151. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97923 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:45 pm

No, the idea is not to be gullible and believe everything you hear. You should want the proof before you believe it.

I am not talking about hearing a story and asking for proof. I am talking about the challenge that when you see proof you will believe and follow.

When you ask for empirical evidence saying, "Show me the proof and I will believe", you are setting yourself up to become a believer once you have the proof. Just because you see a great supernatural miracle doesn't mean you should bow down and worship at the altar of that miracle or miracle-worker.

152. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97916 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Empirical - relying on experience or observation alone, without due regard for system and theory. originating in or based on observation or experience. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

Our evidence of both the resurrection and the Holocaust is one and the same: the experience and observation of others besides ourselves who have communicated it to us.

Showing an oven with bones in it doesn't prove the Holocaust any more than showing someone an empty tomb proves the resurrection. If you weren't personally there to see and touch and hear, you can always find ways to discount the news reports and the film footage and the testimonies of thousands of people whose grandparents lived through the event and witnessed it firsthand.

153. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97913 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Are you laughing about the impossibility of producing empirical evidence for a past historical event?

Do you think that 2000 years after the Holocaust there will be any more proof of it than there is proof today of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and his time on the earth for forty days after that?

154. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97911 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:28 pm

I don't see why milk being absorbed into a statue should be considered a miracle, and even if it is, there is no reason to attribute every miracle to the Creator. There are many supernatural beings capable of actions that do not seem to line up with the natural order of things.

Try reading Revelation (of John) chapter 13. Read the whole chapter, please, but just in case you don't get to it, verse 3-8 tell of someone with a deadly wound who was healed. The whole world was amazed and followed that person as a great miracle-working leader. They will say, "Who can give the evidence that this guy did? and Who can match his power?" This person will make God look like a fool, and will overcome everyone who keeps on believing in God.

By constantly asking for empirical evidence of supernatural events, you are setting yourself up for regarding the one who shows you that evidence in public venues as someone greater than God.

God is not in the business of playing magician to entertain us or to win a popularity contest. When he heals, it is a response to the faith of human beings, and in order to do something good for the people He loves.

The great miracle-worker who wins the popularity contest is not looking out for the best interests of humanity, but is only trying to get back at the God he despises and wants to show up.

155. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97903 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:16 pm

"Conviction" is "a strong persuasion or belief, the state of being convinced" with synonyms like "certainty" or "opinion". The word "convict" can mean "to bring to a place of conviction". I think that when you go back to Latin roots, there really is only one and the same word, which evolved into two different words in the English language through different branches.

156. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97902 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:13 pm

There is already no empirical evidence that the Holocaust actually occurred. I, however, have a very definite conviction that the Holocaust occurred, based on the evidence I've seen and heard. The evidence was empirical for those who lived it, and based on that, I say that "we" (the human race) have empirical evidence.

The words "convict" and "convince" actually are pretty much the same word, and interchangeable. One meaning of "convict" is "to convince of error". That is the definition variant that I am using here.

157. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97897 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:05 pm

I read the milk-drinking statues article. It basically says that during a day in 1995 people in many different places were seeing statues drinking milk, that it was recorded on television, and there is a scientific explanation for it. And you are shocked that when they saw this happen, they actually believed what they saw.

You, of course, are much more rational, and seeing it happen would not make you believe that it was happening.

158. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97870 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 6:40 pm

It was a late night for me last night on this forum, and I needed to get some sleep. I'm picking up at comment # 97332.

I follow modern theology very closely, and I don't see how any more proof that Jesus existed would turn it on its head. What would be a complete turn around is if Jesus' body were discovered on earth. That would turn all of history on its head.

For the people I know who know without a doubt that God exists, it isn't because other people persuaded them. It is because God made Himself known to them. The people who only know that God exists because someone else or because a book persuaded them are just operating with their heads and their hearts, but the people who know God personally are knowing Him with their spirits. He takes up residence within those who put their trust in Him, and makes a brand new person on the inside. That doesn't happen just from knowing that God exists or from believing that He exists.

