Answering the God is Evil argument

[Nate]

But I have a hard time being Christian towards an individual who would try and drag Mother Teresa's legacy through the mud when she lived out their ethical system in a way that is clearly superior to how they are living it out.

Um, actually, there are a lot of valid reasons for criticizing Mother Teresa. I won't state them for the sake of civility in this thread, but she was not as good as most people think. Yes, she did do good, I don't deny that, but her legacy wasn't entirely shining and pure.

Dawkins is a fascinating and reputable biologist. I'm referring specifically to their contributions on philosophy of religion.

The funny thing is, Dawkins himself has admitted (if I recall correctly) that he has no place to speak about religion, having focused his studies on biology. The reason he does it is because he is merely mimicking the behavior of certain Christians who focused their studies on theology who feel that they have the credentials to speak about biology. In other words, he's doing a classic case of "Turnabout is fair play."

EDIT: In response to John:

The problem with the survivability of a species saying rape is okay is that if women feel they are being harmed and violated and rape is being propagated, they're probably not going to want to live in that society, leading to women running away and hiding from the men. Women being scared and hiding isn't going to help reproduction any.

[Peanut]

Um, actually, there are a lot of valid reasons for criticizing Mother Teresa. I won't state them for the sake of civility in this thread, but she was not as good as most people think. Yes, she did do good, I don't deny that, but her legacy wasn't entirely shining and pure.

It probably wouldn't affect me anyway. I would point out that all people are flawed and that the good she did far outweighed her flaws. What irked me about Harris was how he went about it. It's not like this individual is actively, making an attempt to help alleviate suffering in the world which is one of the cornerstones of his ethical system. He's writing from the comfort of his home, in the USA, criticizing someone who gave up everything she had to live among the poor and worked to help them. I just find the whole thing to be a little bit (pardon my misuse of this next word) hypocritical. Actually, Dawkins of all people does something similar when he talks about Behe's testimony about the immune system. He quotes someone who basically says Behe is criticizing people who are actually working for the betterment of humanity while doing nothing to help them himself.

The funny thing is, Dawkins himself has admitted (if I recall correctly) that he has no place to speak about religion, having focused his studies on biology. The reason he does it is because he is merely mimicking the behavior of certain Christians who focused their studies on theology who feel that they have the credentials to speak about biology. In other words, he's doing a classic case of "Turnabout is fair play."

Ok, I still would like to see him be better then those Christians and actually do more research. If he did, Christians like myself might actually stand with him.

Edit: [Quote=Nate]In response to John:

The problem with the survivability of a species saying rape is okay is that if women feel they are being harmed and violated and rape is being propagated, they're probably not going to want to live in that society, leading to women running away and hiding from the men. Women being scared and hiding isn't going to help reproduction any.[/QUOTE]

I finally looked, and found what I was looking for. If there is a society where rape was used as a marriage ritual and women didn't try to escape, this argument fails. I give you Ancient Sparta according to Plutarch:

[quote="Plutarch"]The custom was to capture women for marriage(...) The so-called 'bridesmaid' took charge of the captured girl. She first shaved her head to the scalp, then dressed her in a man's cloak and sandals, and laid her down alone on a mattress in the dark. The bridegroom—]

That sounds like rape to me and Sparta didn't run out of women. Therefore, it is possible for a society to be developed where rape is a social norm and would not be as traumatizing to women in the sense you just mentioned. How is this immoral then especially when morals are being connected to societies in the evolutionary view? If society is improving then doesn't that mean that our current ethical system is actually immoral to people thousands of years in the future?

[Nate]

I would point out that all people are flawed and that the good she did far outweighed her flaws.

I would argue that that statement is a matter of opinion, and I disagree and the good she did in fact did not outweigh her flaws.

Ok, I still would like to see him be better then those Christians and actually do more research. If he did, Christians like myself might actually stand with him.

But the fact that he isn't doing research is his point. You can't satirize someone by being better than them.

You could argue that he should be responsible and be the better man, but part of his argument I think is "If you think religion is so great and you're such wonderful people, why aren't YOU the ones being the better ones, hmm?"

[Peanut]

I would argue that that statement is a matter of opinion, and I disagree and the good she did in fact did not outweigh her flaws.

But the fact that he isn't doing research is his point. You can't satirize someone by being better than them.

