you should change the title shiny.
it not quite accurate.
the speaker does bring up some great philosophical points.
i agree with him that the greatest question is "what is my purpose or meaning in this life"? and that many become blinded by silly trinkets and the loud circus we are subjected to each and every day.
and i absolutely adored his usage of c.s lewis concerning love,music and art.

this is one of your better posts shiny.the speaker is witty and funny and brings up many philosophical points that we all have to wrangle with.

i have to admit to a few "no..no..NO" that i threw at monitor but all in all this was quite good at illuminating the human question of "why am i here"?

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, July 26th, 2012 9:02pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

The liked the speaker, though I dont agree with him. I personally dont see meaninglessness in things. Im an atheist and I see meaning in a lot of things. We live for the now. LIfe is what you make it.

Thanks bro, and thanks for the promote. I pulled the title off of youtube, so im not married to it. I'll think about alternatives.

I think the question of meaning is primary in our lives..and it's easy to go through life just doing what everyone expects you to do (go to school, get a job, get a wife, get a house, have kids, retire, die), without really thinking about it. The bread and circuses you were talking about. The American dream, for instance..is this really a fulfilling concept? Is the point of our lives to check everything off that list before we die? That's the way it is portrayed to us by society, anyway..just do A B C D and E and you'll have lived a meaningful life.

I don't think anyone really buys that, because it isn't fulfilling. I believe it is the true origin of the mid life crisis. You're doing everything society says you need to do to make you happy, and it's not making you happy. You've achieved all of these goals and checked the things off of the list, but even though you should be at peace, you're not. I think it's that dichotomy Tim was talking about between your heart and your mind, where you know in your core being that there has to be something more than this, a reason that you're here, but intellectually you can't justify it so you go along with the program. Yet for some reason you're disappointed when that greater meaning never manifests itself. You might even get depressed over it. I think it's because you're living as though there is a greater meaning even when you don't actually believe that there is. It's because the heart and the mind are not in agreement with one another. Sooner or later, something has to give, so I think these are questions everyone should ask themselves.

I'm so much healthier since I stopped placing so much energy into not being something. I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson changed me when he said "...it's odd that the word atheist even exists. I don't play golf, is there a word for 'non-golf-players'? Do 'non-golf-players' gather and strategize?"



There's a lot of better things I can and do focus on with my time.

Shiny.

Accept it. You're an ape.

You're a conglomeration of amoeba.

Your life is a just a blip in the twinkling of the universe.

There is probably no god or gods.

There's probably no purpose or reason for your existence.

You are the being that gives purpose or meaning to your life.

When you realize that.

When you realize that there's no supernatural sky daddy to hold you when you're scared or confused..

You'll understand that you've been talking all this nonsensical religious babble in order to establish that purpose.

That the only reason you and jihadist are so adamant about your own personal interpretation of the essence of the abyss..

Is to distract yourself from the fact that your life is just another series of events in this long chain of entropy, chaos, disorder.

The only reason you're so religious is because you're an ape that's too scared to accept your death and the triviality of your existence.

One day, I hope you'll realize this.

On that day, you'll be "born again" just like you were when you accepted "Jesus Christ" and Christian doctrinal teachings.

On that day, you may become self-actualized..

And from then on, understand that we homo sapiens are very lucky.

For we, among few other animals, are able to choose their life's meaning and purpose.

Please don't waste yours.. being a religious troll on the interwebs.

Your brother,
Ezra.

Genji,

I appreciate your words, Ezra, thank you. Let's say that you're right, that my life is meaningless, and that I am the one who determines what is true. Do you know what I would determine to do? What I would determine to do is to do the same things I am doing right now. Even if I knew Jesus Christ was not God, I would still determine to follow His blueprint for the ideal person, because following that blueprint has radically transformed my life for the better. There are many who aren't Christians who feel the same way, that Jesus got it right. If I wasn't a Christian, I would follow the ideal He set forth, summed up in the great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. To turn swords into plowshares. To pray for your enemies and hold banquets for the homeless. To walk two miles when someone asked you to walk one. To give the shirt off your back to someone else who needs it. To love everyone unconditionally, and see every person as fundamentally worthy of my respect. That is what my life about it, and I wouldn't consider that to be a wasted life, even if I was wrong.

I've also lived the alternative. Contrary to what you say, I was never really afraid of death. I can't say I liked the idea of death, but I accepted it; and so I was resigned to triviality, and meaninglessness. I was also content to go to the grave with those beliefs. Like everyone else, I got by on my dreams, my relationships, and whatever gratification I could get out of the moment; I indulged in the pleasures of sin freely, and felt little shame.

So I didn't come to be a Christian out of fear, or a need to be comforted. I came to be a Christian because God touched my life and shook me from my agnosticism. He showed me I wasn't quite as smart as I thought I was. He showed me that the material reality is but a thin veil covering a much greater truth. He showed me that the truth was always staring me right in the eyes, but I was too blind to see it. What He showed me was that He had always been there, my entire life, and that many of the things I wrote off as coincidence really were not.

You see, it is perfectly reasonable and rational for me to believe there is a God. He has simply given me too much evidence to deny it. It's not a convenient belief that fills in all the scary things about life; rather, it is my reason for being, my logos. It is also my eternal gratitude to the Creator for rescuing me and loving me even though I don't deserve it. To know God is to know truth, to know who you are, and why you're here. To know God is to have hope for your future, and an ever present peace and contentment. You believe I am fooling myself, but I say that even if you're right, it is a life worth living, a life well enjoyed, a life that hopefully will touch many others in positive ways. If that is the only meaning I die with, its worth it to me.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Shiny.
Accept it. You're an ape.
You're a conglomeration of amoeba.
Your life is a just a blip in the twinkling of the universe.
There is probably no god or gods.
There's probably no purpose or reason for your existence.
You are the being that gives purpose or meaning to your life.
When you realize that.
When you realize that there's not supernatural sky daddy to hold you when you're scared or confused..
You'll understand that you've been talking all this nonsensical religious babble in order to establish that purpose.
That the only reason you and jihadist are so adamant about your own personal interpretation of the essence of the abyss..
Is to distract yourself from the fact that your life is just another series of events in this long chain of entropy, chaos, disorder.
The only reason you're so religious is because you're an ape that's too scared to accept your death and the triviality of your existence.
One day, I hope you'll realize this.
On that day, you'll be "born again" just like you were when you accepted "Jesus Christ" and Christian doctrinal teachings.
On that day, you may become self-actualized..
And from then on, understand that we homo sapiens are very lucky.
For we, among few other animals, are able to choose their life's meaning and purpose.
Please don't waste yours.. being a religious troll on the interwebs.
Your brother,
Ezra.

That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water? On the Christian forums I frequent, there are usually many atheists there asking questions and holding debates. The reason, I believe, is because God is dealing with their hearts. You may be ready to move on to another stage of life. I know that God has a plan for you, and so I am happy for you that have come to this place. God bless you.

>> ^rottenseed:

I'm so much healthier since I stopped placing so much energy into not being something. I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson changed me when he said "...it's odd that the word atheist even exists. I don't play golf, is there a word for 'non-golf-players'? Do 'non-golf-players' gather and strategize?"

There's a lot of better things I can and do focus on with my time.

Yeah shiny, that is the reason. The same reason that non-Scientologists and ex-Sceintologists argue in Scientology fora, because Scientology has touched their hearts.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water? On the Christian forums I frequent, there are usually many atheists there asking questions and holding debates. The reason, I believe, is because God is dealing with their hearts. You may be ready to move on to another stage of life. I know that God has a plan for you, and so I am happy for you that have come to this place. God bless you.

Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

>> ^wraith:

Yeah shiny, that is the reason. The same reason that non-Scientologists and ex-Sceintologists argue in Scientology fora, because Scientology has touched their hearts.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water? On the Christian forums I frequent, there are usually many atheists there asking questions and holding debates. The reason, I believe, is because God is dealing with their hearts. You may be ready to move on to another stage of life. I know that God has a plan for you, and so I am happy for you that have come to this place. God bless you.

if you are looking for meaning: wash your bowl.

@shiny:
Regarding your question:
1. People who had a dramatic change in their life tend to be very vocal an opinionated about that. Why should that not also true of people who loose or gain religious beliefs?
2. For me, who has never believed in a god or gods, I tend to react to pressure that religious people exert on me and my life. I would not classify that as god "dealing with my heart".
3. Most people who are even able to frequent these fora are from western wealthy nations which, through god's almighty plan or certain socio-economic factors turned out to be predominantly christian.

Regarding your statement: I, from the safety of a country where supposed blasphemy is not met with harsh punishment by learned elders of a forgiving religion, do criticize all religions almost equally. Even I, given the christian background of my home country reserve most of my criticism for christianity because I encounter it most in my daily life.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

@shiny:

What was your goal in posting this video?
Do you really think that given that atheism might lead one to the belief that there might be no point, no goal, no plan to one's life would lead an atheist to the realization that it would be better to trust ancient and unverifiable (or verifiably false) fables and hearsay about a supposed infallible plan for each and every particle in the universe that will ever exist?

Is "peace of mind" your best argument for the veracity of your religious beliefs?

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water?


Well, there are a couple of reasons. There's a lot of interesting philosophical, artistic and cultural issues surrounding theology.

But mostly, it's because we have to. Religious people continually try to force their own twisted version of morality on the rest of the world, on issues like abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, scientific research. If you can learn to not suck at religion, then you will get no argument from me.

