[ajuc]

Of course people can create goals for themselves, but there is no one external purpose made for them.

I think this is pretty universal POV among atheists, but if you disagree - whatever. I never even claimed it's the only possible interpretation.

[gerbilly]

>there is no one external purpose

Avoiding pain and seeking pleasure seems to be a built in goal to almost all living beings.

No living thing creates that goal for themselves, it comes built in.

One of the easiest way to find meaning then, is to strive to reduce other sentient beings sufferings, and to increase their happiness.

There is no need for a god, or an idea of a god to promote this point of view.

[wilsonnb]

The concepts of pain and pleasure don't really apply to many forms of life. Bacteria, plants, fungus.

The only goal that all livings things share is the drive to reproduce. Anything without that drive dies out, which explains why it's essential to life.

[ajuc]

> One of the easiest way to find meaning then, is to strive to reduce other sentient beings sufferings, and to increase their happiness.

This is basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism and the simple counterexample to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

At any rate - it's clear to me that these goals are self-created, and different between different people, so claiming them to be universal seems wrong.

[gerbilly]

If you say so, but i don't think other animals and organisms are 'self-creating' the goal I described.

They come with that built into their neurochemistry, and so do we.

It's the closest thing to a universal moral system I could think of.

And I don't see it as utilitarianism, I was thinking of Buddhist ethics which also contains other precepts to counteract some of the pathological cases in utilitarianism.[1]

[1] Does it do so perfectly? Probably not, but it attempts to be a practical set of precepts, you still have to use your brain.