What the Atheist Claim of the Meaninglessness of Life Would Mean (If It Were True)

It's just too hard to swallow.

By William M Briggs Published on January 6, 2018

There is a scene early on in the killer-shark movie Jaws which has marine biologist Matt Hooper explaining to Amity’s Mayor Larry Vaughn the nature of sharks. “Mr Vaughn,” says Hooper, “what we are dealing with here is a perfect engine — an eating machine. It’s really a miracle of evolution. All this machine does is swim, and eat and make little sharks. And that’s all.”

Is this explanation true? If so, then why doesn’t it also apply to ocelots? What else besides running, eating and making little ocelots does this carnivorous beastie do?

And if it works for sharks and ocelots, why not also for dandelions, cockroaches and ratbirds (pigeons)? And if for them, why not for all life? Why not for you, dear reader? After all, what else do people do except scurry about, eat and make more people?

A Bag of Bones

If life can be reduced to biology, to nothing but chemical and physical interactions — as many atheists claim — then the explanation that all life, including our own, is meaningless futile repetition must be true.

Don’t pass too quickly by “meaningless.” This is the main point. If our lives are solely biology, then our lives have no meaning. This is a stronger conclusion than you might think. For it follows that any meaning anybody ascribes to any event in life is itself meaningless. Any and all moral judgments are mere prejudice, the result of particular arrangements of chemicals operating under unbreakable physical laws.

If all moral judgments are prejudice, then everything anybody ever thinks or says is opinion. And it’s forced opinion, at that. All opinions are the result of chemicals pushing this way and that, forming unwilled patterns in brains, under the control of nobody.

Who Asked For Your Opinion?

You say rape is wrong? That’s just your opinion. Worse, it’s an opinion you have no choice but to believe, since the opinion is formed in a brain operating under fixed laws. You think murder is immoral? Well, there is no such thing as immorality, and cannot be, since for acts to be moral or immoral, acts cannot be meaningless. Meaning defines morality.

So what? you might think. Individual people might be nothing more than their biology, because what really matters is the human race itself.

But this must be false, since it does not matter whether sharks or ocelots or humans exist. Why? Because nothing, in the end, matters. That you believe people, or cockroaches, or even “the earth” deserves its rightful place, is again nothing more than your opinion. And your opinion does not matter. Not on these matters, nor on any matter.

We cannot say, as some do say, that in this all-is-biology scheme that the “universe is indifferent” to us, or to any life. The universe cannot be “indifferent.” The universe can’t care. It too is just a bag of meaningless physical reactions. And in none of those reactions can there be caring or indifference.

Science is Not the Answer

Science cannot rescue us from this bleak conclusion.

Celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson is fond of pointing out the meaningless of life. He recently tweeted, “Not that anybody’s asked, but New Years Day on the Gregorian Calendar is a cosmically arbitrary event, carrying no Astronomical significance at all.”

This is not only true, if scientists like himself are correct that we are nothing but biology, but it doesn’t go far enough. For there is no such thing as “astronomical significance.” There is no such thing as significance of any kind! This is because significance implies meaningful, and if all life is biology, then nothing is meaningful.

Yes, we can define significance with reference to some equations that describe, say, certain planetary motions, but why would we want to? That activity is meaningless. Any and all scientific results are meaningless. Science gave us rocket travel and pharmaceuticals? It doesn’t matter.

The Problem of Evil

What we have been discussing is the Problem of Evil. If atheism is true, if life really is nothing more than biology, then there is no such thing as evil. There is no such thing as good, either.

It is often asked why evil exists. Evil, some say, is not compatible with an all-loving God. This, they say, is the real “problem” of evil. But we can now see this judgment is backwards. If God doesn’t exist, then there is no evil. Anything goes! And nothing matters. Even more, that “nothing” encompasses everything.

But if God does exist, the classical answer about evil suddenly makes sense. Evil is the absence of the Good, and the ultimate Good is God.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Dr. Ew (JR )✝️✝️✝️

    I truly believe that everyone believes in God. Those who deny Him do so based upon anger misdirected towards Him for some evil perpetrated upon them or someone they love or based upon a desire to not do what God wants them to do.
    I base my opinion upon my 57 years of interactions with people who have expressed both agnostic and atheist viewpoints, my older sister holds the later so she says. But I know more about what motivated her decision to not believe than she knows I do, this I know her unbelief is based upon misdirected anger towards a God she very much believes exists. Others, stating a pure unbelief, when asked what type of God they don’t believe in they always say the God of the Bible. When asked to describe that God, a capricious and egomaniacal god materializes from their words. In other words they too hold a deep seeded anger towards God, an anger that in truth should be directed at Lucifer.
    I have never met someone who says they don’t believe who after close questioning had indeed not believed .

    What and how the Christian acts upon having learned of the misconceptions of the non believing believers …. well, that’s what we are here for right ?

    • Knottam Pordand

      The unfortunate thing is that belief doesn’t equate to truth. I can state unequivocally that I do not believe in God. I was never raised into religion and have never believed in God. My absence of belief doesn’t stem from turning away from God it just wasn’t part of my life. The only thing I have come to settle on, that is absolutely true, is that Life exists the way it does with or without my belief in it. One can believe in God but that doesn’t make it true, just as one can not believe in God but that also doesn’t make it true. Belief is just a game we play with ourselves, it helps to calm us, helps us make sense of this world. Just as the first sentence under the headline points out, “It’s just too hard to swallow.”

      The idea that life is meaningless is too hard to swallow for someone who has always had God in their lives. And when I was a kid without God meaningless, the point of life, etc. was a bit of an undertaking and led me on a journey of understanding. I would like to say the author is wrong that there is meaning to this life without a God but that is not true. But at the same time that does not mean that we can’t live without meaning without a God. Meaning is simply arbitrary, same as belief, YOU give meaning to your life, that is all. Just because that is a hard pill to swallow doesn’t make it false. Doesn’t make God any more true, just because we don’t like what life without a God would mean.

      I could go on, but what’s the point, it’s meaningless. Those that choose, or were forced since birth, to believe in a God will. Those that don’t believe in a God won’t. Life simply is, and we simply are, that is something we don’t get a choice on, we are here like it or not. And someday we will die, like it or not. So just enjoy it, enjoy the journey whether there is a God or not. Try to have some fun and extract your own meaning from it all because someday the journey will end. Someone once said it is always best to end with a quote because someone has already said it better…

      “We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F. Roberts

      • Dr. Ew (JR )✝️✝️✝️

        I do not dismiss other gods, nor does God Himself.
        And I don’t believe you’re being honest with me/ us, but this may well be my healthy skepticism and not dishonesty in your part.
        Not being face to face, I can not yet say I have met anyone who truly does not believe, shame that as I’ve a feeling we would get along swimmingly. For you are bright, intelligent and express yourself well, and there are experiences and knowledges you have that I have yet to be exposed to that I’d be better for as a man for the hearing, even if I chose not to accept them as my own.
        I am not one to diminish my growth for reasons of bias or personal ego, no I want to learn a new thing each day and those fruits are gleened upon the ground in new territories.