In fact, outside of the US and the middle east, the rest of us have pretty much come to terms with it. I would say that most of my friends are religious. I don't share their beliefs, but I do share most of their values, and that includes the likes of gay marriage, contraception, evolution and so many other things that are "controversial" in the US. Elsewhere, everyone has just gotten past your bronze age hangups.

In all honesty I'm surprised you even have to ask this question.

i really hope none of you think this is decent existential philosophy. it's not. it's cringeworthy.

*THIS IS NOT THE TRUTH

Fixed.

Also, the only reason I spend any time on religion is because other people who do so want to impact my life with it, using it as an excuse to do anything they feel like. I'm also a non-golfer. I went to the driving range a few times but it wasn't for me. I learned as much as I wanted about it and came to the conclusion that it had no purpose in my life. Golfers don't tend to get on my case about it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's a point many Golfers have wondered about; namely, why do non-golf-players spend so much time on something they say holds no water? On the golf forums I frequent, there are usually many non-golfers there asking questions and holding debates. The reason, I believe, is because the LPGA is saying there is no other sport. You may be ready to move on to another stage of life. I know that the LPGA wants you to watch, and so I am happy for you that have come to this place. God bless Tiger Woods.
>> ^rottenseed:
I'm so much healthier since I stopped placing so much energy into not being something. I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson changed me when he said "...it's odd that the word atheist even exists. I don't play golf, is there a word for 'non-golf-players'? Do 'non-golf-players' gather and strategize?"
There's a lot of better things I can and do focus on with my time.

as an agnostic I think one of the key things that atheists AND religious people alike need to get past is the possibility that maybe there is a god, but religion as we know it is just flat out wrong.

Maybe there is a god, but there is no religion. Maybe god doesn't care if you pray or don't pray. Maybe a god created us, but has since moved on and isn't watching us and otherwise doesn't give a damn about us anymore

What if god isn't really god, maybe we were created, but by some hyper-advanced aliens.

What if god doesn't dictate morality...maybe we create morality. God used to be ok with slavery...then we decided differently. Why aren't we getting flooded again if God was down with slavery?

What if god is a tyrant? You know what the US does with tyrannical governments right?

Whenever I used to think about that stuff as a kid . I put myself in god's shoes. Ok, I just created humanity. What's that? you're worshiping me and giving me thanks? ok that's sweet and all, but I want you to go out and do stuff. What's that? a whole day devoted to me? no...just no. I get it that you're thankful..but it's time to move on. What's that? you're killing other humans in my name? Just...no..just stop it!

Seriously, I think that's what every religious person needs to ask themselves. If you created a species. Would you want it constantly fighting and bickering and killing each other in your name? Nah, you'd want people to get along no matter how different they were? Religious people who are parents, would you really like it if your kids CONSTANTLY prayed to you and gave you thanks? We currently only spend Father's Day and Mother's Day devoted to our parents. Do you really think kids should be that devoted to their parents? Or do you want them to grow up and go out into the world and do big things?

Bottom line is that what we know is completely and utterly dominated by what we don't know. Column A is just a TAD bit bigger than Column B if you know what I mean. So it's utter absurdity to make claims that you know that there is no god..just the same as it is to claim that there is a god and you know exactly what it wants. Even people in the same religion can't seem to agree what god wants and get into extremely petty and hurtful fights over this shit.

so this supposed "battle" between theists and atheists is just ego getting completely out of hand IMO

We're all on the same fucking team...start acting like it.

religion is not inherently bad. It's just that it's so easy to manipulate those who are easily manipulated. It is ridiculously easy to co-opt a religion and make it not about helping people, but hurting them.

This question that if there is no god, then life is meaningless is bullshit. Guess what..you find your own meaning. Is it that impossible to be a decent person simply because it's the right thing to do and not because a deity told you so?

Shiny. You say you have lots of evidence of the existence of a god that cares specifically about you. What is that evidence? I too have similar ideals to Christ or Gandhi but I got those from being a human being and being raised without having my humanity beaten out of me. I had those values long before I knew about any historical or religious figures.

While there are a LOT of things I want to comment on, I'd like to point out one thing that I very vehemently agree with. While I can't say that I believe that Jesus was the 'ideal' man, I can say that he's someone that a vast majority of people I know could aspire to emulating.

It's not Jesus that is the problem, as awesome of a guy as he was (allegedly). Christianity teaches that it is not the actions that grant you access to Heaven, it is God's Grace. Whether it's Grace because you've acknowledged Jesus as your Lord, or Grace through TULIP-style pre-destination... All of an individual Christian's actions (except for the 'I Believe' action) are, in fact, meaningless. If the speaker thought more about his own Christian Philosophy, rather than de-contextualizing Atheists' quotes, he'd have realized this already.

If Christian 'Judgement' were based on actions and not belief in God (hence, their actions and lives had meaning), as many of my non-Christian friends would make it into Heaven as my Christian friends... One specific data point is violence. Every one of my non-christian friends is non-violent. They oppose violence, both offensive and defensive. Never once did Jesus EVER advocate any form of violence. And, if you take his life as a blueprint, he proved his mettle by submitting to being crucified, even stopping the people who would have defended him.

There are some Christians who are non-violent (Mostly Mennonites/Amish)... I respect them. Others, not-so-much. Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, read the Beatitudes... You'll read about being meek, righteous, merciful, peacemakers and persecuted... But you won't see anything that could have justified the Crusades, Slavery or Gay-Hate.

So, as an Atheist, let me go on the Record... I don't dis-believe in God... I dis-believe in the God that is worshiped by Christians. I also have very specific issues with other Religions, but that can wait for another time. Given that I've found all of the Religions that I've encountered to be as 'bad' as any others... My position is that God may or may not exist, but if He DOES exist, He won't be found in any current religious textbooks...

(FYI, I'm one of the "life is meaningless" people that the speaker seems to think can't exist. I can stare into the Abyss and take pleasure walking the line, knowing one day I'll fall in and vanish utterly. It does not, in any way, depress me.)


>> ^shinyblurry:

Genji,
I appreciate your words, Ezra, thank you. Let's say that you're right, that my life is meaningless, and that I am the one who determines what is true. Do you know what I would determine to do? What I would determine to do is to do the same things I am doing right now. Even if I knew Jesus Christ was not God, I would still determine to follow His blueprint for the ideal person, because following that blueprint has radically transformed my life for the better.

@hatsix exactly

Excuse me for butting in late in the discussion but;


If the point of religion is to live well enough that when you die your god judges you well, isn't what you do in your life more important than what you believe? If you live a good life, are caring and considerate of those around you and do your best to clean up the world around you, why would your god care about what you believe?

If the point of 'non-religion' is that life is without extended duration because there is nothing to reincarnate/fly heavenward/party in valhalla, that lack of belief won't change the animalistic instincts to love your child, protect it and by extension protect and support those around you. Therefore, you tend to want to live a life that is caring and considerate and leads you to clean up your own back yard.

The point is to think about your life while experiencing your life, to be awake for it all. 'Sinning' is much harder when you're aware of what you're doing (and yes atheists will understand the intent of the word). Beauty is everywhere. Not sleep-walking through life is reason enough for me, regardless of my (or your) religious inclinations.

Well, if you find purpose and meaning in Jesus isn't that just as "meaninglessness" as most things in life? It is delusional to think that in the last 2000 years of 200,000 years of humanity that we were graced with "the son of God". It's delusional. The eastern philosophies & religions are far more advanced and make much more sense. But, I would never devote myself to any organized religion formed by the mere conjectures of Ape 2.0's.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water?


Because the world is full of insane, unreasonable, unintelligible, gullible, maniacal, batshit crazy shinyblurrys who all hear and obey the voices in their Wheaties. Religion, Fascism, Nationalism... all results of the same mentally and reality-deficient group-think. Even the irrational ramblings and regurgitations of low-level, front-line fodder such as yourself should be met with overwhelming and devastating reason and logic, weapons for which you simply have no defense.

I just read that a Catholic priest believes James Holmes was possessed by a demon. Religious nuttery seems to be the only way you lunatics can parse reality. It should be embarrassing to you that it isn't embarrassing to you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

I'm guessing that's probably because you generally deal with English-speaking atheists. Technically we are arguing against Allah when we argue against God but why would we use an Arab word? Allah is not the name of the God of Islam and, even if it were, it would be the same God anyway. "Allah" means "the one God". It's what Arab Christians call God as well.

Krishna... well, I would argue against Krishna in much the same way as I argue against Yahweh if it ever came up, but it doesn't. There is no significant number of Hindus trying to force their beliefs on us, fighting societal advancement, or passing laws based on their holy book. Where I live these are the actions of Christians and so, merely out of priority, these are the people I argue against most frequently.

>> ^VoodooV:

as an agnostic I think one of the key things that atheists AND religious people alike need to get past is the possibility that maybe there is a god, but religion as we know it is just flat out wrong.
Maybe there is a god, but there is no religion. Maybe god doesn't care if you pray or don't pray. Maybe a god created us, but has since moved on and isn't watching us and otherwise doesn't give a damn about us anymore

This would qualify as Deism, FYI. You don't hear much about it these days but it was quite popular a couple hundred years ago. I think a lot of religious people actually fall under this umbrella now but may not be familiar with the term.

Yes, an entertaining speaker and an entertaining, and funny, presentation, which is why I'm so disappointed that he gradually took it off the rails over the course of it.

The meaning of life
He's arguing that the meaning he finds in his own life, living for Jesus, is the only valid meaning and therefore non-Christians must have no meaning in their lives.

