Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Existence Apart From God....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Meaning and value proceed from the mind and will of God.
    I agree that, if God exists, then like with all other conscious beings, there will be things he finds meaningful and things he values.

    That He created us for a purpose, an end, there is a goal.
    I agree that, if God exists and created us, he probably had some purpose and goal in doing it. Although I guess it's possible our creation might have been an accident on his part.

    And our value and meaning is tried to that purpose.
    As conscious beings, we find some things meaningful, and value some things.

    I'm not willing to agree with your implication that we have the purpose that our creator had. Plenty of parents have goals and desires for their children. But children have their own goals and those don't always match their parents' goals. At the end of the day it's up to the children as they grow up to decide to make what they will of their own lives, and it's not for the parents to dictate the full course of their children's lives.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      It only seems incoherent to you because (a) you're so wedded to you secular worldview that you can't grasp any concepts that fall outside it
      Well I can't disprove that possibility. But perhaps then you guys can take pity on me and explain what it is you mean by the phrase "inherent value and meaning". Use small words so I can understand. And ideally not the words "inherent", "value" or "meaning" in your explanation, cos otherwise the circularity might cause confusion.

      Of course an atheist can claim that their life has value (to them),
      Yes, agreed.

      but it's not a value that is inherent to that life
      I still don't understand what "value... inherent to that life" would mean, so I don't know if I agree with this or not.

      but a value that can be given or taken away, accepted or legitimately denied by others
      This claim doesn't seem to make any sense when compared to the claim above that I agreed with - that the life has value to the person themselves. How can the value it has to the person themselves, be given or taken away by other people? That makes no sense to me. Is that when someone else convinces you to stop valuing it? It doesn't seem like that's what you're getting at. Also, how does other people 'accepting or legitimately denying' it make any sense? Is it when you value your life, and I say "I deny that"? Again, that statement doesn't seem to make sense, and I don't think can be what you're trying to say.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #18
        I agree with what Mountain Man said on here, that if atheism is true, and there is no God, then atheists should embrace nihilism. But does that mean that they have to act in a nihilistic fashion as well? If their brains and nervous systems are calibrated the right way, I can see them living here on earth in communities, actually serving and loving one another. Wouldn't it be more about how their brain works, like if they also get dopamine releases for certain acts, and there is a reward system in their brains? I don't know where i'm going with this, just rambling around some thoughts this morning. It just seems that yes, atheism necessarily entails nihilism, but I don't see why that entails the atheist/nihilist to act like it, or why that would necessarily give them compulsions to act like it.

        Comment


        • #19
          And then what eider said was very insightful, about being asleep for countless millenia, and then returning to that again. For me, that really isn't comforting, but I can appreciate that some could actually have attained a profound peace with it. It does sound to me a very peaceful idea. We're just here for no particular reason, and just enjoy the experience, because soon, very very soon, we'll return to the void. I mean, if someone could actually make that the axiomatic substrate of their very consciousness, then i tend to think that maybe that's probably a quite peaceful view. Now you could then, from a different aesthetic, begin to impose nihilism on it, but from within that particular consciousness, that aesthetic, that worldview that "should be" embracing nihilism, it's really more of a curious artefact than it is a double standard.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by siam View Post


            interesting perspective....
            The story u r referring to is actually a Christian folk tale "Seven sleepers of Ephesus" that the Quran "re-purposes" to make several points.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_...3A9%E2%80%9326).
            Quran Surah 18: 18-26

            One such point is that time/space-time is relative. The "measure" of time differs. So, in the Quranic story---when the sleepers awaken, they think---from their perspective--- they have slept only for a day. From those in the town, the speculation is ---it has been several hundred years.
            Another interesting aspect of this story is that a "belief system" that was "abnormal" (not valued) when it was marginal, became normal (valued) when it became "powerful". When it comes to belief-systems/paradigms---it is the people who choose to give assent to it that give it 'power" and therefore "value"

            ...but perhaps when we ponder on inherent value---it may be "Nature" /laws of nature that give perceptions/inkling of "value". (these "perceptions" may be known through instinct or intelligence). In the natural fluctuations of scarcity and abundance, those that become scarce in nature may have more value and those that become abundant may have less?
            If we use this assumption on the concept of (relative) time/space-time---then the Quranic story could also suggest that "life" (on earth ) is valuable because of its scarcity? ....relatively, our time on earth (life) may be the space of "a blink of an eye" in the vast measure of time/time-space....?.....

