If existence is objectively purposeless, there is no rational justification for altruism

izzy88 said:

Only due to a lack of understanding.

Click to expand...

Well you might be happy with a conclusion about a 'good' God, but the existence of so much other life apparently not bothering about morality so much might make it tricky unless God was only interested in humans - but that of course is the focus of so many religions - humans as a specialty of God and all the rest as merely entertainment or food.

Not at all; it's a purely logical conclusion. You simply still don't understand what I'm talking about when I used the term "God".

Click to expand...

That is, your particular definition of God.

So you believe in free will?

Click to expand...

I choose to believe we have some. I don't know if this is correct though, but I try to act as if I had such since, for me, it makes more sense to do so - as in taking responsibility for one's actions.

Reproduction is not a purpose; purpose requires a mind with intention. If nature is mindless, there can be no purpose in it.

Click to expand...

Tell that to all lifeforms - we just evolved to question so much, but at one time, before language, I doubt we did so.

Mock Turtle said:

Perhaps this is your problem - deriving everything on a rational basis and ignoring the rest.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right; this is actually something I've gradually been beginning to realize. Thank you for bringing it that much more to my attention.

Left Coast said:

Quite often, what benefits others also benefits us. ... I don't see life as meaningless just because I don't believe a divine creator deity has given me some "objective" meaning for it.

Click to expand...

I think these are both very important points (thank you, Left Coast).

My perspective is that we do not live in isolation. We are (usually) immersed within a society of some type, and within a natural setting, both of which we depend upon: society for help and cooperative endeavors, and nature for our physical existence. When we enhance, help or contribute to the health and wellbeing of that which surrounds us, we often benefit ourselves. We shouldn't ignore our own health, values and fulfillment of course, but (ideally) neither should we ignore the health and wellbeing of society and nature, because to do so would probably cause us to suffer in some way as well. A belief in a god is not necessary in order for this dynamic process to occur or be perpetuated. Simple self-interest should lead one to also be interested in the health and wellbeing of the reality that surrounds us.

In my view, we give ourselves (or determine for ourselves) the meaning and purpose of our lives, of our continuing existence and experience, and that meaning and purpose is not necessarily fixed, and can change over time or at a particular time. A "god," whether one (or more) exists or not, is not necessary for this to occur. Our lives are up to us; our values and beliefs are up to us; what we choose to devote our attention and time to, and to feel a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from, is up to us.

izzy88 said:

This is an interesting idea, and I think it's at least somewhat accurate. How conscious it is, though, seems like it would be up for debate. I don't see evidence in our history that we've been consciously breeding in favor of moral behavior. I wonder what makes you claim it's conscious?

Click to expand...

A couple of examples come to mind. We tend to procreate with people who appeal to us, not just physically but in terms of personality at a basic moral level (we're unlikely to choose to procreate with someone who we know is a sociopath or serial killer). There are obviously exceptions, such as rape, but that's the tendency. A second example is that we have often, in the history of our species, intertwined gender norms with morality. Those who violate the gender norms of their society become seen as morally aberrant, and therefore undesirable in terms of marriage or procreation.

Exactly! That's why there can be no intrinsic, objective purpose in the world unless the world itself is a product of a divine, transcendent mind. In fact, true objectivity itself cannot exist without this. The only way universals can be real - truth, goodness, justice, meaning, etc. - is if our entire reality is the creation of a mind.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't actually know what "intrinsic" purpose actually means here. God has thoughts about what he wants us to do with our life. Why should we care what those thoughts are? If that question can be answered, then how we were created is irrelevant - the logic of the purpose itself is what informs us what to do. So we can have our own thoughts about what we should do with our life, which match God's thoughts, and those are as "intrinsic" and "objective" as God's. So God, even if he is our creator, becomes basically a useless middle man who doesn't actually help us discern what we should do at all. He's just the messenger.

In terms of truth, I define it as that which comports with observable facts. That's objective and requires no divine mind. Goodness, justice, and meaning, are creations of our minds, which we use to describe and analyze observable facts in our experience.

It's exactly like how we talked about you giving life your own meaning or purpose, and how that purpose only exists inside your mind. That is true - purpose and meaning can only exist inside a mind - which is why if there is a purpose to existence, it means we must live in a world that is itself produced by a mind.

Click to expand...

