This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← A Revealing insight into why my friend doesn’t accept evolution

A Revealing insight into why my friend doesn’t accept evolution - Comments

darksmiles22's Avatar Comment 1 by darksmiles22

Sounds like your friend might like atheism if he saw the cheery side = )

Oblivion ain't so bad - you experience it every time you sleep, which is to say you don't. Atheism lacks fear of eternal punishment at least, and wouldn't even eternal bliss become quite tedious after the first thousand years or so? Atheism also provides you with freedom of conscience, the freedom to prevent needless suffering instead of kow-towing to some unseen will, and the freedom to pursue your own pleasure instead of repressing yourself.

No guilt, no fear, the mirror is the only judge that matters. Every moment of life is precious, enjoy it while you can.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:02:19 UTC | #533797

mmurray's Avatar Comment 2 by mmurray

Why does accepting evolution deprive your friend of hope? I would have thought that his hope comes from God and you can have God and evolution. Perhaps not in Islam but Catholics and most major Christians religions are happy enough believing in God and evolution.

Michael

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:19:19 UTC | #533804

Roedy's Avatar Comment 3 by Roedy

Exactly. What believers do is like saying "I have to believe in Bernie Madoff despite all the evidence he is a crook, because otherwise I would have to admit I have been conned and ripped off of my life savings."

In other words, the decision to believe is based on desirability of the outcome (wishful thinking) not evidence. To an atheist debater, this seems outrageously dishonest. These are the sort of people who fall over and over for get rich quick schemes. (Note that Madoff did especially well conning Christians. Con men often use the church to find ripe prospects.)

So what these people need is not more evidence what they believe is false, but that life will be much better once they take off the hair shirt of religion. They are like abused slaves afraid of freedom. They are also afraid they will go hog wild and embarrass themselves forgetting that the bible is one of the weakest constraints on behaviour. They also need to learn their church is a con game just like every other cult. They have been conditioned to close their eyes to all such evidence.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:27:02 UTC | #533809

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 4 by Stevehill

Your friend is a far worse scientist than you give him credit for if he does not understand what "theory" means in this context.

Buy him RD's "The Greatest Show on Earth" and tell him to read it with an open mind.

If he can't do that, tell him he's possibly chosen the wrong career, and his own professional advancement will always be limited as long as he goes around spouting delusionary babble like this. His professional obligation is to examine the evidence.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:42:51 UTC | #533820

Aflacduck's Avatar Comment 5 by Aflacduck

I sure know that I wouldn't want a doctor anywhere near me if they couldn't accept such an easy-to-understand theory as fact. If evidence does coerce him accept something in his personal life, will it in his professional life?

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:52:54 UTC | #533863

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 6 by AtheistEgbert

Your friend was making excuses for how he felt. He gave you an insight into his psychology, his belief is a plaster or emotional block, a delusion.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:54:05 UTC | #533864

Nick Healey's Avatar Comment 7 by Nick Healey

Comment 3 by Roedy :

Exactly. What believers do is like saying "I have to believe in Bernie Madoff despite all the evidence he is a crook, because otherwise I would have to admit I have been conned and ripped off of my life savings." In other words, the decision to believe is based on desirability of the outcome (wishful thinking) not evidence. To an atheist debater, this seems outrageously dishonest. These are the sort of people who fall over and over for get rich quick schemes. (Note that Madoff did especially well conning Christians. Con men often use the church to find ripe prospects.)

Love this. This is one of the best analogies for religion I've read. No surprise about con men using the church to find ripe prospects - the propensity for gullibility is obvious.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:54:09 UTC | #533865

jackarandarainbow's Avatar Comment 8 by jackarandarainbow

It's quite clear that your friend needs his belief in the Imagined Other (which is what underlies a Denial of evolutionary scientific truth) to support his psychological safety. You report that he is sad at the prospect of 'nothing to look forward to' and 'it was all for nothing'. 'Nothing' is the keyword for understanding your friend's psychological needs. Without his 'concocted' beliefs, he would be obliged to rebuild his personality and his connection to the world from scratch, from Nothing. He experiences this difference in belief as an onslaught against himself, against his persona. Therefore, secular humanist/ scientific beliefs threaten his security, his being in the world. To relinquish such beliefs would mean facing a multitude of difficult reorientations and perhaps a momentous feeling of Loss. He faces a crisis of identity and understanding between, on the one hand, his habit of self oriented by myth and fantasy and on the other, his later acquired scientific knowledege which contradicts earlier religious injunctions.

