A Christian’s worldview makes life beautiful and exciting, but an atheist’s worldview makes life depressing and meaningless. At least that’s what Gene Edward Veith says in “Making Atheism Enchanting“:
[The atheist's] worldview lacks all appeal. They get hung up on the last remaining absolute: Atheism is not beautiful. It is so depressing.
If there is no God and this physical realm is all there is, life is pretty much pointless. A person might believe such a bleak worldview, but no one is going to like it.
I’ve been on both sides now. I was a Christian for over a decade and made arguments similar to Veith. In fact, I have read most of Veith’s books and once agreed heartily with him.
I thought life was beautiful and exciting when I was a Christian. So now that I’m an atheist, do I see life as depressing and ugly? Of course not. Life is just as beautiful and exciting as it ever was — in fact, sometimes I wonder if I feel it is more so.
Depressing Atheism; Depressing Calvinism
Pullquote: I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
It’s easy and fun to tell other people what you think their logical conclusions should be. For instance, Veith is a Calvinist. Calvinists believe God predestined everything. I could insist that believing this makes life depressing and meaningless. After all, everything will happen anyway. Your actions are insignificant. If you do it, it was meant to be. If you don’t do it, it was meant to be.
That seems to make life depressing and pointless — but Veith wouldn’t agree. He’s a Calvinist and still sees life as beautiful and meaningful. Who am I to tell him he can’t find beauty and meaning in it?
In other words, you can insist that someone’s worldview makes life depressing and meaningless, but that doesn’t make it so.
Beauty and Meaning in Atheism
Pullquote: Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
I find Veith’s assumption that “no one is going to like [atheism]” insulting. I certainly don’t find the other option — that there is a God in this mess of a world — any better. But not liking something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. After all, I don’t like Ray Comfort, but he and his banana still exist.
I find life as beautiful and as meaningful as I did when I was a Christian. I marvel at the world and the progress we make in understanding it. I love being with those I love. I cherish good food, good books, and yes, good sex. It is true I do not have an absolute purpose in life — I am not dedicated to “glorifying God” anymore. But I find creating my own purpose thrilling. I am the author of a novel, and the book is my life. The freedom is exhilarating.
Atheism can be depressing for some people, just like Calvinism can be depressing. So what? Riches can make some people depressed, and so can poverty. It all depends on your perspective.
Life is as happy and meaningful as you make it. You can be a depressed Christian or a depressed atheist; you can be a happy Christian or a happy atheist. Some of the unhappiest people I’ve known have been Christians — as well as some of the happiest.
Both Christians and atheists can agree on one thing: there is only one life to live.
Let’s take time to enjoy it. I know I will.
Heidi: And before that we had rocks! And we were damned glad to get them! My dad went to school in a... 
1minion: That was going to be my question, Jerdog. Do some good with all that “evil” stuff for a... 
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
Leah: These people came to my school and protested…. I can’t help wondering if maybe they are just a... 
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. 
140 Comments
Whether it’s a view that is depressing or not is of no relevance to whether gods exists. As a secondary point why does there have to be a ‘point’ to life. Science answers how we are here religion asks why we are here, makes the assumption that the why has a valid answer in the first place. In the big scheme of things a human life is very much pointless. To paraphrase, a million deaths is a statistic but a single death is a personal tragedy.
ITA. If one views atheism as depressing – that is not an argument for or against the veracity of the belief system. The most anyone could say is that they emotionally prefer a belief system which includes an afterlife.
First, for Mr. Veith to posit anything about whether or not life is “beautiful” or “meaningful”, I’d ask him to define what is beauty and what is meaning.
And then I’d ask why life has to have a meaning at all, and why can’t I give it a meaning (for some hypothetical value of meaning), no gods required.
Daniel,
Both Christians and atheists can agree on one thing: there is only one life to live.
I think that’s just where Christians and atheists don’t agree. Christians think there is “the next life” to live too, and that’s the one they’re concentrating on.
Also, I think certain Christians use the concept of a second eternal life as a justification for suffering in the world. After all, this life doesn’t really matter. All of the pain, suffering, sadness, etc. are only temporary when compared with next next eternal life. As long as those who suffer accept jeezus, who really cares what happens? It’s all about “saving souls” anyway.
They should do both themselves and us a favor and “go to a better place” sooner. But sadly, even they know that’s a bunch of BS and won’t do it.
Also, this “next life” Christians believe in isn’t really a life…it’s a lobotomized servitude where everyone “gets” to praise their Imaginary Sky Friend for ever and ever and ever. Sounds like biiiig fun.
They also have the option of sitting on the balcony and watching us evil atheists burning in hell. Now that what I call good clean entertainment fit for the whole family.
You know the party’s gonna be in hell…
:P
Hell has the best musicians.
lol, wintermute!
ditto, i totally agree with you.
thanks for sharing such funny-but-TRUE joke! :D
and that’s the one they’re concentrating on.
Umm, no.
Why yes, yes they are focusing on the “next” life.
I personally overheard a conversation the other day whining about when the rapture was coming (taking too long).
These people have fetishized turmoil, apocalypse and their coming “reward”.
Good riddance, can’t wait.
For my wife’s family, firmly in the “in this world but not of it” camp, the answer is “ummmm… yes”.
Of course, like all generalisations, it’s not 100% true. There are Christians who concentrate on this life, but (as always, when you talk about rational, moderate Christians) they aren’t the visible ones, and they never suggest that they fringe not be allowed to set the public opinion.
For my wife’s family, firmly in the “in this world but not of it” camp, the answer is “ummmm… yes”.
So, do they eat? Sleep? Have jobs? Do they really ignore this life and concentrate only on the next?
I’ve met a lot of Christians in my life from all over the spectrum of Christianity. I’ve met very, very few who concentrated exclusively or even put the majority of their focus on the next life (even if their theology says they should).
Sure, you could point to the ancient ascetics or groups here and there that fit the bill, such as two people talking about the rapture, but the overwhelming majority of Christians don’t. We live life in the here and now and to follow Jesus’ command to love God and love our neighbors. For most of us, the afterlife is an afterthought, something that’s there in our theology and tradition but not something that dominates our thoughts and lifestyles.
Hence, my “ummm, no.”
They filter everything they do through exactly that lens. They only take jobs either working for a church, or as a missionary opportunity. They only read books or listen to music that is sold in the Family Christian Stores. They are continually on the look out for signs of the Rapture.