The problem is, you haven't demonstrated there is some "inherent" purpose to existence yet. All I can see is that you are describing a situation where God creates us, and then dictates to us, based on some reasoning in his own mind, what we should do with our lives. What's the reasoning?

izzy88 said:

If we live in a meaningless universe where nothing, ultimately, matters - where nothing we do will have consequences for us after we're gone - then serving your own interests is the only rational course of action. If you simply experience life for a little while and then your experience ends - you just cease to exist, and so does everyone else - then whatever you do only matters in the here and now, so the most rational thing to do is to get as much pleasure out of life as possible and reduce suffering as much as possible.

Click to expand...

The thing is, izzy, behaving in a certain way because of your expectation of or aversion to what may happen to you in the afterlife is no less self-interested than anything any atheist is proposing. That's just extending the same moral reasoning past death.

There is a difference between getting to belief in God, or belief that reality is ultimately good, through openly engaging our desires and truth compared to suppressing our desires and truth. When we suppress our desires/truth, then eventually we will run out of path to follow - we will prematurely reach the end of the journey and not fully actualize all the potential good that we can do.

The idea of serving the good even if we get nothing self serving out of it was brought up. I would categorize this as desire/truth suppression. It can be useful to think in terms of being on the defensive vs being on the offensive. When we serve the good because we believe that is what God wants us to do or because it will be perceived as “good” by others, then we are usually acting from defense.

I am not sure how well this can be communicated, but in my experience, serving the good from a position of offense has elements of antisocial and anti-theistic qualities. What I mean is to genuinely serve the good requires potentially compromising one’s identity as a “good” person in the eyes of others; it’s the willingness to access the forbidden or the darkness in order to do the most good. In relation to theism, serving the good from offense casts disapproving judgment on God since there is a desire for goodness more than what is being provided in the here and now.

Eventually, this will lead to feeling distant from others and from a personal God, but we will feel closer to an emerging personification of what we oppose, which is the opposite of the good. At this point, motivation presents itself mainly as being opposed to the enemy rather than being part of a team for the good whether that is other people or God. We are now driven largely by a vengeance against the enemy even though it is still important to aim at the highest good that we can imagine. We just won’t be able to feel that goodness as well as we can feel betrayal and vengeance. It makes it difficult but means we are on the right path. The difficult path is the right path.

izzy88 said:

Or, as Heyo argued, we simply don't need a rational explanation for our behavior because we do irrational things all the time.

If I'm off on any of this, feel free to correct me.

Click to expand...

Not exactly wrong but I'd like to emphasise the main point again.
It's not that we don't need a rational explanation, we can't have one.
I can give you an explanation for my (seeming) altruism. It's pure selfishness. I want to live a good life and my experience is that my life is better when the lives of others around me are also good.
But I can't give you an explanation why I want to live a good life. The primal reason has to be unreasoned itself (or lead to an infinite cycle).

Left Coast said:

Again, I don't actually know what "intrinsic" purpose actually means here.

Click to expand...

A very simplistic analogy would be something like a carpenter building a chair. Because the carpenter is the one who created the chair, it means that the chair has the intrinsic purpose that the carpenter intended it to have. Similarly, because God created the universe, it means that the universe has the intrinsic purpose that God intends it to have. Can we deny God's purpose and utilize his creation for our own purposes? Certainly, but it's sort of like using a chair for something other than sitting - regardless of what you may use it for, it's made for sitting; that is its intrinsic purpose.

Left Coast said:

The problem is, you haven't demonstrated there is some "inherent" purpose to existence yet.

Click to expand...

I don't need to, because I'm not making an argument about either the purposefulness of existence or the existence of God; I've simply made an "if/then" claim. So far, nobody has proven it to be invalid, they've only argued against the soundness of the premeses. That's fine with me, I never intended to get into arguing the premeses in this thread, I only wanted to test the validity of the argument.

Left Coast said:

The thing is, izzy, behaving in a certain way because of your expectation of or aversion to what may happen to you in the afterlife is no less self-interested than anything any atheist is proposing. That's just extending the same moral reasoning past death.

Click to expand...

