Oh my fucking non-existent God. I thought you were smarter than this. I guess I was wrong.

Dawkins was talking about life, as in the biosphere, and about evolution. There is no purpose to evolution, as in, it's not directed. Phenotypes don't spring up because they are needed. You are conflating evolutionary "life" with a personal existence.

Here, "higher purpose" is just as vaguely defined as much of the rest of your senseless rhetoric. So I guess "higher purpose" is whatever you claim it is.

Now, you feel you cannot provide a purpose for your own life, so you feel you must believe purpose is externally provided by something which you cannot prove. That's fine.

But your statements about atheism's lack of providing external meaning completely misses the mark. It's a dangerous, cold, uncertain world out there, and sometimes it's scary for little kids to wander out on their own. But that's just what atheists do: we put on our big-girl panties, and we step out into the world unguided. We find our own path, make our own way. So, yes. You are completely right. Atheism doesn't provide external meaning. I don't think anyone claimed it did. Nobody claimed it had to provide external meaning, other than you. So nice that you can topple the strawmen you erect.

Please try to comprehend: we don't need an arbitrary external purpose. There's no reason for it. If you can't do good on your own, without an external being giving you some sort of direction or meaning, then I feel sorry for you. If you can't make the best of the life you have without some external purpose, then you are squandering your life. That's fine with me, too.

You can't prove the existence of God, as there's no evidence. Creating God creates additional complexity in the universe, which is completely unwarranted; but if you like a complex, incoherent universe, that's your choice. Believe away. But your insecurities and inability to find your own meaning hardly constitutes proof.

Anyone else see Toto or the Tin Man come through here?

Atheism is not holding a belief in any god; full stop.  Using any other definition is fallacious at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

Evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the term "ultimate."

The realization of absolute truth presupposes some form of theism. Without this realization, you have no claim to true knowledge.

Not at all. Anyone seeking to work with the scientific method must maintain an open mind. Nothing can be absolutely proven, and so we must always remain ready to discard our operational theories when they fail to conform to observations. It's the person who claims no possibility of error who has the closed mind.

Among others, claiming that a lack of external purpose renders life meaningless. My life isn't meaningless. I find meaning and purpose in my life by doing and seeking things that give me satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. Lack of 'higher purpose' is not lack of purpose.

Better responses are generally reserved for non trolls.

materialism : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

To begin with, I would argue that the general public perceives atheism as a materialistic, non-spiritual worldview. I don't think there is any question about this.

Secondly, I think it would be very difficult to argue that atheism can be a spiritual worldview when it denies the existence of Spirit itself!

Thirdly, Buddhism and Hinduism are definitely not materialistic. Quite the contrary. They are pantheistic/polytheistic religions.

Finally, I am certain that there are atheists here on this forum and elsewhere who would take offense to professing atheists who also express a belief in bodhisattvas and avatars.

This is my thread.

I asked you way back in post #39 in answer to your claim eternal life awaits you made in post #31 to explain what you mean and to demonstrate or provide proof. I read in another post of yours you believe in a Universe that I see from a later post that

you wrote is as follows: "Why is Universal Mind vague? As far as I can see, ultimate reality must either be consciousness itself, mindless matter (mass/energy), or some combination thereof. "

So I now understand what you believe. The question is still valid, please explain what evidence you have that you will receive eternal life in your Universal Mind scenario.

False.

An atheist has an open mind to study and consider new information without prejudice. An atheist bases his views on the evidence presented and the proof submitted. However, the theist  bases his decision on his unfounded belief. If the information presented to the theist does not fit his belief system he rejects it without consideration. The theist therefore has a closed mind. In your belief as a pantheist you appear to be doing the same .  Accepting a belief system without proof and failing to consider information impartially is the sign of a closed mind. The only proof you have provided so far is the "As far as I can see...." quote above. The statement "As far as I can see" is an assumption on your part, unless you have evidence and proof to make that conclusion. Since that assumption or conclusion of yours is the source of your god-belief, it must be provided in order for an understanding of what proof you used to conclude the Universal Mind is the ultimate reality. If you don't explain what it is you accept and why, how do you expect the RRS to do anything? It's like going to a doctor and saying, I hurt. Where he asks. You say again, I hurt.

Yes, if life has no ultimate purpose, how is it that an atheist is able to establish an ulitmate purpose?

Also, how can an atheist be a free-thinker if all his thinking is pre-determined and could not have been otherwise?

Mathematics has its place. But the traditional approach to experience ultimate truth (God) is mysticism.

Antibiotics have their place.  But the traditional approach to treating bacterial infections (illness) is magic.

All the mystic practices I have ever heard of are nothing more than hacking your brain to flip into an unusual state.  A misbehaving brain, being the center of neural processing, can make it seem as if you have felt the Hand of God Opening the Book of Ultimate Truth, but that doesn't mean you AREN'T in your living room tripping balls on shrooms.  So you had a mystic experience that proves that There's Something Out There to you.  Great!  That has no bearing outside your cortex, for obvious reasons.  As someone else here once put it "Congragulations! You just proved you have a brain."

Your feelings about the universe don't matter one whit to physical reality; it's going to go on doing what it's doing billions of years after you're dead just like it did billions of years before you were born.  I'm sorry that thought makes you uncomfortable.

Why have an "ultimate" purpose at all?

Why can't the reasons people live their lives during their lifetimes suffice?
Not yet sure how to tackle your other question.

