Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Penumbra]

I will never say the temporary value of life is meaningless. In fact, it is very meaningful. I am only saying that these (many) temporary meaningful life moments ARE pointing toward a more permanent meaning of life. They do not go away from the person when the person die. Atheist only see the former part, but stubbornly deny the latter part. I do not know why.

It has nothing to do with stubbornness. It has to do with assessing facts.

What permanent meaning of life are you pointing toward? Do you know what it is, and can you describe why it's meaningful?

-Lyn

 

[juvenissun]

What!? No, I don't think you got the point (or I really don't get yours). Let's take a contractor who charges $140 an hour for his services. Every hour he works is worth $140 to himself and a client. It's value doesn't change depending on the quality of work he does. The point is that life is valuable in unto itself regardless of what is done with it. My life isn't worth less when I go to a movie than it is when I give a major presentation.

Your theory also supposes that at a particular moment my life could be more valuable while I am giving a major presentation, than a firefighter who at the same moment is taking a shower. To me this seems ridiculous.

Well, my point is, in fact, the problem of good and evil. It is another major problem for atheist. It is directly related to how do you enjoy your life.

You spent your time to do evil, which will not have the same value as you spent your time to do good. Even both periods of time are equally enjoyable. So, a good contractor charged $140/hr, will be more valuable than a poor contractor who also charged $140/hr. But you said that their are equally valuable.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Yes. The moment of life is important. But the value of that moment is in question. Everyone has his or her "moment", but everyone's value at that moment is different. A thief will live a most valuable moment when he stole something the most valuable.

In order to value the moment of life, one still need to refer the value to some "ever-lasting" standard.

Someone else wanting to play cosmic mega keeping up with the Johnson's with their self worth means absolutely [censored] with how I want or need to value my life.

 

[juvenissun]

Someone else wanting to play cosmic mega keeping up with the Johnson's with their self worth means absolutely [censored] with how I want or need to value my life.

Another problem with atheism is that one may find the value of life keep changing. That is not a reasonable nature of so-called value.

 

[juvenissun]

It has nothing to do with stubbornness. It has to do with assessing facts.

What permanent meaning of life are you pointing toward? Do you know what it is, and can you describe why it's meaningful?

-Lyn

Is a king's life more meaningful or a beggar's life more meaningful? This question has a hidden question: meaningful to what? That is what I am point to. Again, an atheistic answer to this question would have a wide range of variation. That is not good. In comparison, a theistic answer will be much more focused.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In order to value the moment of life, one still need to refer the value to some "ever-lasting" standard.

Agreed, but while a standard may exceed the lifetime of any one individual (because it may equally apply to future human beings), there is no need for any individual to equal the "lifetime" (or applicability) of the standard. The finality of death does not invalidate any standard.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SiderealExalt]

Another problem with atheism is that one may find the value of life keep changing. That is not a reasonable nature of so-called value.

Thus Spake Abritrarius.

 

[JGG]

Well, my point is, in fact, the problem of good and evil. It is another major problem for atheist.

It appears to be a pretty major problem among Christians as well.

It is directly related to how do you enjoy your life.

You spent your time to do evil, which will not have the same value as you spent your time to do good. Even both periods of time are equally enjoyable.

That's a tough call as it seems to me the concepts of good and evil are pretty fuzzy. However, its irrelevant. The time itself is what's valuable.

So, a good contractor charged $140/hr, will be more valuable than a poor contractor who also charged $140/hr. But you said that their are equally valuable.

No, I said their life was equally valuable...$140/hr. That's what life is...access to time. What you're saying is that because one is a good contractor, and one is not, that the poor contractor's life is worth less....which furthermore suggests that his life is just that much more expendable. I'm saying otherwise. Regardless of the quality of the person, the value of life is still the same because life is simply access to time, and time is a constant. That moment is just as precious whether you're curing cancer, or taking a nap. If you were in a coma for three years, that is still 3 years of valuable life that has been spent.

You're asking someone who has seen terminal diseases take people he loves. So trust me, once you're in the position to really see how finite life is, you realize that one moment is no less important, or valuable than the next.

 

[JGG]

Is a king's life more meaningful or a beggar's life more meaningful? This question has a hidden question: meaningful to what? That is what I am point to. Again, an atheistic answer to this question would have a wide range of variation. That is not good. In comparison, a theistic answer will be much more focused.

