What is the point of life from the atheist's perspective

I’m not sure how one is able to go about winning such a debate, but let me just lay out what I take to be a plausible account of the purpose of life from my own atheistic perspective, and we can interact from there. A1 - The biological perspective The fact that most atheists would disagree about whether the question is even a legitimate one shows in some sense the idea of an atheist meaning of life is very much dependent on the individual. But what I want to start off with is what I would call the biological purpose of human life. Here, I think that an account can be roughly sketched out which is largely uncontroversial and easily accepted among most atheists. This comes from evolution. Like all organisms, we live to propagate our genes. Humans are no different than animals in this respect. This is particularly true of a gene-centred approach to evolution (1). However, the key point here is merely that, in a very limited sense, our point to life is no different than the animals, flowers and viruses we inhabit the Earth with - to survive what Darwin termed as “the war of nature”, and live to pass on our own DNA in the process (2). Now obviously I should clear up a few things here. Such a position is not the totality of purpose in the universe, nor is it the more interesting aspect of the purpose of life, but it does give us a purpose of life from the natural world as living organisms - survival, pure and simple. Also, this view does not necessitate any sort of Universal Darwinism, and indeed (I would argue) any such move would find itself on shaky philosophical grounds. However, in a very limited sense, we see that this does answer the question of what the purpose of life is, from a purely mechanistic point of view, from the point of view of an atheist, although such an account should be in conjunction with what we are as rational moral agents, leading to argument 2. A2 - The personal perspective The purpose of life can also be answered on a subjective level as well. The purpose of my life in this sense is essentially whatever I choose. Notice that this says nothing about the morality of my choice, nor does it obfuscate the fact I have a biological purpose. The question simply asks what my personal raison d’etre is, and obviously this will be different for each person. So if I see the purpose of my life as trying to comprehend the most difficult questions confronting humanity, then (on a personal level), it seems to me that I have a subjective purpose for living, and it is this that gives me a reason and purpose to exist, because I myself deem it so. Essentially, on this view, these goods are not the purpose of life given to us from an eternal source (God), or an intrinsic function of ourselves as living beings (biological purpose), but are what we use to sustain and build upon our personal selves and that which sustains our existence on an emotional level. A3 - On the relevance of morality As Con brings morality into the picture, let's discuss this as well. Firstly, there are a great number of positions on morality from atheists (realism, nihilism and subjectivism) with a great many different moral systems used, so when Con seems to suggest in his opening statement that there is a single atheistic view on morality, this simply not true. I see my own position as somewhat of a tentative moral realist, and would therefore argue that there ARE right answers to questions of morality. Other atheists however would agree with Con’s implication (that atheism implies nihilism), but there is nothing like universal agreement here, and so the implication is just way off. Secondly, and more specifically as a moral realist, I would assert that the question of why things are morally right or wrong obviously depends on whatever system of morality the atheist holds (such as the amount of happiness in the world for utilitarianism), but that whatever criterion we accept, rationality is the primary basis for both our recognition of the existence of moral values and as the difference between us and the rest of the living world. Questions of why morality is a peculiarly human phenomenon should receive the same answer as those who ask why math or poetry is a uniquely human enterprise - because only humans have the right neurological tools to recognise, to reflect, to reason and empathise, and it is only by doing so (I contend) that morality can even be apparent. Conclusion Although Con seems to fuse several questions together, both in the debate topic and in his opening post, it is important to realise that purpose in meaning itself has several distinctions one should make, and that morality is perhaps out of place in a discussion about the purpose of life (especially prior to unpacking the several connotations this inevitably leads to. Despite this, I hope to have given a reasonably plausible view of what the point of life can be from an atheistic perspective, and I’m sure we can delve more into it in the coming rounds. Sources 1. For a popular gene centred view of evolution, see Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1976) and River out of Eden (1995). 2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle, Vintage Books edition (2009), London, P913.