As an agnostic/atheist, my answer if of course yes. but, what concerns me, is that some people i've encountered believe that life means absolutely nothing without a god.

I understand that as a Christian, the idea of no god maybe a bit scary as you then have to face the idea of cessation of existence when you die. or no ultimate justice being exacted on people who did evil but were never held accountable. But surely, you must see that life is just as precious and sacred whether or not a god exists. right?

So if you're one of these people, and for some reason you stop believing in god. would you feel then that it is okay to murder and rape because there's no god watching your every move?

I contend that those who do not believe in an afterlife, like myself, often view life as being more sacred and precious because of that very reason(see: islam). this is the only one we'll ever have.

I contend that those who do not believe in an afterlife, like myself, often view life as being more sacred and precious because of that very reason(see: islam). this is the only one we'll ever have.
**********************

i will agree with you that most people that were born will consider life sacred. however, the problem arises because most people see their own life as more important/sacred than lives of other people. that could be explained by the naural "instinct of survival". for example, when society breaks down (i.e. the country of Liberia) and it's every man for himself, then you have some ugly evidence how people truly view their own life as more sacred than another's.

If all there ever was, is or will be is a bunch of mater, then words like sacred and precious are meaningless. Everything is all just mater changing forms. You come from insignificant mater, you go to insignificant mater, how can you then say what happens in-between that is significant? Sacred and precious are just electrical pulses happening in a piece of mater that have no more meaning than the pulses in the brain mater of a worm, or the electricity going into your computer mater. There is no basis for good, or evil, or precious, or sacred, or right or wrong in your material philosophy.

You are unknowingly borrowing from other philosophical constructs such as Christianity, or even Humanism to build your current worldview. This is a huge problem that most atheists have never figured out or even thought of, because they are typically never challenged. I guess they just pretend to be the smart ones, and get a pass.

However, there is a huge inconsistency in your view of the ultimate nature of reality and the noble sounding language (such as sacred, precious) or meanings that you try to apply to the world around you.



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/5/2011 12:51a).]

notafraid... why, thank you for telling me exactly what my worldview is and what i can and cannot say. i don't follow any philosophy. i didn't need to read anything to gain my values. i gained them from my parents, the people in my life who influenced me positively. some of what i believe may or may not have been expressed by various people, who believe in many different things. but because they arrived at one conclusion and wrote it down before i did does not mean i ''borrowed'' that person's philosophy.

i trust you understand what the phrase agnostic atheist means, right? if not, essentially it means one lacks a belief in any gods. that's it. it doesn't mean does/doesn't believe in ghosts. it doesn't mean believes/disbelieves in the tooth faerie, easter bunny, sasquatch, etc.

you can be an atheist and believe whatever the hell you want, as long as that thing is not what you consider a god. there is no dogma, there is no written word to follow, no code, no thursday night book club. so yes, notafraid, i can use whatever words i damn well please, and with just as much meaning.

and fyi, christianity is not by any means an original ''philosophical construct.'' the hindus, who come the closest imho to penning the nature of reality, wrote down the basis of christian moral code thousands of years before. so did the sumerians, the egyptians, the turks. you should get off your jesus high horse and quit acting like the bible is somehow original. it is not.

now, why don't you tell me why life means nothing without a god.


[This message has been edited by senorchipotle (edited 1/5/2011 2:18a).]

quote:

---

now, why don't you tell me why life means nothing without a god.

---

I think he covered it pretty well in his first paragraph.

As a young man, C.S. Lewis asked himself similar questions. He wondered about life's meaning, about why he gravitated toward "good" characters in a novel, why he cared about transcendental things.

He concluded that a purely naturalistic approach to reality can not account for the "why" of such universal questions.

These questions started the beginning of his road to God.

It still amazes me how many of my atheist friends and clients want to talk about God.

I think it depends on what you mean by significance and from what point of view you are looking at it. On a personal level of course my life and the lives of those that I care about are significant. It is all I will ever have or know. I wouldn't use words like "sacred" to describe it though. It is from this frame of reference that most people define what matters to them and determine what they feel the purpose of their lives are.

