Atheist In A Foxhole

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I am concerned I try to avoid belief where ever I can.

Okay, fair enough.

I wonder if that quite answers Wyman's question, though.

I think he was asking not so much about how an Atheist can refuse to know things, but about how he can decide he does know things -- in particular, how he can know the supplementary propositions that would be necessary to posit that his existence is capable of having a "meaning" (in contrast to a mere self-delusion of meaning).

[Hobbes' Choice]

As far as I am concerned I try to avoid belief where ever I can.

Okay, fair enough.

I wonder if that quite answers Wyman's question, though.

I think he was asking not so much about how an Atheist can refuse to know things, but about how he can decide he does know things -- in particular, how he can know the supplementary propositions that would be necessary to posit that his existence is capable of having a "meaning" (in contrast to a mere self-delusion of meaning).

Here's how it goes...
I do have what you might call "beliefs". For example I believe that people ought to be treated as equals under the law. I believe it is wrong to have sex with a child, or any adult who is not capable of reasoned consent.
All these are aspirational. I cannot prove, nor do I think I should try, that these are better ways to live. All I can say is that these are good ideas, and try and explain why I think it would be for the good that such things are followed.
These are all about choices I make, given how I feel about life and my part in it.
If you want the meaning of life ~I have nothing whatever concerning an absolute position, I can only speak for myself, and think that is all anyone is capable of.
We make it up as we go along, and ought to be suspicious of anyone claiming anything else.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's how it goes...
I do have what you might call "beliefs"...All these are aspirational. I cannot prove, nor do I think I should try, that these are better ways to live. All I can say is that these are good ideas, and try and explain why I think it would be for the good that such things are followed.
These are all about choices I make, given how I feel about life and my part in it.
If you want the meaning of life ~I have nothing whatever concerning an absolute position, I can only speak for myself, and think that is all anyone is capable of.
We make it up as we go along, and ought to be suspicious of anyone claiming anything else.

Yep, that's fair.

It works as long as you are only one person living outside any social organization. In that condition, we're all able to do as our lights indicate to us, for better or worse. If we have no meaning for life, and we're happy to freely admit what we don't know, there will be no problem.

The problem, though, is that in may situations that's not enough -- like if you were a leader, a policy maker, a social engineer, a policeman, a manager, or some other such things that requires a set of rules to govern interaction among people, or if you are in a situation of being induced to obey one of the above types of people. It would even be problematic to be a citizen, a neighbor or even a family member if one has no set guidelines to specify how you will interact with others, and how they will interact with you.

At that point, "live and let live" isn't any longer a workable axiom. And "I have no answer, personally," isn't good enough. If we're going to lead our colleagues or have to follow our leaders, if we intend to contribute to our polity or act as a citizen, or even when we live with a wife or instruct our children, we need some basic meaning or direction in life to which to orient our efforts and show the rightness of our choices. We need some "meaning," something we know to be appropriate, wise, necessary and good, and can show to be so.

"Do it yer own way" won't serve then. And aspiration won't help us make the decisions we must make. We need something more.

[Wyman]

As far as I am concerned I try to avoid belief where ever I can.

Okay, fair enough.

I wonder if that quite answers Wyman's question, though.

I think he was asking not so much about how an Atheist can refuse to know things, but about how he can decide he does know things -- in particular, how he can know the supplementary propositions that would be necessary to posit that his existence is capable of having a "meaning" (in contrast to a mere self-delusion of meaning).

Here's how it goes...
I do have what you might call "beliefs". For example I believe that people ought to be treated as equals under the law. I believe it is wrong to have sex with a child, or any adult who is not capable of reasoned consent.
All these are aspirational. I cannot prove, nor do I think I should try, that these are better ways to live. All I can say is that these are good ideas, and try and explain why I think it would be for the good that such things are followed.
These are all about choices I make, given how I feel about life and my part in it.
If you want the meaning of life ~I have nothing whatever concerning an absolute position, I can only speak for myself, and think that is all anyone is capable of.
We make it up as we go along, and ought to be suspicious of anyone claiming anything else.

