I've gone from Atheist to Agnostic to now believing there has to be a higher power out there. When I look in my little girl's faces, the feeling of love consumes me. If I try hard, I could probably explain it away to dopamine or some other brain chemistry, and/or to evolutionary adaptations for protecting your young. But the love I feel for them, the pure adoration and fact that I almost come to tears looking at their pictures at work (digital frame FTW!), I just don't think that is a natural response.
Having kids has changed me, made me realize it's ok to say I was wrong.
Plus c'mon, the vastness of the Universe, the concept of infinity, that's hard to reconcile without a higher being.
I've gone from Atheist to Agnostic to now believing there has to be a higher power out there. When I look in my little girl's faces, the feeling of love consumes me. If I try hard, I could probably explain it away to dopamine or some other brain chemistry, and/or to evolutionary adaptations for protecting your young. But the love I feel for them, the pure adoration and fact that I almost come to tears looking at their pictures at work (digital frame FTW!), I just don't think that is a natural response.
Having kids has changed me, made me realize it's ok to say I was wrong.
Plus c'mon, the vastness of the Universe, the concept of infinity, that's hard to reconcile without a higher being.
I think this is beautiful. As a father of two I can relate to what you are sharing.
I hope you won't think it too much, too quickly, but if you will allow me, I want to suggest to you that the love you feel for your children is nothing more than a small echo of the love that IS the Holy Trinity. The sense that you have deep in your being that you would die for your children if called upon to do so finds its source in the love that an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal God has for all of His creation, but most specially for us. That same God, who needs nothing, lacks nothing, did not create us out of need. He created us in an act of pure love because he wanted to share his divine life with us. That feeling for your children that proceeds from the unfathomable depths of your "fatherhood" is a reverberation of God's love for us, his most beloved creatures.
One last thought to share: the same God that is the source of the powerful experience you are living is not merely a "higher being." He is being itself. The latin phrase is Ipsum Esse; the very act of to be itself. This phrase describes a being whose essence and existence are one and the same; i.e. it exists by its very nature and cannot not exist.
That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.
I feel basically the same way about the "Space is big, therefore god" argument.
Perhaps it's that people often prefer the mystery of not knowing the how and why behind things. Does knowing that the points of light we see in the night sky are actually distant stars make stargazing less interesting by robbing us of the chance to come up with stories about how the constellations came to be? I can see the argument. But I think there is still lots of value in knowing even a boring, ordinary truth.
I think the OP's post is adjacent to the moral argument for God. Atheism/naturalism has no explanation for objective morality. In a Godless universe there are no moral reasons for OP to care and provide for his children. Without God, there is simply no reason for anyone to say that anything is wrong or bad.
That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.
It's not that "love" can't exist in both worlds. But love is given a deeper meaning in a world with God.
That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.
It's not that "love" can't exist in both worlds. But love is given a deeper meaning in a world with God.
Can transcendent, agape love exist in a world where there is nothing transcendent?
That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.
I feel basically the same way about the "Space is big, therefore god" argument.
Perhaps it's that people often prefer the mystery of not knowing the how and why behind things. Does knowing that the points of light we see in the night sky are actually distant stars make stargazing less interesting by robbing us of the chance to come up with stories about how the constellations came to be? I can see the argument. But I think there is still lots of value in knowing even a boring, ordinary truth.
I suspect the reason you fail to make the link is likely because you continue to look the "love" from a secular perspective. There is a mystical existence to love; That is to say it has an existence that can not be defined by a unit of measurement or by it's physical properties. Nonetheless, you know it exists because you feel it and it changes you when you are touched by it. The "premise fails" because you are trying to frame what exists in a mystical form into a secular, physical world in which it can't be explained. This was most eloquently explained by St Thomas Aquinus 800 years ago if you want to do a deep dive (see below of an excerpt).
I suspect the OP was touched by love that can't be quantified or explained. That brush with the ultimate good has opened his eyes to a new truth based of a new perspective. IMO, it is a gift of Gods Grace that has lead him to that discovery and my hope and prayer for him is it that he continues to seek the mystical truths that surround us.
