you cannot deny me such a life.

Whynot earlier: Greetings Byblos,
Cool handle btw. If that is one of the goals you've established in securing a lifestyle you can live with, you are free to want that for yourself. However, i would remind you that wanting anything does not automatically provide you with the possession of the want or desire. And, as I'm sure you know, some things come with a higher price than others. You may learn, along the path of laboring to secure this value, that others also have their own personal subjective desires and goals which may include preventing you from doing them harm. Under such conflicting circumstances, if you find yourself in a place where acquiring number two values conflicts with number one axiom..."the desire to live as long as possible"...you will have to choose which is the more important axiom. Obviously, if you are dead, the acquisition of number two purposes becomes a moot issue.

Byblos: Unless of course I have already acquired the means of being untouchable. I set the rules, I break them at will, I answer to no one but me.

Whynot: And history is paved with just such dramas...not so much from individuals but from societies and large groups. Every success brings with it the burden of responsibility. We live in a world of limited resources, thus competition is inevitable. Cooperative competition appears to be the most effective means of securing axiom 2 values. So even if your desires/goals are not quite so dramatic, there will always be the necessity to act, often competitively, in the procurement of your values.

Byblos: That's a very nice speech you gave there, full of sound bites and all but you really are not bringing anything new to the table Whynot.

Let me give you an example that will fit perfectly in both 1 and 2:

I am an atheist scientist who absolutely cannot live in a world where there is any kind of religion or talk of God. My desire is to live a long healthy life and the only way to do that is to get rid of those pesky religious people and their god. I develop a nano-technology weapon that can detect religious people and kill them instantaneously. The weapon is self-replicating and spread through the air. Within mere minutes every single person on earth who believes in any kind of deity is eradicated. I have fulfilled 1) because now I can live a long life devoid of any stress, and fulfilled 2) because I've built a life I can certainly live with. I can think of million examples that fit this model. Either you have to accept them as permissible because they fit your prescription or you must admit there is something intrinsically evil about them. So which is it?

Whynot: Well, my personal subjective moral stance on the above example is that it is outrageously evil. But I must ask you, does my personal morality somehow have the power to prevent the above from happening? I would certainly hope nothing like what you've described would ever take place either by an athiest or in the name of some religious dogma...but you have to concede a great deal of evil has been perpetrated upon humanity from almost every philosophical stance you can think of.

However, having said all of that, I hope you will take a moment to realize the axioms themselves make no distinction about what choices and behaviors humans "ought" to make and engage in. The axioms only make statements of fact based on actual behaviors of humans in general. I agree that further guidance and restrictions must apply, else we run into the sort of problems you continue to elucidate. That's where laws, rules, morals, ethics, norms, and all such guiding principles emerge. But the axioms, themselves, are not offered as an exhaustive prescriptive document that covers every concievable human choice or behavior. They are only observationally based classification parameters that describe how the basic purpose and reasons for every concievable choice and human behavior can be interpreted. They do not rule out or in the additional classifications of interpretations for human behaviors like good or evil, right or wrong, smart or stupid, etc. and so forth.

So your criticisms on moral grounds are missing their mark. You're attacking the apples while I'm sitting on a barrel of oranges. This is called a straw man argument. I totally agree with you that human behaviors must be guided by more than just whether or not they improve our lives. But these axioms are not submitted to make a case for or against that fact because they only address "reason and purpose" issues...and not moral or legal issues...which must be addressed with additional meta-ethics or jurisprudence.

Byblos: Bottom line is you are basically attempting to stand on the shoulders of 'do unto others' which in turn attempts to stand on the shoulders of objective morality. Otherwise you simply will not be able to justify complete and utter anarchy as anything out of the ordinary or as simply mere preference.

Whynot: I don't understand any of this or what it has to do with my explanation of an atheistic reason and purpose articulation. Perhaps you could clarify?

[MarcusOfLycia]

If that's the way to interpret it, I fall with the others in seeing it as a totally subjective form of meaning/purpose - especially if it is 'open-ended' as you say. I acknowledge subjective meaning/purpose. But what Christianity claims is objective meaning/purpose.

Whynot: The axioms derive their objectivity from the human behaviors they ascribe purpose to and for. Inter-subjective agreement is non-sequitur as human behavior is objectively verifiable regardless of whether we agree or not. You and I might dis-agree on what to call a specific human behavior but that we have both observed a behavior to be defined we cannot deny. These are not matters of faith but matters of fact. I would simply ask, "Does your life of faith incur an improvement over your previous lifestyle?"

