How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?[W: 192]

[ashurbanipal]

diallelus. If you would prefer the diallelus term fine. The definition of the word is "a reasoning in a circle". I'm not going to quibble over a Greek word that means the same thing as what we're talking about.

Well, the diallelus is not exactly the same as the regress problem, though they are related. You keep on talking about circular reasoning, so diallelus seems a more accurate term.

However, in the Wiki explanations which I think you may be drawing, it goes on to say that a way of escaping the Diallelus (Infinite Regress) is through Critical Philosophy.

Wiki?

I suggest a short article by Roderic Chisholm called "The Problem of the Criterion" for a pretty decent intro to the topic. Chisholm thinks of himself as a particularist (that essay is the origin of the term, actually), which is one way to get off the diallelus. Being a particularist is sort-of similar to disregarding the recursive process that leads to the diallelus.

Because you don't have a "belief" about the theory of special relativity and it's predictions.

Of course I do. Consider the absurdity of the corresponding Moorean assertion:

I know that Special Relativity is true, but I don't believe Special Relativity is true.

So long as I'm rational, and in ordinary circumstances, I believe what I know. I would say this is partially what defines a rational person.

We call this the entailment thesis in epistemology. Knowledge entails belief.

You have a demonstration that the theory holds up factually to severe testing.

Well, I don't know about the severe part, but the fact that it holds up to testing is what convinces me that it's right. That I'm convinced it's right is another way of saying I believe it.

Beliefs are unsupported. We believe things despite any factual evidence that supports the belief.

Not all beliefs are unsupported. You seem to be confusing antecedent and consequent. That knowledge entails belief, it doesn't follow that belief entails knowledge. Most people have a pretty powerful intuition that we can't claim to know something that isn't true. But this doesn't mean that there aren't true beliefs.

Religions are closed systems requiring belief. They require the suspension of disbelief. They don't require justification and are all authoritarian. The belief is based on itself as it's own authority. So religions are examples of circular reasoning.

You seem to have a very odd view of religion as well. I would say this is pretty obviously false. But feel free to argue for it.

A guy makes a wild guess...and we're supposed to assume that it's correct? Why would we assume that?

It's a simple thought experiment. Being able to entertain counterfactual situations, and drawing inferences about what would obtain, is a primary tool of abstract reasoning. In this case, it's simply stipulated that he's correct. It doesn't matter whether this can be demonstrated or not, because we're evaluating a conditional: if he is correct, does he have knowledge?

Consider that I might say something like "If Chamberlin hadn't followed a path of appeasement, World War II might have been averted." There's nothing wrong with saying that. I know Chamberlin followed a path of appeasement. Presumably, anyone to whom I would say such a thing also knows it. But it's foolish to say "Ah, but Chamberlin did follow a course of appeasement, so why are we supposed to assume otherwise?"

It seems pretty plausible that this sort of counterfactual reasoning is vital to understanding the world. For instance, I might think: If I get up now and go to the sink, I could get some water. But I'm not getting up now. So, does the fact I'm not getting up now mean I have some basic flaw in understanding sinks and water? Does it mean that when I say "If I get up now and go to the sink, I could get some water," I'm making some wild and crazy assertion that no one in their right mind could possibly credit? Am I saying something that could only make any sense if we test it a few thousand times under laboratory conditions? Of course not...

I grant that those sorts of counterfactuals probably arise out of prior experience. But this doesn't stop us from using them in abstract cases to see what shakes out.

But upon seeing that there are indeed five balls, most philosophers, and most people generally, think the man comes to actually know that there are five balls in the urn. No they don't. I have no idea where you come up with that assumption.

Earlier in the conversation, you acknowledged that observation statements need no further justification. The man is just making an observation. He looks in the urn, and sees there are five balls there. Upon doing so, he gains the knowledge that there are five balls in the urn.

It's ridiculously easy to test. Have the man do the same test 10 times and fill the urn with any random number of balls. Lets see how he fares then.

Who said anything about that? I never claimed that there would always be five balls in the urn.