        Until we speak again ….. thanks for the reply.

        • Knottam Pordand

          I appreciate the reply, but let’s get straight to it. I have never found a use for dishonesty, so that is not the case here. If you are curious feel free to ask whatever you like, I am an open book. In the end, I have found that beliefs to be utterly useless… at least that is what I would like to say, but then that would just be a belief in and of itself. Beliefs are a tricky thing, they are like a blanket we use to comfort ourselves. Again, thank you for your words and I’m around if you have questions…

          • Dr. Ew (JR )✝️✝️✝️

            Likewise, to questions and “ around “….. I’m a frequent visitor to almost everywhere these days internet speaking.
            Lol, very ecclesiastical comment…. everything is nothing …. therefore waste not time upon it or do it matters not…. one can not hold this view and be honest, honestly. For the very desire to be honest necessarily mandates that something matters and in a world view that nothing does matter this conflict can not exist. In conclusion, your initial concluding statement of “ other Gods “ can also not be made by someone with absolute disbelief, for again the very concept would be immaterial and not worthy of inclusion.

          • Knottam Pordand

            Unfortunate, I had hoped for some actual probing questions into why you felt I was being dishonest but instead I got more assumptions and beliefs. Ah well, probably for the best, don’t want to delve to deep and burst the bubble in which one has been living in. Life is for enjoying anyway, it has been fun.

          • Dr. Ew (JR )✝️✝️✝️

            God bless

          • D McGovern

            An interesting observation……..atheists, nine times out of ten, in any conversation, fall back on sneering.

          • As I was saying…

            No need to question someone so generic.

            The only one with a bubble to be burst is your belief that you have made yourself your own meaning and personalized reality. You know that cannot be supported so you shy away from the topic to protect yourself.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            “Life is for enjoying anyway”

            More assumptions and beliefs? Certainly, teleology!

          • As I was saying…

            So your problem seems to be an old joke Chesterton used to tell about people who held “the dogma that there is no dogma.”

            You say belief in general is meaningless. So you have no trust even in your own words?

      • As I was saying…

        God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

        You are a pagan who has never questioned his paganism out of the assumption that denying God will give you “power.” It will not.

        This is shown by your delusion that you have “will to power”ed yourself into meaning based entirely on your ego. You will not give this up as you think that power sustains you. What actually sustains you is your contingency to God, and God will not force you to still be connected to Him after death.

  • Atheists never claimed that life was “meaningless.”

    • Right. It is not that atheists say life is meaningless, but *that* life is meaningless *if* atheism is true. That is all that has been claimed or shown here.

      • John Connor

        Claimed Yes. Proven No.

        • feminism is cancer

          It’s self evident. Give it a little thought and you might grasp that

        • As I was saying…

          Proven by your life and actions no doubt. Not everyone is in denial as you are.

    • GPS Daddy

      Explain, then Chuck, how meaning exists on a worldview that says life is here by a random, purposeless, directionless process?

      Lets define some terms to use in logic statements:

      DE : life is here by random mutations acted on by natural selection in a purposeless and directionless process.
      LF: Life has meaning and purpose.

      Atheism then demands the following logic on Darwinian Evolution:

      You cannot say LF and DE are both true at the same time. They logically contradict each other. If your going to hold the DE is true then the following logic is forced:

      If DE then Not LF.

      The contrapositive would be: If LF Then Not DE.

      PS – Atheists don’t get to make up their own rules of logic as you have insinuated here.

      • Evolution is true, whether you want to believe in it or not.

        • GPS Daddy

          If thats what you claim to be true then the force of logic is that life has no meaning or purpose no matter how much you don’t like it.

          • Again, I don’t have to live in an invisible supernatural world to have meaning and purpose in my life.

          • feminism is cancer

            “have meaning and purpose in my life”
            No such thing. Just like for god, just because you really strongly believe it exists, doesn’t mean it does (in fact it doesn’t)

          • As I was saying…

            So your problem is not being able to naturally see (and therefore control) what is above nature?

            So this is about control for you

          • GPS Daddy

            >> I don’t have to live in an invisible supernatural world to have meaning and purpose in my life

            Then you agree with my premise If LF then Not DE. Good for you.

          • John Connor

            Your opinion only. One need not believe in magic to have meaning to their lives. This atheist has a wonderful life with two children and a wonderful wife. No gods needed.

          • feminism is cancer

            “One need not believe in magic to have meaning to their lives.”
            Ramblings of delusion. Life, the universe and everything in it is purposeless and meaningless. Philosopher as far back as the 19th century already realized that. You probably haven’t given it much thought.

            “This atheist has a wonderful life with two children and a wonderful wife.”
            And it’s all meaningless and pointless

          • As I was saying…

            philisophers of the 1800’s are little more than self-indulgent gnosticism and paganism.

          • John Connor

            Opinions vary

          • feminism is cancer

            It’s not an opinion. The law of the universe is causation, there’s no end goal, no purpose.

          • GPS Daddy

            Yep, John, you very much find meaning and purpose in your family. As you should. But lets examine that.

            As I have clearly shown both DE and LF cannot both be true at the same time. But your not saying that you find meaning and purpose in DE. Nope. You find meaning and purpose in others. Meaning and purpose can only be commuted via person-hood. It takes a person to have meaning and purpose. But your worldview does not support this. However, the Christian worldview does. That is EXACTLY what the Christian worldview says.

            So whether you like it or not it take a personal God for you to find meaning and purpose in your family. Like it or not God is there. AND He wants to be personally involved in your life and family.

            Think about this. What if your children totally rejected you? What if they would not allow you into their lives… not even acknowledge that you are their dad? How would that make you feel? You have life because of God. You were fearfully and wonderfully made in your mothers womb by God. Your spirit is from God. He created you. He is your true father. He wants that relationship with you.

            Like it or not your worldview does not support in any way that the purpose and meaning you find in your family.

          • As I was saying…

            By your foundationless position, you have no way to enumerate value of your family. You try to get around this by the gnositic assumption that reality changes based upon your personal mood.

            The truth is that your love for your family shows at least some connection Christianity, no doubt adopted from common sense. Of course, since you have no foundation for your position, then your love cannot possibly be valid. I bet if I pushed you hard enough you would eagerly prove that hypothesis correct.

            God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. You know you have wronged Him and now think that your mere denial and ignorance is enough to absolve you of guilt. You know that is not the case.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            “No gods acknowledged” ≠ “No gods needed” ≠ “No God needed”

        • Anonymous age 72

          >>Evolution is true, whether you want to believe in it or not.

          That is what I was told in high school back in the Fifties. I was a good student and could describe the evidence supporting evolution in great detail. There was, for example, an extinct fossil fish which proved evolution. Alas, eventually, when that fossil fish was discovered fresh in Asian markets the evidence went up in smoke. There was more bogus evidence, also totally fictional.

          I hate being lied to, and they did lie to me when they claimed to have proof of evolution.