"16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it." -Matt 13:16
For a Christian, the embodiment of what is physically true with what is mystically true is The Truth, Jesus Christ.
Thomas Aquinus on "defining" God:
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.
It's not that "love" can't exist in both worlds. But love is given a deeper meaning in a world with God.
Can transcendent, agape love exist in a world where there is nothing transcendent?
Depends on how you define it. If, by definition, it requires a deity then no of course not. Just like sin as concept doesn't work without presupposing the existence of a deity whose law you are breaking. I've seen people define "agape" love in a pretty wide variety of ways.
And Fido, I'd agree that the best way to describe the OP is probably as them having an experience which convinces them of a certain belief. That's a far more common event than someone changing their mind because they are convinced by the logic of a certain point of view. But the interesting thing is you can find people chalking up their conversions to an experience in every single faith that exists. I certainly don't expect to change the mind of someone whose beliefs are based on a personal experience I'm not privy to, but in my mind the fact that they are so widespread across humanity leads me to doubt their trustworthiness.
That's not an argument that makes any sense to me. I love my kids, therefore god exists? Why is it necessary for some deity to exist for me to love my kids? Unless you can demonstrate a good reason why feelings of love can't exist in a world without god (which I don't think you can) the basic premise fails.
It's not that "love" can't exist in both worlds. But love is given a deeper meaning in a world with God.
Can transcendent, agape love exist in a world where there is nothing transcendent?
Depends on how you define it. If, by definition, it requires a deity then no of course not. Just like sin as concept doesn't work without presupposing the existence of a deity whose law you are breaking. I've seen people define "agape" love in a pretty wide variety of ways.
And Fido, I'd agree that the best way to describe the OP is probably as them having an experience which convinces them of a certain belief. That's a far more common event than someone changing their mind because they are convinced by the logic of a certain point of view. But the interesting thing is you can find people chalking up their conversions to an experience in every single faith that exists. I certainly don't expect to change the mind of someone whose beliefs are based on a personal experience I'm not privy to, but in my mind the fact that they are so widespread across humanity leads me to doubt their trustworthiness.
I will give you what I believe is a nearly universal Christian definition of Agape Love:
It is a term used to describe the highest form of love, characterized by selflessness, unconditionality, and sacrifice. In the Christian context, agape is often seen as the kind of love the three persons of the Trinity share among each other. It is also the kind of love God has for humanity and the kind of love that Christ exemplified in His life, death, and resurrection. It is a love that seeks the good of the other without expecting anything in return.
Agape goes beyond mere emotions or affection; it is an act of will and is often associated with charity. This type of love is central to the teachings of Jesus, who commanded His disciples to "love one another" as He loved them (John 13:34). It is the love described in 1 Corinthians 13, known as the "love chapter," which details love's attributes, such as patience, kindness, and rejoicing in truth.
There are lots and lots of examples out there of atheists and agnostics sacrificing their lives in defense of their friends and family. So tell me, why wouldn't those count?
Or is that you are arguing that these people, even though they don't believe in god, wouldn't have done so if god didn't exist? If that's the case, how can you possibly back up that assertion? Positing that you know exactly how someone would act in a world fundamentally different than the only one we have any knowledge of seems like false confidence to me.
I certainly don't expect to change the mind of someone whose beliefs are based on a personal experience I'm not privy to, but in my mind the fact that they are so widespread across humanity leads me to doubt their trustworthiness.
Fair enough. However, the existence of widespread experiences comes down to a glass half full vs half empty philosophical perspective. You view the widespread mystical experiences as proof that nothing exists and/or a difficulty in declaring one of many to be correct (?). I see the same series of events as evidence that something mystical exists beyond our comprehension. Regardless of culture or historical era, man has felt it and has been searching for an explanation of those experiences.
From the Christian viewpoint, mankind has often created false idols (i.e. Golden Calf of Exodus) in attempt to make that connection of a mystical world with our physical one. We would likely still be doing so had Jesus not shown his divinity by dying and then rising on the 3rd day. In so doing, the Christian religion in incredibly unique as no other religion presents it's god as having walked the Earth and then dying for mankind. To that point, no other religion can match the archaeological evidence that we have for Jesus' time on Earth and the church that He founded.
