If There is No God than Worldy Things Are All That Matter

I am watching the funeral of Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon.

His funeral is well attended, and he is much beloved.

He will always be remembered in the history books.

But there are so many who die and are quickly forgotten.

Their funerals are attended by only a few friends and close relatives.

They have not acheived great things in the eyes of the world.

When their friends and family die, it will be like they never existed because there won't even be the memory of them.

If there is no God, these unknown people have had meaningless lives.

In the eyes of the world they are total failures.

But if there is a God, then all men and women are loved by their creator, who made them in his image. They have dignity because of this, and none are failures.

 

Except atheists presumably, who go straight to hell.

 

I was with you up until this point. If there's no God, then it does indeed look like there's no meaning to anything - unless we choose to give it one. And you know what? I'm A-OK fine with that. I haven't become a nihilist or turned depraved due to that concept.

But what are the "eyes of the world"? Do you mean the eyes of people of the world? Because plenty of people are patently not failures in the eyes of the people of the world. Or do you mean the ACTUAL world? Because it doesn't have eyes, either literal OR metaphorical. Or do you mean in the eyes of people of the world, whose memories will fade? Well, you can't be considered a failure if you're not considered at all.

Basically that sentence is just plain bunk.

 

In one sense you're right. People will forget. But what happened to Neil Armstrong, is just what happens to normal people, only bigger.

 

Nope. If you reproduced, then your life had meaning. The whole purpose of life is to pass your genes from one generation to the next.

Its humans that (erroneously) HAVE to put more meaning into than that.

As usual, a shortsigted post by the OP.

 

People who leave family behind are successful, whether they are remembered or not, they live on in their childrens' childrens' children. Those who have lived at all are incredibly lucky, they are the end result of billions of consecutive coincidences.

 

Only God gets to make that decision, it is not up to us to judge. Everyone has a ticket to heaven but only some go to the window and pick it up.

 

Yes, and as the Bible clearly states, he will judge that we deserve hell.

 

Where? Name chapter and verse that says all atheists go to hell.

 

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:18

 

This is a common whatshawecallit notion. Yes, your life loses ultimate meaning but ultimate meaning is not the only kind of meaning there is. To some, reproducing is a meaning (even though I am surprised at the confidence it's being stated with), to others, it can be living a good life, living a fun life, contributing to society and so on.

If we look at the existence of a god and the non-existence of a god, you do lose the ultimate meaning when you turn to non-existence, but if there indeed is no ultimate meaning, then you didn't really lose it, you never had it.

There is an infinite regression of whys (or "meaning" has some arbitrary foundation), which means that if you ask why forever, you cannot arrive at anything greater than causality. Even if a god existed, his motives must either be arbitrary or an infinitely regression. Therefore, if we ask "why" enough times, it is not possible to find an ultimate "end-point", an ultimate "meaning".

 

Wouldn't it be nice for atheists to discuss the topic and not come in with the same bland propoganda? We've hear and explained the drivel of atheism regarding a Hell they do not believe in.

Now, if you don;t mind, why not address the OP, and tell us atheists, how someone, who achieves nothing, is successful in terms of atheism. Remember, you have no doctirne, so ... I suspect actually having to reason it through is difficult --- but why not give that a try, you know - using reason - rather than resorting to the same propoganda in an overt attempt to derail threads?

We talk about purpose and meaning, and atheists scream about Hell. Nice.

 

Yep, but it doesn;t sasy you are condemned to Hell by God does it?

It says that he who rejects the savior is condemned? Shall we explain why yet again? Because we are human and sin, even atheists (tough as it may be for them to admit it sometimes), but what do atheists do when the sin? They talk a good game of apologizing, but rarely do we see an atheist apologize on this forum, so that is right out. So we have all this sin building up, totally unaddressed.

And what does the Savior bring us that just might have relevance to the situation? Atonement. Grace. A way to identify and repent of the things that we do wrong and return to our heavenly father. But atheists reject this - entirely. So the sin builds up.

Now, if we didn't just read one sentence found hastily is a word search, we would kow that the Bible says no unclean thing can dwell in the prescence of God. So all that sin you have piled up? Yep, you are condemned to be unable to dwell in the prescence of God until you actually do something about it. But if atheists actually attempted to do something about it? THey would quickly discover that you cannot. They would quickly find the need to forgive honest slights as they would hope others would forgive them, etc, etc. And those things they could not amend? Well, additional good works should erase the debt burden correct? I am sure doing right for someone else will make up for the differnec you did to a specific person? One who is now beyond your reach? Right? That is where grace steps in.

But you don;t buy any of this ... hence, you are indeed condemned, exactly as the good book says.

BTW - whether that means you are condemned to dwell outside the prescence of God (which some people claim is hell) or spend eternity with the adversary (the reality of Hell as most people think of it)? Well, it doesn't say which does it? But you assume, because it fits your preconceptions, that it is the later, eh?

Why? Because atheists are victims, not individuals who make choices and accept conseuqnces.

The only think that gets anyone in Hell is the person making the choice to accept it.