I have no desire to be president of the world, nor to convince a whole lot of people that God exists. If God doesn't do the convicting Himself, everything I do is in vain foolish pride.

I'll check out that nobeliefs.com, but it won't be the first time that I've read something like that, I'm sure. I've been around the block.

To post # 97341 I would bet that most Iranians deny the holocaust, and I believe that the number of Iranians is in the millions. Then you have a few other Muslim nations who go along with that as well. It could be that the official spokespeople of those nations deny the holocaust while the common folk believe in it, but I really doubt it.

The problem now is that the eyewitnesses (survivors and others) of the Holocaust are dying off. For now, you can still see and touch the tattoos on their arms, and hear them speak about what they remember, but very soon those tattoos will turn to dust. (Check out the book Lost (I think that's the title) by Daniel Mendellssohn - I know I'm getting the spelling wrong) Showing people photographs isn't much proof; photos and film can be doctored or staged they will say, or it can be real footage attributed to the wrong context. As far as the books about the Holocaust, they are already saying that it is a myth of the Western nations created to justify the political creation of a modern Israel.

For their own reasons, the Pharisees had evidence of the resurrection and heard the Roman guard tell them what happened on that amazing night, but the Pharisees paid them money to say that the disciples had come during the night and stolen Jesus' body. I doubt that material evidence would have any more influence on today's unbelievers than what it had on the Pharisees. For those who have strong enough reasons not to believe the evidence, God always allows people a way out. Nobody is forced to go to heaven and spend eternity with a God they don't trust and don't appreciate. Would it really be pleasant anyway to spend eternity in the presence of someone you resent? No, of course not.

159. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97329 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 10:24 pm

The empirical proof was provided to over 500 eyewitnesses, and history bears it out. A huge number of those people died because of the testimony of what they had seen and heard, yet they would not even change their story to save their own lives, that's how strongly they knew that they had empirical evidence.

Others who did not die, simply went on telling the rest of the world what had happened, and then eventually things were documented and became part of the historical record. The news was passed on from eyewitnesses to their contemporaries, and then from past generations down to present generations. It didn't even depend only on what was written down; what was passed on by word of mouth is also proof.

Mohammed got nations to believe that he received the Koran from an angel, and he may have (from a demonic angel). His story came from just one person, though, and he convinced many by use of the sword. What spread east to India, west to Spain and England, and south to Africa from Jerusalem, was from the mouths of multitudes of witnesses.

The people hearing those reports were not gullible suckers waiting for any religious idea to come floating along, nor were they prone to believing myths and fairy tales as if they were historical fact. People knew the difference between something presented as a fictional account, a legend, a made-up story, or a belief, and something presented as a factual, non-fictional news report.

About 50 days after the resurrection, there were thousands who lived in the area becoming followers of the risen Christ and repeating the news to others, and some of these people were ones who had fought to get Jesus crucified not much earlier. There's a big difference between remorse about putting an innocent man to death, and worhsipping the man as God. And these thousands had not been indoctrinated into their understanding of Jesus' divinity through religious teaching or cultural environment. Jesus' divinity ran completely counter-cultural and contrary to everything they were being taught by the religious leaders.

For some reason, there were people who knew the evidence and rejected Jesus as the Christ anyway. They put their religious beliefs and dogma before the facts, and stubbornly held on to their faith, their traditions, and their religious authority or submission to authority.

In the years since, many began to deny the resurrection, just like today only a few decades after the holocaust there are millions saying that the holocaust never happened.

But today in nearly every nation, there are lives still being transformed where this same good news is preached, with miracles and signs following. The same kinds of things we read about in the book of Acts are not only borne out by historical fact, but also by the similarities with modern-day experiences.

160. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97323 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Reasons to exist aren't out there because we need them. Reasons to exist are out there because they are true and real and have been made manifest to us in the natural world of our senses.

You make some good points, Diacanu about emotions being taken into account when we use reason, and also about free will agents.

Have you studied Rene Descartes' philosophy?