This is a good example, from the point of view of our understanding religious violence, of how an individual can feel so threatened by the truth that he can resort to violence - not in your friend's case SO FAR, but certainly in many cases.

We face a terrible dilemma. Those pushed by their psychological needs into a defensive, angry, threatened perimeter might, perhaps, make a transition from their internalized lies and projections to an orientation accepting of truth. Transition, however, will require the support of people who can offer loving understanding. I do not consider this likely on a national scale. We could, though, make a start on developing information about transitioning.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:56:55 UTC | #533868

Louise43's Avatar Comment 9 by Louise43

I've never been religious as such, as in, I've never been a church goer or followed any particular dogma. but I grew up in the 70's and went to a CofE church primary school (for no other reason than it was the school at the top of the road). So I had always had a vague sense of god as it was always as though it was just taken as read. But over the last few years I have finally exorcised any trace of such supersistions which may have been lurking in the back of my sub-conscience. I remember having a book as a child about eveolution so I have always belived that and not creationism which, even as a child I thought sounded too far fetched. So I don't think consciously becoming athiest was that hard for me unlike how I imagine it would be for a devotely religious person.

But I can still empathize with how it feels to give up on any sense of an afterlife and when I did I went through a sort of grieving process (which I came out the other end of). It wasn't so much thinking of me not existing anymore becasue if I don't I'll have no experience of it so it won't matter to me, as there will be no me. But the thought of my loved ones no longer existing isn't a pleasant thought.

But it does mean you make the most of your time with them while here and stop putting things off until tomorrow because there may not be one. So the pay off is worth it and ultimately...liberating.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:38:05 UTC | #533884

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 10 by AtheistEgbert

@jackarandarainbow

That was a brilliant post. And I've posted before, that religion should be perceived in terms of emotional abuse or a mental illness. No matter how outrageous this might be for believers, confronting them with truth or reality is the only way out for them. Their outrage is a symptom of this same mental block.

Atheists are not the abusers, we're attempting to cure the believers. But like a cornered dog or an animal caught in a snare, they attack us furiously when we try to free them. This is absolutely a natural reaction to pain.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:40:37 UTC | #533885

Nick Healey's Avatar Comment 11 by Nick Healey

Why does nihilism have to be the only alternative to god and vice versa? Anyone who thinks this way is deeply unimaginative and/or depressed, in which case I'm not sure that belief in a non-repsonsive god will help. I'm convinced that most people are like those described by Roedy; self deluding because they don't want to admit being conned, but too lacking in imagination to dream up an alternative.

Freeing oneself of religion is analagous to the Kubler-Ross grief model. Most intelligent people who claim to be of faith are already in the denial/anger/bargaining stages for the demise of god; they delude themselves despite all the evidence and then lash out at new atheism, or other religions as someone to blame for killing their god, or they try to bargain with accomodationism and "teach the controversy".

I wish people could see that the 'depression' stage does not necessarily lead to nihilism and is merely just another stage to get through. Once you have reached the 'acceptance' stage you will feel liberated and may even be happier. Then you are free to dream up your own purpose and/or god if you feel it's necessary (I don't mind admitting to a penchant for George Lucas's Force or the FSM). In terms of purpose, use your imagination and make up your own. Mine is memetics. I believe that we can all influence human evolution in the direction we would like to see it go. In my case, the Utopian Star Trek model inspires me. Each to their own.