Also, if you see the "open endedness" of axiom two as a flaw, what restrictions would you place upon which humans to actively pursue their own "life worth living" goals, in order to render the axiom more functional? Keep in mind humans already have basic laws, ethics and morals that are suppose to guide many human behaviors so is it your opinion that the axiom ought to somehow further restrict certain choices and behaviors above and beyond what is already established, in order to gain your approval?

So your ultimate point is...?

All I've gotten so far, to be honest, is that there are two very broad and open-ended categories of things that people want to do which you have proposed.

[Byblos]

: That's a very nice speech you gave there, full of sound bites and all but you really are not bringing anything new to the table Whynot.

Let me give you an example that will fit perfectly in both 1 and 2:

I am an atheist scientist who absolutely cannot live in a world where there is any kind of religion or talk of God. My desire is to live a long healthy life and the only way to do that is to get rid of those pesky religious people and their god. I develop a nano-technology weapon that can detect religious people and kill them instantaneously. The weapon is self-replicating and spread through the air. Within mere minutes every single person on earth who believes in any kind of deity is eradicated. I have fulfilled 1) because now I can live a long life devoid of any stress, and fulfilled 2) because I've built a life I can certainly live with. I can think of million examples that fit this model. Either you have to accept them as permissible because they fit your prescription or you must admit there is something intrinsically evil about them. So which is it?

Well, my personal subjective moral stance on the above example is that it is outrageously evil.

And that's the rub, you know deep down it's evil but in an atheistic worldview you really don't know why it's evil, only that it is. It's a mystery isn't it? It fits the model you yourself have built and yet it is utterly repulsive. Why is that? How do you explain this?

But I must ask you, does my personal morality somehow have the power to prevent the above from happening? I would certainly hope nothing like what you've described would ever take place either by an atheist or in the name of some religious dogma...but you have to concede a great deal of evil has been perpetrated upon humanity from almost every philosophical stance you can think of.

No one's personal morality has the power to stop it but what does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about what one ought or ought not do in the face of evil, we're talking about whether or not an atheist can even claim that evil exists without God. We're talking about what grounds an atheist might have for ascribing meaning and purpose to life. You came up with a very basic formula which is 1) to want to live as long as possible, and 2) to build a life one can live with. You made a challenge (paraphrasing) that any scenario can fit within this simple formula and I responded by my scientist example to which you replied, no, no, that's a little too much, that's evil. On what grounds can you claim the scientist's actions are evil? His actions perfectly fit the 2 prime directives you yourself have put forth as a guideline for morality. What gives you the right to now turn around and call his actions evil and deny the scientist the life he chose for himself and which fit your directives?

I agree with you that a great deal of evil has been perpetrated upon humanity from almost every philosophical stance but unless you subscribe to an objective moral standard you simply have no leg to stand on to call someone or some act evil. In the absence of objective morality and a moral giver everything is shades of gray, a matter of preference. You prefer vanilla, I prefer chocolate, you prefer love and charity, the next guy prefers raping little girls. His preference is no more and no less evil than your preference for vanilla.

However, having said all of that, I hope you will take a moment to realize the axioms themselves make no distinction about what choices and behaviors humans "ought" to make and engage in. The axioms only make statements of fact based on actual behaviors of humans in general. I agree that further guidance and restrictions must apply, else we run into the sort of problems you continue to elucidate. That's where laws, rules, morals, ethics, norms, and all such guiding principles emerge. But the axioms, themselves, are not offered as an exhaustive prescriptive document that covers every concievable human choice or behavior. They are only observationally based classification parameters that describe how the basic purpose and reasons for every concievable choice and human behavior can be interpreted. They do not rule out or in the additional classifications of interpretations for human behaviors like good or evil, right or wrong, smart or stupid, etc. and so forth.

Of course the axioms put forth make a distinction wrt human behavior. You have put them forth to explain why atheists can see meaning and purpose to life. The implication of course is that these axioms can serve as a replacement system for an objective moral standard, and that's a further implication that God is unnecessary so please do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.

So your criticisms on moral grounds are missing their mark. You're attacking the apples while I'm sitting on a barrel of oranges. This is called a straw man argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth as I've stated above. You're sitting on a barrel that's suspended in mid air and haven't given a thought as to who is holding it and you up.

I totally agree with you that human behaviors must be guided by more than just whether or not they improve our lives. But these axioms are not submitted to make a case for or against that fact because they only address "reason and purpose" issues...and not moral or legal issues...which must be addressed with additional meta-ethics or jurisprudence.

And reason and purpose not only tell us that an uncaused cause is by necessity but also that there are such things as universal truths, objective morals that transcend local mores, and universally recognized intrinsic evils.

