The Western/Christian Life

We are facing the same problems today, as we have always faced. How to live a good life? Now everyone uses the communication tools they were given by their culture, their personal life path, their slice of reality to express their ideas. Call it God, religion or ideologies, what these all are, are belief structures where people have found common ground in the axioms that are necessary to effectively communicate their ideas. In order to get away from the religious connotation you could also call it "telos", as the old Greeks did. I concur in that your telos, is what gives your life order, structure and meaning. However, I didn't get the whole, why ask for forgiveness part? You are the authority, you forgive, if you have nothing to be ashamed off if you live the good life, why use false modesty and pretend to ask for forgiveness? If others want to forgive your imperfect nature that is great, however, you do not need to grovel at others feet for acceptance, that's just an appeal to authority. Also make a separation between the slave morality that is later Christendom and the master morality that is the Western tradition. I grant you, this shit of "how to live a good life" is complicated, and I haven't figured it out either. Its entirely possible that I am wrong, most likely I am. However, what fascinates me is the male propensity to cooperate with strangers. I can only draw upon my own experience and all the knowledge that crossed my experiential sphere by reading, listening or watching other peoples idas. Furthermore, as I am always a slave to my own confirmation bias I might be missing the mark totally, but it seems to me that proper communication is key in living a good life. My telos, that I set myself is trying to articulate the "male game" of communication. I grant you, that's it's a most likely a folly akin to fighting windmills. However, what else am I suppose to do with my life (?), investing it into figuring 'male game' that may or may not fuel a second Enlightenment sounds like a worth while task in my estimation, due to the equalising potential I see with it. Being unable to articulate my intuition, is just part of the problem. Nevertheless, what is the scientific ethos that was the foundation of the Enlightenment if not an implicit agreement between men to hash out ideas? This ethos has evolutionary grown in western thought, and articulating it is the first step in comprehending it. Male dominance hierarchies are contextual and the male participation within them is transitory. However, I do think that there may be some regularity in how men can be 'gamed'. Obviously, men (just like women) oppose the idea that they can be 'gamed', as it implies A) manipulation, B) deceit, C) control and D) abdication of control. So intuitively we oppose that kind of idea, as our own will to power does not allow us to subjugate ourselves to others (I.e. that's pride). However, voluntary co-operation between men does happen, in fact the entire genesis of human civilisation depends upon it. Furthermore, as women can be 'gamed', why not men as well? So it's not about 'fooling men' per se, but rather the compartmentalisation of how trust is gained in the first place. Furthermore, if 'male 'game' requires you to conduct yourself with honour, dignity, punish deceit and it creates and facilitates reciprocal co-operation, what's the problem? The key to a women's heart is, contingency, biological compatibility and LANGUAGE (i.e. game). You learn that by pitting yourself and failing against hundreds and hundreds of women. The potential training ground to test these communication norms online is infinite, today with tinder every man can become a Casanova (with enough effort), as rejection involves no negative social cost (historically the limiting factor for male sexual game). However, the part to figure out when that communication works is a little bit trickier with "male game". I have been using online forums to field test these means of communications I have identified so far. In working out when it works, I have taken the lowest bar possible, meaning if the other individual is providing information and asking you for feedback or clarification in the process of communication, i.e. expressing interest. Articulating it all, makes it sound clunky and clumsy. But the template of the "game" of communication I am using is from realms where this type of male communication game has developed, namely scientific disciplines. Male monkeys are being encultured into specific behavioural patterns that establish how they can create trust with the in-group of that particular language community. They can't articulate the 'dance rules', however that does not mean that there are none. I think, articulating general principles of "male game", and the associated disciplinary regimes is not only possible but revolutionary. The reason being, by consciously knowing what you do, how you appear to other men and how trust is created, you do no longer need to ask for forgiveness. Rather, you "just get it" and carry yourself with honour, dignity and pride that other men that want to associate with you will just understand 'naturally'. This 'natural part' is the end product of Identifying communication rules, articulating these is like articulating the source code of how men form social bonds and trust within the in group is created. A meaningful life, is then merely a function of a well adjusted tribe that has found a purpose which resonates with you. P.S. sorry for the stream of consciousness, I am still trying to work out this idea of mine of "male game"

Way to redefine definitions to fit your own narrative

I hate to say it, but Christianity and Evolution are not really compatible. I know that plenty of Christians accept both at the same time, but I think that is more compartmentalization and ignoring the inconsistencies than rational thought. Christianity teaches that there is a God creator who consciously designed us with foresight, evolution teaches that natural processes lead to biology, not consciously designed without foresight. These concepts are mutually exclusive. I wish that weren't the case, but being intellectually honest, I have to admit that creationists - although wrong - are at least more consistent than the nicer, more constructive moderates. It's a bit ironic that in the end you argue that atheists are stuck in the past by attacking one of the commonly held Christian beliefs and yourself are clinging to an ancient text from the bronze age that may never be changed. Face it: the bible may have some passages that contain wisdom, but it also contains blatant falsehoods and counterproductive lessons (like the story of Abraham and Isaac with the lesson: You'll be greatly rewarded when you obey the voice in your head that claims to be God and orders you to kill your loved ones. That's not my interpretation, that's the ending of the story). No surprise there for atheists, since it's just a book written by humans so of course it has flaws. As long as it's held up as the book of God, creator of the universe, there will be problems like creationism in Christianity, because there will always be intellectually honest people striving for consistency. You talked about atheists not having an alternative that is able to give meaning. Would you look into the alternative if it existed?