5 ms·

I went to a debate about the existence of God a few months ago. Dan Barker, an atheist who has contributed to the Daily Show, had the winning quote: "There is

I went to a debate about the existence of God a few months ago. Dan Barker, an atheist who has contributed to the Daily Show, had the winning quote: "There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life." The quote is poignant regardless of your religious affiliation. Barker was saying that the meaning of life is intensely personal. Each of us invents it through our own experiences.

Uncompetative 12y ago
That is so much shorter than what I posted on Derek Siver's site it is embarrassing: Born at the end of the '60s just before Christmas I was named after a saint. Later I found out that Santa Claus was largely invented by Coca-Cola to sell sodas and all the unlikely, but commonly held, beliefs that he was omniscient and omnipresent for at least one night of the year was seriously undermined. Then it was only a short jump to realise that Jesus was probably all made up too, that he wasn't the son of God and, by extension, there might well not be a God. I became a devout atheist at the age of seven - by 'devout' I mean that were there to be a Rapture as some believe that there will be, I will consider the 'proof' of the second coming to be symptomatic of hallucination, possibly a spiked water supply, and refuse to believe in God because I prefer to live my life that way without one. The question "What is the meaning of life?" had no easy answers in 'forgiveness', or 'love thy neighbour', or the promise of an afterlife for those who did good deeds as if we were on Santa's omniscient list of good children to recieve presents. So I used logic and logic alone to arrive at the definitive objective answer no matter how it may seem uncomfortable to my sensibilities to reveal it. The truth is, that to ask this question objectively you have to necessarily be totally objective about life and to be objective about anything you have to be outside of it with a detached point of view. With 'life, the universe and everything' with a whole 'philosophical universe of discourse' included in the set of things being considered I had to immediately dismiss all instrinsic attempts at an answer as not definitively objective due to their lack of detachment and inescapable subjective bias. Realising that I needed to be outside the 'universe of discourse' to properly pose the question I saw what the difficulty with answering this had been all this time... ...'meaning' is part of the 'universe of discourse' and it not available if outside of it. Consequently, all claims to a definitive meaning of life are erroneous in logic as an objective answer cannot be found. It is not so much that life is meaningless and we should all be nihilistic atheists, but that we are free to live any way we please as there is no wrong answer - as there is no definitive objective ULTIMATE answer! Every way you wish to give your life meaning is equally valid for your life, with the caveat that this is an ephemeral guideline you choose to adopt not an eternal truth - actually, I like the way this same argument was presented "in reverse" by Mr Sivers as whenever I have posted about this in various fora in the past I have felt that I've come across as overly alienating by hitting them with the cold truth first instead of pandering to their intimately held, but unfortunately subjective, beliefs. Putting it all the other way around encourages more people to read on and seems more life affirming - even if I know, in truth, that life is without extrinsic meaning.
- thinkalone 12y ago
  Snopes on the Santa/Coca-Cola myth: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp
attemptone 12y ago
Your comment and that talk reminded me of a philsophy lecture I had about Nietzsche and the reason behind the "Übermensch". Nietzsche feared that the progression of atheism would lead to broadly accepted Nihilism. Which would have the implication of anarchy and moralless behaviour. So he imagined the "Übermensch", a person who choses his own meaning and own morals, free from any moral commitment society has placed upon him.
deckiedan 12y ago
Do I understand you correctly: - "meaning" or "purpose" in life is whatever we feel "meaningful" or "purposeful". - those feelings are derived through our upbringing, culture, biochemical quirks, etc. Therefore if we could find whichever set of chemicals or brainwashing techniques made us feel 'meaningful', then that sense would allow just as valid and 'meaningful' an existence as any other? Isn't that merely hedonism, just with 'meaning' as the ultimate pleasure?
- return0 12y ago
  Arent we already doing that? Isnt 'meaning' just a word, a product of the human brain? Plus many people under hallucinogenics report experiences with various intensities of 'meaning'
  - deckiedan 12y ago
    If I understand the argument, then yes. And it seems rather tragic to me. One of the philosophical benefits to faith in God is that 'meaning' actually is more than just another 'meaningless' chemical reaction. There actually is a reason to live beyond just trying to stay happy. I do believe in God, I do believe there is more to life than keeping the chemical state of my body such that I feel happy and fulfilled. I do believe that my life can have a purpose. I've tried, and failed, to find a reason to without a deity who gives a metaphysical meaning to it all. I stand in awe of atheists - I simply don't have the strength to live without the faith and relationship with God that I believe I have.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Are you saying that you express belief in God not because you actually believe God exists in a factual sense, but because you are unable to handle believing that God does not exist? If that's what you're saying, it seems a bit odd, even from a religious perspective. I believe that the major theistic religions teach that God (or gods) actually exist, which is to say their teachings are not just helpful but also true.
baddox 12y ago
> "There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life." I find statements like this meaningless regardless of how many deities exist.