Few, if any, people have the luxury of never struggling with this question and yet most of us, religious positions aside, find meaning in our lives eventually. Many of us recognize that, in the grand scheme, our lives, even our entire species, will have no impact; Nothing any of us does will ultimately affect the outcome of the universe or existence, but that does not make life meaningless. We find meaning in many things in life. We find meaning in our relationships with others. We find meaning in our work. We find meaning in religion, both Christianity and others. It's different for each of us and there's nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately for him, he builds his entire argument on this false premise. Even more unfortunate (for him), he makes an excellent point about what to do with conclusions that are based on a false premise.

I could stop here since I've destroyed his premise, but I'll continue below.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
as an agnostic I think one of the key things that atheists AND religious people alike need to get past is the possibility that maybe there is a god, but religion as we know it is just flat out wrong.
Maybe there is a god, but there is no religion. Maybe god doesn't care if you pray or don't pray. Maybe a god created us, but has since moved on and isn't watching us and otherwise doesn't give a damn about us anymore
This would qualify as Deism, FYI. You don't hear much about it these days but it was quite popular a couple hundred years ago. I think a lot of religious people actually fall under this umbrella now but may not be familiar with the term.


I'm not a deist, I'm just giving it as an example as atheists and religious people alike seem to fuse religion and god into one thing. They are two very separate things.

Question 1: Does a creator exist <yes/no/IDK>

Question 2: If a creator exists, what does it want? If anything.

Freedom
There's no such thing as absolute freedom, God or not, except maybe in non-existence.

Nobody can live without meaning
I think people who live without any meaning in life are few and far between but I do not see why they could not live that way. They may be miserable, depressed, suicidal even, but they will not cease to exist in any way that is different from how the rest of us will cease to exist.

Scientific Theories
This whole section is fucked and was pointless to bring up in the first place. His argument has nothing to do with scientific theory.

The Straw Frankenstein Monster
Over the course of the video he constructs a straw man out of pieces of ideas from various philosophers and thinkers, assembling them like Frankenstein's Monster and then, fittingly, being destroyed by his own creation.

CS Lewis
In the case of this quote, at least, Lewis is a damn fool. Love is no less real because it is a chemical process. Music is no less enjoyable, art no less beautiful because they are biological reactions.

Flowers and Love
"The only way to enjoy flowers and love is to not think." This is a typical (and baffling, for me) anti-knowledge argument that I see so often from fundamentalist Christians. I don't get it. Flowers smell as good and look as beautiful after you learn how your senses function as they did when you were ignorant. There is no reason to avoid learning. The world is just as amazing when you understand it.

To answer @shinyblurry's question though. The Atheist Experience videos on the sift answered this question from one of their callers long ago.


http://videosift.com/video/The-Atheist-Experience-Why-Are-You-Atheists-Anti-Christian

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion. If it was really about religion, you would the criticism spread around a lot more than it is. I haven't seen many atheists taking vocal stands against Allah or Krishna, even though between the two they represent a 1/3 of the worlds population. This is especially true of the "new atheists", even though many of the things they rant about are epitomized in islamic and hindu countries. It just seems that todays atheism isn't so much anti-God(s) as it is anti-Christ. It's not focused on all gods, it's focused on the true God: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

>> ^wraith:

@shiny:
Regarding your question:
1. People who had a dramatic change in their life tend to be very vocal an opinionated about that. Why should that not also true of people who loose or gain religious beliefs?
2. For me, who has never believed in a god or gods, I tend to react to pressure that religious people exert on me and my life. I would not classify that as god "dealing with my heart".
3. Most people who are even able to frequent these fora are from western wealthy nations which, through god's almighty plan or certain socio-economic factors turned out to be predominantly christian.
Regarding your statement: I, from the safety of a country where supposed blasphemy is not met with harsh punishment by learned elders of a forgiving religion, do criticize all religions almost equally. Even I, given the christian background of my home country reserve most of my criticism for christianity because I encounter it most in my daily life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

The goal of posting this video was to spur interesting conversations on philosophical topics, but so far everyone (with an exception here and there) seems interested in discussing the same old atheist talking points and ignoring the content of the video entirely.

The argument that was made, I think, is that if you're an atheist you're leading a double life. On one hand, you are committed to this relativism which makes every value judgment subjective, but on the other hand, you live as though there are absolute values and meaning. As someone once said, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap his face. For instance, there is a story about a young man who turned in a paper about relative truth, and how there was no right and wrong, and the professor gave him an F. The student was pretty heated because the paper was well written and so he confronted his professor about the low grade. The professor told him the reason for the F was because He didn't like the color of the paper he was using. The student exclaimed "but that isn't fair!". The professor asked him what he meant by fair? That's when the student got it and then the professor changed his F to an A. The point being that while it's easy to wax philosophical about these points, no one really lives that way. We all have an idea of what is wrong, and if there is something the way it shouldn't be, then naturally there is also a way it ought to be. Where does that come from?

>> ^wraith:

@shiny:
What was your goal in posting this video?
Do you really think that given that atheism might lead one to the belief that there might be no point, no goal, no plan to one's life would lead an atheist to the realization that it would be better to trust ancient and unverifiable (or verifiably false) fables and hearsay about a supposed infallible plan for each and every particle in the universe that will ever exist?
Is "peace of mind" your best argument for the veracity of your religious beliefs?

What issues in theology do you find interesting?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shinyblurry:
That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water?

Well, there are a couple of reasons. There's a lot of interesting philosophical, artistic and cultural issues surrounding theology.
But mostly, it's because we have to. Religious people continually try to force their own twisted version of morality on the rest of the world, on issues like abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, scientific research. If you can learn to not suck at religion, then you will get no argument from me.
In fact, outside of the US and the middle east, the rest of us have pretty much come to terms with it. I would say that most of my friends are religious. I don't share their beliefs, but I do share most of their values, and that includes the likes of gay marriage, contraception, evolution and so many other things that are "controversial" in the US. Elsewhere, everyone has just gotten past your bronze age hangups.
In all honesty I'm surprised you even have to ask this question.

as an agnostic I think one of the key things that atheists AND religious people alike need to get past is the possibility that maybe there is a god, but religion as we know it is just flat out wrong.

Most religion as we know it is wrong. This is the religion approved by God:

James 1:27

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world

Maybe there is a god, but there is no religion. Maybe god doesn't care if you pray or don't pray. Maybe a god created us, but has since moved on and isn't watching us and otherwise doesn't give a damn about us anymore

What if god isn't really god, maybe we were created, but by some hyper-advanced aliens.

Maybe God became a man, Jesus Christ, and died for the sins of the world?

What if god doesn't dictate morality...maybe we create morality. God used to be ok with slavery...then we decided differently. Why aren't we getting flooded again if God was down with slavery?

http://www.comereason.org/soc_culture/soc060.asp

What if god is a tyrant? You know what the US does with tyrannical governments right?

I'm not really sure how to reply to this comment.

Whenever I used to think about that stuff as a kid . I put myself in god's shoes. Ok, I just created humanity. What's that? you're worshiping me and giving me thanks? ok that's sweet and all, but I want you to go out and do stuff. What's that? a whole day devoted to me? no...just no. I get it that you're thankful..but it's time to move on. What's that? you're killing other humans in my name? Just...no..just stop it!

Why would you think, as a flawed, subjective, morally imperfect being (that's all of us), that you could understand the mind of God? Perhaps God ordained worship for a reason that you don't understand?

Seriously, I think that's what every religious person needs to ask themselves. If you created a species. Would you want it constantly fighting and bickering and killing each other in your name? Nah, you'd want people to get along no matter how different they were?

If people followed what Jesus taught, none of that would be happening.

Religious people who are parents, would you really like it if your kids CONSTANTLY prayed to you and gave you thanks? We currently only spend Father's Day and Mother's Day devoted to our parents. Do you really think kids should be that devoted to their parents? Or do you want them to grow up and go out into the world and do big things?

Our parents don't uphold the atoms in our bodies. God is who makes all things possible.

James 1:17

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

I'm sure there are many times in your life that you've wanted to give thanks for the good things God has done for you, but you have no one to thank. I think that's is a sad moment for an unbeliever.

Bottom line is that what we know is completely and utterly dominated by what we don't know. Column A is just a TAD bit bigger than Column B if you know what I mean. So it's utter absurdity to make claims that you know that there is no god..just the same as it is to claim that there is a god and you know exactly what it wants. Even people in the same religion can't seem to agree what god wants and get into extremely petty and hurtful fights over this shit.

so this supposed "battle" between theists and atheists is just ego getting completely out of hand IMO

We're all on the same fucking team...start acting like it.

The only way you could know the truth is if you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being told you. Christians are claiming the latter. I have a route to truth, and you don't, so how are you telling me I don't know what it is? How would you know that?

>> ^VoodooV

That's because you have a God given conscience that tells you right from wrong. It's really a misconception to say that Christianity teaches you must be a Christian to know right from wrong; on the contrary, it says people will accountable to God because they *do* know it. I'm willing to bet, however, that no one taught you how to lie. That is something else that comes naturally to human beings, which is sin.

As far as evidence, it is personal experience. I mean I can give you many logical arguments, and I have seen people healed of infirmities, but knowing God is not an intellectual matter. It's a matter of the heart. What scripture says is that God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is:

Romans 1:18-20

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Shiny. You say you have lots of evidence of the existence of a god that cares specifically about you. What is that evidence? I too have similar ideals to Christ or Gandhi but I got those from being a human being and being raised without having my humanity beaten out of me. I had those values long before I knew about any historical or religious figures.