I understand that not everyone accepts the tenets of Christianity and/or the divinity of Christ. We all have to find our own way in this world and I lack the ability to change anyone's mind. I can only share the Good News in what I believe to be true and respect/love the dignity of each individual. It is God who saves.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I certainly don't expect to change the mind of someone whose beliefs are based on a personal experience I'm not privy to, but in my mind the fact that they are so widespread across humanity leads me to doubt their trustworthiness.
Fair enough. However, the existence of widespread experiences comes down to a glass half full vs half empty philosophical perspective. You view the widespread mystical experiences as proof that nothing exists and/or a difficulty in declaring one of many to be correct (?). I see the same series of events as evidence that something mystical exists beyond our comprehension. Regardless of culture or historical era, man has felt it and has been searching for an explanation of those experiences.
From the Christian viewpoint, mankind has often created false idols (i.e. Golden Calf of Exodus) in attempt to make that connection of a mystical world with our physical one. We would likely still be doing so had Jesus not shown his divinity by dying and then rising on the 3rd day. In so doing, the Christian religion in incredibly unique as no other religion presents it's god as having walked the Earth and then dying for mankind. To that point, no other religion can match the archaeological evidence that we have for Jesus' time on Earth and the church that He founded.
I understand that not everyone accepts the tenets of Christianity and/or the divinity of Christ. We all have to find our own way in this world and I lack the ability to change anyone's mind. I can only share the Good News in what I believe to be true and respect/love the dignity of each individual. It is God who saves.
Great post. And yes there is a God. And He manifests agape love.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
There are lots and lots of examples out there of atheists and agnostics sacrificing their lives in defense of their friends and family. So tell me, why wouldn't those count?
Or is that you are arguing that these people, even though they don't believe in god, wouldn't have done so if god didn't exist? If that's the case, how can you possibly back up that assertion? Positing that you know exactly how someone would act in a world fundamentally different than the only one we have any knowledge of seems like false confidence to me.
Atheists and agnostics can certainly love someone. It's just their explanation or account of it is shallow.
Is uniqueness an indicator of truth? Because I can think of several religions whose beliefs are far more novel than Christianity's. Let's take Scientology. Thinking a quasi-divine figure named Xenu flew people to Earth on DC-8's, stacked them around a volcano, and murdered them with hydrogen bombs and that's why modern people have problems is pretty unique claim. Should we give it special consideration for that reason? That being said, I'm not even convinced the claims of Christianity are that unique to begin with. Ancient myth has lots of gods walking the Earth, gods dying, gods sacrificing themselves in some way for the good of humanity, etc. Perhaps Christianity put the pieces together in a unique way, but the pieces were certainly already there.
As for archaeology, while it does give credence to the claims that Jesus existed in about the time he is said to have and was a religious figure who was executed you're going to have trouble presenting a convincing argument there is definitive proof of anything beyond that. And hell, there are modern religious figures alive today with large followings of people utterly convinced that they can perform miracles. No archaeological evidence needed to confirm their existence. It's right there.
Martin, I certainly disagree with your conclusion there. I'd argue that making the validity of love dependent on some deity rather than an ability inherent and vital to our humanity completely misses the point on what it is to be human.
Martin, I certainly disagree with your conclusion there. I'd argue that making the validity of love dependent on some deity rather than an ability inherent and vital to our humanity completely misses the point on what it is to be human.
I'd say making our ability to love equivalent to a lion's ability to chase and catch a gazelle is shallow.
There are lots and lots of examples out there of atheists and agnostics sacrificing their lives in defense of their friends and family. So tell me, why wouldn't those count?
Or is that you are arguing that these people, even though they don't believe in god, wouldn't have done so if god didn't exist? If that's the case, how can you possibly back up that assertion? Positing that you know exactly how someone would act in a world fundamentally different than the only one we have any knowledge of seems like false confidence to me.