They do everything they can to ignore the real world in favour of the Kingdom of Heaven. And they’re far from unique in this area.
What’s so depressing and pointless about understanding that we are the universe incarnate? We are all of us star dust formed into concious beings able to reason about the universe that we are living in, and able to find out how it works. That’s far more beautiful and less pointless, to me, than sitting around all day praising an invisible zombie sky-lord.
Then again… if Christians insist that one god is less depressing and pointless than no god, surely a whole array of gods like the Greeks and Norse had is even less depressing and pointless?
Well if someone believes that everything is predestined, why bother with God at all? Why try to convert other people to ones religion? Being or becoming an atheist must be in Gods plan too then. So again: Why bother at all?
As I transitioned into atheism, it was the idea of theism that I found more and more depressing. If there’s a perfect, good, all-powerful deity why doesn’t he/she do something about the world? Why is there suffering? Why disease? Why natural disasters? Not everything can be explained by free will and man’s own inherent crappiness towards other men (which an all powerful deity could take care of anyway).
I suppose there could be a deity out there that wasn’t all-good, all-powerful, and omniscient. But would that deity be worth worshiping? Would he/she be worthy of respect? I doubt it. I haven’t seen any religion postulate such a deity yet. And there’s no reason to postulate such an entity when natural processes can explain the world exactly as it is.
I actually find it liberating and uplifting to not believe in a deity – it means that the world isn’t being controlled by some “divine plan” and that there’s no point in grubbing about in the dirt in this life in hopes of having some wonderful afterlife. Instead we can actively work to make this life and this world a better place for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren – without the worries that some jealous bastard of a deity is going to smite us all for getting too uppity (see Genesis, Book of).
I suppose there could be a deity out there that wasn’t all-good, all-powerful, and omniscient. But would that deity be worth worshiping? Would he/she be worthy of respect? I doubt it. I haven’t seen any religion postulate such a deity yet.
Jer, meet Process Theology
Wow. I’d never heard of process theology before. Thanks for the link because, wow.
I don’t know if the wikipedia page is accurate in its description of process theology – I guess I may have to check out some of the primary sources myself – but if it is that is some amazing bit of contortion to justify having something resembling a god in the end. A god that can’t affect anything materially except through persuasion and is forced to experience whatever we experience – both the good and bad. That doesn’t really seem like a god, but more of a cosmic mental parasite. I can almost see that as a setup for a Star Trek episode. (And reading that made me wonder if Robert Wright’s “The Evolution of God” was influenced by process theology – his description of the divine seems somewhat similar to that).
I’m still not certain why I’d want to worship such an entity or why it would want me to worship it though. Mostly such an entity would seem to want me to do as little as I could to make it suffer and as much as I could to make it happy. A combination of “Do No Harm” mixed with hedonism.
That kind of reminds me of a character of mine, actually. Except it didn’t need to persuade anyone…
I’m still not certain why I’d want to worship such an entity or why it would want me to worship it though.
You will find process theologians who jettison worship altogether. Instead of worship and/or prayer, you get meditation and expressions of gratefulness.
Personally, I think a lot about worship from a position of skepticism. If God doesn’t exist, then atheists tend to conclude that worship is delusional nonsense, right? If there’s no God to hear you, then what’s the point? Tentatively, I think I would respond that even if there is no God to worship, there is still significant value in giving expression to the gratitude that I feel for being alive.
Well, I thank my mother, since she’s the one who gave birth to me. I don’t worship my mother, though (except hero worship, because she deserves it). Does that count? :p
You will find process theologians who jettison worship altogether. Instead of worship and/or prayer, you get meditation and expressions of gratefulness.
Interesting. So via process theology you come back around to something kind of like the native shaman perspective of thanking nature for providing sustenance, but at a more abstract level.
Preface: I don’t know many practicing process theologians; as of now, it’s mostly an academic movement as far as I am aware.
But, that certainly would be one way of putting it, and it’s certainly a logical outworking of the theological system. I always think of the Native Americans and their process of killing and then using every single bit of the buffalo, all while giving thanks to nature and to the buffalo for sacrificing its life.
Catherine Keller is one of whom I am aware. She’s very active in the church, but in a very different way than most.
Here is a better link to process theology from the SEP:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/
“Cosmic mental parasite”
Wow! That is a great concept, for several reasons. First, it would make a great name for a rock band, as Dave Barry used to say. Then, when I pictured such a thing, I pictured two big googly eyes, and lots of tentacles hanging down . . . and maybe some sauce . . maybe the CMP can be the incarnation of evil in the FSM universe.
When I first started reading Nietszche, I could never figure out why he chose to keep climbing once he realized the climb never ended. In other words, I never understood why he didn’t become a nihilist. In my view, nihilism is a logical conclusion of atheism; it is at least a logical possibility. As Jabster said above,
In the big scheme of things a human life is very much pointless
I suspect that Veith is thinking along similar lines, except that s/he understands nihilism to be the necessary conclusion of atheism, not just a possible conclusion.
I’ve learned that nihilism isn’t a necessary conclusion for atheists, but that’s only because I’ve been exposed to atheists who aren’t nihilists. Veith probably hasn’t either … just like Daniel wasn’t while he was a hardcore Southern Baptist. So don’t feel too insulted; it’s simply being unaware.
Both Christians and atheists can agree on one thing: there is only one life to live.
Yes, we do. Life is precious, and I’m grateful for the gift of life everyday.
Given your following paragraph, I’d recommend changing “understands” to “believes”.
Given that nihilism is incredibly rare (confined to the more emo teenagers, and quickly grown out of), this pretty much equates to “has never met an atheist”. Which means that it’s incredibly arrogant of him to write books about atheism. The insult isn’t is ignorance; it’s his willingness to shout his ignorance from the rooftops, thinking it’s unparalleled wisdom and insight.
Fair enough. I don’t know Veith’s work. Sounds like you.
*sounds like you do.
Never heard of him before. But, as you say, he’s obviously completely ignorant of what atheists think or believe. Therefore, it’s insultingly arrogant of him to write a book telling people what atheists think and believe.
If someone were to write a book explaining how all Christians believe that the only possible reason not to rape or murder people is because God said not to, I’d expect Christians to react rather badly to that, regardless of the fact that some minuscule percentage of Christians really do claim to believe that. Does it make it less offensive if the author has simply not done the slightest bit of research? I don’t think it does.
f someone were to write a book explaining how all Christians believe that the only possible reason not to rape or murder people is because God said not to, I’d expect Christians to react rather badly to that, regardless of the fact that some minuscule percentage of Christians really do claim to believe that.