Aside from him, the strong emotional obstacles to our becoming nihilists are one of the reasons we can conclude that there is more to life than reason alone, and more to life than the sensory world around us, although reason and the senses are a very good place to build from.

My logic takes me to nihilism, but something in me pulls me back away from nihilism. What is that something?

161. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97318 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm

A spook in the sky kingdom doesn't solve anything.

What we should do is base our philosophy of life on our experience with the material world. We've seen Jesus come and work amazing things in people's lives, and then come back from the dead in a special kind of body. This is the hinge on which human history turns.

He wasn't a spook in the sky, but a flesh and blood person like ourselves. We got to see, hear, and touch him.

162. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97313 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 9:50 pm

None of our ancestors gave up, and none of the bubbles or wands on the computer screen gave up either, so what right does the girl have to walk away from her computer game?

163. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97311 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 9:46 pm

I can't say "The atheist must be a nihilist" as if it were an axiom. Experience proves that there are many atheists who are not nihilists. In fact, most atheists who post on this website are not nilihists, I dare say.

Materialists (not all) do find life meaningful, according to their own self-reports, and based on reasons like what Don_Quix is explaining.

I think I/we am/are discussing, "How does a materialist find life meaningful?"

I think it is by sacrificing reason and logic. I think that applying reason and logic will force the materialist to the nihilist position. Most materialists, however, are so emotionally opposed to nihilism, that they prefer to stick their head in the sand and live in a fantasy of ultimate meaning in what really is only positivist emptiness.

164. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97303 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Don_Quix wrote: "Make the best of it for yourself, and try to make the world a better place for future generations, or die."

Why do you limit it to these two options? What about making the worst of it, or making the world a worse place, or not dying? Everything being meaningless does not mean we all commit suicide; it means absolutely nothing. What is, is, and there is no value to anything and no harm in anything.

The dying part happens no matter what. The mortality rate among physical bodies is 100% in 100% of our experience. Even Jesus died physically before his resurrection.

It should read "Make the best of it, AND die," instead of "Make the best or it OR die." "Make the world a better place for future generations, and die." But also, "Make the worst of it, and die." "Make nothing of it, and die." "Make the world a worse place for everyone around you, and die."

It is kind of like the film "War Games", in which the computer tries every possible scenario of advanced tic-tac-toe and chess and finds only stalemate, then tries every possible scenario of full-scale global thermonuclear war and finds only destruction, then concludes that "the only winning move is not to play". If we use enough forward thinking, we will conclude that every possible human action to save the earth will result in the end of the earth anyway, so we should not be consumed with saving the earth as if it were our only hope.

Under materialism, there is nothing worse about the extinction of the whole human race at once, than there is about the extinction of the whole human race in the successive deaths of each individual composing it during the course of millions or billions of years.

165. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97298 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Don_Quix:

Wow! What a leap! Now someone wants to talk about magic life force, God, and even judgment.

"supposed to" and ultimate meaning do not follow logically for me from materialism. It is also hard for me to view happiness as an "external" reason for existence, whether having it or spreading it. It seems to me to be internal. If we all stop existing, let's say when our star the sun burns up, for instance, and if we haven't evolved or advanced enough to survive without our sun, then our happiness, our reproduction, and our spreading of happiness all end also. So?

This means that once I as an individual end, my reason for existence also ends. All these reasons to exist are internal to me, and they end when I do. Reproduction as a reason to exist ends when the human race ends, or when all the species are destroyed and evolution ends. So?

We are left with the philosophy of nihilism, not humanism. Nihilism makes perfect sense to me, within the current framework we are discussing. Calling reproduction a reason to exist sounds very shallow and flimsy. I'm right back to the wand and the bubbles. Must we spend the rest of our lives playing the computer game so that the happiness and reproduction of the wands and the bubbles on the computer screen never come to an end? Or is it okay if they simply vanish from existence and the external universe continues along without them?