          The evolution fans said, “Well, yes, that evidence was no good. But, evolution is true. We need to look harder for the evidence.”

          So, they did. And, it wasn’t long before they again announced they had evidence supporting evolution. And, it wasn’t much longer before that evidence was also proved false.

          Anything that is true has evidence to support it. Modern genetics shows that the things Darwin saw which he believed proved evolution were actually a LOSS of DNA. And, for evolution to be true, it is necessary to successfully add beau coup quantities of DNA to a species.

          Note I am not saying evolution is not true. I am saying there is no real proof of it. What there is, is bullying. Attacks on anyone who disagrees. Evolution is as dependent upon blind faith as creationism is.

          And, I don’t object to what people believe from blind faith. But, their blind faith does not justify the vicious attacks on those whose faith is different, any more than the blind faith of Christians justifies their intellectual attacks on evolutionists.

          • swordfish

            You decided to stop accepting the theory of evolution because you heard that a fish previously thought to be extinct was discovered to be still living? That isn’t even a reason. As for DNA only being removed, do you not know that mutations can produce repetitions of DNA sequences, thereby expanding the amount of genetic material?

          • As I was saying…

            It is a perfect reason. You however accept evolution merely on the wish that it will make your sin go away.

          • swordfish

            No, I accept evolution because the evidence supports it.

          • As I was saying…

            Your “evidence” is “I want it to be true so it is.”

            You cannot create yourself.

          • swordfish

            Evolution has nothing to do with creation.

          • As I was saying…

            evolution is based on the idea of self-creation and self-contingency.

            It is self-refuting.

          • swordfish

            Wrong. It’s based on the idea of random variations between individuals in a population resulting in differing reproductive success. It doesn’t have anything to say about the origin of the first living cell.

          • As I was saying…

            You claim you are a monkey. No

          • swordfish

            You need to read up on evolution before trying to object to it. Judging by your comments, I would recommend a book designed for fairly young children.

          • As I was saying…

            Your sneers will not protect your ego.

            Your fundamental desire is that you want to pretend you are contingent upon yourself. the fallacy of evolution was created to fulfil your absurd desire.

          • swordfish

            “the fallacy of evolution was created to fulfil your absurd desire.”

            Darwin was a Christian.

          • As I was saying…

            An open devil worshipper who wanted to deny that men are Made in the Image of God because he wanted to feel meaningless?

            Who wanted to pretend that he created himself?

            No

          • swordfish

            I waited two months for this reply?

          • As I was saying…

            Yes you did. Clearly it was too much for you.

          • Knottam Pordand

            Your “evidence” is “I want it to be true so it is.”

            Sounds similar to your idea that God exists. And the idea that all the church has to offer is truth. You want it to be true but it is simply your belief. And which church offers the truth? Is it only christian churches? What about the Mormons? or the synagogues of the Jews? Mosques of the Muslims?

            It cannot be known if God exists or not, or which religion has it right. As you stated, “Faith is the highest form of thought…”

            Faith by definition is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no proof of God, hence why it needs faith and belief.

            You also seem to have some anger issues in your posts or at the very least are extremely condescending . Anyone who doesn’t agree with your world view is delusional or knows absolutely nothing. This is usually the problem with discussing religion with fanatics. And it’s hard to carry on a peaceful conversation with a person who believes they are completely right and everyone else is just dumb. I’m sure the reply to this post will be something of the sort, so if I don’t reply back, please just assume whatever it is you need to make yourself right and me weak or dumb. I just have a generic made up world view based on my ego anyways.

          • As I was saying…

            Dear reprobate, despair is when you try to project your own sickness onto others. It is not a replacement for an argument, though you seem to think it is.

            All needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. This is who we call God. You also have Divine Revelation.

            The Church invented/built all you take for granted. You also have 2000 years of the only substantial intellectual tradition mankind will ever have.

            Sneering at both will not make your sin go away. That is a fallacy similar to how you think despair can substitute for an argument. In both cases, your wishful thinking will not change reality.

            As for the other things you mentioned: mormonism is freemasonry, talmudic Judiasm was created by the pharisees to maintain political control, and mohammedanism is a particularly virulent heresy based on arianism.

            As for the necessity of God, all is contingent and that means they have to be based in the uncontingent. As for your strawman against Faith, you seem to be conflating it with wishful thinking. No, Faith is founding oneself in God.

            You are correct about your final sentence. It is a self-inflicted problem though. You have nothing impeding you from finding the truth.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            A sin is a deficiency in a good. It is like a hole. You can only take away a hole by filling it with something.

          • As I was saying…

            sin is division from God.

            You are thinking of evil which is decay caused by sin and a privation of Good.

          • Garbanzo Bean

            Isnt sin an evil, precisely because it is the privation of God?

          • As I was saying…

            evil is a privation of Good.

            evil is the decay caused by sin.

          • swordfish

            Mass murder is a deficiency in not committing mass murder?

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Life is a good.
            Death is a deficiency or lacking in life; i.e., a deficiency in a good.
            Murder is choosing illegitimately to cause such a deficiency.
            Mass murder is merely doing it again and again, and is not qualitatively different from doing it once.

            For details, see here: http://14.139.206.50:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/619/1/Aquinas,%20Thomas%20-%20On%20Evil.pdf

          • swordfish

            “Life is a good”.

            What about the life of that mass murderer, or of cancer cells?

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Of course. It may not be your good or my good; but the good is what all pursue. Otherwise, evolution would not work. Cf. “Existence, struggle for.” What is good for the archer may not be good for the target.

          • swordfish

            In a fight between “good” immune cells and “good” cancer cells, which is evil?

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            The cancer cells, obviously, inasmuch as they are inherently defective qua cells. But keeping in mind that a) an evil is a deficiency in a good, not necessarily a moral judgment and b) as soon as you attach an adjective, you are qualifying the thing. Ask yourself what makes a good thief, given that he is a thief? What makes a good archer, given that he is an archer? What makes a good cell, given that it is a cell?

          • swordfish

            Obviously! The cancer cells are persuing a good and an evil at the same time. (Although actually just operating in accordance with the laws of physics.) Makes perfect sense. ‘bye.

          • As I was saying…

            Faith is the highest form of thought as it is foundational thought based in God.

            Please do not insult the intelligence of actually knowledgable people by confusing Faith with “wishful thinking” as the modern pagans do.

        • Hey, Chuck, I know I’m wasting my precious time, but based on your materialist worldview (matter is all there is), there can be no such thing as truth. You can only get to truth logically if there is a God. Materialism is logically self-defeating on every level, and has zero explanatory power about reality as we find it.

          • swordfish

            “You can only get to truth logically if there is a God”

            Why?

