This concerns belief. If you believe in an afterlife, your idea of life's meaning will be with respect to that. — Kenosha Kid

I feel like you've had a bad Christian education here to some extent, is that true? I mentioned earlier how Judaism never really stresses the afterlife; sure we believe in it but we don't really know the details and I've never heard it talked about at a sermon and certainly not as a reason to be good.

Connecting with God is a good in itself; the ultimate good, really. Jewish teachings as it was taught to me has always been to not worry about the afterlife until one is near death.

Okay, this isn't the first time you've tried to hit the destruct button, I'll take a hint.

Connecting with God is a good in itself; the ultimate good, really. Jewish teachings as it was taught to me has always been to not worry about the afterlife until one is near death. — BitconnectCarlos

There's no bigger anti-smoker than an ex-smoker, and no greater evangelical than a recent convert. So you went for Judaism? Good for you. This Christianity nonsense is just a fad, it'll pass :D

Same problem, though. If you believe that your purpose is to love God, nothing can be more important, right? But if you don't believe in God, that notion of meaning is worthless. The meaning only has value if you believe in it, which means it's basically arbitrary (insofar as one can choose to believe anything else or nothing).

:up:

:clap:

:100:

:death: :flower:

Hence the incomparable superiority of Spinoza over even a single page of Schopenhauer: "The free person thinks least of all of death, and his wisdom is a meditation not on death but on life". Schopenhauer being exactly the kind of miserable person who made his personality a philosophy. — StreetlightX

:strong:

:up:

One imagines that the theist - for all his inventions of sky daddies and karmic mysteries - has a lack of imagination so severe that he has to invent a whole 'mythos' to cover over their total inability to recognize 'meaning' seeping through every pore of the universe without all that trash. — StreetlightX

:fire:

It was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear on the contrary that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully. Now, no one will live this fate, knowing it to be absurd, unless he does everything to keep before him that absurd brought to light by consciousness. — The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays

:point: What do 'believers' 'theists' 'idealists' et al mean when they chastise atheists and/or materialists, etc by saying, in effect, that atheism / materialism entails "life has no meaning"? And do tell why that is an objection (bug) rather than an affirmation (feature).

What do 'believers' 'theists' 'idealists' et al mean when they chastise atheists and/or materialists, etc by saying, in effect, that atheism / materialism entails "life has no meaning"? — 180 Proof

If you had to write an explanation of that topic as an encyclopedia entry, what do you think it would say?

What do 'believers' 'theists' 'idealists' et al mean when they chastise atheists and/or materialists, etc by saying, in effect, that atheism / materialism entails "life has no meaning"? — 180 Proof

No takers. From the opposite perspective:

1. An existential meaning is personal, so long as one is rigorous in excising bad faith (religion, communism Mr. Sartre, etc.). A personal meaning is more important to me than an impersonal, shared one that takes no account of who I am.

2. A meaning can only be important to me if it is a meaning in the world. Believing that the meaning of life is to psychically rearrange the planets of a distant galaxy to allow the Great Yaggant to be reborn in the flames of a dying star to defeat the evil Bong F'Dassir and bring balance, peace and life to a part of the universe that will, according to prophecy, unlock the Great Secret which will allow the whole living Universe to ascend to Bahkt Morran, events which our descendents will know about in the year of Yaggant 3,845,297 isn't very valuable to me since the world is much the same whether it's right or, more likely, I'm delusional. Meaning has to have a real context, not a made up one, which means being alert to the world, being curious, seeking answers to questions rather finding questions for your answers, correcting one's errors, identifying and adjusting for one's biases.

I expect this is likely only valuable in an atheist or physicalist or skeptic framework though, and has no value if you know that life is about getting into Heaven, ascending to Nirvana, proving you're in a simulation or whatever.

There's no bigger anti-smoker than an ex-smoker, and no greater evangelical than a recent convert. So you went for Judaism? Good for you. This Christianity nonsense is just a fad, it'll pass :D — Kenosha Kid

No, I didn't convert to Judaism. I've been a Jew for 30 years because I was born one and being an atheist doesn't disqualify one from being a Jew. There are plenty of Jewish atheists and they're no less Jewish than the Orthodox. I know this is different from Christianity, but it's just a matter of which lens we choose to look through; Christianity has made it all about faith, Judaism has not. For the record, all I am right now is a theist and a mostly non-practicing Jew (I will attend certain ceremonies but only if there's good food and people that I like.)

