Ah, hypothetical red herring semantics warfare, how interesting.

So, if I attached philosophical concepts to my belief in flying hot chicks in bikinis and you denied their existence, then your denial represents a perspective on life?

By the way, which God are you referring to?

Okay, I'll accept that God represents a moral position for many.

Quite the jump, but yes: I'd agree that this life has no transcendent purpose and meaning. Considering my purpose and yours are different, and things mean different things to the two of us, I think we've just proven conclusively that there is no transcendent purpose or meaning.

Absolutely! I think people pack their entire worldview into gods. Freud called it the "superego", and was quite right that it has a large influence over our lives.

You've illustrated precisely why it's unlikely that gods exist: we know that we have a tendency to project our emblematic conceptions symbolically.

I think I was just surprised because I've never seen someone checkmate themselves so quickly.

This is an interesting admission.

You are saying that God is attributed several properties (omnipotence, omniscience) and actions (creator of all that is) simply because it's a God of purpose and meaning.

I've usually heard it the other way 'round. Most folks who use this argument start with the necessity of an all-powerful God as creator, and jump to the conclusion that it's also a God of purpose and meaning. The conclusion does not follow from the assumptions, of course, and so that is flawed logic.

Your arrangement makes even less sense. By starting with the illogical assumption (that God exists, and it's a God of purpose and meaning), you necessitate the all-powerful attributes. Your logic is stronger, certainly, as your conclusion is at least derivable from your assumption. But, your assumption is no less irrational.

"Human existence" has no purpose or meaning. "Purpose" and "meaning" are subjective attributes applicable to individuals, and groups of like-minded individuals. There are groups that form for many different variations on the "purpose" and "meaning." The RRS is one of them. It seems to have been formed for the "purpose" of allowing those of us who derive our meaning in life from rationality. Churches do a similar thing for theists, only without the rationality part.

How do you conclude "only that which is all powerful" can sustain and fullfill purpose and meaning regardless of adversity? Are you saying that people (and animals in general) are incapable of adhering to their morals in times of trouble? 'Cause if you are, brother, you greatly overestimate the power of faith, and underestimate the power of individuals.

Love doesn't conquer all. Love doesn't triumph in the end. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it does, but it doesn't. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the good guy wins, and sometimes the bad guy wins. (And in general, the bad guy usually thinks he's the hero.)

Love is an emotion. As such, it is capable of bringing us (as individuals) great joy. It's also capable of bringing us great sorrow. Love is not a force. It's not something objective, capable of influencing the universe.

Yes, you did. As soon as you claim that your worldview comes from a belief in God, you are admiting it was "handed down from above." This is a cousin to the argument that atheists can't have a real morality, because morality comes only from God.

The rejection of God is the rejection of a worldview. It is not the endorsement of any particular worldview, simply the  rejection of another.

That doesn't mean that many atheists don't share a particular outlook on life. I think I speak for many here when I say that many of us want a peaceful world in which reason prevails, but not at the cost of coersion or violence. Most of us would like to maximize liberty, while also creating a society that is safe and supportive and provides equal opportunity for all.

I could argue that atheism itself doesn't necessarily beget a worldview, but the worldview begets atheism. That is the worldview of rational empiricism. Other people may start with atheism, and end up believing that the stars guide our life and become astrologers.

Finally, let's consider your leprechaun example. Leprechauns and God have two thing in common: both are supernatural, and there is evidence for neither. Leprechauns are just as emblematic as God, in that they indicate a belief in something outside the natural world, but yet partakes of the natural world. The belief in leprechauns is the belief that magical creatures run around and are responsible for the mysterious things we see in life. This does involve a worldview, just as significant and emblematic as a belief in God.

The belief in God is the same kind of belief as a belief in leprechauns. Replace the pot o' gold with heaven, and the rainbow with this life, and you have the exact same belief. God explains life and gives purpose to it the same way the leprechaun explains rainbows and gives purpose to them. And, there's a promise of a reward at the end of both.

