When an atheist / naturalist / materialist asks:
“Who am I?”
“Why am I here?”
“Where am I going?”
on atheism there is only one possible answer.
“You are the accidental by-product of nature, a result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence beyond chance. All you face is death.”
The existential implications of atheism compels some atheists to say, “You’re wrong. I’m a person of value and worth.”
Wrong yet again. In atheist world, if you say you have X amount of worth and your neighbour says you have no worth, your neighbour is just as correct as you are, for both arbitrary statements carry an equal amount of truth.
On atheism, death is your fate and, as Sartre has stated, when eternity is gone, it makes no difference if your death comes one year from now or one hour from now. At death, the illusion of “you” will cease to exist forever.
Since, on atheism, every trace of your present existence will one day be gone forever, your existence now is no more significant than that of a fly or a pig. On atheism, your origin is the same as a fly’s origin and so is your demise. In the end, neither your life, nor that of a fly makes one bit of difference.
Not - One - Bit!
On atheism, life has no ultimate meaning. You’re just an accident of nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes I am a accident of nature. My life has as much meaning as I give while I'm here. Eventually I'll be gone and even the memory of me will be gone. But then eventually everything will be gone even the universe it's self. None of that particularly bothers me.
“Who am I?”
Christopher A. Mackey.
“Why am I here?”
Because this blog is amusing sometimes.
“Where am I going?”
To town to enjoy some sushi.
You know what? Life means something because of death.
And "worth" and "value" only exist in minds. No minds, no "worth".
Who am I?
I am Ginx... you need religion to tell you who you are? You borrow from Sartre and leave out his French countryman, Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum"
Why am I here?
Well Mak, when a man and a woman love each other very much...
Where am I going?
That's a good question, and why am I in this handbasket?!
I would hope we all believe human beings have value and worth. Are you trying to tell atheists they shouldn't value people?
Mak... are you trying to convince us to more accurately fit your preconceived notions? I'm never going to devalue the lives of others or myself, and most people would agree (regardless of their beliefs).
Simply perplexing.
H: he just made the ultimate strawman argument: claiming that atheists see no meaning in life
M: I never said that
*sigh* I cannot even leave a final comment here without having you say that I misunderstood you... so ok, let's clarify... in details.
Oh by the way this comes from another blog post but, since you keep your habit of addressing comments quickly in order to dump another blog post asap, I am writing here...
So, you did not say that Atheists see no meaning in life? Really? I was replying to that you know:
Unlike atheism, my world-view does not force me to understand life as being without meaning and context and purpose. I don't see life as one huge accident. I don't see myself as just a mix of chemical interactions whose only goal is to replicate my genes.
If that's not a strwaman and a synonym for "atheists see no meaning in life", I don't know what is...
Should I now describe why I see meaning, wonder, beauty, exaltation in life to prove that you are wrong Makarios? No, of course not, on my own futile blog perhaps, but not here, because it's pointless... you don't care about other people's views on the quality of life as soon as they differ from yours, or even worse, if they come close to yours, but come from the mouth of an atheist, apparently you'll attribute such positive beliefs to Christianity.
Why is that particular subject telling me that commenting here became pointless? Because it's the culmination of other observations. A few weeks ago I thought that writing here could be interesting because you, Rod, seemed to be an intelligent Christian who uses logic and reason to get to his beliefs.
Unfortunately, I discovered that this was more or less an illusion. Yes, you do acknowledge the usefulness of science to explain the natural world we live in, like accepting (partly) the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life, but as soon as you see a gap or something not yet fully explained, you plug your god in it, claiming that no other explanations are possible. You don't explain how your god could have done anything, you just claim that it did. You explain why you believe so, very clearly, but fail at explaining the usefulness of such beliefs in describing the real world or how such belief can be use to make predictions in the real world.
The other thing I discovered much more quickly was your inability of discussing ideas with others as you constantly misinterpret them and prefer to portray false strawmen, but that has been discussed already...
And now this week, I discover yet another aspect of your worldview Makarios: fear.
You are afraid to even think of the possibility that there could be no afterlife. This idea is so frightening that your mind is shut. You quickly dismiss, and try to ridicule, any worldview that could give meaning and purpose to life without a god, without an afterlife. No matter what you find out, it's impossible to change that idea since it would ultimately make your own life meaningless, and who wants that? It's that simple.
I am glad this blog does not get more attention; it deserves no more. It is very entertaining and I did laugh a lot, but it is way too negative to be supported by anyone, even other theists. Remember another Christian told you just that? Too bad I cannot find the comment right now... and I am sure you are not negative in nature Rod because you do write very positive things once in a while, focus on that more and you might realize that atheists are not so dumb after all.
Final note: It's really funny because I started writing this a few hours ago, then came back and realized that you actually wrote another post on this idea that "On atheism, life has no ultimate meaning. You’re just an accident of nature." thanks for emphasizing all my points.
Since, on atheism, every trace of your present existence will one day be gone forever, your existence now is no more significant than that of a fly or a pig. On atheism, your origin is the same as a fly’s origin and so is your demise. In the end, neither your life, nor that of a fly makes one bit of difference.
And I can't tell you how happy that has made me.
"You quickly dismiss, and try to ridicule, any worldview that could give meaning and purpose to life without a god, without an afterlife."
So you tell me, genius!
On atheism, on naturalism, on materialism You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and are going to nowhere.
Is this or is this not a fact, according to atheism / darwinism / naturalism / materialism?
Of course it a fact. According to Darwinism, this is an absolute fact. So you tell me, how does something (you or the fly sitting on our window) that have both arisen but nothing other than blind, unguided, chemical exchanges somehow attain meaning and purpose?
Oh, sure you can SAY that you have meaning and purpose. You can also say that you’re a kilo of butter. On atheism, they both carry that same amount of truth.
Because, in order to be reasonably happy, atheists must live the lie, they must live an inconsistent and absurd existence. They must tell themselves that all is well, when all is not well.
Based on naturalism / atheism, Natasha has said it exactly correct. Natasha alone, out of this whole bunch of self-decieved atheists has accepted life as only a naturalist can. Putting on as brave a face as possible.
Oh, sure you can SAY that you have meaning and purpose. You can also say that you’re a kilo of butter. On Christianity, they both carry that same amount of truth.
Is it even possible for meaning to be imposed on us by another? No one can make a book or a meal "meaningful" for me. Why? Because such meaning must be created by us, based upon our values. No one else can cause a particular book or a particular experience to have value to me — that must come from within. When we value something, it will have meaning, and when we do not value something, it will not have meaning. Values cannot be imposed upon us because they must develop out of our character and our personality; so if meaning is derived from values, then meaning also cannot be imposed.
Even many theists will acknowledge the truth of this in particular circumstances because they will tend to agree that they are not forced by their god to value their god or their relationship with their god. Thus, their god has meaning for them because of their own choices.
Oh, sure you can SAY that you have meaning and purpose. You can also say that you’re a kilo of butter.
Great analogy. I taste lousy on soda crackers so I aint butter Einstein. Zzzst.
BTW, don't a considerable amount of atheists believe in an afterlife? Link.
I guess they pray also according to Pew.
Makarios said:
Oh, sure you can SAY that you have meaning and purpose. You can also say that you’re a kilo of butter. On atheism, they both carry that same amount of truth.
Great analogy. I taste lousy on soda crackers so I aint butter Einstein.
Atheists just lack belief in gods.
Post a Comment