While there are a LOT of things I want to comment on, I'd like to point out one thing that I very vehemently agree with. While I can't say that I believe that Jesus was the 'ideal' man, I can say that he's someone that a vast majority of people I know could aspire to emulating.

I'm glad that we can agree on Jesus. I highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499

It's not Jesus that is the problem, as awesome of a guy as he was (allegedly). Christianity teaches that it is not the actions that grant you access to Heaven, it is God's Grace. Whether it's Grace because you've acknowledged Jesus as your Lord, or Grace through TULIP-style pre-destination... All of an individual Christian's actions (except for the 'I Believe' action) are, in fact, meaningless. If the speaker thought more about his own Christian Philosophy, rather than de-contextualizing Atheists' quotes, he'd have realized this already.

That isn't true though. Although, you cannot earn your salvation, there are rewards in Heaven based on what you did here on Earth. Neither is it meaningless to follow the two greatest commandments:

Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, and with all of your strength.

and

Love thy neighbor as yourself

Unless you count loving God and your fellow man as meaningless, they are both a reward onto themselves and filled with meaning.

If Christian 'Judgement' were based on actions and not belief in God (hence, their actions and lives had meaning), as many of my non-Christian friends would make it into Heaven as my Christian friends...

The judgment is about sin. Your friends, along with every Christian, have transgressed Gods laws, and the wages of sin is death. The difference is, Christians have received Gods pardon for their transgressions, whereas unbelievers have rejected it and thus have to face God on their own merits.

One specific data point is violence. Every one of my non-christian friends is non-violent. They oppose violence, both offensive and defensive. Never once did Jesus EVER advocate any form of violence. And, if you take his life as a blueprint, he proved his mettle by submitting to being crucified, even stopping the people who would have defended him.

Jesus said this:

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

There are some Christians who are non-violent (Mostly Mennonites/Amish)... I respect them. Others, not-so-much. Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

A Christian is simply someone who has been born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the true church is the body of Christ. Regardless of what a denomination might say, a Christian should consult the word of God:

Matthew 26:52

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, read the Beatitudes... You'll read about being meek, righteous, merciful, peacemakers and persecuted... But you won't see anything that could have justified the Crusades, Slavery or Gay-Hate.

I agree with everything you're saying here. Christians are to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and pray for those who despitefully use them. We are to unconditionally love everyone, because they are in the image of God, and because God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. That is the model of behavior He has given us.

So, as an Atheist, let me go on the Record... I don't dis-believe in God... I dis-believe in the God that is worshiped by Christians. I also have very specific issues with other Religions, but that can wait for another time. Given that I've found all of the Religions that I've encountered to be as 'bad' as any others... My position is that God may or may not exist, but if He DOES exist, He won't be found in any current religious textbooks...

I'll just say that God deeply loves you, and wants you to know Him personally.

(FYI, I'm one of the "life is meaningless" people that the speaker seems to think can't exist. I can stare into the Abyss and take pleasure walking the line, knowing one day I'll fall in and vanish utterly. It does not, in any way, depress me.)

I don't think he said they don't exist, I think he said that on one hand you may believe it, but on the other hand, you don't live as if everything is meaningless.

>> ^hatsix

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion.

The goal of posting this video was to spur interesting conversations on philosophical topics, but so far everyone (with an exception here and there) seems interested in discussing the same old atheist talking points and ignoring the content of the video entirely.

The argument that was made, I think, is that if you're an atheist you're leading a double life. On one hand, you are committed to this relativism which makes every value judgment subjective, but on the other hand, you live as though there are absolute values and meaning.

The point being that while it's easy to wax philosophical about these points, no one really lives that way. We all have an idea of what is wrong, and if there is something the way it shouldn't be, then naturally there is also a way it ought to be. Where does that come from?

Excuse me for butting in late in the discussion but;

If the point of religion is to live well enough that when you die your god judges you well, isn't what you do in your life more important than what you believe? If you live a good life, are caring and considerate of those around you and do your best to clean up the world around you, why would your god care about what you believe?

That is the point of many other religions, which say that you're good and bad works will be lined up on a scale, and then whichever one weighs out will determine which direction you'll go. Christianity says something different, which is that you cannot earn your way into Heaven with your good works. Although we may be relatively good people, compared to a Hitler or a Pol Pot, that is a relative standard. Gods standard for good is moral perfection. He has also decreed that the wages of sin is death. So, it's not that He cares what you believe, but that He has made a way for you to be pardoned for your sins through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the only way to be forgiven for sins and receive eternal life. So to reject that pardon is to stand trial for your crimes.

If the point of 'non-religion' is that life is without extended duration because there is nothing to reincarnate/fly heavenward/party in valhalla, that lack of belief won't change the animalistic instincts to love your child, protect it and by extension protect and support those around you. Therefore, you tend to want to live a life that is caring and considerate and leads you to clean up your own back yard.

The point is to think about your life while experiencing your life, to be awake for it all. 'Sinning' is much harder when you're aware of what you're doing (and yes atheists will understand the intent of the word). Beauty is everywhere. Not sleep-walking through life is reason enough for me, regardless of my (or your) religious inclinations.

Awareness is central to appreciating our life, but we also have to appreciate why we're here, and respond to it:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

>> ^jqpublick

That's the classic Hitchens argument, and you might have a point (but not really), if you believed in an Old Earth. I believe in a Young Earth.

>> ^shagen454:

Well, if you find purpose and meaning in Jesus isn't that just as "meaninglessness" as most things in life? It is delusional to think that in the last 2000 years of 200,000 years of humanity that we were graced with "the son of God". It's delusional. The eastern philosophies & religions are far more advanced and make much more sense. But, I would never devote myself to any organized religion formed by the mere conjectures of Ape 2.0's.

Because the world is full of insane, unreasonable, unintelligible, gullible, maniacal, batshit crazy shinyblurrys who all hear and obey the voices in their Wheaties. Religion, Fascism, Nationalism... all results of the same mentally and reality-deficient group-think. Even the irrational ramblings and regurgitations of low-level, front-line fodder such as yourself should be met with overwhelming and devastating reason and logic, weapons for which you simply have no defense.

I think the definition of insanity is going out of your way to tell someone you're ignoring them (several times), but then constantly send them messages like this. As far as logic and reason go, your entire post here is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem. You've also never once said anything to me without engaging in this fallacious argumentation.

>> ^Fletch

>> ^shinyblurry:

blah blah blah

Although, you cannot earn your salvation, there are rewards in Heaven based on what you did here on Earth.

Neither is it meaningless to follow the two greatest commandments:
Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, and with all of your strength.
and
Love thy neighbor as yourself
Unless you count loving God and your fellow man as meaningless, they are both a reward onto themselves and filled with meaning.

The judgment is about sin. Your friends, along with every Christian, have transgressed Gods laws, and the wages of sin is death. The difference is, Christians have received Gods pardon for their transgressions, whereas unbelievers have rejected it and thus have to face God on their own merits.

Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

A Christian is simply someone who has been born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the true church is the body of Christ. Regardless of what a denomination might say, a Christian should consult the word of God:
Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I agree with everything you're saying here. Christians are to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and pray for those who despitefully use them. We are to unconditionally love everyone, because they are in the image of God, and because God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. That is the model of behavior He has given us.

This is the point where most Atheists become seriously pissed... Simply stating that someone is wrong because they don't believe what you believe is not the way to have a discussion. Especially when what you believe isn't widely believed by your own fellow Christians. LCMS, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists are the only denominations that officially preach Young-Earth Creationism...

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's the classic Hitchens argument, and you might have a point (but not really), if you believed in an Old Earth. I believe in a Young Earth.
>> ^shagen454:
Well, if you find purpose and meaning in Jesus isn't that just as "meaninglessness" as most things in life? It is delusional to think that in the last 2000 years of 200,000 years of humanity that we were graced with "the son of God". It's delusional. The eastern philosophies & religions are far more advanced and make much more sense. But, I would never devote myself to any organized religion formed by the mere conjectures of Ape 2.0's.

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

You know, there really only HAS to be a meaning for things if you need there to be.
The truth is that everyone is being/doing exactly what they really want to be being/doing at any given time. Some people like to lead, some like to follow/surrender, some rebel, some like to be along for the ride, some don't care, and some like to analyze it all.
You ARE free, right now, meaning or no meaning, whether you believe in God or not.
Have fun driving yourselves crazy with that.

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

Here is a bunch of atheists who disagree with you: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

This is probably because the content in the video was a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical sermon that made such astronomical leaps that it didn't need to be said.

Pretty harsh point for the people who enjoyed it. If that's true then make your case against it, since you have understood it so well as to completely dismiss it.

There wasn't an argument made for this. For some reason, you seem to believe that "the things we do in life have no meaning after we die" turns people into sociopaths... And since we're not all sociopaths, that proves that God exists. The first issue is that you assume that 'meaninglessness' leads to sociopathic behavior. Secondly, this is a textbook example of Denying the Antecedant fallacy.

Show me where anyone said this, or even implied it.

--Skipping the story--

Is this really your argument? 80% of the people you meet were raised Christian (even most of the Atheists)... This is confirmation bias... You can't say something is put there by God when Religion was preaching to them on a weekly basis. If there really were some sort of imperative planted by God... wouldn't there be far less religious wars?

