For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life

"An interesting opinion, however I do feel that I should warn you that some voters on this site may take a dim view of debaters who only rebut without posting arguments. " As you can see, I ended up giving a contention, so no harm done. "This is a fairly nonsensical argument, a little bit like the chicken and egg conundrum in that one cannot exist without the other. Human life could not continue without survival and reproduction therefore they are indeed reasons for the continuation of human life. " It is very sensible, seeing as the cause and effect chain does not work forwards and backwards. The chicken and egg conundrum is completely different as it denotes the chicken's cycle of life. I am not debating the human's life cycle, rather the reason for the human's life. "As conscious beings we seek out what brings us pleasure. We have evolved to find pleasure in things that aid our survival and reproduction, things like food, shelter and sex, the same way we have evolved to fear disease and castration. " Pleasure is a temporary experience, and is forgotten almost instantly, and when one dies what did his pleasures matter? One cannot say "I have experienced pleasure, therefore my life has meaning. " If so, then when his pleasure dies away, his life's meaning dies too? ! "If you are ever lucky enough to reproduce and have children of your own, you will know that it brings great pleasure and a feeling that you have been part of something amazing and that your life now has meaning. This is true whether you are atheist, Jew, agnostic, Christian or Muslim. " I am in no way demeaning the joy that childbirth brings, and yet I cannot see how this brings meaning to life. If so, if this is truly life's meaning, then how can the people that do not marry and have kids explain themselves? Is one who has had kids more valued and more meaningful than one who cannot have children, for various reasons? According to my opponent's arguments, a sterile person has no meaning to his life. "My opponent argues that to an atheist "everything is materialistic". This is simply not true and my opponent provides no evidence to support this opinion. " My opponent is correct on this point; I concede that comment, and I will instead say this: TEMPORARY desires are meaningless, seeing as one dies anyway-and what has he gained from his riches, food etc. ? Ecclesiastes . http://www.biblegateway.com...... (a fantastic book, which is part of Writings, which in turn is part of the bible. I have brought the main theme. ) And yet atheists have no otherworldly strives, so from their point of view everything is TEMPORARY, so everything is meaningless, and so there is no meaning for life. My opponent's three examples show temporary experiences that ultimately come to nothing (with the possible exception of childbirth, and yet I believe that I have successfully refuted that part). "I would argue that this could be interpreted to suggest that even with God life has no meaning. " The words of King Solomon are complex to the extreme-there are many opinions as to what he is trying to say. I will go by the view that says as follows: "King Solomon is trying to say that when all has been considered, man's entire duty is to serve god (penultimate verse), and deterence from that duty will resolve in a meaningless life that "has brought forth no fruits". " Tractate Bava Kama. In other words, once the presence of a higher power is accepted, life takes on an entirely different meaning, and all of a sudden human existence is not for itself, but is at the hands of another power (the reasons for that are controversial- G-d wants us to do his will, etc. ). "I feel that I have presented several meanings of life that do not rely on any religion or belief in an afterlife. Life has meaning without religion. For everyone, including atheists. " I have proved otherwise-temporary experience cannot denote meaning for life. Resolution Affirmed. "Thankyou. " No, thank you. This has been a refreshing debate. As a last word, I urge the voters to vote not for what they believe, but for who made more respectable arguments.