svensky

I'm not trying to refute it, and I don't think the original asker of the question is trying to refute it (at least not with that question). Hes just saying, face up to the hard reality of what you claim to believe.

So not only are we finite but automatons to boot ?

Jason

svensky

Just becasue a belief system sound nice doesn't then make it false either. Just becasue a belief system sounds bad doesn't make it true either.

But what has any of that to do with truth claims ?

What kind of idiot would use a criteria like that when picking a belief system ?

Jason

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps you could offer a quote from Shakespeare, shrug, and then go do something with your friend that you both truly enjoy -- noting later that the enjoyment was real. IMO, there is nothing in materialism that diminishes Mozart or a really good football game.

By the way, the site refenced in the Philosophical Wasteland thread contains a very good (IMO) discussion on the implication of atheism.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Kellys255

Svensky: "What kind of idiot would use a criteria like that when picking a belief system?

You do exactly that in your above posts.

excreationist

svensky:
Are you saying that believing that Christians will live in eternal bliss is not realistic?
And as I said, I don't think it's bleak. At least it involves a lot of freedom and variety - unlike a rigid utopia like heaven. And we can live as if everyone is equal - you can't do that in heaven. And we can use our own judgement rather than blindly obey God all the time.

I think that's good - why should the universe get depressed or celebrate because I died? People should just get on with their lives. If I'm not watching over them, what does it matter what they do? Maybe I will be remembered for centuries somehow... (like Picasso) but what's the point worrying about that? I wouldn't be around to enjoy the fame anyway.

Of course it will change things - at least in a tiny way.

Well when you "live in the moment" the present day is what matters a lot. The present is *real*. I can affect the present. The future is also real since I can affect the future... in the future. Thinking about the world in a thousand years is fairly irrelevant. I guess the future of the world is important for future generations - so environmentalism is important. But I don't see what it has to do with me personally. You are saying that I want to be appreciated forever... well it is possible for me to be appreciated for my entire existence. And after that, I'm not capable of knowing what happens since I'd be dead. I don't think the length of time really matters. I think what matters is that I'm here now, and if I wasn't here, I wouldn't exist and wouldn't be able to complain about it.

This is what Buddhism talks about. Christianity says that there are actually eternal things like God and Heaven that you can stay attached to, that won't let you down. The reason they won't let you down is because it can't be refuted. If there is a lack of evidence, then God is just testing your faith. If things go good, it is because of God - or maybe the devil. If things go bad, it is because of God - or maybe the devil.
To be content all you need to do is to look at what you have now and appreciate it. And just prefer to have this in the future. If you believe that you MUST have good things in your life forever and ever and ever then there is a problem. Well not for Christians though... they might be disappointed in life but their belief in Heaven can keep them motivated.
Atheists don't have an idea of the afterlife - they have to just look at real things in their life - like friends or family, etc. Again, it's about the adventure thing - you win some and you lose some.

If you are concerned about the journey and not the destination, then every single moment where you are content with reality is very rewarding. So your whole life can be filled with many rewarding experiences, until it stops - and then you are incapable of recognizing that it has stopped.

What's this obsession you have with how others think about you? Do you need some kind of reassurance that you're ok? Low self-esteem?

Well some people believe hell can't be true - does that make it so? And some believe believe in reincarnation - because it feels right - does that make it true?

Ok, maybe heaven is a good thing, but my point is that having no afterlife doesn't have to be the depressing thing you make it out to be. In fact, Christians can get really depressed too - by feeling guilty about all the impure thoughts they've had, etc.

Ok.... he's trying to say something. I don't get what "life is an illusion" and "nothing exists" is supposed to mean.

Well I did that years ago. And I've accepted my world-view and its implications.

Well I believe that our awareness and brains rely on entirely physical processes. There may be some non-deterministic random element to it (quantum randomness?) that we have no control over though. So the mechanics of our brains are basically at the mercy of our environment. We still have to go through the motions of weighing up decisions and be subjected to compulsions to seek/repeat or avoid situations. Even sitting around doing nothing involves weighing up your options and selecting the one with the most positive emotions. We are forced to do whatever selection is associated with the most positive emotion, and this is totally based on past experiences and genetics. Or do you have evidence that we have a soul that isn't dependent on the universe to make its decisions?

