10 Myths and Thruths about Atheism

[stringmusic]

In both instances we state they are definitions for us as individuals.
In fact my answer is a reply from a question YOU asked me about ME!

Every human has a definition inherent and unique unto themselves.

It can't be inherent to the individual. The meaning you describe is either inherent in humans universally or it's not.

And if it's not universally inherent in all humans then it's not inherent meaning and it's just something you made up.

And remember we are talking about the univeral statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived", that statement goes for all humans i.e. inherent.

 

[bullethead]

It can't be inherent to the individual. The meaning you describe is either inherent in humans universally or it's not.

And if it's not universally inherent in all humans then it's not inherent meaning and it's just something you made up.

And remember we are talking about the univeral statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived", that statement goes for all humans i.e. inherent.

The right to live life to the fullest is an inherent right to all. Whether or not they take advantage of it is up to them.

 

[stringmusic]

The right to live life to the fullest is an inherent right to all. Whether or not they take advantage of it is up to them.

?

I'm not asking you about rights, I'm still talking about inherent meaning.

 

[bullethead]

?

I'm not asking you about rights, I'm still talking about inherent meaning.

Well the other forums you switched to must be slow today since you have all this time to be interested in what I have to say. You know the answers you just have not figured out a way to twist em how you need em yet.
I'll oblige you after supper.

 

[TripleXBullies]

?

I'm not asking you about rights, I'm still talking about inherent meaning.

Why must there be inherent meaning the way you're asking for it??? IMO, there is absolutely NO REASON to think that there MUST be inherent meaning to life the way you are referring to it.

I've been catching up on several threads today, so IDK if it's this one that's talked so much about the agnostics and atheists just choosing one more religion to not subscribe to than the believers, but either way... There are 20,000 religions because so many people want there to be an inherent meaning... and that what lets people live life to the fullest, is having an inherent meaning that satisfies them. So create what you want, fit in where you want. If it makes you feel good, then it must be your inherent meaning.

 

[stringmusic]

Well the other forums you switched to must be slow today since you have all this time to be interested in what I have to say. You know the answers you just have not figured out a way to twist em how you need em yet.
I'll oblige you after supper.

Lol

 

[stringmusic]

Why must there be inherent meaning the way you're asking for it??? IMO, there is absolutely NO REASON to think that there MUST be inherent meaning to life the way you are referring to it.

I've been catching up on several threads today, so IDK if it's this one that's talked so much about the agnostics and atheists just choosing one more religion to not subscribe to than the believers, but either way... There are 20,000 religions because so many people want there to be an inherent meaning... and that what lets people live life to the fullest, is having an inherent meaning that satisfies them. So create what you want, fit in where you want. If it makes you feel good, then it must be your inherent meaning.

I'm not the one that brought it up, Sam Harris did that in the OP.

 

[bullethead]

Lol

Inherent is an essential quality that is part of a person or thing.
Isn't "living life to the fullest" an inherent quality?

But again after reading through Harris's article it is YOU that is asserting the word "inherent". I knew there was a twist or tweak in there somewhere.

 

[bullethead]

I'm not the one that brought it up, Sam Harris did that in the OP.

I don't think Sam Harris mentioned the word "inherent" in the OP at all.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism
from:
http://edge.org/conversation/10-myths-mdash-and-10-truths-mdash-about-atheism
By Sam Harris [12.24.06]

In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well,

Begins with a false, negative stereotype. bad reasons? How does a group that collectively accepts moral relativity define "bad". What transcendent law do they point to as their gold standard for good and bad?

Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

Again paints either a deliberately false picture of how believers see their relationship with God.

SAM HARRIS is a neuroscientist and the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. Mr. Harris' writing has been published in over fifteen languages. He is the author of The Moral Landscape and Free Will.


10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism

[SAM HARRIS:] Several polls indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

You think the intellectual dishonesty displayed by those like Harris as he already displayed above may have anything to do with this stigma?