It seems as if you tend to overcomplicate things and assume I'm saying much more than I am. I'm talking about a very simple case. Let me see if I can describe it as clearly as possible. Please focus on these words, and don't go thinking I mean anything about further iterations of the situation, because I do not mean any such thing. The point concerns only the first iteration. Here's the situation:

A man is alone in a room with an urn before him. Prior to looking in the urn, he forms the belief that there are five balls in the urn. NOw, it is actually the case that, at the time he forms that belief, there really are five balls in the urn. He just happens to make a very lucky guess. Nothing more, except that he comes to believe, irrationally, and prior to doing anything to see whether he's really correct or not, that his guess is correct. Again, this is just a matter of luck, and his irrational belief.

At this point, does he have knowledge about the balls in the urn? Most people say no, but note: he has a true belief.

Now, he gets up to look in the urn. He sees that, indeed, there are five balls in the urn.

At this point, does he have knowledge about the number of balls in the urn? Most people say yes--because he did what any of us would do to actually get that kind of knowledge. He got up and looked.

And this is where the example stops. These are the only claims to be made here (by me, anyway). I'm saying nothing about filling the urn again, nothing about how would the rest of the world determine or test or whatever the number of balls in the urn.

Nevertheless, the example is instructive, because it tells us that knowledge cannot be merely true belief. Knowledge must be true belief plus something else.

If you think that this example offers a good reason for a belief being justified, then I have to say that your critical thinking skills are being taxed. It's very easy to show why they aren't. If he can do it once, he can do it every time.

I said nothing about doing it many times. I did not say anything about the man's guesses being reliable. He had one lucky guess. I think we are agreed that this is not knowledge, even though he did happen to have a true belief. It's a belief, because he believed it. It's true, because there really were five balls in the urn.

Once he observes the number of balls, he then has good reason to believe there are five balls. Now, he has knowledge.

The important question is what changed between the time that he merely had a true belief, and when he had knoweldge. It can't be his true belief--he still had that. He still believes there are five balls in the urn. But he also knows there are five balls in the urn.

If you are tempted to think "no, he doesn't believe any longer--he knows!" just consider the corresponding Moorean assertion. What sense could we make of him saying,
after he observed how many balls there are, something like:

"Now I know that there are five balls in the urn, but dad gummit, I just don't believe it!"

The reason this seems irrational is because a belief is, or implies, a dispositional state. Both before and after observing the number of balls, he is disposed to assent to the proposition "there are five balls in the urn."

But back to the main question: what changed between the time before and after he made the observation? Most philosophers think that he now has something like justification for his belief. In ordinary circumstances (Gettier examples aside), this makes the difference between knowledge and true belief.

A deductive syllogism doesn't just give us a good reason or the best reason to accept a conclusion. It gives us an infallible conclusion.

Well, maybe. Let's say for now that I agree.

As for the rest of what you wrote, as I've mentioned before, philosophy is my profession. I don't need a lesson in basic logic.

In justificationism

Wait a minute--we're not talking about justificationism. we're talking about justification. Deduction is a kind of justification. Based on the stuff you wrote about deduction it seems you could be forced to agree.

If justification--not justificationism, but justification--is to be cut out, then we may as well all hang up our hats and go home.

 

[Ontologuy]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

OK. God doesn't give life meaning. He doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. I would admit that the belief that a god exists might give some people meaning, especially if they're supposedly that god's chosen creature and they want to try and live up to some supposed expectations of this god.

I have bolded the part of your statement that is meaningful in this thread with respect to your previous responses.

By definition, you are mostly to the left on the atheist-agnostic scale, essentially an atheist for the sake of argument.

I would not expect for atheists to experience God's existence as giving life meaning, obviously.

I would, however, wonder why atheists would choose to post in a thread about how God's existence gives life meaning.

 

[afr0byte]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I would not expect for atheists to experience God's existence as giving life meaning, obviously.

I would, however, wonder why atheists would choose to post in a thread about how God's existence gives life meaning.

Well, it should be pretty obvious why an atheist might post in this thread. The question is "How does God's existence give life meaning?" One possibly answer to that question is that God doesn't give life meaning. The reason behind that opinion could easily be that the person doesn't believe in this God. It has nothing to do with hating a God (Why would I hate something that I don't believe exists?), which you have claimed.