          • davidrev17

            According to the worldview of a strict “high-octane” naturalism, or evolutionary naturalism, philosophical materialism, scientific materialism etc. – so vividly captured in the late atheist, Carl Sagan’s naturalistic mantra of “Nature is all there is, was or ever will be” [close to verbatim] – the very concept of “truth” itself is purely delusional, illusory, or a vacuous pipedream of sorts. But don’t take my word for it, just receive the TRUTH (oh, sorry!) straight from the experts in this scientistic “field of dreams”:

            “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

            — Charles Darwin, [Letter to William Graham, 3 July 1881].

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system [from an evolutionary biological perspective] enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. TRUTH, WHATEVER THAT IS, definitely takes the hindmost.” (My emphasis)

            — Distinguished atheist neurophilosopher, Dr. Patricia Churchland, quoted in renowned Emeritus Professor of Analytic Philosophy, Alvin Plantinga’s still valid “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” or (EAAN).

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “The hypothesis in question is ‘…that “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

            — The late atheist Nobel Laureate, Dr. Francis Crick, “The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul,” (’94/’95).

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “Materialists are sustained by the faith that science will redeem their promises, turning their beliefs into facts. Meanwhile, they live on credit. The [eminent] philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper described this faith as “promissory materialism,” because it depends on promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, it is facing an unprecedented credit crunch.”

            — Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Evolutionary Biologist & Author, “The Credit Crunch for Materialism,” (2009).

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            BUT IS ALL THAT TRUE?? I mean, how have “they” (Sagan included) come to KNOW these things…scientifically?? There’s also a very curious tail-chasing exercise of profoundly incoherent “pretzel logic” taking place, in all of this naturalistic psycho-babble too!

            Or said another way: WITHOUT the Creator God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in one’s (i.e., ANYone’s) all-purpose worldview “picture” of a strictly reductive, mechanistic/deterministic reality, it’s all smoke-and-mirrors thereafter my friend – sorta like watching a one-armed person, rowing a boat!

          • swordfish

            I agree with Carl Sagan. The whole concept of “truth” lacks a clear meaning.

          • Is it really true, swordfish, that truth lacks a clear meaning?

          • swordfish

            LOL, nice one! But you’re mixing simple boolean “true” / “false” truth with Eternal Truth.

          • davidrev17

            “Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case,” (2014), Christian Philosopher & Apologist, Dr. Frank Turek.

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            My friend, perhaps the emancipating “Truth” found throughout this powerfully compelling, thought provocative book, might aid in opening your spiritual “eyes” to the deceptively stifling presence, of that rational/moral
            (thus intellectual) “blind spot” – with which you’ve no doubt been contending? And I humbly offer this book in particular, simply because so much of your rhetoric revealed on this thread, is beautifully reflected in its content.

            Dr. Turek’s book helped me to incisively “see,” thus hopefully navigate the contours and parameters of this sometimes “spiritually” rancourous theological debate; of which we evangelical theists often engage in, with those militant evangelical atheists – aka “Theism v. Naturalism,” or even the “science v. religion wars.”

            After all, it was no less than Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth, the fully human, yet fully Divine “God man” – of whom represented the quintessential “physical” manifestation of Truth itself, in time-space-dimemsion history – that unambiguously testified to the existence of objectively binding, absolute truth.

            And May the Holy “Spirit of Truth” Himself, richly bless and reward your wholehearted search for Truth – “which is [found] IN Yeshua/Jesus.” This is why many evangelical Christians, and “Hebrew Christians” have unapologetically declared, that “truth IS a person”!

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            “So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free….So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:31-32, 36/ESV).

            “Jesus said to him, “I am THE WAY, and THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do KNOW HIM and have SEEN HIM.” Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? WHOEVER HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 

            “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”

            (John 14:6-11/ESV, my emphasis of course. See also in exact context, John 12:44-50.)

          • swordfish

            “that unambiguously testified to the existence of objectively binding, absolute truth.”

            If Jesus actually existed, which I increasingly doubt, anything supposedly said by him would have to have been written down at least 70 years after he died, in a differnt country and in a different language to that spoken by him. This hardly constitutes “unambiguous” testimony to anything, let alone the existence of absolute truth.

            In addition, as I said above: Any such Truth would, by definition, have to be arbitrary because it couldn’t be justified by anything outside of itself. For instance, if God says it is wrong (or right) to kill people, this is just a brute fact with nothing to support it. This is inherently meaningless, both on its own terms, and from our human perspective.

            Finally, what actually is this supposed absolute truth? Jesus hardly gave a single unambiguous answer to any question put to him. For instance, is it unambiguously the case that a rich man must get rid of all his possessions to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

          • davidrev17

            “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then He called a child to Him and had him stand among them. “I assure you,” He said, “unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1-3).

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “For the Christian, the starting point is God. He is the eternally existent one, the absolute, from whom we draw all definitions for life’s purpose and destiny. This God does not expect us to come to Him in a vacuum. He has so framed this world and our minds that the laws of reason and logic we use lead us to the certainty of His being and assure us that we may know Him who is the source of all truth…Truth by definition is exclusive. If truth were all-inclusive, nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of truth?

            “Furthermore, if nothing were false, would it be true to say that everything is false? It quickly becomes evident that nonsense would follow. In short, therefore, truth boils down to two tests: Statements must correspond to reality, and any system of thought that is developed as a result must be coherent. The correspondence and coherence tests are applied by all of us in matters that affect us.

            “Therefore, when Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to the father except through me,” He was making a very reasonable statement by affirming truth’s exclusivity. The question one may legitimately ask is whether He [Jesus] demonstrated that claim rather than just stating it.”

            — Ravi Zacharias, (Appendix B – The Inextinguishable Light), in “Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture,” (1997).

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            I must say, that I’m continually mesmerized by what primarily those in the ranks of atheists have to say about the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and the claims found throughout its content; as this relates to reality, and the manner in which we rational/moral Homo sapiens’ daily experience this reality. You’re NO exception!

            And you, just like the “crummy philosophers” Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and so many other atheistically-inclined evangelical zealots, continue to strangely manifest that whimsical tail-chasing mindset of asserting truth (in SO many of your comments on this thread) – or making categorical absolute truth claims – while you’ve been engaged in the process of firmly denying its very existence! Yet you can’t even “see” this? Why?? (Are you at all familiar with the “Law of Noncontradiction,” one of the Four Laws of Formal Logic”?)

            Additionally, your not-even-ballpark-close declarations re: the Yeshua/Jesus of history –
            e.g., can you say the still factually compelling “historical reality” of his physical/bodily resurrection from the dead “on the third day” too? – vividly exemplifies the illogically intransigent mindset of one of whom is profoundly deficient in the area of cutting-edge peer review studies (and innumerable scholarly books), especially when it comes to biblical archaeology; plus the Bible’s history, historiography, the value of verifiable “predictive prophecy,” whose historical reality comprises “fully 1/4, or 25%” of the Bible’s more than 31,000 verses – not to mention the “science of textual criticism,” now more than two-centuries old – plus the proverbial “gallons of ink” that’ve long since been spilled, while countless “fallen” individuals have indefatigably attempted to eradicate its stubbornly recalcitrant presence in humanity’s collective “face.” Yet it still curiously lives-on?? Hmmm…

            And all, or most of these biblical claims, of which comprehensively impinge upon Homo sapiens’ reality can, and/or have clearly rendered themselves fully amenable to objective verifiability over the centuries. What? So, you might want to familiarize yourself with the “facts” concerning the overwhelming established credibility of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures; which no doubt means you’ll have to evaluate the objectively verifiable work of those with whom you’re in such obvious “volitional” (or emotional?) disagreement.