Breaking news... people really do spend their entire lives 'waxing philosophically'... People do die for things that their religion has told them was wrong, but they felt was right (Anti-Gay Violence?).

That's what is called sitting in Gods lap to slap His face, or borrowing from my worldview to establish yours, and this really isn't an argument in your favor. Also, as far as sin goes, do you understand Christian theology?

This is news to me... I believe Mormons teach this, but all other denominations preach that when you accept the Holy Spirit, it moves you to do good deeds... that the good deeds aren't your own.

Revelation 22:12

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me here. I was very specifically using the definition of 'meaningless' that the speaker above uses... as in, 'meaning nothing after you die'.

But that isn't the definition he used. He applied it to past present and future.

My point exactly. The only thing that matters is that you've accepted Jesus as your Savior. NOTHING else matters... hence it is meaningless.

Where do you get the hence from? Meaning is meaning. Even if there was only one meaningful act you could ever do, it would still be meaningful. However, in the context of God, everything takes on its true meaning, attaining the purpose it was created for.

You completely ignored my point here. Except for the Mennonites, there are no other denominations (in the US) that take a hard stance against violence. None. Zero. This country is 80% Christian, and yet we've been at war for 209 of 235 years of our existence.

No ignored my point that religions don't matter, because the true church is the body of Christ. You want to blame an institution, and that's fine, but that isn't what the church is.

Let me be very clear on this: ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN THE US ARE FALSE purely based on this one single fact (again, excluding Mennonites)... Granted, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist... but it certainly does mean that I can't trust any US-based Christians...

I believe all denominations are false because they bring separation to the body of Christ.

What have you done to end discrimination (of ALL types)? Have you participated in any protests against wars, for Gay Marriage, for Women's Rights? Have you stood up in Church to let everyone know that you think it's wrong to discriminate against others, regardless of what they've done?

I'm against discrimination, flat out, and I would say something if I see it. I don't go to protests, no. I use my time to help people in many other ways.

I'd recommend reading up on philosophy, logical debate, and comparative religion... and finding a denomination that is above reproach. The reason Atheists always seem to have the same 'tired' arguments all the time is because we don't need to have new ones... the old arguments still come out in our favor.

I'd recommend the same to you, and the old arguments obviously are not coming out in your favor since atheism is in decline

http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf

This is the point where most Atheists become seriously pissed... Simply stating that someone is wrong because they don't believe what you believe is not the way to have a discussion. Especially when what you believe isn't widely believed by your own fellow Christians. LCMS, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists are the only denominations that officially preach Young-Earth Creationism...

The whole point is, if it is an old earth, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would come after 198000 years of struggle. That doesn't really prove anything, but the entire point is invalidated if it is a young Earth. Do you see what I am saying? I didn't say he was wrong, I just said what I believe.

>> ^hatsix

I'm guessing that's probably because you generally deal with English-speaking atheists. Technically we are arguing against Allah when we argue against God but why would we use an Arab word? Allah is not the name of the God of Islam and, even if it were, it would be the same God anyway. "Allah" means "the one God". It's what Arab Christians call God as well.

Krishna... well, I would argue against Krishna in much the same way as I argue against Yahweh if it ever came up, but it doesn't. There is no significant number of Hindus trying to force their beliefs on us, fighting societal advancement, or passing laws based on their holy book. Where I live these are the actions of Christians and so, merely out of priority, these are the people I argue against most frequently.

I'm not talking about technicalities, though. If atheists are really so incensed about the evils of religion, they would be concentrating on religions, countries and cultures that had the most egregious examples of perceived evils. Instead, 99 percent of it concentrates on the God of the bible. The fact is, Christianity has played a very positive role in shaping our civilization. If you want to read about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343535302&sr=1-1&keywords=the+book+that+made+your+world

Yes, an entertaining speaker and an entertaining, and funny, presentation, which is why I'm so disappointed that he gradually took it off the rails over the course of it.

The meaning of life
He's arguing that the meaning he finds in his own life, living for Jesus, is the only valid meaning and therefore non-Christians must have no meaning in their lives.

What? That is not what he was arguing, by any stretch of the imagination. He argued that to be free = meaningless, and that no one can live that way, on top of all of the logical, emotional, psychological and philosophical convolutions that this truth entails. He proposed Christianity as a solution to this problem, but he did not make it the thrust of his argument. He asked at the end, what is your alternative? What is your reason for life?

Few, if any, people have the luxury of never struggling with this question and yet most of us, religious positions aside, find meaning in our lives eventually. Many of us recognize that, in the grand scheme, our lives, even our entire species, will have no impact; Nothing any of us does will ultimately affect the outcome of the universe or existence, but that does not make life meaningless. We find meaning in many things in life. We find meaning in our relationships with others. We find meaning in our work. We find meaning in religion, both Christianity and others. It's different for each of us and there's nothing wrong with that.

The argument is, though, that if you're free to make up your own meaning, then there is no actual meaning.

Unfortunately for him, he builds his entire argument on this false premise. Even more unfortunate (for him), he makes an excellent point about what to do with conclusions that are based on a false premise.

I could stop here since I've destroyed his premise, but I'll continue below.

You do not appear to have understood the basic premise of his argument..

Freedom
There's no such thing as absolute freedom, God or not, except maybe in non-existence.

You're splitting hairs here..he is talking about what it means to be truly be free, in the sense of not having any meaning imposed upon you from the outside.

Nobody can live without meaning
I think people who live without any meaning in life are few and far between but I do not see why they could not live that way. They may be miserable, depressed, suicidal even, but they will not cease to exist in any way that is different from how the rest of us will cease to exist.

No, he is saying that there is no way to live that way and be logically consistent with your own knowledge and experience.

The Straw Frankenstein Monster
Over the course of the video he constructs a straw man out of pieces of ideas from various philosophers and thinkers, assembling them like Frankenstein's Monster and then, fittingly, being destroyed by his own creation.

Give a specific example.

Scientific Theories
This whole section is fucked and was pointless to bring up in the first place. His argument has nothing to do with scientific theory.

CS Lewis
In the case of this quote, at least, Lewis is a damn fool. Love is no less real because it is a chemical process. Music is no less enjoyable, art no less beautiful because they are biological reacitons.

Flowers and Love
"The only way to enjoy flowers and love is to not think." This is a typical (and baffling, for me) anti-knowledge argument that I see so often from fundamentalist Christians. I don't get it. Flowers smell as good and look as beautiful after you learn how your senses function as they did when you were ignorant. There is no reason to avoid learning. The world is just as amazing when you understand it.

I think you might need to rewatch the video because I don't think you understood the point to these sections, or how they were supported by his overall argument.

>> ^xxovercastxx

>> ^laura:

You know, there really only HAS to be a meaning for things if you need there to be.
The truth is that everyone is being/doing exactly what they really want to be being/doing at any given time. Some people like to lead, some like to follow/surrender, some rebel, some like to be along for the ride, some don't care, and some like to analyze it all.
You ARE free, right now, meaning or no meaning, whether you believe in God or not.
Have fun driving yourselves crazy with that.


i love you

Yeah, but I'm also not an atheist.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's the classic Hitchens argument, and you might have a point (but not really), if you believed in an Old Earth. I believe in a Young Earth.
>> ^shagen454:
Well, if you find purpose and meaning in Jesus isn't that just as "meaninglessness" as most things in life? It is delusional to think that in the last 2000 years of 200,000 years of humanity that we were graced with "the son of God". It's delusional. The eastern philosophies & religions are far more advanced and make much more sense. But, I would never devote myself to any organized religion formed by the mere conjectures of Ape 2.0's.

Re: Reddit:

Show me one thread that 'disagrees' with me. Most of them seem to be commiserating about how they're constantly being pushed to the side of society.


You pretend you want discussion, but you don't actually state the position you're arguing for. Your own comment suggests that you're against Religion itself... It seems to me you're just a troll...

If you don't actually want to discuss, go back under your bridge. You'll never have proof that God exists, and we'll never have proof that he doesn't. If you need your light to keep you feeling safe at night, feel free to have it. Nobody is trying to take it from you... we just don't want it shining in our eyes.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What issues in theology do you find interesting?

Theology poses some interesting questions about about the meaning and origin of life and morality? Even if I disagree with the answers and the methodology used to come up with them, the questions themselves are fascinating.

You have to understand that I look at it from an anthropological stance. Why / how did primitive cultures use supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena, etc. I don't for a second accept the Christian idea of god. If it was true, there would be no other religions.

This thread is a prime example of why I try to not argue with believers.

@shinyblurry: You do not argue a point, you state "facts" that you "know". All your "points" come back to "Because it says so in the bible" -> "The Bible must be true because it's God's word" --> "God's word must be true becuase he says so in the Bible"

It has been argued for centuries by atheists and theist alike. Some of the greatest thinkers that our world knew have tried to argue it and even with the greatest minds of christian theology, the likes of Thomas Aquinas, Agustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury etc. etc. etc. it all comes down to the central circular logic fallacy of "There is a god because there is a god"

There is no way to prove the existence of any god. It has been tried for thousands of years and no one has ever acomplished it.

Since every argument in theology derives it's weight from God's existence....

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not talking about technicalities, though. If atheists are really so incensed about the evils of religion, they would be concentrating on religions, countries and cultures that had the most egregious examples of perceived evils. Instead, 99 percent of it concentrates on the God of the bible.