That's an honest answer. I think that many atheists, myself included (whether 'happy' atheists or not) generally believe in a kind 'do no harm to others' ethic. It is basically a social contract ethic whereby we all agree to live according to rules decided by democratic means (and this covers Hobbes' rules against pedophilia and equal treatment, etc.). At bottom, the deep motivating impulses behind social contract seem to me to be survival, pleasure, familial bonds and such 'darwinian' things. The 'happy' atheists feel no need for anything more than that and so they experience general happiness and pleasure with life - at least when it's going well. As ArisingUK said up-thread about 'Godbotherers' it's a sheep mentality situation for both happy atheists and theists. On the other hand, some atheists are not happy living according to the rules expected of them, so they rebel against the idea of a social contract handed down to them by ancestors. As there is nothing deeper, underneath the social contract (no purpose or meaning other than live and let live), they despair of what to do next.

[Immanuel Can]

That's an honest answer. I think that many atheists, myself included (whether 'happy' atheists or not) generally believe in a kind 'do no harm to others' ethic. It is basically a social contract ethic whereby we all agree to live according to rules decided by democratic means (and this covers Hobbes' rules against pedophilia and equal treatment, etc.).

That works as a sociological description of our current ethos's beliefs, perhaps, but does not help us much. We need to answer first, "Why is democracy obligatory?" especially in a merely contingent and survival-of-the-fittest-world, if that's what we have. For most people throughout history have not believed in democracy; and though I do, my preference for it makes me painfully aware of how new, atypical and unsupportable by non-sectarian reasoning the whole idea of democracy really is.

To secure it better, I would wish to see it defended by rational and moral arguments that compel skeptics to see it as the only reasonable option: but I know of no such arguments, nor have I been able to find any. The deep rationales for democracy are all sectarian. So we may have democracy right now, but our rationale for having it is perilously thin.

I think recent decisions we've seen, in which things like women's basic rights are curtailed in the name of appeasing a culture that has contempt for them are indicative of our deep lack of certainty about why we believe in women's rights at all. And I really do believe in human rights, and want to see them defended much better. I can do it based on Theism, but I personally cannot muster any parallel rationale from my understanding of Atheism. I wonder if Atheists can. I'd be interested in seeing it.

At bottom, the deep motivating impulses behind social contract seem to me to be survival, pleasure, familial bonds and such 'darwinian' things. The 'happy' atheists feel no need for anything more than that and so they experience general happiness and pleasure with life - at least when it's going well. As ArisingUK said up-thread about 'Godbotherers' it's a sheep mentality situation for both happy atheists and theists. On the other hand, some atheists are not happy living according to the rules expected of them, so they rebel against the idea of a social contract handed down to them by ancestors. As there is nothing deeper, underneath the social contract (no purpose or meaning other than live and let live), they despair of what to do next.

Now, before we assign all Theists to the "happy sheep" category, hadn't we better check to see if it's true? Sure, there are both Theists and Atheists in the "happy sheep" mode; we've all met them. But are we really sure that "happy sheepness" is automatic for Theists, whereas we think it not automatic for Atheists? If I have met many happy-sheep Atheists, would I be warranted in concluding the ALL are, and that their sheepitude was a product of Atheism? Just asking. It seems to me that if the reasoning works for one, it works for the other: and if it does not work for one, why do we suppose it for the other?

I would say an empirical test would be in order. Are all Theists sheep? Or is there any Theist in the history of the world that has not been one? And if there is even one, then it would seem reasonable to conclude instead that "happy sheepness" is a feature of something in human nature itself, but not of their belief in God?

Or are we begging the question entirely, and just assuming that since we feel "God doesn't exist" is true, then anyone who believes He does must automatically be a sheep? But then we'd have to know for certain that what they were believing wasn't the truth...and how would we know that?

I agree with your conclusion, Wyman. I think you describe accurately the dilemma of Atheism in the face of the "meaning" question. I think it accounts for the *crickets* on that issue. But let's give the anarchistic Atheists a little credit...they can surely say this to us:

"How do you know we owe anyone to keep your 'social contract'? We actually never signed it, and no one asked us. In fact, the very philosophers like Locke and Rousseau who dealt with the concept admitted freely that the whole 'social contract' idea is a fiction, a mere heuristic device for thinking about society. So why should we be obliged to buy into your fiction, and behave by your rules?"