Since you brought that up … that happens here quite often, be it in the official posts of the blog or the comments. Here’s one in this very thread (to which we both responded in some way).
I object to Daniel when I think he does that; I don’t like it when he speaks for Christians or Christianity based on his experience in the SB church.
So, maybe you’re right. Maybe it is insulting. Thanks for pointing that out to me … guess I really didn’t think it through thoroughly before posting.
News flash: Thin-skinned theist takes offense at sometimes over-broad portrayal made about theists by people on a atheist website.
Are you really a bot that’s programmed to accuse me of playing the victim every time I post?
Why is it okay for Daniel to be insulted by a misrepresentation of atheism and it not be okay for a Christian to be insulted by a misrepresentation of Christianity? Why don’t you bitch about Daniel every time he posts about someone misrepresenting atheism?
Furthermore, I’m not insulted. I simply acknowledged that I was wrong about Veith’s comments. Nothing more.
Doesn’t make it more excusable to make the over-broad portrayals, does it?
For the record, I’ve had a lot more experience in Christianity than SBC, brgulker.
That’s fine. Reading my comment, it comes off in a way that I didn’t intend … I didn’t mean it to be insulting or condescending, although it does come across that way.
That said, I’m not going to hesitate to call you out when I think you’ve misrepresented something :)
“In my view, nihilism is a logical conclusion of atheism; …”
If think you also need to think about what the following means …
“To paraphrase, a million deaths is a statistic but a single death is a personal tragedy.”
So nihilism isn’t a logical conclusion of atheism?
I didn’t misunderstand you, I don’t think. In the big picture of the multi/universe, human life is trivial. By contrast, losing someone close to you is tragic and gut-wrenching.
I wasn’t saying your a nihilist; I just picked that statement to illustrate why I think nihilism is one logical outcome of atheism.
To me “a logical conclusion” is the wrong word as I don’t think a non-belief in god encompasses enough to make that logical leap. A possible conclusion yes but not a logical one.
So nihilism is not a logical conclusion of atheism, then? Why not?
Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but doesn’t atheism entail a fundamental indifference about human life? Life isn’t inherently bad, nor is it inherently good. Life just is. Meaning is created, as are morals and values.
You can choose to inject meaning, morals, and values into life, or you could choose not to. I don’t see how the latter is not nihilism, and I don’t see how the latter isn’t a logical conclusion of atheism (as I understand it).
I doesn’t fit into a logical premise.
All atheists do not believe in god.
Belief in god creates value and meaning and purpose to life.
Therefore, atheists conclude life has no value or meaning or purpose.
FALSE.
Kodie, either I’m not communicating clearly, or you’re misunderstanding me.
I’m not saying that atheism is nihilistic; in fact, most atheists aren’t nihilists, right?
You said yourself that you don’t believe life has inherent meaning; instead, life has the meaning that you create for it. That’s a perfectly logical conclusion based on your assumptions.
But, I can also see how someone who rejects inherent meaning of life (and the universe) could logically arrive at nihilism. That’s all I’m saying. Not that one should arrive there and not that one must arrive there. Just that it’s possible, and that it’s not always clear to people who aren’t atheists and who aren’t exposed to atheists why atheists aren’t nihilists.
You’re maybe not understanding what logic entails. An atheist could choose to be nihilistic, but that’s not because of logic, that might be because they just think so. Logic has some firm rules, so if there are atheists who aren’t nihilistic, it disproves what you’re trying to assert. I mean, you can certainly point to this given atheist who has concluded based on available facts that life has no purpose or meaning, but just because that occurs doesn’t mean that it’s a logical statement. It’s some sort of fallacy to call that a logical statement just because sometimes it’s true and even obviously possible or probable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
By logical, you may mean rational.
No, I haven’t misunderstood what logic is. I hope you realize how condescending that sounds.
Here’s the assumption I’m saying that I see atheists make (at least some around here):
Life has no inherent meaning; life just is.
The word inherent is important there, because it’s used over against theists who would posit inherent, intrinsic value to human life, which is derived from our status as creatures.
Obviously, if life has no inherent meaning, then it must be constructed or not. The person who chooses to construct meaning (like yourself) is not a nihilist. By contrast, the person who chooses not to construct meaning is a nihilist.
Both or logical possibilities based on the assumption above.
If you object to the assumption, then that’s a different story.
I’m not trying to be condescending, you sounded like you were really missing the point of how this is not logical, because some people use the word logical when they mean something else, like rational.
Anyway, if you do believe in god and that because then there is a god, this has itself created meaning in life, such that it becomes inherent, because you obviously didn’t create it, it was created for you and described thereafter to you… no. Y’all created that too.
I do object to the assumption that inherent means god-made, and that created (at least in your statement) means man-made, and that because atheists say there is no god that there is no inherent meaning so that meaning must be created. You created your meanings too, is what I’m saying, and it’s quite rational (in your mindview) for you to conclude that sometimes theists will hand over this meaning to be inherent and therefore, atheists have no inherent meaning, therefore may not create meaning and be nihilistic. Sometimes this is true. Not the same as logical.
I used the word ‘created’ here when I meant to use your word ‘constructed.’
All atheists do not believe in god.
Belief in god creates value and meaning and purpose to life.
Therefore, atheists conclude life has no value or meaning or purpose.
I am not saying this; you are. This is not the argument I’m making, but it’s the one you keep coming back to and putting into my mouth.
Here’s a comment from Siberia in this very thread:
I’d say: I don’t think life has a meaning. I don’t think life has some intrinsic value. I don’t think there’s someone out there who personally cares about what I do or don’t. I understand that I could kill myself and the universe wouldn’t collapse.
So, what I am arguingis that the above quote is an assumption about life and the universe:
Life has no inherent meaning; life just is.
And there are (at least) two logical conclusion that can be reached from this assumption.
Life has no inherent meaning
Meaning can be constructed, and I have the power to do so or not.
I choose to construct meaning, values, beauty, et al.
OR
Life has no inherent meaning
Meaning can be constructed, and I have the power to do so or not.
I choose not construct meaning, values, beauty, et al.
Both are working logically from assumption to conclusion.