As I've said multiple times, including in the OP, that's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about doing the good simply because it's good, not because of what you'll get out of it. The fact that virtually all of you here either struggle to understand this concept or deny it's even possible isn't really surprising, since such a concept would be totally incompatible with your current worldviews. You have to deny it, because accepting it would necessarily require the acceptance of a transcendent reality.

izzy88 said:

A very simplistic analogy would be something like a carpenter building a chair. Because the carpenter is the one who created the chair, it means that the chair has the intrinsic purpose that the carpenter intended it to have. Similarly, because God created the universe, it means that the universe has the intrinsic purpose that God intends it to have. Can we deny God's purpose and utilize his creation for our own purposes? Certainly, but it's sort of like using a chair for something other than sitting - regardless of what you may use it for, it's made for sitting; that is its intrinsic purpose.

Click to expand...

I see. But if the chair were conscious, in this analogy, it could simply investigate its own nature and determine that because of its structure, it's ideal as a tool for people to sit on. The purpose could be deduced without having to ask the chairmaker, simply by investigation and experimentation. If the chair were produced by purely natural means, and there was no chairmaker, it would be just as effective a seat, if someone came along and decided to use it for that purpose.

And further, there would be nothing problematic about a chair being used for some purpose other than sitting, if one investigates and finds that it can be used effectively for some other purpose.

I don't need to, because I'm not making an argument about either the purposefulness of existence or the existence of God; I've simply made an "if/then" claim. So far, nobody has proven it to be invalid, they've only argued against the soundness of the premeses. That's fine with me, I never intended to get into arguing the premeses in this thread, I only wanted to test the validity of the argument.

Click to expand...

OK fair enough. But the argument still fails if the premises are unsound, so .

As I've said multiple times, including in the OP, that's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about doing the good simply because it's good, not because of what you'll get out of it. The fact that virtually all of you here either struggle to understand this concept or deny it's even possible isn't really surprising, since such a concept would be totally incompatible with your current worldviews. You have to deny it, because accepting it would necessarily require the acceptance of a transcendent reality.

Click to expand...

I think once we get into specifics we'll see where the breakdown happens here.

Why should we do the good? And if your reply is because that's our purpose, why is that our purpose? What is it about goodness that indicates we should do it? And how do we tell a good action from a bad one?

Left Coast said:

But if the chair were conscious, in this analogy, it could simply investigate its own nature and determine that because of its structure, it's ideal as a tool for people to sit on. The purpose could be deduced without having to ask the chairmaker, simply by investigation and experimentation

Click to expand...

And that's exactly what we find - it's commonly referred to now as Natural Law, and it's been the subject of philosophical study for millennia.

Left Coast said:

And further, there would be nothing problematic about a chair being used for some purpose other than sitting, if one investigates and finds that it can be used effectively for some other purpose.

Click to expand...

You're very right, but the key word is "effectively". You may be able to effectively use the chair as a small table, but you'd run into trouble trying to use it as a parachute.

Left Coast said:

But the argument still fails if the premises are unsound

Click to expand...

No, because as I said it's an "if/then" argument. "If X then Y" can be true whether or not X or Y is actually the case.

Left Coast said:

Why should we do the good? And if your reply is because that's our purpose, why is that our purpose? What is it about goodness that indicates we should do it? And how do we tell a good action from a bad one?

Click to expand...

All great questions, some of which can be answered, and some of which cannot - at least not in such a way that would satisfy you, I'd wager. But all of them are far too deep to address in a thread on a forum. There are plenty of philosophers and theologians who have examined these issues in books, presenting ideas and explaining concepts which I would only do violence to by trying to summarize, so I'm afraid I'll have to let you pursue those avenues yourself, if you so desire.

Izzy:

What happens if our perception of the transcendent goodness, or ultimate reality, becomes more good than our perception of the creator God? Which do we choose to submit to? I realize that this requires a subjective perspective, and so in a way I am asking the question, “which do we choose between subjective truth and objective truth?”

I am hesitant to go here because it is really challenging and can potential break trust between people, but this is when one starts to perceive differently. For instance, the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God/the god in Genesis becomes morally true and righteous rather than a sin.

izzy88 said:

And that's exactly what we find - it's commonly referred to now as Natural Law, and it's been the subject of philosophical study for millennia.

Click to expand...

Sure, and my point is that you can believe in some kind of "Natural Law" without positing a deity who put it there. "Natural Law" could just be "the way the universe is." Personally I have some problems with "Natural Law" as conceived in Catholicism, but that's a whole other rabbit trail. Point is, any deity is just a middle man there.

You're very right, but the key word is "effectively". You may be able to effectively use the chair as a small table, but you'd run into trouble trying to use it as a parachute.