What has led me to this hypothesis is watching intelligent faith-heads in conversation. I couldn't possibly claim to know the inner workings of Francis Collin's mind, but whenever I see him interviewed about religion, his body language screams out, "I know this is absurd and of course I don't really believe it," but he is one of the classic 'defenders of the right to believe' or as Dan Dennett calls it, 'having faith in faith'.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:04:59 UTC | #533900

j2i's Avatar Comment 12 by j2i

We all build up realities around us. Not only can there be some amount of mental inertia applied to our reality, when faced with an experience that has a huge impact on our personalized reality there can be a fight to protect it. Being betrayed by a loved one, the death of some one close, discovering Santa Claus isn't real, failing a test when a good grade was expected. These are all things that can invoke that fight to save one's reality. But when talking about origins and evolution the defending of one's reality is institutionalized and we are condition with all types of thoughts and fears to ensure we continue protecting that reality. I think your friends reaction is no different.

Yesterday I decided to ask some one for their thoughts on evolution (I am more interested in the personal reasons of why some one does or does not accept it then whether or not they actually accept it) and the person told me that all of the fossil evidence found around the world was planted by the Illuminati in an elaborate plan to discredit people's faith. For some reason I didn't immediately recognize that I had been taught the same thing in a few churches years ago. I proceeded no further with the conversation given that the well for that discussion had already been poisoned.

On a lighter note, there was an episode of the cartoon "Futurama" that I thought looked at the evolution debate from a rather comical point of view. I think it contained most of the elements at the core of the debate. It was in an episode called "Clockwork origins." It had the parents protesting "I didn't lean about evolution and I'm not going to let my children learn about it either", the anti-evolutionary religious scientist proclaiming that "evolution is just a theory like gravity or the shape of the earth and not true" and the pro-evolutionary scientist proclaiming his faith that the needed piece of evidence was out there (to which the religious anti-evolutionist replied "things don't exists just because you believe in them!")

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:09:16 UTC | #533901

Jason72's Avatar Comment 13 by Jason72

Buddhism believe in rebirth, spiritalist/mediums believe they are talking to the recently departed and you only have to watch a few episodes of Living TV's Most Haunted....

So there is some evidence of life after death!

I'll get my coat.... ;)

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:18:39 UTC | #533940

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 14 by Schrodinger's Cat

The reason which stood out was his hope argument. He thinks, and perceives, that once the theory is accepted hope becomes non-existent. There is nothing to look forward to in life anymore. No after life, no eternal salvation, no reasons for doing anything here on earth because it all was and will be for nothing.

Evolution excludes some gods.....but by no means all. In fact, if you leave out a totally literalist interpretation of Genesis, you could quite happily accept the 'creation' story as purely symbolic and carry on believing.

The existence of evolution is really not the prime argument against God. Whilst there are some atheists who use evolution as their 'disproof' of a creator......the vast majority reject God for a much more basic reason - that there is no evidence that he exists.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:31:21 UTC | #533948

Nick Healey's Avatar Comment 15 by Nick Healey

Comment 12 by j2i :

the person told me that all of the fossil evidence found around the world was planted by the Illuminati in an elaborate plan to discredit people's faith. For some reason I didn't immediately recognize that I had been taught the same thing in a few churches years ago. I proceeded no further with the conversation given that the well for that discussion had already been poisoned.

Have you heard the Bill Hicks dinosaur rant? Genius! I'm with you on Futurama too. Apparently Groening has long been accused of having an atheist agenda...they may have a point (and good on him!)

Did you not even ask your friend what evidence there was that the illuminati had done this and when? You'd think someone would've seen them trying to bury brontosaurus skeletons all over the world and so deep down too - clever bastards these anti religionists!

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:37:54 UTC | #533951

Roedy's Avatar Comment 16 by Roedy

Given that Christians use wishful thinking to determine truth, perhaps we need to compose a list: advantages & disadvantages of believing in God and advantages & disadvantages of god existing. This may sound somewhat insane to an atheist for whom the only question worth debating is does god exist.

However, if you are interested in prying the Christian limpet off his rock, this approach an persuasion may be more effective.

Here are some advantages of not believing in god.

  1. there is no fear of burning for eternity for non-crimes like thinking god is a crock.

  2. you get to decide if slavery is ok, whether it is wicked to kill homosexuals based on your own reasoning rather than what some mouldy old anonymously-written book says.