Bottom line is you are basically attempting to stand on the shoulders of 'do unto others' which in turn attempts to stand on the shoulders of objective morality. Otherwise you simply will not be able to justify complete and utter anarchy as anything out of the ordinary or as simply mere preference.

I don't understand any of this or what it has to do with my explanation of an atheistic reason and purpose articulation. Perhaps you could clarify?

Whynot, once again you are attempting to explain the meaning and purpose of life from an atheistic viewpoint by using the two axioms you provided. Truth is these axioms are nothing more than a re-wording of the 'do unto others' often used by atheists as a moral standard in the absence of God. Further truth is that both your axioms and the 'do unto others' fail miserably in the absence of an objective moral standard and a moral giver because they will always boil down to a matter of preference. There is no such thing as evil in the absence of God. Simply, all is permissible. That is the undeniable truth of atheism but very few have the guts to take it to its logical and inescapable conclusion, and fewer still have the guts to live by its implications. They live by a borrowed moral standard, all the while denying the standard setter.

[whynot]

If that's the way to interpret it, I fall with the others in seeing it as a totally subjective form of meaning/purpose - especially if it is 'open-ended' as you say. I acknowledge subjective meaning/purpose. But what Christianity claims is objective meaning/purpose.

Whynot: The axioms derive their objectivity from the human behaviors they ascribe purpose to and for. Inter-subjective agreement is non-sequitur as human behavior is objectively verifiable regardless of whether we agree or not. You and I might dis-agree on what to call a specific human behavior but that we have both observed a behavior to be defined we cannot deny. These are not matters of faith but matters of fact. I would simply ask, "Does your life of faith incur an improvement over your previous lifestyle?"

Also, if you see the "open endedness" of axiom two as a flaw, what restrictions would you place upon which humans to actively pursue their own "life worth living" goals, in order to render the axiom more functional? Keep in mind humans already have basic laws, ethics and morals that are suppose to guide many human behaviors so is it your opinion that the axiom ought to somehow further restrict certain choices and behaviors above and beyond what is already established, in order to gain your approval?

So your ultimate point is...?

All I've gotten so far, to be honest, is that there are two very broad and open-ended categories of things that people want to do which you have proposed.

Whynot: Belief in a god is just another human behavior and subsumed by human nature which accounts for the objectivity of these axioms, thus belief in god is not an axiomatic necessity for one to have an objective reason and purpose for ones existence.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Whynot: Belief in a god is just another human behavior and subsumed by human nature which accounts for the objectivity of these axioms, thus belief in god is not an axiomatic necessity for one to have an objective reason and purpose for ones existence.

Your 'axioms' don't do anything to show objective truth. "Belief in God" is by definition a human behavior, but that doesn't make God's existence a human construct. "Objective" has a totally different meaning than you are giving it.

I'm sorry, but your statement sounds like pseudo-intellectualism to me. Try unpacking it. I spend my days reading aerospace technical documents, and if I have reread a statement like yours more than three times to understand it (and I still don't quite get it), I just tend to assume it was written purposely to be overcomplicated, or not enough time was taken to make it understandable.


EDIT--

I think my problem is that your two statements are basically: 1. People want to live a long life and reproduce and 2. People want to live a life they can live with. Those two things have nothing to do with objectivity vs subjectivity or the existence of God. They are generic statements about human beings. So... my problem is that there is no connection between your statements and your conclusion.

[whynot]

: That's a very nice speech you gave there, full of sound bites and all but you really are not bringing anything new to the table Whynot.

Let me give you an example that will fit perfectly in both 1 and 2:

I am an atheist scientist who absolutely cannot live in a world where there is any kind of religion or talk of God. My desire is to live a long healthy life and the only way to do that is to get rid of those pesky religious people and their god. I develop a nano-technology weapon that can detect religious people and kill them instantaneously. The weapon is self-replicating and spread through the air. Within mere minutes every single person on earth who believes in any kind of deity is eradicated. I have fulfilled 1) because now I can live a long life devoid of any stress, and fulfilled 2) because I've built a life I can certainly live with. I can think of million examples that fit this model. Either you have to accept them as permissible because they fit your prescription or you must admit there is something intrinsically evil about them. So which is it?

whynot earlier: Well, my personal subjective moral stance on the above example is that it is outrageously evil.

byblos: And that's the rub, you know deep down it's evil but in an atheistic worldview you really don't know why it's evil, only that it is. It's a mystery isn't it?