Click to expand...

And of course, few would do so. Some might use it effectively as the scaffolding for a child's fort, though, or perhaps to make some nice firewood, or as decoration in a magazine. And none of those are problematic uses, simply because they may differ from what the chairmaker intended for the chair's purposes to be.

No, because as I said it's an "if/then" argument. "If X then Y" can be true whether or not X or Y is actually the case.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that's a completely irrelevant point if X or Y isn't actually true, isn't it? If my house were made of gold I'd be a rich man. But it isn't though. So that argument just becomes an interesting flight of fancy, a mental game that has no correlation to reality.

EDIT TO ADD: I don't mean that time be insulting, I realized after the fact it might come off that way. I just mean your next thread needs to address your reasons for thinking reality actually is "objectively meaningful."

All great questions, some of which can be answered, and some of which cannot - at least not in such a way that would satisfy you, I'd wager. But all of them are far too deep to address in a thread on a forum. There are plenty of philosophers and theologians who have examined these issues in books, presenting ideas and explaining concepts which I would only do violence to by trying to summarize, so I'm afraid I'll have to let you pursue those avenues yourself, if you so desire.

Click to expand...

I actually have pursued them, which is the reason why I don't buy this whole idea that we need a God to have a coherent concept of what is good. This problem in theistic ethics has been identified since Euthyphro.

Treasure Hunter said:

Izzy:

What happens if our perception of the transcendent goodness, or ultimate reality, becomes more good than our perception of the creator God? Which do we choose to submit to? I realize that this requires a subjective perspective, and so in a way I am asking the question, “which do we choose between subjective truth and objective truth?”

I am hesitant to go here because it is really challenging and can potential break trust between people, but this is when one starts to perceive differently. For instance, the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God/the god in Genesis becomes morally true and righteous rather than a sin.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're simply asking what happens when we create our own morality instead of following God - is that accurate?

izzy88 said:

This came up in a discussion thread, but I thought it would make for a good debate topic.

I spent about a decade as an atheist, and about a year ago I became a devout Catholic, so I've been on both sides of the theistic divide.

To believe in God means to live as though existence itself is objectively good and meaningful, and this will affect your whole outlook on life. You'll be much more resilient against suffering, for instance, because you'll believe that it's serving a purpose, some higher good, and that it's not just pointless. You'll see the good that happens to you as a gift, you'll be grateful for everything you have. You'll view death differently, you won't find it as sad. You'll likely have different goals, you'll care less about superficial success and wealth, and more about trying to grow in love. Instead of always seeking pleasure, you'll try your best to seek meaning.

To be clear, I'm not saying that atheists cannot or do not do these things; but if they do, they are being inconsistent - their behavior does not match what they claim to believe.

If one believes that nothing matters, that existence is objectively meaningless, that there's no inherent purpose to anything, the logical implications of that are a life of nihilism and hedonism. If all we have is this life, and in the final analysis nothing any of us do is going to matter, then you have no legitimate reason to do anything but serve your own self-interest. And sure, that can mean spending time with your family and friends, that can mean volunteering and giving to charity, but if an atheist does those things they're either doing it because it makes them feel good, or, if they're truly doing it selflessly, then they're being logically inconsistent, because there is zero rational justification for altruism in a meaningless universe.

I'm also not saying that all theists are altruistic people; that's very clearly not the case. Lots of theists do not behave as though God exists, and lots of atheists do. Both are being logically inconsistent - they claim to believe something, but their actions do not reflect this belief. But for the theists who take their belief to heart, their ultimate goal is to develop into the kind of person who does things not for self-satisfaction or pleasure, but truly selflessly, truly righteously. Many (if not most) theists begin their faith journey with self-serving intentions - their desire to be good is really out of vainglory, to serve their own pride. The goal, though, is to become truly loving, truly selfless, to do the good not because it gives them pleasure or because they believe they will be rewarded, but to do the good because it is the good. Atheists do not have that goal, because without God there is no "good" in an objective sense; everything is relative, and nothing you do in this life actually matters.

I look forward to hearing your varying perspectives.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. IF I subjectively decide that the purpose of my life is to leave the world a better place than it was when I arrived then there is every rational justification for me to practice altruism. How have you reached the conclusion that having an objective purpose is somehow superior or preferable to having a subjective purpose? Why can't the subjective purpose I find for my life be just as valid as the objective purpose you claim some other being has given to life?