            Finally, your bush-league, or demonstrably impoverished understanding with regard to the “why?” undergirding Jesus’ statement to the so-called “rich young ruler” in Matthew 19:16-24, also ignores the typically brilliant rabbinical method that Jesus employed, in order to reveal this man’s delusionally prideful, or deceptively wicked “heart-condition,” on display in his self-righteous declaration in 19:20.

            You see, the young ruler’s stubborn refusal to obey Jesus’ RADICALLY challenging suggestion, betrayed his true “heart condition”; that is, according to the essence of the still-binding, and rigorously demanding “Ten Commandments” of the Mosaic Law, i.e., loving God & one’s neighbors – MORE THAN SELF! (See Deuteronomy 6:4-5 & Leviticus 19:18; plus Matthew 22:23-40)

            He (the potential convert) clearly failed in this; thus proving that his SELF-assured SELF-righteousness – clearly in view in 19:20 – was woefully illusory at best. And this man’s tragically deluded SELF-appraisal, is virtually NO different than ANY other “fallen” human being, of whom has ever walked this planet – me and you included! We’re ALL in the same boat, when it comes to the empirical verifiability of our collective sin-sick demonstration of evil, of which has been perpetually carried-out against one another, throughout our “fallen” history.

            Hence, the arrival into time-space-dimension history upon planet earth, “IN THE FLESH”; of the supernaturally conceived, thus virgin-born, transcendent (i.e., NON-physical) Creator God of this contingently existing universe, and everything within its materialistic confines – aka the historical Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth – “the Lamb of God who takes away the SIN of the world.” (John 1:29)

            “Facts are stubborn things…”

          • swordfish

            “unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”

            Another vague suggestion which contradicts the other suggestions. Exactly how do we “become like children”? What use is Eternal Truth, if it’s contradictory?

            “In short, therefore, truth boils down to two tests: Statements must correspond to reality, and any system of thought that is developed as a result must be coherent.”

            The Bible fails both these tests with flying colours.

            “making categorical absolute truth claims – while you’ve been engaged in the process of firmly denying its very existence!”

            Such as? I’ve been fairly consistent in pointing out that my opinions are mostly subjective. But your position is misleading. It’s entirely possible for there to exist true (or false) statements without there being any sort of “absolute truth”. I note also that you’re avoiding directly tackling my claim that Absolute Truth is inherently meaningless. Why not have a go?

            “your not-even-ballpark-close declarations re: the Yeshua/Jesus of history”

            Which of my facts are wrong?

            “can you say the still factually compelling “historical reality” of his physical/bodily resurrection from the dead “on the third day” too?”

            It’s ludicrous to claim that the resurrection is “factually compelling”. I’m certain that no such thing ever happened. It is impossible, like all miracles.

            “[…] demonstrably impoverished understanding with regard to the “why?” undergirding Jesus’ statement to the so-called “rich young ruler” […]”

            My point was that Jesus’s statements are confusing. Your answer is to give three paragraphs of explanatory material. You’re making my point for me.

            “Hence, the absolutely necessary arrival INTO time-space-dimension history upon planet earth, i.e., “IN THE FLESH”; of the supernaturally conceived, thus virgin-born, transcendent (i.e., NON-physical) Creator God of this “contingently existing universe,” and everything within its materialistic confines – a 21st-century “fact” under the “Standard Model of Physics,” by the way – aka the historical Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth, “the Lamb of God who takes away the SIN of the world.” (John 1:29)”

            Your final paragraph makes little sense. I think it’s really sad that you’ve allowed yourself to become so detached from reality.

            “Facts are stubborn things…”

            Yes. Here is a fact: There is no convincing evidence that God exists.

          • davidrev17

            “It’s ludicrous to claim that the resurrection is “factually compelling”. I’m certain that no such thing ever happened. It is impossible, like all miracles.”

            Wow! I don’t suppose you’ll be providing any sort of hard-evidence (scientific, or otherwise) that certifiably affirms such categorically sweeping conjecture – aka one’s “subjective opinion”?? Another crystal-clear example – “straight from the horse’s mouth” – which beautifully demonstrates that you’re simply a legend in your own mind.

            What’s more, it’s absolutely mind-boggling to consider, that you actually believed you were making some type of a substantive statement there? I’m through with this exercise in irrelevance!

          • swordfish

            “Wow! I don’t suppose you’ll be providing any sort of hard-evidence (scientific, or otherwise) that certifiably affirms such categorically sweeping conjecture”

            You made the claim that the resurrection is “factually compelling”, so unless you back it up with some evidence, I don’t have to accept it or disprove it.

            “I honestly think you’ve NO idea whatsoever, as to just how little accurate knowledge you do possess in this critical area of study [theology]”

            Nor do most Christians. Indeed, millions of Christians in the USA believe in an entirely unsophisticated, literal interpretation of the Bible. Are the beliefs of the majority of Christians meaningless because they haven’t studied theology in depth?

          • davidrev17

            For someone of whom no doubt prides himself (a deadly toxic “fallen” notion in the first place!) to exemplify one who’s an intellectually/rationally gifted individual, I’m still profoundly mesmerized by the fact that YOU continue to remain oblivious to your breathtaking ignorance, or “blind spot,” in one, very important regard. (This also concerns another “blind spot” of yours, whereby you oftentimes violate what’s called the “Genetic Fallacy.” Yet you don’t seem to ever recognize this faulty method of reasoning either?)

            So please understand that my observations relate to the preeminently “philosophical” nature of arguments surrounding the “existence of God,” and the critical necessity of one’s being able to distinguish between epistemological claims, and ontological claims; i.e., since you fluidly conflate both in most of your comments, thus apparently unbeknownst to you, this is where you’ve clearly demonstrated a wholesale lack of “understanding,” when it comes to this very important area of inquiry.

            So since (in my personal opinion) you obviously need to be spoon-fed in this area, I’ll provide the names of world-renowned (or world-class) scholars – or at the very least, highly distinguished one’s -who’ve been on the cutting-edge of this debate for decades (in most cases); and of whom are prodigiously published in scholarly books & peer-review articles, as well as being widely-viewed on places like YouTube etc.

            However, I also realize that it’s up to you, to BEGIN educating yourself in this area; unless of course, you insist on continuing to dialogue on this critically relevant issue, while manifesting your very counterintuitive attempt at conveying omniscience?? After all, genuine humility is of inestimable value in rational/moral Homo sapiens’ reality; sometimes referred to from the Biblically-revealed perspective, that “MIND Represents Ultimate Reality.”