And I think you have to admit they've got a good question there. Nietzsche raises that one as well. If all morality is merely an expression of "will to power," as he says, then our insistence that anarchist Atheists should behave like modern, secular democrats (and presumably get walloped or end up in jail if they don't) looks very much like a mere power move on our part, one that can be swept aside by any greater power or any shift of power at any time, and without remorse.

So the social contract isn't protective for us for very long -- not unless we can show other rational persons that it's the right contract we have. And how would Atheism help us with that?

[Wyman]

That's an honest answer. I think that many atheists, myself included (whether 'happy' atheists or not) generally believe in a kind 'do no harm to others' ethic. It is basically a social contract ethic whereby we all agree to live according to rules decided by democratic means (and this covers Hobbes' rules against pedophilia and equal treatment, etc.).

That works as a sociological description of our current ethos's beliefs, perhaps, but does not help us much. We need to answer first, "Why is democracy obligatory?" especially in a merely contingent and survival-of-the-fittest-world, if that's what we have. For most people throughout history have not believed in democracy; and though I do, my preference for it makes me painfully aware of how new, atypical and unsupportable by non-sectarian reasoning the whole idea of democracy really is.

To secure it better, I would wish to see it defended by rational and moral arguments that compel skeptics to see it as the only reasonable option: but I know of no such arguments, nor have I been able to find any. The deep rationales for democracy are all sectarian. So we may have democracy right now, but our rationale for having it is perilously thin.

I think recent decisions we've seen, in which things like women's basic rights are curtailed in the name of appeasing a culture that has contempt for them are indicative of our deep lack of certainty about why we believe in women's rights at all. And I really do believe in human rights, and want to see them defended much better. I can do it based on Theism, but I personally cannot muster any parallel rationale from my understanding of Atheism. I wonder if Atheists can. I'd be interested in seeing it.

At bottom, the deep motivating impulses behind social contract seem to me to be survival, pleasure, familial bonds and such 'darwinian' things. The 'happy' atheists feel no need for anything more than that and so they experience general happiness and pleasure with life - at least when it's going well. As ArisingUK said up-thread about 'Godbotherers' it's a sheep mentality situation for both happy atheists and theists. On the other hand, some atheists are not happy living according to the rules expected of them, so they rebel against the idea of a social contract handed down to them by ancestors. As there is nothing deeper, underneath the social contract (no purpose or meaning other than live and let live), they despair of what to do next.

Now, before we assign all Theists to the "happy sheep" category, hadn't we better check to see if it's true? Sure, there are both Theists and Atheists in the "happy sheep" mode; we've all met them. But are we really sure that "happy sheepness" is automatic for Theists, whereas we think it not automatic for Atheists? If I have met many happy-sheep Atheists, would I be warranted in concluding the ALL are, and that their sheepitude was a product of Atheism? Just asking. It seems to me that if the reasoning works for one, it works for the other: and if it does not work for one, why do we suppose it for the other?

I would say an empirical test would be in order. Are all Theists sheep? Or is there any Theist in the history of the world that has not been one? And if there is even one, then it would seem reasonable to conclude instead that "happy sheepness" is a feature of something in human nature itself, but not of their belief in God?

Or are we begging the question entirely, and just assuming that since we feel "God doesn't exist" is true, then anyone who believes He does must automatically be a sheep? But then we'd have to know for certain that what they were believing wasn't the truth...and how would we know that?

I agree with your conclusion, Wyman. I think you describe accurately the dilemma of Atheism in the face of the "meaning" question. I think it accounts for the *crickets* on that issue. But let's give the anarchistic Atheists a little credit...they can surely say this to us:

"How do you know we owe anyone to keep your 'social contract'? We actually never signed it, and no one asked us. In fact, the very philosophers like Locke and Rousseau who dealt with the concept admitted freely that the whole 'social contract' idea is a fiction, a mere heuristic device for thinking about society. So why should we be obliged to buy into your fiction, and behave by your rules?"

And I think you have to admit they've got a good question there. Nietzsche raises that one as well. If all morality is merely an expression of "will to power," as he says, then our insistence that anarchist Atheists should behave like modern, secular democrats (and presumably get walloped or end up in jail if they don't) looks very much like a mere power move on our part, one that can be swept aside by any greater power or any shift of power at any time, and without remorse.

