The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

As An Atheist Can Your Life Have Purpose and Meaning?

I was wondering what other people thought about this.

I realize we weren't born with a purpose. No creator or "higher calling".

But as a non believer can your life have meaning and purpose without god?

7 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 8, 2013 at 10:54am

2. Despite those improvements hunger has remained a problem for a large portion of the earth's population.

Only in regions where politics, war, and other factors restrict growth. It’s not that we can’t produce enough food to eliminate hunger, it’s that other circumstances prevent the distribution of this food.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on March 8, 2013 at 11:19am

Which is just about everywhere. Millions in the United States still have a problem getting enough food.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on March 8, 2013 at 12:29pm

The biggest problem is water. We pollute ALL the water. We purify (partly) the water rich people BUY. What about the hordes of poor people? What about all the other animals? Don't they deserve a fair share of water.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chang on March 7, 2013 at 5:09pm

I'd hate to be the one to break the naturalist party but equivocating "good" with "order" despite its popularity cannot reconcile with the is-ought problem. Although I don't consider myself to be Nihilist, once we accept that there's no one true purpose in life--existential nihilism--everything after that depends on bias. There's no escaping it. There's no God-ordained-like mission to save human kind, improve human genetics, maintain the environment, or be selfish or anything of that nature.

"Why be good?" presupposes that we know what "good" is. Is domination animalistic? Surely there just as many social animals as there animals that rely on force. We are not so unique.

What do we do when we know there is no purpose yet to live requires the propensity to act? We construct truths, contend with them, knowing that there is no truth, ultimately shooting it down. And we start all over again, in this lifelong journey to remain as close to the nothingness but never quite getting there.

Secular Humanism is just a phase in this road. It may be where many will permanently take residence but it's a phase nonetheless. It may be internally consistent as a theory, but it is not externally consistent with the "truth" or "purpose" (which is either unknowable or even ontologically impossible).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 7, 2013 at 6:51pm

Which leads me to say there is no blimy "good" reason to be "good" because in these millennia, "good" always seems to mean "more humans", so what several herein consider "good", I consider genocidal. Is genocidal "wrong", well I guess not, not inherently, it's all relative right? Since for so many people, it's ok to genocide our ecosystem, just not religious and/or ethic humans...
Less Homo sapiens would be beneficial to the our (not N.Americans, but the big us, the planetary us) quality of life, this means that we must work against all these H.sapiens who are obsessed with purposes such as creating "little thems", and purpose such as spreading H.sapiens everywhere... why... cuz we can? Where is the rationality in that. "cuz we can" is not an argument to move forward in a detrimental direction.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 7, 2013 at 11:03pm

"Cuz we can" has no rational basis in good. Sure we can pollute the air, contaminate our water, increase human population, build bigger, faster cars, longer smoother highways, and we can feed our humans and agriculture with GMO. What is the probability we will create our own demise by doing so? Growth can be beneficial and it can be deadly cancer. At this point, all the factors I cite become deadly.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 7, 2013 at 11:47pm

"Why be good?" Well, it depends on what one calls good. We live on such an incredibly beautiful planet that provides all we need in water, air, soil and energy, until and unless we think growth is good. If we look at the bottom line for profit and growth, we tend to neglect such things as beautiful, healthy, productive and sustainable life as we wish it to be. Even as these life-supporting gifts exist without any effort on our part, they remain life-sustaining as long as we manage them correctly. I want my great-grandchildren to inherit after me a planet of abundance, not of shortages. Oh, if I could leave behind a planet inhabited by peace, fairness and justice, I would be so happy.

Yes, we are in a phase, one that could put an end to life. It is possible to think of better options, to recognize what harm we do, to decide change must occur, to set ego and greed aside and think in terms of that which is good for the whole.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GOD'aye on March 8, 2013 at 7:35am

So Trooo! TNT! LOL!

Malthus doesn't take into account such things as pollution, global warming, super bugs, extinction of flora and fauna that is valuable to various ecosystems, loss of the ozone layers as well as other barriers to solar radiation, etc...

Aye M8! :-D-

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 8, 2013 at 11:13am

LOL!!! Pollution declines as civilizations advance. Humans can adapt to global warming. Super bugs are not a function of overpopulation. Extinction happens, and always has. The ozone layer is strengthening. Etc...

Nay M8.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 8, 2013 at 11:38am

Dear me this is useless, Tom you are completely ignoring scientific facts and spouting hot hair, you're sounding more and more like one of those Republican climate change deniers, a little vaginal ultrasound with that? In your "seeking the truth", you might try spending less time analysing bible quotes and more time in the sciences.
Goo'day M8!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 8, 2013 at 12:21pm

Excellent liberal empty-headed snarky dismissal! I especially like the sexist "vaginal ultrasound" bit. I have ignored no scientific “facts”, but do challenge scientific “speculation” – a distinction which seems lost on you. I don't deny climate change - I question its extent and stand in stark opposition to your “other species before humans” mentality.

However, we do agree on one thing, this is useless. I will withdrawal from this forum as it clearly has less to do with Atheism and more to do with promoting a crazy liberal agenda that recoils at being challenged. Fare thee well.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on March 9, 2013 at 9:21pm

Hey Tom - the thread is supposed to be about the topic of Atheism - not sure how it started to get into climate change. I will read back and see what happened.