The manifest godlessness of nature 23

In this video, published yesterday, physicist Sean Carroll eloquently and amusingly wins a debate with his arguments on whether there is “life” after death.

He also demonstrates that naturalism reflects the world as it is, whereas theism merely describes a world as some would want it to be but it isn’t.

Posted under Atheism, Religion general, Science, Videos by Jillian Becker on Saturday, September 26, 2015

Tagged with

This post has 23 comments.

  • Kevin VandeWettering

    Why is it important that there isn’t life after death? Is it that you can’t make a rational argument for your own opinions, so you’ve got to point out that your opponent is illogical in some unrelated way?

    This is the harbor of leftists. Christians are illogical, therefore wallowing around like a pig in vice and drugs is good. Marriage should be until we get bored.

    It isn’t like the effect of this nihilism we’ve engaged in isn’t drastic and measurable.

    I think atheists are often involved in the worship of science. Science is going to solve all our problems. That isn’t any more rational than believing in God.

    I’m in my 54th year on the planet. Experience shows me conventional ethics are logical. It’s shown me that the hard way.

    • liz

      Why is it important? Maybe because it’s true?
      What’s wrong with declaring facts to be true, and if the facts confirm your argument, what’s wrong with winning a debate?
      And why do you assume that the only alternative to Christianity is “wallowing around in vice and drugs”? As this site demonstrates, there are atheist conservatives, who prove that to be wrong.
      Atheists don’t worship science. It’s simply a matter of being faced with two alternatives – one, science, which offers explanations based on facts – and the other, religion, which offers explanations based on what we WANT to be true rather than facts. A rational person simply chooses explanations based on fact.

      • Kevin VandeWettering

        You win. There is no God. There is no life after death. What crap are you going to tell me that justifies? Usually the next paragraph is how because God isn’t real, we must all embrace nihilism.

        • liz

          Again, you seem to be assuming that the only alternative to believing in God is to embrace nihilism, which is ridiculous.
          That, of course, is what religion teaches you, in order to keep you from thinking for yourself. If you did, you might discover that understanding the natural world is much more interesting than believing fantasies about the supernatural.
          You might come to appreciate life as it is rather than considering it as merely a waiting room for the afterlife.

          • Kevin VandeWettering

            I think better for myself than you do. For most people claiming to be atheists, the point isn’t that God isn’t real. The point is that they don’t like what He has to say.

            It’s for when you can’t make a rational argument for some crap you’re doing.

            Here’s a smart atheist:


            • Just exactly why are you coming on to our website to comment like this? Are you trying to convert us to Christianity? If so, do you really think you will succeed? Don’t you begin to feel yet that you are wasting your time and effort? There is no argument for belief in the supernatural that we have not heard many times. None of them have convinced us. Give it up.

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              I was figuring conservatism would also mean common sense. Atheism isn’t antitheism. You seem to have them confused.

              I am probably more of an atheist than you are. What is the thing you want that you can’t make a logical case for? It’s usually the motive for religion bashing.

            • Right. Atheism is simply not having a god, not believing that gods exist. Nothing more. Who said there is anything more?

              But if “atheism is the search for objective truth”, as you say it is, it DOES mean that atheists are more rational than people who believe in a god or gods. QED.

              What “motives” do you suspect us of because we say we are atheists? What might be our hidden agenda? How is our calling ourselves what we are somehow sinister?

              Where is the fault in our logic?

              I suspect you uneasily hate us for unrecognized or unanalyzed emotional causes in yourself. Seems the very notion of atheism unstops a store of confused and conflicted feelings in you. The only one who can sort them out is you. But why use our comments page to do it?

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              You seem to be engaged in religion bashing. Where is the logic in that? I’m not finding your arguments in that regard to be logical or objective. You’re cherry picking ancient history to make a point. You’re misrepresenting the attitudes of modern Christians.

              That’s just intellectual garbage. I’m not sure what cootie you’ve got in your shorts that makes you hate Christians, but I’m finding you emotional.

              Hate? I’d have to care to hate you.

            • So parts of the world are not in flames, yet again, because of followers of a religion conquering and brutally torturing and killing people of other religions? Religion has not been the major cause of wars throughout history, right up to the present day? (Please don’t come back and say that Hitler and Stalin waged war because they were atheists. They didn’t.)

              There was not a single sentence in my comment that was emotional. You use words like “garbage”. You want to insult me. THAT is emotional.

              But that is not worth debating.

              You say in a reply to liz that you “believe in God some days”. Does that not bear out my suspicion that you are conflicted over the issue?

              What is the main point you want to make? Please be as explicit and exact as you can. In one sentence if possible.

