The Meaning of Life for Atheists

The inspiration for this thread came from here:
Message 117Where it was basically claimed that all atheists share the same meaning of life and that it is "to reproduce".I think this is clearly incorrect for the following reasons:- The only thing "all atheists" share is that they have no belief in God or any gods.
- Purpose for any living being is subjective and discovered by the intellent agent making the decisions.
- I am an atheist and my purpose for life is to get better, not to reproduce. In fact, I'm currently in a stage of my life where I do not want to reproduce, ever.It's quite possible that the inspiration for this thread simply meant that reproduction (the continuance of life) is the only agreed upon goal (purpose?) of evolution. I would agree with that statement.However, I was unable to find a thread that is focused on the meaning of life for an atheist anyway, so I thought this would be a good topic regardless of the original intentions of the inspiration.My main points:1. Taking into account all current knowledge, the "meaning of life" is an individual, subjective concept. We must all find our own purpose for our lives and there is no objective standard to guide our search.2. Many people may claim that there is an objective, absolute, external meaning of life. But they will be unable to show that this is actually a part of reality. They will be unable to show the difference between this "objective, absolute, external" claim and other subjective claims that come from our own imagination. Which then results in their claim being no more then their own subjective imagination at work.Forum Suggested: Faith and Belief or maybe Social Issues or even Miscellaneous.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'm an atheist and I have absolutely no intention to reproduce ever.As a matter of fact, I've noticed that for some darn reason all the people I know who don't want to reproduce are also atheists. Has anyone else noticed this trend? It's the religious people who pump out babies like bunnies.Added by edit.Case in point: Outcastinator versus RiVeRaT...Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I've noticed it, yes. But I haven't found (or looked for, even..) any actual studies on the matter.My guess is that atheists are more likely to not bend to social pressures. Atheists tend to do what atheists want to do, not what everyone is telling them they should do. Since, basically, that's the reason for becoming an atheist. There's no reason to believe in gods other than the social pressure of having everyone tell you that you should, as discussed here:
Message 1An atheist resists this pressure. It's quite possible that this same resistance to social pressure could lead to a significant number of atheists not wanting to reproduce, which has a rather large social pressure behind it as well.But that's simply some thoughts.Personally, I don't want kids for selfish reasons. If I ever had kids, I would want those kids to be my entire life. I don't want to "try and have a life of my own" as well as try to take care of a kid. If I bring a life into this world, I want to make sure I invest 100% of my time and effort into caring for that life.I'm not ready to make that kind of commitment for the next 20 years. I want to spend my money on me and my wife (vacations, entertainment, hobbies...). I don't want to share my available resources with a kid right now. As long as I think like this, I don't think it would be very nice to add a kid into my life.Perhaps one day I will want to devote all my time, money and resources into raising a child. Until that day... I don't want to reproduce because I don't want to short-change a child.Reproducing and having children is a wonderful purpose. But I hold that purpose in very high regard, and I'm just not in a position where I want to start doing what I'll need to do in order to pursue that purpose.Right now, I like the purpose I have now... making myself and the relationships I already have better. And, to me, it is currently a higher-valued purpose then having children.

That's your subjective interpretaion that certainly doesn't hold for every atheist. What you all can objectively agree is that life is meaningless, and everyone has to infer some subjective feeling they can hold on to - love, romance, peace, etc.But there is something else - according to your beliefs life came through extreme luck and randomness via Sex urge. You all agree that if this sex urge wasn't so powerful, there would be No Life. That's why i posit that what All atheists collectively can agree on as an objectively existing and scientifically proven purpose of life is - sex. (A Big Bang of sorts, sorry )Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi Agobot,

quote:

---

What you all can objectively agree is that life is meaningless, and everyone has to infer some subjective feeling they can hold on to - love, romance, peace, etc.

---

Close. In my view life has no innate meaning, nor should we expect there to be any innate meaning. That does not, however, mean that life is meaningless. Subjective meaning is still meaning, even if it is basically a personal invention.Also, I think it is worth mentioning that if I am right in saying that there are no gods, then it is not just atheists who must rely upon artificial meaning; theists are in the same boat.

quote:

---

But there is something else - according to your beliefs life came through extreme luck and randomness via Sex urge.

---

I really don't think that is how I would put it. Evolution is not random and as for the first origin of life, I really don't know enough about it to be making judgements. Also quite a lot of life forms don't have sex.

quote:

---

You all agree that if this sex urge wasn't so powerful, there would be No Life.

---

I definitely don't agree with that. Like I say, not all life forms have sex. Very early life probably did not.

quote:

---

That's why i posit that what All atheists collectively can agree on as an objectively existing and scientifically proven purpose of life is - sex.