But sure, in the long run it is entirely possible for our world and everything in it to die without anyone else in the universe (assuming there are other intelligent life forms out there, which I feel is likely) ever noticing. In fact I think it's likely that civilizations have risen and fallen all over the universe in the past that we will not ever know about. Were they insignificant? Not from their point of view.

The word is MATTER, not MATER.

[This message has been edited by Rocag (edited 1/5/2011 8:51a).]

It depends on what you mean by meaning in one's life. I suppose most atheists would take meaning in life to be whatever you make of it while you are alive. Existentialism comes in many forms, but whatever form you're the most fond of, I think that view provides the best sort of meaning an atheist could hope to try and obtain. My problem with that view is that it is entirely relative and subjective, and I don't think meaning should be left to rot away in that sort of an isolated and irrational paradigm.

[This message has been edited by Cyprian (edited 1/5/2011 8:58a).]

We need to clarify what it means to ask if life has meaning. Certainly, life can have first-person significance even if there is no God. The question is whether or not first-person significance is meaning. I don't think it is.

If there is no God, everything is an accident. The universe doesn't care. Love is not objectively significant - it is an accident of our biology and circumstances. Nothing endures.
Not only are we are nothing more than a cosmic hiccup, but love itself is an accident and any ideas we have of something bigger than ourselves is a useful delusion.

quote:

---

If there is no God, everything is an accident. The universe doesn't care. Love is not objectively significant - it is an accident of our biology and circumstances. Nothing endures.
Not only are we are nothing more than a cosmic hiccup, but love itself is an accident and any ideas we have of something bigger than ourselves is a useful delusion.

---

I am not bothered by this. Perhaps it's comforting to imagine yourself as the center of the universe but I just don't see any reason why that would be the case, no matter how appealing that idea may be.

quote:

---

I am not bothered by this

---

I'm somewhat taken back when I read things like this. Religious people often get mocked from non-believers as they get on them for believing in what they think are religious delusions, and how wrong it is to believe in delusions, but then those same people turn around and openly accept delusions like love and meaning in one's live like it is no big deal.

[This message has been edited by Cyprian (edited 1/5/2011 9:35a).]

quote:

---

I am not bothered by this

---

It's taken a while for me to realize and accept that there are a lot of people who feel this way. Our Lord promised that for those that asked, it would be answered, for those that seek, they would find, and for those that knock, the door would be opened. But, a significant number of people aren't asking, seeking or knocking...and are just fine.

I think it's important that I restrain my natural instinct to be a jackass so that if or when they do ask, seek or knock, I can maybe serve as an instrument of God's Grace.

Dang it....I clicked the wrong emoticon!

[This message has been edited by DGdad (edited 1/5/2011 9:42a).]

Well I was more referring to his statement concerning the universe not caring, our existence being "an accident" (ie the universe was not created for us), and that our emotions are a product of evolution. I would not describe love as a delusion either, it is real thing that serves an important role in our lives. Why should it only have importance if it was a divine creation?

Rocag,

What is your opinion on "good" or "evil", or right and wrong? You say that Love is a useful, or significant product of evolution, but what how can the “only matter” based worldview claim it’s somehow wrong if white matter to tells black matter to sit on the back of the bus?

quote:

---

If all there ever was, is or will be is a bunch of mater, then words like sacred and precious are meaningless.

---

Wrong. Relative to the people who make these statements and the societies they belong to, these words have great meaning.

quote:

---

Everything is all just mater changing forms. You come from insignificant mater, you go to insignificant mater, how can you then say what happens in-between that is significant?

---

by your life expereinces, relationships, goals attained, etc. Life is precious relative to the individual and its societies. That is what makes the in-between significant.

quote:

---

Sacred and precious are just electrical pulses happening in a piece of mater that have no more meaning than the pulses in the brain mater of a worm, or the electricity going into your computer mater. There is no basis for good, or evil, or precious, or sacred, or right or wrong in your material philosophy.