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Gee I wonder where anyone would get that idea?

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."

Goes straight back to moral relativism. If you are only accountable to yourself, why should anyone trust you?

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Maybe the future isn't so bleak after all.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society,

Really? We KNOW that. That statement is as equally demeaning to believers as it is prideful to Atheist. Going back to the introduction: Which is more moral, denigrating believers and holding oneself as intellectually superior, or loving them in spite of their deficiencies. I know what Christianity say about this, and it's now apparent where atheism stands also.

it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

For one so involved in perpetrating myths, fallacies and outright lies as is already abundantly clear, I have a hard time taking this statement seriously.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

I tend to find his meaning of "meaning" meaningless. I'll disregard his first sentence as another fallacy, and get straight to the point. Atheist see no transcendent meaning to life. Meaning is simply what he or she decides it is. Like morality it's relative.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Fact. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
atheism none the less. Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.

Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned. It is this. Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings, whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are. Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Should we take this statement 'on faith', especially based on his illogical quote from Roberts? One would think a neuroscientist and author, not to mention a 'most intelligent and scientifically literate' atheist would be wiser than to make such logical blunders.

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

Again a contradiction. It's not chance. It's chance plus.....
Gotcha. Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod. It boils down to something from nothing, no matter how you slice it. Maybe that's what the 87% of believers have a hard time believing about atheism.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

Another blatant fallacy. It just goes to prove intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous.

If science is the study of natural order as it claims to be, and scientist use their brains to do so, and the brain according to Darwinian Athiest is just a product of time ,matter, and CHANCE, why should any scientist believe anything his brain tells him. His very belief undermines its own credibility.

On the other hand if we are created in the image of an intelligent designer and we are presented WITH an intelligent design, it should stand to reason that we can understand and trust what we observe in nature.

Neither does science undermine Christianity. Truth is exclusive, and both are this truth expressed in different terms. You will notice that Mr. Harris did not mention that the Universe as science now understands it, with a set beginning point, is exactly what one would have expected if one was to have read Genesis 1. Maybe it's atheism that can't bear the weight of science.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

Atheist are arrogant? Maybe we should refer back to the previous comments and see if this 'myth' holds any validity. "Pretending to know things one does not know is a liability in science.", yet Atheist state there is no such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being when in fact the ONLY way one could know that was if one WAS omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Are Atheist pretending to know there is no God or are they pretending to BE God? Note: pretending is a liability to your credibility also.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

No Mr Harris. Those are claims science can't authenticate or maybe YOUR definition of 'spiritual experience". There are many things science can't authenticate. If you ever see a question beginning with "Why" there is a good chance science can't authenticate the answer. This doesn't mean, as you imply, that there is no answer or that it can't be authenticated in some other manner. And suffice it to say that we don't have to subscribe to your definition of "spiritual experience" nor do we.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

Fact: Most atheist don't believe in anything supernatural.
On the deepest questions of life regarding origin, meaning, morality and destiny, their answers are bleak and would correspond as such
Origin: time plus matter plus chance
Meaning: what ever you decide
Morality: see Meaning
Destiny: death is the end. Back you go into the cosmic recycle bin

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

Been there. Done this.

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

Again. What if someone decides cruelty is right. In atheism nothing impedes that from happening. There's no transcendent law of right and wrong to judge one by. Everyone is their own judge. More people were slaughtered in the 20th century as a result of moral relativity than all other centuries combined. Is that the progress he speaks of.

You know, Sam Harris is held as a prominent Atheist thinker by many. I see this stuff and as a Christian I realize that it can't stand up to God's truth. That's the reason for all the distortions, fallacies and duplicity. Without those atheism is exactly what we see it as: a lie, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[WaltL1]

I don't think Sam Harris mentioned the word "inherent" in the OP at all.

I thought it was just me. I read the OP at least 5 times to try to understand what this "inherent" discussion was about. The word or assertion doesn't even appear in the article.

 

[660griz]

Fact. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
atheism none the less.

