Is everything "meaningless" without God?

[Hieronymus]

Christians are often that with their view that human life has no meaning in its own right.

Nope, because they're theists they're not nihilists, obviously.

 

[Hieronymus]

Nihilists in denial

I'm not a nihilist

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nope, because they're theists they're not nihilists, obviously.

They are nihilists with respect to human beings. They make human beings dependent on a deity's plans in order for any meaning to exist. That indicates that human life is meaningless without a literal deus ex machina. That is a sort of nihilism.

But if you are really going to take the definitionalist approach, I could declare with equal force that atheists are not nihilists if they believe that there is meaning in life. You may argue that they are incorrect in their views, but they wouldn't be "in denial".

Unless, of course, you want to accept that Christians may simply be atheists in denial.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Unless, of course, you want to accept that Christians may simply be atheists in denial.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Tuché


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Chany]

Nihilism is true in the sense that there is no universal decree that gives man a final cause; it does not mean that any sense of meaning is automatically worthless for agents specifically because meaning and purpose is entirely given by agents. The problem is that agents are ultimately equal in their assignment of value. Even if God "decrees" what my purpose is, unless I am turned into a machine who cannot actually think, then I do not necessarily have to follow it. It means that even God cannot constrain and bind our purpose in the same way the law of gravity constrains and binds us. Who cares if the end is eternal? Hell is eternal, though it is seen as bad.

No, the only reasonable way to make this work is to say:

1. All people ultimately want to be fulfilled.

2. The only way to gain fulfillment is through following Christianity.

All this means is that we don't actually value God, but we value ourselves and our own internal feelings.

 

[Hieronymus]

They are nihilists with respect to human beings.

Nope.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You still have not read the op definition of the word "meaningless". I explained the context derived from the hebrew. If something is meaningless, it does not mean "without meaning".

It flipping does TO mean that:

mean·ing·less
ˈmēniNGləs/
adjective

1. having no meaning or significance.

It means vanity, futile, pointless, "chasing the wind", ect. The reason why you continue to cling onto your definition of "meaningless " rather than that of the OP is because you know you don't have an arguement.

I'm "clinging" onto the actual definition of the word. The fact that you're resorting to a definition that is NOT the standard definition seems to prove my point. You're playing around with language in an attempt to show that a non theist's life is meaningless. But no one is falling for it. It's demonstrably false, and it's intellectually dishonest.

What if I and all the other non theists decide to call the indoctrination of children into Christianity "child abuse". Would you be upset at a thread titled "Why are most Christians child abusers?", or would you brush it off as word play designed to elicit a reaction?

Even you said yourself that " in the end life is meaningless". And that is the point. Anything you do apart from God will amount to nothing in the end.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. Again, more dishonesty.

What I said was that if you give meaning to your life, that meaning dies with you. That has nothing to do with the value of that meaning while you are alive. The fact that meaning ceases when the giver of the meaning no longer exists doesn't bother me in the least, and I doubt it bothers any non theist. Your seeming insistence that it should just shows how desperately you want non theists to be unhappy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope, because they're theists they're not nihilists, obviously.

Many theists are one short step away from nihilism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok, I see where you are coming from . I agree in part but not entirely. Here is why. I believe that Greek is in some ways superior to English or Latin because it has many more words in its vocabulary. Many words that were used in the NT Greek did not have an English equivalent. "Love" is an example. There are three types of love used in the NT Greek.
Eros is a Greek term which actually means desire and longing. And according to the Greek methodology, Eros is the name of the Greek god of love. Also referred to as erotic love, this is a selfish kind of love as it associated with sexual love. Eros love is based on the strong feeling we have against one another and it usually develops during the 1st stage of a romantic relationship. This kind of love is based on the physical traits. And unless it is redeemed by the Lord’s presence; this type of love can end up being possessive, since it always seeks to 1st conquer and then control.

