What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Can Atheist premises be used to show that:

a) life has a plausible meaning, (as in the OP) and that

Nope.

b) an Atheist has any moral duties, and thus cannot be an amoralist (as per subsequent discussion)?

Nope.

What do you think, Henry?

I think any agnostic or atheist who claims otherwise...

...doesn't understand their own (un)beliefs

...or...

...is a fat, friggin' liar.

Atheism is a reaction against a false claim ; it has no premises.

Atheism is not a moral position.

Atheism is not an exhaustive description of a person, and therefore matters to which it does not pertain cannot be used to draw any conclusion about it.

In a case of negative dialectic a "student" is available to be critiqued on whether they are this or that sort of "motorist", or this or that sort of sportsperson. You may not attack a woman on how good a man she is. SO much is bloody obvious.

You might want to consider the possibility of using your brain.
Something to consider. A person claiming that godless people are necessarily amoral or immoral people lay themselves open to a long list of calumnies. The first being that they are so obviously flying against empirical evidence from atheists, agnostics, and the millions who accept Faith is gods other than their own.

Morality is human, all too human.

[Immanuel Can]

But a rational person, if he/she is an Atheist, can't find the reasons why that choice is ultimately "better" (whatever that might mean) than the opposite.

I see you're not going to budge, either.

Actually, I think one of the good things about you is you don't give up too easily. If you did, it would probably suggest you had no beliefs worth defending.

[Immanuel Can]

To say that Atheism is a rational position would require rational justification; every bit as much as to be a Theist would.

But all this misses the OP, so we should go to it, I suppose.

Although you might like to go away from this, could we stay with this for a bit?

Do you say theism is a rational position?

If so, then what is your rational justification for it?

At the risk of dragging the strand away from the OP, I'll answer briefly. There are good observational, philosophical and scientific reasons that conduce to the conclusion God exists. There's not enough space to go into all of it here, but if you want the philosophical reasons, I'd say try The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology. It'll give you all the big philosophical arguments in one place. As for the scientific, historical and experiential reasons, you'll have to look to other sources for those. But there are just far too many to deal with in these spaces.

[Belinda]

Walker wrote:

Just because the limitations of a human mind, limited by time via the capacity to think only one thought at a time, prevents encompassing the entirety of the Pacific as a representative concept, does not negate the Pacific’s physical existence.

Saying what God is either implies what God is not, or else the hearer infers what God is not, based on the saying of what God is. This is a limitation imposed by the Pacific-deficient mind.

If I have understood you I agree with you. Our minds, regarding the Pacific Ocean, are limited to what our bodily senses tell us about the Pacific Ocean. God, on the other hand is not in the slightest detectable to bodily senses. Artefacts such as words or pictures or statues are accessible to our bodily senses. But words, pictures, and statues of God are not God as I guess you will agree.

[Walker]

Walker wrote:

Just because the limitations of a human mind, limited by time via the capacity to think only one thought at a time, prevents encompassing the entirety of the Pacific as a representative concept, does not negate the Pacific’s physical existence.

Saying what God is either implies what God is not, or else the hearer infers what God is not, based on the saying of what God is. This is a limitation imposed by the Pacific-deficient mind.

If I have understood you I agree with you. Our minds, regarding the Pacific Ocean, are limited to what our bodily senses tell us about the Pacific Ocean. God, on the other hand is not in the slightest detectable to bodily senses. Artefacts such as words or pictures or statues are accessible to our bodily senses. But words, pictures, and statues of God are not God as I guess you will agree.

They are not God in a dualistic view, for to name God is to say what God is not, which cannot be said of the ineffable.

From a non-dualistic view of no differentiation, all is God. Nothing cannot be since only existence is, thus God cannot, not be.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism is a reaction against a false claim ; it has no premises.

Does it affirm the premise "There is no God(s)?" If it does, it has a premise. If it has no premise at all, then it would be a non-position, and hence just a confession of complete personal ignorance.

Atheism is not a moral position.

That is true. But if it's right, then it would inevitably entail additional premises about the impossibility of morality.

Atheism is not an exhaustive description of a person, and therefore matters to which it does not pertain cannot be used to draw any conclusion about it.

"Male" is not an exhaustive description of someone. But it can be used to deduce all kinds of things about a person, including bone structure and what chromosomal pattern he possesses. Likewise, "Atheist" allows deduction of all kinds of things, starting with "irrational." For there is no rational articulation of Atheism. Even Dawkins knows that.

Something to consider. A person claiming that godless people are necessarily amoral or immoral people...

Nobody's claimed this. Certainly, I have not.
But godless people, however superficially "moral" they may consider themselves to be have no rational account of what "morality" even is. It could easily be a total personal or social delusion, and they'd have absolutely no way to know differently.

Nietzsche was brave enough to say this bluntly...but you will find that not many who profess to be among his admirers him have anything near his courage or honesty.

[Belinda]

Walker wrote:

From a non-dualistic view of no differentiation, all is God. Nothing cannot be since only existence is, thus God cannot, not be.

Once again if I have understood you, you are a pantheist.