---

Sex? Or reproduction? I presume you mean the latter.If so, what is my purpose in life? Whatever my moniker might suggest, I do not have children. Further, I am infertile and thus cannot reproduce. Does that make my life meaningless?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Granny Magda, True but i was referring to humans as we are the only species that ask these types of questions. My position is that atheists can agree on sex between humans as the purpose of life that can be scientifically tested and verified. After all there wouldn't be humans if there wasn't this strong sex urge between us, isn't that a basic tenet of atheism?I was wrong that there wouldn't be life without sex, but my position about the purpose of life remains the same. I have yet to see something that atheists can all agree upon and that can be objectively tested and that's not sex-related.By replication i meant replication through the urge for sex.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

No. Atheists are just people who lack faith in any gods. There's nothing that they necessarily agree on philosophically, unless you count that lack of faith, but babies are atheists, and they don't philosophise. An atheist may not have an opinion on the likelihood of there being a god or gods of some kind, and may or may not care about the question. Some atheists are believers in non-theistic religions, which may well include a belief in an objective meaning of life. An adult atheist could even conceivably be from a remote non-theistic animist culture, and never even have had a concept of "gods", although this would be rare today.All you can say of atheists is that they don't believe in any gods. Wrong, for reasons explained above. That would also be wrong if you were talking about metaphysical naturalists, who might well not perceive any objective purpose in life, sex and reproduction just being part of it, like eating.Having thoroughly disagreed with your post, I'll comment that you apologised at the end for the only good part of it!

...that's what he said. No, that's not it at all. Life has whatever meaning we want to give it, which is far from meaningless. You're talking about Nihilists, not atheists. The two can overlap in some individuals, but not all of us. The meaning and purpose of life are subjective, yes. Different people find differend meaning and purpose. Some find it in faith, and atheists tend to find it in more secular persuits. Some find no meaning at all. No, not at all. Clearly you don't comprehend abiogenesis, or the fact that not all atheists even believe in abiogenesis. Atheism is extremely broad - it only means "no deities." You can still beleive in outlandish extradimensional sources for life, or any of the various "new agey" religions that have no deities.Further, abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with "extreme luck and randomness." It has to do with chemistry, which is very different. Even when the first lifeforms came to exist, they didn't reproduce sexually - sexual reproduction came much later. Your entire concept of this is wrong from the ground up. Not at all. Most forms of life don't even use sexual reproduction - bacteria, viruses, and many plants and animals reproduce is several different ways that don't rely on sex at all (mitosis, budding, etc). It's called "asexual reproduction," and you might want to look it up. And you're wrong.

This is not a philosophical question, it's an objectively verifiable situation. That life is objectively meaningless(not subjectively) and all our ancestors that hanged on trees continued our lineage and made possible our existence because of this sex urge. That i posit is the purpose of life, from a god-free perspective(i will no longer label anyone "atheist" as some seem to get hurt. Sorry). The purpose of life in a god-free universe is replication and the continuation of life. Is there anything else non-belivers can add as an objectively existent purpose?

quote:

---

True but i was referring to humans as we are the only species that ask these types of questions.

---

So you are referring to the meaning of human life.

quote:

---

My position is that atheists can agree on sex between humans as the purpose of life that can be scientifically tested and verified.

---

Well I am an atheist and I disagree that sex is the purpose of human life (especially since you fail to make clear whether you actually mean sex or reproduction), so your position must be wrong.

quote:

---

After all there wouldn't be humans if there wasn't this strong sex urge between us, isn't that a basic tenet of atheism?

---

Not even close. the only thing close to a "basic tenet of atheism" is a lack of belief in God or gods. That's it. No further elaboration is required. If you think that there is no such thing as a god, you are an atheist, no matter what else you might believe.

quote:

---

I have yet to see something that atheists can all agree upon and that can be objectively tested and that's not sex-related.

---

Don't hold your breath!

quote:

---

That's why i posit that what All atheists collectively can agree on as an objectively existing and scientifically proven purpose of life is - sex.

---

Huh? You never used the word "replication".You didn't answer my question by the way. If I can't reproduce, is my life meaningless?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Objectively yes(sorry i don't mean to be harsh). Subjectively, no, no way. I am sure you have a thousand reasons to live.But your ancestors made you possible through sex. Not because they found philosophical reasons, or love or peace 40 millions years ago. From the POV of a God-free nature, the objective purpose of human life is replication.

The idea that life has no objective meaning is not objectively verifiable, and that idea has nothing to do with atheism. If life is objectively meaningless, then it would have no objective purpose.Why are you relating "meaning" to deities. Deities could exist without meaning, and creator deities could create universes just for the hell of it. And if a deity created a universe with meaning and for some purpose, there is no reason to suppose that life had anything to do with that purpose.

No, not really. The only tenet of atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. That's all.

How could a God-free nature have any objective purpose? I think it has none. Life replication isn't a purpose. It's just something that happens.