You could argue that he should be responsible and be the better man, but part of his argument I think is "If you think religion is so great and you're such wonderful people, why aren't YOU the ones being the better ones, hmm?"

Point taken on both issues. Obviously, the Mother Teresa issue boils down to opinion and I haven't read enough Dawkins to say that he is or isn't being satirical.

[ShiroiHikari]

Perpetuating the survival of your species is hardly innately meaningless.

I could say a few things to this but this thread is TL;DR as it is.

[Atria35]

Your first point strikes me as being false unless you can back it up with data. In general, statistically sex fails more times then its succeeds. I don't think rape has anything to do with it. Plus, if I'm raping many women, I would still likely have more children then if I lived in a normal, monogamous relationship. We still do have children born as the result of rape so, statistics like this can always be overcome by just increasing the number of attempts.

While I will admit to not having the statistics on hand for rape pregnancies and miscarriages, it is well known and well documented that stress and trauma have serious effects on women's fertility and ability to carry a pregnancy. Rape is very stressful for a woman, therefore it logically follows that less women would concieve and there would be more miscarriages.

That sounds like rape to me and Sparta didn't run out of women. Therefore, it is possible for a society to be developed where rape is a social norm and would not be as traumatizing to women in the sense you just mentioned. How is this immoral then especially when morals are being connected to societies in the evolutionary view? If society is improving then doesn't that mean that our current ethical system is actually immoral to people thousands of years in the future?

But the Spartan system was evenutally wiped out- therefore it wasn't the best approach to things. And of course that means that our ethical system will eventually be outdated. Just like 150 years ago it was okay to kick black people out of your town for being black, who knows what will happen in the next 150.

[Peanut]

While I will admit to not having the statistics on hand for rape pregnancies and miscarriages, it is well known and well documented that stress and trauma have serious effects on women's fertility and ability to carry a pregnancy. Rape is very stressful for a woman, therefore it logically follows that less women would concieve and there would be more miscarriages.

If that is true, I still can use my point about numbers and statistics to backs up what I'm saying. Women still conceive after being raped, therefore if I rape enough women, I will end up with more children then if I was in a monogamous relationship.

But the Spartan system was evenutally wiped out- therefore it wasn't the best approach to things. And of course that means that our ethical system will eventually be outdated. Just like 150 years ago it was okay to kick black people out of your town for being black, who knows what will happen in the next 150.

You actually just got to where I was going with my argument before I got their. If our morality is based on cultures, and it is in the system Nate was arguing for as the devil's advocate, then because culture's change our morality change's as well. A changing morality is not really morality at all since one day, rape can be wrong, and the next day rape can be right. If I was going further with this, I could use the example of Nazi Germany, where it became culturally acceptable to persecute Jews. In a culture like that (which can, concievably occur again), if morality comes from our culture, then it is moral to kill Jews, just like how rape would have been considered moral in Ancient Sparta. To finish the argument, I would then tell them that if they want morality, God or something like him is their only option.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

But the Spartan system was evenutally wiped out- therefore it wasn't the best approach to things. And of course that means that our ethical system will eventually be outdated. Just like 150 years ago it was okay to kick black people out of your town for being black, who knows what will happen in the next 150.

I can't say that it really makes it matter. They were doing socially acceptable things to propagate their gene pool. Therefore they were not being immoral in their actions.

Take an objective source of morality out of the picture, then the only other alternative sources of morality are subjective and relative.

This is why Nietzsche and Camus are brilliant. They recognize the arbitrary nature these constructed systems. Therefore, all other institutions that spawn from them (meaning and morality, specifically) are also meaningless. Granted Camus is more consistent, saying that we ought to embrace the absurd, and that we are to be content with the idea that our search for meaning in life is precisely our meaning in life. Nietzsche attempts to reconcile this by creating a meaning that is derived from the inner self (Side Note: Where Nietzsche gets slammed later is his idea of the amor fati or love of fate, because it's basically contradictory to his own philosophy). Regardless, Camus and Nietzsche both come to the logical conclusion of atheism, and that is non-essentialism. No innate meaning in anything (including naturalism), everything is a construct. Sure we can further try to propagate our gene pool]You could argue that he should be responsible and be the better man, but part of his argument I think is "If you think religion is so great and you're such wonderful people, why aren't YOU the ones being the better ones, hmm?"[/QUOTE]
Regardless, they are the mainstream voices of atheism today. And not just Dawkins, but people like Christopher Hitchens too, who use really poor argumentation when it comes to religion. They seem to be rather bitter, rather than really try to promote true philosophical discourse.