So the social contract isn't protective for us for very long -- not unless we can show other rational persons that it's the right contract we have. And how would Atheism help us with that?

I guess I touched a nerve with the sheep comment. Obviously it is a broad generalization. But a theist really ought not object to being a sheep where the shepherd is omniscient, all powerful, etc.. He'd be crazy not to. One anomaly that I didn't cover which I've always been fascinated with (I've brought it up before, but no one else shares my enthusiasm) is the theist who refuses to obey. This is dealt with brilliantly in The Brothers Karamazov where Ivan says to God - I believe in you, but to hell with your 'plan,' I'm opting out; it involves too much pain and suffering.

I agree with you that those anarchists have a good beef, in theory. Like I said, underlying the need for laws is survival. So we say to those anarchists - you owe us nothing and we owe you nothing. If you want to leave then leave and if not, you will follow our laws because we have the power to enforce them. Democracy can mitigate slightly the fact that no one has really contracted to be a citizen. It allows them to at least participate somewhat in changing laws or making new ones.

We are in agreement, generally. It is the atheists who often get very touchy when you tell them that they really have no purpose in life other than to survive. They insist on things like 'equality under the law' or altruism, love, kindness, charity, sanctity of life, etc. as having intrinsic value. They sure don't like to be called on to defend those cherished values though.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess I touched a nerve with the sheep comment.

No, not at all. I'm quite used to the incredulous, "What, you? You're a Theist?" as if they were asking, "Are you really a palm-reader?"

But "sheep" is only a complement when one believes in the Shepherd. Those who do not, emphasize not the tending relationship the Theists claim with God, but rather the wandering, glassy-eyed naivety that we associate with sheep with no Shepherd. I'm well aware of the difference, and have no objection to the former, and take no offence at the latter since I don't find it resonates particularly with my experience. So it's all good.

One anomaly that I didn't cover which I've always been fascinated with (I've brought it up before, but no one else shares my enthusiasm) is the theist who refuses to obey. This is dealt with brilliantly in The Brothers Karamazov where Ivan says to God - I believe in you, but to hell with your 'plan,' I'm opting out; it involves too much pain and suffering.

That's a kind of Gnostic position, isn't it? There's said to be a creator, but he's not taken to be a very nice guy. At best, he's said to be a bit of a ditherer, who screwed this place up in the making; at worst, he's said to be downright malevolent. So Gnostics believe in a sort of creator "god," but he's a Demiurge, the nasty kind of "god."

On the other hand, I think a great many people -- and with a great deal of justice, I might add -- want to ask the question, "If this place is so messed up, what does that mean for belief in God?" And I actually think it's a really good question to ask. But in the companion thread to this one (Theist In A Foxhole) I made a few comments about the attitude it takes to search honestly for answers; and I'd like to refer back to those rather lengthy comments this way: by asking, "If we want to ask that question, are we anticipating the possibility of an answer, or are we merely asking in order to be able to dismiss the possibility of answers?" It makes a difference, I think.

I agree with you that those anarchists have a good beef, in theory. Like I said, underlying the need for laws is survival. So we say to those anarchists - you owe us nothing and we owe you nothing. If you want to leave then leave and if not, you will follow our laws because we have the power to enforce them. Democracy can mitigate slightly the fact that no one has really contracted to be a citizen. It allows them to at least participate somewhat in changing laws or making new ones.

This would work provisionally, if both the anarchists and we agree to operate under the umbrella of democratic assumptions and respect us and each other. But what if some of them prefer Nihilism or some form of Totalitarianism instead? Then they're not interested in merely "having a voice in shaping policy," like we would be; they would wish to win for their side, regardless of our views. And, since all politics is, as Nietzsche suggested, merely a matter of power, if they can find a way to command greater power, then by what rationale do we manage to protest their move?

We are in agreement, generally. It is the atheists who often get very touchy when you tell them that they really have no purpose in life other than to survive. They insist on things like 'equality under the law' or altruism, love, kindness, charity, sanctity of life, etc. as having intrinsic value. They sure don't like to be called on to defend those cherished values though.

Yeah, I really think we are. Imagine that...an Atheist and a Theist agreeing...

