tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post6660169567949331613..comments2023-07-03T04:15:38.436-07:00Comments on Apologetic Junkie: Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without GodAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-20789129233167135432014-09-11T22:22:20.203-07:002014-09-11T22:22:20.203-07:00Most of these comments are not only illogical but ...Most of these comments are not only illogical but absurd. Most ignore the second law of thermodynamics and the most basic scientific law--the law of causality. The majority of these comments propose moral relativism without considering the universal nature of morality. Let someone burn down your house because they do not like your mailbox, and then come back championing moral relativism. Universalism is just silly because it proposes that contradictory world views are both true. Islam claims that Jesus is not the Son of God while Christianity claims that He is, indeed, the Son of God. These statements are irreconcilable; therefore one of them must be false. A cannot be A and not-A in the same sense at the same time (law of noncontradiction). Ignorance may be bliss but it does not refute logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-91543835152101791102014-02-10T21:12:42.949-08:002014-02-10T21:12:42.949-08:00Zack,
You are missing the point. What you consid...Zack, <br /><br />You are missing the point. What you consider valuable because of your subjective experience in a naturalistic worldview is just your opinion. Because there is no ultimate truth, truth is whatever you want it to be. Thus, your belief that life has meaning as a subjective belief isn't true..it is just how you perceive things. In the end, it ultimately doesn't change anything. You die, you decay, within 100 years everyone you know are dead and no one will remember us. Within 1 million years, man may be extinct. Given enough time, the sun goes supernova, then the universe expands to nothingness. <br /><br />But there is good news. Jesus Christ wants you to spend eternity with him. He created you in his image. You are made with purpose. 'If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' Romans 10_9.<br /><br />God bless, <br /><br />EdEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04338718382496308945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-50685758421409069592014-02-10T21:12:06.319-08:002014-02-10T21:12:06.319-08:00Zack,
You are missing the point. What you consid...Zack, <br /><br />You are missing the point. What you consider valuable because of your subjective experience in a naturalistic worldview is just your opinion. Because there is no ultimate truth, truth is whatever you want it to be. Thus, your belief that life has meaning as a subjective belief isn't true..it is just how you perceive things. In the end, it ultimately doesn't change anything. You die, you decay, within 100 years everyone you know are dead and no one will remember us. Within 1 million years, man may be extinct. Given enough time, the sun goes supernova, then the universe expands to nothingness. <br /><br />But there is good news. Jesus Christ wants you to spend eternity with him. He created you in his image. You are made with purpose. 'If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' Romans 10_9.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04338718382496308945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-81014227810037995762013-07-11T09:37:53.939-07:002013-07-11T09:37:53.939-07:00J.P. Moreland’s Monopoly example is certainly humo...J.P. Moreland’s Monopoly example is certainly humorous, but only insofar as it is laughable.<br /><br />Let’s say we have a game of Monopoly but neither of us have ever played the game before and we have no rules for it. If we are nevertheless determined to make the best of the pieces and the board that we have, would it be impossible for us to make sense of the game and play it anyway?<br /><br />Of course we could. Maybe it wouldn’t look anything like how it was intended to be played, but it would still be played, it would still be fun, enjoyable, interesting and creative. <br /><br /><i>Aha, but you see, you’re not playing it how was meant to be played! The intention of the game implies a creator, and you are distorting their intent. That, my atheist friend, was the point!</i><br /><br />Let’s dissect that, shall we?<br /><br />What if it wasn’t Monopoly? What if, instead, it was a nameless game with multiple parts that appeared to be otherwise unrelated to one another? What if this game simply had no creator at all, no overarching intent or objective; it simply always “was” (let’s avoid the cosmological argument for now, as that’s a separate issue).<br /><br />Would this game be impossible to play? Or could we, using our capacity for making meaning where none otherwise exists, and make our own sense of the game?<br /><br /><i>“The only way your moves within the game of Monopoly have significance is if you discover the purpose of the game and you align yourself with that purpose.”</i><br /><br />The only way this statement makes any sense is if humans are unthinking automatons incapable of creatively finding new answers and working together within social contexts.<br /><br />In a naturalistic system, what we should expect to observe is a group of people that begin to set up their own rules. We would also expect disagreement about these rules, and social divides would occur along these lines. Two games would have to be set up, occasionally resulting in arguments and violence between the separate groups. <br /><br />As more people are added to the picture, you would see the groups get bigger, then split off, creating offshoots or entirely new, previously unthought of games.<br /><br />And suddenly we’ve reconstructed a rather nice analogy for human social behaviour; an analogy that derives itself exclusively from naturalism. <br /><br />This analogy *does not work* within a theistic system in which the objective of the game is ordained and immutable. You cannot assume there is only one way to play the game and naturally move from there to explain the incredible creativity and variation of the world religions. <br /><br /><i>“I have never met an atheist who lives consistently with the implications of his naturalistic worldview.“</i><br /><br />I’ve heard this many times in my life, and I have to laugh every time. I’m sure you don’t look at it this way, but it always seems to me like the statement is saying, <i>“I can’t understand where they get their purpose from without God, so how do they do it???”</i> It’s as if you’re actually upset that atheists lead moral, fulfilled, purpose-driven lives.<br /><br />Well, lo and behold, we do. We do live in a universe guided by chance, where our planet is little more than a vanishing pale-blue dot in the sky, as we slowly whisk our way to an eventual oblivion. <br /><br />And yet, my actions affect this otherwise indifferent universe. Certainly, my actions affect the people around me, they affect you and people I don’t even know. I have a role in making people’s lives either better or worse, though I hope to make them better on the whole. <br /><br />I will eventually die, but I hope to leave something of myself behind, something I will be positively remembered by.<br /><br />I am an atheist, and I have an abundance of hope.<br /><br />I do not derive my hope from Christianity, or religion, or God. I derive it from my humanity. I was born to be hopeful, to find meaning. It’s what us primates do best.<br /><br />So you’re right, no atheist consistently lives by the implications of the naturalistic worldview you’ve presented. They don’t because the naturalistic worldview you’ve presented doesn’t exist.Swamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206548422001035413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-75279564165068568952012-10-09T06:29:59.860-07:002012-10-09T06:29:59.860-07:00That is so trueThat is so trueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-69540998850888798302012-10-04T12:35:14.384-07:002012-10-04T12:35:14.384-07:00In response to the original post.