[Walker]

Walker wrote:

From a non-dualistic view of no differentiation, all is God. Nothing cannot be since only existence is, thus God cannot, not be.

Once again if I have understood you, you are a pantheist.

What do you think that is?

[Belinda]

Walker wrote:

From a non-dualistic view of no differentiation, all is God. Nothing cannot be since only existence is, thus God cannot, not be.

Once again if I have understood you, you are a pantheist.

What do you think that is?

Non-dualistic but on the contrary, monistic.

"All is God".

Existence itself is axiomatic.

[Walker]

Well, you sum it up so neatly. Zippity doo dah, no muss no fuss.

I am constantly reminded of Prufrock, pinned.

I look at it like, to say God is one thing is to say God is not another thing, given the either/or limitations of conceptual separation, not to mention unpredictable associations that are likely to get tacked onto concepts, creating more distance from reality.

Likewise, as non-dual unity, the non-differentiation that applies to God is all, also means that all is God, which means that a delusion that separates God from all, also separates all from any particular differentiation, including oneself, since mind is the source of both differentiation and delusion.

[Belinda]

Walker wrote;

Likewise, as non-dual unity, the non-differentiation that applies to God is all, also means that all is God, which means that a delusion that separates God from all, also separates all from any particular differentiation, including oneself, since mind is the source of both differentiation and delusion.

Differentiated entities are not the same idea as God-which-is-all. However differentiation of entities is as you say sourced in mind. If the God-which-is-all is a given then differentiated entities and the minds which do the differentiating are included in the God-which-is-all.

This must be so , otherwise we would be talking about God-which-is-not-quite-all.

[Immanuel Can]

Can Atheist premises be used to show that:

a) life has a plausible meaning, (as in the OP) and that

Nope.

b) an Atheist has any moral duties, and thus cannot be an amoralist (as per subsequent discussion)?

Nope.

What do you think, Henry?

I think any agnostic or atheist who claims otherwise...

...doesn't understand their own (un)beliefs

...or...

...is a fat, friggin' liar.

Fair enough.

[Walker]

Differentiated entities are not the same idea as God-which-is-all.

They are when the entity is all. Instead of no thought, one thought.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Atheism is a reaction against a false claim ; it has no premises.

Does it affirm the premise "There is no God(s)?" If it does, it has a premise. If it has no premise at all, then it would be a non-position, and hence just a confession of complete personal ignorance.

Its a NEGATIVE premise.

The word PREMISE implies prime. The relevant premise is the existence of God, and without that there is no atheism at all. So no - atheism has no premise - the theists have the premise.
You conclusion is false. Its position is AGAINST a premise. and its stand is not ignorance in any sense.

Atheism is not a moral position.

That is true. But if it's right, then it would inevitably entail additional premises about the impossibility of morality.
Nope. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. There is nothing inevitable here. Once again your conclusion is empty. I do not think you are very bright. Total non sequitur.

Atheism is not an exhaustive description of a person, and therefore matters to which it does not pertain cannot be used to draw any conclusion about it.

"Male" is not an exhaustive description of someone. But it can be used to deduce all kinds of things about a person, including bone structure and what chromosomal pattern he possesses. Likewise, "Atheist" allows deduction of all kinds of things, starting with "irrational." For there is no rational articulation of Atheism. Even Dawkins knows that.

DUH. "genius: cannot be used to draw conclusions about bacteria. Theists are bacteria; atheists are geniuses.

Something to consider. A person claiming that godless people are necessarily amoral or immoral people...

Nobody's claimed this. Certainly, I have not.
Yes you have.
But godless people, however superficially "moral" they may consider themselves to be have no rational account of what "morality" even is. It could easily be a total personal or social delusion, and they'd have absolutely no way to know differently.
QED - you could not resist.

Nietzsche was brave enough to say this bluntly...but you will find that not many who profess to be among his admirers him have anything near his courage or honesty.

Prove it!

[ken]

To say that Atheism is a rational position would require rational justification; every bit as much as to be a Theist would.

But all this misses the OP, so we should go to it, I suppose.

Although you might like to go away from this, could we stay with this for a bit?

Do you say theism is a rational position?

If so, then what is your rational justification for it?

At the risk of dragging the strand away from the OP, I'll answer briefly. There are good observational, philosophical and scientific reasons that conduce to the conclusion God exists. There's not enough space to go into all of it here, but if you want the philosophical reasons, I'd say try The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology. It'll give you all the big philosophical arguments in one place. As for the scientific, historical and experiential reasons, you'll have to look to other sources for those. But there are just far too many to deal with in these spaces.

By not giving any rational justification, especially when specifically being asked for that, is in another way just saying immanuel can has no rational justification at all for their belief and if you want some go look for them yourself.

You seem to want to drag things away from the opening post when you think it will suit you, but when you see that that will not work or when you are challenged about what you say, then you want to direct it back the opening post. But that is fine because you have already shown the truth of this.

The real answer is immanuel can has NO actual rational justification at all.

If they did, then I am sure they could also easily fit it in with the meaning of life anyway.