 

[Ontologuy]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

Well, it should be pretty obvious why an atheist might post in this thread. The question is "How does God's existence give life meaning?" One possibly answer to that question is that God doesn't give life meaning. The reason behind that opinion could easily be that the person doesn't believe in this God. It has nothing to do with hating a God (Why would I hate something that I don't believe exists?), which you have claimed.

In fact, I never said in this thread that anyone hated God .. I accurately surmized from their own words that they hated religion, and likely due to the behavior of religious people, religious people who are often one or more of their parents or who behave like their parents.

It does not surprise me, however, that atheists would erroneously conflate the two, God and religion.

In reality they are simply not mutually inclusive entities and are very differernt.

But the social religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all incorporate a belief in God along with their religion-defining belief in souls and afterlife, these religions being very prominent in society today .. and most atheists are atheists because of an adverse reaction to one or more of these three religions or these religions' practitioners .. so I can understand how atheists would easily succumb to such erroneous conflation.

The rejecting of God is the foundational reactive response for atheists because the authorities in these religions have butted heads with the pre-atheist, behaving in a "God-like" manner from the pre-atheist's perspective, and thus, in rejecting these authorities, the pre-atheist again erroneously conflates these authorities and God and rejects both, becomming an atheist.

I am curious as to your specific reasons for becoming an atheist, and would be interested in hearing the details at length of your story that lead to you becoming an atheist.

 

[dnsmith]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I've found rationality is NOT his strong suit.

He should also read Matthew 16:18. That passage is the most widely ignored passage in the Gospel. It is amazing how some people refuse to accept that it means what it says.

 

[dnsmith]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

So representatives of religions decide that philosophy is a religion? :doh. Why stop there? Why not declare that science is a religion? Or even atheism is a religion? Tell me, on who's authority did they decide that philosophy is a religion? Maybe it would be better for a conference of philosophers to get together and come to the conclusion that philosophy is a religion. I mean, they would probably have a better take on their field than a group of theists. Are they under the theistic illusion that philosophy holds such beliefs? Some may. Others don't.



Then what does? Ahhh a belief in souls or the after life. :think: hmmm. So that qualifies philosophy as a religion?


So Naturalism, Humanism, Objectivism , Logical Positivism , Critical Rationalism...are all religions? None of them point to the existence of the "soul" or the hearafter. It sounds a lot like a bunch of theists attempting to add relevance to their beliefs. I'm afraid they cast too wide a net.

A more broadly defined "religion" encompasses any deeply held set of beliefs relative to philosophy, to include atheism, as a religion.

 

[afr0byte]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

In fact, I never said in this thread that anyone hated God .. I accurately surmized from their own words that they hated religion, and likely due to the behavior of religious people, religious people who are often one or more of their parents or who behave like their parents.

It does not surprise me, however, that atheists would erroneously conflate the two, God and religion.

In reality they are simply not mutually inclusive entities and are very differernt.

But the social religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all incorporate a belief in God along with their religion-defining belief in souls and afterlife, these religions being very prominent in society today .. and most atheists are atheists because of an adverse reaction to one or more of these three religions or these religions' practitioners .. so I can understand how atheists would easily succumb to such erroneous conflation.

The rejecting of God is the foundational reactive response for atheists because the authorities in these religions have butted heads with the pre-atheist, behaving in a "God-like" manner from the pre-atheist's perspective, and thus, in rejecting these authorities, the pre-atheist again erroneously conflates these authorities and God and rejects both, becomming an atheist.

I am curious as to your specific reasons for becoming an atheist, and would be interested in hearing the details at length of your story that lead to you becoming an atheist.

I did misquote you on the hating God part. However a belief in God is more than likely a religious belief, especially if you're talking in terms of that God giving life meaning, obviously. Obviously religion and God aren't exactly the same thing.

As far as me, well, I was never religious, I didn't become an atheist. The first actual mass I attended was for a class I was taking in college (the only other one was for my brother's wedding to a Catholic woman). Kids are born not knowing about gods. Why else would most kids follow the same religion as their parents?

