Is everything "meaningless" without God?

[bhsmte]

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

Are you denying that christians make up 1/3 of the worlds population and the other 2/3 are non christians and non believers?

 

[Davian]

If love is an emotion, is it possible to love someone even though you are angry with them? Like a spouse who upset you? Also, can you control your emotions? I can agree that we can control our response to emotions but not the emotion itself. With that being said, if love is an emotion, can we choose to love?

Consciously? No, not in my experience.

 

[Davian]

Nihilists in denial.

Self-deceived theists.

Not much a choice there.

 

[Davian]

Relevant to this thread: https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/05/31/sean-carroll-the-big-picture/

FFRF interviews physicist Sean M Carroll, whose newest book is The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself.

(interview begins at 21m10s)

http://ffrf.libsyn.com/the-big-picture

 

[Hieronymus]

Self-deceived theists.

Not self-deceived.

 

[Davian]

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

But you do acknowledge it as a fact, do you not? That there is no scientific basis for proposing the existence of one's consciousness beyond the death of ones body?

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.

Yet I am not a nihilist.

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.

So you then concede that there can be meaning in life without gods?

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.

Of course you do not want to refer to yourself as deluded, but you need to see the options you are presenting in the eyes of those you are presenting to. Do you acknowledge that, by every objective measure available, the religions you describe - including your own - are falsehoods?

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.

The same facts that you deny. Funny 'bout that.

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

Cool. I use mac pros and mini desktops/laptops for everything, but I just can't use iphones. Too locked down for my tastes.

 

[Davian]

Not self-deceived.

Prove it.

 

[Davian]

Is that how you describe people who love you and people you love in return... sycophants? Your mother must be so proud of you.

My mother did not bring me into this world for the sole purpose of loving her, and does not hold an eternal flame-thrower at my head to use in the event I fail to do so.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sent from my Mac Pro.

 

[StanJ]

Are you denying that christians make up 1/3 of the worlds population and the other 2/3 are non christians and non believers?

I deny anything you have to say as being factual.

 

[HitchSlap]

I deny anything you have to say as being factual.

Lol.

 

[bhsmte]

I deny anything you have to say as being factual.

Some interesting reading for you.

Now, crank up that denial machine!

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

 

[StanJ]

Some interesting reading for you.
Now, crank up that denial machine!
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

And this shows exactly why it is useless to discuss anything with you because you never stay on point or you continually change the wording of your initial assertion.
You said one thing and Post #332 then repeated it and Post #358, then you change it in #378 and change it again in #381. Now in #391 you post a graph about a 4th equivocation.
I'm not playing any of your games nor responding to you in the future. You're now on my ignore list.

 

[bhsmte]

And this shows exactly why it is useless to discuss anything with you because you never stay on point or you continually change the wording of your initial assertion.
You said one thing and Post #332 then repeated it and Post #358, then you change it in #378 and change it again in #381. Now in #391 you post a graph about a 4th equivocation.
I'm not playing any of your games nor responding to you in the future. You're now on my ignore list.

Hilarious!!!

 

[Chany]

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

Sorry, former theistic philosopher kicking in here. God cannot need anything, lest he be less than perfect. Need implies a lack of something. So, either God needs something because he is lacking, or he is not lacking and requires nothing. Since a being who lacks nothing is greater than a being who lacks something, and because God is the greatest being, God must lack nothing.

Please, continue in telling how love is selfless action. To be warned: I already don't buy it, but please say your piece so I can discuss it with you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, former theistic philosopher kicking in here. God cannot need anything, lest he be less than perfect. Need implies a lack of something. So, either God needs something because he is lacking, or he is not lacking and requires nothing. Since a being who lacks nothing is greater than a being who lacks something, and because God is the greatest being, God must lack nothing.

Please, continue in telling how love is selfless action. To be warned: I already don't buy it, but please say your piece so I can discuss it with you.

Hello Chany, is the "Agnostic" label new?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Sorry, former theistic philosopher kicking in here. God cannot need anything, lest he be less than perfect. Need implies a lack of something. So, either God needs something because he is lacking, or he is not lacking and requires nothing. Since a being who lacks nothing is greater than a being who lacks something, and because God is the greatest being, God must lack nothing.

Please, continue in telling how love is selfless action. To be warned: I already don't buy it, but please say your piece so I can discuss it with you.

I disagree. Once He decided that His purpose was to love (agape), He needed to have something or someone to love.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Chany]

Hello Chany, is the "Agnostic" label new?

Relatively. Used to be humanist, previously Catholic before that. I studied philosophy. Hung out with a Muslim philosopher professor and my best friend up at the college was Christian (also a very smart philosophy major). Also, I studied an area of epistemology (peer disagreement) that led me to weaken my stance on the whole God question. In short, I'm a weirdo.

 

[Chany]

I disagree. Once He decided that His purpose was to love (agape), He needed to have something or someone to love.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

First, God is of a triune nature: God already has a way to express love amongst his three persons. The Godhead doesn't really need anything outside himself.

Second, you never solved the dichotomy I established. God's perfection overstates other properties. If what you describe leads to an imperfect God, then what you describe is false from a Christian paradigm.

Third, how can something's love for me be entirely selfless if the entire reason I exist is to fulfill that thing's own meaning. If I decide that the purpose of my life is to love and be loved and I have a child in order to fulfill that purpose, it appears I create the child and "love" the child for my own selfish reasons. I wouldn't call the scenario: selfish. Also, God doesn't need me in particular. I can rot in hell for eternity and nothing changes for God; it doesn't hurt God, as God cannot be hurt in anyway. God only needs some people to love him: whether one of those people is me is irrelevant, which seems to put me down pretty low in the whole cosmic meaning thing when my existence ultimately doesn't matter in the long run.

Again, I doubt whether love could ever be selfless; I don't know if anything could be selfless.

Also, you never explained how God's meaning somehow meets some condition as a final end in a way that does not a) make humans selfish, and/or, b) point to our ends as something that correlates with choosing heaven, like joy or a sense of fulfillment.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Also, you never explained how God's meaning somehow meets some condition as a final end in a way that does not a) make humans selfish, and/or, b) point to our ends as something that correlates with choosing heaven, like joy or a sense of fulfillment.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps God just simply wanted to love someone and you are right that it is selfish in nature. Then again, I guess it is selfish for a man to want a woman to love. It would also be selfish for a couple to what children to love also.

 

[Hieronymus]

I disagree. Once He decided that His purpose was to love (agape), He needed to have something or someone to love.

I'd say wanted, as in his Will.