            And since I can’t understand your seeming intellectual lethargy in this area – or perhaps some sort of an intellectual comfort-zone in which you’ve volitionally “chosen” to remain mired? – I’ll nonetheless close by naming some additional distinguished world-class thinkers, of whom have written exhaustively in both books & peer review, on the still-valid EVIDENCE strongly supporting the historical reality of the physical/bodily resurrection of Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth, “on the third day”; the very foundational “historical event,” upon which the entire edifice of historical orthodox biblical Christianity itself, has been firmly anchored for some two-millenia. It’s my heartfelt prayer that you’re genuinely seeking “Truth”!

            Remember: any -and-all naysayers to this historical [“supernatural”] reality, are heavily burdened with providing a superior alternative explanatory hypothesis themselves; of which also comports/coheres with the subsequent facts of so-called church-history – from “ground-zero” too! – since its inception some 2,000 years ago. So with that requirement, or historical standard in mind, it’s highly relevant to note that at this very hour, the deafening silence in this particular regard, can still be heard?

            And isn’t it at all possible, that you could stand to both learn and benefit from others, whose objective expertise in certain academic areas, comprehensively dwarfs that of your own??

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            So here’s some distinguished thinkers still alive, in Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, the Philosophy of Religion, Christian Philosophy and/or Philosophy in general, some of whom are also recognized in the Philosophy of Science, or Science itself, and Mathematics; of whose names and/or academic expertise, are placed in no particular order, nor is this brief listing meant to be exhaustive – only helpful and provocatively illuminating from ALL sides – nor are all of these individuals considered to be “evangelical Christians”:

            Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Edward Feser, William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward,
            Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, David Berlinski, Henry F. Schaefer, Henry P. Stapp, Gerald Schroeder, Rabbi Moshe Averick, Robert J. Spitzer, Amir D. Aczel (died Nov., 2015), J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, and Victor Reppert.

            Now, for the “physical/bodily” [supernatural] resurrection of Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth; and these individuals comprise the “Best of the Best” in academic scholarship in this area, or those of whom have written compellingly, thus objectively on this topic:

            N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, C. S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, the late Orthodox Jewish Historian/Theologian, Pinchas Lapide, and his powerful (1982), “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective,” also the English Journalist, Albert Henry Ross (aka “Frank Morison”), and his still-provocative (1930), “Who Moved the Stone.”

            And lastly, re: your intellectually & epistemologically impoverished idea about “miracles” in general – can you say the now dismantled “Humean” version of such? – see the most sophisticated, and exhaustive treatment of biblical miracles attempted to date, by distinguished Professor of New Testament, Craig S. Keener, “Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 2 Volumes” (2011), 1,248 pages.

          • swordfish

            If anyone else is reading this, don’t worry. Unlike “davidrev17”, I use the least number or words possible, not the most. Some notes:

            1. “Many of those who deny having any theories or beliefs about life – such as some representatives of the New Atheism”

            Who denies having beliefs about life? Atheists just lack belief in God.

            2. I’m well aware of most of the Christian apologists and philosophers you list, and I’m familiar with all the arguments for God – none of which I find the slightest bit compelling. If you disagree, why not post one?

            3. I’m also well aware that the evidence that Jesus performed miracles is extremely thin. There’s the Bible and nothing else. Reading lots of scholarly works won’t change this situation.

            4. If you want to claim that I employ the genetic fallacy, provide some examples.

            5. If I said that fairies don’t exist, would you describe that as an “intellectually & epistemologically impoverished idea”? My idea about miracles is that none have ever happened. If you disagree, why not present some evidence, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of pseudo-intellectual nonsense?

          • All the same, brother.

          • swordfish

            In that case, what is the meaning of 2 > 1 ?

          • That is a great question! Every thought or idea is based on some presupposition about the nature of reality. Atheists completely ignore or deny this. They assume there is no logical connection between an assertion and the assumptions that make the assertion possible or or impossible. They actually believe their assertions are valid simply by asserting them. Not all their assertions, only the most basic philosophical assertions. So if we talk about the concept of truth, they simply believe truth is a self-evident aspect of existence. I would turn your question back on you: why? The article above talks about meaning and its impossibility without God. I would agree this is so in terms of ultimate cosmic meaning, but not for individual human beings. Who’s to say my love for my children if I’m an atheist has no meaning. For me the atheist, you better believe it has meaning! It is easy arguing the way the author does to get lost in the subjective. Is meaning to an individual any less meaningful because it has not ultimate cosmic validation. No. But truth is another matter.

            Truth is a standard that exists outside of our subjective assessment, just like we cannot know such a thing as a crooked line exists apart from a concept that exists within us that there is such at thing as straight lines. Epistemology, how we know what we know, is not as simple as atheists make it out to be.

            The author says, “If atheism is true,” which is nonsense if atheism is “true” based on its own presuppositions. The most basic of which is that the material is all that exists. As the saying goes, you can’t get to ought from is. Nor can you get to “truth” from dirt. That, after all, is what the atheist materialist asserts that we are, lucky dirt. Right? If you can convince me that chance and matter can somehow imbue material with concepts such as truth and dignity and beauty, I’m all in! I’ve yet to be convinced.

          • swordfish

            “Truth is a standard that exists outside of our subjective assessment,”

            Any such Truth would, by definition, have to be arbitrary because it couldn’t be justified by anything outside of itself. For instance, if God says it is wrong (or right) to kill people, this is just a brute fact with nothing to support it. This is inherently meaningless, both on its own terms, and from our human perspective.

            “if atheism is “true” based on its own presuppositions. The most basic of which is that the material is all that exists”

            Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not neccessitate a materialist position.

          • No it would not. What supports it is that God is the Creator, and thus his character and what he commands or not is by definition not arbitrary. You only assert it because you compare him to other created beings. God’s being and character are the ultimate arbiter of what is, and what is not, what is right or wrong. He by definition cannot be arbitrary, unless you assume that whatever he commands is arbitrary. So it is your assumption, not something ontologically necessary in the being of God.

            And of course Truth is not arbitrary because it is in fact defined by the nature of God’s created reality. So we know that 2+2 = 4, not 5. That is not arbitrary and exists outside of whatever we think of 2+2.

            And of course atheism necessitates materialism. If there is no God, by definition the material is all that exists. Atheists are fond of defining things that prejudice all arguments to their presuppositions. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

          • swordfish

            “What supports it is that God is the Creator, and thus his character and what he commands or not is by definition not arbitrary.”

            Arbitrary: on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

            God cannot refer to any “reason” or “system” to decide rules, so they are arbitrary, whether you like it or not. If God commands that rape is okay, it’s okay. If God commands that murder is okay, it’s okay. You seem to think that God’s rules aren’t arbitrary because God invented them, but that is just a circular argument. If God’s Truth is based on reasons, said reasons are above God and we could use them ourselves to arrive at the same Truth. If they aren’t based on any reasons, they’re arbitrary.

            “And of course Truth is not arbitrary because it is in fact defined by the nature of God’s created reality. So we know that 2+2 = 4, not 5. That is not arbitrary and exists outside of whatever we think of 2+2.”