I'd actually go with Dawkins of all people and suggest that atheists that are still good people (and I acknowledge there are many) tend to exhibit those traits because they are culturally Christian. The echoes of religion still help form the conscience of non-believers. It's not really possible to test the moral structure of a purely atheistic society because we would have to memory wipe everyone. What we can see is the countries that most vehemently tried to enforce atheism murdered over 100 million people. We can also see the rise in relative morality in countries where Christianity was introduced. It took some time, but the eventual effect is monumental.
There are lots and lots of examples out there of atheists and agnostics sacrificing their lives in defense of their friends and family. So tell me, why wouldn't those count?
Or is that you are arguing that these people, even though they don't believe in god, wouldn't have done so if god didn't exist? If that's the case, how can you possibly back up that assertion? Positing that you know exactly how someone would act in a world fundamentally different than the only one we have any knowledge of seems like false confidence to me.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, "to love is to will the good of another." This means that real love is not about feeling or subjective emotion. Love, according to Thomas, is to seek to will the good for another person. To will the good is to will what is objectively goodto will what the other ought to do. It is a submission to an objective standardan objective reality.
I do not see how someone who is atheist can avoid the inevitability of the ends of scientific materialism, and that is that we are material beings with no transcendent aspects whatsoever so that when we die, that is it. Our bodies decay and it's definitively over. If an atheist lays down his life for someone else it seems that it can only be suicidal if he is truly the scientific materialist that his belief dictates. It certainly could be an act of love but if he's truly doing it as an act of love it seems to me he has become a burgeoning theist based on his selflessness.
Banned: The world isn't broken down into Christian and atheist alone. Tons of cultures have developed completely independently from Christianity and a vast majority of them teach things like kindness and sacrifice and moral value structures that really aren't that different from what appears in Christianity. Not to mention that the moral teachings of Christianity (and Judaism before it) have changed quite a bit over time on a number of subjects.
And I'd prefer not to get too far in the political weeds, but I think you err in pointing to countries that have a strongly enforced state religion as if that's what atheism requires or most atheists want. Neither of which is true. I have issues with any state that would punish its citizens for not adopting the state religion, no matter what religion that happens to be.
FTAC: The idea that a person needs to be bribed with an eternal reward or threatened with an eternal doom to act in a way that benefits others frankly makes no sense to me. We are all free to set our own priorities even if our individual existence ends at death. It seems to me that you begin your analysis with "All atheists must believe X" without even attempting to prove that to be true. I disagree with your fundamental assumptions here. To look at it another way, existence is limited. We're all going to die sometime, and that's it. So why not choose to go out in a way that benefits the people I care about even if it doesn't make some eternal, transcendental difference to reality?
Banned: The world isn't broken down into Christian and atheist alone. Tons of cultures have developed completely independently from Christianity and a vast majority of them teach things like kindness and sacrifice and moral value structures that really aren't that different from what appears in Christianity. Not to mention that the moral teachings of Christianity (and Judaism before it) have changed quite a bit over time on a number of subjects.
And I'd prefer not to get too far in the political weeds, but I think you err in pointing to countries that have a strongly enforced state religion as if that's what atheism requires or most atheists want. Neither of which is true. I have issues with any state that would punish its citizens for not adopting the state religion, no matter what religion that happens to be.
I actually had a portion of the Confucius influenced background of China and deleted it. Should have left it in. Despite China being a very atheistic country, they are still living with the effects of the teachings on family and society. Confucius did not believe in the Abrahamic God, but he did believe in a version of Heaven that still had an objectively good way for man to live. There was something greater than us that we were to shoot for here on earth.
Hinduism. Buddhism. We can keep going. All of them have a moral law of some sort that derives from outside of the material realm that we are to shoot for in order to reach whatever state of bliss they define. None of these believe in a material only world. And for those that don't adhere to the true belief of these regions, they are still being inoculated with the morals of those that surround them.
I'm not trying to rebut you with Christianity or atheism, but more material atheism vs a belief in a greater, non-material source of good. There are many well meaning atheists out there, but they aren't arriving at their morality in a vacuum. Using an example of atheists who will give their live for their family or friends to rebut religion's effect on morality doesn't really work. Every society today, even the atheist ones, are riding the morality wave of a culture that believed in a moral source outside of the material realm.