[Fish and Chips]

Perpetuating the survival of your species is hardly innately meaningless.

Actually, it is.

In a system where nothing has innate order or value, everything is meaningless - including the survival of the self or species. Atheism could use the self-preservation of a species as a guideline to establish a rough code of morality, except that still doesn't satisfy the need to preserve and perpetuate the species in the first place. Why is it so important for us to survive and breed more of us? It isn't; nothing is. Self-preservation is just a selfish excuse we give ourselves to justify existing as a fluke in a system that never wanted or needed us to begin with. None of your actions or inactions have innate worth or purpose beyond your own egotistical fictionalization of your position in the universe. All human progress, enlightenment, and understanding is masturbatory.

The logical conclusion of atheism is to do whatever you want, because none of it matters, or to do nothing, because none of it matters, or to commit suicide, because none of you matter. I'd say morality is the most irrelevant subject you could discuss, if everything wasn't irrelevant anyway.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

The logical conclusion of atheism is to do whatever you want, because none of it matters, or to do nothing, because none of it matters, or to commit suicide, because none of you matter. I'd say morality is the most irrelevant subject you could discuss, if everything wasn't irrelevant anyway.

Yes.

Here's an echo:

If atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one's actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky rightly said: "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

The state torturers in Soviet prisons understood this all too well. Richard Wurmbrand reports,

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners

Given the finality of death, it really does not matter how you live. So what do you say to someone who concludes that we may as well just live as we please, out of pure self-interest? This presents a pretty grim picture for an atheistic ethicist like Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary. He writes,

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

[Furen]

The way I handle the "If God's so perfect why'd he allow sin?" question is (Dependant on the person because some have really strong counter points)
Free will (making us do that would take it away)
it's our choice even though he dislikes it

they usually then give up and start on the Crusades...

[Mithrandir]

Man I wish my sermon from last Sunday was online.

The over-simplified basic gist was "you can't have free will if you don't allow for the possibility of suffering." God gives us the ability to choose him, but also the ability to reject him. That choice allows us to impact others - for good or for evil. The creative nature of God is revealed in how he is able to use everything - both good and bad - to further his will and our growth. Just look at the story of Joseph (Jacob's son).

[Mr. SmartyPants]

@TheSubtleDoctor:

Mmmm... William Lane Craig. I respect him a great deal, but goodness, I just can't accept all the presuppositionalist/rationalist arguments. So much of apologetics nowadays focus on analytic philosophy as well as Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology. And I'm not shooting down Plantinga, by the way. No way. He's absolutely brilliant!

Speaking of which, my professor for my apologetics class also has his own epistemology, which he stems off of Heidegger subject-object intentionality. It's a neat argument. But philosophically, I don't like synthetic a prioris for some reason (Pure subject till I die! lol.. maybe).

What can I say? I'm a fideist. XD Or rather, Kierkegaard's version of it. lol

[Dante]

It's not the argument that fails here, it is arguing physical logic with atheists to begin with that is the folly - especially if you are not a trained theologian. I've been doing some spiritual reading abroad lately and have come across a cute and rather enlightening idea.

Faith is less of a science and more of an art - arguing over it with physical logic is as futile as arguing that blue is better then red, or like music, declaring that Bach is better then The Beatles.

In that respect, if I look at a picture and like it, no one would ask that I "prove" there are likable qualities in the picture, it is simply accepted as I say it (even if they prefer cubism over anime). But when I'd say I believe there is a God, and that he is deserving of my love, then suddenly I'd fall into the logic trap and go running after them with long winding paths of arguments to "prove him" to others. How foolish I was. This is in err though, because when we say that we "know there is a God" it is knowledge of the heart and typically not knowledge of the sight (for it is known by faith).

This grants a completely different perspective on the idea of evangelism, and discussing God with others, because it says we're playing the wrong game and we're choosing to do so. And typically, atheists enjoy staying on their home territory and make a great many Christians look like quacks and idiots. I've heard some of these arguments, and I must say that I want to crawl under the sidewalk when I hear them, even from trained pastors.

