I said something similar earlier ITT and I've heard theists actually justify the slaughter of children because it expedited their arrival in heaven. If the world ends, then God must have wanted that to happen, so no problem right?

This is obviously false. Nihilism and the like are not necessary consequences of being an atheist. Indeed, many atheists do find their to be meaning to their lives or those around them. Perhaps it is not some eternal cosmic all reaching divine meaning, but it is just not the case that people who attribute some form of meaning are necessarily not atheist. At best, you could say that this issue is debatable for atheists.

Mere exposure to one concept or another (such as the existence of the Yankees) does not mean one is devoted to that concept (being a fan of the Yankees). Possible? Sure. But DS is not raising the possibility of a hypothetical, he is asserting an explanation for why people are thinking certain ways, an explanation he has proven entirely unable to substantiate and which seems on its face to be obviously wrong. Nobody would take seriously someone thinking that theists were just vestigial atheists, democrats vestigial republicans, and mets fans vestigial yankees fans.

The exposure in every given individual to theism must at some juncture be explored, analyzed, accepted, rejected and/or modified etc by that individual, based on a host of factors; from cultural, social and family pressures to rational exanimation of empirical evidence. A conscious choice in this matter is then adhered to for some given period of time, that the original choice may change or alter throughout the individuals lifetime is also a given, base on reexamination of their belief system for example.

I'm not responsible for the OP or subsequent responses and remarks by DS in this thread, some were rather silly (as pointed out), but I enjoyed them all nonetheless.

Life is more stimulating (even meaningful) if you are bonked on the nose occasionally.

All too Human.

I'm not forcing you into anything at all, except, perhaps, to examine the basis/justification for your belief system. If you reject esoteric beliefs does not necessarily mean you have to be a nihilist. I think that is called a false dichotomy.

Perhaps to put my example into more concrete terms, instead of the interstellar space comment: Does human life, or any life (plant or animal) have inherent objective meaning. Does the universe. Does Planet Earth. Or the Solar System? Is there any objective empirical evidence that would suggest a meaning.

Those are questions that you must answer yourself.

That humans derive meaning to life, there is no doubt. How that is accomplished is of great interest. Most, by sheer conditioning, usually don't think about it much at all. Take DS, through his Oz like posts, like a bug that bites you in the night.


Gods roaming about the universe reminded me of this: The 10,000 things.


Dripping with sarcasm is a bit threadbare; instead use: infused with sarcasm. I like that better.

Why is it you think atheists can only rationally worry about future suffering (basically negative happiness) and not the happiness of future humans?

For me, a problem with your hypothetical is that humanity will end in 600 years, denying life for what's likely thousands of human generations. Acknowledging that the human race won't last forever, I think there's a cut-off point where I think accepting this technological advancement would be fine, but it's not 600 years.

Ok, but I still want to return to your initial point. I think you are forgetting a few important points along the way. Let's start with the most central one. You are positing that if I find that some part of space has meaning then I am not an atheist.

This leaves theism as the only option. Would you mind explaining why theists can hold a portion of space as having meaning without commiting some kind of error?

This is a very fair question I would say.

This is a far better point than you're allowing credit for.

If you're not going to allow the accepted definition of atheism to play out here, then you should define for us what you really mean.

I would consider myself an atheist in the strictest sense of "not believing in a God", but I have experience in knowing my soul and the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. You would want me to not be an atheist.

If you don't mean atheism, please use a different term.

The real question you're asking here isn't about technology and humans, but rather: "what is important to you in life?"

For someone to accept your proposition, they would be choosing to give up their free will, and the free will of all of humanity.

I'm not going to get into morals here, because that's not what this is about. I want to be able to choose "my own" life. I want to be a part of co-creating the world that we live in. This is no longer true in your scenario.

If you don't care about having free will, and just want to experience a "good life", then by all means, accept the proposition. In the long run, whether or not humanity exists doesn't really matter. We will continue to exist as long as we want to. By making this choice, we would be figuratively putting ourselves on a morphine drip on our death bed just waiting for the inevitable.

I'd rather live the lives we have right now, and live or die by the choices we make than give it all up for some short term gratification.