            Mathematical truths aren’t arbitrary because they are defined as truths according to the system of mathematics. They would be true even if God didn’t exist, so they undermine your idea that there would be no truth without God.

            “And of course atheism necessitates materialism. If there is no God, by definition the material is all that exists.”

            Not so. 1) Disbelief in God does not necessitate belief in any other claim about reality. 2) There are people who believe in souls, the spiritual realm, other dimensions, and goodness-knows what else without believing in God (or a god or gods, just to be clear).

          • I don’t know why I waste my time. I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. And I don’t know if atheists are just stupid, or if what they Bible says is true, that they suppress the truth by their wickedness. My heart wants to believe that latter because they are so consistently obtuse, but I know the latter is the reason because otherwise they are mostly very intelligent people. And for you, Sowrdfish, is it all you have to do to come to their website full of Christians and tout the superiority of your atheism? Like constantly? There’s something very pathetic about that. I will pray for you. And I will only answer one of your assertions because I have many better things to do.

            Your definition of God is ridiculous and wrong. It’s astounding to me that you can’t see this, but all you fundamentalist atheists are alike: your faith in your assessment of things is absolute and impervious to reason (see wickedness above, and read Romans 1 if you want to know the biblical diagnosis of your illness). God, by definition, is the ground of all being and existence, and thus does not need to have anything outside of him to justify anything he says and does. You can define that as arbitrary, but based on the definition of that word it cannot be: “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” The Apostle John said the Jesus was the Logos (the Word), or what the Greeks understood as universal reason, the essence of existence that defines all things in their right relationship to everything else. God’s decrees and laws are by definition the absolute OPPOSITE of arbitrary. You can blather on about it and insist it is, but you simply reveal your shoddy and typically idiotic atheist silliness. But go ahead, blather on, I will not be paying attention, and delete e-mails with your response immediately. Like I said, waste of time!

          • As I was saying…

            Because God is Truth Himself.

            By denying God, you therefore claim that everything is its own uncreated, uncontingent. That is totally refuted by causality.

            Because your foundation is faulty, then you clearly can know nothing.

        • As I was saying…

          evolution was adopted by bored capitalists in the hope that it would make their shame over exploiting working people go away.

          The communists like it because it excuses their mass murder.

          As for your rhetoric about evolution, evolution has no basis in reality as things cannot create themselves

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Evolution has nothing to do with creation.

          • As I was saying…

            evolution is an absurdist philosophy designed to attack that man is Made in the Image of God as well as excuse eugenics.

            evolution is based on the idea that you create yourself and are contingent upon yourself.

    • feminism is cancer

      “meaning in life.”
      Pure delusion. There’s no such thing as meaning in life, you’re either deluding yourself because it makes you feel good or you’re just too short-sighted.

      • As I was saying…

        Here we see a post-modernist (someone who says truth does not exist, lol) attacking the modernist (someone who says truth is relative, also lol).

        As much as I dislike stopping my enemies eating eachother, I will help.

        You are a human being. This means you are Made in the Image of God. Your meaning comes from that.

        You -however- feel the need to try to escape it because of shame. You think if you are meaningless, you cannot be judged.

        I would say your fallacy here is your gnostic delusion that reality depends on your ego and requires your consent. I would say that going by your messages that you learned your specific brand from neitzche.

        • feminism is cancer

          A deist god might very well exist, your life would still be as meaningless as it is without it. A theist god is pure wishful thinking

          • As I was saying…

            As I already said, this will not make your sin go away

    • As I was saying…

      Your gnosticism is meaningless, yes. The main goal of devil worship is always the total destruction and damnation of mankind. That is what your every action tends toward perpetuating.

      In practice, all this leaves you is -as Bishop Robert Barron used to say- that you are floating at sea on an individual air mattress.

      You do have meaning, though. Though I imagine you mistranslate that into saying you do have a chosen path. You -like all atheists- think that denying God will assert your omnipotence.

      Of course we both know that is not going to happen.

  • Blade Lawless

    Mr. Briggs, I’m sorry that you find nothing more meaningful to do with your life than to scurry about, eat, and make more people, but to many of us atheists life is a glorious adventure replete with significance–the significance that we build into our lives by the way we live them. What you fail to address is the question of how your adoption of theism makes your life any more meaningful than anybody else’s. As for secular morality, your claims are belied by many works on that subject through the centuries, from Aristotle’s Ethics to Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape.

    • Alas, Blade, you miss the point. As I said to Chuck, it is not that atheists do not find live good, or food tasty as Swordfish says above, but that life has meaning does not follow from the premise of atheism. Everything you say is good, if you accept atheism as a premise, is mere prejudice, all acts are devoid of ultimate meaning. I have proved atheists are inconsistent asking for or insisting on morality, when they should, to be consistent, know what they ask for is a nothing.

      • Blade Lawless

        The point I’m missing from you is how theism confers an objective, absolute meaning on life in general, and what you consider that meaning to be. As for your having “proven” anything about secular morality, I must have missed that part. All I see in your article are some unsupported assertions. You seem to be leaning partly on TAG, but surely you know that that argument is easily refuted.

        • feminism is cancer

          “how theism confers an objective, absolute meaning on life in general”
          If you can’t grasp this simple reality this topic is probably out of your reach. By the wording you’re using it seems to me you fail to pick up the distinction between “believe there’s a god” and “god existing.”

          • As I was saying…

            God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. Mere existence at all requires God as that is what contingency is (a word your surely do not know).

          • feminism is cancer

            A prime mover is not something that would give you meaning and is probably not what you have in mind when you say god

          • As I was saying…

            Again, God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            You think denying that will assert your own neitzchean “power.”

        • As I was saying…

          What is this strange bogeyman of “theism” you keep attacking. I would assume your ego-protecting strawmen would at least be specific.

          Though I suppose you think the more non-specific you are, the less likely you are to be refuted. You are correct as it is difficult to refute someone who never actually said anything of substance.

          To put it simply, your position is totally untenable. You have no foundation for anything at all, least of all why you feel you can interact with others.

          The Church easily explains everything as it is based in absolute truth.

          It appears what confuses you is that you are so enslaved by novelty you cannot see any substance whatsoever. You will not find novelty in the Church, so that must be why you are confused as to what the Church allows to exist.

    • feminism is cancer

      “to many of us atheists life is a glorious adventure replete with significance”
      Being deluded about something is not evidence of anything except of being deluded (just like religious people being deluded about god isn’t evidence for his existence)
      Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing.

  • swordfish

    “If life can be reduced to biology, to nothing but chemical and physical interactions — as many atheists claim — then the explanation that all life, including our own, is meaningless futile repetition must be true.”

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Just because everything can be reduced to chemical and physical interactions doesn’t mean that, for instance, food doesn’t taste good, that the sun doesn’t feel good on your skin or that life has no meaning. As an atheist, I can assure you that I experience life as extremely meaningful and interesting, and the fact that I’m going to die one day and expect that to be the end doesn’t make my life now any less meaningful. If anything, it makes it more meaningful. An eternity in heaven would be genuinely meaningless and boring.