Why is it somehow 'better' if I do good because because someone else told me that it's what I'm supposed to do than if I decide for myself that I should do good? In the first case you're simply doing good because some authority told you that's what you need to do. In the second case you're doing good because you've decided that it's the right thing to do. And in fact in the first case people are selfishly doing 'good' because they fear the consequences of not doing as they've been told. In the second case they are truly behaving selflessly, since they expect no reward or punishment for their behavior.

izzy88 said:

It sounds like you're simply asking what happens when we create our own morality instead of following God - is that accurate?

Click to expand...

At this point, we cannot assume a definition of God anymore. There is an implication in believing that we can access objectivity. That implication is that we are free from deception and delusion. If we are not free from deception, then that puts us into the subjective. Does that make sense?

Once I accepted the pattern of growth, which is the pattern of recognizing that my consciousness is subject to deception and then working to rectify that, then I realized that it no longer serves me to assume I can access objectivity. Of course, in practice it’s not that simple since we can’t help but to act as if our worldview is objective. Still, I began to push back against that tendency as much as I could in obligation to my desire for truth.

izzy88 said:

This came up in a discussion thread, but I thought it would make for a good debate topic.

I spent about a decade as an atheist, and about a year ago I became a devout Catholic, so I've been on both sides of the theistic divide.

To believe in God means to live as though existence itself is objectively good and meaningful, and this will affect your whole outlook on life. You'll be much more resilient against suffering, for instance, because you'll believe that it's serving a purpose, some higher good, and that it's not just pointless. You'll see the good that happens to you as a gift, you'll be grateful for everything you have. You'll view death differently, you won't find it as sad. You'll likely have different goals, you'll care less about superficial success and wealth, and more about trying to grow in love. Instead of always seeking pleasure, you'll try your best to seek meaning.

To be clear, I'm not saying that atheists cannot or do not do these things; but if they do, they are being inconsistent - their behavior does not match what they claim to believe.

If one believes that nothing matters, that existence is objectively meaningless, that there's no inherent purpose to anything, the logical implications of that are a life of nihilism and hedonism. If all we have is this life, and in the final analysis nothing any of us do is going to matter, then you have no legitimate reason to do anything but serve your own self-interest. And sure, that can mean spending time with your family and friends, that can mean volunteering and giving to charity, but if an atheist does those things they're either doing it because it makes them feel good, or, if they're truly doing it selflessly, then they're being logically inconsistent, because there is zero rational justification for altruism in a meaningless universe.

I'm also not saying that all theists are altruistic people; that's very clearly not the case. Lots of theists do not behave as though God exists, and lots of atheists do. Both are being logically inconsistent - they claim to believe something, but their actions do not reflect this belief. But for the theists who take their belief to heart, their ultimate goal is to develop into the kind of person who does things not for self-satisfaction or pleasure, but truly selflessly, truly righteously. Many (if not most) theists begin their faith journey with self-serving intentions - their desire to be good is really out of vainglory, to serve their own pride. The goal, though, is to become truly loving, truly selfless, to do the good not because it gives them pleasure or because they believe they will be rewarded, but to do the good because it is the good. Atheists do not have that goal, because without God there is no "good" in an objective sense; everything is relative, and nothing you do in this life actually matters.

I look forward to hearing your varying perspectives.

Click to expand...

purpose assigned by god/flying-spaghetti-monster/holy-unicorn... or any other humanity's creator (claimed to exist by believers throughout the history of humanity) to humanity's existence = objective purpose

purpose assigned by each individual people to their existence = subjective purpose

If there is no objective purpose, then everyone's life is meaningless?
If there is no objective purpose, then why should anyone be a good person?
If a person haven't been convince to believe any objective purpose exists, then why should they be a good person?

And all atheists believe nothing matters? Seriously? What a poor straw man and bold accusations are that.

If some theists will not commit evil deeds and they'll behave like a good person - only when they believe god give them objective purpose, then by all means, they should keep believe in god.

izzy88 said:

Not to a theist.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. How does a theist define "good" without reference to human benefit?

Or define "meaning" without reference to human nature?

izzy88 said:

It's not "feeling better about God", it's feeling better about the suffering, itself.

Though neither of us can know this firsthand, wouldn't you say women feel much better about the pain of childbirth than they would about an equivalent amount of pain they were enduring for no reason?