 

[Ontologuy]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I did misquote you on the hating God part.

Yes ...

However a belief in God is more than likely a religious belief, especially if you're talking in terms of that God giving life meaning, obviously.

So yes, indeed, many people who hate religion do throw the baby out with the holy water, so to speak.

The problem with erroneously conflating God and religion is that it leads to .. mistakes.

Obviously religion and God aren't exactly the same thing.

Obviously, they're not even close to being the same thing.

But, nevertheless, the tendency to erroneously conflate religion and God is understandable, as the social religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are dominant religions in our western world.

Many people simply don't have any experience with nature religions and old/new -age religions that don't incorporate a belief in God.

As far as me, well, I was never religious, I didn't become an atheist. The first actual mass I attended was for a class I was taking in college (the only other one was for my brother's wedding to a Catholic woman). Kids are born not knowing about gods. Why else would most kids follow the same religion as their parents?

So your parents didn't practice a religion? If not, did you also choose not to be interested in religion to garner favor with your parents?

Or did they practice a religion and you eventually chose not to practice that religion?

If your parents never practiced a religion, considering that religion is all around us, weren't you ever curious about religion?

And, religion aside, regarding God, did you not ever wonder about God or ponder the meaning of life to where you might be at least inclined in your mind to consider the possibility of God?

As for me, I was raised Christian, Southern Baptist, though not zealously, but eventually came to question everything. In all my questioning, I rejected religious tenets in their definiteness. At no time did I experience that God was non-existent, but I did experience that God was not as personified by religion. I eventually studied an encyclopedia of religion, and could not find one religion with which I could relate, with a type of panentheism I coined being the closest to describing my experience with God and reality .. and I learned a ton about life, the human psyche, and spirituality in the process..

I was fortunate, however, in that at no time did my changing cause an alienation with my parents, and I supported my kids' decisions with respect to religion, though even they have changed in regard to both their experience with God and their relgious practice/lack of practice.

Though I've known a number of people who rejected both religion and God, I know some who, like me, only examined religion .. and when it was done, had a better, more satisfying relationship with God.

 

[Quag]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

There's a God and a devil, I'm sure it must be
But why should I bother them, they don't bother me

- Ten years after

 

[Ontologuy]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

A more broadly defined "religion" encompasses any deeply held set of beliefs relative to philosophy, to include atheism, as a religion.

"More broadly" is often a spin-euphemism for in violation of the rules of reason.

If atheism incorporates a belief in souls and before/after -life, then it is a religion.

If it does not, then it is not.

My understanding of atheism is that it's really just a rejection of the existence of God .. but there indeed could be more to it than that: Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[afr0byte]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

So yes, indeed, many people who hate religion do throw the baby out with the holy water, so to speak.

I don't know who you're talking about. I never said I hate religion. You're projecting, obviously.

Obviously, they're not even close to being the same thing.

God as an entity perhaps isn't, but the belief in/devotion to a God is quite religious in nature.

So your parents didn't practice a religion? If not, did you also choose not to be interested in religion to garner favor with your parents?

Or did they practice a religion and you eventually chose not to practice that religion?

If your parents never practiced a religion, considering that religion is all around us, weren't you ever curious about religion?

And, religion aside, regarding God, did you not ever wonder about God or ponder the meaning of life to where you might be at least inclined in your mind to consider the possibility of God?

As for me, I was raised Christian, Southern Baptist, though not zealously, but eventually came to question everything. In all my questioning, I rejected religious tenets in their definiteness. At no time did I experience that God was non-existent, but I did experience that God was not as personified by religion. I eventually studied an encyclopedia of religion, and could not find one religion with which I could relate, with a type of panentheism I coined being the closest to describing my experience with God and reality .. and I learned a ton about life, the human psyche, and spirituality in the process..

I was fortunate, however, in that at no time did my changing cause an alienation with my parents, and I supported my kids' decisions with respect to religion, though even they have changed in regard to both their experience with God and their relgious practice/lack of practice.