So how does this apply to atheists claiming that God is evil? Well it's actually somewhat ironic. After all, how does the atheist know evil? Evil, after all, is an abstract "value", it cannot be proven, it can be agreed upon in a consensus, but that certainly does not prove it, as they are oft want to do. It is a word rife with feeling-value but almost no concrete-value. You can make no predictions in the universe based on good or evil.

But it can be argued then, I believe, if there are human beings that known what is generally "good" or "evil", even human beings that "know" there is "evil in the world", then there can also be humans that, know the "experience of God" in the world (I simply imply the possibility of existence, almost impossible to prove or disprove). This makes the distinction clear, as knowing something is evil is not like knowing there is a sun in the sky, but it is known all the same. Language is kind of slippery like that.

So you can say you "know" there is a God, like you "know" there "good" or "evil", without making claim to a physical proof, as it is a feeling argued statement. That is, you are not arguing for a physical, testable God, but the experience of God. If someone has the experience of a flying spaghetti monster, then they have that experience. Or if someone does NOT have the experience of God, then they don't experience him. This does not make it true or false in reality, but they can still experience or not experience it.

Then the answer to this statement is simple. If you know the experience of God and you know the experience of something being good, you may be able to conclude from your experience of God whether he is good. They, however, cannot argue that God, as experienced, is good or evil, because they do not know the experience of God. That would be like saying, "I can't see the color red, but I know it would be my favorite if I could see it". Perhaps it would, perhaps it wouldn't. Now, they can say they know God and know he is evil, that can be their experience as well, but then they wouldn't be atheists - but I'd pity them all the more.

So while they don't believe in any creator being (let alone know them), I would suggest they keep their opinions to topics of at least minimal experience or understanding. "You can't diss him until you've experienced him."
__________________________

This, mind you, is a spiritual argument. They are likely basing their opinions of God off statements made in the Bible, and assuming that these are all you know of God. If this were true, one might look at things like the flood, the idea of evil itself, the entire book of Job, the wars at the creation of Israel and Hell as evil. Struggling with these questions is it's own theological can of worms... one that not even Christians agree upon. Herein, however, there may be the influence of various external myths, the experience of less then the full story and political additions to provide numinous power to the king in charge. A thorough analysis of this, however, would take a long time to come to some kind of consistent conclusion and never one of certainty. Then your best bet is to realize that you haven't made a thorough enough investigation of this idea and consider how much spiritual value it has in your faith-life.

I however, suspect that you, like me, are basing the idea that "God is good" off your personal experience and not a lengthy investigation of the Bible - otherwise you would already know most of the Biblical "whys". In this case, I "think" this might just work as an acceptable defense. Nate should check it however, just because he's brilliant at detecting when I'm spouting nonsense. Unfortunately, I believe I've entered tl;dr territory.

Finally... If I may. I think that if you've broken into an argument over God with someone, you've likely lost the opportunity to pray - as they'd rather slap you then allow you to get close to them. Perhaps it would be wise to let them enjoy spiritual conversation and growth till you can get intimate enough on a spiritual level to share Christ instead of bashing it out. I may be wrong, but I'd almost think this would cause them more trauma with faith and lead them to repress any latent spirituality all the more. After all, faith almost seems to be ingrained in our genetic DNA, I'd think it would require a rather nasty blow to make one hate the possibility of their being spiritual, in which case we must wage healing upon them and not logical warfare. Sadly, it may well be that spirituality has done them more harm then good, for not all that claim Christianity are saints, all were once sinners, some still are.

[Nate]

If our morality is based on cultures, and it is in the system Nate was arguing for as the devil's advocate, then because culture's change our morality change's as well.

Actually, this is fairly true. Morality can and does change. Consider that incest was practically a necessity at the beginning of humanity, due to the small number of available mates (this is true whether you ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis or not). However, when there was a sufficient amount of people that incest was no longer practical, it was forbidden by God.

Slavery is another good example of this. In the time of Paul, it was moral to own a slave, so long as you treated the slave with love and respect, like a brother. Today, I would hope that nobody would say that owning another human being is moral.