God created physical attraction between a man & a woman, but He never intended for it to be selfish. He created desire and longing which makes up sexual love which is crucial in any marriage. This love was meant to be preserved between a couple and it is essential for any health marriage. And since it is mostly based on self-benefit, many people tend to fall out of love if they are not happy with the marriage.

Philos love is a unique kind of love like the one you have for a companion or pal. It refers to loving one another just like your brother or sister. This love is for a pal who is really close and dear to us and it is characterized by various different shared experiences between two people. In fact this is the kind of love that many Christians tend to practice towards one another. And although philos love is really wonderful, it is not that much reliable, since it can end up souring at times as we have all experienced at some point in our lives.

Agape love is a special term which represents the divine-love of the Lord towards his Son Jesus Christ, the human beings and all believers. This is the best of the three types of love in the bible, in fact Jesus himself showed this type of divine love to his Dad in heaven and humanity. Agape love is the love that God commanded all believers to have for everyone whether he/she is a believer or not. Agape love should never be determined by our feelings; it is more of a set of behaviors or actions. With agape, you do not have to actually feel it for you to give it, which means that you can be able to show love without feeling anything at all. At times feelings can follow after showing this kind of love.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a). What do you notice about everything that Paul uses to explain what love (agape) is and is not? They are all actions that we can choose or choose not to do. More specifically, anytime you put another's needs ahead of your own, you are demonstrating (Agape) love for that person. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's love for one's friends." (John 15:13) Once again, this "greatest love" is an action... not a feeling.

Before I move on further, can we come to an understanding about what type of love we are talking about? I have to make sure we are both on the same page before I continue.

Ok, so what's your point then?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Saying "I'm not a nihilist" does not mean I really am a nihilist, but I'm in denial.

If you want to make that claim, then back it up or retract your blatant dishonesty.

Seeing as you know very little about me, I look forward to you attempting to prove that I am indeed a nihilist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nope.

You might want to respond to the rest of my paragraph instead of merely clipping it off and ignoring it. I explained why I think that Christians are nihilists with respect to human beings.

Here is the full paragraph:

They are nihilists with respect to human beings. They make human beings dependent on a deity's plans in order for any meaning to exist. That indicates that human life is meaningless without a literal deus ex machina. That is a sort of nihilism.

What is it here that you disagree with?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[StanJ]

2/3 of the worlds population disagree with your faith beliefs.
That is reality.

That is your assertion that there's no reality at all in it which is why you can't prove it.

 

[Davian]

You make me wonder if there is salvation from salvation.

Knock Knock

• Davian
• Jan 1, 2015

 

[Davian]

YHWH claims He is that first cause.
Causer rather.
He has the best credentials by far.

I'd like to see these alleged credentials. Can you produce them, here in this forum?

No?

I didn't think so.

 

[Davian]

What about the inability for an atheist to accept the fact that the best they can hope for is to live their life the best they can before they die and fade off into non-existence?

I have already accepted that fact. How long will it take you to accept that fact?

If I was an atheist, I wouldn't see any problem with that.

Then why does it seem you want some reactionary-type response from the unbelievers in this thread?

Just to know that this little time I have in life is all I have so I better make it count.

I'm doing okay, thanks.

I am not trying to get any unbelievers to accept anything other than the facts I just stated above. I am not a nihilistic, but I wonder why atheists are not.

It seems you are only giving me two options here: make do with what I have, or delude myself into thinking otherwise.

And did you not concede earlier that beliefs are not a conscious choice?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sent from my Mac Pro.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Ok, so what's your point then?

OK, so now that we have an understanding on what type of love we are talking about we can move on to (1 James 4:7-21)

"God’s Love and Ours
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him (action). 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (action). 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."

I took the liberty of highlighting some key points in the verse. This is important because when asked "what was God's purpose?" I would argue that one of the purposes that He gave himself was to love and to be loved in return. I was also told by others on this thread that "God does not need anything. He is God. Why would God need anything from us?". Well, now that we understand that love (agape) is an action. Can someone have the capability to express love if that person has nothing or nobody to love? Although it could be debatable, I would argue that it is not possible. If there was no liquids, are you capable of swimming?

