Bobbysworld28:


If death is d end of existence, then what is the use of life? Merely an accident between two nothingness. Morality, then will be useless because there is nothing after this accident called life.
If however there is an afterlife or a deity who either rewards or punishes in d afterlife, the outlook is indeed not as gloomy and we can use him as a standard of measurement in morality

asalimpo:


atheism strted with the scientifc era, specifically after darwin's theory of evolution gathered steam. Before that it was unquestioned even in science that man was made by God.
Division of Science and Religion is a recent thing,it wasnt always so.

Atheism isnt just a belief,it is a movement with adherents.
It is a religion in the abstract sense of the word.

asalimpo:


atheism strted with the scientifc era, specifically after darwin's theory of evolution gathered steam. Before that it was unquestioned even in science that man was made by God.
Division of Science and Religion is a recent thing,it wasnt always so.

Atheism isnt just a belief,it is a movement with adherents.
It is a religion in the abstract sense of the word.

Bobbysworld28:
The title of this article risks overstatement. Consequently, I hope the reader will do me the courtesy of not regarding it as a cheap ploy for attention. My aim is simple: I wish to examine an aspect of atheism’s imaginative appeal. Christians are frequently accused of wishful thinking, of retreating to the church in the face of a vast and pitiless universe. Though this is clearly a double-edged sword (wishful thinking works both ways), my reason for focusing on the “glamour” of atheism is not so much to craft a rejoinder as to train a lens on a frequently overlooked issue.

 

Atheism, like any belief system, makes a loud appeal to the imagination, and if we overlook this striking fact we turn a blind eye to one of the key sources of its persuasive power. Specifically, I want to suggest that death is atheism’s ultimate appeal, and that death lends atheism its special glamour. It is in the arena of popular culture in particular that this glamour frequently announces itself most vocally. My hope is that this thesis will seem less controversial and even less outrageous as we progress.

Atheism is a zero-sum game, a philosophy of death that can offer nothing but death. This is why the rising tide of secularism in the Western world is fostering an indefatigable culture of death. Forged in a crucible of nothingness, we wander as cosmic orphans back to the yawning void from which we were so tragically ejected. In such a stark context, anything more than death, or on the side of life, or even minimally optimistic must be regarded with either pity or callous derision because it is obviously deluded, naïve, or dishonest.

 

The existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said “existence precedes essence.” In other words, we have no stable or fixed identity that precedes us. The burden of identity, selfhood, and meaning rests solely on our shoulders. But, again, if we came from nothing and are returning inextricably to nothing, life is a temporary accident, and death is the only authentic currency at our disposal. Why is death authentic? Because it is life that is artificial and nothingness that is essential. It is not that this worldview tries to be especially morbid—in many cases it makes a valiant attempt to be life-affirming—it’s simply that it has literally nothing else to offer, or, rather, it has precisely nothing to offer.

 

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that it is impossible for atheists to lead exemplary and even noble lives. Clearly, many do. What I am saying is that, from the standpoint of scientific naturalism, such behavior is an anomaly because naturalism, devoid of any and all metaphysical underpinnings, can provide neither the motivation nor the justification for a truly selfless life. Such values must be borrowed, or smuggled in, so to speak. In a provocative article, the journalist Matthew Parris, himself an avowed atheist, reluctantly concedes that removing Christian evangelism from the continent of Africa would be disastrous. Why? “In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.”[3] My point is not that atheists can’t be good people. My point is that it is manifestly impossible for atheism to “change people’s hearts,” to inspire transformation and rebirth on its own steam. Those wishing to find the ethical resources for such an undertaking must look elsewhere.

The apostle Paul tells us that the mind set on the flesh is death (Romans 8:6). An honest materialist will agree with this statement. If the material universe traces its lineage back to a cosmic accident, then life cannot be regarded as anything other than alien, an intrusion where emptiness will ultimately prevail. So, the materialist mind is set preeminently on emptiness and death.

 

Part of our unique and pastoral mission as Christian men and women is to revive in people a love of life in a culture of death. We need to work carefully to restore the appeal of life in all of its vital glory. We need to remind this culture of death that life, not emptiness, is essential, primal, and original. In fact, we have value and purpose precisely because we have been created by a personal God in his image, fashioned for intimacy and joy with God as well as with others. We can preach nothing less than eternal life, because anything less than eternal life is simply a temporary loan from a bankrupt universe. Indeed, the poverty of atheism is so total that it is powerless to offer anything more than death.