Though I've known a number of people who rejected both religion and God, I know some who, like me, only examined religion .. and when it was done, had a better, more satisfying relationship with God.

My parents never actively participated in a religion, no, at least not as long as I've been alive. However, my Dad described himself as a religious person multiple times. My Mom described herself as a Unitarian. So, no I wasn't not not believing to curry favor with them. If anything I've made them less religious, not the other way around. Also, I can't say that I was ever curious about religion really, no.

As for your beliefs. Panentheism is most certainly a form of religion, obviously. You seem to be conflating organized religion with religion/being religious.

 

[Ontologuy]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I don't know who you're talking about. I never said I hate religion. You're projecting, obviously.

I didn't refer to you, either implicitly or explicitly.

Don't bash a strawman, it's counterproductive.

God as an entity perhaps isn't, but the belief in/devotion to a God is quite religious in nature.

"Belief", "devotion", "religious".

These semantic games aren't necessary.

An experience in an existent God does not a religion make, period.

Now I know you said that the American philosophy of government is religious because we print "In God we trust" on our money .. but I didn't think you actually believed it.

My parents never actively participated in a religion, no, at least not as long as I've been alive. However, my Dad described himself as a religious person multiple times. My Mom described herself as a Unitarian. So, no I wasn't not not believing to curry favor with them. If anything I've made them less religious, not the other way around. Also, I can't say that I was ever curious about religion really, no.

Interesting ...

So did you have a great relationships with your parents as a kid .. or not so great?

And, what I'm wondering is if you were ever curious about God's existence, not about a religion. The two are different, you know, since you have affirmed as much.

As for your beliefs. Panentheism is most certainly a form of religion, obviously. You seem to be conflating organized religion with religion/being religious.

I said a form of panentheism, not panentheism, and my belief system does not include a definitive tenet in souls and before/after -life .. so I'm making no error, either one of conflation or otherwise.

 

[afr0byte]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

An experience in an existent God does not a religion make, period.

It may not be an organized religion, but it's a form of your own personal religion, since I'm guessing you can't prove it and thus rely on your faith as proof.

Now I know you said that the American philosophy of government is religious because we print "In God we trust" on our money .. but I didn't think you actually believed it.

Of course I believe it. It's because it's true, obviously.

Interesting ...

So did you have a great relationships with your parents as a kid .. or not so great?

And, what I'm wondering is if you were ever curious about God's existence, not about a religion. The two are different, you know, since you have affirmed as much.

My relationship with my parents was great, yes. I'm not an atheist simply to rebel against my parents, if that's what you're implying.

As far as my usage of the word religion...now you're just playing semantics. You know what I meant. No I wasn't curious in a god.

I said a form of panentheism, not panentheism, and my belief system does not include a definitive tenet in souls and before/after -life .. so I'm making no error, either one of conflation or otherwise.

A form of a religion is a religion.

 

[dnsmith]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

........snipped for brevity.........

Though I've known a number of people who rejected both religion and God, I know some who, like me, only examined religion .. and when it was done, had a better, more satisfying relationship with God.

I was 17 and in my senior year of high school when I gave serious thought to religion, its value, what it meant and how it worked. My senior class included Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Taoists and a few atheists. All of the interaction between they and I gave me pause to think.

I chose to be a christian and I chose the direction based on what I believed to be the world of Christ. I further gave note to the introduction of the Holy Spirit and His functions in maintaining a living religion in accordance to changes in culture such that as mankind evolved socially and culturally He inspired man through the appointed leaders of the Church to insure that faith and morals were maintained.

 

[Removable Mind]

Someone used the fallacy of begging the question in another thread in first assuming that if God doesn't exist, life has no meaning.

What about God(s) gives life meaning?

Why does there have to be a meaning?

I totally get the fear thing used to motivate people into at least hoping there's something more than what we have. A religion that teaches a god offers eternal, care-free existence vs a complete state of nothingness for eternity is a bit of a mind challenge. Let's see... which choice would one like to have - should those even choices existed?

So a population of people pick Pascal's wager to cling to. Pascal says: If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

Some people have to somehow justify a belief linked to an entity that is suppose to be the meaning life...not just assign it.