I'm only speaking for myself, not for The Atheists™. I do not generally go around condemning religions, individually or as a whole; I condemn when it is called for or when my opinion on something is requested. When Catholics rape children, I condemn. When Muslims throw acid in the faces of "immodestly" dressed women, I condemn. When Catholics deny their employees access to healthcare, I condemn. When Scientologists destroy the lives of people who want to leave their organization, I condemn. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say, and there are no Buddhists or Hindus lecturing me on the meaninglessness of my life. I tend to argue mostly with Christians and so I tend to argue mostly against Christianity.

>> ^shinyblurry:
That is not what he was arguing, by any stretch of the imagination. He argued that to be free = meaningless, and that no one can live that way, on top of all of the logical, emotional, psychological and philosophical convolutions that this truth entails. He proposed Christianity as a solution to this problem, but he did not make it the thrust of his argument.

Nay, he proposed Jesus as the solution to this problem, a problem that I don't even necessarily accept is a problem as defined. It is entirely the thrust of his argument. Let me quote...

Nobody can live that way. To really believe that life is meaningless gets you into convolutions that are emotional, convolutions that are psychological, convolutions that are logical, convolutions that are philosophical, and you can't even live that way because life does have meaning and both freedom and meaning are found in Jesus Christ. That's the argument.

"Most religion as we know it is wrong. This is the religion approved by God:"

nononono @shinyblurry you don't get to duck out like that like a wuss. In order to be intellectually honest with yourself, you HAVE to contemplate the possibility that you are wrong.

Seriously? do you listen to yourself when you say that? All religions are wrong but mine? If you want to claim intellectual honesty...shit like that does not cut it.

"The only way you could know the truth is if you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being told you. Christians are claiming the latter. I have a route to truth, and you don't, so how are you telling me I don't know what it is? How would you know that?"

Oh my, you are pretty much the definition of insane, you know this right? You've allowed your ego to completely compromise your capacity to reason.

I'm just going to leave this here:

"The key characteristics of a sociopath include: (1) having no conscience, (2) inability to treat others as human beings, with feelings and rights and (3) inability to learn from experience, from life. One result of this last is gross immaturity, though it may be hidden unless one knows the person well. A sociopath behaves as if he/she were the only person in the whole world and as if everyone else just existed for their benefit and had no existence in their own right. (4) Sociopaths treat other people as toys and hanker after the power to control and hurt their "nearest and dearest." (5) Many are monumentally self-important: They may pretend to be millionaires, when in reality they are sliding towards financial disaster. (6) Habitual dishonesty."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz2223wHuSZ

You've clearly demonstrated why theocracy is a universally bad idea. Your only standard is "It's true because I believe it and I believe it because I want to believe it, therefore it's true"

I know others have tried to demonstrate it to you and you've dodged it every time, but you simply fail to comprehend what circular logic is and how it's a logical fallacy. You continue to quote the bible as if it's an authoritative source so you're demonstrating your inability to comprehend. deliberately or otherwise You start with a belief you want and work backwards and attempt to make facts fit your belief. It doesn't work that way...it never has

You have every right to your religion, you have every right to vote your religion, but you've demonstrated time and time again precisely why rule by religion is a complete failure.

i have to agree with @xxovercastxx
while this video brings up questions i have always found interesting.the speaker does cherry pick to build an argument for a pre-determined conclusion.
a conclusion which promotes his view of the world.

to suggest that an atheist or agnostic has no meaning,or can never find meaning in their lives due to an absence of religion,is not only intellectual dishonesty but lacks imagination.

the reason why this confounds or eludes many religious folk is because religion is externalized.
they derive meaning through submission to a higher power ie:god,jesus,allah,(fill in deity here).
they adhere to a doctrine and dogma that the atheist/agnostic does not.so both parties view/experience their worlds in very different manners.so it should be no surprise that there would be a disconnect between these two parties,because they approach the "meaning of life" question from very different perspectives.

Round the world and home again
That's the sailor's way
Faster faster, faster faster

There's no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going
There's no knowing where we're rowing
Or which way the river's flowing

Is it raining, is it snowing
Is a hurricane a-blowing

Not a speck of light is showing
So the danger must be growing
Are the fires of Hell a-glowing
Is the grisly reaper mowing

Yes, the danger must be growing
For the rowers keep on rowing
And they're certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing

Just started watching this and I haven't read the avalanche of comments above this, but...

Am I the only one who thinks the speaker sounds a *little* like Jeff Goldblum. Very nice speaking voice :]

Nothing like a video and too many words without evidence only to prove in the end how seriously deluded you are.

Hey @shinyblurry,

I've had this bookmarked since it came out and finally watched it today. Thanks for this video. I found it quite interesting, and it brought me face-to-face with something I've been kinda half thinking about lately -- the meaninglessness of life.

I read some of the comments, but skipped most, so I may be repeating. Lemme know if that's the case.

About the video itself. To get this out of the way, many of Keller's individual arguments were made in intellectually dishonest ways, like using two meanings of the same word (e.g. "meaningless") to create false logic, and using philosophers' quotes as fact without challenging their validity or pertinence to the argument at hand. Keller isn't the topic though, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

About all the meaninglessness. I agree with the overall point, that if there's no god, then there's really no meaning to life in the grand scheme of things since we're here for a meaningless slice of infinite time. That's hard to face sometimes. That discomfort tends to drive me towards other people. Sharing that feeling with others feels really good. Helping them feel better about it makes me feel good. I might even say it gives me a purpose, gives my life meaning.

I don't see any contradictions in my philosophy yet though. Or, at least, I didn't agree with any of the ones that Keller brought up. For example, about love and about evil. I found those arguments fatuous. I believe there's love because I feel it, just like I feel pain. Also, I don't believe that evil exists as part of reality. There are certainly actions I've done, seen and heard of that I judge as horrible things to do, and which some would see as "evil", but that's my judgement or someone else's, a label, something external both to myself and the person who did the action. Conceiving of it as "evil" is either a metaphysical statement, or an internal reaction to the thought of you doing that action yourself. Good and bad? Yes. Virtue and Evil? No.

So let's go with good and bad. You and I have already spent many screenfulls talking about morality, but to reiterate my belief, I think that people have an instinct for which actions are good and which are bad based on how they affect other people. We instinctively know that torturing babies is bad. We also instinctively know that doing something to ease another's problems or enhance their life is good. The more we try and connect with those feelings of what's good and what's bad, the better we feel about our actions and the happier we are overall. I believe that following that sheer bliss wherever it leads us is the best thing we can do. Specifically, anything the Bible promotes against following your bliss and knowingly causing pain in others should be snipped out.

When I think of my own depression, how it might relate to a lack of reason for my life, and how I might feel better if I were able to believe in God, it makes me feel better when I think of other people I know who are genuinely happy people without a whiff of religion in their lives, and I ask myself what makes them happy, and try and emulate that. The answer is always following their bliss, which is always helping other people find their bliss. Wonderful how that works. FWIW, I don't know any happy, fulfilled people who actively judge any other people as right or wrong, good or bad.

I'm glad you enjoyed the video and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I'll reply by saying that if you accept meaninglessness as a fact, then there are many implications to such a belief. For instance, if it true that life is meaningless then it is also true that there is no such thing as justice. It means that any truly terrible things that happen to you will never be adequately recompensed, and that frequently, the purveyors of such will get away with it scott free. It means that ultimately, might does make right, and he who has the gold makes the rules. If you are smart enough to get away with it, or powerful enough to avoid the consequences, you will never face any justice for any evil that you've done.

It also means that everything you have worked for and dreamed about could be randomly taken away from you at any moment, and so could all the people you love and care about. One moment you are an eternal optimist, the next, you get into a car accident and become a parapalegic. Now, you can say that this could happen to you even if there is a God, since it obviously happens to people all the time. This is true, but, if this life is all you have then it means that the hope you have is a very limited and fragile commodity. Hope is not a limited commodity for a Christian. For instance, the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become. When you're young, you don't concern yourself with it as much, even though it could happen at any time. As you get older, you start to realize how little time you have left to accomplish your goals. Your mobility starts to decrease, the sharpness of your intellect and your beauty fades. You become less desirable to others and to society in general. What this means is that your happiness is always situational. Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

Yes, some people are able to squeeze some happiness out of desperate circumstances, and more power to them, but they have no real hope. A meaningless universe provides you with zero hope in the end. Many people believe they will achieve some lasting legacy but think about all the people you remember from the last century. Shockingly, a poll done by college age kids from America and Germany showed that many of them had no idea who Hitler was. If no one can remember Hitler, they probably won't remember you either. Where does that leave you? Your best case scenario is that you lead a completely pointless life where you hopefully experience a modicum of pleasure before expiring prematurely, never having reached anything near your true potential, with all your love and dreams being cruelly erased from existence forever.