 

It is this life offered by Christ that stands in stark contrast to the materialist mindset. As RZIM colleague Os Guinness says, “Comparison is the mother of clarity.” My intent has not been to isolate those who resolutely deny any kind of divinity. Rather, my honest hope is that the radical nature of the life that Christ offers us might come into sharp focus when set against the unsparing backdrop of consistent materialism.

 

David Bentley Hart has said that we have only two options at our disposal: Christ or Nothing.A casual survey of our cultural landscape makes it abundantly clear that our love of life is in desperate need of resuscitation. I believe Christ alone can accomplish this resuscitation.

 

Cameron McAllister is a member of the speaking and writing team at RZIM.

http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/the-glamour-of-atheism/

Bobbysworld28:


If death is d end of existence, then what is the use of life? Merely an accident between two nothingness. Morality, then will be useless because there is nothing after this accident called life.
If however there is an afterlife or a deity who either rewards or punishes in d afterlife, the outlook is indeed not as gloomy and we can use him as a standard of measurement in morality

asalimpo:
Without God and accountability of man. Without justice in this life and hereafter, morality , becomes baseless and useless. If life is just a meaningless struggle for survival ,
nobody shud b punished for doing anythng to better his lot.

Atheism is a hopeless religion.

mazaje:


According to your religion and others like it morality is of no use to humans as long as they do not believe in some ancient stories. . .If islam is true then it doesn't matter how morally upright you live your life, you will rot in allah's hell for not believing in him and Mohammed his last messenger. . .Under your own worldview non christians have no reason to live morally upright lives because they have already been condemned to eternal perdition for their unbelief in Jesus. . .Morality under the religious world view makes no sense since it is actually based on belief first and how you act according to the belief. . .

Bobbysworld28:


We believe in ancient stories no more than you do when u quote greek philosophers.

We believe first (in order to enact morality) but don't u? These are points of convergence and not divergence as u want us to believe. In the atheist worldview, u believe in rationality as plaetton said but my question is: what defines YOUR rationality? If nothing, is dt not irrational? On what anchor is ur worldview based, and what are the standards of measurement?
You have been able to generally define two worldview systems that draw rationality from an omnipotent. Granted that there is a lot of divergence therein, so wht defines urs?
The fact that there have been atrocities committed on several fronts using religion as a shroud doesnt mean the solution is a recipe for chaos, does it. If there is a breakdown of law and order, do u advocate for govt to be vacated and 'nothing' fills it? Wouldnt u rather call for a more responsive and proactive govt?

Bobbysworld28:


We believe in ancient stories no more than you do when u quote greek philosophers.

We believe first (in order to enact morality) but don't u? These are points of convergence and not divergence as u want us to believe. In the atheist worldview, u believe in rationality as plaetton said but my question is: what defines YOUR rationality? If nothing, is dt not irrational? On what anchor is ur worldview based, and what are the standards of measurement?
You have been able to generally define two worldview systems that draw rationality from an omnipotent. Granted that there is a lot of divergence therein, so wht defines urs?
The fact that there have been atrocities committed on several fronts using religion as a shroud doesnt mean the solution is a recipe for chaos, does it. If there is a breakdown of law and order, do u advocate for govt to be vacated and 'nothing' fills it? Wouldnt u rather call for a more responsive and proactive govt?

Bobbysworld28:


If death is d end of existence, then what is the use of life? Merely an accident between two nothingness. Morality, then will be useless because there is nothing after this accident called life.
If however there is an afterlife or a deity who either rewards or punishes in d afterlife, the outlook is indeed not as gloomy and we can use him as a standard of measurement in morality

plaetton:


Where exactly have you seen this chaos caused by a non-belief in god?
Have you not seen the statistics showing that the secular nations have lower crime rate and highers standards of living as well as greater social equality and harmony?

But then, I expect that cognitive dissonance would not allow you to think in that direction.