So, no, your argument isn't any stronger than that of the leprechaun, and your worldview is no more significant than that of Darby O'Gill and the Little People.

You are incorrect. Atheism refers only to one concept, and that is a belief in god. Many different worldviews fall under the umbrella of atheism. Just as your view is different from other people who believe in god, many different people who are atheists similarly have different worldviews.

To say that atheism is a worldview is just faces the same problems as saying theism is a worldview, in that it is an attempt to broaden the word far beyond its actual meaning.

Uhm, I never said it was meaningful or deep? You can argue if it is or if it isn't, but that was never a topic of discussion. You ever heard the expression of looking at life from the bottom of a shot glass? Imagine if i said a certain perspective was to view life from the bottom of a shot glass, does this mean I was claiming that this expression was meaningful or deep?

But to break it down further for you, the Crucifixion, i.e. the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity, whether one be fundamentalist, catholic, or even mainline christian. It's were sin, redemption, forgiveness,  etc... meet, and different sects of Christians might add to this perspective, interpreting it in various way, some of it may be shallow, some of it may be deep. But in the christian worldview, the christian religion, the cross takes center stage. 

I can convey what that perspective means to me, and in within the frame of a literary analysis what the Cross means to the writers of the new testament, and you can argue if find it meaningful, deep, or shallow, but that was never a part of the discussion.

Uhm, thats probably because my use of the term was never intended to be argued against, someone reading what i wrote within it's context might have understood that. 

Well, that's strange. When I was debating with another Christian a while ago, he repeatedly denied that Christians worshipped crucifixes because that would be idol worship. 

Well, that's strange being that I never said Christian worship crucifixes?

So you worship the empty cross?

Whatever, Rev. You keep making your theistic points and claiming that they can't be argued against.

I always thought the resurrection of Christ was the important thing to Christians, not the death tool. The Cross is only meaningful for those Christians who feel they have to bathe in Jesus' blood to belong.

Oh damn, I'm arguing against your point.

Nigel addressed this, but I feel compelled to reiterate.  You seem here to have reverse-engineered your god based on your desire for your existence to have "inherent purpose and meaning".

Well the title of your thread is "Does atheism make sense".   So please address whether a "worldview in which life has no transcendent purpose and meaning" makes sense or not.

I'm somewhat confused with the course this topic.  It seemed originally you were addressing atheism versus a belief in god in a broad sense, identifying no particular god.  Then suddenly you began to speak specifically of christianity.  I sense that you are making a false dichotomy -- between atheism and christianity.  Either stick to arguing for a belief in god in general, or amend your topic to "Does it make sense not to be christian?", and group together the non-christians (atheist and believer alike).

As far as you being all hung up on the cross, I invite you to advance your argument in these threads:

What is the Role of the Crucifixion in Christianity?

Would You Go On The Cross

Unclear to me how that standard is set.  One more thread invite for you:  What is "real" christianity?

You are forcing a worldview upon it.  You are saying the reason god and the tooth fairy aren't the same thing is because the concept of god includes a "worldview".   So in effect you are saying that you need only affix a worldview to something which doesn't make sense, and suddenly it will make sense.  Since you've specified christianity unsolicited, let's use that as an example.   A belief in a magic-performing man who rises from the dead is no less nonsensical than a fairy who leaves coins under your pillow when your teeth fall out.   You insist that the former scenario makes sense once you force "transcendent purpose and meaning" upon it. 

EDIT:  link fix

I am not confused - it is you who appear confused, based on your words, which aren't even consistent from one post to another. I am only pointing this out to you.

"Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to Christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians" is not a correct statement. No-one was actually arguing that you made that claim, they simply based their responses on statements such as the two I quoted, which effectively do incorporate that sentiment.

Then you come back with this pointless word-play... you are at least honest and accurate in your choice of forum name here.