[thedoc]

We are in agreement, generally. It is the atheists who often get very touchy when you tell them that they really have no purpose in life other than to survive. They insist on things like 'equality under the law' or altruism, love, kindness, charity, sanctity of life, etc. as having intrinsic value. They sure don't like to be called on to defend those cherished values though.

Interesting that these are some of the same values that theists will trot out to support their own set of beliefs. Perhaps they would be better considered as basic human values, with out trying to pin them to a particular set of beliefs.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Here's how it goes...
I do have what you might call "beliefs"...All these are aspirational. I cannot prove, nor do I think I should try, that these are better ways to live. All I can say is that these are good ideas, and try and explain why I think it would be for the good that such things are followed.
These are all about choices I make, given how I feel about life and my part in it.
If you want the meaning of life ~I have nothing whatever concerning an absolute position, I can only speak for myself, and think that is all anyone is capable of.
We make it up as we go along, and ought to be suspicious of anyone claiming anything else.

Yep, that's fair.

It works as long as you are only one person living outside any social organization. In that condition, we're all able to do as our lights indicate to us, for better or worse. If we have no meaning for life, and we're happy to freely admit what we don't know, there will be no problem.

The problem, though, is that in may situations that's not enough -- like if you were a leader, a policy maker, a social engineer, a policeman, a manager, or some other such things that requires a set of rules to govern interaction among people, or if you are in a situation of being induced to obey one of the above types of people. It would even be problematic to be a citizen, a neighbor or even a family member if one has no set guidelines to specify how you will interact with others, and how they will interact with you.

At that point, "live and let live" isn't any longer a workable axiom. And "I have no answer, personally," isn't good enough. If we're going to lead our colleagues or have to follow our leaders, if we intend to contribute to our polity or act as a citizen, or even when we live with a wife or instruct our children, we need some basic meaning or direction in life to which to orient our efforts and show the rightness of our choices. We need some "meaning," something we know to be appropriate, wise, necessary and good, and can show to be so.

"Do it yer own way" won't serve then. And aspiration won't help us make the decisions we must make. We need something more.

I think you mistake a "meaning for life", and knowing how to live amongst your peers and in your community. You cannot allow yourself to be completely subsumed by the moral code of others, you have to interpret the rules an live as best you can with self respect and honesty.
No one can be outside social organisation, as such a thing is constituted and evolves through the action of those within it. Society might structure you, but you structure society.

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting that these are some of the same values that theists will trot out to support their own set of beliefs. Perhaps they would be better considered as basic human values, with out trying to pin them to a particular set of beliefs.

Oh, I agree. I think things like honesty, truthfulness, sincerity, diligence, and so on, these are all values for everyone. But even more importantly, the belief that your interlocutor has a right to speak, and that he/she has a right to determine his/her decisions, whether you agree with them or not, is key to civil conversation.

The ability to disagree and remain friends is exceedingly valuable, I find. In fact, if two people can only get along by the expedient of one of them subordinating his claims to the expectations of the other, that is a pretty good way to describe a dysfunctional arrangement, not a friendship or a decent conversation at all, I think. I sense you think that too.

Wholehearted agreements are certainly good things; but gracious disagreements are also very good things. Conformism is bad. Hostility is bad.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you mistake a "meaning for life", and knowing how to live amongst your peers and in your community.

Well, to be more precise, I think that ethics are a byproduct of what you take to be the "meaning" behind our existence. Morals are for the support and promotion of the achievement of human good. Or to put it Biblically, "The Law was made for man, not man for the Law." So the two are intrinsically related: whatever morality one espouses will be bound to be a reflection of that person's beliefs about ultimate human good.

You, for example, unless I misread you, would say that "freedom" is a pretty valuable human good. Maybe you'd say the same for "individuality," and perhaps "coexistence." You specifically mention "respect" and "honesty." Fair enough. But I think there's also a connection between those ethical values and what you believe about your ultimate good. It seems to me you believe primarily that self-determination is good. And though you do give a nod to communal values, you seem to prioritize self-determination over the community. You also seem to see being left alone as a primary good, and building connections as secondary. I'd guess you're strong on free speech, and maybe a little less committed to political correctness. So if I read you correctly, your ethics suggest you see individual self-actualization, or some similar value, as the ultimate human good. Am I getting close?

