If there is no God

[spartanII]

Alright so this is what atheism has to hold to if there is no God.

There is no objective purpose to life. All things ever done on this planet, or this universe, or any other universe will be eventually destroyed once all the elements wear out and the universe and it's properties cease to exist.

So therefore, meaning in life is nothing more than an illusion.

If there is nothing like a spirit or some sort of immaterial property that inhibits us (fill in any religion, Buddhism/Hindiusm/Christianity) then there is no choice, ultimately.
The universe started by some means of universal laws/materials and every succeeding action has been a proceeding action of the Big Bang. Our brains are nothing more than a cage of materials that are governed by physical laws. Even if you could find the "conscientiousness" and "choice," that finding would be an illusion because your using the very thing in question, your brain. Atheists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker totally support this idea but would hate to release people from jail, even though they were bound by their chemicals to be there in the first place. Life is a simulation that we have no control over.

Life is just lead by the ancient chemicals, infinite luck, and blind processes.

Morals are an illusion too. Even if you could propose something like evolutionary psychology, there is nothing objectively wrong with not wanting to following that.


I don't understand how people can be atheists, nor do I understand how people can be agnostics and basically give atheists/theists a chance at being right. I think it's best to quote Frank Turek when he says "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

[Noah1201]

You're basically committing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Not that I necessarily agree with all your observations about atheism (for example, I do not think that, on atheism, the meaning of life is an "illusion", it is merely not objective).

[MarcusOfLycia]

You're basically committing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Not that I necessarily agree with all your observations about atheism (for example, I do not think that, on atheism, the meaning of life is an "illusion", it is merely not objective).

It isn't a fallacy if the conclusions we would expect based on human nature and desire don't match, to such a degree, the universe we observe. CS Lewis made great arguments when he said that should a world exist with no meaning, we ought not to find that the universe had no meaning in the first place. A disagreeable conclusion doesn't make it untrue or true, but it can be used as circuimstancial evidence.

On your other point, I have heard atheists themselves claim 'life is an illusion'. After all, in a purely naturalistic world, wouldn't every choice you make, every feeling and emotion you have, every thought in your mind, be nothing more than an arrangement of atoms? Yet we have 'concsciousness'. Most atheists admit if there is nothing beyond the natural world, consciousness itself is the grandest illusion in nature. So I disagree with you since atheists themselves embrace that view.

[Noah1201]

It isn't a fallacy if the conclusions we would expect based on human nature and desire don't match, to such a degree, the universe we observe. CS Lewis made great arguments when he said that should a world exist with no meaning, we ought not to find that the universe had no meaning in the first place. A disagreeable conclusion doesn't make it untrue or true, but it can be used as circuimstancial evidence.

I am not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it's not a fallacy if what we would expect of human "desire and nature" do not match the universe. I suppose that means that if humans desire a life that has a meaning, and the evidence indicates that it doesn't, we should nevertheless believe that it does.

So I am guessing that this is the old "if we desire God, then God must exist" argument. Am I right?

If I am right, I will write objections to that in my next post.

On your other point, I have heard atheists themselves claim 'life is an illusion'. After all, in a purely naturalistic world, wouldn't every choice you make, every feeling and emotion you have, every thought in your mind, be nothing more than an arrangement of atoms? Yet we have 'concsciousness'. Most atheists admit if there is nothing beyond the natural world, consciousness itself is the grandest illusion in nature. So I disagree with you since atheists themselves embrace that view.

I'm afraid I am not qualified to answer this. I don't have a slightest clue on the science behind consciousness.

In any case, I was talking about the meaning of life, not consciousness. Those are two separate concepts.

[MarcusOfLycia]

It isn't a fallacy if the conclusions we would expect based on human nature and desire don't match, to such a degree, the universe we observe. CS Lewis made great arguments when he said that should a world exist with no meaning, we ought not to find that the universe had no meaning in the first place. A disagreeable conclusion doesn't make it untrue or true, but it can be used as circuimstancial evidence.

I am not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it's not a fallacy if what we would expect of human "desire and nature" do not match the universe. I suppose that means that if humans desire a life that has a meaning, and the evidence indicates that it doesn't, we should nevertheless believe that it does.

So I am guessing that this is the old "if we desire God, then God must exist" argument. Am I right?

If I am right, I will write objections to that in my next post.

You completely missed the last line. Do you know what circuimstancial evidence is?

On your other point, I have heard atheists themselves claim 'life is an illusion'. After all, in a purely naturalistic world, wouldn't every choice you make, every feeling and emotion you have, every thought in your mind, be nothing more than an arrangement of atoms? Yet we have 'concsciousness'. Most atheists admit if there is nothing beyond the natural world, consciousness itself is the grandest illusion in nature. So I disagree with you since atheists themselves embrace that view.

I'm afraid I am not qualified to answer this. I don't have a slightest clue on the science behind consciousness.