It sounds fine to me that the universe continue without them, and it sounds perfectly acceptable for the universe to continue along without us, without our reproduction, without our happiness, without our spreading of happiness.

There is nothing to be gained by our existing, and nothing to be lost by our not existing. That is logical. Everything else is groping and fantasy.

166. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97285 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm

It looks like we're getting into different meanings for the word "meaning". Of course there is meaning in the universe if by that you mean that we can look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary, and the dictionary exists in the universe.

167. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97278 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm

I am not saying that a soul is not made up of soul-molecules. You are putting words in my mouth. The soul is not wherever I want it to be because I want it to be there. Reality does not center on me or my wants. I am not making any arguments that souls exist or that they do not exist. I think it's irrelevant to the discussion of how a materialist finds life meaningful. The materialist perspective is that there is no soul, and that is the framework I am working in for this discussion. It's what Dinesh brought up in his article.

For now, let's just say that there is no soul, since you say there is no proof of any soul. Can we just work from there? I am not willing to introduce the soul as the centerpiece of the discussion, when none of us is about to offer any proof that such a thing as a soul even exists.

168. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97275 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 8:50 pm

Don_Quix wrote: "Consciousness, self-awareness, and intelligence are an emergent property of having trillions of brain cells networked together in close proximity to one another. "

I think this is a closed-minded perspective. I am open to intelligence existing in other forms, perhaps on the sub-cellular or intra-cellular level, and not just on the multi-cellular level.

The way I explain it is that we can have flight with wings (even feathers and insect wings are very different), or flight from lighter-than-air balloons, or flight from rocket propulsion, yet they are all flight.

For thousands of years we only knew of energy as chemical energy, until we found that there was a form of energy called nuclear energy on a much different scale.

For now, we only study multi-cellular and inter-cellular intelligence, but I am open to future studies going beyond that one type of intelligence. I think that this is where the intelligent design movement will lead us, and we will discover that yes, there are intelligent natural causes shaping the way a cell works.

Our brain controls our systems and organs, but I think we will find that the cell has a brain which controls the organelles and inner-workings of it. There is too much evidence of intelligent operations going on in there to dismiss it all as undirected and random. Some stem-cell research is following up on the idea that the embryonic cells learn from each other during the person's early stages of development. There are some kinds of intelligent things going on there that we don't yet comprehend.

It took us til the 21st century to develop ways to test for and find intelligence in scrub jays and dogs, where for centuries of natural science we only thought they were operating on instinct.

If it's taken us hundreds of years to find intelligence in scrub jays who have been known to us for centuries, how long might it take us to discover intelligence within the cell which we have only been starting to observe during the last 50 years or so.

169. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97270 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm

What if the soul is made of soul-molecules? Are you referring to physical molecules with measurable molecular weight? If you are, then it's like the exterior of a wood and brick house protecting the interior wood and brick. It's "mere brick and wood", and it is absurd to call it a shelter. It's meaningless.

If a soul is not made of soul-molecules, why isn't it? Because then it would be either non-existent or made up of something else. I don't see any point to that kind of question.

If a table is not made of table-molecules, why isn't it?

If time is not made of time-molecules, why isn't it?

If sadness is not made of sadness-molecules, why isn't it?

If sociology is not made of sociology-molecules, why isn't it?

170. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97268 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 8:32 pm

It's like saying the you need to keep the four walls and the roof on the house for no other reason than for the fact that if the walls and the roof blow off, the inside of the walls will get ruined as well. If nobody lives there, who cares? You don't attach importance to the outside of the house if its ONLY function is to keep the uninhabited inside of the house dry. It's not a shelter if it only shelters itself - it's an absurdity.

171. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97262 by Shrommer on December 11, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Now picture this: A child sits playing a computer game. For the game, a wand appears, and the child has to dip it in the liquid soap using the mouse, then blow air through it using the space bar. A soap bubble comes out of the wand! After thirty seconds, the wand disappears, and after ten seconds each bubble pops, but each bubble that pops causes a new wand to appear.