Whynot: Oh my. Such arrogance. I can give you several good objective reasons why it is evil and my sense of moral outrage does not necessitate belief in a god to work properly or at all. Is it your position then, that without your faith you would see nothing evil in the above example? Cause if that is the case, I hope you never loose your faith.


byblos: It fits the model you yourself have built and yet it is utterly repulsive. Why is that? How do you explain this?

whynot: Because the axioms cover practically all human behavior, whether good or evil. I've already explained this above. The axioms do not sanction such behavior nor decry it. They are merely descriptives. Something more is needed to account for any value asignments to such behaviors as would fall into one or either of those catagories. Is it your position therefore that humans who act to sustain their lives as long as possible and/or create/build lives they can live with are automatically immoral for doing so? Cause this continual reference to morality is sending just that message. If human behaviors that fall under these two axioms are immoral across the board by the standards of your faith then please show me chapter and verse where your assumed god has ruled against human behaviors that fall under these two axioms. You are coming across rather testy and I can only surmise you must feel threatened in some way by the mere mention of such axiomatic classification that stands on its own merits. The OP was asking about reason and purpose and that is what I responded to. If you want to discuss foundations for morals and ethics perhaps another thread would better suite such a discussion.

But I must ask you, does my personal morality somehow have the power to prevent the above from happening? I would certainly hope nothing like what you've described would ever take place either by an atheist or in the name of some religious dogma...but you have to concede a great deal of evil has been perpetrated upon humanity from almost every philosophical stance you can think of.

byblos: No one's personal morality has the power to stop it but what does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about what one ought or ought not do in the face of evil, we're talking about whether or not an atheist can even claim that evil exists without God.


whynot: Ummm...no, that's not what I'm discussing. That may be the topic you wish to derail this thread to discuss but I find that to be rather unethical and rude as a christian behavior, since it was a fellow christian who started this thread.


byblos: We're talking about what grounds an atheist might have for ascribing meaning and purpose to life. You came up with a very basic formula which is 1) to want to live as long as possible, and 2) to build a life one can live with. You made a challenge (paraphrasing) that any scenario can fit within this simple formula and I responded by my scientist example to which you replied, no, no, that's a little too much, that's evil.


whynot: Ummm...no, I said no such thing. Please try not to paraphrase words into my responses that I did not say nor intend to convey. I'll be very blunt. Your continual harping on moral issues is non sequitur. The axioms are descriptive statements and nothing more. If you wish to argue they are somehow immoral as they stand I will gladly entertain any reasonable criticism, but strawman and non sequitur responses that derail this thread, submitted in such a pompous and arrogant tone will not be responded to after this.

byblos: On what grounds can you claim the scientist's actions are evil?


whynot: On the same grounds that you will, only I will be open and honest about it and not pretend I need to believe in a deity before I can express my internal moral outrage. My moral outrage, once examined, will be found to be grounded in axiom 1 and my desire to preserve my own existence, because if this scientist can pull this off against one group of people who will stop him from doing the same to me. And that is the very same grounds that will prop up your own moral outrage if that is what you experience, Now if you really want to get down and dirty about this I guess if your assumed god drowned every body on earth but six people that's ok. Nothing morally outrageous about that...eh? So, with that example to draw upon from your religious text of choice, I fail to see how you can even remotely think you have a moral leg to stand on with the example you offered above. Your own God of choice has murdered many more than your imaginary atheistic scientist, according to Genesis...so where's the objectivity you were harping on...? It derives from the same carnal fear.

byblos: His actions perfectly fit the 2 prime directives you yourself have put forth as a guideline for morality.

whynot: Yes, they do...and their moral consequence have no effect on the veracity of the axioms. If anything, they further establish their objectivity. You simply cannot find any human behavior that can't be shown to fall within the parameters of these two axioms. But I wonder why a christian would focus on the negatives and not, at least, try to find something textually to throw at them. Surely you can find some scriptural text that has Jesus coming out against humans behaving to live longer and happier lives...can't you?


byblos: What gives you the right to now turn around and call his actions evil and deny the scientist the life he chose for himself and which fit your directives?

whynot: I claim that right for myself. I don't need anyone's permission to fight for my own existence., I don't subscribe to an afterlife so I have a much clearer and determined perspective on the life I have.

byblos: I agree with you that a great deal of evil has been perpetrated upon humanity from almost every philosophical stance but unless you subscribe to an objective moral standard you simply have no leg to stand on to call someone or some act evil.

whynot: What evidence do you have that your faith objectifies your own moral standards? The Crusades, Salem witch burnings, Priestly child molesting, 9/11, Taliban...are these examples of christian and muslim morality? I think you might want to find another platform to campaign against these axioms on.


byblos: In the absence of objective morality and a moral giver everything is shades of gray, a matter of preference. You prefer vanilla, I prefer chocolate, you prefer love and charity, the next guy prefers raping little girls. His preference is no more and no less evil than your preference for vanilla.

whynot: I see...so is this the kind of moral compass you'd embrace should you ever loose your faith?

