A question for all Atheists

In the sense that you can just pretend things have meaning, sure. But that's stretching the meaning (no pun intended) of the word. Meaning you create for yourself has no significance outside yourself.

Besides, once you've decided that this is okay, there's no clear line of demarcation between pretending things have meaning (or pretending morality exists, or pretending logic is just in our minds) and pretending God is the source of them. The literal truth of the thing can't be important when you're talking about God's existence, but incidental when you're deciding how to retain all the things that the existence of God makes possible.

Nah, no problem seanc.
I understand these labels can get confusing sometimes, especially when it relates to nihilism somehow.
I don't like labels myself because they're inherently reductive anyway, meh...

Perhaps "purpose" would be a better word, then.

I used to feel nihilistic but still felt a great sense of purpose in my life. I think it's natural for a human to feel purpose, probably due to our evolutionary instincts to survive. I just decided to go with that sense of purpose rather than live a life of apathy and laziness or kill myself (as that philosophy student who wrote the nihilist manifesto did).

If a sense of purpose (or meaning, or morality) is just an instinct, what gives it priority over any other instinct, like lust or hunger?

I'm not sure it does have priority. I've speculated for a long time that humans have a conflict between their intellect and their more primitive, animal instincts. It's possible that our intellect and even sense of purpose came similarly to how our advanced toolmaking came from very basic toolmaking done to help us survive - it's something that evolved from basic instincts. It's possible that the confusion that derives from this conflict explains a lot of the chaos of the world, but that's beside the point I guess.

Again, this is just speculation, something I've always pondered. The true answer is I don't know. I've refrained from the conversation mostly so far because I don't like to announce my thoughts like this to the public when I'm not sure. I've already told Yoda that, but I want everyone to know.

Dig. So if it doesn't come from an external source, and it can be overriden by other instincts inconsistent with it, then what's left? At that point saying you have "purpose" would have no more import than saying you were hungry.

(I think the conversation could use a lot more people who aren't sure, so no worries there.)

But saying you are hungry does have importance, because if you didn't eat you wouldn't survive. It's similar in that our sense of purpose keeps us going, keeps us motivated to do what we need to do in order to survive.

Sure, but nobody would pretend their life had meaning or purpose because they were hungry.

Have you ever had a Huckleberry Island burger from Boulder Creek Brewery, Yoda? That gives me a sense of purpose!

(This is me withdrawing from the conversation before it turns into a debate. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion Yoda. )

Like Swan, I don't want to get into a debate either, but I'll say this: I actually think the core of the disagreement is that theists dismiss the burden of proof and argue that their feelings a god must exist should be taken as evidence. But you won't concede that an atheist remaining unconvinced is perfectly reasonable. I will concede it is at least possible there is more than just the natural universe...I just see no reason to believe in anything supernatural or divine without a compelling reason.

I've heard it defined within Christian terms, and I reject those arguments, because it's entangled within the Christian myth. And all support has gaping holes. That I've seen. Morality is a human construct and it's valid within the human experience. It is not an objective fact and has no meaning in the universe apart from the meaning we give it.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

The one thing I've never understood is how there being an "external source" gives your life meaning. Even a religious person has to decide on what direction, purpose, values, etc. they embrace. I don't see how inserting a God in there changes anything, except to imagine that if they do good, they'll be rewarded.

It's the same thing with morality. A theist and an atheist can look at the holocaust and declare it immoral, but I've heard theists try to argue that the atheist is not allowed to make such a judgment. They've come to the same conclusion, but the theist pretends he has a higher authority on his side, so is more right. It just strikes me as a strange way of thinking. In the end we decide our own morals, based on our upbringing, the society in which we live, and from our own thoughts, rational or irrational as they might be.

You could take one person and place them in any religion, because no one follows it, hence, intuition... Even now, modern day, you never hear people defend their religion by saying something about it. I never hear, "Thou Shall Not Kill"

It's pretty unoriginal to just be what your parents are. Like nationalism, if my parents had sex in Japan, I'm Japanese. Great. It's taking credit for accomplishment you didn't do, disliking people out of fear or ignorance.

Someone's favorite film could tell me a lot about a person...

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I never said that but you keep repeating it. What I said is that without evidence--of any kind--a claim is nothing more than mere speculation. You claim logic can provide evidence for a metaphysical or divine claim but it can't. I've invited you to post something to demonstrate it can but I've naturally seen nothing.

Where does it exist outside our brains? Please point to it. Logic is understood by others because it's innate, it's how our brains are wired. You don't need to teach logic to a child because it's built-in, arises as the brain matures; it's how our brain navigates the world around us. Those electric impulses are logic. Without them, without the human brain, there is no logic. As such it has a physical property.

Now if you could kindly provide evidence for a divine or metaphysical claim you can both win me over and pick-up a Nobel at the same time.

Omitted this:

So this something which you can't define or place can "somehow" be sensed? How can the non-physical be sensed? And if that were possible, for the sake of argument, isn't the sensed within the purview of the empiricist? Moreover, a universal morality doesn't provide evidence for the metaphysical or divine just as fear, emotions, paranoia or a host of other brain activities or constructs don't.