And yes, in a sense it is true to say "You structure society," but only in the sense that "you" means a collective of the undifferentiated mass of humans. In democracy, one individual has an equally inaudible voice among the millions. A few of us rise to the level of political movers and shakers, but most of us are obscure citizens, and thus are more acted-upon then acting-into when it comes to our social environment. So I don't think we can expect too much of the claim that "you" (the individual) have control of society.

[Arising_uk]

No. I can see quite clearly that "meaning" cannot be true or false by an Atheist account. ...

What is an 'atheist account'?

Logic identifies the boundaries and content of what can be true and false, so the tautologies are absolutely true, the contradictions absolutely false and the contingents are empirically true or false, as such the atheist thinks the proposition ' 'God' exists' is a contingent proposition and for them the empirical evidence is not in or at least no theist appears to be able to show their 'God' in any sense.

"Meaning" is not a real property of the universe, if Atheism is true. ...

Not so, if Atheism is true then there just is no 'God', meaning still exists, are you equating 'meaning' with 'purpose'?

Since we are of the universe and we make meanings between us and the universe I'd say that meaning is a property of the universe.

This has nothing to do with "straw men," unless you mean that Atheists are made of straw. It's analytical in Atheism itself, not something I'm attributing to Atheists. I'm making an ontological claim, not a mere sociological observation.

Then you are making an empirical claim, so show me your 'God'? You appear to disparage sociological observations, and historical ones at that, is this because such things observe that many humans believe in different 'Gods' and as such your 'God' is no more than just another reification of a concept?

Now you're mistaking the statement, "A belief in X exists" for a justification that "X exists." If that were a rational way to argue, then it would follow that all imaginary projections would be real (which I presume you realize would undermine Atheism, since you believe God to be one of these imaginary projections of the human desire for "meanings"). You're stumbling over a mere sociological observation (i.e. that there happen to be people called Atheists who believe meaning exists), and mixing it with the unwarranted conclusion, "Therefore, meaning actually does exist."

No, I base my observation upon things like our interaction and the fact that I can use and think in a language, as such there is meaning. Your claim appears to be that unless one believes in a 'God' meanings are not possible and yet here I am communicating with you?

This is such lame reasoning that I can fully concede your first claim (i.e. that Atheists irrationally love making up meanings) without adding a stitch of credibility to the second claim (that such meanings actually exist). Belief doesn't make things true.

I did not say that atheists irrationally make meanings up, you are just making this up, I say that since we are communicating with language meaning obviously exists and know it rather than believe it.

Or are you merely being obtuse? Because surely that last statement a pretty obvious truth, don't you think? I would imagine any real Atheist would consider it indisputable.

I agree belief doesn't make things true, can you apply this to your own thoughts about a 'God'?

Yes, I said so. But I also pointed out that he's not acting in concert with Atheism when he believes it. He's fooled himself that his delusory "meanings" are somehow made real by the power of his own believing. He has no logical warrant from Atheism itself for "meaning."

You're right, his warrant is from Logic and language itself.

Yes, I've said that too. But then, Atheism itself does not entail the additional claim, "yet meaning still exists." That's not a premise of Atheism, just as you say. Atheism is no more than a negating of the claim of the existence of God(s). It has no opinion on meaning.

Never said it did, but you're claim is that without a belief in your 'God' there is no meaning in the world and this is patently false.

So then, where are you drawing your additional claim, "Meaning exists?" It's clearly not from your Atheism.

Hope the above explains it.

Analytically, it is impossible to "find" what does not exist. That's basic dictionary stuff. So they don't "find" it. Some of them may "claim" it, but they do so with no warrant from Atheism, just as you pointed out above.

Fair enough, we are meaning-makers and find meaning in others and in our interactions with the world, the only difference between them and you is that we disagree that the statement 'God exists' is true. Now of course if you can produce one or it appears before the atheist I'd guess they may change their mind, reason is like that but then again I personally would just think that there are greater or more powerful beings about the place that I previously thought, I'd also think that if this 'God' exists then the rest must have a fair old chance of existing as well.

Red herring. That's not the topic of the strand. We're talking about what Atheists themselves can believe about death, not what any of their detractors can. Do another strand called "Theists in Foxholes," if you want to go there.