My point in doing so has only been to say this:
The author Daniel cites seems to think that nihilism in the necessary conclusion of atheism (meaning the only logically possible option); I don’t agree. I think it is logically possible, but it’s certainly not the only one, and in fact, it’s not even the one the majority of atheists opt for.
Well, absolutely life has or has not inherent meaning. If I am to assert that it has no inherent meaning, then it has no inherent meaning for you either. It can be constructed, and you have the power to do so, and I assume you chose to construct meaning, values, beauty, et al. or had it constructed for you to assume is actually inherent while it’s not. Because I don’t think there’s a god and you do, my answer is also going to include religious folks’ beliefs. Life has no inherent meaning with or without a belief in god, but god or whatever provides you with a ready made kit to construct meaning. I can go for that as well, without religion.
I don’t want to try to accidentally condescend to you again, but I feel as though you think atheists have some sort of void which they can fill if they choose to, while you don’t think you have a void, such that it’s already filled and you have that choice made for you with some idea of inherence. Your purpose is still constructed though.
I don’t want to try to accidentally condescend to you again, but I feel as though you think atheists have some sort of void which they can fill if they choose to, while you don’t think you have a void, such that it’s already filled and you have that choice made for you with some idea of inherence
Kodie, where have I said anything that even resembles that? Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth over and over again? I’ve never said anything about atheists having a void to fill that I and other Christians don’t have. Nothing even close to that, anywhere.
My only point has been that I think Veith is taking one possible conclusion of atheism (nihilism) and portraying it as the only and necessary conclusion of atheism. I think that’s rubbish. There absolutely are alternatives to nihilism for an atheist. That is the only point I’m trying to make. Nothing more, nothing less.
Atheism does not require an ethical starting position that is indifferent to the positive value of life. Many forms of Buddhism are atheistic and do not take that as an axiom, for just one example. It is true that some forms of existentialism tend to operate that way, but not every Atheist (by far!) is an existentialist.
Atheism does not require an ethical starting position that is indifferent to the positive value of life
Agreed. But such a starting point tends to be the most common around here, at least judging by the comments I’ve read. I’m guessing that the majority of folks here would say that life just is; therefore, there’s no meaning to life that isn’t assigned to it by us.
Do you think that’s fair?
Do you think that’s fair?
If definitely seen many commentators either state or argue that, so yeah, I’d say that it is fair to say that in the microcosm of the Atheist community known as Unreasonable Faith, many Atheists subscribe to the notion that life has no inherent or given meaning/value.
Of course, I can say with complete confidence that there are Atheists even in this community who disagree with the prevailing sentiment, since I am one of them.
Of course, I can say with complete confidence that there are Atheists even in this community who disagree with the prevailing sentiment, since I am one of them.
I’d love to hear the short version of why you disagree with that sentiment. I’ve yet to hear such a constructive proposal from an atheist, so I’m in a state of complete ignorance about it.
I would certainly say that you have mis-understood atheism as I don’t see how a non-belief in god will logically lead to nihilism on its own. This premise would be logical if *only* belief in god meant meaning to life, therefore non-belief in god meant no meaning to life. This is just not true.
As I said to Kodie, many of the commenters assume that life has no inherent meaning; life just is. And that argument is made over against theists who posit an inherent meaning and value to life which is derived creation.
Morality, meaning, etc., are therefore not inherent but rather constructed by human beings as free agents who have the ability and power to do so. That’s a perfectly logical conclusion at which to arrive given the assumptions that have been made. That person is obviously not a nihilist, right?
Alternatively, someone could logically conclude that constructing all that isn’t worthwhile based on the same assumption that life just is. That person is a nihilist.
Obviously, if you don’t buy the assumption that life just is and that meaning is constructed, then it doesn’t apply. Elemenope objected along the same grounds, but frankly, I’m ignorant of the atheist position that assigns inherent meaning and value to life that would eliminate nihilism as a logical conclusion.
Many of the comments here are also against alternative medicine so does that mean that logically one follows the other? I think your mis-understanding is atheism is just a non-belief in gods or gods. Anything else is just what an atheist happens to believe.
I would certainly say that you have mis-understood atheism as I don’t see how a non-belief in god will logically lead to nihilism on its own. This premise would be logical if *only* belief in god meant meaning to life, therefore non-belief in god meant no meaning to life. This is just not true.
First, I’m not arguing that atheists think there is no meaning to life. My argument has been that I’ve understood most atheists to say something like, “Life has no inherent meaning; life just is. Life has meaning because we construct meaning.”
Many of the comments here are also against alternative medicine so does that mean that logically one follows the other? I think your mis-understanding is atheism is just a non-belief in gods or gods. Anything else is just what an atheist happens to believe.
Second, I am basing my opinion largely on comments here. But, so far Elemenope is the only atheist here who I’ve heard even suggest that life as some type of inherent (inherent, not constructed) meaning.
Quote from brgulker: “Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but doesn’t atheism entail a fundamental indifference about human life?”
How in the world could you possibly draw such a conclusion? In what way is “belief in the existence of God” connected to “caring about human life” ?
Quote from brgulker: “Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but doesn’t atheism entail a fundamental indifference about human life?”
That’s not a very clear statement in my part.
That looks like I’m saying atheists don’t care about human life; that’s not what I meant at all. I think the rest of my comments clarify that, but to avoid being misunderstood, I’ll try to say it more clearly.
My understanding of atheism is that there is no inherent or intrinsic value to human life. The universe wasn’t created for a purpose; the universe just is. Human life is part of the universe that just is. Meaning and purpose do exist, but they are constructed by human beings, not inherent or intrinsic to life itself.
Does that make it more clear?
I would answer that by saying “because the alternative sucks”.
I’d say: I don’t think life has a meaning. I don’t think life has some intrinsic value. I don’t think there’s someone out there who personally cares about what I do or don’t. I understand that I could kill myself and the universe wouldn’t collapse.
I am alive today because I chose to. Why I chose to be alive, well, there are several reasons. I like being alive, with all the implications it has. When I no longer enjoy being alive, I won’t be. Simple like that.
I’d say: I don’t think life has a meaning. I don’t think life has some intrinsic value. I don’t think there’s someone out there who personally cares about what I do or don’t. I understand that I could kill myself and the universe wouldn’t collapse.
Right, and that’s a logical conclusion to make, the same kind that Nietzsche and Sartre make. Life doesn’t have inherent meaning, but we can give it meaning because we have the ability and power to choose. I’m glad you choose that and not the alternative, personally.