  3. You take full responsibility for your planet, preserving it, e.g. preserving biodiversity, controlling CO2 emissions, avoiding dumping poisonous chemicals in the ocean. You don't act like a slob, trusting the cosmic janitor Jesus to clean up after you. (He hasn't done any cleaning yet).

  4. You don't have to shut your eyes to any findings of science. You don't kill your kids because of what some ignorant preacher thinks of stem cells (The preacher wouldn't know a stem cell if it bit him on the nose.)

  5. When you debate with your fellow citizens about policy, you give reasons based on the real world. You don't hand non-negotiable religious-based demands that have nothing to support them that anyone else can understand.

  6. You don't traumatise your kids with threats of hell.

  7. You don't bribe your kids to conform to a rigid code using false promises of heaven. You teach them to think things through to decide what is truly loving and just.

  8. You won't kill anyone based on a voice in your head.

  9. You don't have to tithe to crooks.

  10. You can have sex with and marry whomever you please, subject to law.

  11. You can eat any food you wish.

  12. You don't have to sing lugubrious songs.

  13. You don't have to pretend to believe in miracles, demons, demonic possession, bible tall tales and other balderdash that has nothing to do with god.

  14. You don't have to make an ass of yourself pretending to speak in tongues.

  15. You can decide for yourself if and when you want to be circumcised.

  16. You don't have to vote Republican and give them money.

  17. When you want something, you can get busy getting it rather that farting about praying which is 100% useless.

  18. You will have fewer sanctimonious, conceited twits hanging around, imagining God is directing every micro event in their lives and "speaking" to them continuously.

  19. You are free to use or avoid any medical procedure you want.

  20. You can sleep in on Sunday and have strawberry waffles with whipped cream when you wake up.

  21. You can be kind to whomever you please, including the cursed race of Ham (blacks), gays, Muslims, wiccans, Philistines, native Americans...

  22. You don't have to support Jews in their apartheid in Israel.

  23. You don't have to believe that any group is superior to any other.

  24. You can make up your own mind on abortion.

  25. You don't have to worry about all those weird capital sins in Leviticus that everyone ignores but maybe God doesn't, e.g. eating owl. You might accidentally eat owl in some road kill restaurant in Kentucky, and roast eternally for it.

  26. You can shop on Sunday, or do anything else you please.

A Christian is a bit like an OCD whose superstitions are not personal. For some reason we don't call Christian superstitions, "superstitions". Avoiding meat on Friday, is a superstition. If you had never heard of Christianity, you would not see the difference, just hearing of the behaviours. Instead of black cats, Christians fear gay people and imagine they cause earthquakes. Perhaps drugs for OCD might help cure Christianity.

Starting with St. Paul, Christians have tried to tar gays with the notion they were suffering from a communicable disease. It would poetic justice if it turned out Christianity turned out be mainly considered a curable mental illness, that had the distressing property the afflicted worked hard to traumatise others to pass the condition on.

Why do Christians work so hard to infect others? What they believe is nonsense. They know that. By tricking someone else into saying he believes it to, it helps reassure faith. The new believer typically has no clue what he has just signed up for. He has just been hit with a whammy of emotion, often the focussed attention of a large crowd.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:38:33 UTC | #533952

Nick Healey's Avatar Comment 17 by Nick Healey

Comment 16 by Roedy :

Given that Christians use wishful thinking to determine truth

...and Muslims, don't forget the Muslims. Nearly every one of your points applies to Muslims and Jews too. Why can't you broaden your attacks to include all abrahamic religions? They are all equally ridiculous, self deluding and moronic. The way you concentrate your attacks on christianity and defend islam does not do your credibility any good.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:51:01 UTC | #533962

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 18 by Mark Jones

Comment 16 by Roedy

I want that in poster form!

Your last paragraph reminds me of this clip, @2:35: "Why did you tell me?!"

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:59:30 UTC | #533969

Reasonable_Doubt's Avatar Comment 19 by Reasonable_Doubt

Perhaps ask him if he feels grief for not being alive before he was born?