That's not what I said and not really an accurate summation of my thoughts on the matter either. But you go ahead and keep making your assumptions and tilting at those windmills.
Banned: The world isn't broken down into Christian and atheist alone. Tons of cultures have developed completely independently from Christianity and a vast majority of them teach things like kindness and sacrifice and moral value structures that really aren't that different from what appears in Christianity. Not to mention that the moral teachings of Christianity (and Judaism before it) have changed quite a bit over time on a number of subjects.
And I'd prefer not to get too far in the political weeds, but I think you err in pointing to countries that have a strongly enforced state religion as if that's what atheism requires or most atheists want. Neither of which is true. I have issues with any state that would punish its citizens for not adopting the state religion, no matter what religion that happens to be.
FTAC: The idea that a person needs to be bribed with an eternal reward or threatened with an eternal doom to act in a way that benefits others frankly makes no sense to me. We are all free to set our own priorities even if our individual existence ends at death. It seems to me that you begin your analysis with "All atheists must believe X" without even attempting to prove that to be true. I disagree with your fundamental assumptions here. To look at it another way, existence is limited. We're all going to die sometime, and that's it. So why not choose to go out in a way that benefits the people I care about even if it doesn't make some eternal, transcendental difference to reality?
You characterized it as a bribe. That's not at all how I would characterize it. I would characterize it as being conformed to and therefore in a more fulsome communion with my Creator. It's not bribery. It's unity.
Even if I grant a strong correlation between a belief in a non-material world and some form of moral value structure you agree with I'm not convinced that proves any causal link.
It's interesting you brought up Confucianism because it's a good example of a religion that doesn't have any clear teachings regarding an afterlife. It doesn't emphasize at all the idea that people should act a certain way because there is a future, spiritual punishment or reward for how one lived their life. Now, of course, even Confucianism didn't arise in a vacuum and drew upon older religions that typically did have some form of afterlife.
The issue I'm having here is that even though I will grant that beliefs about the supernatural and moral teachings are two of the most common aspects of any religion I'm just not seeing the argument for how one is necessarily dependent on the other.
Bribe might not be the best descriptor for all beliefs, but seems pretty accurate for others. Plenty of versions of Christianity out there explicitly offering personal wealth, health, and success in exchange for belief and tithes.
And it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider Christianity without an afterlife. What if God were to say that yes, he designed and created you but that death was the end of human experience. No heaven, no hell, just an end. Would that religion's moral laws no longer be worth adhering to?
I've gone from Atheist to Agnostic to now believing there has to be a higher power out there. When I look in my little girl's faces, the feeling of love consumes me. If I try hard, I could probably explain it away to dopamine or some other brain chemistry, and/or to evolutionary adaptations for protecting your young. But the love I feel for them, the pure adoration and fact that I almost come to tears looking at their pictures at work (digital frame FTW!), I just don't think that is a natural response.
Having kids has changed me, made me realize it's ok to say I was wrong.
Plus c'mon, the vastness of the Universe, the concept of infinity, that's hard to reconcile without a higher being.
"the feeling of love consumes me"
Buddy have I got great news for you. You interested in orthodoxy?
Bribe might not be the best descriptor for all beliefs, but seems pretty accurate for others. Plenty of versions of Christianity out there explicitly offering personal wealth, health, and success in exchange for belief and tithes.
And it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider Christianity without an afterlife. What if God were to say that yes, he designed and created you but that death was the end of human experience. No heaven, no hell, just an end. Would that religion's moral laws no longer be worth adhering to?
I agree that there are some versions of Christianity that seem to propose some sort of quid pro quo. I do not subscribe to that idea. I think it's quite clear that authentic Christian belief is not like that, but that's a different matter.
Any thought experiment that has Christianity without the afterlife is simply a non sequitur. The afterlife is an indispensable aspect of Christianity. To propose Christianity without an afterlife is to propose something other than Christianity.
Serious question, not trying to be rude: you seem opposed to what appears to be the logically correct end of scientific materialism. Why?
Probably because I strongly disagree with you on just what the logically correct end of scientific materialism is.