Same problem, though. If you believe that your purpose is to love God, nothing can be more important, right? But if you don't believe in God, that notion of meaning is worthless. The meaning only has value if you believe in it, which means it's basically arbitrary (insofar as one can choose to believe anything else or nothing). — Kenosha Kid

Under Judaism our purpose is to connect with God and we do this via rituals (like praying) and mitzvot (good deeds) - in other words, we do this largely through our lifestyle. Judaism prioritizes action over belief. We can't always control our beliefs, but at the end of the day we can control whether we act decently or not.

This "all or nothing" mentality you have here seems to me like it's a more of a factor in Christianity than in Judaism. There are plenty of Jewish atheists but just because one is an atheist at one point doesn't mean that that will always be the case or that God's non-existence is regarded as a certainty. Plus, plenty of our holidays just commemorate historical events which don't really need to involve God unless you want to acknowledge that factor. Judaism as a religion has strived pretty hard to avoid this "all or nothing" mindset where it's either God or no God and those who choose no God get effectively banished.

Judaism, like many other religions, is more than just a philosophical system. It's a lifestyle, it's a history, and it's a people. I believe there are other religions and belief systems like this, but for historical reasons the best spreaders like Islam and Christianity are universalistic and faith-based and they tend to spread quicker.

Apparently, you can't answer my question.

No, I didn't convert to Judaism. I've been a Jew for 30 years because I was born one and being an atheist doesn't disqualify one from being a Jew. — BitconnectCarlos

The second sentence doesn't support the first. Jewish is an ethnicity. Judaism is an ethnic religion, as you apparently know since you tell me that:

Under Judaism our purpose is to connect with God and we do this via rituals (like praying) and mitzvot (good deeds) — BitconnectCarlos

Or are you trying to say that Jewish atheists' purpose is to connect with God? :rofl:

This "all or nothing" mentality you have here seems to me like it's a more of a factor in Christianity than in Judaism. There are plenty of Jewish atheists but just because one is an atheist at one point doesn't mean that that will always be the case or that God's non-existence is regarded as a certainty. — BitconnectCarlos

That would seem to be an inferred "all or nothing" mentality then, not an implied one. Nothing in any of my posts to suggest that beliefs are fixed. Although a good way of fixing ones beliefs is to ensure that you cannot entertain others.

the best spreaders like Islam and Christianity are universalistic and faith-based and they tend to spread quicker — BitconnectCarlos

Well, one of them did have the Roman Empire at their disposal.

The second sentence doesn't support the first. Jewish is an ethnicity. Judaism is an ethnic religion, as you apparently know since you tell me that: — Kenosha Kid

The semantics here are weird but yes, Jewish is an ethnicity but it's more than just an ethnicity in terms of how we normally think about ethnicity. You're considered part of the tribe and that's more than just sharing an ethnicity.

Or are you trying to say that Jewish atheists' purpose is to connect with God? — Kenosha Kid

I am generally speaking not in a position to tell others their purpose. Purposes are personal. I believe in God but that doesn't mean I try to convince everyone around me that God exists.

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss.
— Kenosha Kid

That's correct, and I stand by that. — Wayfarer

Like I said before, you're optimistic and idealistic ...

Whereas you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the idea that a meaning derived from a teleological creator isn't worth a damn outside of a creationist framework, that other meanings that are worth a damn in other frameworks are actually the weightier ones in those frameworks. No one's craving a higher purpose from a non-existent entity, it's not that conceptually difficult. — Kenosha Kid

You're not being fair. Wayfarer is a rare religious/spiritual person with whom it is actually possible to communicate. While you're painting him as the standard Southern redneck fundie.

Is this just petty rhetoric? The notion there is a religious alignment that makes people "happy" under life and death circumstances is absurd. — Cheshire

It's not a new idea. The ancient Stoics, for example, set out to be happy and content, regardless of circumstances.