But, your conclusion is not a necessary conclusion. Neither is nihilism. And that’s really my only point.
But I think the obvious point tends to be that while nihilism is a possible choice that can result from Atheism, it is so rarely chosen by people facing that choice that it is basically statistical noise. Christianity as well can produce nihilism, as follows:
1. God created the world, and everything in it has a purpose
2. The world really sucks
3. I am small, and God is large (metaphysically speaking)
4. Thus, nothing I do matters, and the world will continue to suck.
As Nietzsche pointed out. But likewise with Atheism, in real life this is a very uncommon conclusion. To say that nihilism is a possible conclusion of either Christianity or Atheism is probably technically true, but has little real practical consequence.
But I think the obvious point tends to be that while nihilism is a possible choice that can result from Atheism, it is so rarely chosen by people facing that choice that it is basically statistical nois
That, I can’t speak to. Frankly, I don’t know a lot of atheists in person; my contact is basically via the interwebs.
1. God created the world, and everything in it has a purpose
2. The world really sucks
3. I am small, and God is large (metaphysically speaking)
4. Thus, nothing I do matters, and the world will continue to suck.
I can see how that’s possible, but orthodox Christian teaching/philosophy would reject it completely.
Analogously, I suspect most atheists would reject nihilism in spite of its logical possibility. Philosophically speaking, I can’t say that I always understand why, because you don’t have a ready-made counter point like #1 above. But, you tend to object it, and that’s fine by me.
@Elemenope
I suspect that there are more Christians who believe something like your scenario that you might think. It was the fundamental inability to cope with that belief that eventually led me out of Creepy Cultish Church. I found the idea of no God a relief in comparison to that, because it gave me a reason to think that life may do otherwise than suck because I would then have some say in what happens.
A conclusion, but not the conclusion.
That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time…..
Nihilism is a logical conclusion of atheism, but not the necessary (or even popular) one.
Ay, I got lost in the tracks, I suppose.
But would you also agree that nihilism could also be a logical conclusion of Christianity?
See above comments with Elemenope.
I think if Christians, even if they don’t allot most of their concentration on their afterlife, think they only matter because they matter to god, and that atheists, without god, don’t matter to even themselves. I think this is what brgulker is interpreting Veith as saying? We are trapped to live our lives and we will eventually turn to dust, so what is the point. If I can kind of mangle a zen interpretation here, acceptance is not depressing, or does not have to be. Mattering to yourself first, and hopefully mattering to your family and having some friends is a good life, not a depressing life. Accomplishing things and being productive helps everyone… or most people anyway, even if you never yourself live to see the ultimate benefits of your work.
Most of us do live futile lives however. This is how I really feel. Building houses, going to school, having a job, I mean it all helps the social infrastructure work so that people may live somewhere, make money to buy things that are made, make things that are bought, serve people who need a service, so that their lives go smoothly as well. Yeah, when I look at it, that’s what we’re doing as a human organism, all over the earth. What matters most is that you matter to you while you’re alive. If that’s not true for some people, atheists don’t have a corner on that market either, but it’s the religious who may feel at least they have a friend when they are friendless, someone who needs you to bear through the tough times, or when you hate your crummy low-paying job and never did get back to school, or live out your dreams, you know, when you feel like your life is pointless, and that when this is over, they may enjoy rewards greater anyway, so it will all have been worth it. Atheists are full well capable of enjoying meaningful life, so this article is total crap. I read it and it looks like most of it has been cherry-picked out of some old philosophers for whom the statements may have been true or seemed true.
Thoreau pointed out that most men lead lives of quiet desperation. I think that holds basically true whether one is religious or not.
The question is….what (or Who) are we desparate for? God is too good to give us less than Himself but man(kind) will far too easily settle for less than the best, the highest and so a holy tension of sorts is created in that He must grace us to long for the More, to not be so easily satisfied lest we “camp” and never know the More, namely Himself, His very presence.
No, that’s not it. “To long for the more”? “To not be so easily satisfied, lest we camp”?
This is all there is, John, and if that’s not good enough for you, it’s a damn waste.
No, Miss Kodie this is not “all there is” you only think that because so far its all you’ve known. But that may change one day…if you want IT to.
Not if you’ll be there.
You’re so sweet…:)
Answers. Explanations. Meanings. The point. A thousand things.
Which doesn’t imply your answers, explanations or meanings are right or even true.
What if He is all those things and more? What if He is the More that you seek but dont yet know it?
What if He isn’t? What if He doesn’t exist? What if He exists but doesn’t care?
“What if” is not very convincing, and does not induce most people to take more than a passing interest. “What if” is fine for the plot of a novel, but not something (on its own) to base the trajectory of your life upon. If God exists, surely he can do better than “what if”.
Stop patronising Kodie, you ignorant, misogynistic, irrational person.
Don’t presume to know her marital status or flatter her by calling her ‘Miss’, and don’t shit on her (I’m sure) exhausted efforts to try and engage you in any sort of intelligent discourse. You’re just embarrassing yourself.
(@ John C, just to clarify!)
Thanks. I really hate being called Miss Kodie. It’s some southern affectation that’s like, really really irritating. You know how hard it was to get my boss to stop calling me that and several other people. They didn’t mean anything bad by it! It’s supposed to be nice! They insist on calling me that. I insist they call me by my name and not this icky-poo old southern “endearment.” I’m sure John does it to be patronizing though. Anyway, thanks for helping kick ass!
@ John C
” God is too good to give us less than Himself but man(kind) will far too easily settle for less than the best ”
mark: What do you mean by giving less than himself, please explain this statement.
Markbey…
I believe we inherit if you will a sense of low expectation watered down by societal and the generational infuences which tend to make us vulnerable to settling for our mere temporal needs being met, ie food, shelter, etc. We long for many things mostly of an external nature, things of matter, material things etc because we so often envision ourselves in a state of lack, of need, ie Psalm 23.
But in Him is all, all sufficiency, all things “For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle (provision) on a thousand hills are Mine” Ps 50:10.
If we can get past all the external longings (the false lovers as scripture refers to them) and the fear of lack and begin to long for Him we find that all along He was all we ever really wanted, ever needed for He contains the all we need. So He creates a holy tension of sorts between our (perceived) needs and our (true) need which He is.
All the best Markbey.
