kingjames1

Actually Dave, I was not summarzing existientialism per se (i.e. the strange ontology of Heideggar or Sartre). Rather I was describing an existential conclusion from atheism. Theistic existentialism is very different, for example.

I also believe it to be the logical conclusion from the presupposition of atheism. Even Bertrand Russell, the great atheistic logician admitted that he could not escape the haunting notion that everything must be ultimately meaningless - if indeed there is no God. That might SOUND existential, but ole' Bertie was no existentialist!!

J.

kingjames1

Per the dictionary definition, perhaps, but in practice this is nonsense - just as much nonsense as to say that theism is merely the affirmation that there is a deity. Connected to a/theism is an entire web of ideas, presuppositions, background beliefs, implications, etc. Atheism, in practice, is never merely a negative proposition about the existence of deity (e.g., what is this "deity" that you are denying?). There is always both positive and negative content to any one individual's atheism.

<strong>
However, there is a thread of truth in your post. Interestingly, in Ecclesiastes runs a similar thread - "all is vanity." Our existence, in one sense, is absurd. Absolutely, one day I will no longer exist. In all likelihood, humanity will one day disappear. Eventually, the universe we know will "die" in some fashion. (However, this does not necessarily imply the end of all existence. Other universes hosting other intelligences are possible.) </strong>[/QUOTE]


Two responses:

Ecclesiastes ends thus: "here is the conclusion of the matter, fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man."

The Hebrew word translated "vanity" should be understood primarily in terms of transience, and not as meaninglessness (ala modern existentialism).


Other universes are possible, however, there must be an end to any such sequence, granted the laws of thermodynamics...things wind-down, even cosmogenical processes...

<strong>
But HelenM hit the nail on the head. It's up to each of us to "make the most out of life." If one can only dwell on the absurdity of it all, and doesn't seek to enjoy the little time one has the best one can, then Life won't have much meaning.</strong>[/QUOTE]

what does it even mean to "make the most out of life"? What criteria are you using? Pleasure? Should we then be hedonists? What else is there worth living for, from your vantage-point?

<strong>
You choose to find "meaning" in hope of eternal existence. I, like many others here, realize that is just a pipe dream, and seek meaning through other avenues rather than choosing to delude ourselves and waste our lives on false hopes</strong>[/QUOTE]

In my own self-understanding, I do not "find" meaning anywhere. Rather, I find myself in a meaning-full universe, structured by a rational creator.

From your perspective, you "realize" that christianity is a pipe-dream, a "false hope"...however, do you also recognize that any hope is false, and any program for a meaningful life is simply a 'useful fiction' you employ to help you cope with the arbitrariness and silence of the universe in which you live. If, as you conceded, there is no meaning, there is no difference between my program of delusion and your's. We're both lying to ourselves...I've chosen, in your estimation, the christian myth, but you have chosen the modern myth of pursuing a meaningful life, with ethical categories of good, bad, better, worse, etc..., despite the fact that all such notions are mere artefacts of human culture (historically, human religion, to be precise). Why continue in the delusion that one can "make the most of life" - as though that were even a meaningful idea? What possible difference will it be when you cease to exist anyway?

J.

Walter_Mitty

Bumblebee tuna.

Mageth

Why is it so damn hard for some theists to grok that 1) atheism is simply a statement as to my lack of belief in god(s); anything else I believe or don't believe is external to my atheism; and 2) I as an atheist can find ample reason to live and enjoy life, without having to depend on some supernatural being to give the universe meaning?

All I can figure is that it pisses them off to think there are people like me who don't buy into the fantastical myths they have.

Mageth

Other universes are possible, however, there must be an end to any such sequence, granted the laws of thermodynamics...things wind-down, even cosmogenical processes...

If you can prove your assertion that there "must be an end to any such sequence", then you can pick up your Nobel Prize next year.

AFAIK, the "laws of thermodynamics" are properties of and applicable only within this universe (and presumably in other similar universes, if they exist); I've never heard them applied to "cosmogenical processes."

Further, if "things wind-down, even cosmogenical processes", does this imply that god is doomed to heat death?

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Viti

"Let's pretend we are not illiterate goat herders and we are the special pets of an all powerful being...okay you tell a story to start Moses"

Oh, and KingJames...may I please cop the phrase "Trapped in absurdity..."?

kingjames1

I suppose because you have not demonstrated that this is the case...do you really expect any one to believe that atheism has no logically necessary implications?! But, perhaps in your estimation, logical consistency is no virtue.

Again, this a dogmatic assertion,...defend it, my friend, if in fact you can. While we're throwing mud, it is my suspicion that the reason so many atheists are clueless regarding the logical implications of their supposedly simple "lack of belief," is that they are too intellectually lazy to consider the consequences.

What do you think of them apples?

J.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

Grumpy

Bible verse that best sums up the entire collection (no, not John 3:16) -- 2nd Thessalonians 2:11.

"God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

kingjames1

Indeed, you are right, if one can PROVE either one of these assertions they would be worthy of the nobel prize!

BTW, according to modern physics, even cosmogenesis is subject to physical law!

God, however, as the transcendent creator, is not...

J.

Mageth

I suppose because you have not demonstrated this...do you really expect any one to believe that atheism has no logically necessary implications?! But, perhaps in you estimation, logical consistency is no virtue.

Why should I have to demonstrate it? The only "logically necessary implication" I can think of is that I lack a religious worldview. Thus, my worldview is non-religious. But that would seem to be obvious in that I lack a belief in god(s).

And my worldview is not summed up in "atheism". Metaphysical naturalism, perhaps, but not atheism.

Again, this a dogmatic assertion,...defend it, my friend, if in fact you can. While we're throwing mud, it is my suspicion that the reason so many atheists are clueless regarding the logical implications of their supposedly simple "lack of belief," is that they are too intellectually lazy to consider the consequences.

Again, why should I have to defend it? And what about what I said was "dogmatic"? You don't believe I really can and do find happiness and meaining in life while not believing in god? Why is not my word that I can and do good enough for you? Is there something about your worldview that requires atheists to be miserable creatures living meaningless lives?

And fill me in, if you can, on the supposed "logical implications" and "consequences" of my lack of belief. Do you think I'm doomed to despair and suicide? The mere existence of "happy atheists" like myself makes your reasoning illogical, if that is so.

What do you think of them apples?

Sour, in my opinion. A damn dark and depressing world you see there, kingjames1.

I'm beginning to believe I was correct in my assessment that "...it pisses them off to think there are people like me who don't buy into the fantastical myths they have. "

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>