I don't understand the assumption purposed in the headline and the introduction. First of all, atheists are not nihilists. Second, why would a life be more meaningful if there is an afterlife than if there isn't? If anything life should be more meaningful without an afterlife. Because then you can live your life and take it for what it is, instead of dreaming about afterlife, thinking of this life as a chore that you must to do to get the compensation. Seriously, I have a friend who can't wait to die, because he wants to see what's next. How is he living a more meaningful life? Life's meaning should be derived from the life itself instead of what does or doesn't follow it.
This is only tangentially related, but, when I came out to my (very moderately religious) parents as an atheist, my father got a little ticked off when I would sit silently during grace before dinner, rather than reciting the prayer. He said it seemed as though I wasn't thankful. My response was something like: "I am lucky to have been born in a country where not many go hungry, I am lucky to have been born to a family in that country that never goes hungry, and I am appreciative to you for cooking the meal, and to the workers on the farms who cultivated the food. However, the prayer we say is not directed at them, nor could they hear us if we prayed to them. I am not unaware of how lucky I am, I just don't think that this luck was orchestrated by a deity." Personally, I think thanking god for survival of cancer is silly for the same reason: generally, it's the result of a lot of very hard working (or at least, very educated) people. If God cured your cancer, he also gave it to you ,etc. It's just a weird construct. I think I understand why people feel uncomfortable expressing gratitude towards blind luck? Maybe you feel lucky to have survived cancer (even if you worked hard to find doctors who could help you), and it doesn't feel like enough to just thank those people? It might also be a way of dealing with a sort of "survivor's guilt", you lived, but not all of the people at the treatment centers did, why? Luck, or chance aren't as satisfying to people, I think, because if you credit them, it's like you're admitting there's no over-arching logic to why you survived. No sentient being liked you more, or has a plan for you. Your body just responded better to the same type of treatment as everyone else. And, you have to supply your own interpretation of that. Okay, I think I'm done speculating wildly now.
Searching for the meaning of life is like searching for poetry in a cookbook: you won’t find it and you’ll just fuck up your soufflé.
Granted, you'll probably fuck up your soufflé anyways.
The title, I think, is adopting a common view held by the religious, that is, that God gives life meaning. Now, that's some sort of logical fallacy I would assume (circular reasoning?). It hits my ears the same way as the "the world is beautiful and awe-inspiring, so, God." An equally weird title/article could be "How atheists find beauty in the world". And the article could be about one sentence long: The same way as everyone else? Beauty and meaning are both things which humans crave, and both things that they manufacture or interpret from their surroundings, to an extent. By which I mean, you can either FIND beauty or meaning in different things, or you can actually physically create art, or do volunteer work, or find passion in your job, etc. The religious just are allowed to pretend that they've found the "True" meaning that's the same for everyone. Anyway, I suspect the article is titled as such, because it is targeting people who would ask the question in that manner; those who can't understand how atheists can find meaning without God. And the author figures that atheists will not be too upset by the wording anyway. [When I say "religious people" or "atheists" I am speaking about "most religious people" and "most atheists", I'm talking about the average person in each group, not individuals, so if you're religious and you still think you need to create or find meaning in the world, please don't think I believe all of one group ubiquitously think one way.]
The question is - why live? Why not die? Living is a great hipocrisy, if you think about it. For all the love and joy and pleasure we might receive, in the end, none of it matters. The beautiful works of art will eventually be corrupted or die. Scientific theories - trumped, forgotten. Our whole species will eventually vanish. At least by thinking that virtue will bring you further peace in the afterlife you can make it sensible.
>For all the love and joy and pleasure we might receive, in the end, none of it matters. The beautiful works of art will eventually be corrupted or die.
Experience is the return you get for living a life. Experiences make life worth living for me. Death doesn't cancel out past experiences, it just prevents further ones. After death I won't be there to worry about the impermanence of things. If I accept that there's no reason for me to worry about it now, I have better things to do.