In regards to atheism/morality. I will have to bow out of this. I haven't studied philosophy or morality in any length. However, I am sure that there are atheist philosophers who can argue for the existence of morality apart from God. I don't know of any, but again, I haven't studied it, so I can't claim knowledge.

In a system where nothing has innate order or value, everything is meaningless - including the survival of the self or species. Atheism could use the self-preservation of a species as a guideline to establish a rough code of morality, except that still doesn't satisfy the need to preserve and perpetuate the species in the first place.

Actually, it isn't meaningless. To most atheists, the meaning is clear. To live life to the fullest, because this is the only life you get. In fact, as I said before, I would argue that life is more meaningless to the Christian. What does it matter what we do in this life? We are saved by grace, not by works. If a mass murderer repented before he was executed, he would go to Heaven, would he not? Thus, his life of murder and evil was meaningless, for he has gone to the glory of God.

This isn't a failing of God by the way]It's not the argument that fails here, it is arguing physical logic with atheists to begin with that is the folly[/QUOTE]
Quite true. In the end, it all boils down to faith, which can't be proven. However, I don't think that's a failing of atheists. Faith is hard to come by, and proof is very solid. Think to Thomas after the resurrection, who stated he wouldn't believe until he touched the wounds on Christ's body. To the atheist, the question is "Why does he get proof and we have to rely on faith?" Which honestly is a pretty good question when you think about it.

basing the idea that "God is good" off your personal experience and not a lengthy investigation of the Bible - otherwise you would already know most of the Biblical "whys"

This isn't particularly true, though. I will admit that most people do base "God is good" off their personal experience. Which is great when you're the kid who's struggling and you pray "Oh God please let me get an A on this test" or in my case "God please let me find a job" and we get it answered and we go "Praise God, for He is good!"

But we forget about the starving kid in Ethiopia who prays "Please God, let me have some food..." but then dies of starvation. That's something we don't always see...and is something that is hard to reconcile with God being good. I ain't gonna lie.

Unfortunately, the Bible leaves a lot of "whys" out of it, some of which has already been mentioned. It doesn't answer everything, though it'd be nice if it did.

Again, it all boils down to faith. We have faith God knows what's best when bad things happen. We have faith that God is good and righteous, and not an evil manipulative being. Some people cannot commit themselves to faith like that, and I don't think it's right to say they're wrong or stupid or blind or ignorant. It's a pretty big leap to make, especially when it boils down to "Why should I believe your religion over all the others? Even if I have faith, what if I'm putting faith in the wrong God? It would be as useless as no faith at all." Which is true.

Faith is a pretty tough thing, honestly. We all have it here, but to us it comes naturally. To others, not so much.

[Peanut]

Actually, this is fairly true. Morality can and does change. Consider that incest was practically a necessity at the beginning of humanity, due to the small number of available mates (this is true whether you ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis or not). However, when there was a sufficient amount of people that incest was no longer practical, it was forbidden by God.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think that you can make a pretty good argument for a larger genesis of the human race then a small pocket or collection of small pockets along with the prospect of breeding with the species humanity came from. Then again, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and I have no clue about what the evidence or consensus is on this issue. I will say that, if you take a literal reading of Genesis then this becomes a very potent argument. The only way that I think you can get around it is to claim that God suspended that aspect of morality for a period of time. But I don't think that is a particularly good way to deal with that problem.

Slavery is another good example of this. In the time of Paul, it was moral to own a slave, so long as you treated the slave with love and respect, like a brother. Today, I would hope that nobody would say that owning another human being is moral.

I'm going to say that if you are arguing that restricting freedom is immoral then this is somewhat legitmate. Still, I don't think it undermines the argument for God from morality since you still have a constant for morality (God). In fact, you could get around this argument entirely by saying that humanity has progressively come to a better understanding of that that constant for morality is (meaning, we are more moral today then we were yesterday since we understand who God is better then our ancestors). I'm sure there is a problem with that argument but I'm too tired to think of it right now.

Actually, it isn't meaningless. To most atheists, the meaning is clear. To live life to the fullest, because this is the only life you get. In fact, as I said before, I would argue that life is more meaningless to the Christian. What does it matter what we do in this life? We are saved by grace, not by works. If a mass murderer repented before he was executed, he would go to Heaven, would he not? Thus, his life of murder and evil was meaningless, for he has gone to the glory of God.