 

If there is no God, all people have meaningless lives, as all things would be without meaning.

The only thing in all of existence that could possibly bring objective meaning to anything, is God.

Unfortunately, we have no clue whether or not a God exists, and without that knowledge first being perceived, meaning is unattainable, as the concept of meaning itself is only capable of achieving its own meaning by first being known.

Kinda like the whole 'if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?' question.

In this instance, the 'noise' is the 'perception', the 'hearing' is the 'knowing', and the reaction to the noise/perception is the justification for what happened. If the tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, there will be no perception, no human reaction, no justification, and no more meaning than when two stars collide and explode in a galaxy so far away from ours that we can't even perceive its light signature.

1. Nobody knows 'how' the universe began
2. Without 'how', the 'why' is unknown
3. Without 'why', 'objective purpose' is unattainable
4. Without 'objective purpose', 'self-deception' is necessary to find 'artificial meaning'
5. 'Self-deception' is the 'artificial meaning' of life

So, to sum it up, if a God did exist, he does not matter, not yet anyways, not until he actually makes his existence known.

Which then disproves all known religions, given that they run with the assumption that God does matter, when he couldn't possibly matter during the absence of proof of his existence. If faith is necessary, God is not.

So, God or not, the concept of him is absolutely without meaning, just as life and the rest of the universe also are.

 

It might have helped if the OP hadn't started off with the same bland propaganda. I came here hoping to learn more about Neil Armstrong.

In terms of atheism, not at all. You can't be successful or unsuccessful in terms of atheism.

Individual lives can be successful independently of the concept of a god (regardless of whether one actually exists or not) and that success doesn't need to be recognised by many or even any people to be true. After all, Neil Armstrong is recognised as being successful because of his moon missions (among other things) but there were thousands of other people involved in those missions and the ones that made his possible. Many of their contributions would have been arguably more significant that Armstrong's but the fact nobody knows anything about those people doesn't render those contributions meaningless or their lives less significant.

If anything, the Abrahamic religions render acts in life less significant because they suggest that this is just a small part of what is and that there is an infinitely greater existence after our mortal life. Are the herculean efforts to reach the moon and learn a tiny bit about it more meaningful if Neil Armstrong is now in a perfect heaven alongside a God who can tell him everything there is to know about the universe anyway?

 

The OP is simply a sweet invocation of why people need religion.
It doesn't speak to whether it is true or not, but to why people want it to be.

 

Reproduction is nothing more than a natural tendency that strengthens itself over time, just like any other aspect of natural selection. There is no more 'purpose' in natural selection than there is in bedtime stories for kids, and morning cups of coffee. They are aspects of what you are, what the universe is, nothing more.

 

You need to re-read the OP if you think that was what the point of the OP was. Blackrook was suggesting that every life is meaningless if there is no God because nobody will remember someone's life after memories of them have faded from the people that knew them (after they die). You either have terrible reading comprehension or are actively projecting what you want people to be saying.

 

Please enlighten me as to then what meaning life would have if there is no God.

We have an inbuilt hunger and desire. For some reason humans tend to think there is more to this life than just the present moment. We like to think that there is something after this life, why is that?.
Please do not tell me it is just to comfort ourselves. For if that is the case then why do we need the desire to feel we need this comfort?.

God gives reason to life. Belief in God also offers hope. Atheism only offers temprorary pleasures that result in us feeling empty and numb afterwards. Atheism is pessimistic it only offers glom, and darkness.

 

The question you have to ask yourself, is which is more important: truth, or purpose?

Also, what is purpose without truth?

 

You're defining the purpose of life as being remembered or existing eternally.

There are some people (like myself) who see the purpose as enjoying this life before it ends.

 

Truth and purpose are both important but belief in God is not just to have irratioanl and illogical faith.
God is more probable than improbable. If their is no design in the universe then everything you me, the solar system, gravity, animals, plants are all just luck, they are chance. However if you add God to the equation you have design. Many atheists point toward evolution as proof that God does not exist. I think the opposite it shows design and intelligence in the universe. The universe is intelligently designed, otherwise your faith in chance is much greater than my faith in God.

 

Whatever we want our life's meaning to be. We get to define it instead of a holy book.

Because we are fearful of death and we want to be rewarded for living a good life.

Because comfort is better than discomfort? I'm afraid I don't really get what you're asking here.

Atheism offers nothing at all. The only reason you think atheism is pessimistic and offers gloom is because you think that without God there would be no morals, happiness, or hope. It's a difference of world views.

Also, can I ask you what you mean when you say that God gives reason to life? I assume you mean that he provides a purpose, and I'd like to know what you think that purpose he offers is.

 

I find the idea of 'meaning' a bit odd. The only thing we can do here is to wake up to the reality of illusion, suffering and death. Concentrate on your breathing, learn not to be fooled and not to expect some galactic birthday present and get on with living without hurting others and you'll have done better than most.

 

What metric are you using to say that design is more probable than chance? And I am also curious as to how you are defining chance, here.