While you're painting him as the standard Southern redneck fundie. — baker

Wayfarer hit me with a similar accusation earlier. It's not true, though. My description is limited to the constraints in understanding how different ideas of life's meaning appear to different people. I'm hardly painting him as a placard-waving, abortionist-murdering, homophobe who loves his guns just for pointing out that the only meaning he recognises isn't worth a damn to many of us.

What do 'believers' 'theists' 'idealists' et al mean when they chastise atheists and/or materialists, etc by saying, in effect, that atheism / materialism entails "life has no meaning"? And do tell why that is an objection (bug) rather than an affirmation (feature). — 180 Proof

I think they believe that it's impossible to find meaning for yourself and that it must be spoon-fed to us by some robed authority figure. This nihilism, lacking a moral foundation, will make Johnny a bad person. :sad: But truth be told, Johnny is free to develop his virtue and not suffer the moral stagnation of religious tribalism, where it's all about the tribe and not so much anything else.

Nihilism is a phase, I think, and can be outgrown, and outgrown using the same elements as religion.

What is the secret to being happy in a foxhole? — Baker

We have a built-in narrative generator that is actually rather difficult to turn off. We can find social groups and movements that can help us feel part of something greater than ourselves. We can find purposes that align with our skills or talents. We can have spiritual (in the sense of transcendence) practices such as meditation that can ease existential anxiety and perhaps feel a sublime oneness, even in a foxhole, etc...

I think they believe that it's impossible to find meaning for yourself and that it must be spoon-fed to us by some robed authority figure. — praxis

This is a strawman.

It's not actually possible to "find meaning for yourself", although it's possible, and fairly common, not to acknowledge one's sources.

Even the most extreme individualist is still a person who has read what other people have written, who has listened to other people, and then incorporated bits of that into his own philosophy. As such, he did not "find meaning for himself". Just like one cannot be self-sufficient in terms of breathable air and food, so one cannot be self-sufficient in terms of one's worldview.

The individualism you speak so highly of is popular in religious and areligious circles alike. The sentence of yours I'm quoting is actually the kind of thing I've heard from religious people as well, when they say things like, "Think for yourself, look into various religions and then objectively, without bias, decide for yourself which one is the right one." This is an action that would require epistemic autonomy, which is impossible!!

I often find myself wanting to have a proper conversation with Wayfarer, but it's impossible because of all the deprecatory interjections from some other posters, and those who insist on keeping the discussion at a superficial level.

My description is limited to the constraints in understanding how different ideas of life's meaning appear to different people. — Kenosha Kid

Of course.

I'm hardly painting him as a placard-waving, abortionist-murdering, homophobe who loves his guns

You're blocking the conversation from getting anywhere, it never develops into the directions I want it to go in.

just for pointing out that the only meaning he recognises isn't worth a damn to many of us.

The implication being that ...?

I can see two sides to it depending on some details. There is the issue of hopelessness; the neglect of physical and emotional needs. On the other hand, a foxhole denotes an active war context in which the cortisol response would make the notion of "happy" almost satirical in a neurotypical person.
Then, the subtext surrounding the discussion. You stated above the "bragging" more than the case had originally been the object of heightened interest. The idea of selecting a belief based on the benefits of believing it and not the perceived truth of the matter seems odd. But, religions have always had a strong sales department, so seeing it from the other side isn't completely unusual. I guess we can thank Pascal for that one.

You're blocking the conversation from getting anywhere, it never develops into the directions I want it to go in. — baker

I'm doing no such thing. Everyone is free to try to take the conversation in an on-topic direction, although no one is obliged to follow them. I couldn't tempt WF to go my way, but there's nothing stopping you, fill your boots. Since my and WF's conversation died ages ago, the obvious blocker is that you're spending your time talking to me about my conversation instead of having yours.

Or do you mean I was supposed to take my conversation in your direction? I am not a performing monkey :rofl:

The implication being that ...? — baker

Sorry, that it's no loss to an atheist/physicalist that we have no teleological meaning. That you can't compare the value of this meaning in a creationist (in its broadest sense) framework to, say, to maximise one's contribution to the gene pool, or to know the universe, or to make art, or free a people, in the respective frameworks in which those meanings have utmost import.