@ john c
” So He creates a holy tension of sorts between our (perceived) needs and our (true) need which He is. ”
mark: With all of the confusion in this world with all of sexism, racism and all of the other ism that lead to negativity and confusion why would god bring more tension into this world?
Don’t you think that a god who creates tension into the life of his most beloved creation (man) is at the very least interfering with the free will of man?
You are right and wrong, John. Many people are not happy with what they do have and want more and may look in the wrong places, but I really think that to take a look around and see the beauty is here and now, and not waste time waiting for later on, is the way to go. A lot of people continue to search in material items, they keep their head down and are constantly dissatisfied, the people who are happy with enough are happy NOW. There is still no reason to place god and heaven in this equation. Only one which you have pretended is true, that’s what makes you feel good. To a lot of other people, it’s a big bag of nothing.
My fave, Townes van Zandt said:
“Living’s mostly wasting time, and I waste my share of mine,
But it never feels too good, so let’s don’t take too long.”
…
“We all got holes to fill, and them holes are all that’s real,
And some fall on you like a storm, sometimes you dig your own.
The choice is yours to make, and time is yours to take,
Some dive into the sea, some toil upon the stone.”
—-from “To Live’s to Fly”
I know for me giving up christianity has made my world view much brighter. As a christian I didn’t fit in anywhere I wasn’t nutty enough to have christian friends, and I was too nutty to have non-christian friends. Whats worse is I had to deal with the guilt that my non-christian friends would burn in hell because I was not smart enough to convince them not too. Church world was very much everything good happened because God worked hard to make it so and everything bad happened because Satan tricked people.
Under religion there was no room for people who didn’t belive in God to do nice things for christians. If they did it was because God tricked them into it. All praise for doing the nice thing goes first to God and if theres time maybe we thank the person for being generous. I mean I could be a nice person and it wasn’t because god told me to, it wasn’t even particularly altruistic to be honest. I liked being able to make someone else smile, even when I wasn’t feeling particularly great myself, Being able to do something to make another persons day a little less crappy then my own made me happy. I always felt like other Christians always tried to steal that happiness back from me, to give credit to God for it. I felt guilty for not giving him credit like I was stealing from him for trying to be happy, because why wouldn’t knowing that God loves me be enough? It seemed to be enough for everyone else.
You guys are thinking too much. Life is amazing all in its own, we don’t need fairy tails to be better just logical thought and love. So just enjoy it!!!!
But what if the fairy tales are true? Really, what if? And what if the fairy tale is a NOW truth, not merely a someday truth? What if?
@ John C
” But what if the fairy tales are true? ”
mark: What fairy tales are you refering to John. The Christian, Muslim, Jewis, Hindu or etc flavor fairy tales.
I don’t live life on what if’s, or try not to. I have lived life on what if’s though. Not the same what if, but still. I just spent a weekend observing where I got it from, my parents are so nervous and anxious all the time. They make a serious lot of plans to keep from something that might happen, so what if it did, deal with it then.
If we get to pick our fairy tales (which we do), I pick . . . unicorns, the sleep fairy, and the Rainbow Bridge where all our loved pets are happily waiting for us in a big field to greet us after we die. Those are nice ones.
Oh, wait – the Rainbow Bridge would require the fairy tale of keeping my consciousness after I die, which I don’t choose. Hmm – nope, I don’t see any way of meeting my pets after my consciousness and awareness dissolve with the failure of the electrical impulses in my brain. Ok, just invisible unicorns and sleep fairies, then.
What if the sun really is Apollo’s chariot? What if you need to put coins in the mouths of the dead so they can pay the ferryman to cross the Styx? What if the earth will shake and crack open if we don’t sacrifice some blood?
What if you start taking your medication again?
I certainly find life to be much more enjoyable without the restrictions of religion. That’s not to say I do whatever I want regardless of anyone else or consequence. I still find a good moral base to be important to my happiness.
A Christian accepts a life-meaning that comes from outside. That is, he/she reads a book that says life has this or that meaning, or listens to authorities or other memebers of the flock who interpret what’s in this old book, and then believes in that meaning as truth.
If you don’t accept any of these meanings that come from outside, then you’re free to choose your own meaning. It can be built on your own direct, living experience, rather than words from a book or an authority.
Like most people, I live most of my life without any need for meaning. When my nose itches, I scratch it… I just do it, without any extraneous idea that it “means” something. Yet it may be true that it’s sometimes helpful to have an idea of what it’s all about, why I’m alive, from a wide perspective. If someone tells me that the meaning of life is to help other beings, then I’ll give it a try, and see how that works out based on my own experience.
“Meaning” is so much more interesting when we look into it for ourselves, rather than accept a pre-packaged dogma. The mysteries of life are so amazing if we wonder and doubt for ourselves… but not so much if we pretend that all mysteries are answered by some old book.
Stuart
I have been an atheist all my life even though I went to catholic school and I can tell you that I have one cool and wonderfull life being very happy and feel part of his wonderfull universe.
I’m really confused about John C’s beliefs. Is he a Christian or something like a deist?
He believes if you grow down, you will become childlike and god will come into you and reveal all the wonderful secrets. That’s what he keeps telling everybody, anyway. He seems to have some problems with some religious dogma and that most Christians just believe what they are told, only he knows the real truth, it’s light, it’s love itself, yadda yadda yadda. He quotes bible passages sometimes, he doesn’t read the articles or watch the videos, he just comments, or as some like to say “witness”. He seems to think if he exposes himself to rational thought, that is what prevents god from activating in you, and that you can no longer see this truth, because being skeptical and cynical are adult traits and in order to receive the message you must actively try to attain/retain the state of being a moron, er, child. Others call him a mystic or sometimes a Platonist, which he denies, never having read Plato. He swears heaven is some sort of beautiful, light-filled meadow or some crap, and that you can go there too when you die, he’s sure he’s going, and it’s not too late for you to turn the car around, effectively lobotomize yourself and live forever with jesus and john c in the meadow. Also, god does not live in the sky! He gets very defensive when people use metaphors like this one particularly and corrects the usage of the term sky-daddy almost without fail. God is INDwelling! He also appreciates you and me and nearly everyone who engages him to explain a damn thing ever.
Hope that helps.
Trying to understand John C’s beliefs is a recipe for frustration. You and him don’t speak the same epistemological language. Trying to understand him, or trying to argue with him, is a fruitless task, as previous conversations have shown over and over again.
John C is a neo-platonist mystic… although he won’t admit it.