Aaron
As I poi...In response to the original post.<br /><br />Aaron<br /><br />As I pointed out in my response to Carl, the purpose and value found in a game of monopoly is not determined by some creator. The players determine this purpose. I think most atheists would agree that this is very descriptive of their perspective of life.<br /><br />You wrote, “real purpose requires both God and life after death.” Why? Are you saying that those who do not believe in any god or life after death have no real purpose? What about those non-believers who choose love as their purpose? Is that not real?<br /><br />I suppose you might say that the atheist borrowed the purpose of love “from the Christian worldview.” First of all, I wonder if you might want to clarify what you posted about borrowing from a Christian worldview. I don’t mean to be offensive, but I can’t help but think many from the other religions in the world (ie. Judaism, Islam, Jainism, etc.) and from the non-believers will find your comment arrogant. It comes across as if you are telling us that not only do you have the truth and we don’t, but Christians are the only ones with real purpose.<br /><br />You make the observation that if there is no God given purpose, then it makes no difference how we live our lives. Perhaps to the universe it makes no difference, but it can make a huge difference in the lives of others. That’s what a purpose of love is all about--the empathy and resulting concern for others brings joy through service and honorable living.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />ZackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-30466537298119269522012-10-04T11:24:22.164-07:002012-10-04T11:24:22.164-07:00In response to Carl's post, October 2, 2012 4:...In response to Carl's post, October 2, 2012 4:44 AM.<br /><br />Carl,<br /><br />I think you’ve made a great point. To expound on this, whether there is a creator of the game or not really has no bearing on how individuals play the game and how much enjoyment they attain from playing the game. My observation is that people quite often change the rules of the game, sometimes out of tradition (they always did it this way), sometimes out of a need to change an aspect of the game (monopoly can take a long time; some rule changes can shorten it), or merely just because the players enjoy their own rules better.<br /><br />And have you noticed that some games are more enjoyable just because of the people you play with? The technical rules (whether from the game maker or modified by the players) are secondary to the social “rules” of those interacting with one another.<br /><br />I think this analogy is better applied to an atheistic worldview.<br /><br />Thanks for sharing,<br />ZackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-29703787018602996092012-10-02T04:44:20.683-07:002012-10-02T04:44:20.683-07:00The purpose of life is to live each day to the bes...The purpose of life is to live each day to the best of your ability. Life doesn't have to have a ultimate goal that is the same for everyone for it to have meaning. <br />Your monopoly analogy does not work for life precisely because the is no ultimate game designer. You are the designer, to set whatever end game you think is right for you.<br />But that doesn't mean that there are no rules, as long as your not intruding on the rights of others, you are free to chart your own course. Which I think is the ultimate freedom, which no religion can give you.Carlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-90732485191209074032012-09-29T13:43:32.309-07:002012-09-29T13:43:32.309-07:00Cassie- I think the argument is about ultimate mea...Cassie- I think the argument is about ultimate meaning and purpose, not just subjective opinion. Monoploly may be fun to play but the whole point of playing is defeated when the proper way to play is taken away. Likewise, if you don't have a "way things are supposed to be" in life, there's ultimately no purpose, value, meaning, evil, goodness, or beauty except for what each person deems for themselves. It's perfectly fine to think things good, evil, or beautiful, but without God, they aren't really any of those things beyond each person's personal perspective. This especially becomes evident in moments of personal tragedy or abuse. When real evil presents itself you will find I hard to say "that's just your opinion." hurting people (or animals or the environment) are really evil because we're not just a cosmological/biological accident. it's not they way things are supposed to be. Rather we were created and designed for a purpose. The only thing that gives us objective value independant from anyone's opinion on the matter. Make sense? Without a creator or means to claim intrinsic value (people, animals, environment), can you tell us how we are to tell the way things are supposed to be? Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03530451854121813290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-81795161943089005992012-09-29T10:57:05.290-07:002012-09-29T10:57:05.290-07:00Cassie, I find your comment sweet, but meaningless...Cassie, I find your comment sweet, but meaningless. by what standard do you use "beauty"? According to strict naturalism, the clean cut of a head chopped off by an Islamic radical could be a "thing of beauty" and they would have just as much justification for that feeling as you. It would all be based on an individual's feelings.llamapackerhttp://llamapacker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-83108318250941582002012-09-27T14:44:11.260-07:002012-09-27T14:44:11.260-07:00This is a poorly wrOte argument, for me there is n...This is a poorly wrOte argument, for me there is nothing wrong with life being 'absurd' or 'meaningless', why does life have to have a meaning? With or without god the world will never be an insignificant spec of dust, it has an enormous beauty created my god or not, it makes me a little sad that you don't see this. I'm not a hater by the way I just couldnt help but voice my opinion Cassiehttp://www.sarcassie.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com