With regard to your OP, you say

Atheists do not necessarily deny that "life has inherent design and order", rather we believe that such characteristics can and do arise from natural processes and principles, chiefly the Darwinian algorithm of variation and selective pressures from a specific environment which sorts out the most successful reproducers. Order is inherent in the regularities of the structure and attributes of matter at the fundamental level.

So you are also inaccurate here.

 ......Cross is important to Christians....

...... the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity.....

tell me how you take these statement to mean worship of the crucifix?

these statement would also be true....

Moses is an important character of the Abrahamic-faiths

The escape from pharaoh in the exodus story is a pivotal point in Judaism.

Neither jews, muslims, or christians worship Moses, nor do jews "worship" the exodus story.

And secondly, when I say the cross, this is not a term constrained to mean the literal crucifixion, but all that the symbol of the cross symbolizes, i.e. redemption of sin, God's love for humanity, Christ overcoming the world, etc...., those lacking in inferential capacity might not understand this.

I see that individuals here don't seem to be getting my point, and perhaps that may even be my fault, and it seem that no matter how many times i protest against it, individuals here keep bringing this back to my theism, and my beliefs, when they were never on the table to be begin with. I was making an argument that i would say if I was atheist would be the same. 

But perhaps to put things into perspective,  I should put my beliefs on the table, my theism on the line for examination.

I'm a late theist, who came to believe in my late 20s, not from some sort of revival at a church somewhere, or from the guidance of a charismatic preacher. I come to belief, for the same reason my pentecostal mother believes, as the verse in psalms goes "weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning", in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way.

I accept Christ as the Son of God, that as John goes God is love, and it was that love brought to perfection among us. That Christ embodies all that God can ever represent and mean, as the light of human existence, and the source for my mother's profound sense of hope and mine. 

And I invite you all to ask question, but be respectful and I'll return the favor, and show me how my belief in God is similar to a belief in the tooth fairy.

Actually, i did start to write a response, in fact I still have it saved as a text file on my computer, but I had to leave and never finished it, than I thought about going back to it, but I realized that in effect that I was going to be dealing with the same misunderstanding over and over again, unless i altered how I was going about making my points. 

But if you would like, I'll pm you what i have of your response, but I don't think it serves me any good to post it here, and continue in that style of discussion. 

But I will address one point here, when I ask does atheism make sense, I mean it in the way a non-believer like Noam Chomsky would put it: "Like everyone participating I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny."

If Chomsky is right in saying that the term is not clear enough in what exactly it's denying, and the dilemma arising because of a ill defined notion of God, and perhaps even a notion of God that is unrecognizable even to those who believe in a God 

So what are you saying, you picked up your belief from your mom?

So are you saying because you know that someday you will die you want to believe there is something more?

I say this because you said, "in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way" which implies life leads to death and the end. So you must desire for there to be more.

The god you say is love had a history that didn't show he cared much for those not Jews at one point. When he supposedly flooded all the world he would have killed young babies that had no concept of either evil or the god. In fact your God has never shown that in ancient times he ever presented himself or his message to millions around the world except for the few hundreds of thousands in Palestine. This doesn't sound like he was all that loving towards all of his created humans. Show me where he had prophets in China, Japan, South America, or India in 1000 BCE or even right after Jesus was supposed to be giving it all up to save everyone.

Characteristics                       tooth fairies*                    God

Invisible                                    yes                                 yes

no proof                                    yes                                 yes

accepted on faith                      yes                                 yes

Magical                                      yes                                 yes

Photos                                       no                                   no

Larry King Interview                  no                                   no

Cover of Rolling Stone                ?                                     no

 *Not the tooth fairies from Hellboy 2

No I didn't pick up my beliefs from my mother. She's a simple woman, an immigrant, it's not from her ever speaking to me about her faith, or her having a heart to heart with me about believing. Yet her profound sense of hope , in a life quite void of it, leaves an indelible mark on me. 