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              What is to say that in the absence of Islam that things would be better than they are? Your feelings about Islam?

            • You have not said what the main point is that you want to make.

              You are continuing to question your own ideas on our page.

              Of course human nature is at the root of all human conflict. There would still be wars without religion. But most wars – and persecutions – have been in the name of religion. Religions are apodictic dogmas. They are childish. They are out of place and time in the adulthood of mankind.

              Certainly I am emotional about cruelty. I am not emotional about this argument. Or not yet. I am beginning to be irritated by your slipperiness.

              Its like arguing with most women – and that’s like trying to crack an egg on a pillow.

              Please come to the point. Stop accusing me of irrationality etc. Just tell us what you want to say. A positive assertion. Or stop arguing.

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              The point I am trying to make is that you seem to be embracing atheism with the religiosity of a fundamentalist Christian and you are making objectively irrational arguments to do it.

              There are examples of nominally atheist states that are far more brutal than anything going on in the middle east. I wouldn’t use that as an argument for anything. It would be a circular argument.

              I am not arguing anything for or against religion, because we don’t have a frame of reference to examine that objectively.

              You think life would be qualitatively better without religion and I don’t think you can objectively make that argument.

            • Please quote anything I have ever written that indicates I am “embracing atheism with the religiosity of a fundamentalist Christian” amd that I am “making objectively irrational arguments to do it”.

              If what I or anyone else says on this website annoys or upsets you, you have a simple remedy. Don’t visit it.

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              You’ve made it clear that you think the world would be qualitatively (emotionally) better with no religion.

              Atheism is not a valid argument for that. Just like religion isn’t an objective argument against atheism.

              That would bring us down to a discussion whether the specific behaviors of specific human beings meet objective reasonableness.

              I think the answer to that question for everybody would be very questionable.

            • That’s all? That’s it? All your comments just to get at that? You could have said it first thing and left it at that.

              It doesn’t seem to me to be a point worth making at all.

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              I’m just saying your religion bashing doesn’t meet objective reasonableness. It’s your hate of religion that is the real issue. And that’s not objective.

              All you can legitimately say is that there is no evidence for God. I agree with you.

            • You repeat yourself. So I repeat, it’s not a point worth making.

              I have never claimed that I would “act any more reasonably than anybody else because of [my] belief”.

              For some reason you don’t face, you want to hit me. Or the website. Satisfied now?

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              You’re pointing at religion as the root of all evil. Christians are Marxists. Believing in God makes you chop people’s heads off.

              Atheism is better?

              You are trying to make an ethical argument with a belief that has nothing to do with ethics.

              I think it is important. Atheism has nothing to do with ethics. That leaves us with feelings to decide what is good or bad. I don’t believe your feelings are any more valid than anyone else’s.

            • liz

              You say our “religion bashing doesn’t meet objective reasonableness.”
              How does pointing out historically and scientifically proven facts that disprove the validity of religion qualify as “religion bashing”, or as “hate of religion”, or as not meeting “objective reasonableness”? Stating facts is not bashing, hating, or unreasonable.
              Do you think religion should be exempt from any criticism? Then you are the one being unreasonable.

            • liz

              You obviously didn’t even listen to Sean Carroll’s argument here if you think atheists “can’t make a rational argument”, or that his only argument is “religious people are stupid”. If you have a better argument, based on any fact whatsoever, I haven’t seen it.
              If you think better for yourself than I do, then why can’t you come up with facts to prove your claim that God IS real? Or that atheists just don’t like what God has to say? You must be all knowing, or, I suppose, God speaks to you personally, so facts are irrelevant. Or maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
              But since you already know and think better than atheists without listening to one fact or argument, there’s no point in this discussion.

            • Kevin VandeWettering

              I am not claiming that God is real or trying to convince you of the same. I am claiming that I believe in God, at least some days. I am owning my irrationality. What’s yours?

            • liz

              At least you admit your irrationality. I don’t have to own any irrationality because disbelief in God is based on the evidence that there isn’t one.
              As the speaker in the video you shared (which, by the way, is very good), stated – atheism should be based on objectively looking at facts and evidence, not on emotion. She correctly compares atheist (leftist) feminism to religion, which is similarly based solely on emotion, rather than facts. She’s also correct that arguing against religion just because bad things result from it is not a good way to promote atheism, since atheism can stand on its own entirely on the basis of reason alone.
              That doesn’t negate the fact, however, that religion is responsible for a lot of bad thinking (lack of thinking, rather), which results in irrational choices and actions. The Pope is a good example of that – his muddled thinking has led him to believe that capitalism is a bad thing.