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:24:02 UTC | #533975

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 20 by Schrodinger's Cat

Comment 16 by Roedy

Why do Christians work so hard to infect others? What they believe is nonsense. They know that. By tricking someone else into saying he believes it to, it helps reassure faith. The new believer typically has no clue what he has just signed up for. He has just been hit with a whammy of emotion, often the focussed attention of a large crowd.

Dostoevsky's 'Grand Inquisitor' really sums it all up very nicely. Probably the best satirical work dealing with the doublethink involved in believing. The whole 'trial of God' section ( though Dostoevsky was himself a believer ) is to my mind probably THE most well written description of the whole theist/atheist argument.

His satirical mockery of religious leaders includes great passages like this :-

"In his old age he reached the clear conviction that nothing but the advice of the great dread spirit could build up any tolerable sort of life for the feeble, unruly, 'incomplete, empirical creatures created in jest.' And so, convinced of this, he sees that he must follow the counsel of the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction, and therefore accept lying and deception, and lead men consciously to death and destruction, and yet deceive them all the way so that they may not notice where they are being led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think themselves happy."

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:03:02 UTC | #534008

Jason72's Avatar Comment 21 by Jason72

Comment 15 by nickhealey :

Comment 12 by j2i :

I'm with you on Futurama too. Apparently Groening has long been accused of having an atheist agenda...they may have a point (and good on him!)

Don't forget Seth MacFarlane who is an outspoken atheist. Like them or not (I love Family Guy!) his shows are full of digs at religion!

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:05:48 UTC | #534010

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 22 by crookedshoes

So your friend is a weakling. If you cannot face the truth that does not change the truth. I wouldn't talk about this with him anymore for fear of not being able to be his friend. Hear me out, he actually really and for sure knows that evolution is correct. His objection is one of weakness. This reveals a weakness in character. Much like the argument I had recently with Maybeyourwrong on another thread, he wants his truth to be so and will resort to lying to get his truth promulgated. Forget the fact that his secondary and tertiary arguments are inane and easily countered. There is no answer to his primary objection.... If there is no heaven I have no reason to live. If I have no "hope" I have no life. This is weakness at it's worst. Paralyzed by reality he escapes into fantasy....which is fine with me. Escape all you want; all day everyday. BUT where my line is crossed is when he dismisses reality with a quick illogical phrase and impacts my world. You tell your friend that he is not actually living. Dare him to shed the weight of religion (even if only temporarily). When hope is based on truth it can realize actuality. when hope is based on lies it is nothing. His hope and fear is bullshit... as a scientist he should know that intrinsically. I'd never patronize him as a doctor and I'd never promote him if I were his supervisor.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:06:12 UTC | #534011

Stephen.Johnston's Avatar Comment 23 by Stephen.Johnston

I believe your friend is looking for purpose outside himself rather than defining it for himself.

An existential angst if you like ... what's the point, nothing matters.

I would say it does while your alive and can do afterwords - creativity, planting an excellent garden, rearing children etc. Perhaps he wants to be lead rather than making his own decisions ultimately. I have to say this is a very attractive feeling and most people want to be managed at some level or other - at least we all need some form of affirmation of our choices, beliefs and actions...why do you think athiests huddle together and pat each other on the back ;) We all do it to a lesser or greater degree, and it does serve as a sort of social check. However I would say if you have the strength of mind to make up your own mind as far as possible that is a great freedom... sometimes it leads to greater independence, loneliness, despotism or eminent science!

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:18:02 UTC | #534021

YetAnotherSteve's Avatar Comment 24 by YetAnotherSteve

I've always thought accepting, understanding and then ultimately controlling evolution at the molecular level is the key allowing you a healthy and everlasting life. Once it is understood at the molecular level and can be manipulated, we will be able to cure all sorts of ailments and debilitating diseases, leading to humans having tremendously long, healthy lives.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:38:15 UTC | #534027

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 25 by Stevehill

After I'm gone, my genetic material will continue with my children. They will also I hope share my values, and will try to do more good for their world than harm.

I will have over the years helped to train people in my own chosen profession, and helped them forge successful careers, and in some cases businesses. Hopefully I leave that profession in a slightly better state than it was when I found it, and serving society's demands of it a little better.