---

Since morals are nothing more than the rules relative to societies, there is certainly a scientifically plausible basis for good, or evil, or precious, or sacred, or right or wrong.

It is all relative.

Notafraid's first post is really very good.

I had almost a decade of what I call a "Moses on the mountain" time. If you'll follow me for a second, this will all tie in. It started with a rejection of a Baptist upbringing (ideas like inerrant scriptures) then quickly moved to an impersonal God, then I casually drifted into atheism. However, I remained open minded, kept learning, searching, and came to the conclusion which is summarized in Notafraid's first post.

Though I don't hear God, though we don't talk, though, there is much left unanswered, the sheer fact that I even consider such things is beyond reason. Words like love, precious, art, laughter, legacy, hatred, and hundreds of others which uniquely apply to the human condition are not easily explained. Certainly, there are reflections of them in other animals.

However, the one that got me more than any those was unselfishness. We have learned as a species that we all get along better if we are dictated by morals and unselfish love. No other species that I am aware of demonstrates the level we are capable of demonstrating. And this isn't new in concept. It's been handed and refined for thousands of years.

Now, the atheist (myself once included) will argue we are just that far ahead in the evolutionary game. To which I finally had to call B.S. on and admit to a divine deity.

But I will say, when in my Southern Baptist mindset years ago, the idea of no God scared the living jeevies out of me.

Now, not so much if at all.

[This message has been edited by mch4970 (edited 1/5/2011 10:54a).]

Define what you mean by "good" and "evil", then I will tell you what I think of them. Obviously though, if your definition hinges on how you believe God views a subject I am not going to share that point of view.

mch, other animals do show unselfishness just as humans do. Although I wouldn't use terms like "more or less evolved", I would say that humanity, due to our intelligence, is capable of far more complicated activities than other species. Because of this we have the opportunity to show traits, like unselfishness, in a wider variety of ways.

quote:

---

Wrong. Relative to the people who make these statements and the societies they belong to, these words have great meaning.

---

No, they deludedly assign meaning that doesn't exist. If there is no universal meaning, then every other meaning is delusion.

And that's fine Rocag. That's exactly the response I would have given when in your position.

Diving deeper and deeper though, it just doesn't add up for me.

But no one could convince me but me of anything. Stay true to yourself. We are all looking for fellowship, truth, confidence, and confirmation, which is probably why an atheist as yourself is on this board. There are too many questions left unanswered in life.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Relative to the people who make these statements and the societies they belong to, these words have great meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they deludedly assign meaning that doesn't exist. If there is no universal meaning, then every other meaning is delusion.

---

Relative to the individuals and socieities that meaning does exist. A universal meaning (which I assume you mean one that is relative all) is irrelevant.

I am not understanding your point of view. You say it "doesn't add up", but don't say how you came to that conclusion. If there was no actual reason and it was just a feeling you had, well then I will just have to disagree.

quote:

---

Perhaps it's comforting to imagine yourself as the center of the universe

---

Why would you say that? I don't think imagining such a thing would be comforting at all. I think it the idea of imagining ourselves as the center of meaning is horrifying. I also think it is false.

Can someone clearly define meaning here? (without begging the question that all meaning is relvative)*


* - had to throw that in there as I see muster ag has graced us with his presense in another thread

quote:

---

Relative to the individuals and socieities that meaning does exist.

---

When someone hears voices, we tell them it's delusion. When someone finds "meaning" in drugs, alcohol, or the misery of others we tell them it's sickness. But now, magically, one's relative experience becomes something we accept as being legitimate?

This meaning you assure me has significance has to be either self- or collective-delusion.

For a man of science and reason who demands empirical justification of your beliefs its amazing how you have so casually violated your own worldview when it doesn't fit what you want to be true.

quote:

---

When someone hears voices, we tell them it's delusion.