Well basically I think this is what this discussion is all about - David H's friend is saying that naturalism is depressing and that Christianity isn't. He seems to just be using emotional arguments.

Well some Christians might just cling to their beliefs simply because the alternative seems too bleak.

Francois Tremblay

That's a complete non sequitur. That only matter exists does not mean that we cannot have higher degrees of organisation from the epistemic viewpoint. That we do indeed have love, horror, good, bad, etc... is proof of the vacuity of his argument.

But, what do you expect from a Christian. They're used to ignoring the evidence.

Amos

My answer would be that life must be an illusion if eternal life is real and it is in dying to this illusion that we are born into eternal life.

Our destiny is to arrive there at mid-live and spend the second half of life as the matrix of life. This would be without destiny, morals (not amoral but just without moral obligation), choice (choice makes reference to determinism) etc.

Synaesthesia

excreationist,
I can quite easily imagine heaven being far more free than anything we know here on earth. Of course doesn’t seem to exist whereas earth decidedly does exist. We have to make the best of we have, but it’s easy to imagine having better.

Theophage

First, let me say that Valis' post was excellent.

Next, lets examine this statment made by the anonymous intelligent evangelical friend for a minute:

"if naturalism is true then nothing exists, and life is an illusion. There is no love, horror, good, bad, evil, choice, etc. Only chemical reactions. If the Universe is only matter, matter is amoral, therefore we are amoral."

This is also restated by owleye as follows:

"That is, this position would regard naturalism as insisting that we are merely molecules or atoms in motion."

The problem here is that these statements commit the logical <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html" target="_blank">fallacy of composition</a>. Simply because an atom is amoral does not mean that everything made of atoms must also be amoral. Simply because molecules know nothing of love, horror, etc. does not mean that anything made of molecules cannot know these things.

Consider a triangle. Triangles come in several types: isoceles, scalene, obtuse, etc. Triangles are made of three line segments in a certain arrangement. Now, wouldn't it be silly to claim that since none of the line segments making up the triangle have the property of being "isoceles" that the triangle itself cannot have that property? So too it is silly arguing that since atoms cannot experience love, things made up of atoms therefore can never experience love. Being "merely molecules" in no way commits us to having only the properties that individual molecules themselves have.

Finally, I would like to address Jason/svensky's comment:

"All the struggle, the striving, the learning the discovery, what was it for ? Nothing in the end, the whole history of humanity will be little more than a gasp in the long quiet history of the cosmos. That is the view you need to take to understand the argument."

Indeed, what was all the struggle for? Clearly, not for the end state of history, since we will all be nothing in that end state. No, the struggle is for now, or for the near future.

Consider being hungry. If I am hungry now, why should I eat? I will just be hungry again later. Indeed, no matter how much I eat, I wil be dead eventually anyway, and my hunger will be gone. Why eat? Because I'm hungry now.

Theists such as Jason seem to imply that we atheists are being inconsistant everytime we eat, make plans, or give meaning to our own lives. Just because something may only have meaning in the here and now does not mean that it has no meaning. Just because a line segment has only a short length does not mean it has no length at all.

What is it with some people's death grip on the notion that something must be eternal to be "real"?

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

svensky

No, i'm just saying that the grim reality of a naturalistic view of the universe implies certian things to be true. All of them pretty bleak. I didn't say I was a naturalist. I can just think outside the theist box.

Not in the long run. Once the human race disappears, so does any difference you made.

Thats fine. I was just trying to discuss why David H's friend held the point of view, I was trying to shed some light on it.

Probably, I'm not one of them. I think it would be just as fair to say that I know people that remain athiests (even more generally deists) becasue of the low accountability of such actions.

What would you consider as evidence ? I suspect anything I could suggest as evidence for a soul would simply be dismissed out of hand. But if you are interested (and willing to think about it) I guess we could move it to another thread.

Jason