Click to expand...

Women and men have the benefit of not remembering pain, by and large, only remembering that pain was involved. We had three kids ─ my wife never hesitated. Which is what you expect from the brain of a body evolved for childbearing.

(On the other hand in the last couple of decades the number of voluntary caesarians has risen sharply in the first world; I've read that the reasons given include preserving the esthetics and sensitivity of the genitals more often than substituting a lesser pain. (It's not impossible some gynecologists look on it as a neat extra few bucks with each delivery.)

izzy88 said:

If you have a surgery to remove a tumor, wouldn't you feel much better about it than if someone was simply cutting you open for no reason?

Click to expand...

Having spent eleven hours on the table having a RHS back-of-throat and back of tongue SCC removed back in 2004, I can assure you I knew very well why I was being cut (with followup radiotherapy) and my strong emotion was gratitude to my surgeon that there was a way forward for me. I also learnt the most likely causes of the cancer. If anyone suggested that the cancer was instead caused by God, I'd have made a brusque reply centered around the sheer malevolence of a being who'd do such a thing, and my disgust and contempt for that malevolence.

izzy88 said:

Well at least you admit it's an assumption. I find it ironic the number of assumptions atheists have to make about the world in order to hold onto their preconception that there's no God, when many of you accuse theists of being irrational. Virtually your entire comment has been one big question-beg.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean. What did I say that begs the question? What question? Let's get down to specifics here.

I go back to my basic observation, that God has no definition appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether it were God or not. So God isn't even thought of as real, meaning the only thing God can be is a concept in an individual brain that has no real counterpart, a thing purely imaginary.

If I'm wrong, and you have such a definition, one which will allow me to determine whether my keyboard is God or not, please set it out.

If you can't, please say so and explain why not. If "why not" includes the idea that God is "spiritual", "immaterial", "supernatural", "divine" &c, please tell me what test will distinguish the spiritual, the immaterial, the supernatural, the divine, from the imaginary.

On top of that, God neither says nor does, has appeared in history and in the present world in countless incompatible forms, backs both sides in wars between Westerners, for Christians demands a price (worship) for salvation (itself an incoherent idea in reality) and so on.

izzy88 said:

I rest my case.

Click to expand...

My statement was, ALL meaning comes from humans. Meaning is ALWAYS a human judgment.

Give me an example of a meaning that's imposed on humans by God, and not by other humans claiming to speak for God, or, the Gods.

izzy88 said:

This came up in a discussion thread, but I thought it would make for a good debate topic.

I spent about a decade as an atheist, and about a year ago I became a devout Catholic, so I've been on both sides of the theistic divide.

To believe in God means to live as though existence itself is objectively good and meaningful, and this will affect your whole outlook on life. You'll be much more resilient against suffering, for instance, because you'll believe that it's serving a purpose, some higher good, and that it's not just pointless. You'll see the good that happens to you as a gift, you'll be grateful for everything you have. You'll view death differently, you won't find it as sad. You'll likely have different goals, you'll care less about superficial success and wealth, and more about trying to grow in love. Instead of always seeking pleasure, you'll try your best to seek meaning.

To be clear, I'm not saying that atheists cannot or do not do these things; but if they do, they are being inconsistent - their behavior does not match what they claim to believe.

If one believes that nothing matters, that existence is objectively meaningless, that there's no inherent purpose to anything, the logical implications of that are a life of nihilism and hedonism. If all we have is this life, and in the final analysis nothing any of us do is going to matter, then you have no legitimate reason to do anything but serve your own self-interest. And sure, that can mean spending time with your family and friends, that can mean volunteering and giving to charity, but if an atheist does those things they're either doing it because it makes them feel good, or, if they're truly doing it selflessly, then they're being logically inconsistent, because there is zero rational justification for altruism in a meaningless universe.

I'm also not saying that all theists are altruistic people; that's very clearly not the case. Lots of theists do not behave as though God exists, and lots of atheists do. Both are being logically inconsistent - they claim to believe something, but their actions do not reflect this belief. But for the theists who take their belief to heart, their ultimate goal is to develop into the kind of person who does things not for self-satisfaction or pleasure, but truly selflessly, truly righteously. Many (if not most) theists begin their faith journey with self-serving intentions - their desire to be good is really out of vainglory, to serve their own pride. The goal, though, is to become truly loving, truly selfless, to do the good not because it gives them pleasure or because they believe they will be rewarded, but to do the good because it is the good. Atheists do not have that goal, because without God there is no "good" in an objective sense; everything is relative, and nothing you do in this life actually matters.