---

Mainly because relative to most modern societies, (through empiricism, btw.) this behaviour is thought to be an brain issue of the individual and not a value to the society as a whole. Ironically, this is not and has not been the case relative some religious societies which can consider this behaviour as "talking to a deity" and may have meaning.

quote:

---

When someone finds "meaning" in drugs, alcohol, or the misery of others we tell them it's sickness.

---

Because relative to modern successful societies, these kinds of behaviours are generally not productive. Relative to the individual, these may have meaning.

quote:

---

But now, magically, one's relative experience becomes something we accept as being legitimate?

---

It all depends (relative to) how "we" is defined.

quote:

---

This meaning you assure me has significance has to be either self- or collective-delusion.

---

A meaning only has significance when it is referenced to who (individual or society) is judging its significance.

quote:

---

For a man of science and reason who demands empirical justification of your beliefs its amazing how you have so casually violated your own worldview when it doesn't fit what you want to be true.

---

Not at all. As has been hashed out here before, a societal evolution model provides a scientifically plausible explanation of how societies evolved along with the rules (morals) relative to them.

and the cool thing is that societal evolution model provides a method for explaining morals, etc. without the need for the making up of supernatural father type figures to justify them.

What best defines and distinguishes being human from being something else?

Things like love, passion, curiosity, introspection, creativity and grace all come to my mind.

What are these things in a materialist world view? Are they real?

At their most base form, aren't they just chemical reactions that happen in the brain that release endorphins or whatever other hormones and cause a sensation?

This will get howls from some I'm sure, but it seems to me that without the idea of a soul separate from the body, then the primary purpose of being human should be to consume as much as possible from life, reproduce, and then be consumed. Expend as little energy as possible while producing as many "pleasurable" endorphins as possible until you expire.

Disagree or not, please consider the following question:

If it is your belief that you have only one lifetime in which you will exist, and after that your function is to serve as decomposing nutrients for whatever comes after you, why are you spending that precious time discussing, accusing, indicting, and otherwise dismissing a god that you don't believe exists?

Isn't that a terrible waste of time? Don't you have something better to do? Which part of the chemical reactions happening in your material brain are causing you to contemplate the nature and existence of a god, to the extent that you spend your days doing it?

Would not such a person be deemed mentally defective, in that their brain is contemplating things that the same brain has rejected as being irrational? How are the few days you have in this single and limited existence being improved or enriched by discussing an imagined being that people who delusional and obviously insane pretend to serve?

I feel, and maybe I am wrong, that a true atheist would see no value in participating in discussions about religion or philosophy.

Both religion and philosophy in a true materialist's world view should be deemed a waste of time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. If you disagree, please enlighten me as to why I am wrong.

Perhs others will disagree, but I think if my worldview was truly materialistic, I would be a lazy, narcissistic drug and sex addict. But perhaps that doesn't apply to anyone else, and is nothing more than a public confession of the depth of my own depravity.

i am still waiting on someone, anyone, notafraid(calling you out), to tell me why the existence of a God gives life more significance. or why the non-existence of a god makes life worthless. regardless, we are all here in this forum debating if a god exists or if a god doesn't exist. please explain to me how this experience matters any less if you don't get to go to heaven after you die.

also, we are not an ''accident.'' is it an accident that hydrogen bonds to oxygen? is it an accident that amino acids, which happen to be what composes RNA, clusters together and replicates? no, it is not an ''accident.'' these things are inevitable, evolution is inevitable, we exist, thus we are inevitable. we are no accident.

quote:

---

Rocag: I am not understanding your point of view. You say it "doesn't add up", but don't say how you came to that conclusion. If there was no actual reason and it was just a feeling you had, well then I will just have to disagree.

---

Let's just say I don't scientifically rule out the possibility of something much much much bigger than us out there. It would be unjust for me to.

''What best defines and distinguishes being human from being something else?''

we can use tools, we're smarter, and we communicate by cell phone. to say we have more complex emotions is ignorant.

''Things like love, passion, curiosity, introspection, creativity and grace all come to my mind. ''

i'll give you introspection, but that's it. non-human animals possess all those qualities, and more

''What are these things in a materialist world view? Are they real? ''

well, they exist to all the non-believers here. so, yeah. they do.