However, having said all of that, I hope you will take a moment to realize the axioms themselves make no distinction about what choices and behaviors humans "ought" to make and engage in. The axioms only make statements of fact based on actual behaviors of humans in general. I agree that further guidance and restrictions must apply, else we run into the sort of problems you continue to elucidate. That's where laws, rules, morals, ethics, norms, and all such guiding principles emerge. But the axioms, themselves, are not offered as an exhaustive prescriptive document that covers every concievable human choice or behavior. They are only observationally based classification parameters that describe how the basic purpose and reasons for every concievable choice and human behavior can be interpreted. They do not rule out or in the additional classifications of interpretations for human behaviors like good or evil, right or wrong, smart or stupid, etc. and so forth.

byblos: Of course the axioms put forth make a distinction wrt human behavior. You have put them forth to explain why atheists can see meaning and purpose to life. The implication of course is that these axioms can serve as a replacement system for an objective moral standard, and that's a further implication that God is unnecessary so please do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.

whynot: I have put them forth as axioms that represent meaning and purpose for human behavior...that's human behavior and includes "all" humans, not just atheists. That you are unable to directly refute them is a clear demonstration of their veracity and objectivity. That they also subsume both faith and reason is unavoidable. Blame the human behaviors but don't shoot the messenger. I just calls 'em like I see 'em.

So your criticisms on moral grounds are missing their mark. You're attacking the apples while I'm sitting on a barrel of oranges. This is called a straw man argument.

byblos: Nothing could be further from the truth as I've stated above. You're sitting on a barrel that's suspended in mid air and haven't given a thought as to who is holding it and you up.

whynot: I stand on empirical, verifiable, easily attestable facts about human nature and reality. Whether you'll admit it or not, so do you. Whether you beleive in God or not, if you have a desire to live a life worth living you will employ the necessary human behaviors to pursue those ends. If your purpose does not entail life and life worth living, then what does it entail? Do you serve God against your will? Or unhappily? Your faith and service to your God is part and parcel of your life worth living. That is axiomatic and inescapably true.

I totally agree with you that human behaviors must be guided by more than just whether or not they improve our lives. But these axioms are not submitted to make a case for or against that fact because they only address "reason and purpose" issues...and not moral or legal issues...which must be addressed with additional meta-ethics or jurisprudence.

byblos: And reason and purpose not only tell us that an uncaused cause is by necessity but also that there are such things as universal truths, objective morals that transcend local mores, and universally recognized intrinsic evils.

whynot: You're all over the charts here byblos. Do you have a direct refutation of these axioms?

Bottom line is you are basically attempting to stand on the shoulders of 'do unto others' which in turn attempts to stand on the shoulders of objective morality. Otherwise you simply will not be able to justify complete and utter anarchy as anything out of the ordinary or as simply mere preference.

whynot: I stand on the empirically testable facts of human nature. It might come as a surprise to some folks but that's all one needs to live a strong, healthy, morally unreproachable life with both meaning and purpose.

whynot earlier: I don't understand any of this or what it has to do with my explanation of an atheistic reason and purpose articulation. Perhaps you could clarify?

Whynot, once again you are attempting to explain the meaning and purpose of life from an atheistic viewpoint by using the two axioms you provided. Truth is these axioms are nothing more than a re-wording of the 'do unto others' often used by atheists as a moral standard in the absence of God. Further truth is that both your axioms and the 'do unto others' fail miserably in the absence of an objective moral standard and a moral giver because they will always boil down to a matter of preference. There is no such thing as evil in the absence of God. Simply, all is permissible. That is the undeniable truth of atheism but very few have the guts to take it to its logical and inescapable conclusion, and fewer still have the guts to live by its implications. They live by a borrowed moral standard, all the while denying the standard setter.


whynot: Then I shall leave you with your own words to cogitate upon: "That's a very nice speech you gave there, full of sound bites and all but you really are not bringing anything new to the table."

[whynot]

Whynot: Belief in a god is just another human behavior and subsumed by human nature which accounts for the objectivity of these axioms, thus belief in god is not an axiomatic necessity for one to have an objective reason and purpose for ones existence.