In any case, I was talking about the meaning of life, not consciousness. Those are two separate concepts.

Inform me of the method you used to draw meaning out of a particular arrangement of atoms guided by mindless forces.

EDIT: Apologies for misreading part of your line previously. My request is still accurate to what I want it to say, but you were talking about something else and I misread your second point.

[Murray]

Wow, life sure does sond dreary and pointless without god

[spartanII]

You're basically committing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Not that I necessarily agree with all your observations about atheism (for example, I do not think that, on atheism, the meaning of life is an "illusion", it is merely not objective).

what i mean by illusion is "whatever you propose thinking life should be about" whether it be loving somebody, helping somebody out, or being a "good" person is deceptive to the ultimate truth "WHATEVER YOU DO WILL MEAN NOTHING". Because everything, plutonium plated doors, your trip to the mountain, your memories of your childhood, your great great great great grand-kids house, will all be destroyed in a fervent heat death as all the elements of this planet, the planet next to it, the galaxy next to it, and the constellations next to it will all be obliterated. That is the only truth to life. All other "truths" get eaten up by that ultimate truth and are thus illusions.

[spartanII]

It isn't a fallacy if the conclusions we would expect based on human nature and desire don't match, to such a degree, the universe we observe. CS Lewis made great arguments when he said that should a world exist with no meaning, we ought not to find that the universe had no meaning in the first place. A disagreeable conclusion doesn't make it untrue or true, but it can be used as circuimstancial evidence.

I am not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it's not a fallacy if what we would expect of human "desire and nature" do not match the universe. I suppose that means that if humans desire a life that has a meaning, and the evidence indicates that it doesn't, we should nevertheless believe that it does.

So I am guessing that this is the old "if we desire God, then God must exist" argument. Am I right?

If I am right, I will write objections to that in my next post.

You completely missed the last line. Do you know what circuimstancial evidence is?

On your other point, I have heard atheists themselves claim 'life is an illusion'. After all, in a purely naturalistic world, wouldn't every choice you make, every feeling and emotion you have, every thought in your mind, be nothing more than an arrangement of atoms? Yet we have 'concsciousness'. Most atheists admit if there is nothing beyond the natural world, consciousness itself is the grandest illusion in nature. So I disagree with you since atheists themselves embrace that view.

I'm afraid I am not qualified to answer this. I don't have a slightest clue on the science behind consciousness.

In any case, I was talking about the meaning of life, not consciousness. Those are two separate concepts.

Inform me of the method you used to draw meaning out of a particular arrangement of atoms guided by mindless forces.[/quote]
I think my last forum post http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 689#p99689

dealt with this topic a little better.

I think Matt Slick puts it a little better too, or even an atheist Sam Harris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evjcuaih9jY

[MarcusOfLycia]

You're basically committing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Not that I necessarily agree with all your observations about atheism (for example, I do not think that, on atheism, the meaning of life is an "illusion", it is merely not objective).

what i mean by illusion is "whatever you propose thinking life should be about" whether it be loving somebody, helping somebody out, or being a "good" person is deceptive to the ultimate truth "WHATEVER YOU DO WILL MEAN NOTHING". Because everything, plutonium plated doors, your fishing trip to the mountain, your memories of your childhood, your great great great great grand-kids house, will all be destroyed in a fervent heat death as all the elements of this planet, the planet next to it, the galaxy next to it, and the constellations next to it will all be obliterated. That is the only truth to life. All other "truths" get eaten up by that ultimate truth and are thus illusions.

That's one of the things that really sank in with me a couple of years ago as I tried to really grasp what atheism implied. The reason I cite the completely fundamental human desire for more than something so simple and meaningless as circumstancial evidence is because it is such a profound disconnect. On the one hand, you have a universe that, if entirely naturalistic in origin, cannot possibly have any semblance of meaning whatsoever. On the other, you have this innate human drive since the dawn of history where man craves meaning and to know his place in the universe. If there was never such a thing as meaning, why should we have ever discovered that there wasn't? Something like meaning is tangible in our minds, and yet cannot exist naturally. Like I've said previously, it by no means proves anything on its own, but combined with other things, I think it definitely points in the direction of something more than a completely natural universe.

On a totally separate topic, understanding this natural conclusion to a purely natural universe should bring about ethical questions. For instance: Is it ethical to teach a worldview that teaches eternal hell as the only possibility for the future? (I take the fate of the universe to be as bad or worse than hell). Seems like that may lead to widespread depression, which we have in most developed societies today (worship of self probably helps that along quite a bit, too). I guess what I'm getting at is that Dawkins claims that teaching religious faith is child abuse, when in reality, the atheistic worldview requires some presumptions that are unprovable as well but also teaches a hell without heaven. Seems a bit strange to me. I can see how someone may not know the answer (and claim to be agnostic), but to call oneself an atheist and make the claim of 'child abuse' is silly to me.