Admittedly, I've had more than my fill of internet discussions which include some Christian arguing that a "TRUE" atheist would only take a break from all the killing and raping to lament the pointlessness of it all because they don't have a skydaddy waiting in the wings promising them an eternal afterlife of pure bliss which is the only thing that can provide any meaning to our existence.
Not saying that's your argument, but maybe it is. Who knows. I just think there's a fundamental misunderstanding baked in to that kind of idea on how people define their values and priorities. No one really goes around thinking that the only things that have any value are things that last forever (assuming such things exist in the first place). I see no reason to be upset with the idea my life might not have any cosmic significance. Why should that be necessary?
I suspect the OP was touched by love that can't be quantified or explained. That brush with the ultimate good has opened his eyes to a new truth based of a new perspective.
100% this. I cannot explain how much I love these girls. If I could somehow take a pill and undo everything, have no knowledge of them or feel any loss, and be a multimillionaire, it would be an easy and quick NO. It doesn't make sense to me why I love them THIS much. I also feel, and I know this isn't scientific, but I just feel that this love is not bound to our time here and is eternal.
Even if I grant a strong correlation between a belief in a non-material world and some form of moral value structure you agree with I'm not convinced that proves any causal link.
It's interesting you brought up Confucianism because it's a good example of a religion that doesn't have any clear teachings regarding an afterlife. It doesn't emphasize at all the idea that people should act a certain way because there is a future, spiritual punishment or reward for how one lived their life. Now, of course, even Confucianism didn't arise in a vacuum and drew upon older religions that typically did have some form of afterlife.
The issue I'm having here is that even though I will grant that beliefs about the supernatural and moral teachings are two of the most common aspects of any religion I'm just not seeing the argument for how one is necessarily dependent on the other.
If reality is purely this material realm, then where does morality come from? The only possible answer is from our own consciousness. There is no uniform objective that we are seeking to hit. It's up to us. Because of that, there is no reason for me to believe that the moral teachings of the masses is something that is superior to my own beliefs. No one can say they dissenter is any less correct than the majority.
Think about the way that non-religious people in our country advocate for expanded rights of different minority groups (not taking an opinionated stance on whether this is good or bad to keep this apolitical). Do they typically say areas of the country that do not agree with their ideals are on equal moral footing as them? Live and let live? Of course not. So what do they appeal to? Some nebulous concept of right and wrong wrapped up in human rights, which itself is an immaterial concept. Something you can't feel or touch. It just.... is. Even when God is removed from the equation, it is necessary to appeal to some immaterial morality to make the case. Both sides appeal to an immaterial source of right and wrong.
Back to China and Confucianism: Confucius taught of the heavenly principles. These things that are needed for a harmonious society. It was an immaterial force. He never rejected an afterlife, nor did he teach on it as true. He just punted on the question entirely. But he still taught that there is a supernatural force that dictates how we are supposed to act in this life. Anything about an afterlife and reward/punishment is downstream of the belief in the supernatural/immaterial.
If we toss out this immaterial appeal to a right and a wrong, that society will crumble. Let's be super skeptical and say all religion is a form of mind control by those in power. Why did the first huckster have to appeal to this fictitious source of morality to begin with if not for the fact that without it, society doesn't work. The best you can hope for is the current Chinese surveillance state to keep the peace.
Probably because I strongly disagree with you on just what the logically correct end of scientific materialism is.
Admittedly, I've had more than my fill of internet discussions which include some Christian arguing that a "TRUE" atheist would only take a break from all the killing and raping to lament the pointlessness of it all because they don't have a skydaddy waiting in the wings promising them an eternal afterlife of pure bliss which is the only thing that can provide any meaning to our existence.
Not saying that's your argument, but maybe it is. Who knows. I just think there's a fundamental misunderstanding baked in to that kind of idea on how people define their values and priorities. No one really goes around thinking that the only things that have any value are things that last forever (assuming such things exist in the first place). I see no reason to be upset with the idea my life might not have any cosmic significance. Why should that be necessary?
I don't believe in a skydaddy.
I am open to learning more about your understanding of the logical end of scientific materialism if you want to share it.