In the end, my true opposition comes from the idea that the Earth, and the lives we live would not be improved with the acquiescing of free will.

I'm an atheist and I say yes please, when do we start?

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in."

Snap call, yes.
Our existence is utterly meaningless from the outset. Why care if it perpetuates?

I find myself rooting for the asteroid anyway but there's essentially no reason why we should care of our existence is perpetuated. It's rooted in the deep delusion that life has meaning and somehow 'matters' in the cosmic scheme of things.

It does not.

because i'd assume at some point further in the future the same breakthrough would come along without these completely arbitrary consequences of the earth disappearing and people becoming sterile.

HOW ARE YOU A MOD OF THIS FORUM AFTER SAYING THIS

I'd be interested in hearing you defend the opposite view. I don't think it's as clear cut as either side assumes.

This is very stupid

the opposite view is that the definition of atheist contains nothing about comparing random 100 square meters of space to another random 100 square meters of space.

So, your argument is that life has no meaning, and therefore there is no reason to care if it goes on.

There's something missing here though. You haven't killed yourself (yet?), so I don't think you believe what you're saying. You've boiled down your points to such a degree that the very fact that you're alive and posting works to refute your argument.

If there is no meaning, that doesn't mean that we should want our lives to cease to continue.

What you were missing is that - an absence of caring about life continuing is different than actively seeking out to end it. Both your asteroid, and the proposed 600 year deal would be actively working to end all human life.

If you don't want your own life to continue, that's fine. That doesn't mean you should take it upon yourself to wish for the ending of all life.

A Thought Experiment For Atheists part 2:
Suppose there is a button. If you press the button, no one will ever suffer anymore in this universe. What would you do?
Would you press the button and transform humans into sterile dopy cows?
Or would you leave it the way it is? Lots of fighting animals, lots of sterile cows etc., who have the chance to grow out of stupidity.

What garbage logic!

Just because life is cosmically meaningless doesn't mean that I, as a sentient life form, have any desire to see my own life end. Of course I'm subject to self interest. It just means that I'm intellectually consistent enough to acknowledge that whatever life I lead (and when my life ultimately ends) is meaningless to the cosmos. People who lack the emotional steel to objectively acknowledge their own broader irrelevance will usually self-delude with some comforting but absurd belief system.

What motivates a live person to care whether human life perpetuates on earth or not when life itself is a meaningless and totally random event? Do you care what happens to a star we cannot see? Because the life cycle of an unknown star is as comparatively relevant to your daily life as the existence of humanity is to existence itself.

Sure, contemplating the abyss of cosmic irrelevance is depressing and can lead to some interesting rationalizations (like, there's another life after this one is over) and god forbid (<- lol) if everyone came to this conclusion at once, civilization as we know it would crumble in an instant, but whether humanity exists 600 years from now is as irrelevant to 'broader perpetuity' as if humanity had never existed to begin with.

Nihilism is surely the most depressing way of begging the question ever invented.

It doesn't fall within the ambit of 'begging the question'.

What we know about nature presents a strong case for natural existence, not supernatural existence. Evolution will always be a 'theory' since we can't go back in time with a video camera and shoot millions of years of documentary footage to 'prove' it, but all empirical indicators suggest a conclusion that is very logical.

Creationists propose that we must've been created by a wizard since complicated mechanisms cannot possibly exist without some overseeing magical there force to provide the engineering and architecture. When people encounter things they don't understand, they often ascribe awful reasoning to it or infuse it with a totally illogical 'deeper meaning'.

Ultimately, what decision we make on where it all began will usually track back to our understanding of how the world really works. Superstition fills the void for people who are naturally curious about that, but are too dumb to find the most plausible solution.

if a video camera could have proved the theory of evolution, how come the tape of me skydiving doesn't prove the theory of gravity?

I smell a derail

It's a great empirical demonstration of gravity in action.

What would you think if someone came along and claimed that the reason you fell to earth was because we're all just a carbon based version of Sim City for a game playing cloud-magician and your skydiving descent occurred because that's how the magician decided it ought to be?