The Human Predicament

An Attempt To Make Perfectly Clear We are debating whether or not you can be happy while having an atheistic worldview(which has been defined as the lack of belief in the theistic conception of God), and I fully understand this. This is not a debate about whether or not the atheistic position is true, or the theistic position is true. We are talking about worldviews and beliefs here, and though my opponant claims to understand objectivity, I'm not certain that he does. While it was made pretty clear that objectivity is what is true regardless of human opinion, Pro is somehow twisting this into an argument that assumes a worldview to be true if believed. As he said, this is not a debate over the existence of God, and this is not a debate over whether or not objective meaning, value, or purpose exist if a worldview is true. This is irrelevent. I am not assuming an atheistic worldview in my arguments. We are talking about whether or not an atheist can be happy or not if they are consistant in their unbelief. Pro states that one can not be happy without meaning, value, or purpose. He claims that these things are required to be happy. While there are atheistic world views that are consistant, and DO believe in these things, I'm going to defend the harder position. In my opinion, it is more suited to refuiting Pro's argument. Meaning, Value, and Purpose Meaning, value, and purpose as my opponant thinks of them are all subjective assessments by nature. Meaning is a concept that is purely human. It is a perception, a box that we place around reality. If you take a painting of a fruit basket, a human might look at it, and say, "It is a fruit basket". This could be considered "meaning". Truthfully, it is not a fruit basket, it is a painting. If you want to get completely objective, it is not a painting at all, it simply is(and this can't be described in words). The point is, meaning is derived from a subjective mindset. It is a human invention that can only be "objective" from a relative standpoint. This is not total objectivity. This is measuring without taking into account the tool you are using to measure. Pro states, "..objective happiness in relation to meaning would be your acknowledgment that you are a creation of God, and therefore your life has objective meaning". What does this even mean? Our meaning is to exist? Our meaning is that we are a creation of God? How does this sort of "realization" bring happiness? What about this is so different than what any one following any other worldview might believe? What is more comforting about being created by an intelligent being than say, being created by the effects of chaos? I don't understand how believing in this sort of thing could have an effect on someone's happiness. Value is a concept that is purely human, and almost by definition can't be totally objective. Value is determined by comparing something to something else. Like meaning, it can only be "objective" from a relative standpoint. Pro describes value as being something based on a sliding scale of objective morality, "good" and "evil". How can something be completely objective if we are still dealing with the patently relativistic concepts of "good" and "evil"? On that note, none of this is measurable. How can this possibly effect someone's happiness? If I'm an "evil" man according to this "objective" moral landscape, and I'm happy in this life, is God going to tell me that I was unhappy? I will touch more on happiness a little bit later... Purpose is a concept that is purely human, and my arguments against it are pretty much the same as my arguments against meaning. Pro states the a knowledge of one's "objective" purpose makes them happy. How can anyone possibly have a knowledge their objective purpose? If "God" told them this, how could they be so sure that their own thoughts are not God? How could they be so sure they aren't hallucinating? In the end, isn't this all entirely subjective? It's not about whether you actually have an objective purpose, it is whether or not you BELIEVE that you have an objective purpose. You can believe in things all you want, but it will still have no bearing on objective truth. The existence of these concepts as being objective is not absurd because they don't exist on the objective level. It has more to do with the fact that they don't appear to exist, there is really no basis to believe they exist, and if they do exist, it is utterly impossible to know with any degree of certainty that can be considered even remotely rational. Happiness Is A Purely Subjective Assessment Of One's Mental State If there is a way to measure happiness objectively, even from a relative standpoint, I do not believe that Pro's idea of how to measure happiness is even remotely feasible or even accurate. Even the theistic God's system of measuring "objective happiness" would be subjective from his vantage point based on these parameters. The closest we could probably come to measuring objective happiness is by measuring dopamine(or whatever other chemicals in the brain effect happiness) in the brain.. Even then, this would not be completely accurate, because happiness in itself is an abstract. Happiness is entirely a subjective experience. I must reiterate that I am an atheist who does not believe in objective meaning, value, or purpose. I am happy. Who is going to tell me otherwise? I do not have to believe in these things to be happy. The fact that Pro believes that these things are necessary to believe in to be happy is a reflection of his own state of mind than anything. Absurdist Relevance The absurdist philosophy deals directly with the apparent lack of meaning in the world. There are 3 options when faced with a grapple with the absurd. To excape reality(suicide) To make the leap of faith necessary to follow religion(regarded as being "philosophical suicide") To accept and embrace the absurd, and live on despite of it. Some people are incapable of accepting the apparent lack of meaning, and yes, they do become miserable. However, when one learns to accept their epistemlogical limitations, and can learn to live with the mystery, there is a great freedom, peace, and happiness. As I said earlier, and continue to assert.. Happiness is contingent on one's ability to accept reality for the way it is, and to embrace it. An awareness of what we can and can not know is part of accepting reality. Now this said, I am by no means tying happiness to either a theistic or atheistic worldview. I am of opinion that both theists and atheists can be happy. I am of the opinion that both theists and atheists can be unhappy. The question of whether someone believes in the theistic concept of God is not intrinsically relevant to happiness.