If you were an atheist, this is where I would want to push you as far as meaning goes. I'd ask you to define what "live life to the fullest" means and I'm pretty sure I could reduce it to "I have a personal definition of fullest that might differ from someone else." At which point, meaning becomes useless since whose to say that my definition of meaning is better or worse then your definition of meaning. It would be the same as whether you like the color purple or not.

[Nate]

I'd ask you to define what "live life to the fullest" means and I'm pretty sure I could reduce it to "I have a personal definition of fullest that might differ from someone else." At which point, meaning becomes useless since whose to say that my definition of meaning is better or worse then your definition of meaning. It would be the same as whether you like the color purple or not.

That's pretty much true, I'd say. Everyone would have a different definition of living life to the fullest. I don't think that makes "living life to the fullest" a wrong conclusion, any more than everyone having a different favorite food means that the meaning of favorite food is invalid. One person's "fullest" might be a successful billionaire. Another's might be to eat the world's biggest hamburger. To an atheist, as long as they're enjoying this short time they have, that's what matters.

[CrimsonRyu17]

In fact, our life on earth, for us Christians, is about as meaningless as you can get, for it is finite. The afterlife, however, is eternal. That is what truly matters. However, to atheists, who do not believe in an afterlife, this life is everything. It has immense meaning because it is all that exists.

Pretty much this. Far too many times I've heard Christians say that they are merely enduring their life or that this world is terrible and that they cannot wait until God takes them away. I don't see any purpose or meaning in the lives they are living.

On the other hand, most atheists see themselves, as Richard Dawkins worded it, "grotesquely lucky" that they were even born and they want to make the most out of the gift they've been given. That could be advancing human knowledge of the world, finding a cure for a disease so that others may also enjoy their lives, or simply enjoying their life or helping others enjoy theirs and not taking it for granted.

I also don't care for the "it has no meaning so eff it" argument. I suppose brushing your teeth is meaningless because eventually they'll just rot, giving a starving person food is meaningless because he'll just get hungry again later, saving someone's life is meaningless because they'll eventually die. It's kind of funny.

[Fish and Chips]

Actually, it isn't meaningless. To most atheists, the meaning is clear. To live life to the fullest, because this is the only life you get. In fact, as I said before, I would argue that life is more meaningless to the Christian. What does it matter what we do in this life? We are saved by grace, not by works. If a mass murderer repented before he was executed, he would go to Heaven, would he not? Thus, his life of murder and evil was meaningless, for he has gone to the glory of God.

"Live life to the fullest." Still, I ask you, "Why?" This life being the only one you get does nothing to fundamentally make that life worth anything. In a vast universe of cold, uncaring chance, we are the fluke, the statistical improbability, the odd one out. Our concern with our own survival is merely sating our arrogance]In fact, our life on earth, for us Christians, is about as meaningless as you can get, for it is finite. The afterlife, however, is eternal. That is what truly matters. However, to atheists, who do not believe in an afterlife, this life is everything. It has immense meaning because it is all that exists.[/QUOTE]I balk at the suggestion that this life is meaningless to the Christian. It is this life into which we are born, in which we grow, physically, mentally, spiritually. It is this life which nurtures who we are and we choose to be. Accountability and personal choice, which Christianity holds so close, so crucial, can only be realized in a world such as this. Calling this world meaningless simply because there is another one cheapens the importance of transition. Who among us walked without first crawling?

Self-preservation may not seem like a very glorious meaning to you, but that's a matter of opinion. Animals seem to get along just fine with just self-preservation and don't think about how meaningless or useless their existence is. My cats don't sit around going "Wait, what's the PURPOSE to my existing? Why do I live? Is there anything after this? If this life is all there is, I have no point in living!" They eat food, drink water, get petted, and nap in the sun. They don't need anything else. And they have self-preservation instincts, at least, they move out of the way when I start my car so they don't get run over (and they don't even have a concept of what death is).

This raises the peculiarity as to why humans are aware of our condition when other animals are not - as under atheism man is just another animal, fortunate in his heightened, adaptable intelligence. Furthermore, from where does the drive to exist come from? What is the origin point of the desire to remain alive in a random system? I ask these questions both seriously and rhetorically.