One imagines that the theist - for all his inventions of sky daddies and karmic mysteries - has a lack of imagination so severe that he has to invent a whole 'mythos' to cover over their total inability to recognize 'meaning' seeping through every pore of the universe without all that trash. Theism is and will always be simply a hatred of the world, motivated by a deep existential impotence, projected outward as a defense mechanism, and then demanded of everyone else on pain of suffering that same complete failure of imagination as they have. — StreetlightX

For all my dislike of religion in general, I don't believe the above.

If you're a wuss, you'll be a wuss, with or without religion. And religion can certainly make you into even more of a wuss. But it doesn't turn a confident man into a wuss. And it can't help a wuss to stop being a wuss.

I'm doing no such thing. Everyone is free to try to take the conversation in an on-topic direction, although no one is obliged to follow them. I couldn't tempt WF to go my way, but there's nothing stopping you, fill your boots. Since my and WF's conversation died ages ago, the obvious blocker is that you're spending your time talking to me about my conversation instead of having yours. — Kenosha Kid

You're creating a hostile discussion environment that is not conducive to discussing the topics I want to discuss.
At the same time, what the vocal antireligionists are saying are clues for the topics I do want to discuss.
Hm.

You're creating a hostile discussion environment that is not conducive to discussing the topics I want to discuss.
At the same time, what the vocal antireligionists are saying are clues for the topics I do want to discuss.
Hm. — baker

I'm responding to your hostile posts in a very polite manner. If you don't like the state of things, you have the power in your hands to improve them greatly. You'd hear no objection or feel any pushback from me, just make that decision.

Sorry, that it's no loss to an atheist/physicalist that we have no teleological meaning. — Kenosha Kid

Of course. But what I see in this is braggartry. When people say or imply in any way that they "have it all figured out", I want to see how they actually hold up against life's hardships, regardless of whether they are theists, atheists, or whatever. I want to take them to Rhodes, to see how they jump there.

On the other hand, a foxhole denotes an active war context in which the cortisol response would make the notion of "happy" almost satirical in a neurotypical person. — Cheshire

For centuries, it was expected of soldiers to have courage under fire, hence the phrase.

And in general, cowardice has always been looked down upon. Well, until relatively recently, when it seems that the psychologically "normal" thing to do is to fall apart under pressure, or else be branded as a psychopath.

Of course. But what I see in this is braggartry. When people say or imply in any way that they "have it all figured out", I want to see how they actually hold up against life's hardships, regardless of whether they are theists, atheists, or whatever. I want to take them to Rhodes, to see how they jump there. — baker

I haven't claimed to figure anything out. I've put forth no meaning of my own. Apparently I've been sufficiently even-handed that Carlos thinks I've more or less admitted to being a Christian while Wayfarer's accusing me relativism. I guess the moral here is that people fit information into their own frameworks any which way.

A thing I said before:

A good way of approaching the question imo is anthropologically: do humans tend to behave as if their life has meaning, not just value? There are people for whom this seems to be true, but they are likely exceptional. I doubt that I, being unexceptional, would live much of a different life whether it had meaning or not, which is as good an indicator as I can think of that it doesn't. — Kenosha Kid

So I agree: putting it to the test, seeing how people actually behave, is the interesting thing. Everything else is largely posturing imo.

I haven't claimed to figure anything out. I've put forth no meaning of my own. — Kenosha Kid

But you speak with great confidence. This is enough of a clue.

I'm interested in the phenomenon of resilience. While there is quite a bit of recent research in psychology about resilience, I find it to be too general and too abstract to be useful, and I'm more interested in its metaphysical underpinnings, if there are any. What is it that a resilient person believes about the Universe and their place in it, so as to be able to handle life's hardships resiliently? Is it possible to teach and learn this? If yes, how?

But you speak with great confidence. This is enough of a clue. — baker

For prejudicial people, maybe. I still like the old fashioned ideas of facts and logic, curiosity over never needing to ask. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh, the daggers and stings!

The sentence of yours I'm quoting is actually the kind of thing I've heard from religious people as well, when they say things like, "Think for yourself, look into various religions and then objectively, without bias, decide for yourself which one is the right one." — baker

Who said that?