Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I've just watched a lecture on why atheism doesn't work by Ravi Zacharias. I think there must be some kind of disconnect between our thinking: [Spirituality & Religion]

The take away was three main points but i don't really get why they should move me or anyone else:

1) " There is no point of reference for morality".

Well i disagree. As Sam Harris argues so well, human well being is an excellent metric for morality.

2) "There is no ultimate point to life except what you give to yourself."

Well so? Why is that a bad thing? What's wrong or less worthy about finding meaning in my happiness and the happiness of my loved ones?

3) "There is no hope beyond the grave".

Well just because one doesn't believe in god doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe in life beyond the grave, so that's an inaccurate characterization of atheism.
But even if there is no hope for life after death...so what? Do we choose what to believe based on what is comforting or based on what appears to be true to us? Why does this make atheism an untenable position?

Here's the lecture for anyone who is interested. Many people seem to find it inspiring.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6aDoOzYN-U]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

[quote]1) " There is no point of reference for morality".

Well i disagree. As Sam Harris argues so well, human well being is an excellent metric for morality.

2) "There is no ultimate point to life except what you give to yourself."

Well so? Why is that a bad thing? What's wrong or less worthy about finding meaning in my happiness and the happiness of my loved ones?

3) "There is no hope beyond the grave".

Well just because one doesn't believe in god doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe in life beyond the grave, so that's an inaccurate characterization of atheism.
But even if there is no hope for life after death...so what? Do we choose what to believe based on what is comforting or based on what appears to be true to us? Why does this make atheism an untenable position?[/quote]

What Ravi Zacharias said was true on all three points.

1. You'd have to come with explanation on where and how humans obtained that excellent metric for morality.

2. Because it would be only temporary and not eternal. Without eternal rewards, life here will be meaningless.

3. Do you actually believe there's an after life after the grave? If you do, what's your rendition of eternal life?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@GodSpeed63 1. The well-being of the group, and the consequential advantage over competing groups

2. You assume that your claim of 'eternity' has veracity. In other words, you merely beg the question.

3. No, why should there be?

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@newjaninev2 [quote]1. The well-being of the group, and the consequential advantage over competing groups[/quote]

1. That doesn't explain where and how they obtained that well-being.

[quote]2. You assume that your claim of 'eternity' has veracity. In other words, you merely beg the question.[/quote]

2. The fact remains that life here would be meaningless without eternity. We might as well be gold fish in a bowl.

[quote]3. No, why should there be?[/quote]

3. I asked him that question, not you. But, I'll ask you a question, why shouldn't be life after death?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@GodSpeed63 Those with such behaviours enhance the group as a whole... groups without such behaviours eventually disappear. That happens everyday. Eventually, the group will not only actively promote such behaviours, the group members will enforce such behaviours.

Your use of the word 'eternity ' seems rather cavalier. How long is eternity? How long is half of eternity? Why would eternity give meaning to our lives?

There's no compelling necessity to postulate life after death, and the postulation seems based on human vanity... it's certainly not based on any evidence. Everything changes, and everything dies, but humans are exempt from all that? Seriously?

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@newjaninev2 [quote]Those with such behaviors enhance the group as a whole... groups without such behaviors eventually disappear. That happens everyday. Eventually, the group will not only actively promote such behaviors, the group members will enforce such behaviors.[/quote]

That still doesn't explain where and how man obtained those behaviors.

[quote]Your use of the word 'eternity ' seems rather cavalier. How long is eternity? How long is half of eternity? Why would eternity give meaning to our lives?[/quote]

Because our spirit and our soul are eternal but this flesh we have is only temporary. God created us to be eternal like Himself before the fall of mankind.

[quote]There's no compelling necessity to postulate life after death[/quote]

Who said anything postulation? Who's going to be postulated?

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

[quote] You'd have to come with explanation on where and how humans obtained that excellent metric for morality.[/quote]

Easy. Well being is what promotes human flourishing. Health, happiness and prosperity.

[quote]Because it would be only temporary and not eternal. Without eternal rewards, life here will be meaningless.[/quote]

You've just begged the question. You've placed value on the eternal and said that if meaning is not eternal then it is not meaning.
You've explained nothing, simply made an assertion.
The fact is that transient meaning still holds meaning to me and to many others.
Even if that is not meaningful for you, it presents no issue for atheists.