Regardless, it's a moot subject. As I've stated already, however glorious or inglorious you think mere survival is on any level, instinctual or acknowledged, that still doesn't instill it with any value in purposeless universe. You have to remove your ego from the equation to think about these things.

So while it's nice to say "Life is meaningless without God or religion" it just doesn't seem to be that strong of an argument to me. Animals don't believe in God, and they do just fine. And while you could argue then that "Well then I can do anything I want, everything is permissible!" you run into a couple of problems. Namely one, you wouldn't want someone to kill or harm you just because they wanted to, so you should extend that respect to others, and two, getting caught by law enforcement and shortening your life by being executed or spending it rotting in a cell is hardly the best use of your time if you think this life is all there is.

Your thinking is still too ego-centric on this Nate. You say we should extend that respect to others.

Why?

So that they'll extend that respect to you.

Why?

Because it is good that we are alive and should endeavor to remain so.

Why is it good that we are alive? Why should we endeavor to remain alive? What is good? Good for you? Good for humanity? Good for the universe?

Good for yourself and for humanity, but neither good nor bad for the universe.

Why is it good for yourself and for humanity? What is good and bad?

Good are things that help yourself and humanity. Bad are things that hurt yourself and humanity.

Why is it bad to hurt yourself and humanity?

Because we might die.

Why is dying bad?

Because if we all die, there won't be any more humans.

Why does that matter?

It doesn't.

So why bother?

Good question.

I suppose brushing your teeth is meaningless because eventually they'll just rot, giving a starving person food is meaningless because he'll just get hungry again later, saving someone's life is meaningless because they'll eventually die.

In a universe without purpose, yes. Your every action or inaction is utterly trivial and devoid of substance beyond your own self-acknowledgment that you do what you want to do because you want to do it, or don't do whatever you don't want to do because you don't want to do it.

[rocklobster]

THanks, guys. Maybe I'll use these arguments in a thread I want to create for Wrong Planet. It seems to have a lot of atheists and people who have misconceptions about Christianity.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Rock, if you want to argue against atheism, the easiest route to do this is to simply dismantle empirical science (assuming that all their argumentation is built off of science, that is), specifically their epistemology (theory of knowledge), which is most likely logical positivism or some other form of empiricism (wiki them).

David Hume does wonders against empiricism, and because of this practically all science avoids him like the plague. XD

Anyone can try to find meaning in anything. But if there is no objective God, then all created meaning is, in its logical conclusion, is meaningless.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Wow. This has become quite the thread. Fish's last comment is A+.

[Peanut]

That's pretty much true, I'd say. Everyone would have a different definition of living life to the fullest. I don't think that makes "living life to the fullest" a wrong conclusion, any more than everyone having a different favorite food means that the meaning of favorite food is invalid. One person's "fullest" might be a successful billionaire. Another's might be to eat the world's biggest hamburger. To an atheist, as long as they're enjoying this short time they have, that's what matters.

I added the bold, because if you were an atheist, I would have you cornered right now. I think that meaning, morality and order are to a degree connected. With meaning and morality I think this is especially apparent because what you see your own and other people's meaning on earth to be tends to affect how you view morality at least towards other people. You could not have a truly Christian morality and believe that people are garbage and need to all burn (though, I'm sure some people have tried). So, if enjoying my time on earth is all that matters and it can be anything I want, then how can you stop me from saying "Being the greatest mass murderer the world has ever seen" for my meaning in life? If an atheist used the argument you were using earlier, I would point out that it does contradict what they just said. If they are going to be consistent, then morality must come from the individual as well. This is where Nietzshce and (even more so) Camus went. Actually, what Fish posted earlier sounds very similar to what they themselves would say. There is no meaning, morality or order so just do what you want and enjoy yourself. That's the only logically consistent stance for an atheist that I am aware of.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

I can't do any better than Fish's post; however, I will exercise my first amendment rights and once again chuck in my pair o' pennies.

Actually, it isn't meaningless. To most atheists, the meaning is clear. To live life to the fullest, because this is the only life you get...