In a strange way...all of the God stuff is really far out Sci-Fi. But that's just my deal.

Eternity is a fairly long time, I guess. But I'm way more inclined to believe immortality will be achieved by technology...not through death and a forum of rebirth or resurrection.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Why does there have to be a meaning?

I think the point is that there is meaning, and it is left to us (curious beings that we are) to explain the existence of meaning. One might be inclined to separate something like linguistic meaning from the "meaning of life," but it seems there are some similarities in the two concepts--similar enough to make it plausible to suggest that if there is the first kind of meaning, there probably is the second kind. Now...I don't think this is a knock-down argument by any means. But I think it does need to be dealt with fairly.

 

[dnsmith]

As I said before, if there is a set of beliefs to which one firmly believes, it is a religion, with or without the inclusion of a higher power. (Wiki is not the best source for definitions)

 

[Adagio]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

A more broadly defined "religion" encompasses any deeply held set of beliefs relative to philosophy, to include atheism, as a religion.

Broadly defined by whom? Atheism for example is not a belief? It's abscence of belief. There is no such thing as a belief in a non-belief. It doesn't require belief to not believe in something. I'm sure that you don't believe in Tinkerbell, or the tooth fairy, so would that make the non-belief in either of those a religion? If everything that we don't believe in results in a religion or religious statement, we'd be carrying a lot of unecessary baggage with us. Occam warns us not to multiply unnescessary contingincies to explain anything. The simplest answer is usually the right one. So it would seem that the "broadly defined" definition is one coming from theists looking to justify their belief as rational. Religions are defined as such because they are dogmatic. They begin with a premise and look for things that support the premise. A claim that God exists is supported by a variety of examples that never prove the claim. They're all based on inductive reasoning and appeals to authority. They can't explain the basis for the authority and use it to justify itself. Philosophy doesn't do that. So the claim that all things are Religion is not just false, but laughable on the face of it. I would say that foundationalistic philosophies border on religion due to their reliance on appeals to authority, but those philosophies are not relevant today.

 

[Adagio]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

The answer is that God's existence doesn't give your life meaning. If God exists, then rejecting God gives your life as much meaning as accepting him, because it's asserted by scriptures that people who reject God's instructions exist as living examples to others through the suffering they endure as a result.

Nothing about God's existence, as described by scriptures, is designed to give meaning to your life. The instructions of scriptures, as they are described by the scriptures, are designed to be a set of guidelines for living a happy life, much like an instruction manual for any product you purchase. If God exists, and the scriptures (as currently written and interpreted) are an accurate representation of his will, then following the instruction manual will ensure the highest probability that the product will work as intended.

And whether God exists or not, the scriptures, and our interpretations of them, stand on nothing more than their objective merits. If the scriptures themselves do not provide optimal advice, or if our interpretation of that advice is incorrect, then it's false doctrine, and we should look for better approaches.

Most reasonable people can see that scriptures lend their own form of wisdom, whether divine, or simply ancient. Most reasonable people can also see that various church doctrines based on those scriptures have had various levels of success over the ages. Whether we decide to amend our interpretations to try to find the one that produces the best result within the confines of doctrine, or forego the instruction manual and pursue a path without the reference of scripture, neither approach will do any more than succeed or fail on its merits.

And regardless of the approach, the meaning we each glean from the experience is no less profound.

:applaud very good post.

 

[Adagio]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

The following was my initial post in this thread:


A number of people took exception to the statement I've now placed in bold.

Some of them focused on the first four words of that sentence.

I've highlighted in red the words that apparently were then missed.

In the interest of returning to and staying on-topic, I've answered the OP question with a non-religious response.

This is how God's existence gives life meaning.

I would like to hear others present how they experienced God's existence to give life meaning.

In the interest of returning to and staying on-topic, I've answered the OP question with a non-religious response.