    • davidrev17

      “As an atheist, I can assure you that I experience life as extremely meaningful and interesting, and the fact that I’m going to die one day and expect that to be the end doesn’t make my life now any less meaningful. If anything, it makes it more meaningful. An eternity in heaven would be genuinely meaningless and boring.”

      Then please explain to us just “how” you KNOW these things to be “TRUE”? Such run-of-the-mill metaphysical speculation, unique to atheists of whom both zealously and proudly promote their meaningless and/or nihilistic worldview as absolute truth – with purposeful gusto at that – are typically at a loss in demonstrably “grounding” such philosophical gobbledygook, in normative terms?

      Plus, I suspect that all this “meaning/meaningful, purposeful” talk we usually hear from most atheists, whether in public, or in private, actually has for its source-origin, that volitionally hated, and fiercely resisted notion of the ubiquitous “ghost in the machine,” of whom literally indwells ALL members of the rational/moral animal species Homo sapiens??

      • swordfish

        “Then please explain to us just “how” you KNOW these things to be “TRUE”?”

        They’re my subjective opinions. I never claimed them to be “THE TRUTH” – total certainty (where none can plausibly exist) is the province of theism.

        “Such run-of-the-mill metaphysical speculation, […]”

        I’m unable to respond to the remainder of your reply as I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

    • feminism is cancer

      “I experience life as extremely meaningful and interesting”
      Tantamount to a religious person saying they experience god on a daily basis. Your experiences and delusions mean nothing.

      “I’m going to die one day and expect that to be the end doesn’t make my life now any less meaningful.If anything, it makes it more meaningful. ”
      You probably haven’t thought that through.

      “An eternity in heaven would be genuinely meaningless and boring.”
      Atheist sour grapes

      • swordfish

        “Tantamount to a religious person saying they experience god on a daily basis. Your experiences and delusions mean nothing.”

        They mean something to me. Also, you’re claiming religious experiences mean nothing.

        “You probably haven’t thought that through.”

        How would you know?

        “Atheist sour grapes”

        Why would I be expressing “sour grapes” about something I don’t believe in? That doesn’t even make sense.

        • feminism is cancer

          “They mean something to me.”
          Which is utterly meaningless
          “you’re claiming religious experiences mean nothing.”
          They don’t mean god exists, just like you experiencing meaning doesn’t mean meaning exists. I hope this is clearer now.

          “How would you know?”
          All your experiences, all you’ll learn, all you’ll love, hate and do will be for naught. None of it will matter.

          “Why would I be expressing “sour grapes” about something I don’t believe in?”
          “Even if heaven existed it would be boring, because an eternal life of bliss would be so much worse than a quick pointless existence fraught with pain sorrow and dread with a sprinkle of happiness in between”
          Religion is more palatable than atheism, that’s also a typical atheist argument as to why religion is popular. I hope you don’t need this spelled out to you any further.

          • swordfish

            [They mean something to me.] “Which is utterly meaningless”

            In your opinion.

    • Rusty

      Ah yes, the old “greatest satisfaction of the greatest number of individual desires” theme; when “good” is equated with “pleasure”, and life is about satisfying insatiable desires, none of which may be judged through a moral prism.

      Utterly meaningless, and certainly evil.

      • swordfish

        What on earth are you talking about? Your reply has nothing to do with my statement. How is finding life interesting and meaningful “evil”?

        • Rusty

          Actually, it has everything to do with what you wrote. Food tastes good, the sun feels good on your skin; sensual pleasure is about as good as it gets, right? With no God, there is no standard for morality except for utter subjectivity; usefulness, perhaps? Usefulness in pursuit of whatever gratification one prefers, I suppose. Any meaning, whether of love, of accomplishment, or any other experience will come down to the pleasure you get from the experience.

          This is modernity. Christianity is about denying the self, accepting suffering and following Christ. His will be done, not yours; morality is following the golden rule, not for the material benefits of doing so, but because it demonstrates obedience to God’s will. Anything else is giving your will priority over God, which is sin (evil).

    • Ye Olde Statistician

      But the qualia do not exist! Where does the “good” come from in a world in which there is only “food” and “eating”? Where does “meaning” come from? Of what particles is it composed?

      • swordfish

        They (“good” and “meaning”) are simply subjective interpretations, like colours. Of what particles is “green” composed?

  • JP

    Dawkins says it so well in regards to the meaninglessness of life if atheism is true:
    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    • Ye Olde Statistician

      Midgley also said it well: a gene can no more be selfish than a biscuit can be teleiological.

      Of course, Dawkins misses the point when he says “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design…” that is, no God. But if there were no God, we would expect no universe, so he begs the question.

      • JP

        It is true. If there is no God your life is meaningless. Dawkins gets it.

      • swordfish

        “But if there were no God, we would expect no universe” I expect there to be a universe without any god to create it, so which “we” are you talking about?

  • Ken

    Their high suicide rates tell us all we need to know.

    • swordfish

      If atheists had a thousand times higher suicide rate than theists, it wouldn’t provide any evidence at all that God exists.

  • MVP

    Atheists aren’t as clever as they pretend. Take Richard Dawkins’ familiar boast, “Science flies you to the moon, religion flies planes into buildings.” Yeah, that sounds clever – until you stop and analyze. You could just as easily say “science creates bombs and land mines, religion builds hospitals and orphanages in Third World countries.” Dawkins conveniently omits another important bit of information: some of the greatest scientists in history – not just in the distant past, but Nobel Prize winners living today – believed in science AND religion. The atheists love to talk about “religion’s war on science,” that that war exists mostly in their own imaginations. There are many thousands of Christians who work in science, technology, and health care, so the “anti-science” slur doesn’t hold up. Here we sit using computers and iphones – so any atheists posting on this or any other blog “Christians are anti-science” is only making a fool of himself. Would we be using the latest communication technology if we were opposed to science?

    • Good to hear that you’re so pro-science. Science-denying Christians, like Creationists, give Christianity a bad name.

  • Stergeye

    Dostoyevsky said it succinctly in “Brothers Karamatzov: “If God does not exist, then everything is permissable.”
    Everything. As in slavery, rape, and mass murder.

    • swordfish

      Slavery, conquest rape and mass murder are all condoned in the Old Testament.

    • Everything is permissible … in a cosmic sense. But on my planet, there are laws making such things impermissible.

  • Without an absolute TRUTH there is no TRUTH, and without TRUTH there is no point to human life. Jesus Christ IS absolute TRUTH.

  • “If our lives are solely biology, then our lives have no meaning.”

    And yet people, including atheists, make and find meaning in their lives every day. Your claim is obviously wrong.

    Perhaps you meant that our lives have no *objective* meaning. Yes, that sounds right, but in the future, please qualify your claims or you won’t make sense.

Inspiration
Don’t Let a Pit Become a Grave
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us