I have built some gardens and a couple of houses. Some of "my" trees will be best appreciated in a couple of centuries. I have recorded some music, some of it original, some of which some people may listen to when I'm gone. Or not, as the mood takes them.

I may even have helped persuade one or two people not to fritter half their lives away worshipping non-existent deities and doing something more useful.

That's enough afterlife for me.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:58:09 UTC | #534035

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 26 by InYourFaceNewYorker

I always tell people in this situation to get their friends to read Richard Dawkins's Unweaving the Rainbow. I've said this about 9,424,245 times on the forum that I wished I had it as a teenager when I was going through a lot of existential crisis bullshit. I got my friend a copy and I hope he'll read it instead of lamenting that there's no point to life without a god or afterlife. He wasn't even raised religious, and yet the concept of afterlife is so deeply imbedded in our culture that many people take it for granted. I always say to him, "Why do you assume the afterlife is this blissful place? How do you know that when you die you don't go to Harry's office?" Harry was the name of a nasty teacher we had at college whom we both couldn't stand...

How do you know you don't go to a place where you live with clones of George W. Bush in a tiny house?

How do you know you don't go to a place where become Bill O'Reilly's sex slave?

How do you know you don't go, well, hell?

You see, even people who are agnostic etc. often take heaven for granted, but not necessarily hell!

Julie

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:25:18 UTC | #534049

Truly Apes's Avatar Comment 27 by Truly Apes

It's the epitome of circular logic.

From Sam Harris:

"To believe that God exists is to believe that I stand in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for my belief."

"If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a lot of joy from this belief, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like a lunatic to you. You can't believe there really is a diamond in your backyard because it gives your life meaning. If that's possible, that's self-deception that nobody wants."

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:27:46 UTC | #534051

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 28 by Schrodinger's Cat

Comment 25 by Stevehill

I may even have helped persuade one or two people not to fritter half their lives away worshipping non-existent deities and doing something more useful.

Who knows......you might before you die get 'raptured' by your descendants in a Mark 1 Top Spin Dual Singularity Time Machine.

That would be kind of ironic, for an atheist.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:37:05 UTC | #534056

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 29 by Steve Zara

The reason which stood out was his hope argument. He thinks, and perceives, that once the theory is accepted hope becomes non-existent. There is nothing to look forward to in life anymore. No after life, no eternal salvation, no reasons for doing anything here on earth because it all was and will be for nothing.

My goodness. I can't help but see things in an almost exactly opposite way.

Theism makes life meaningless. Theism means we are living in a simulated world; we are ghosts in the machine of God's mind. We are nothing but his dreams, we could be wiped out at his whim. We have no true free will, because morality is written into reality like a track for the mind and anyone who dares wander away from that that track will suffer torture beyond any possible imagining. If we follow the track we will have enternal bliss. Eternal. Unending. Blissed up forever. What a pathetic fate! How much meaning will our decades on Earth have after a trillion trillion years of being high?

We are free to make our own meaning, and there is no known limit to what our species could do free of the belief that we are pawns of a creator.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:06:30 UTC | #534068

Aflacduck's Avatar Comment 30 by Aflacduck

Comment 29 by Steve Zara :

The reason which stood out was his hope argument. He thinks, and perceives, that once the theory is accepted hope becomes non-existent. There is nothing to look forward to in life anymore. No after life, no eternal salvation, no reasons for doing anything here on earth because it all was and will be for nothing.

My goodness. I can't help but see things in an almost exactly opposite way.

Theism makes life meaningless. Theism means we are living in a simulated world; we are ghosts in the machine of God's mind. We are nothing but his dreams, we could be wiped out at his whim. We have no true free will, because morality is written into reality like a track for the mind and anyone who dares wander away from that that track will suffer torture beyond any possible imagining. If we follow the track we will have enternal bliss. Eternal. Unending. Blissed up forever. What a pathetic fate! How much meaning will our decades on Earth have after a trillion trillion years of being high?

We are free to make our own meaning, and there is no known limit to what our species could do free of the belief that we are pawns of a creator.

Not to mention, we have no control over what we do. So if we go to hell, it's God's plan that sent us there.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:30:48 UTC | #534081