[CeT-To]

LOL i JUST made a topic like this a day or 2 ago hahaha oh well feel free to check that out Spartan cause i totes agree with you.

Btw great post Marcus

[spartanII]

LOL i JUST made a topic like this a day or 2 ago hahaha oh well feel free to check that out Spartan cause i totes agree with you.

Btw great post Marcus

i wish this forum had more members on at certain times. oh well. either way this is a great community, and yeah, i made a topic like this one a few days ago and it is still empty. but yeah, i agree with marcus. I think if you wanna talk about "child abuse," what atheism holds, that you don't have a choice in what you become, nature lead you there, you were born into this earth with no purpose, died with no purpose, left behind a purpose that will be destroyed in a cosmic nanosecond, is far more damning than trying to teach your children about the Lord and being a good, moral person. If i'm wrong, I died following something that made me happy and made my subjective existence worth looking back on and smiling.

[jlay]

Noah is right. This is an appeal to consequences.

Dawkins response to this is, "Get over it!"

However, it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit.

If you are unknowingly in danger, and someone starts warning you of the consequences, it may have the effect to get you to investigate the matter. Since we do have minds and are self-aware, it is a natural process of the mind. So, could an unguided, purposeless, material universe result in beings that not only live, but ask the questions, how, why, where? And is there a reason for there to be inherent rules etched into the universe that dictate how we examine our reality. (logic and reason)

If the atheist is right, then it is sad. But a sadness that also has no meaning in and of itself. In fact the atheist has no basis to refute religion. Because religion would then be the result of the same unguided process.

[narnia4]

You're right. No wonder so many atheists refuse to evaluate their own worldview. To think that even thinking about this right now isn't even really "thinking", its just the natural course of atoms banging around in a brain that came about by random chance in a brain that came about by random chance in a body that came across by random chance on a planet that came about by random chance by a universe that... well, you get the picture. I don't see how you can get around this consequence of atheism.

The thing is, the vast majority of atheists don't live life that way. They insist that religion is false, but they live as if its true. Most would even say that they try to be "good people" and live "good lives". And yet those words have no meaning because NOTHING has meaning. They aren't free or conscious. They want to call out some of us "stupid Christians?" It makes no more sense than a rock making fun of another rock for being heavy because Christians would have no more choice of their religion than atheists. I would argue that words such as "stupid", "smart", "right", and "wrong" would completely lose any validity.

All this doesn't prove that atheism is false, but you can call out the VAST majority of atheists for pretending that there can be objective morality or objective anything or real thought or anything like that. It also serves as a good reminder- if there IS objective morality, well that doesn't fit in with atheism. Any design in the universe whatsover doesn't fit in with atheism. Consciousness, free will, they don't fit atheism. I know some argue that these things do fit atheism, but I just don't see it personally. All the people on this planet tend to believe in the above things... to me that does say something.

Arguments have been formed just on the basis of human belief in these things. I don't tend to use those sort of arguments, but it is something to think about. Why would humans believe in all of these things if there was no basis for them? That is, if you can even ask the question why.

I think you could also argue for a sort of Christian hedonism here. If there is no God, there's no good reason NOT to believe in God, is there? You have no responsibility to truth, honesty, or anything like that. A hedonist would argue that maximizing pleasure is the most worthwhile goal, and if I were an atheist that's what I would do. Knowing that studies have shown that theists tend to be happier and more fulfilled, I may as well make every effort to delude myself into believing that this "impossible idea" is true... in order to maximize happiness. Its also a good reason to go for Pascal's Wager, take the leap.

But anyway, I'm pretty happy that there is MORE than sufficient evidence for a God and for Christ.

[kmr]

I cannot explain my most fundamental reasoning for believing in more than particles. Perhaps it is that I am actually thinking my thoughts... feeling my feelings, seeing my sights, hearing my sounds, I don't know. All I do know is that if this were all just random particle movement, we wouldn't be here to argue about it; our bodies would be, certainly, but we wouldn't actually be having the argument. It would just be going on. Thoughtless. Well, I can only speak for myself, and you cannot know my feelings, but I know that I am more than atoms.

[Reactionary]

Excellent post, Narnia.

I cannot explain my most fundamental reasoning for believing in more than particles. Perhaps it is that I am actually thinking my thoughts... feeling my feelings, seeing my sights, hearing my sounds, I don't know. All I do know is that if this were all just random particle movement, we wouldn't be here to argue about it; our bodies would be, certainly, but we wouldn't actually be having the argument. It would just be going on. Thoughtless. Well, I can only speak for myself, and you cannot know my feelings, but I know that I am more than atoms.

I understand, I think in a similar way myself. One more thing, I believe that the fierce resistance met while pondering a non-existence of God, meaning or the afterlife also points to something. Materialists will, of course, say that it's a survival instinct or whatever, but let's face it, it's way more complex than that.