I believe that this is why God created the universe and all life (including mankind). Because He needs us in order to have the capacity to express His love.

Verses 16-18 is important. It tells us that we should not love out of fear. So to call Christians "sycophants " is wrong because Christians should not choose to obey God out of fear...but out of love.

Are you following so far? Do you have any questions or shall I continue explaining how all this can be applied to atheists?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I have already accepted that fact. How long will it take you to accept that fact?

Well, because I am a Christian, I have no reason to accept that fact because I believe in an eternal reward in the afterlife.

Then why does it seem you want some reactionary-type response from the unbelievers in this thread?

It seems as though you have an understanding of what I am trying to explain. The response that I am trying to receive is for other atheists to come to the same realizations that you have.

I'm doing okay, thanks.

See, it's not so bad. People can live a perfectly content life and still accept the fact that without God the best anyone can hope for is to make the best out of whatever little time they have in existance.

It seems you are only giving me two options here: make do with what I have, or delude myself into thinking otherwise.

I wouldn't call it "deluding yourself" but yes. You have two options: be an atheist and believe that all you can do is "make due" with whatever little time you have in your existence (Which is what all atheism has to offer) or be a theist who believes any religion with an eternal afterlife who thus believes that there is more to life than just a mere earthly existance.

And did you not concede earlier that beliefs are not a conscious choice?

Yes, belief is a product of knowledge and understanding and is IMO not a choice. Which is why I am not trying to make you choose to believe or not believe in God. The point of this whole thread is not to make anyone choose to believe in God. But rather to lay out an argument to make atheists accept the facts mentioned above that you seem to grasp.

Sent from my Mac Pro.

I just got a new Samsung Galaxy S7 (without the edge) which in my opinion much better. I had thought about getting an apple computer though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[bhsmte]

That is your assertion that there's no reality at all in it which is why you can't prove it.

Tell that to the billions of muslims, hindus etc.

 

[StanJ]

Tell that to the billions of muslims, hindus etc.

They're not on this forum and they're not the ones making this assertion, you are.

 

[Davian]

Please understand that God does not cause anybody to go to hell. Rather, man chooses to go there on his own.

Yet you just conceded that one cannot consciously choose what one believes. You contradict yourself.

You can see the progression of those who reject Christ in the first 3 chapters of the book of Romans. The wrath of God is revealed against the unrighteous because man rejects the Creator and worships the creation (Romans 1:18-20). Men profess to be wise in their own eyes (v. 22) and exchange the glory of God for created things. These people then continue in a downward spiral of sin that is listed in verses 28-31, sins to which all of us can relate. Not only do they participate in these sins, but they also approve of those who do them (v. 32). Not only do men have the creation of the world to see God’s power, but they also have their consciences convicting them of their sin (2:14-15). In the end, man is left without excuse that we deserve to die, and we stand condemned in front of God.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh so that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30,31). This is another witness to God’s existence and also stands to condemn those men who choose to reject Christ as the Son of God. Because Christ came to pay the price of sin, and He came to “explain the Father” (John 1:18), man has no excuse for rejecting Him. Men choose to go to hell because they reject Christ, not because God causes them to go there. God has paid the price, revealed Himself to all, and now men are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). God allows people to be born to give them the opportunity to believe, but it is man’s responsibility to make that choice. What kind of God would He be if He did not give man the opportunity to place his faith in the Lord?

This is still a very difficult concept to grasp. We can only cling to what we know about God’s nature and character, trust that His sovereignty and mercy do not contradict one another, and believe that everything He does and/or allows will ultimately be for His glory. We submit ourselves to Him in worship and obedience and trust that He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11) and that His ways are perfect, even when we don’t understand them. “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

I don't see any reason to trust what is written in the bible. I just watch as you contradict yourself.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sent from my Mac Pro.