They were evil men. (period) The difference in their attrocities vs attrocities in the name of God has been explained numerous times. You didn't get it then and you won't get it now. If you did, that would take away one of your anti atheism talking points.

Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.

What this really means is you(religious folks) just can't deal with the real world. I think Plato even had some theories on how to solve this. What happens if every thing that makes us happy and fulfilled is taken away? We can't be expected to handle that on our own.

Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned. It is this. Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings,

Once again, modern day witch hunts and other atrocities can be directly related to bible verses but, you continue to put your fingers in your ears and yell na na na na!

whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are.

Not true. You are just not listening.

Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.

Hitler was not an atheist. However, I don't believe his motives were based on a religious belief.
Now, if you want to count deaths attributed to folks just based on their beliefs or lack of them, I do believe religion has the atheist hands down on the number of deaths.

It boils down to something from nothing, no matter how you slice it.

It can happen.
E=MC(squared) Of course that is unbelievable to you but, picking one God out of 20000 to dub the supreme creator and ruler of the universe seems perfectly logical.

His very belief undermines its own credibility.

Huh?

On the other hand if we are created in the image of an intelligent designer and we are presented WITH an intelligent design, it should stand to reason that we can understand and trust what we observe in nature.

Intelligent designer meaning? It had to follow the rules of physics? Why?

is exactly what one would have expected if one was to have read Genesis 1.

What? You mean some parts of the OT are still applied? Truly shocking.

Atheist are arrogant?

Some folks are some folks aren't. Never been able to nail it down to belief, lack of belief, sports, intelligence.

If you ever see a question beginning with "Why" there is a good chance science can't authenticate the answer.

You prefer to just pray or say God did it? See polio for start.

 

[stringmusic]

Inherent is an essential quality that is part of a person or thing.
Isn't "living life to the fullest" an inherent quality?

But again after reading through Harris's article it is YOU that is asserting the word "inherent". I knew there was a twist or tweak in there somewhere.

I don't think Sam Harris mentioned the word "inherent" in the OP at all.

C'mon Bullet, I know you're not going to throw logic out the window here.

The statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived" is a universal statement for ALL humans. The statement is not qualified in any way, it doesn't say " Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived, except when...". This means that if one "lives life to the fullest" they have meaning that is inherent.

I asked what living life to the fullest meant, and you gave me an answer, but said it was only an answer for you, which means that's it not really inherent meaning, it's just the answer you like.

No matter which way you look at it, the statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived" is incoherent and cannot be true. It's a universal statement that cannot be applied universally. Which is why I constantly argue the fact that all human life cannot have inherent meaning in the naturalistic worldview.

 

[stringmusic]

I thought it was just me. I read the OP at least 5 times to try to understand what this "inherent" discussion was about. The word or assertion doesn't even appear in the article.

See post #53. Inherency is implied very clearly.

 

[bullethead]

Fact. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
atheism none the less. Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.

Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned. It is this. Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings, whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are. Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.



Should we take this statement 'on faith', especially based on his illogical quote from Roberts? One would think a neuroscientist and author, not to mention a 'most intelligent and scientifically literate' atheist would be wiser than to make such logical blunders.



Again a contradiction. It's not chance. It's chance plus.....
Gotcha. Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod. It boils down to something from nothing, no matter how you slice it. Maybe that's what the 87% of believers have a hard time believing about atheism.



Another blatant fallacy. It just goes to prove intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous.

If science is the study of natural order as it claims to be, and scientist use their brains to do so, and the brain according to Darwinian Athiest is just a product of time ,matter, and CHANCE, why should any scientist believe anything his brain tells him. His very belief undermines its own credibility.

On the other hand if we are created in the image of an intelligent designer and we are presented WITH an intelligent design, it should stand to reason that we can understand and trust what we observe in nature.

Neither does science undermine Christianity. Truth is exclusive, and both are this truth expressed in different terms. You will notice that Mr. Harris did not mention that the Universe as science now understands it, with a set beginning point, is exactly what one would have expected if one was to have read Genesis 1. Maybe it's atheism that can't bear the weight of science.