            If so...that is, if such an conclusion is acceptable...then, for an intelligent species like humanity---that has the capacity to perceive such value (both instinctively and intelligently) context (meaning) becomes necessary.....

            Without such context (meaning), a zero-sum outlook/philosophy would make more sense---but we all know (instinctively and intelligently) that such a path cannot lead to survival---but destruction of humanity. (...other species in "Nature" that also have group systems...may not have the intelligence---but prbably have the instincts to understand this "law" of nature....?....)
            Thanks for that brilliant post.

            I agree with all of it. Your mention of 'blink of eye' is well understood. Some life forms only exist for hours or days but I do not doubt that to these creatures the experience seems like a century.

            I forget how long it takes for our galaxy to rotate once but in that time human millenia just fall away.

            Look out... Look in.

            You mentioned :- but we all know (instinctively and intelligently) that such a path cannot lead to survival---but destruction of humanity.

            Ah....... as a Deist I don't place great importance on humanity's survival. Nothing gets destroyed, only altered.
            But having said that I sure would be ducking and diving if someone was shooting at me! It's all about the next minutes, hours, days being valuable to me.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Before animism, totemism and the other emerging glimmerings of religious superstition, and well before the gods as we know them today were created, ‘atheism’ was the default position. There were simply no gods in which to believe. And yet primitive man – and his archaic fellow humans such as Homo erectus et al – seemed to find sufficient inherent meaning in life. Namely, the evolved instinct to live in cooperative communities by bonding and attaching to our loved ones. It’s an evolved survival mechanism and common to many of the other primates.

              In short, we find inherent meaning by living as we have evolved to live as a social species, i.e. in loving and supporting one another.
              That still does nothing to address the logically necessary implications of atheism. If you are convinced that atheism is true, then you must also accept that if you were to walk outside of your house and get killed by a bus, then it is, on the whole, no more significant than crushing an insect under your foot.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                I agree with what Mountain Man said on here, that if atheism is true, and there is no God, then atheists should embrace nihilism. But does that mean that they have to act in a nihilistic fashion as well? If their brains and nervous systems are calibrated the right way, I can see them living here on earth in communities, actually serving and loving one another. Wouldn't it be more about how their brain works, like if they also get dopamine releases for certain acts, and there is a reward system in their brains? I don't know where i'm going with this, just rambling around some thoughts this morning. It just seems that yes, atheism necessarily entails nihilism, but I don't see why that entails the atheist/nihilist to act like it, or why that would necessarily give them compulsions to act like it.
                The question is not "How should an atheist act?" but, rather, "Can an atheist rationally reject nihilism?" How he chooses to respond the implications of his worldview is an entirely different matter.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Well I can't disprove that possibility. But perhaps then you guys can take pity on me and explain what it is you mean by the phrase "inherent value and meaning". Use small words so I can understand. And ideally not the words "inherent", "value" or "meaning" in your explanation, cos otherwise the circularity might cause confusion.
                  I take 'inherent value' to be the same as 'intrinsic value'. It's a concept that goes back at least as far as Plato, and has been discussed and analysed up to the present day. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry.

                  The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic.

                  Originally posted by Starlight
                  Yes, agreed.

                  I still don't understand what "value... inherent to that life" would mean, so I don't know if I agree with this or not.
                  It's the difference between life being valuable in and of itself (intrinsic), and life being valuable because of some other value (extrinsic).


                  Originally posted by Starlight
                  This claim doesn't seem to make any sense when compared to the claim above that I agreed with - that the life has value to the person themselves. How can the value it has to the person themselves, be given or taken away by other people?
                  That makes no sense to me. Is that when someone else convinces you to stop valuing it? It doesn't seem like that's what you're getting at. Also, how does other people 'accepting or legitimately denying' it make any sense? Is it when you value your life, and I say "I deny that"? Again, that statement doesn't seem to make sense, and I don't think can be what you're trying to say.[/QUOTE]

                  Lets say that an atheist (say) proclaims 'My life is valuable because it has value to me. I give it meaning and value, and there is no other source.'

                  If there is no such thing as intrinsic value, then someone else can say 'Your life is worthless because you are disabled**. You should die and stop wasting resources that other deserve. Die! <Bang!>'

                  ** Substitute any (or no) reason at all here. 'because you are racist / collect stamps / have Covid / have defective DNA / come from New Zealand etc'


                  and - here's the crunch: they would be correct, just as correct as the atheist who affirms that their life has value. IOW, all value is entirely subjective, and derivative. Any act of valuing or not valuing, for any reason, or no reason is equally correct (and valid !)



