The purpose of life

[Tank]

I smell troll.

I smell something far more serious. Cultists work by undermining their potential victim's self worth. They reduce the individual's ego to the point where they have no confident world view. At this point they explain that the victim is not worthless, far from it, the cult values them and by becoming a cult member their life has meaning and worth. It's a psychological manipulations technique as old as the hills. By denying an individual's existance any intrinsic meaning the cultist can substitute their own meaning into the victims world view.

Step two: explosive underware
Step three: Death and Glory.

Quite.

[defendor]

On what basis is it true?

where in the universe of no meaning, can you conjure the idea of meaning if it doesn't exist?  If you, in your being, are essentially meaningless, then how can you  go outside of your entire being to establish or understand anything that is completely contrary to the essence of your being.  

Here's an illustration and it may not be the most accurate illustration but I think it makes a point

if you lived in a cave your entire life, and never saw the light of day, then how could you say you knew what blue was if you never saw the sky?

[defendor]

I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

My world view is that of an Atheist
Lack a belief in a god or gods.

Please explain how this means people and animals have no value to me?
You are sounding very much like a troll here.

There is nothing or no one to give value or promote value, for if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value. Everything is merely chemistry in motion.  So even the sheer fact you place "value" on something has 2 assumptions 1. you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value (assuming you are essentially valuable, but nothing is valuable) 2.   if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?

[Sophus]

On what basis is it true?

where in the universe of no meaning, can you conjure the idea of meaning if it doesn't exist?  If you, in your being, are essentially meaningless, then how can you  go outside of your entire being to establish or understand anything that is completely contrary to the essence of your being.  

Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

[defendor]

I smell troll.

I smell something far more serious. Cultists work by undermining their potential victim's self worth. They reduce the individual's ego to the point where they have no confident world view. At this point they explain that the victim is not worthless, far from it, the cult values them and by becoming a cult member their life has meaning and worth. It's a psychological manipulations technique as old as the hills. By denying an individual's existance any intrinsic meaning the cultist can substitute their own meaning into the victims world view.

Doesn't atheism preach that there is no meaning? I'm not trying to use psychological traps to wrap anyone up in a "cult".  I'm merely stating the philosophical tenets of a belief system and questioning the practicality.  I'm merely one beggar, telling another beggar where to find bread.

[Stevil]

I'll make it short, why? Why do you value things that (according to your world view) have no value?

My world view is that of an Atheist
Lack a belief in a god or gods.

Please explain how this means people and animals have no value to me?
You are sounding very much like a troll here.

There is nothing or no one to give value or promote value, for if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value. Everything is merely chemistry in motion.  So even the sheer fact you place "value" on something has 2 assumptions 1. you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value (assuming you are essentially valuable, but nothing is valuable) 2.   if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?

Incorrect assumption A
"if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value"

Addressing your assumptions
Assumption 1
"you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value"
I do have the ability to place a personal value to something. e.g. I see a chicken cross the road, I give a personal value of nutritional substance to that chicken.
Assumption 2
"if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?"
This is a question, not an assumption. The first part of the sentence is an incorrect assumption though. Please refer to my response to your assumption 1.

[Stevil]

if you lived in a cave your entire life, and never saw the light of day, then how could you say you knew what blue was if you never saw the sky?

Incorrect assumption 1
only the sky is blue

Incorrect assumption 2
the light of day is the only source of light

Your logic and analogy is very poor, please try again

[defendor]

Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

[defendor]

Incorrect assumption A
"if you are a product of chance and chaos, then nothing has any value"

How is this incorrect?

Addressing your assumptions
Assumption 1
"you are making the assumption that you in your being have the capability to give value"
I do have the ability to place a personal value to something. e.g. I see a chicken cross the road, I give a personal value of nutritional substance to that chicken.

So what value does"you placing value on something" have, if nothing holds value?

Assumption 2
"if there is no such thing as value in this universe, how do you even know what value is?"
This is a question, not an assumption. The first part of the sentence is an incorrect assumption though. Please refer to my response to your assumption 1.

I was making the assumption you knew what value is, in a a universe of no value.  In that first example you were making the claim that sustenance is valuable to prolong your life.  So you are stating that your life has value in order to retrieve nutritional substance to live.  If this is the case then your life has an apparent meaning, that is a struggle to survive (Assuming you place value on your life, in a universe where there is no meaning)  So you find "meaning" in your life to merely survive but there is no "meaning" in the universe.  So there's a dichotomy that is being placed on your life that, your existence is essentially meaningless, but somehow you can place meaning on it, even though its essentially meaningless.  Why the struggle for existence, even instinctively, if it has no meaning whatsoever?

[defendor]

if you lived in a cave your entire life, and never saw the light of day, then how could you say you knew what blue was if you never saw the sky?

Incorrect assumption 1
only the sky is blue

Incorrect assumption 2
the light of day is the only source of light

Your logic and analogy is very poor, please try again

Let me rephrase it then.  If you never saw the color blue in your life, how would you know what blue is

[defendor]

Incorrect assumption 1
only the sky is blue

Incorrect assumption 2
the light of day is the only source of light

Your logic and analogy is very poor, please try again

Here's another analogy that is essentially the same thing, How could you explain color to a blind man?  How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

[Stevil]

Study psychology. Our brains are hardwired to derive meaning out of life.

That sure explains how, but the question I have been constantly bringing up is the question why? Why are our brains hardwired to find meaning?  I mean it seems that if everything according to science (2nd and 3rd law of thermodynamics) that everything is prone (unless by an outside force) to disorder and the lowest state of energy.  So how and why, by chance and products of chaos, has the evolutionary chain developed such ethereal and metaphysical realities such as "meaning" or "value"?

The concept of assigning personal "value" to something is essential for evolution. e.g. sustenance, danger, procreation, useful tool...

Please define "meaning"

[Recusant]

where in the universe of no meaning, can you conjure the idea of meaning if it doesn't exist?

In a universe of no gods, can you conjure a god if it doesn't exist?

Doesn't atheism preach that there is no meaning?

Short answer: No
Longer answer: Why do you think that atheism "preaches" anything at all?  Atheism is not a religion.  It's merely the position of asserting with greater or lesser certainty that a god or gods do no exist.  Please provide an example of "atheism preach[ing] that there is no meaning."  Certain atheists may also assert that there is no ultimate objective meaning, but that is not a tenet of atheism per se.

How could you tell some one that there is meaning, if there is no such thing?

Why does the assertion that there is no such thing as a truly objective meaning necessitate that there is no meaning whatsoever?  You seem inordinately fond of straw man arguments, if you don't mind my saying so.

[defendor]

...According to one definition.

Whats another one?

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING SAYING.

then what are you saying?

No.

Please explain how that is wrong

[defendor]

objective / subjective

    Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: "Spinach is green" is objective, while "I like spinach" is subjective. "Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don't like spinach," however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects.

    The legitimacy of this distinction is open to serious question, since it is unclear whether (and how) any knowing subject can achieve genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, because objective truth is supposed to carry undeniable persuasive force, exaggerated claims of objectivity have often been used as tools of intellectual and social oppression.

So how does this definition change, change the entirety of the argument?