So you believe in God so that you can claim that a king's life is more valuable than a beggar's?

By the way, you've been using the word "valuable" thus far, let's not switch terms to "meaningful" mid-discussion. They mean different things.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, juvenissun. So, maybe I'll just try to express my own take on the subject as thoroughly as possible:

1. Biologically and ecologically speaking, death is an integral and important aspect of life. Without death, we would literally consume ourselves, unless of course we abstained from ever producing (equally immortal) offspring. Death is not the enemy, but the motor of change, which in turn is the very essence of life.
Maybe future scientific discoveries will make it possible for us to retain our youthful vigour for vastly extended periods of time, retaining the physical fitness of a 20-year-old for hundreds of years. This will create all sorts of societal and ecological problems, but given the typical trial-and-error, mankind will either adapt to these changes in a fashion that is sustainable - or it will disappear from the face of the earth. Indeed, we may become the first species to consciously influence or even control our own evolutionary path, as opposed to just being jumbled about in reaction to external influences creating pressures. But even then, death will still be with us in one form or another. It's simply the most fundamental process of transformation, and without it, everything would be stagnant and sterile, like a chemical equilibrium. Life is change, impermanence, transformation.

2. Meaning and purpose are ideas that, for the most part, we imbue our own lives with. Of course, this can happen on many different levels, from the societal to the personal, but in the end, it's all about what we project into our own existence. As beings who are capable of premeditation and reflection, these purposes are rarely restricted to momentary, instant gratifications, but take the consequences into account. Even creatures of mere instinct shrink from that which would endanger their survival, and the same holds true for ourselves.
Thus, it would be foolish to equate happiness (that is, a feeling of serenity and fulfillment) with pleasure (that is, mere positive stimulus) - although the former can include the latter. For example, if I were in the desert, it would be quite pleasurable to take my supply of water and dump it over my head, as the cool shower would feel wonderful in the stifling heat. It would be absolutely detrimental to my life (and thus, my happiness), however, as it'd pretty much mean that I'd die of thirst.

3. There are individuals who derive happiness from acts that are detrimental to others (and, ultimately, themselves). However, the problem of evil is not metaphysical in nature - it is pretty much a mundane and altogether human concern. Moralities are cultural constructs that rely (at least partially) on social impulses that have been with us since before we gained self-awareness. And these impulses are ultimately tied to the plain necessities of surviving as a group - that's why we don't tend to feel too good about people whose short-sighted egotism would endanger our survival (and, ultimately, their own).

 

[Rasta]

To me, atheism is about intellectual honesty. I used to be religious, and I wanted to know what was true. How can people be wrong if they believe they are right? The more I studied religions, the more I realized that each religion operates on the same dynamic. Faith. What is faith? Faith is belief without verification. So I took a look at my own beliefs and realized I was in the same boat with everybody else. I didn't know the truth, just like they don't know. Confidence is not knowing. People can be sincerely wrong. Obviously, everybody can't be right. Everybody can be wrong however.

So I asked myself: "How do I know that I am right?" I could only answer: "I don't."

 

[Rasta]

Another problem with atheism is that one may find the value of life keep changing. That is not a reasonable nature of so-called value.

Perhaps if you are looking through a lense of absolutes. Change is the only constant however.

 

[juvenissun]

To me, atheism is about intellectual honesty. I used to be religious, and I wanted to know what was true. How can people be wrong if they believe they are right? The more I studied religions, the more I realized that each religion operates on the same dynamic. Faith. What is faith? Faith is belief without verification. So I took a look at my own beliefs and realized I was in the same boat with everybody else. I didn't know the truth, just like they don't know. Confidence is not knowing. People can be sincerely wrong. Obviously, everybody can't be right. Everybody can be wrong however.

So I asked myself: "How do I know that I am right?" I could only answer: "I don't."

You don't know what is right. But you know atheism is right. I don't see an honesty there.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, juvenissun. So, maybe I'll just try to express my own take on the subject as thoroughly as possible:

1. Biologically and ecologically speaking, death is an integral and important aspect of life. Without death, we would literally consume ourselves, unless of course we abstained from ever producing (equally immortal) offspring. Death is not the enemy, but the motor of change, which in turn is the very essence of life.
Maybe future scientific discoveries will make it possible for us to retain our youthful vigour for vastly extended periods of time, retaining the physical fitness of a 20-year-old for hundreds of years. This will create all sorts of societal and ecological problems, but given the typical trial-and-error, mankind will either adapt to these changes in a fashion that is sustainable - or it will disappear from the face of the earth. Indeed, we may become the first species to consciously influence or even control our own evolutionary path, as opposed to just being jumbled about in reaction to external influences creating pressures. But even then, death will still be with us in one form or another. It's simply the most fundamental process of transformation, and without it, everything would be stagnant and sterile, like a chemical equilibrium. Life is change, impermanence, transformation.

