Ripper
yes boy
meaning sure but there are many other arguments indicting there is a rule
zero proof there is no proof it is just a belief, Christianity and Islam are in reality pagan religions there is enough evidence for this
There is definitely evidence backing the claims of Christianity with historical evidence. Along with logical evidence.
this wasnt a crafted argument post this was a discussion post
At the core of atheism nihilism is at the end
He’s poking fun at you retard
Not really, meaning isn’t exclusive to gods
I don’t trust atheists, religion is the base of morality
to create a creator creates the meaning
Christians copied pagan roman holidays and pagan stories from Nordic mythology
Inventing a creator to feel meaning doesn’t make it real
If meaning is not rooted in a transcendent source like God, it becomes inherently contingent subject to the shifting sands of individual preference, cultural norms, and temporal circumstances. Objective meaning, by definition, demands an objective reference point, and in the absence of God, we are left with nothing beyond biochemical impulses and social constructs. A universe without God offers no telos no ultimate purpose or moral truth only blind mechanism and eventual entropy. Claims that we can “create our own meaning” collapse under scrutiny, as self-generated meaning lacks ontological weight; it is akin to assigning value in a game of make-believe, emotionally satisfying perhaps, but epistemologically hollow. Thus, if meaning is to be more than illusion if it is to be binding, enduring, and universal it must be anchored in something beyond the finite, and that something is, by necessity, God.
Rejecting specific doctrines != denying all forms of theism. Most atheists aren't arguing against abstract gods, just human constructs pretending to be them.
Only if you assume meaning requires an eternal anchor. That’s not a logical fact.
I used to interact with a lot of atheists, they absolutely conflate the two usually
retard take Early Christians adapted cultural elements like festival dates (Christmas near Saturnalia) to make conversion easier, not to copy paganism. Christianity’s monotheism, Christ’s divinity, and the forgiveness of sins/salvation is totally distinct from pagan polytheism or Nordic sped tales which lack redemptive focus. These religions are obviously human takes.
Ye might be, I don't talk to people
It it more clear that the demiurge is real?
Fair point it’s not a logical necessity that meaning requires an eternal anchor. But that misses the real issue. The question isn’t what’s logically possible, but what gives meaning weight. Without something eternal, meaning is just a temporary mental construct real only in your head, vanishing when you do. You can say life has meaning without God, but it’s a self-contained story with no deeper foundation. It’s like assigning value in a dream: it feels real until you wake up, but it never was. If meaning is to be more than just emotionally satisfying noise, it needs something beyond us something unshakable. Without that, it’s just narrative, not truth.
lets not act dumb
Meaning doesn’t need to outlive us to matter. Anchoring it in eternity sounds profound, but it assumes permanence equals value.
Wym?
Saying meaning doesn’t need to outlive us to matter is just a way of redefining “matter” to avoid the real issue. You’re treating meaning like a mood valuable because it feels good but that’s not meaning in any objective sense. If your definition of meaning dies with your brain, it was never real to begin with. It was a neurological echo, not a truth. Anchoring meaning in eternity isn’t poetic fluff it’s the only way it can be anything more than self-delusion. Without permanence, without transcendence, your meaning is just noise in the system no different than a dopamine spike. You can pretend your life “matters,” but without something beyond you to ground that claim, it’s fiction. Useful, maybe. Profound? Not even close.
How can you say that? Look at what religion has done to the world, its literally the root of evil
Total atheism leads to nihilism
elaborate and what defines this "evil"
You’re building your argument inside a box where eternal meaning is the only valid kind, without proving that box is necessary. Assuming transcendence as a prerequisite is the claim, not the conclusion.
Just because there’s a correlation doesn’t mean they’re the same. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god. Nihilism, on the other hand, denies the existence of certain aspects of existence, such as the meaning of life or the validity of moral values.
Ah, so now we’re pretending that rejecting transcendence makes your argument neutral and open-minded, when in reality you’ve just built your own box, one where meaning magically emerges from neurons firing in a purposeless universe, and we’re all supposed to pretend that’s deep. You accuse me of assuming transcendence, but you’re assuming its absence, as if that’s the default state of reality. That’s not clever, it’s lazy. You’re not escaping the burden of proof you’re dodging it. You want meaning without metaphysics, weight without substance, and truth without anything to make it true. That’s not philosophy, it’s just existential cosplay. Try again, but this time bring more than poetic atheism and semantic smoke bombs.
This is copying and not only the date was copied but also the „Christmas“ trees, stars, lights
You're not proving anything, you're just coping, boyo. And why am I suddenly bearing the burden of proof? You're the one throwing out unproven claims left and right.
Truths are not eternal in any way.
Calling it cope doesn’t save you from the fact that your argument’s hollow. You dismissed transcendence, claimed meaning still matters, then ran when asked to ground it. That’s not reasoning, that’s bluffing. You do bear the burden because you’re the one pretending subjective feelings can magically become objective truth. If you can’t define or defend your version of meaning, then you’re not arguing you’re just coping harder than anyone here.