Bobbysworld28:


The concept of Allah and not Allah himself. I can choose to reject dt he exists because I have heard someone claim he exists. Gerrit?
If I have never hrd of Allah, how can I reject the concept dt he exists? I cannot be said to disbelieve that davien exists on Nairaland if I hv never evn hrd of the name before, can i?

mazaje:


The difference btw you and I is that you accept the writings of ancient people that are just like you and me as the writings of some supernatural entity. .



Morality is a man made concept, humans created what every form of morality they chose to abide by, in the ancient days humans create morality and use their various gods as an enforcing mechanism, now in the advanced societies the government is used as the enforcing mechanism. . .

macof:



Lmao this foolish ideology again...anony the second ..I hope the mumu doesn't come here

As Plaetton illustrated: do you follow traffic laws because you afraid of the police or because you know the importance of road safety?

Bobbysworld28:


Morality and laws are man-made and anchored on the acknowledgement of a higher power for enforcement. U acknowledge government of the physical laws but ascribe ur consciousness to 'nothing' quite remarkable. The law of gravity then was propounded by ur forefathers, I guess.

I would like for you to explain how you believe something besides the brain governs consciousness and the way you came about such a conclusion and then perhaps tell us how you have the answers that top neuro-scientists are researching on

davien:
its good you get it now.....now apply that to african natives and other prehistoric people whom rejected the concept of "god/gods" to understand why atheism existed before christianity and consists of nothing extra.....just an unbelief

davien:
Every community delegates...modifies....lift and impose laws....

I would like for you to explain how you believe something besides the brain governs consciousness and the way you came about such a conclusion and then perhaps tell us how you have the answers that top neuro-scientists are researching on

ptase:
There is nothing so glamorous about atheism at all. I wonder what is up with this mindless boring drivel that this person is talking about.

Bobbysworld28:


They rejected the concept of god/gods, yet the rejection came before knowing abt the concept? U r running in circles here. U cannot pre-reject wht u r nt aware of, haba!
Atheism cannot come before theism.

I am not even remotely referring to atheism coming before theism but rather the rejection of the "god/gods" concept predates christianity and is not a result of the scientific era nor have anything to do with the "god" concept of christianity as asalimpo has claimed....do you now understand that

davien:
I am not even remotely referring to atheism coming before theism but rather the rejection of the "god/gods" concept predates christianity and is not a result of the scientific era nor have anything to do with the "god" concept of christianity as asalimpo has claimed....do you now understand that

Bobbysworld28:


I dont get this question. Kindly rephrase

Bobbysworld28:


The rejection of god/gods is what u guys term as atheism. Christianity falls under the huge umbrella of theism. So what u r saying in essence is that atheism was before theism. This is wrong!

We shall deal with specifics later or on another thread. I will like for us to concentrate on the glamour (which includes the concept) of atheism for now.

Bobbysworld28:


I follow traffic because of the importance of road safety. I follow the laws of the govt. Which ones do u follow? Plaetton has said that there is no structure to the atheist worldview, which leaves much to be desired. Anyone can then create his own moral code to live by.

Bros, e never reach insult level, ok? Wht makes u different from religious fundamentalists if u insult anyone who questions ur worldview?

Bobbysworld28:


They rejected the concept of god/gods, yet the rejection came before knowing abt the concept? U r running in circles here. U cannot pre-reject wht u r nt aware of, haba!
Atheism cannot come before theism.

davien:
Read carefully;

people rejected Gods like zeus and athena before the yahweh "god" concept....disbelief is not tied and didn't began from Christianity but other native ancient "god" concepts and when the christian concept of "god" was proposed....it too failed to provide its burden of proof and therefore it was disbelieved too...

plaetton:


I guess you don't know what it means to think rationally and act rationally, that's why you are talking about structure.
And BTW, what structure does blind faith rest upon?

plaetton:

I really think you are confusing yourself.
Your convoluted logic, I must warn you , is far below what we atheists have mocked on this forum. That's why I called it kindergarten earlier on.

Bobbysworld28:


I follow traffic because of the importance of road safety. I follow the laws of the govt. Which ones do u follow? Plaetton has said that there is no structure to the atheist worldview, which leaves much to be desired. Anyone can then create his own moral code to live by.

Bros, e never reach insult level, ok? Wht makes u different from religious fundamentalists if u insult anyone who questions ur worldview?

ptase:
people who don't believe in God are either spiritually blinded or naturally unadapting to the truth about how life came to be.