Marcos: Your 'axioms' don't do anything to show objective truth.


whynot: Then human behavior doesn't objectively exist? Or its existence is a matter of subjective opinion? Or that it reflects the reasons and purpose for which the axioms describe is a matter of subjective opinion? If these axioms do not accurately reflect the reason and purpose for human behavior, then you have an alternative that more accurately does? I can only wonder why you wouldn't submit this alternative if it provides us a more accurate description of the reason and purpose for human behavior or covers a wider range of human behaviors. I am always open for improvement.

Marcos: "Belief in God" is by definition a human behavior, but that doesn't make God's existence a human construct.


whynot: And no where have I said it does.


Marcos: "Objective" has a totally different meaning than you are giving it.

whynot: Ok. And that would be...?

Marcos: I'm sorry, but your statement sounds like pseudo-intellectualism to me.


whynot: Then a cogent rebuttal should be forth coming?

Marcos: Try unpacking it.


whynot: First you complain it sounds too simple and open-ended. Now you claim it's too complex and in need of elucidation.

Marcos: I spend my days reading aerospace technical documents, and if I have reread a statement like yours more than three times to understand it (and I still don't quite get it), I just tend to assume it was written purposely to be overcomplicated, or not enough time was taken to make it understandable.

whynot: It is only two simple statements that I use to classify human behaviors. I can see no way to dumb it down any further. I guess I'm too stupid to make it any more comprehensible than it already is.


Marcos: EDIT--

I think my problem is that your two statements are basically: 1. People want to live a long life and reproduce and 2. People want to live a life they can live with.


whynot: Except for the "reproduce" term which you've inserted...you are correct.

Marcos: Those two things have nothing to do with objectivity vs subjectivity or the existence of God.


whynot: I have certainly not represented these axioms as a challenge to the existence of God, either explicitly or implicitly. So your observations here are spot on. And an axiom, by definition, must necessarily be objectively derived...otherwise it fails to satisfy the prerequisites for axiomatic status.

Marcos: They are generic statements about human beings.


whynot: They are not generic. They are a product of my cogitations. I am the original author.

Marcos: So... my problem is that there is no connection between your statements and your conclusion.

whynot: My initial conclusion or one of the many additional caveats I've had to include in response to such criticisms as have been raised thusfar? You will have to be more specific if I am to respond to this assertion.

[Canuckster1127]

Utilitarianism is a broadly accepted and applied system of morality but it is always going to run up against the challenge of making statements as to what is "good" or what is "better" when the standard by which that is measured is a moving target. It requires in the end, assumptions which generally tend to mirror absolutes as derived from theist systems.

[Byblos]

And that's the rub, you know deep down it's evil but in an atheistic worldview you really don't know why it's evil, only that it is. It's a mystery isn't it?

Oh my. Such arrogance. I can give you several good objective reasons why it is evil and my sense of moral outrage does not necessitate belief in a god to work properly or at all. Is it your position then, that without your faith you would see nothing evil in the above example? Cause if that is the case, I hope you never loose your faith.

Arrogance? Really? You can't be serious. This is an argument theists have been making for ages Whynot, it's nothing new. No, the hight of arrogance is to claim you can give objective reasons for evil in the absence of God when some of the greatest philosophers of our time have been unable to do it. But I'd like to see you try though.

No one's personal morality has the power to stop it but what does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about what one ought or ought not do in the face of evil, we're talking about whether or not an atheist can even claim that evil exists without God.

Ummm...no, that's not what I'm discussing. That may be the topic you wish to derail this thread to discuss but I find that to be rather unethical and rude as a christian behavior, since it was a fellow christian who started this thread.

And here come the ad homonims. Since you brought up the original topic, let me quote it for you in its entirety:

Hello, another general question I have about atheists and this can be for atheists to respond to or for Christians who have a lot of experience in dealing with atheists. How do atheists expect themselves or others to find meaning and purpose in life when meaning and purpose are eliminated when you take God out of the equation? From what I've researched thus far, atheists either flat out say there is no meaning in life, or they tell you to just make up your own meaning and purpose. But since the former is miserable and the latter is foolish, how do atheists expect human beings to fill that purpose and meaning void that God used to fill (or in my personal view, should fill)? My only guess is for neuroscientists to find out what specific area or chemical in the brain produces these desire and either find a way to eliminate them or to find a chemical or mechanism to fulfill that desire. Let me know what you all think. Thanks and God bless.

Do you see the bolded and underlined part Whynot? The subject is CLEARLY how atheists find meaning and purpose WHEN THEY TAKE GOD OUT OF THE EQUATION. Who now is being unethical and rude? Who now is attempting to derail the thread by changing the subject? I'll expect an apology from you.