Looks like HQ has. I see little evidence you have been talking about death? And I'm a bit confused as to what you mean as the atheist can believe many things about death I'd assume, just not the afterlife stories of the theist.

[Immanuel Can]

Not so, if Atheism is true then there just is no 'God', meaning still exists, are you equating 'meaning' with 'purpose'?

Yes. You specified that Atheist can "find meaning." The word "find" definitely marks that which preexists the search. So apparently you were making that assumption too. If not, you should have used the phrase "make meaning," (i.e. imagine a "meaning" that is not actually ontologically there).

You still don't get the difference between "meaning-inventing" as a phenomenon, and the idea of live actually ontologically HAVING a meaning. The fact that people invent meanings does not make them real.

I honestly can't believe I'm having to make that case to you....

his warrant is from Logic and language itself.

Language is a symbol system, not a moral or ontological authority. It cannot "warrant" anything. Logic can show a thing to be reasonable or not, but it cannot itself warrant anything either. It is a formal system of reasoning. Formal systems are universal, abstract and do not authorize anything by themselves.

If you think otherwise, then explain to me what French "warrants," or what German "warrants." Or if you think logic does, then show how logic warrants someone's particular life meaning, but representing it in a formal logical syllogism. If either or your earlier claims are true, you shouldn't have any trouble with either task. Good luck.

so show me your 'God'?

Again, red herring. You're deflecting to taking about Theism, but this strand is about Atheism. I'm not hesitant to respond, but I'm responding on that other strand you mentioned and don't care to repeat. There you'll find me speaking of the problem of Atheistic epistemic bias. Since I'm doing it already elsewhere, I see no reason to go over the same territory here.

[Arising_uk]

Yes. You specified that Atheist can "find meaning." The word "find" definitely marks that which preexists the search. So apparently you were making that assumption too. If not, you should have used the phrase "make meaning," (i.e. imagine a "meaning" that is not actually ontologically there).

And my phrase 'meaning-maker' just whooshed by you did it?

You still don't get the difference between "meaning-inventing" as a phenomenon, and the idea of live actually ontologically HAVING a meaning.

Oh I get the idea that your belief in a 'God' leads you to think that this gives one a purpose to their life.

The fact that people invent meanings does not make them real.

Hence your 'God' is not real.

I honestly can't believe I'm having to make that case to you....

Just slow that way.

Language is a symbol system, not a moral or ontological authority. It cannot "warrant" anything. Logic can show a thing to be reasonable or not, but it cannot itself warrant anything either. It is a formal system of reasoning. Formal systems are universal, abstract and do not authorize anything by themselves.

Logic arises because there are things or states of affairs, as such it outlines or boundaries what is ontologically possible.
What having a language means is that one can have meaning.

If you think otherwise, then explain to me what French "warrants," or what German "warrants." Or if you think logic does, then show how logic warrants someone's particular life meaning, but representing it in a formal logical syllogism. If either or your earlier claims are true, you shouldn't have any trouble with either task. Good luck.

Any language represents the creation of meaning, Logic underpins all of them, as such it means that someone's particular life can be filled with meaning regardless if one believes the answer to the contingent proportion ' 'God' exists' is false.

Again, red herring. You're deflecting to taking about Theism, but this strand is about Atheism. I'm not hesitant to respond, but I'm responding on that other strand you mentioned and don't care to repeat. There you'll find me speaking of the problem of Atheistic epistemic bias. Since I'm doing it already elsewhere, I see no reason to go over the same territory here.

See you there then.

You missed a few of the sentences with question marks?

[Immanuel Can]

Logic arises because there are things or states of affairs, as such it outlines or boundaries what is ontologically possible.
What having a language means is that one can have meaning.

No. Having meaning means you can *describe* a meaning if one exist, or *create* an inauthentic meaning if one doesn't. But it does not show which state of affairs is true. Language doesn't create ontological realities; it only describes states of belief.

Any language represents the creation of meaning, Logic underpins all of them, as such it means that someone's particular life can be filled with meaning regardless if one believes the answer to the contingent proportion.

Non sequitur. One's life can be full of genuine meaning only if such a thing as real "meaning" exists; otherwise, one's life can be filled only with delusions of "meaning". Substitute the word "unicorn" for meaning, and maybe you'll see why your statement isn't rational.