Well, I've never been all that afraid of death, even when I didn't believe. Someone once pulled out a gun on me, and i just shrugged my shoulders and told him to shoot, life after my literal death has no real allure to me. Even if there were to be nothing waiting for me after the grave, I would still believe.

The atheist who hasn't reflected much, whose exposure to religion barely gets past TBN, and televangelist never get this point. A belief in making a way out of no way, is from the word of Rev. King, the beliefs of blacks during the civil rights movement, and slaves. It's a belief that there is still hope, even when every other card says differently. For my mother it's a belief in a hope, that doesn't allow her to  drown in her suffering and toils, and allows her to strive on, that the efforts she makes in life are not done in futility. The life is not just  a cross of misery, but a hope that overcomes it. 

Many secularist try to peddle to me hope, usually they've lived shallow lives, of hope not tested, and hope that can barely stand a leg exposed to those who need it. They tell me to hope in science, hope in humanity, hope in progress, the shallows hopes of those living in too much abundance to realize it. Like my mother I can only find hope in a narrative view of human existence, that all things are under the will of a will and promise, and without such hope, there is nothing to hope in at all.

I would like you to reflect or where those words come from, and I want to see if you can ponder it context of what it meant from him, and his movement, and followers:

"When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King. Jr.

Ah yes, a common bug. When John writes God is love, he's not saying God is love according to the narrative of Genesis or whatever else, he is saying God is love, in what is revealed in the person of Jesus. As Paul writes love is the highest of all things, even higher than faith itself, in that whatever we envision God to be, Love is God. 

To break it down for you, in the context of my beliefs. Love for me like Paul and John is the highest of all things, that love can and will prevail, and true love is embodied in the person of Christ. In the moral of the gospel story, "if you do not love your dead, and if you love they'll kill you. "

I think you ought to post it here for all to see.  You say we're not getting your point.  Let's see if you' got mine.

As far as putting your beliefs on the table, your theism on the line:  I provided you with a few links to existing topics where you can do exactly that. 

Oh. Then the only difference is that you're emotionally invested in the belief in God, and not in the tooth fairy. That's all.

Ah, yes, let's paint your dilemma. In your example, the child is not so much believing in the tooth fairy, but believes that if he places his tooth under his pillow it will bring a small monetary reward. And this may in fact be true, he may have seen his sibling do so with their tooth and yield the same thing. Based on what you claimed, I can just tell my child without ever mentioning the tooth fairy, that if they place their lost tooth under their pillow, that they'll find a quarter in place of it, in the morning. 

You're logic implies that my child believes in the tooth fairy, when in fact he doesn't. My child only believes in the reward, and in may in fact be true that it is achievable, and you've only demonstrated that my God beliefs are like such, and not like a belief in a tooth fairy.  

Fannie Lou Hamer, after being beaten savagely by the police, "almost to the point of death", didn't lose hope in the civil rights movement she fought so valiantly for, that equality for blacks was achievable, even when the cruelty of men, said otherwise, when science, education, liberal idealism all failed to provide such hope, even when it appeared that there was no way, that a way was still possible.

Would you liken the beliefs here of such individuals, from Rev. King, to Mrs. Hamer to that of a belief in a tooth fairy? If not, how do you distinguish there beliefs here, from my beliefs that you do liken to a belief in a tooth fairy?

If you do liken them to a belief in a tooth fairy, how would you seperate them from those liberal beliefs, of hope in education and the american creed to overcome human prejudice, and racism?--hopes that Mr. King, and Mrs. Hamer did not share, and that i find delusional.

There's nothing at all odd that I interpreted your out of context use of a quote from King this way.

In your original use you combined an out of context quote from Psalms,  "weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning" and King "in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way."

I saw this as your sorrow for death followed by salvation in the Psalms quote as well it was your ultimate hope that a senseless life would be a way to more.

I know in context what King means but that's not what you did.

Dude, I know full well what it says about loving all  and doing for others no need to play preacher here. 