[quote]Do you actually believe there's an after life after the grave? If you do, what's your rendition of eternal life?[/quote]

I do not believe that there is life after death. I was simply pointing out that it is a mischaracterization of atheism to say that it necessarily means you don't believe in an after life.
And again, we shouldn't be deciding what is truth based on what we find comforting because that's not a reliable path to truth.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

[quote]That still doesn't explain where and how man obtained those behaviors.[/quote]

It doesn't have to.
The argument isn't that atheism must explain how we got these behaviours (although evolution does a fine job of this). The argument by Mr. Zacharias is that atheists have no reference for morality.
That's demonstrably wrong.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]t doesn't have to. [/quote]

Sure it does. Otherwise, your hypothesis is no good.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

Sorry, could you make your point more clear please?

I've just said that atheism doesn't need to explain the origin of these behaviours because the argument is not that atheists can explain the origins of morality but that, contrary to what Zacharias said, atheists [i]do[/i] have a reference for morality.

I'm unclear as to how "Otherwise, your hypothesis is no good" addresses that.
Please elaborate.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]Sorry, could you make your point more clear please?[/quote]

You're explanations are no good.

Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge (Proverbs 14:7).

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

Dude. I've warned you about quoting scripture in place of argument.
Strike one.

[quote]You're explanations are no good. [/quote]

I need you to elaborate on that. Make your case.
Simply repeating that you don't like my explanations tells me nothing about [i]why[/i] you feel those explanations are insufficient.

So, please respond more specifically if you can:

Atheism doesn't need to explain the origin of these behaviours because the argument is not that atheists can explain the origins of morality but that, contrary to what Zacharias said, atheists do have a reference for morality.

Be specific as to what you find problematic with that.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]Dude. I've warned you about quoting scripture in place of argument. Strike one.[/quote]

Dude, yeah, you warned me but it doesn't make them any less the truth. BTW, you're the holding the bat. Are you lookin' to strike out again?

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

It may be a piece of wisdom but it has no bearing on the question.
That's twice now that you've conspicuously backed down from validating your assertion.
This time your hackles were raised because i called you out and you've done nothing with your response but to say "no you!"

I've asked you a very simple thing. Simply elaborate on [i]why[/i] you feel my statement to be lacking. If you can't do that then you have no choice but to concede the point.
One wonders why you're dragging your heels so...

That, my friend, was strike two.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@GodSpeed63 Ever notice that when you hand @Pikachu his butt on a platter he starts to make a ham sandwich?

Pikachu

@hippyjoe1955

Oh good, a second opinion!
Perhaps you, unlike your friend, can specify what about my statement was lacking.

Go on. Don't be shy...

Pikachu

@hippyjoe1955

lol thought not😏👍

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu Still looking to make yourself look stupid? You don't need my help for that. Carry on.

Pikachu

@hippyjoe1955

No, i was looking to see if you actually had a point or if you were just
latching onto whatever straw you could grasp to get a shot at me.

Looks like i was right. I mean, you could prove me wrong by actually making a point but we both know you can't and you won;t.

Speaking of making oneself look the fool...

Run along joe. You've served your purpose.😁

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]Looks like i was right. I mean, you could prove me wrong by actually making a point [/quote]

He could still make a point and it'd go right over your head, through the backstop, and through the windshield of your car. Strike One.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

lol looks like someone's feathers got ruffled by the strike system...

This is very simple. You made a statement and i challenged you to explain it.
It's becoming increasingly apparent that you cannot.
Feel free to do so now.

*ahem*

Atheism doesn't need to explain the origin of these behaviours because the argument is not that atheists can explain the origins of morality but that, contrary to what Zacharias said, atheists do have a reference for morality.

Explain your criticism of this statement or, no matter how many passages you quote or how much you wish you could turn the tables, you concede the point.

Go.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]lol looks like someone's feathers got ruffled by the strike system...[/quote]

Really? I don't see feathers on me so I guess they're not ruffled.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

Mmmm hmm...😒

Did you [i]really[/i] think you were going get away with just denying that you were upset and not even make an [i]attempt[/i] at addressing the actual challenge leveled at you? Honestly, buddy?

Naaah. I don't think you did.
And i think you [i]know[/i] you've earned this.
Next time you speak, be sure you've thought it through or you'll end up right back here at

SteeeeeeeeeeeeeRIKE THREE!
You're gone!🤷🏻

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]SteeeeeeeeeeeeeRIKE THREE! [/quote]

You're out! Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pikachu

@GodSpeed63

[quote] fools despise wisdom and instruction.[/quote]

My point exactly.
If you wished to use that passage without being a hypocrite then you would have to actually describe why my argument was lacking rather than just declaring it so.

You know what happened here. Don't profane your faith by using it to try to salvage your pride.

Learn from this, child.
Good day.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu [quote]My point exactly.[/quote]

Then you're in agreement with God's Word. I thought you said it was fairy tale book. Interesting.