The child sits playing the game for thirty minutes, until the parent calls her to the dinner table, at which point she says she cannot stop playing the game, because if she does, all the bubbles and wands will go away and there won't be any left to create new bubbles or new wands. The parents tell her that it doesn't really matter and that she should eat her dinner, and they finally drag her away. The girl is in tears, and the game ends as all the bubbles pop and the last wand finally disappears.

When the last wand disappears and there are no more bubbles, so what?

I see no difference between finding meaning in a great number of individuals surviving long enough to reproduce individuals who can then in turn survive long enough to reproduce, who then in turn do the same, and so on and so on ... and the girl finding her meaning in life to make the bubbles and wands survive and procreate on her computer game. If the game ends, and the whole point of the game was only for the game to continue being played ... it's all really meaningless and worthless. It seems silly to attach any value to it at all.

Have you ever wondered why Richard Dawkins has spent so much time reading and re-reading the book of Ecclesiastes and meditating on it to the point where he says he nearly has it memorized? Have you ever read Ecclesiastes?

To me, this is really the point of the whole book, that from the materialist perspective the wise and rational conclude a philosophy of nihilism. I agree. I don't see how you can be a materialist who sees meaning in surviving and reproducing, unless you are really not just being emotional about it instead of rational.

"Mere molecules" are when the person is defined as consisting of the molecules alone. There is no meaning to the person any more than there is meaning to what we consider lifeless energy or lifeless matter. The only way the molecules can be something more than "mere molecules" is if they are the dwellingplace of a person who is more than just "mere molecules".

It goes back to Dicanau's question about the house. Does it need to be "inhabited by ghosts to validate it as a warm shelter?" My answer is "no" because of the word ghosts. But I do say that it needs to be inhabited by something other than its own bricks and wood to be considered a shelter. Without any inhabitants, it is not a shelter, but "mere bricks and wood".

This is how I would explain the "mere molecules" idea, if that helps you to understand it. If all the house houses is itself, it's not a home. Calling it a home is "invalid" in the world of reason. That kind of house is meaningless, absurd, void of value, without importance or significance, senseless ... I need not go on. You get the idea.

172. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #96624 by Shrommer on December 10, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Diacanu,

I don't see how an invisible boogeyman looking down on me would impart meaning. ???

What I am complaining about here is the idea that something substantial and even glorious is perceived about the internal meaning one creates during a brief stint as an active grouping of molecules. I think the logical answer is to conclude that "all is meaningless", rather than concluding that there is internal meaning and then attaching value and importance to it.

So far as the house is concerned, it needs to be inhabited by someone to be validated as a warm shelter - be it ghost, human, animal, or any other living thing. The inhabitant gives meaning to the house as a shelter. Without any inhabitant it is a "mere heap of bricks and wood" - not a shelter. The house is meaningless without any inhabitant.

(Yes, yes, I know we could talk about the aesthetics of viewing the house from the outside, or the idea that someone might inhabit it at a later date, etc. But can you just follow what I mean? Every analogy is imperfect and limited.)

The molecules we inhabit have meaning because a person exists inside, and uses the human anatomy and physiology as a house. Once you take away the person inside and reduce it to the illusion of personhood created by a grouping of molecules, ... now you are left with "mere" molecules - an meaningless, empty shell which is not a shelter for anything or anyone.

Under this view of reality, there should be no more harm in killing a person than there is in turning off an electrical appliance.

The question I'm asking here is not whether anything else can do a better job of imparting meaning to the person, but whether there really is any meaning at all to begin with. If there isn't, then there is no sense at all to "creating meaning" or "deriving meaning" or "imparting meaning" or "seeking meaning". It all becomes a dead end.

If you believe that there is meaning, you have a hard time trying to justify that belief rationally, if it is even possible at all.

173. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #96599 by Shrommer on December 10, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I feel I should repeat what I think the good point is that Dinesh makes: "...individual people having no external meaning and being merely a certain conglomeration of molecules under the atheist perspective."

I have read the article by the atheist professor, and Dinesh is wrong about there being no atheists there.