                  However, if life has intrinsic value - that is, if life, human life, is valuable in and of itself, then the person who declares ' Your life is worthless because {reason X}, Die! etc' would be wrong. Their statement about the real nature of things (here, the value of life) would be objectively incorrect.

                  Another way to put this might be that the person who does not believe in intrinsic value is merely expressing a personal and subjective opinion when they say 'My life has value', and there is no obligation of any kind on anyone else to agree or accept that opinion. It's of the same kind as their opinions on music genres, colours, sports teams, etc etc. The person who does hold that there are things that have intrinsic value can be making a claim about the real nature of things when they say 'My life has value', and, if they are correct, those who disagree are objectively wrong. If they wish to hold true beliefs they are obliged to accept the claim, since it would be true.


                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    That still does nothing to address the logically necessary implications of atheism. If you are convinced that atheism is true, then you must also accept that if you were to walk outside of your house and get killed by a bus, then it is, on the whole, no more significant than crushing an insect under your foot.
                    It also shows that Tassman doesn't understand what 'inherent meaning' is.
                    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      The question is not "How should an atheist act?" but, rather, "Can an atheist rationally reject nihilism?" How he chooses to respond the implications of his worldview is an entirely different matter.
                      I would say no, they cannot rationally reject nihilism. Do atheists reject nihilism? In what way do they reject it? And I would agree that a necessarily implication is that getting killed by a bus is no more significant than an insect being crushed. It would seem that eider here would agree with you on that, that it is indeed no more significant. I'm just trying to understand the argument here.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                        I would say no, they cannot rationally reject nihilism. Do atheists reject nihilism? In what way do they reject it? And I would agree that a necessarily implication is that getting killed by a bus is no more significant than an insect being crushed. It would seem that eider here would agree with you on that, that it is indeed no more significant. I'm just trying to understand the argument here.
                        If atheism is true there are no universal moral norms. Human rights for instance would be no more than a useful legal fiction. Yet, we don't believe that do we - we believe rights are inherent and universal.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                          I would say no, they cannot rationally reject nihilism. Do atheists reject nihilism? In what way do they reject it? And I would agree that a necessarily implication is that getting killed by a bus is no more significant than an insect being crushed. It would seem that eider here would agree with you on that, that it is indeed no more significant. I'm just trying to understand the argument here.
                          The bottom line is that if atheism is true, then it doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingos kidney's how any of us lives. As Solomon wrote:

                          Scripture Verse: Ecclesiastes 2

                          I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned about and gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation. Even in the night his heart does not rest. This also is vanity.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          In the end, the universe will die, and nothing we do will have any lasting significance, We can live like a Mother Theresa, or a Hillary Clinton. It really doesn't matter in any ultimate sense. Seems to me that if atheists genuinely believe that their worldview is true then they should willingly accept this, except they don't. In fact, whenever I present this argument, they instinctively and often vehemently reject it, but why when they have no rational reason to?
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                            I would say no, they cannot rationally reject nihilism. Do atheists reject nihilism? In what way do they reject it? And I would agree that a necessarily implication is that getting killed by a bus is no more significant than an insect being crushed. It would seem that eider here would agree with you on that, that it is indeed no more significant. I'm just trying to understand the argument here.
                            When you say that getting killed by a bus is no more significant than an insect being crushed, the obvious question is, "Significant to whom?" If I were killed by a bus, that would be very significant to me (up to the point that I died, of course), and after I was dead it would be very significant to my friends and family.

                            I have no problem with the idea that there is no intrinsic value to life, but some people have a hard time accepting that that is not the same as saying there is no value to life. Because when something has value, that is because someone values it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              If atheism is true there are no universal moral norms.
                              Some atheists would say that doesn't follow. But I don't think there are universal moral norms, so I won't argue the point.

                              Human rights for instance would be no more than a useful legal fiction.
                              I wouldn't call them a fiction, unless of course you define them as inherent and universal.

                              Yet, we don't believe that do we - we believe rights are inherent and universal.
                              You believe that, but I thought this was about what atheists think.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                                When you say that getting killed by a bus is no more significant than an insect being crushed, the obvious question is, "Significant to whom?" If I were killed by a bus, that would be very significant to me (up to the point that I died, of course), and after I was dead it would be very significant to my friends and family.
                                Yes, it might have a short-term impact on other people, but most of us will be entirely forgotten within 100-years, so what does it matter how you choose to live if, as the atheist is forced to concede, it has no lasting significance?
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                236 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X