We're talking about what grounds an atheist might have for ascribing meaning and purpose to life. You came up with a very basic formula which is 1) to want to live as long as possible, and 2) to build a life one can live with. You made a challenge (paraphrasing) that any scenario can fit within this simple formula and I responded by my scientist example to which you replied, no, no, that's a little too much, that's evil.

Ummm...no, I said no such thing. Please try not to paraphrase words into my responses that I did not say nor intend to convey. I'll be very blunt. Your continual harping on moral issues is non sequitur. The axioms are descriptive statements and nothing more. If you wish to argue they are somehow immoral as they stand I will gladly entertain any reasonable criticism, but strawman and non sequitur responses that derail this thread, submitted in such a pompous and arrogant tone will not be responded to after this.

If your axioms are non-descriptive as you claim then I have no issue whatsoever with them. But this means they have absolutely no relation to the topic at hand and you have no business bringing them up because you would be knowingly and deliberately derailing the topic. Create a new thread related to your axioms and discuss them at will. In this thread we are discussing meaning and purpose WITHOUT GOD.

On what grounds can you claim the scientist's actions are evil?

On the same grounds that you will, only I will be open and honest about it and not pretend I need to believe in a deity before I can express my internal moral outrage. My moral outrage, once examined, will be found to be grounded in axiom 1 and my desire to preserve my own existence, because if this scientist can pull this off against one group of people who will stop him from doing the same to me. And that is the very same grounds that will prop up your own moral outrage if that is what you experience,

Wait a minute, you've just spent a considerable amount of time telling me I'm derailing the topic because I eroneously assumed your axioms define some kind of objective morality and you chided me that they are morally neutral. Now you say your moral outrage is grounded in axiom 1? You seriously need to decide which side you're on because this is just ridiculous.

But you still don't get the purpose of the example. It is not to show what people will do in the face of evil, it is precisely to show that your axioms will do nothing to explain evil that you really have no grounds on which to base your moral outrage. As I said, live by a code and deny the code writer.

Now if you really want to get down and dirty about this I guess if your assumed god drowned every body on earth but six people that's ok. Nothing morally outrageous about that...eh? So, with that example to draw upon from your religious text of choice, I fail to see how you can even remotely think you have a moral leg to stand on with the example you offered above. Your own God of choice has murdered many more than your imaginary atheistic scientist, according to Genesis...so where's the objectivity you were harping on...? It derives from the same carnal fear.

Talk about attacking a strawman. Is that why you don't believe in God? We can talk about God's actions if you wish but that would be another thread. There are enough rabbit trails in this one. Suffice it to say that a creator has complete jurisdiction over his creation. If he sees it is completely wicked he may elect to reset it and you ought to be thanking Him for that, otherwise you woudln't be sitting here with the ability to deny Him.

His actions perfectly fit the 2 prime directives you yourself have put forth as a guideline for morality.

Yes, they do...and their moral consequence have no effect on the veracity of the axioms. If anything, they further establish their objectivity. You simply cannot find any human behavior that can't be shown to fall within the parameters of these two axioms. But I wonder why a christian would focus on the negatives and not, at least, try to find something textually to throw at them. Surely you can find some scriptural text that has Jesus coming out against humans behaving to live longer and happier lives...can't you?

I'm still not sure exactly what it is you believe these axioms represent. On the one hand you say morality has no effect on the veraicty of the axioms (in which case I have no issue with them but they do not belong in this thread), and on the other hand you say your moral compass is grounded in them (in which case you are using them as an objective standard but have no grounds for such). So please decide and clarify.

What gives you the right to now turn around and call his actions evil and deny the scientist the life he chose for himself and which fit your directives?

I claim that right for myself. I don't need anyone's permission to fight for my own existence., I don't subscribe to an afterlife so I have a much clearer and determined perspective on the life I have.

Yes of course, us poor God-fearing people have a clouded judgment on life. We're waiting for you to clear it up for us.

I agree with you that a great deal of evil has been perpetrated upon humanity from almost every philosophical stance but unless you subscribe to an objective moral standard you simply have no leg to stand on to call someone or some act evil.

What evidence do you have that your faith objectifies your own moral standards? The Crusades, Salem witch burnings, Priestly child molesting, 9/11, Taliban...are these examples of christian and muslim morality? I think you might want to find another platform to campaign against these axioms on.

Another stawman but these are yet another example that devoid of a moral standard you have no basis whatsoever to call these acts evil or even amoral. They are mere preferences because there is no yardstick by which to measure there eveilness or lack thereof.