Atheist are arrogant? Maybe we should refer back to the previous comments and see if this 'myth' holds any validity. "Pretending to know things one does not know is a liability in science.", yet Atheist state there is no such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being when in fact the ONLY way one could know that was if one WAS omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Are Atheist pretending to know there is no God or are they pretending to BE God? Note: pretending is a liability to your credibility also.



No Mr Harris. Those are claims science can't authenticate or maybe YOUR definition of 'spiritual experience". There are many things science can't authenticate. If you ever see a question beginning with "Why" there is a good chance science can't authenticate the answer. This doesn't mean, as you imply, that there is no answer or that it can't be authenticated in some other manner. And suffice it to say that we don't have to subscribe to your definition of "spiritual experience" nor do we.



Fact: Most atheist don't believe in anything supernatural.
On the deepest questions of life regarding origin, meaning, morality and destiny, their answers are bleak and would correspond as such
Origin: time plus matter plus chance
Meaning: what ever you decide
Morality: see Meaning
Destiny: death is the end. Back you go into the cosmic recycle bin



Been there. Done this.



Again. What if someone decides cruelty is right. In atheism nothing impedes that from happening. There's no transcendent law of right and wrong to judge one by. Everyone is their own judge. More people were slaughtered in the 20th century as a result of moral relativity than all other centuries combined. Is that the progress he speaks of.

You know, Sam Harris is held as a prominent Atheist thinker by many. I see this stuff and as a Christian I realize that it can't stand up to God's truth. That's the reason for all the distortions, fallacies and duplicity. Without those atheism is exactly what we see it as: a lie, nothing more, nothing less.

I've got a busy day today but I will get back to you on this.

 

[WaltL1]

See post #53. Inherency is implied very clearly.

That's what the article says -

Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so

All it is saying is your life can have meaning by really and fully living it. An example of that is with relationships with those we love. It doesn't require a belief in a god for life to be meaningful.
No more, no less.

 

[HawgJawl]

"Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived"

Some interpret this to say that because life is imbued with meaning, the result is a life really and fully lived. But this cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that all lives are lived really and fully because they are programmed to do so.

I think a better interpretation would be that when a life is really and fully lived (for whatever motivation), the result is a life that was imbued with meaning because of the experience.

 

[WaltL1]

"Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived"

Some interpret this to say that because life is imbued with meaning, the result is a life really and fully lived. But this cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that all lives are lived really and fully because they are programmed to do so.

I think a better interpretation would be that when a life is really and fully lived (for whatever motivation), the result is a life that was imbued with meaning because of the experience.

"Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived"

By the use of the word "by" it can only mean this -

when a life is really and fully lived (for whatever motivation), the result is a life that was imbued with meaning because of the experience

 

[stringmusic]

That's what the article says -

All it is saying is your life can have meaning by really and fully living it. An example of that is with relationships with those we love. It doesn't require a belief in a god for life to be meaningful.
No more, no less.

But it doesn't say "can" have meaning, it says life "IS" inbued, all life, everybody, universal, inherent in all humans.

Which tells me that whatever I decide living life to the fullest is, that that somehow gives my life universal/inherent meaning.

It's kinda of a "decide your meaning and reality will adjust accordingly" statement.

 

[WaltL1]

But it doesn't say "can" have meaning, it says life "IS" inbued, all life, everybody, universal, inherent in all humans.

Which tells me that whatever I decide living life to the fullest is, that that somehow gives my life universal/inherent meaning.

It's kinda of a "decide your meaning and reality will adjust accordingly" statement.

all life, everybody, universal, inherent in all humans.

That is your own personal interpretation not what he actually said. When using the word life you can apply it to an individual or you can apply it to ALL life. You are applying it to all life that's why you keep using "inherent".
Life "IS" good. Does that mean everybodys life is good? That's how he's using the word life.