First you claim that you've answerd the question with a "non-religious response". It may be non-religious in the sense of not naming any particular religion, but it absolutely is a theistic response. You offer this: "Without that from God, those completely on their own are merely and truly simply a lost mind in a sea of confusion". People here reject that premise. And when they tell you that, you resort to telling them that they hate God, or are suffering from dual-polarity syndrome. You try to give an answer that justifies how God gives life meaning. But you then resort to begging the question. Your question assumes something not proven to begin with. So you invite people to describe how they experience something abstract and completley non-demonstrable to give their lives meaning. Your question assumes it's own truth. This being an open forum for debate, I'm sure that some people are going to question your assumptions.

 

[Adagio]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

No, I'd wager that those that took exception, did so because of the red part and the bits that followed it on the same line. The first four words aren't in and of themselves offensive, so it seems illogical to assume that they took offense to those words. Please answer in 5 lines or less, thanks. Also, I'm not sure how you can claim your OP is non-religious when you claim God exists and is necessary for meaning.

I suspect we may hear that he means it's non-denominational. However, It's hard to make a case for discussing God without it being a religious topic. It's certainly theistic.

 

[Adagio]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I have bolded the part of your statement that is meaningful in this thread with respect to your previous responses.

By definition, you are mostly to the left on the atheist-agnostic scale, essentially an atheist for the sake of argument.

I would not expect for atheists to experience God's existence as giving life meaning, obviously.

I would, however, wonder why atheists would choose to post in a thread about how God's existence gives life meaning.

Because it's an open forum, and they would question the premise. It is a philosophical discussion topic.

 

[SocialEngineer]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I would never offer this as doctrine, and I would never dare to assert knowledge of the nature of God.

But based on my understanding of scriptures, I like to think that it is our lives that give God's existence meaning.

 

[afr0byte]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

I suspect we may hear that he means it's non-denominational. However, It's hard to make a case for discussing God without it being a religious topic. It's certainly theistic.

I suspect we won't hear anything, obviously.

 

[Ontologuy]

Re: How does God(s)'s existence give life meaning?

First you claim that you've answerd the question with a "non-religious response". It may be non-religious in the sense of not naming any particular religion, but it absolutely is a theistic response. You offer this: "Without that from God, those completely on their own are merely and truly simply a lost mind in a sea of confusion". People here reject that premise. And when they tell you that, you resort to telling them that they hate God, or are suffering from dual-polarity syndrome. You try to give an answer that justifies how God gives life meaning. But you then resort to begging the question. Your question assumes something not proven to begin with. So you invite people to describe how they experience something abstract and completley non-demonstrable to give their lives meaning. Your question assumes it's own truth. This being an open forum for debate, I'm sure that some people are going to question your assumptions.

Most of your assertions here are absolutely false.

Where ever you plot on an atheism - theism scale, you're still plotting on a non-religious scale, as the presence or absence of God does not at all define religion. Religion is defined by the presence of both a belief in souls and a belief in before/after -life. Without these two, whatever you're talking about is not a religion. Since the atheism - theism scale is only about God or the lack thereof, maybe with an agnostic center, it doesn't explicitly or implicitly speak about souls or before/after -life. Thus I most certainly did not give a religious response in talking about God.

Also, you are reading in "theism" when it could have been pantheistic, panentheistic, a number of ways of describing God's existence, none of which are an explicit or implicit reference to religion, obviously.

Whether people here "reject that premise", as you say, is irrelevant, as the topic of the thread is how God's existence gives life meaning. That some who are atheists reject that premise is, though understandable, does not at all mean the premise isn't true.

And your statement that I've told people they hate God is a blatantly false statement, as I never said anyone here hates "God". Those who posted in a way that revealed their obvious hatred for religion, I simply reflected the fact of that back to them and asked them why they hated religion. God and religion are, obviouslly, not the same thing.

Your "are you suffering from dual-polarity syndrome" is obviously false, mere argumetative rhetoric.

As for the rest of your post, it's simply merely more of the same.

Better and to the point would be for you to state whether you believe in God or you don't, and if you do, then tell how God's existence gives life meaning for you.

Attacking others and their accurate statements, as you have done here, is simply off-topic .. and the [W: 192] at the end of this thread's title makes it clear that the powers that be want this thread to stay on-topic.