Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:I know plenty of atheists who have meaning in life, who don't actually think life does not have any meaning. I find this to be a strawman kind of approach, like you cited "give me a gun right now and end it" type. To live a life one doesn't need objective meanings.

But their "meaning" is fleeting, and therefore, ultimately meaningless.
They usually argue that loving their kids or wife gives life meaning. But ultimately, that love is just meaningless chemical reactions in the brain.

neo-x wrote:I know plenty of atheists who have meaning in life, who don't actually think life does not have any meaning. I find this to be a strawman kind of approach, like you cited "give me a gun right now and end it" type. To live a life one doesn't need objective meanings.

There are two logical paths and I've touched on both.

Really, just highlighting the meaningless of all the statements made but failed.

At the end of the day, I just stated how I'd feel so I'm not sure what is strawmanish. Clearly another logical path is that since this life is all we'll have and at the end of the day the universe will burn out and there will nothing, we should live it for our self first and everyone else as much as it profits us. That is the other logical path.

Lennon's sentiments are nice sounding to many, but as I'm sure you understand without meaning really on an Atheistic worldview. To have true meaning, there needs to be some eternal impact and remembrance. Otherwise any meaning is just in the moment and will pass when the person dies and those who knew them.

It's a nice song, a song that touches most people that have been hurt by hate and even organized religion ( which is almost everyone).
The problem is that it suggest the one thing that history and human nature have shown us to be NOT possible:
Unselfish ends can't be sustained by selfish motivation.

Living for today is selfish, believing that YOU have the answers for SOMEONE else's problems is selfish, believing that YOUR way of fixing things is better than someone else's is selfish, etc...

Funny thing is that Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi did NOT believe in what Lennon believed, they both believed that God was the way.

I will agree with Lennon in regards to this though:
The world will be a better place when organized religion and hell are cast in the "lake of fire" and we ALL will be as ONE under God though, not under some make believe view of human utopia that is different for everyone.

PaulS wrote:
I will agree with Lennon in regards to this though:
The world will be a better place when organized religion and hell are cast in the "lake of fire" and we ALL will be as ONE under God though, not under some make believe view of human utopia that is different for everyone.

Not sure that's quite what Lennon meant.

Yeah, if you have to toss the only TRUE faith onto the stinking, burning rubble pile of world religions, just to supposedly have peace, you'll end up with NO peace. As peace at all costs is no peace at all!

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:I know plenty of atheists who have meaning in life, who don't actually think life does not have any meaning. I find this to be a strawman kind of approach, like you cited "give me a gun right now and end it" type. To live a life one doesn't need objective meanings.

But their "meaning" is fleeting, and therefore, ultimately meaningless.
They usually argue that loving their kids or wife gives life meaning. But ultimately, that love is just meaningless chemical reactions in the brain.

But you alao have the same chemical reactions and I have the same too. The only difference is we call love a divine emotion and they call it a biological chemical process. The end result is the same.

I can understand why in the Christian frame you see love more than just a chemical reaction but it is important to realize that the emotion is the one with value, not the process. On that account it is unfair to say to an atheist that hia life has no meaning when he sincerely doesn't agree with you.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:I know plenty of atheists who have meaning in life, who don't actually think life does not have any meaning. I find this to be a strawman kind of approach, like you cited "give me a gun right now and end it" type. To live a life one doesn't need objective meanings.

There are two logical paths and I've touched on both.

Really, just highlighting the meaningless of all the statements made but failed.

At the end of the day, I just stated how I'd feel so I'm not sure what is strawmanish. Clearly another logical path is that since this life is all we'll have and at the end of the day the universe will burn out and there will nothing, we should live it for our self first and everyone else as much as it profits us. That is the other logical path.

Lennon's sentiments are nice sounding to many, but as I'm sure you understand without meaning really on an Atheistic worldview. To have true meaning, there needs to be some eternal impact and remembrance. Otherwise any meaning is just in the moment and will pass when the person dies and those who knew them.

True meaning to an atheist is his life. The meaning is not eternal but how is that not 'true meaning'? If I take eternity out of a meaning does that change the meaning? I am not sure how. It just makes the meaning not everlasting, but really doesn't change anything else. Or did you mean something else?

Philip wrote:Yeah, if you have to toss the only TRUE faith onto the stinking, burning rubble pile of world religions, just to supposedly have peace, you'll end up with NO peace. As peace at all costs is no peace at all!

Philip,

Why quibble over minor details?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
I will agree with Lennon in regards to this though:
The world will be a better place when organized religion and hell are cast in the "lake of fire" and we ALL will be as ONE under God though, not under some make believe view of human utopia that is different for everyone.

Not sure that's quite what Lennon meant.

LOL, indeed.

Neo wrote:
But you alao have the same chemical reactions and I have the same too. The only difference is we call love a divine emotion and they call it a biological chemical process. The end result is the same.

Neo,
What?
In an atheistic/naturalistic worldview, love can only be something physical. In that worldview, there's no basis for love to have any real meaning. Of course love still is love no matter what, because in reality, God does exist.

Neo wrote:
I can understand why in the Christian frame you see love more than just a chemical reaction but it is important to realize that the emotion is the one with value, not the process. On that account it is unfair to say to an atheist that hia life has no meaning when he sincerely doesn't agree with you.

I think you're misunderstanding me Neo. Love is not a chemical reaction. But in an atheistic/naturalistic worldview, love can't be anything but physical. Because the spiritual, specifically a God who is Love, doesn't exist. I'm not telling an atheist that his life has no meaning, because God DOES EXIST in reality. I'm just saying in that worldview, there's no basis for life to have any real meaning.