Someone needs to give him some Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. Now *that’s* neo-Platonist mysticism.
Bingo!!!
Philo Judaeus may have influenced both Paul and the author of the Gospel of John…
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/philo.htm
This article absolutely ruins their “argument”: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/rats.html
In fact, it argues that a religious life is the life of rats in a maze.
Wow – That was a really great article. You also lead me to a new great blog to keep an eye on – Thank you!
Lol, you are completely right Daniel.
“He swears heaven is some sort of beautiful, light-filled meadow or some crap, and that you can go there too when you die, he’s sure he’s going, and it’s not too late for you to turn the car around, effectively lobotomize yourself and live forever with jesus and john c in the meadow”
lmao, what a horrifying thought.
Mary Lynne said: So life is empty and meaningless, but it is empty and meaningless that it is empty and meaningless.
In Zen teaching, it’s said that existing as a human is to have no meaning… and no meaning is big meaning. That is, if my mind isn’t distracted by ideas of what life means, not clouded by desires to get the things I think are meaningful… then there’s nothing separating me from just-now experience. It means I’m available to whatever other beings I encounter; I don’t need to ignore them or shove them aside so I can get on with pursuing more meaningful things.
Stuart
Stuart…
Respectfully, your first post today was such a polar opposite from true Christianity (spirituality) my friend. First, true Christianity isn’t “living by an external book” but by an indwelling Lord who is Spirit. That life within, the only one of an eternal quality and kind is the life of the ages. What you wrote earlier today was descriptive of religion which is terribly oppresive and burdensome in contrast to the liberating, spirit-led life Christ births within us.
It’s not so much about the externa print (bible) but rather the internal blue-print (His nature) within. All the best.
John C wrote…
It’s not so much about the externa print (bible) but rather the internal blue-print
Yeah, reading the Bible is like dumping a load of shit on your head. We can agree on that. But what are you talking about re “internal blue-print.” Internal means “inside.” Inside of what?? What kind of blue-print?
I only like clear, straight-forward talk. When you say stuff like “internal blue-print,” I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Stuart…
Inside of us. Man is a tri-partate being. Our birthright is the nature of Christ within. That nature is love, peace, etc. This is man’s original construct/design. It’s all an inside job, that’s why I said “scripture” has its place, but the impartation of the new, divine nature is the true offer and message of Christ. Its a great restoration back to how things were before the “fall”. Few truly comprehend who He was/is and the real offer He makes but they did…
This comment is very offensive to The Almighty. He is Clearly Decreed* there are Actually 10 Parts of Man**, and he is coming out with a 11th soon***. Do not slander the Almighty by saying there are only 3 — that makes him look less beautiful. You know this to be true, look at Jesus, he will confirm this if you will simply open your heart to his lovely Voice****.
* through nature
** metaphorically
*** TBA; only Jesus knows that date/time
**** If you hear differently it is because it is Satan and he has blinded your eyes!
This has been a fascinating discussion. I had to go look up “nihilism” to make sure I was understanding it.
Others have said it in different ways, but I think there is no inherent meaning of life, and there is absolutely meaning in life and everything about it – because humans are meaning making machines. If a co-worker passes us in the hall and doesn’t say anything, we make that mean something. I think most of us accept whatever meaning of life is handed to us, whether it be Glorify God or Please your Father or I Will Never Be Like My Mom or I’ll Show Them! or Get Ahead or Die With The Most Toys. Sometimes some of us for at least part of our lives can see that the meaning that our life has is what we say it is.
So life is empty and meaningless, but it is empty and meaningless that it is empty and meaningless. If you make that mean something, then you could get to nihilism. But to me the more “logical” conclusion is: “Cool! Now what do _I_ say my life is about?”
I believe that those who say there is any kind of real, existing “out there” meaning to be discerned and lived have just accepted a purpose given to them and don’t realize that they say that is what their life is about.
If this is all there is, doesn’t that make it more meaningful, not less?
Not necessarily. It might be more meaningful to you in particular, but you are not meaningful to anyone else. There is the “greater good” thinking or “means to an end” mentality though. I have had dissatisfactory jobs, I don’t have a family of my own, admittedly not doing too well out here – so I could say, be happy enough with what I do have and that’s fine, strive for more, and that’s fine, be unhappy with what little I have, that is not fine, or find the lord to take my mind off the whole thing, which is or could be an adequate distraction as to how everything generally sucks. I think most religious people are on this last one. Their lives might even be better, but they are happy enough with the distraction that it doesn’t matter. People who have friends or some social network or find some work to do, like charity, with other people, often feel personally rewarded on accomplishment alone, so religion or being some sort of agent of a religious organization may fill a purpose in one’s life. It’s not required. I often observe that once someone has a bunch of people to talk to who think like they do, or sometimes when they feel it is their purpose to object and dissent the popular mindset, they have approached having some goal in life, even if that’s futile too. Whatever, it makes them happy and occupies the long hours.
The discovery that life has in fact no (god-given) point can be distressing.
To me it was a huge relief.
Perhaps if you see life as having very very little (god-given) point, it’s distressing. But if you see life as having NO such point at all, then it’s a huge relief; we’re free to choose our direction based on the situation of each moment.
In other words… if God is watching us as our Master, but He doesn’t care about us all that much, that’s distressing. But if our only God, our only Master, is the living experience of just-now… that can be a relief.
It’s like an acid trip. When I/my/me disappears 99.9%, it’s horrifically frightening. But when it disappears 100%… ahhhh!
Stuart
Daniel: I find life as beautiful and as meaningful as I did when I was a Christian. I marvel at the world and the progress we make in understanding it. I love being with those I love. I cherish good food, good books, and yes, good sex. It is true I do not have an absolute purpose in life — I am not dedicated to “glorifying God” anymore. But I find creating my own purpose thrilling. I am the author of a novel, and the book is my life. The freedom is exhilarating.
MH: All that freedom was there while you thought you were a Christian as well. Your phrasing “and yes, good sex” indicates some constriction that you rebelled against.
You do have an absolute purpose in life and your creation of it is part of the process. You have been created to become what you are designed to be. Whether you give the “creator” a name & personality or just call it evolution doesn’t change any of details.
You are hitting on the very essence of what faith is about when you take this discussion past the hows of science & biology and dive into the whys of purpose.
Daniel: Both Christians and atheists can agree on one thing: there is only one life to live.
Let’s take time to enjoy it. I know I will.