In regards to "living to the full" imbuing life with meaning, I think that is true. It gives life relative meaning, artificial importance, something that has subjective significance for you and perhaps those close to you. However, such an ideal does not provide life with any intrinsic or objective meaning. Living to the full may entail affecting not only those around you but even the course of human history. Still, if what you are after is the actual, concrete significance of a human life, even this kind of full living cannot provide it. A life which affects thousands of people and events is still only meaningful to a small (relative to the lifespan of the universe) circle of people and events that lack intrinsic meaning themselves. If one is satisfied with such relative meaning, then I suppose that is fine]Self-preservation may not seem like a very glorious meaning to you, but that's a matter of opinion.[/QUOTE]I don't think it's a matter of preservation providing inglorious meaning, just that it doesn't provide intrinsic/objective meaning.

But of course the atheist can simply reject the notion of objective or ultimate meaning. Or she can even reject the category of meaning altogether as simply a modern innovation, something inessential to understanding the good life (the opinion of my Ancient Philosophy professor).

[Htom Sirveaux]

Wow, why didn't I start following this thread sooner? Perhaps because it's exactly the sort of thread that makes me feel so tragically intellectually inferior. Good stuff though. Much of it I understand fully (though I never would have been able to express thoughts/opinions that way myself), some of it has me completely lost, and some I've had to just toss because I found it silly.

But, by way of making this post good for something, I offer the following two responses to posts made by people much smarter than myself:

Just as many, if not more, atrocities have occurred for the sake of secular reasons.

This is a faulty point. Many people have directly killed in the name of God. Nobody has ever killed in the name of not God. Stalin may have committed horrible atrocities, but he never said "I am killing these people in the name of atheism." He just happened to be atheist, which is incidental. People have, however, said "I am killing these people in the name of God."

Dude, seriously? You don't think maybe he meant that it's possible to kill for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with God? It looks like you touched on that there as well, but it's like affirming someone's point whilst trying argue against it.

David Hume does wonders against empiricism, and because of this practically all science avoids him like the plague. XD

True. He can also outconsume Schopenhauer and Hegel.


And while I'm thinking of it, as I'm seeing atheism defined here, it's more or less "nothing really matters, nothing is worth living for but one's own pleasure." That sounds a lot like nihilism. What's the difference?

[TheSubtleDoctor]

And while I'm thinking of it, as I'm seeing atheism defined here, it's more or less "nothing really matters, nothing is worth living for but one's own pleasure." That sounds a lot like nihilism. What's the difference?

Atheism is simply the belief that it is a fact that God does not exist. The point that many posters are driving at is that nihilism is a logical consequence of atheism and that the atheist does not realize this fact.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Atheism is simply the belief that it is a fact that God does not exist. The point that many posters are driving at is that nihilism is a logical consequence of atheism and that the atheist does not realize this fact.

In otherwords, nihilism is Atheism 32X; an extension that adds up to so much useless bulk. Gotcha.

[Syreth]

I balk at the suggestion that this life is meaningless to the Christian. It is this life into which we are born, in which we grow, physically, mentally, spiritually. It is this life which nurtures who we are and we choose to be. Accountability and personal choice, which Christianity holds so close, so crucial, can only be realized in a world such as this. Calling this world meaningless simply because there is another one cheapens the importance of transition. Who among us walked without first crawling?

^ I love this. The idea that life has meaning is an assumption that the Bible makes, and never seems to argue for, much like the existence of God. In fact, every exhortation in the epistles is absolutely profuse with the assumption that life after faith in Christ is eternally meaningful.

[Fish and Chips]

Atheism is simply the belief that it is a fact that God does not exist. The point that many posters are driving at is that nihilism is a logical consequence of atheism and that the atheist does not realize this fact.

Doc said it before I could.

Nihilism is the logical inevitability of an atheistic universe. Of course it's not a line of thought that makes a lot of people comfortable, which is probably why Nihilism's alcoholic brother Existentialism is so popular (and so stupid).

[Shao Feng-Li]

Pfft, and I've been called a nihilist for not getting into pointless relationships. This thread is kinda exciting. I've talked to evolutionists/atheists before and they've told me flat out that morality is relative and that there is no afterlife. But they don't like it when you point out that there's no point in anything they're doing. But they claim that they just want to be happy. If killing people makes you happy, then go for it. It's interesting how it all just leads to chaos. Even animals have a sense of purpose of of their Creator.

Heh, I don't think I'm adding much to this thread, but it's interesting nonetheless.