''At their most base form, aren't they just chemical reactions that happen in the brain that release endorphins or whatever other hormones and cause a sensation?''

what you christians fail to realize, it that they are still just chemical reactions, we still have an electronic brain that produces endorphins and releases seratonin. our chemical composition is the same whether or not a god exists. this apology is mickey mouse, dude.

''This will get howls from some I'm sure, but it seems to me that without the idea......endorphins as possible until you expire. ''

and how crappy would the world be if we non-believers actually felt the same way you do?


''If it is your belief that you have only one lifetime in which you will exist,... discussing, accusing, indicting, and otherwise dismissing a god that you don't believe exists?''

because it's, wait for it... INTERESTING!!! what else am i gonna do, i'm at work and bored. what, am i going to go rape somebody cause i don't believe in an afterlife? what's the justification for that?

''Isn't that a terrible waste of time? Don't you have something better to do? W...ng you to contemplate the nature and existence of a god, to the extent that you spend your days doing it?''

precisely the SAME chemical reactions in our material brain that would be active whether or not a god exists.

''Would not such a person be deemed mentally defective, in that their brain ... being improved or enriched by discussing an imagined being that people who delusional and obviously insane pretend to serve?''

we have to live with you, our families are mostly christians, we WERE christians. better to understand than not. plus, it's fun to debate. everybody likes to debate. what gives all those atheist scientists the motivation to do what they do. why don't they just blow up spaceships and fossils cause it all means nothing... argh! see how foolish this POV sounds?

''I feel, and maybe I am wrong, that a true atheist would see no value in participating in discussions about religion or philosophy. ''

yeah, you are dead wrong on this, dude.

''Both religion and philosophy in a true materialist's world view should be deemed a waste of time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. If you disagree, please enlighten me as to why I am wrong. ''

like i said before, atheist =/= materialist, so there is no such thing as a ''true atheist'' any more than a ''true christian.''

better used doing what, exactly? throwing people off buildings, violating elephants, cutting off people's ears, wrestling alligators naked? if belief in a God is keeping you from this fate, then please keep believing.

i really expected more understanding after our last exchange. perhaps i was mistaken.

quote:

---

Both religion and philosophy in a true materialist's world view should be deemed a waste of time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. If you disagree, please enlighten me as to why I am wrong.

---

From my point of view, I care about others family, friends, neighbors, etc. (selfishly) and want them to continue to grow, reproduce, evolve etc. because I consider them a part of what I define as "self". I would consider that there is a heirarchy of how we allocate our priorities in decisions relative to our individual self which would probably be highest (but not always), children and other family members might follow, extended family might be next, after that it might look like: friends, people of same nationality, humans in general, animals, insects, plants, etc.

Each individual would have different priorities of how they allocate what they define as "self".

A justification for these "considerations of others as self" might stem from an evolutionary trait for wanting things similar us to survive. The farther away from us in definition the less likely we are of allocating a portion of our self to them. You could call it "caring".

Oh, and these reason I posted the quote is that the reason, I debate religion is that I care about yall .

[This message has been edited by muster ag (edited 1/5/2011 2:11p).]

quote:

---

non-human animals possess all those qualities, and more

---

I'm interested in how any of us could even begin to assert whether or not this is true or not. You know a lot of animals that can describe their passions to you?

quote:

---

I'm interested in how any of us could even begin to assert whether or not this is true or not. You know a lot of animals that can describe their passions to you?

---

i studied animal science at A&M and was in 4H as a kid and grew up having horses and cows, etc. my gf and i've got a few cats now. so i've pretty much been around animals my whole life.

if you don't think animals love, you've never been charged by a mama cow, or seen a dog rescue a human or even a fellow dog. you wanna see passion, watch the kentucky derby. or a dog out duck hunting on a cold morning. curiosity, come interact with my cats. creativity, go see a show at sea world.

i'm guessing you don't have any pets.