MH: If there is god, it would be happy to hear you say that.
Then nothing he ever does will have any meaning, and nothing really matters, because things will happen anyway. He’s nothing but a puppet in the Divine Chess Game, a tool God uses to achieve his own ineffable ends – regardless of will.
That’s, essentially, what you are saying.
Siberia: Then nothing he ever does will have any meaning, and nothing really matters, because things will happen anyway. He’s nothing but a puppet in the Divine Chess Game, a tool God uses to achieve his own ineffable ends – regardless of will.
That’s, essentially, what you are saying.
MH: Why don’t you, essentially, stick to what you want to say instead of trying to twist what I am saying?
We do have will, don’t we?
Choices?
But does the order of action/reaction in physics and the stimuli/response of biology actually allow for choice?
I’m not trying to twist anything. You’re the one who said God gave him an absolute purpose, and was created to become what he was designed to be. That means he’s nothing but a machine. An organic one, but one at God’s infinite service, to follow his divine whims. Or did you actually mean something else?
Define will.
I can choose whether or not to drink a cup of coffee before bed. I cannot choose whether to be tired or not. I did not choose to be born female, neither to become sick.
I am my biology and I am my physics. The process of thought itself is biological. Maybe we live under the delusion we can choose anything. Maybe we can make choices but those are only options in preprogrammed reactions – take an algorithm, seed a little randomness, add some learning process, a database, if you must… limit to a certain hardware, build some failsafes, and whoopee, you’ve a human.
SIBERIA: You’re the one who said God gave him an absolute purpose, and was created to become what he was designed to be. That means he’s nothing but a machine. An organic one, but one at God’s infinite service, to follow his divine whims. Or did you actually mean something else?
MH: If you go with either predestination or strict physics/biology there is an absolute purpose. We and all life forms are organic machines, the universe is a lab that works in particular ways. What I was pointing out is that Daniel understands that he has a role in creating his purpose.
MH: We do have will, don’t we?
SIBERIA: Define will.
MH: For Daniel it is “creating my own purpose.”
MH: Choices?
SIBERIA: I can choose whether or not to drink a cup of coffee before bed. I cannot choose whether to be tired or not. I did not choose to be born female, neither to become sick.
MH: Based on biology, “choosing” to drink coffee could just be a response to stimuli. Being tired is a constriction of your creation, you can choose to respond correctly or not. You can use caffeine or drugs to keep yourself awake until your mind breaks down or you can sleep like you are supposed to. You did not choose to be female or sick, but it is within the realm of what we know to control those things.
MH: But does the order of action/reaction in physics and the stimuli/response of biology actually allow for choice?
SIBERIA: I am my biology and I am my physics. The process of thought itself is biological. Maybe we live under the delusion we can choose anything. Maybe we can make choices but those are only options in preprogrammed reactions – take an algorithm, seed a little randomness, add some learning process, a database, if you must… limit to a certain hardware, build some failsafes, and whoopee, you’ve a human.
MH: If what you are saying is true, then we have no real choice.
In that case, the idea of Why’s beyond the How’s are a part of the system.
In that case, the “choice” of what we believe is similar to the “choice” of what we eat. We have to fill the space.
I’m curious, though. If life does have an inherent, intrinsic meaning… what is it? What does it mean, for a theist?
(… 42?)
Siberia: I’m curious, though. If life does have an inherent, intrinsic meaning… what is it? What does it mean, for a theist?
(… 42?)
MH: Physics & evolution are obvious, powerful forces.
Together they have created an astounding planet and variety of life here.
We can marvel at the complexity and connectedness of it all and leave it at that if we choose.
Even if we dismiss love as a complex form of biological survival, elaborate stimuli & response, what do you do with that sense of wonder?
I suppose it could be just another adaptation of ours, a need to figure something else out that may give us an edge on survival.
We can marvel at that level of complexity and leave it at that as well.
Through science we keep finding answers to questions.
We’re finding answers to questions that were never imagined even a short time ago.
I suppose someday we may find enough answers that we can’t think of new questions.
But I doubt it.
The best of reason and the best of faith are not mutually exclusive.
A shared burden is perhaps perhaps what they both offer; that we all take care of each other.
This is where theology takes us.
Reason stops at chemical reactions.
You are defining the god of gaps. Every answer science finds, will open a new question and will push your god out of another of His fields, into the new and smaller one.
BTW, that was an answer to the meaning of life for a theist?
There are no gaps.
Whether you call it god with a name & give it a personality or just call it science the answers to How? are the same.
When you start wrestling with the questions of Why? you step into theology.
And yes, my answer to the meaning of life as a theist is “a shared burden.”
OK, I didn’t get this at all. Care to explain?
What does it mean? Well it means MH is saying in repsonse to your question “Yes that a very good question, so let me change the subject.”
Lol, I thought so.
Ah well.
Jabster:What does it mean? Well it means MH is saying in repsonse to your question “Yes that a very good question, so let me change the subject.”
MH: I didn’t change the subject at all. I gave some context for my answer. Here it is more concisely.
Siberia: If life does have an inherent, intrinsic meaning… what is it?
MH: We are all created (whether you go with god or science) to fit a particular niche in the world. (meaning that we are interdependent, a “shared burden”)
Siberia: What does it mean, for a theist?
MH: A theist (or philosopher) looks for the Why’s behind the How’s.
People who need a belief in the supernatural to make life meaningful are not really good at it.
I have always thought the very reason people choose to believe in god is they cannot handle the hard questions alone (where do we come from, what happens when we die, and most importantly, how do we live our lives). It’s almost a kind of fear or weakness in how people can’t handle living without those answers being handed to them. I think that’s EXACTLY WHY they believe in god (unbeknownst to them?). Veith said “If there is no God and this physical realm is all there is, life is pretty much pointless.” – this very statement is telling, don’t you think?
After all, I don’t like Ray Comfort, but he and his banana still exist.
oh man, you owe me a monitor…. I just spewed my beer all over it with that comment.
“Life is as happy and meaningful as you make it.”
very beautiful statement,
and I think I’ll post this somewhere in my journal-book, and blog, and FB wall.
thanks for sharing this perspective!
One Trackback
[...] to Going PaperlessThe Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan26 Places to Find Free Multimedia for Your BlogDoes Atheism Make Life Meaningless?Daring Fireball: Ninjawords: iPhone Dictionary, Censored by AppleOn Twitter @matthammer I also used [...]