I look forward to hearing your varying perspectives.

Click to expand...

Nihilism and atheism are not synonymous. And hedonism is irrelevant.

I don't see your logic.

How does having no objective meaning relate to selfishness? Isn't "selfish" objectively meaningful (as is "selfless")? How does having one life result in serving oneself? What does feeling good have to do with anything? For that matter, what does selflessness (individuality perhaps?) have to do with atheism?

I agree with you that a theist ought to do things with regard to the universal perspective. But that rarely happens. Individualism is a plague upon humanity. We're not going to get rid of individualism by professing belief in a god. We're never going to get rid of it entirely.

I disagree with you on what an atheist is. "Good" is objective regardless of religious orientation. Atheism grew out of theism, it is the philosopher's perspective on theism. If you've encountered an atheist who doesn't profess to know what "good" is, you've met an anachronism.

Also, relativity is objective.

izzy88 said:

If one believes that nothing matters, that existence is objectively meaningless, that there's no inherent purpose to anything, the logical implications of that are a life of nihilism and hedonism.

Click to expand...

Yet I am an atheist who is neither a nihilist nor a hedonist. Reason is a tool for managing the irrational experiences that give life meaning, and it does not lead me to your conclusions.

Incidentally, the most nihilistic people I encounter are very religious, and come from religions that preach that man is a failed creature utterly dependent on the mercy of a god and worthy of extinction at birth due to an inborn and inherent disease of the soul absent grace. They also learn that the world is a horrible place, and not to mingle with it or allow it to influence you. They are taught that the universe is base matter rightly slated for annihilation, that flesh is vile and and corrupts the spirit, and that even their own minds can't be trusted, that cognitive dissonance and doubt are the work of an evil spirit infecting the mind, and that life should be lived as if one is waiting at some cosmic bus stop to die and go somewhere better.

What's more nihilistic than that?

And then when I disagree, saying that I enjoy being an active member of society (at least I did until recently), that I enjooy the company of many of them, and that my life has been rich and satisfying because of that involvement, I am accused of being selfish what with there being so many less fortunate people in the world, as if I ought to be unhappy, too, for that reason.

This is essentially the opposite of the transition you described going fro atheism to theism. You described a positive impact on your worldview.

But look at how much faith has damaged this person, not atheism, so the idea that a god belief will enrich life's experience, which wasn't true for me (life got better after the transition from Christianity to secular humanism), certainly isn't true for the religious nihilist. In this case, it degraded a life (I'm thinking of a specific RF poster now).

izzy88 said:

If all we have is this life, and in the final analysis nothing any of us do is going to matter, then you have no legitimate reason to do anything but serve your own self-interest.

Click to expand...

Matter to whom or what? The universe? I don't care what matters to the universe. What I do matters to me.

And yes, I serve my own interests. That is what we do by instinct.

My self-interest is in having a smooth, comfortable, stimulating, and meaningful life rife with satisfaction and void of shame, blame, guilt, loneliness and the like. I have discovered that the path to such a state involves loving others, earning their respect and affection, being of service, living an upright life free of lying ad deception, etc.. I do all of these things for me because they feel good and lead to a better life, but others benefit as well, and that is part of my satisfaction, too.

And I believe other approaches to life such as hedonism in the most derogatory sense, will diminish my life experience. Win-win.

izzy88 said:

if the ultimate goal of morality, as a product of evolution, is to help me pass on my genes, then sacrificing my life is completely contrary to that goal

Click to expand...

Once again, I don't care what the universe's "goals" might be. I care about what my goals are. If I want to risk my life for another because I am compelled to do so, then that is my goal, not passing on my genes, which was never a goal of mine ever. I wanted children to love them and for them to love me, to increase my sense of purpose and meaning, and to make a lasting and constructive contribution in their lives. I don't care if they share my DNA. That's an accident of biology.

Good thread.

there is no mystery to life
you are here to learn all that you can before you die

you're body delivers this reality to your mind and heart
it can do nothing else

you will develop as a unique spirit
you can do nothing else

then you die and God and heaven will come around to see what stands from the dust