2. Meaning and purpose are ideas that, for the most part, we imbue our own lives with. Of course, this can happen on many different levels, from the societal to the personal, but in the end, it's all about what we project into our own existence. As beings who are capable of premeditation and reflection, these purposes are rarely restricted to momentary, instant gratifications, but take the consequences into account. Even creatures of mere instinct shrink from that which would endanger their survival, and the same holds true for ourselves.
Thus, it would be foolish to equate happiness (that is, a feeling of serenity and fulfillment) with pleasure (that is, mere positive stimulus) - although the former can include the latter. For example, if I were in the desert, it would be quite pleasurable to take my supply of water and dump it over my head, as the cool shower would feel wonderful in the stifling heat. It would be absolutely detrimental to my life (and thus, my happiness), however, as it'd pretty much mean that I'd die of thirst.

3. There are individuals who derive happiness from acts that are detrimental to others (and, ultimately, themselves). However, the problem of evil is not metaphysical in nature - it is pretty much a mundane and altogether human concern. Moralities are cultural constructs that rely (at least partially) on social impulses that have been with us since before we gained self-awareness. And these impulses are ultimately tied to the plain necessities of surviving as a group - that's why we don't tend to feel too good about people whose short-sighted egotism would endanger our survival (and, ultimately, their own).

Thanks for the elaboration.

As I said, I was an atheist. But I forgot what was my reason for that. Now I don't see a reason to be an atheist. So I want to hear some refreshing ideas. Thanks for all the posts. I got it, even I did not hear anything I did not know. I really like to hear some reasons from atheist older than 50. The view should be different.

Thanks anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

So you believe in God so that you can claim that a king's life is more valuable than a beggar's?

By the way, you've been using the word "valuable" thus far, let's not switch terms to "meaningful" mid-discussion. They mean different things.

You may argue that they are different. But, for me, it is the same, at least before you explain the difference.

Things with low value are not very meaningful. They have a proportional relationship.

 

[juvenissun]

It appears to be a pretty major problem among Christians as well.



That's a tough call as it seems to me the concepts of good and evil are pretty fuzzy. However, its irrelevant. The time itself is what's valuable.



No, I said their life was equally valuable...$140/hr. That's what life is...access to time. What you're saying is that because one is a good contractor, and one is not, that the poor contractor's life is worth less....which furthermore suggests that his life is just that much more expendable. I'm saying otherwise. Regardless of the quality of the person, the value of life is still the same because life is simply access to time, and time is a constant. That moment is just as precious whether you're curing cancer, or taking a nap. If you were in a coma for three years, that is still 3 years of valuable life that has been spent.

You're asking someone who has seen terminal diseases take people he loves. So trust me, once you're in the position to really see how finite life is, you realize that one moment is no less important, or valuable than the next.

So, a brilliant artist die young has less value (to himself or herself?). Or, a POW (surrendered coward) will have a better (or more) value of life than soldiers who rather die in the battle?

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Things with low value are not very meaningful. They have a proportional relationship.

Isn't all life equally meaningful and valuable? What does Christianity say on this matter, Juvenissun?

 

[juvenissun]

Agreed, but while a standard may exceed the lifetime of any one individual (because it may equally apply to future human beings), there is no need for any individual to equal the "lifetime" (or applicability) of the standard. The finality of death does not invalidate any standard.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So you would think: "Let's go out and rape, since the earth will be destroyed tomorrow" is a justified idea?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you would think: "Let's go out and rape, since the earth will be destroyed tomorrow" is a justified idea?

Huh? How did you get that out of what I wrote? Please explain what you thought I meant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Isn't all life equally meaningful and valuable? What does Christianity say on this matter, Juvenissun?

Not at all. Christianity says a life which does not believe in Jesus (is God), has no value, zero value.

Sounds tyrannical. But it has a theology behind this simple conclusion. For example, the word "value" is yet to be defined.