Are Atheists kidding themselves?

Originally posted by dj2becker
The existance of life after death usually implies eternity in 'heaven' or 'hell', which affects the meaning of life before death, as that would determine where you would spend eternity after death.

A reward or punishment don't give meaning. If parents reward their children for doing their homework or punish them for not doing it, for example, it may motivate the children to do the homework, but it won't make the homework more meaningful to them.

Originally posted by Nordlys
A reward or punishment don't give meaning. If parents reward their children for doing their homework or punish them for not doing it, for example, it may motivate the children to do the homework, but it won't make the homework more meaningful to them.

That is assuming that extra motivation cannot create extra meaning.

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be? Because you've got me sold on that one.

I know you christians are only semi-literate, but if you look closely you'll see I said your caricature of atheists had no basis in reality. You, then, turn right around and apply that to love and meaning. Work on that reading disability of your's, would you?

You c ...[text shortened]... The only one with something to struggle with is you and your very tenuous grasp of reality.

No , I'm not that stupid. I picked up on the phrase 'no basis in reality' because it seemed ironic at the time. It's called a play on words but you knew that anyway didn't you? I still think there is a valid philosophical question to wrestle with here. The fact that you seem to want to turn this into a slanging match rather than address a serious point suggests to me that I may have hit a soft spot. As for 'cloistered' and 'fanatical' ? I'll leave you to make your own fanciful assumptions based on little or no facts. The chip on your shoulder is too big.

Originally posted by amannion
Why does Christianity - or any theistic religion - have first dibs on love? Why can't other people also have love for things and people?

I agree I think you're right love is love wherever it is found. Give me a choice between love and religion and it's love every time for me. But where does love come from? Can we really love properly (ie unconditionally) unless we ourselves are loved unconditionally first?

Originally posted by dottewell
Do Christians not value the little things?

If I make a few people's lives (including my own) a little better, is there no value in that?

Is there no value in helping an old woman across the road just because we are both going to die at some point in the future? (Hopefully after we get across the road...)

The Christian position, as represented here ...[text shortened]... the Christian to show why moral value relies on God, not for the atheist to prove the opposite.

Of course there is value in the little things. The question is, is that 'value' a subjective personal concept or is it a real thing (ie as real as mount everest)? If it is purely a subjective thing then if I happen to think that killing babies is a good thing to do then you can say "I disagree with you " or " most people disagree with you" or "I think this is wrong" but you can't say this IS wrong because in Atheism morality is down to personal taste , there are no fixed moral truths. As soon as you start appealing to some fixed idea of what is ACTUALLY right or wrong you are becoming a theist without realising it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course there is value in the little things. The question is, is that 'value' a subjective personal concept or is it a real thing (ie as real as mount everest)? If it is purely a subjective thing then if I happen to think that killing babies is a good thing to do then you can say "I disagree with you " or " most people disagree with you" or "I think idea of what is ACTUALLY right or wrong you are becoming a theist without realising it.

The killing babies part can be said about religions, and you only have to read the Book of Joshua to see that. Only it's the religious leader's taste that determine morality and not God.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The killing babies part can be said about religions, and you only have to read the Book of Joshua to see that. Only it's the religious leader's taste that determine morality and not God.

Good to see you are willing to engage in a proper debate on this subject. Another chip on another shoulder?

Originally posted by royalchicken
You still haven't explained why god is required for that sort of love. You have expressed unfounded judgements and probable contradictions, however.

You implicitly denied part of the humanity of self-loathing alcoholics. What characteristics must an individual have to be a 'whole person'?

You claimed it is desirable to 'win out' over self-preser ...[text shortened]... rgive those who kill their children. What actions toward this person indicate forgiveness?

knightmeister, you haven't answered my questions. Am I less special than everyone else?

Originally posted by scottishinnz

I don't need to. I have the more parsimonious argument. You want it to exist, and it requires belief in things that have no form or energy; therefor, the burden of proof it would seem is on you.

What?? I know God exists, because I have had the supernatural revelation and experience. As you do deny the existence of the supernatural and in that case supernatural revelation & experience, you will not accept any of the evidence that I bring to the table. Thus the onus is on you to prove that the supernatural does not exist in order to warrant your belief in the non-existence of the supernatural.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
for something to exist it must have either mass or energy or both and exist in time and space. I can list a whole universe of real things that fulfil those criteria. Can you list anything that doesn't have mass, energy or exist in time or space that you can get a physical measurement on or show me?

Didn't think so.

By excluding the possible existence of the supernatural you are making the logical error of assuming that you know everything that there is to know.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't need to. I have the more parsimonious argument. You want it to exist, and it requires belief in things that have no form or energy; therefor, the burden of proof it would seem is on you.

What?? I know God exists, because I have had the supernatural revelation and experience. As you do deny the existence of the supernatural and in that c natural revelation & experience, you will not accept any of the evidence that I bring to the table.

Thus the onus is on you to prove that the supernatural does not exist in order to warrant your belief in the non-existence of the supernatural.
Have to disagree with you on this one, DJ. Your experience, although valid to you, does not necessitate a supreme being, let alone God. The existence/non-existence of God, scientifically-speaking, is not provable. Reason and empirical evidence clearly lead one to the suggestion, but fall short of a scientific conclusion.

As it says in one of Paul's letters, it is clearly evident by what has been made, but in man's clamor to declare himself wise, he will become as a fool... missing the forest for the trees.

This does not speak so much to the shortcomings of God's interactions with man, as it does science's ability to detect the same.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are assuming that you know everything there is to know.

No, I'm assuming that my limited knowledge of the rules of reality are not invalid in other parts of the universe. All evidence (from analysis of starlight, gravity, relativity etc) suggests that this is a fair assumption to make.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, I'm assuming that my limited knowledge of the rules of reality are not invalid in other parts of the universe. All evidence (from analysis of starlight, gravity, relativity etc) suggests that this is a fair assumption to make.

Based, of course, on your renderings of Genesis. Perhaps your renderings of Genesis are amiss?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Thus the onus is on you to prove that the supernatural does not exist in order to warrant your belief in the non-existence of the supernatural.
Have to disagree with you on this one, DJ. Your experience, although valid to you, does not necessitate a supreme being, let alone God. The existence/non-existence of God, scientifically-speaking, is not ...[text shortened]... hortcomings of God's interactions with man, as it does science's ability to detect the same.[/b]

Thanks for the input.

I guess that is why Paul also says that it is impossible to please God without faith.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Thanks for the input.

I guess that is why Paul also says that it is impossible to please God without faith.

Funny you should mention that aspect. Having attempted to ascertain the existence of God via philosophical measures; prove Him mathematically; or capture Him in a petri dish, it has become apparent that all human efforts result in frustration.

He can only be found along the path He chooses. The ones who follow that path are the most relaxed people on the planet.