Uncompetative 12y ago

That is so much shorter than what I posted on Derek Siver's site it is embarrassing: Born at the end of the '60s just before Christmas I was named after a saint. Later I found out that Santa Claus was largely invented by Coca-Cola to sell sodas and all the unlikely, but commonly held, beliefs that he was omniscient and omnipresent for at least one night of the year was seriously undermined. Then it was only a short jump to realise that Jesus was probably all made up too, that he wasn't the son of God and, by extension, there might well not be a God. I became a devout atheist at the age of seven - by 'devout' I mean that were there to be a Rapture as some believe that there will be, I will consider the 'proof' of the second coming to be symptomatic of hallucination, possibly a spiked water supply, and refuse to believe in God because I prefer to live my life that way without one. The question "What is the meaning of life?" had no easy answers in 'forgiveness', or 'love thy neighbour', or the promise of an afterlife for those who did good deeds as if we were on Santa's omniscient list of good children to recieve presents. So I used logic and logic alone to arrive at the definitive objective answer no matter how it may seem uncomfortable to my sensibilities to reveal it. The truth is, that to ask this question objectively you have to necessarily be totally objective about life and to be objective about anything you have to be outside of it with a detached point of view. With 'life, the universe and everything' with a whole 'philosophical universe of discourse' included in the set of things being considered I had to immediately dismiss all instrinsic attempts at an answer as not definitively objective due to their lack of detachment and inescapable subjective bias. Realising that I needed to be outside the 'universe of discourse' to properly pose the question I saw what the difficulty with answering this had been all this time... ...'meaning' is part of the 'universe of discourse' and it not available if outside of it. Consequently, all claims to a definitive meaning of life are erroneous in logic as an objective answer cannot be found. It is not so much that life is meaningless and we should all be nihilistic atheists, but that we are free to live any way we please as there is no wrong answer - as there is no definitive objective ULTIMATE answer! Every way you wish to give your life meaning is equally valid for your life, with the caveat that this is an ephemeral guideline you choose to adopt not an eternal truth - actually, I like the way this same argument was presented "in reverse" by Mr Sivers as whenever I have posted about this in various fora in the past I have felt that I've come across as overly alienating by hitting them with the cold truth first instead of pandering to their intimately held, but unfortunately subjective, beliefs. Putting it all the other way around encourages more people to read on and seems more life affirming - even if I know, in truth, that life is without extrinsic meaning.

thinkalone 12y ago
Snopes on the Santa/Coca-Cola myth: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp

attemptone 12y ago

Your comment and that talk reminded me of a philsophy lecture I had about Nietzsche and the reason behind the "Übermensch". Nietzsche feared that the progression of atheism would lead to broadly accepted Nihilism. Which would have the implication of anarchy and moralless behaviour. So he imagined the "Übermensch", a person who choses his own meaning and own morals, free from any moral commitment society has placed upon him.

deckiedan 12y ago

Do I understand you correctly: - "meaning" or "purpose" in life is whatever we feel "meaningful" or "purposeful". - those feelings are derived through our upbringing, culture, biochemical quirks, etc. Therefore if we could find whichever set of chemicals or brainwashing techniques made us feel 'meaningful', then that sense would allow just as valid and 'meaningful' an existence as any other? Isn't that merely hedonism, just with 'meaning' as the ultimate pleasure?

return0 12y ago
Arent we already doing that? Isnt 'meaning' just a word, a product of the human brain? Plus many people under hallucinogenics report experiences with various intensities of 'meaning'
- deckiedan 12y ago
  If I understand the argument, then yes. And it seems rather tragic to me. One of the philosophical benefits to faith in God is that 'meaning' actually is more than just another 'meaningless' chemical reaction. There actually is a reason to live beyond just trying to stay happy. I do believe in God, I do believe there is more to life than keeping the chemical state of my body such that I feel happy and fulfilled. I do believe that my life can have a purpose. I've tried, and failed, to find a reason to without a deity who gives a metaphysical meaning to it all. I stand in awe of atheists - I simply don't have the strength to live without the faith and relationship with God that I believe I have.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Are you saying that you express belief in God not because you actually believe God exists in a factual sense, but because you are unable to handle believing that God does not exist? If that's what you're saying, it seems a bit odd, even from a religious perspective. I believe that the major theistic religions teach that God (or gods) actually exist, which is to say their teachings are not just helpful but also true.

baddox 12y ago

> "There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life." I find statements like this meaningless regardless of how many deities exist.