Was it the right time to make that point? Hmmm.... I suppose it was not sensitive to the people involved. I doubt that Dinesh was considering the people involved or what effect his writing this may have had on them. It would have been better for him to have used that consideration, in my opinion. I was reading selfishly, thinking of the effect it had on me, not on others. You bring up a good point for reflection.

As a writer, if you bring up a point like that too long after the event, nobody pays attention. It's like people writing today about the tragedy of the Titanic. It is a good time to make a point as far as not putting the finger on the wound before it's healed, but it is a lousy time to talk about the Titanic when the present generation has a total disconnect.

I never thought of Dinesh as a "major proponent of Christian charity", and still don't. I have no intention of judging him, and don't even know that much about him.

Nihilism does not seem to me to be a "humane" philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong. We shouldn't pick and choose our philosophy based on what comforts us or what feels good. We should base it on reason and evidence. That's where I'm coming from. That also seems to be where Dawkins is coming from, and this is his website.

What is your rational basis for thinking that people should act "humanely"?

174. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #95831 by Shrommer on December 9, 2007 at 9:56 am

comment 43159: "There is no point mourning the inferior dead, any more than grieving over a trilobite. They had no souls, no intrinsic value, and no sham sorrow will bring them back. Their loss leaves more resources for the more able survivors. ... Celebrate victory! Worrying about losers is a job for churches, not rationalists."

I agree that this fits the materialist mentality. The strange thing for me is why anyone should celebrate under that mentality, though. It's like comment 43169 - there are no "oughts", only what is. There is no "ought to mourn" and no "ought to celebrate".

As to comment 81535, I don't see why anyone thinks that theists are comforted by believing that evil exists or that souls pass from this world into eternal hell and damnation. It is much more distressing than comforting.

And there is no reason for belief in God to be "militant"!! Jesus of Nazareth believed in God and told his disciples to put their swords away, going instead like a sheep to the slaughter and not opening his mouth to his own defense. Many theists may be militant, but not the followers of Christ.

As to 81540, the reason for belief in the afterlife is not "in order to find comfort" but because of the evidence of the resurrection. Belief in the afterlife was hesitant in Judaism until one of their own rose from the dead. To check it out yourself, compare the book of Ecclesiastes with the letters to the Corinthians. The belief in God before the resurrection of Christ was based on God speaking to people, with little or no emphasis on the afterlife. The belief in the afterlife became strong only since the material evidence became available to the eyewitnesses, who saw, touched, heard, and interacted acted with Jesus during the forty or forty-three days after his undeniable death. In both cases, the belief is based on sensory exoerience, not religious ideas of comfort or the mere desire for something better.

175. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #92596 by Shrommer on November 30, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Dinesh makes a very good point about individual people having no external meaning and being merely a certain conglomeration of molecules under the atheist perspective. This means that there is no way to speak about something as truly evil, and defining evil becomes a mere option among several ways for people to create their own internal meaning which will die when they do. For this reason I see the most consistent philosophical position for the atheist to be nihilism, and not humanism or any type of meaning or morality system.

176. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #91644 by shrommer on November 28, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Someone wrote that although the universe is pitiless, atheists show pity, and although the universe is meaningless, atheists create meaning. Why? Are atheists a slave to their genetic programming without the capacity of reason to think through a consistent philosophy? Aren't there also atheists who hold to nihilism? Why is it that every atheist is lumped together under this one category? Would an atheist who refuses to show pity or who refuses to create meaning for his or her self, simply be kicked out of the atheist club?

177. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #91638 by shrommer on November 28, 2007 at 7:29 pm

I still don't see what basis an atheist has for saying that evil exists, or why there is any thing wrong with one person's meaning being snuffed out by an assassin, when the atheist believes that there really is no meaning to the universe. Why would any atheist think that the future of humanity matters, or the future of any individual person within the human race? Nihilism really seems to me to be the only philosophy consistent with the kind of atheism Dawkins discusses. Every other atheist philosophy is delusional.

178. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #33635 by Shrommer on April 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Okay, so I can pretend for a moment that there is no God. It doesn't enhance my humanity; it degrades it. Besides, once you know somebody personally, isn't it a bit insane to go around pretending that they don't exist?

It's not about what gives meaning to my life, how much enjoyment something creates, or what an idea "does" for me that is of ultimate importance. It's about what reality is. What our senses tell us is the historical testimony of those who saw the risen Christ.

To contemplate God and sense condemnation or restrained humanity is certainly unpleasant, but to know yourself as a forgiven heir of creation, someone loved and filled and blessed and free, is a far more pleasant experience than any human thought about our biological existence on earth or in the universe filled with stars.

I don't see my job as one of creating meaning, but rather one of discovering meaning. When we know the truth, the truth sets us free. To see God as a party-pooper is a lie. I once lived under that religious bondage, but now that I've been set free, there ain't nothing gonna take me back there! Until you've had the Holy Spirit living inside of you, you haven't really lived.

179. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #33633 by Shrommer on April 20, 2007 at 7:29 pm

As simple as the C.S. Lewis point was, it got lost in the shuffle. Lewis is not talking here about the decisions a writer can make for the characters in his novels. He is talking about the decisions a reader can make for the characters in a novel that someone else has written. Yes, there are different interpretations allowed to each reader, but the reader cannot change the decisions that the characters in the novel make. You can read the book from beginning to end, and even go back and re-read any section you like, but if the character in the story decided to eat spaghetti, there is nothing that the reader can do to change that decision. God is the omniscient reader of the history that we write. He knows every decision that we, the characters, make, but He does not make those decisions for us.

You or I may know about some of the things that others choose to do, and we realize that we are not the ones who made those choices for those people. Just because God knows about every single human choice in all of history, yes the scale on which he knows people's decisions is much greater, but His role in making those decisions is no greater than the role you or I have in the decisions that others make. Does that make it simpler to follow?

180. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31867 by Shrommer on April 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Replying to post 106 Logicel ... The meaning of life is for genes to be passed on? You are saying that life does have a sense and a purpose, and that every time a gene gets eliminated from the gene pool or a species becomes extinct, that purpose is thwarted.

Besides, aren't you calling this definition of the meaning to life an absolute? You can never find a reason to support this philosophy, since you are using this as the core axiom on which all of life is based, and you have created this core axiom out of thin air.

It sounds pretty silly and empty to me, but I'm sure that the purpose of spending eternity in fellowship with God and all His goodness sounds pretty silly to you.

It won't sound so silly if you sincerely ask Him, "If you are real, and I don't think you are, but if you are, I'd really like to know, so please show yourself to me." I know a former atheist who prayed that prayer, and today he is a Messianic Jew. He asked; God answered.

181. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31864 by Shrommer on April 14, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I wanted to put in a pitch for critical thinking surrounding this statement: "Free will as described in Christianity which I regard as ridiculous, since Yaweh knows everything what his subjects will do, ... "

C.S. Lewis describes it something like this: I can know everything that certain characters in a book do, and I can read the book from beginning to end, or go back and re-read any part from the middle that I choose, or I can even read the book out of order. (That is like God's part.) For all my knowing everything the characters will do, at any point in time, that does not give me any influence at all in changing the free will of the characters (or the choices that the novelist decided ahead of time that the characters would make.) The choices do not belong to even the omniscient reader.

Simply put, knowing every decision that a person ever has made, is making, or ever will make, does not take any power away from the free will of that character to make the decision they make at any point in the story/history. For the third person to know the choice of the first person does not take anything away from the first person being the one to make that choice.

182. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31044 by Shrommer on April 10, 2007 at 7:14 pm

I'd like to respond to Scooternyc's comment 61.

Jesus died for sins from before he came to earth and after he came to earth. He died to remove the sin nature from man's spirit and replace it with the Holy Spirit, at the same time replacing an eternal punishment with an eternal new life!