In the absence of objective morality and a moral giver everything is shades of gray, a matter of preference. You prefer vanilla, I prefer chocolate, you prefer love and charity, the next guy prefers raping little girls. His preference is no more and no less evil than your preference for vanilla.

I see...so is this the kind of moral compass you'd embrace should you ever loose your faith?

It would be the inevitable conclusion of having no faith. I'd at least have the courage to admit that. Do you?

Of course the axioms put forth make a distinction wrt human behavior. You have put them forth to explain why atheists can see meaning and purpose to life. The implication of course is that these axioms can serve as a replacement system for an objective moral standard, and that's a further implication that God is unnecessary so please do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.

I have put them forth as axioms that represent meaning and purpose for human behavior...that's human behavior and includes "all" humans, not just atheists. That you are unable to directly refute them is a clear demonstration of their veracity and objectivity. That they also subsume both faith and reason is unavoidable. Blame the human behaviors but don't shoot the messenger. I just calls 'em like I see 'em.

Refute them? Refute what? I agree that they do NOT represent any objective moral system whatsoever as clearly evidenced by my example so I have no reason to refute them. The problem is that even though you say they don't represent a moral compass, you sure are living by them as if they did. That is what I am arguing against.

I stand on empirical, verifiable, easily attestable facts about human nature and reality. Whether you'll admit it or not, so do you. Whether you beleive in God or not, if you have a desire to live a life worth living you will employ the necessary human behaviors to pursue those ends. If your purpose does not entail life and life worth living, then what does it entail? Do you serve God against your will? Or unhappily? Your faith and service to your God is part and parcel of your life worth living. That is axiomatic and inescapably true.

I have an objective moral standard set by my creator that keeps me grounded not out of fear but out of repsect and desire for fellowship and the recognistion that this life is but a transition. More importantly out of love for the kind of selfless love God has shown me by incarnating, dying, and resurrecting for my sake. Without this moral standard anything and everything is permissibile. Love, charity, altruism, slefless acts are meaningless.

And reason and purpose not only tell us that an uncaused cause is by necessity but also that there are such things as universal truths, objective morals that transcend local mores, and universally recognized intrinsic evils.

You're all over the charts here byblos. Do you have a direct refutation of these axioms?

See above as related to the axioms. Otherwise, what is it that you do not comprehend?

[MarcusOfLycia]

The more I read this thread, the more confused I get. It feels like a dozen different things are being discussed, and as soon as we respond to something, the topic changes again. Its getting really frustrating. Brevity is the soul of wit 'whynot'. For the sake of us who don't have tons of time on our hands please try to be clear, brief, and to the point.

[whynot]

"Canuckster1127": Utilitarianism is a broadly accepted and applied system of morality but it is always going to run up against the challenge of making statements as to what is "good" or what is "better" when the standard by which that is measured is a moving target.


whynot: This is true. Which is also why I try to base moral statements on axioms that are themselves grounded in the basics of human nature. Human nature is something that is universal to all humans, thus if I observe all humans engaging in behaviors that extend their lifecycles I can surmise that most humans structure their behavior to ensure they live as long as possible. This renders my axiom objectively verifiable and requires no antecedent assumptions. It could be argued, and I would agree, that this implies life is a value to be sustained. Next I would want to embrace a moral system that reflects facts about the human condition, rather than assumptions. I have observed that mankind is a progressively fluid and ever changing species whose lifestyles are always open for improvement. From this I can surmise that a certain degree of fluidity in any moral system makes for a stronger more durable society than a system whose moral strictures may no longer be apprapos to the culture in which it is being promoted. Thus I would covet a moral system with a mechanism that allows its constituents the ability to strike a moral balance between the ideal and the reality. I would conclude that a proactive moral system is preferable to a reactive one.


Canuckster: It requires in the end, assumptions which generally tend to mirror absolutes as derived from theist systems.

whynot: Chuckle...sounds like a chapter right out of a Van Till encyclopedia. In as much as theist systems are built, almost entirely, on assumptions, any society whose moral system mirrors them is already in for a rocky road. I suppose a system that promotes "better behavior in this life ensures one of a better life in the after life" to the masses, is preferable to a system that promotes "this life as the only life so don't blow it" to the masses. It's too easy to get discouraged and with an after-life, at least a miserable life can be tempered with hope for a better life in the next one. Psychologically its a masterful production. I have also come to realize that very few people can embrace the reality and still function smoothly. It almost seems like the majority of people on planet earth have some underlying "need" to be decieved on some level in order to get through the hard spots in this life. And I'm also amused by the thought that any believer who reads this will turn it around on me and say "amen."

Thank you for that reasoned and respectful reply. I hope my response is recieved in the same spirit.