Ok time to show your IGNORANCE again. Buddhist, for the most part, don't actually believe in a deity at all, (most in thailand do but that again is a sect issue) but the conciousness that survives, not a spirit or soul per se, at least not by your definition. As for Hindus well there are so many different sects, that to say that they all believe in deities or pantheistic is as ignorant as calling all christians catholics. Hinduism has a vast array of beliefs and sects, some worship gods, some philosophy, others materialism, for some its a political leaning, others a social definition. But there is no ONE set of beliefs for hindus. Now to buddhism, buddhism atomism don't worship any gods, nor do they have an inherent belief in the soul, but believe that we are all connected via energy and....atoms, they tend to push the analysis of existance down to the atom. Yet again...your ignorance is showing. Jaisism again materialism, yet still has a "spiritual" philosophy, of course the definition of spiritual does actually differ from region to region and the context that people are using it.

Atheists can be atheists and yet still be spiritual, again the issue is the definition, buddhists, hindus and various other non-deity religions can be spiritual without the need for a belief in a soul, spirit or god. The view of spirituality as strictly a religious and requires a belief in the soul or spirit is ridiculously ignorant of you. Spirituality can also be viewing life as being more intergrated in one's world view, more than just being sensual. It can be the practice, or tradition of perceiving and internalizing one's "true" nature and relationship to the rest of existence and of becoming free of the lesser egoic self  in favor of being more fully one's "true"self. But of course I bet, you will come up with your own definition. 

Lastly one can be atheist and follow Buddhist philosophy, again it doesn't require you to believe in a god or in a spirit or soul, it is a philosophy, one can also follow one of MANY Hindu philosophy if they like and still be an atheist....because the definition of an atheist is merely a non believer in god(s)/Deities/supernatural beings, that's it, nothing more nothing less, no where is there a concrete set of beliefs or what a atheists is supposed to follow, it is merely a definition of someone that does not believe in gods.

Is your existence influenced by unconscious action, or your actions informed by unconscious influence?  If yes to either then intervention by consciousness not intrinsic to your ego conscious mind is a given. All one needs to do to refute universal mind is to show how the boundaries of unconsciousness exclude it.  

I doubt it. There are much stronger basis for collective unconscious = God than mere association. 

No it's not. We define our own meaning.

This is not true either. For example, take the statement "The meaning of life is whatever one makes of life." How is that in any way logically connected with a universal mind?

So I'm irrational if I say that I can think of many, many reasons my life is meaningful without referencing a universal mind greater than myself? That's hardly a rational argument.

Hopefully you aren't positing that it is a fact that consciousness is "non physical".  To make a naked assertion such that the mind is non physical is more absurd than anything you accuse an atheist of. I could make an equally naked assertion that emergentism is the ultimate truth and reduce this to a "neener neener I'm smarterer than you" conversation, but I'll digress.

There is a wealth of information on this site, and every other corner of the web, about the relationship between consciousness and the physical and chemical state of your brain. If you were to alter the physical state of an individuals brain you could, with relative accuracy, predict the effect it would have on a persons "consciousness" (i.e.) if I gave you a frontal lobotomy your consciousness would be basically non existent. This doesn't constitute absolute proof for emergentism, but it certainly lends credibility to the materialistic view of neurology and thusly consciousness. This is not even scratching the surface of the myriad evidences that could be shown to support the more materialistic views of consciousness.

What sort of evidence can you offer for the supernatural consciousness you eschew as fact? A lack of evidence is not evidence for anything except a lack of...well...evidence. It seems that you don't have a good relationship with your day to day reality and you like the safety and comfort lying in gaps affords you.

I presume this was a Freudian slip.

Based on the worldview of atheistic materialism, all intentional acts are simply the process of physical causation playing itself out. Therefore, it is wrong to say that intentional acts are guided by purpose or goals because physical causation is not teleological. In other words, if nature is a "blind watchmaker" then human beings are too. And what this means is that if eyeballs weren't created or guided by intelligence then watches weren't either. Either there is no intelligent design in the universe or intelligence is guiding the whole shebang. You can't have it both ways.

Paisley, you opened this thread with a request for help in fixing your belief in God. Based on your responses throughout this post and the other post you opened after this one, your request was a fraud. Your intention in this thread is not what you asked. Your intention seems to be to show your God belief as superior to atheism. Since you made a dishonest request by asking for help when all you intend is a debate to prove your belief is correct no one is obligated to fix your belief in God.

You simply could have been honest and opened a thread to debate why your belief in pantheism is the only rational way to ultimate truth instead of being deceptive. I hope you enjoy yourself. "Peace be unto you", "Be Happy", "Have a Good Day", as I can understand why people believe, but I don't get why they lie when they don't have a reason.

Well, this is in tune your slogan..."teaching people to blindly think for themselves."

  a god definition problem is obviously going on here.  How 'bout, God = Awe ? Now what? ..... argue about  GAWD AWE ? ...... YES YES INDEED. Our Science told me ! 

Let's get this silly god definition of abe done with ......    

Who and what ain't GOD? .... may I ask ?    Pantheists are mostly a cool evolution of free thought I support.

OLD Religion is so spooky bad , wish it was only fun and good ..... someone was obviously so afraid ...... fear gets ugly ..... fight fight , love love , go evolution ..... 

just a little bit

If you're not interested in changing my beliefs, then why are you responding to this thread?