People become depressed because of a lack of hope. If you look at the world today, and constrast it to our history, you will see that nothing has really changed on planet Earth. For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Now, you make an argument about following your bliss, but if what is good to do is simply what makes you feel good, then you could excuse some of the worst crimes in history. People murder, rape, cheat, steal, etc because it makes them feel good. I'm sure Hitler took a lot of pleasure in what he did, and was following his bliss for aquiring absolute power. You can't use what feels good as a compass for what is right. Now, I think you're trying to insert the caveat that we shouldn't do what causes harm to people, but what if it is someones bliss to harm people? You would be stopping their bliss and thus violating your own rules. In short, there is no way to impose any absolute standard of morality when you are determining it by a completely arbitrary standard. In a meaningless Universe there is no right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

For myself, what led me to start thinking about what was true was to notice how much this world was going down the tubes, and with seemingly no one in the drivers seat. I noticed the love I felt from this world being slowly drained away, year by year. I saw that humanity was on a collision course with ultimate destruction if nothing changed. If life is meaningless then it doesn't matter. But deep down, you don't really believe its meaningless, and neither did I. That's probably another reason why you're depressed. Your head says its meaningless but your heart tells you that this is a lie. Until the two reconcile you will never be happy and you will never be truly free. It's only Christ that can reconcile them, because He knows the reason that you're here, and only He can point you in that direction. It is only by discovering the meaning of your life, the reason that you're here, that will lead your mind and heart to agree with one another.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

I've started answering you, and it's turning into another meaty essay, which may come in the next few days. I can summarize it that I 98% accept the first two paragraphs of your description of the implications of accepting meaninglessness as fact, almost as words from my own mouth.

I didn't explain what I meant by "bliss" well enough earlier, and that's what I'm hacking away at now.

I also realize I owe you a few replies from comment threads gone by a couple months ago when my life was busy. Haven't forgotten.

No sweat bro..take your time. I always appreciate the substantive discourse that you bring to the table. I also appreciate that life is often pulling us in many different directions and so setting aside a slice of time to do justice to topics like these can be problematic. I'm often in the same bind which is why it took me a week or so to reply to your original post.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
I've started answering you, and it's turning into another meaty essay, which may come in the next few days. I can summarize it that I 98% accept the first two paragraphs of your description of the implications of accepting meaninglessness as fact, almost as words from my own mouth.
I didn't explain what I meant by "bliss" well enough earlier, and that's what I'm hacking away at now.
I also realize I owe you a few replies from comment threads gone by a couple months ago when my life was busy. Haven't forgotten.

@shinyblurry

Of what you said above in the first two paragraphs about the consequences of accepting meaninglessness as reality, just about all of it I fully agree with. For clarity, I’ll mark the exceptions:

the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become
and
Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Further, you comment that, "people become depressed because of a lack of hope."

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

All that is to say I pretty much agree with your view of what meaninglessness implies, and if there’s any bits that you want to explore more, I’m all for it.

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Lots of people do bad things to others and themselves, and later on, some may consider what they did was bad, or they might not. If they still think it was OK, it’s because they’ve used some kind of justification, like, "She did it to me first," "She was teasing me. What did she think would happen?" or, "He had it coming," or "I had no choice," And so forth. These are all rationalizations after the fact, justifications that allow them to still consider themselves as good people rather than change their behaviour or take responsibility for having done something wrong. These don’t address the real reason these people did these things. In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion.

I believe that the natural and best state for a human being to be is happy (and here again, I mean blissfully happy). Every bit of programming we have nudges us towards certain actions by rewarding us with feelings of happiness, or reduced misery. We only live once, so I would modify your description only slightly to, “taking what bliss you can when you can”.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too. Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Well, the central argument of the video is that life without God is meaningless. You've already agreed with that point, so the argument now seems to be is whether someone can be happy and fulfilled with a meaningless life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

Hope is what keeps people going. Without hope, you are just going through the motions. When you have hope and lose it, it is emotionally devastating. A person without any hope is a person most likely clinically depressed.

You can call depression a kind of mental disorder, and some people may be born without the right chemical receptors for instance, but most people are depressed because of a lack of hope. A person, for instance, who worked their whole life and lost their retirement in an afternoon, or a mom whose kids abandoned her to live in a nursing home. They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

The reason I made that comment about God is because of your comment about your depression. The reason you have that feeling that if you believed in God you wouldn't be depressed is because you know there is hope in God.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_163659 3.html

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am familiar with the philosophy of Sam Harris, and I figured you were borrowing from him, but it is good to know where you stand. My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

You also say that you feel the best state of a human being is to be blissfully happy. I'm sure everyone will agree with you that feeling blissfully happy is good. However, why should we believe this is actually what good is?. Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything. Maybe this is just incredibly selfish and the opposite of good, or somewhere in the middle is true, or maybe none of it. You give no actual reason (beyond arbitrary statements like that which makes the world better or worse) to equate feeling good with moral goodness. In a meaningless Universe, neither is there any basis for thinking that you have any moral duties. This leads me to some questions that you didn't actually address in the last post. Let me ask them again because they are central to this discussion:

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

I'll also address some of your comments:

In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

I am familiar with his system, to which I reiterate the point; what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus told us:

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

If there is no objective morality, then nothing is really wrong. Any system you create in the end is a human invention, based on human interpretation, and agreed upon by human consensus. You still cannot get an ought from an is. Good could be defined as a world of people who love each other, or a world of people who love to eat children. What is wrong then is simply based on your personal preferences.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I understand that this wasn't meant to be perfect. It has, however, raised more concerns than it answered.

>> ^messenger

.

@shinyblurry

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

Hope is what keeps people going … They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

This is my fault. As I mentioned in my last comment, I had intended to write further down about people who do find bliss in hurting others, and I had it fleshed out in the drafting process, but I guess I accidentally deleted it before posting. Anyway, here it is. First, there’s psychopaths. You don’t understand what a psychopath is. It’s not a blood-crazed killer from a Hollywood movie. In real life, a psychopath is someone who fails to feel empathy or sympathy, someone who has no sense of altruism. They do whatever serves their own interests best – however they define that. This is in sharp contrast with how the rest of us think about other people, which is mostly with compassion. I’ve been close to a few psychopaths, and they enjoy things like music or sports or writing or whatever like anyone else, and they mostly understand that others think hurting people is bad, so they avoid it. They don’t get any special thrill from hurting others – it just doesn’t hurt their conscience if they do. I’m guessing they don’t really ever feel the bliss I’m talking about.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead. What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves). Like, I might like to eat your cookie, but it would feel worse to steal it from you than it would feel good to eat it. Instead, I think about how I can have the cookie without feeling bad about it. I would probably ask you for some of your cookie, and then I’d not only have some cookie, but I’d also share a friendly interaction with another person in my community, someone who will probably enjoy sharing their cookie with me and be glad I asked them. Win-win. So to recap, “taking what I can” to me and most people, involves having the greatest amount of personally rewarding experiences I can, and those involve not doing bad things, and often involve doing good things.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself…That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position. While you have correctly concluded that life without God is meaningless, and I commend you for being intellectually honest to admit this, the point is that you certainly will not live that way. You will actually live as a Christian does, believing that human beings have value and dignity, and that there are good things we should do and bad things we shouldn't do. The problem is, in a meaningless Universe, you have no rational justification for any of these things. You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress. You have nowhere to stake a claim, and this is why your atheism becomes a sinkhole which is pulling you down directly into nihilism. In the end, a bag of stardust has no rational justification for morality, or any kind of value. If you are an atheist/agnostic you have to admit you have no value, no dignity, and no basis for good or evil.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

People worship because they're made to worship. Go around this Earth and you will find people worshiping all manner of Gods and created things, the sun the moon and the stars, celebrity, money, power, themselves. 1 Romans says that God has made Himself evident to people in the things He has made. So, rather than people worshiping because they wanted to avoid meaninglessness, they worship because it the most natural thing for them to do which matches their experience. People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

I can speak on depression because I used to be depressed. I know what it is like, and having come out of it, I am qualified to speak on what I can clearly see as being the number one issue; hopelessness. A person who depressed is carrying burdens in their life which tell them that tomorrow will not be better than today, in fact it will probably be worse. People who are depressed often times see no reason to carry on at all. This could be for a number of reasons; living situation, health, low self-esteem, loneliness, finances, abuse, or perhaps all of the above. In the end, it all boils down to a lack of hope that whatever they are depressed about will ever change or get better, or that it would matter if it did. People who have hope are happy and not depressed.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

So, I suppose the point is that it is hopeless. Not only is a life without God meaningless, but if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction. This is what I mean when I have said in the past that in all of our history human beings have made absolutely no progress what so ever. All of the knowledge in the world doesn't count for anything if you don't have the wisdom to use it. All of our learning is simply hubris when you take a look at the condition of the world today. It is actually more wicked at this time than any other time in history. I believe God is in absolute control because He has shown me this is true. I'll give you an example:

One time I had to hitchhike across country. This was just before I became a Christian and I wasn't sure about Jesus. I was kind of scared having never really hitchhiked before, so I prayed and said: "Jesus, if you are the Son of God, and I need to know you, please help me through this. I can't do it on my own so I am going to trust you to help me". After I prayed this prayer, everything was lined up for me as if it was programmed. Money, food and rides all came to me at the right time in the right place. For instance, I would meet someone in one spot and they would help me, and then 800 miles away in a different state on a different day I would meet them again. This happened to me 3 times. Two of them I met in the same place within 20 minutes apart, and they both were met in different states many hundreds of miles away. The timing of all of this was practically impossible. Only God could have arranged me to keep meeting the same people when they were going in opposite directions across the country and on different routes, at the same time. Even if they were going in the same routes and directions it would still be improbable. Not to mention they were in small windows of time where I was in the right place at the right time to see them.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Actually, one of the defining characteristics of being a psychopath is the ruthless manipulation of others for pleasure and short term gain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

You can say your bliss is better and more noble than their bliss but you would have no justification in doing so. There is actually no reason in your worldview to say that psychopaths aren't normal and you are abnormal.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

Yes, we both have that sense, but the difference is you have no basis for saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred. If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that? According to what you've said here, that would make you a hypocrite.

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead.