Thanks be to God, the Gospel really is that good. The point is no longer what we do or say, it is that Jesus took one for the whole team, and we all have a free pass for eternity! You ought to be an evangelist. Adam (one man) got us into this whole sin mess, but Jesus (one man) gets us all out of it! It's not fair that what Adam did contaminates the whole human race, and it's not fair that what Jesus did purifies the whole human race, but that's the way God chose to let the whole thing happen. He took responsibility for our bad decisions, since after all He created us this way, and He provided the way of escape in the simple message that "Yahweh Saves", which one may understand in greater or lesser detail.

Religion is all about sets of rules and dogmas that one should adhere to. What Jesus did was really to blow all that religious stuff straight out of the water. He came to give us life, and give it to us abundantly, and he gives all things for our enjoyment. It is really confusing to me why atheists have such a problem accepting this good news, except that Satan distorts it and some Christians play along with him by making the Good News sound so religious when it is meant to be the antidote to religion.

Jesus has saved us from the punishment/penalty of sin; he is saving us from the power of sin on an ongoing basis so that we can live free and no longer as slaves in bondage to sin; and one day we will be saved from even the presence of sin. If you really want that perfect society you're looking for, turn to God, not from Him. It's okay to reject religion, but don't throw out the jewels (the Good News) just because it's wallowing around in a whole bunch of pig slop (religion).

183. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31041 by Shrommer on April 10, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Logicel, I'm trying to follow you here. You seem to be saying that there are millions of different individuals who believe that there is no inherent meaning to anything, then each one goes on an individual quest to create his or her own meaning, and all these millions together happen to end up at the same place, believing that there is such a thing as a good society, and then committedly working to promote it.

Isn't an atheist free to not choose to create any meaning if he/she desires not to? Isn't an atheist free to come to any other conclusion than to find meaning in the words "good society" and then committing to promote it?

It's all just a coincidence that out of nothing they all come to the same conclusion, and there is no logical basis for this conclusion; it (meaning) is simply held as a haphazard human creation with no absolute value. So if someone comes along with an opposite conclusion, such as believing that there is no good society, or that the best way to promote good society is to execute every impoverished, unhealthy, or disobedient person, there is no good reason to stop them - it is just another human creation of meaning, of equal value to any other individual's version of what "good" could mean.

Why is "Critical thinking" good in this world view? I'm sorry, but I see much more consistency and sense to nihilism than some kind of benign atheism. What happens when you apply critical thinking to the premise that there is value to critical thinking? Is there any way to defend it other than blind faith?

184. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30790 by Shrommer on April 9, 2007 at 8:27 pm

Dionne quotes Harris as writing "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." So basically Harris is saying that if he had known Jesus before the crucifixion, and then saw him alive several times during the 40 days Jesus was on earth after the resurrection, that would convert Harris and anyone else into an intolerant person. ??? It's like saying that anyone who is certain that the Holocaust occurred is going to be automatically intolerant, and using that as an argument to try and get people to deny the Holocaust ever happened.

But the real funny thing is that later Harris goes on and says that it is tolerance which is "driving us towards the abyss". So is Harris claiming that tolerance is a good thing, a bad thing, or has he just not made up his mind?

It sounds a lot like the same Harris who accuses Christians of having no interest in a thriving, stable civilization (due to belief that the world will someday end), while on the other hand wanting Christians to stay out of politics, a realm that Christians are presumably involved in in the first place because we care about having a thriving and stable civilization.

What I don't understand is why an atheist would at all care about society or humanity. It seems to me that if life is pointless and meaningless, then the death of a human should be no worse of an event to them then the switching off of a lightbulb - just a neutral and meaningless rearrangement of matter and energy. If everything is so pointless, why do they bother making any points at all? There would be nothing worse about the extinction of the whole human race at once, than there would be about the extinction of the whole human race in the successive deaths of each individual composing it during the course of millions or billions of years til the sun burns out or we get swallowed up in a black hole. How can there be any basis for judging anything to be good or bad? How can any value be ascribed to life which is simply a result of chance?