"...the believer's answer for the origin of the universe is vacuous because it lacks evidence and cannot be tested."

There's little point in making a non-empirical, affirmative case for theism when you a priori reject all non-empirical evidence, so that belief has to be addressed first. But when I point out that this demand is circular, you jump ahead to ask me to make the opposite case, even though I haven't volunteered any, and the coherence of what you've said doesn't hinge on whether or not I can. Your argument is circular whether I can make a compelling case for theism or not.

Seeing as how I'm the one making the case that logic is non-physical, this question doesn't make a lot of sense.

"It just is" is a non-answer, and you'd never accept it as an explanation from a theist.

If you didn't need to teach logic, then how could anyone say something illogical? Yet they do, all the time. The very act of saying something is logical or illogical presupposes that it is an external standard against which we can be judged. And the idea that it can be external and purely physical is a direct contradiction.

Note that I said "sensory experience," which might be different than what you mean by "sensed." It would be easy to talk at cross-purposes here. I'm not saying you can just feel it.

What we can do is look within our own minds, and find things. We find logical order where there is no earthly reason we should. We find that this order is universal. We find the existence of a conscience, which also defies any obvious, perfectly consistent pragmatic purpose, and which you noted earlier is a universal human trait that transcends time and culture. From these things, innate to all, we can deduce some things about the nature of the universe, or at least the kinds of things that would have to be true unless we're willing to explain the bulk of our sensory experience as delusion.

Where has anyone in this thread advanced their feelings as an argument?

As for the burden of proof: there is certainly a burden of proof on any positive claim. The problem is with suggesting that all claims are to be validated in identical (and exclusively empirical) ways. I don't see how this withstands scrutiny, given that it dismisses all sorts of logical, philoshopical, and even some mathematical proofs, some of which are crucial to the scientific process itself. The article I quoted earlier goes into a little more detail.

Hmmmm, I don't think I said this. An atheist remaining unconvinced in general may or may not be reasonable. It's specific arguments that I'm saying aren't reasonable.

Likewise. But when I look for compelling reasons, I'm not going to a priori demand only reasons that are logically inconsistent with the claim.

I'm not sure what you've heard, then, because the argument in question doesn't require Christianity.

I think the end of this paragraph answers the beginning of it: if morals are things we just decide, then there's no basis from which to declare your morality superior to anyone else's, any more than you can blame someone for the foods they prefer. The mere act of moral condemnation presupposes an external standard that both you and the moral transgressor ought to know of and abide by.

So it's not that you literally can't condemn them, or are "not allowed" to. It's that, within a secular worldview, it's nothing more than a stated preference.

That was a typo on my part, as it should have read "feeling." Before you again try to misconstrue my argument, let me point out that I didn't accuse anyone here specifically of saying their argument rested on feelings or a feeling. But I stand my statement, however poorly worded, because I've heard dozens and dozens of arguments from theists that boil down to their feeling that God exists. I believe you even said as much by calling it a sensory experience.

I will check out the article at some point, but in fact I've never stated that only empirical evidence would suffice to prove a god. As it happens, I don't think a logical argument, a philosophical argument, or a mathematical proof for the existence of a god on its own would be sufficient, and certainly all of those I've encountered I find deeply flawed and unconvincing. (And if there are more than what I've encountered, then why are the theists hiding them?)

You don't think you said what? I'm confused. And by "specific arguments" what are you referring? Why does an atheist have to make a specific argument at all? Why is "you haven't presented me with good enough evidence" good enough, given that the atheist making no positive claims is under no burden to provide anything?

"Logically inconsistent with the claim"? I don't understand.

Of course the argument doesn't require Christianity. I didn't say it did. Only that most of those presenting the argument are coming from a Christian worldview. It doesn't matter, because I'm not going to buy into the idea that human morality is somehow an objective fact of the universe. In my original post, I said I'd never heard objective morality defined, and by that I mean I've never heard a single objective moral imperative that didn't have tons of gray area and a multitude of exceptions. Murder, or the taking of another's life, would seem an easy choice, only clearly there are gray areas and exceptions, and the Bible is full of killings approved of and even commanded by God that can easily be labeled murder. So in other words, how does the religious person base his morals from some objective standard when he has nothing to refer back that can constitute the one and only Objective Morality? And if you want to avoid specifying Christianity, then how does a higher power necessitate objective morality, when perhaps there is a God and it couldn't care less about what we consider moral or not. Or do you want to argue that a higher power is instilling in us a moral sense? Because that argument is fraught with problems, given that even among Christians you can't come to a consensus of absolute morals.

I fail to see how the act of moral condemnation presupposes an external standard, at least in the way you mean by external standard. Society could be used as an external standard. Ultimately we are social creatures and there are behaviors and actions that clearly violate the harmony of societies. Condemning something as immoral doesn't require a God of any sort. .

"So it's not that you literally can't condemn them, or are "not allowed" to. It's that, within a secular worldview, it's nothing more than a stated preference."