You say this with certainly but I think you have to recognize that this is your hope. I wonder where this hope comes from? Since you've never been dead before to see what happens, what makes you so sure about it? Could this information about life after death exist in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of things that you don't know?

What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves).

You're absolutely right about that. The scripture says when there is no King every man does what is right in his own eyes. It also says that there is a way that seems right to man, but the end of its ways is death. Also, interestingly, this philosophy matches the only rule of Satanism "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Christianity teaches that we should trust in God with all of our heart and lean not on our own understanding.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

Right, but not doing things because they make you feel bad isn't the question. Unless there is an absolute morality, these are just chemical reactions in your brain. Your mind is deluding you into thinking something is bad by secreting a certain chemical which makes you feel guilty when you steal, and secreting a certain chemical that makes you feel good when you don't do it. These things aren't really bad, they are just how your brain evolved. So, why be a slave to chemicals? I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

What makes someone a bad person?

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

Well, there you go. You have no justification for right and wrong, and you admit that. You don't know why, and you don't care, so you go by your feelings. This is the cognitive dissonance I was talking about at the beginning of the post. You know intellectually that a meaningless Universes gives you no basis for morality, but you don't live that way. You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil and acting as if life has meaning and value when you know that it doesn't. You are fooling yourself into ascribing meaning to what you know are just chemical reactions in your brain. There is analogy made to the brain being like a soda can..you shake it up and it starts fizzing, which is just like the chemical reaction in our brains. One is fizzing morally and the other is fizzing immorally. What's the difference?

Your atheism leaves you in the position of not being able to tell me that something like child rape is absolutely wrong. In your world, there is no such thing, and if everyone thought it was right, it would be.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong. It's very easy for everyone to understand Gods laws because we already know them. The problem is that people suppress the truth about God, and so people are deceived about what is good and evil are just doing what is right in their own eyes. I didn't understand growing up that fornication was wrong because society said it was okay, but now that the deception has been lifted my heart is in agreement with it. I know that is wrong, not just because Gods law says it is, but because it is written upon my heart.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

We have the freedom to obey or disobey God. The one thing God will never do is make you obey Him. In that sense, you have to determine whether you will do what is good or evil.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

The ambiguity comes in when you assert these things with no rational justification. You admitted earlier that you have no ultimate justification for right and wrong, so why do you think Harris somehow does?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

This is really an argument from incredulity. I'm sure no one pictured an entire society could be convinced that killing millions of jews is a good thing, but it happened. People can and have agreed to do some extremely wicked things. The point is that if morality is based upon what people agree on, and people can potentially agree on anything, then you have a moral system that could call the same thing good or evil depending on what the opinion was at that time. That is no basis for morality.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

I don't recall saying this. There is the divine command theory which states that whatever God commands is ethically good. For instance, although God commanded us not to kill, He used the Israelites to judge the Canaanites after giving them 450 years to repent. This though was a unique situation because God ruled the Israelites directly as His own kingdom. The only other example I can think of is Abraham and Issac, and of course God didn't want Abraham to kill Issac.

These days, though, we're under a new covenant, and Gods Spirit dwells within His people. There is no example of God telling us to do anything contrary to His word in the NT, and therefore I see no basis for agreeing that I would either.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

"a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws."

The point is, without enforcement a person is free to violate their conscience as freely and as often as they choose without any consequences. A conscience doesn't preclude the need for an external set of laws because most people willfully ignore their own conscience.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

Christianity wasn't arbitrarily invented, it is revealed truth. I've also already covered this throughout the reply. According to you, unless you appeal to an authority, you have no basis for right and wrong, and neither you or Harris have any authority to appeal to in a meaningless Universe. You're content to just follow your feelings and not think about it, which I pointed it is cognitive dissonance.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. That is the proof that God exists in the middle of all of this. You are living like a Christian while denying God with your atheism. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning". That would be the same as me saying that God exists because He exists. It is a viciously circular argument that you would never accept from me. I can point to a transcendent God who reveals truth, and tells us what is right and wrong, and is the source for the uniformity in nature. I can justify these things, but you cannot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_ 1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

Sorry. I can't remember what I was thinking of, or if I wasn't just confusing one thing for another. Perhaps I was thinking of this:

http://videosift.com/video/Ray-Comfort-Teaches-about-Adolf-Hitler

>> ^messenger:

stuff

There may be some objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is, even if someone told it directly to your face, you'll hear it through imperfect ears.

Objectivity doesn't exist as long as life is experienced through subjective reality. In other words, your eyes and ears and brain make it hard to be objective. Your interpretation of the universe is entirely your own. The foundation of this discussion is inherently flawed.

Is that objectively true?

>> ^KnivesOut:

There may be some objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is, even if someone told it directly to your face, you'll hear it through imperfect ears.
Objectivity doesn't exist as long as life is experienced through subjective reality. In other words, your eyes and ears and brain make it hard to be objective. Your interpretation of the universe is entirely your own. The foundation of this discussion is inherently flawed.

>> ^KnivesOut:

There may be some objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is, even if someone told it directly to your face, you'll hear it through imperfect ears.
Objectivity doesn't exist as long as life is experienced through subjective reality. In other words, your eyes and ears and brain make it hard to be objective. Your interpretation of the universe is entirely your own. The foundation of this discussion is inherently flawed.


I hope you see my point. Now, you may actually be stunned because I agree with everything you're saying here, with two caveats. You could not possibly know the truth, unless:

a. you are omnipotent
b. an omnipotent being reveals the truth to you

Since we can safely rule out A for either of us, you can see that B is the only possible way we could know what is objectively, or absolutely true. That's my claim. If you can admit that God can reveal things to us in such a way as that we can know them for certain, then you have to admit that I have a route to truth through the revelation of an omnipotent being. Therefore I can justify things like morality, laws of logic, uniformity in nature and so forth. An atheist has no route to truth and cannot justify these things. That is the inherent problem with atheism is that an atheist has no basis to make truth claims, and he must admit his life is completely meaningless and that he has no value, dignity or any justification for saying what is right or wrong. That's what this video is about, essentially, that no one can or does live that way, and that atheists have cognitive dissonance because they live like Christians but then deny God with their atheism.

@shinyblurry


We seem to be getting into a lot of repetition in this thread, so rather than going line by line, I'm going to attempt my points and reactions to yours with fewer quotes, hopefully hitting the important themes. I don't want to minimize anything you've said, so if I skip anything you feel is a separate issue and is cogent, feel free to draw my attention back to it specifically, but check first and see if you can't answer that same point with something I've already said in here.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position ... if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction ... You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil … these are just chemical reactions in your brain … why be a slave to chemicals?… you have no rational justification for … saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred.

There's no cognitive dissonance in my mind –at least, not about doing the right thing. I acknowledge a life without God has no ultimate purpose, and that in the grand scheme of things, the Earth is going to be swallowed by the Sun in a few billion years and nearly all traces of humanity will disappear with it, and at that time, nothing anybody has ever done will matter because there will be nobody left for whom it can matter. With that in mind, it does seem odd that despite realizing this, I would still care about doing the right thing.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

People worship because they're made to worship … 1 Romans says that God has made Himself evident to people in the things He has made. So, rather than people worshiping because they wanted to avoid meaninglessness, they worship because it the most natural thing for them to do which matches their experience.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss. If by "natural atheist" you mean people who have no supernatural practices including ancestor worship or anything, then yes, you're right, I don't believe such a society exists. To me, this points to the universal human tendency to worship something—anything, and to feel better about life when we do so. Slaves to chemical reactions in their brains, as far as I'm concerned.

I can speak on depression because I used to be depressed. I know what it is like, and having come out of it, I am qualified to speak on what I can clearly see as being the number one issue; hopelessness.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that?

I would never say that someone "ought not to do" anything on objective moral grounds. If I ever said something like that (I wouldn't use the words "ought" or "should"), it would be on the understanding that this person either knows the local laws and is violating them, or more likely shares a moral foundation with me, is acting against it. Either way, that person, upon consideration, would probably prefer not to be doing that mean thing, and is only doing it to satisfy some other need of theirs that they consider higher than their need to do the right thing by me. (This isn't to justify the bad act, but to show you how I think about bad acts and the people who do them. In other words, I don't believe people get encouraged by Satan or anything to do bad things.)

[me:]There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead.

[you:]You say this with certainly but I think you have to recognize that this is your hope. I wonder where this hope comes from? Since you've never been dead before to see what happens, what makes you so sure about it? Could this information about life after death exist in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of things that you don't know?

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Your atheism leaves you in the position of not being able to tell me that something like child rape is absolutely wrong. In your world, there is no such thing, and if everyone thought it was right, it would be.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[me:]Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

[you:]God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong.

And elsewhere…

[me:]First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

[you:]We have the freedom to obey or disobey God. The one thing God will never do is make you obey Him. In that sense, you have to determine whether you will do what is good or evil.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality. 2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

[me:]Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

[you:]This is really an argument from incredulity. I'm sure no one pictured an entire society could be convinced that killing millions of jews is a good thing, but it happened.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

It's a bad comparison anyway. Genocide happens all the time, even in religious societies (by the 1939 census, 94% of Germans were Christian, FWIW). You can't compare this with an entire society suddenly deciding that torturing children is morally correct. If I ever heard of such a baby-torturing society existed, I'd immediately assume it was in accordance with their religious belief, rather than just what they all decided was OK, wouldn't you?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

Our Greatest Delusion As Humans - Veritasium has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.