Christians are generally not persecuted today except when they get out of control in Islamic countries. A Christian is less likely to be persecuted in Saudi Arabia than an infidel non-believer such as me. They consider you to be a person of little faith while I'm someone they can freely exterminate in the name of Allah the god of Abe. As to the past, if you want to open that book there is supposed believer persecuting supposed believer for minor differences dating to the beginning of the Jesus and Christian cult. 

If you are trying to paint Christianity today as like the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s you are using a poor analogy as non-believers are more like the blacks being discriminated against then your mainstream Christian believers.

You OP was allegedly about Does Atheism Make Sense but so far you have done zilch to support a challenge to non-belief.

Your claim is there is a sky daddy that sent his son (part of himself) to die for those he made with free choices to placate himself for having an attitude about those that he made that he gave a free choice to make. So when the men he made pick a choice that wasn't what he wanted though he knew already they would he's disappointed and hangs the blame on all throughout all future generations. Unless they bathe in the blood of himself that was killed to placate his miffed feudal lord ego they all will be tossed as chaff into the pit of fire.

You may not know this, but you take six paragraphs to say what can be said in a sentence, so one or two sentences is appropriate.

Right, I don't know you except from which I read from your posts so possibly I don't see or understand what you do. Golly gee whiz, that's exactly what we tell you all the time. Our different perspectives mean that since we reject the idea of god and spiritual mystical concepts we are talking to each other in basically different languages and clearly not understanding each other. My position is reality based while yours is spiritual based. As an ex-Christian non-believer I see your arguments which you inadvertently include. Comments you make have meanings that are based in religious concept which is inferred perhaps not on purpose but because you can't help yourself from expounding the message of Jesus since you are of such deep conviction. This is not per se criticism but an observation. Previously I said I don't care what you believe as that's up to you. It's when these ideas get into the secular area when issues develop. And again, I don't have any idea if you desire a theocracy or not as you have never made any comments about said subject.

To be specific, I don't agree with your conclusions that the moral to be learned from the gospels is as you say. I saw it to be love your god and your neighbor. I'm very aware the neighbor also meant your enemies and responded accordingly that you did not need to point this out, I said preach. Since you don't know me either I understand why you felt the need to so respond.

I beg to differ. Your comments,

"He tells his followers that they will be persecuted, and suffer for the sake of living and sharing his message, he doesn't promise them a walk in the park. That to love in the christian sense is to truly love, and without it we are dead, and with it, others seek our death. 

As an ex-Christian this meant to me persecution for the beliefs. Perhaps in the current environment persecution of Christians are not occurring because in general believers have been suppressing minorities as they have been in control. If not for the Constitution us low life non-believers would have no rights according to at least one Bush.

I see nothing to which an apology is due as I was neither hot-headed nor in a tirade. I do regret if I misconstrued your intent due to my previous religious basis reading an inference that may have been unintentional on your part.

This works both ways. It seems that believers think we have little or no understanding of god beliefs and we have to go into detail each time over the same old issues. 

Perhaps you do  unintentionally put forth your ideas in hope of changing some minds whether it be posters or those that simply observe, I admit I do so in the remote chance of altering perceptions. Though I'd settle for tolerance and equality.

A swearing nasty mouth believer? Sorry, I think such language is pointless and derogatory and undermines you as a person. It takes away credibility and lowers you deep in mire.

My comment was aimed at the general Christian belief system which propagates such a strange concept of belief. If you have some other belief that doesn't begin with the original sin concept requiring God to send his son to die for those that sinned against him to accept and believe on him please so explain. As you say you are a Christian, I may have inadvertently assumed you accepted this concept.

Specifically King means when you are feeling despaired and low remember that God is there working to destroy evil and bring forth his morality and justice. In the end, his power is the ultimate force.

That's his basic message though I consider it to be in error as evil has had a large basis in our world even in supposed goodness of Christian ideas. This is another area I will not open and you have not taken a position on it so I have nothing here to criticize. Then of course I don't agree there is such a thing as a higher power.

edit *sp*