Meaning in life for an atheist

[ribozyme]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

I have read *Practical Ethics *about a week ago, and I remember reading this quote:

When we reject belief in God we must give up the idea that life on this planet has some preordained meaning. Life as a whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell us, in a chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation and natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any overall purpose. Now that it has resulted in the existence of beings who prefer some states of affairs to others, however, it may be possible for particular lives to be meaningful. In this sense some atheists can find meaning in life.

I do support abortion because parents might decide it might not be possible for their child to reach the preferred state of affairs and embryos and fetuses do not have the capacity to have a preferred state of affairs.

I agree with Peter Singer. I think my purpose in life is to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty from the world. I also remember reading The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil where he describes a future where everyone can have a meaningful life.

I think my life now has no purpose, but I will reiterate, my life will be endowed purpose in the future as I would have reached a preferred state of affairs. I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

So what makes your life meaningful?

 

[OldRedleg]

An interesting thought. I suppose it is possible for an an atheist to have, what he perceives to be, a meaningful life. The individual could take joy in his accomplishments and even his service to the community and to others.

I have been taking a clinical pastoral orientation for the past four months. This orientation is focused on hospital ministry and includes visitations to patients in the hospital.

Let me share with you an experience I had last month. One of the patients that I was assigned to visit was on the cancer ward. Lets call him “Jim”.

Jim was dying and he knew it. He was confined to his bed and couldn’t do much for himself, to include getting out of bed and going to the bathroom (he gave me a piece of his mind about bed pans and the nursing staff).

He was an angry, depressed, old man…and an atheist. The first words out of his mouth to me were that he didn’t have any use for God or religion.

We talked for a while. I learned that Jim had been a very successful tree surgeon and landscaper in the area as a younger man. He regaled me with several stories of his accomplishments with obvious pride. In a way he reminded me of my own Grandfather and the stories he would tell about growing up during the depression and taking care of his family. That same be your own man and don’t take charity rugged individualism.

The problem was that Jim was at the end of his life. This was it. Death was a finality of existence. It was even worse that he was now dependant on others and hence his life no longer had any meaning at all. For him there was no peace of eternal salvation and life after death in heaven with Christ.

I imagine that this can be the case with many atheists. They can find meaning in the joys and accomplishments of their productive years…but must struggle to gain meaning as the end draws near.

In the hospital, you can see the great strength and peace that comes through in a person’s belief and faith in Christianity. There is not only a meaning to mortal life but also certain knowledge of eternal life.

My prayers go out to you and to Jim.

PAX

 

[Joyousguard]

There can be meaning in every life. Even the life of a flower has meaning. However, there are degrees of meaning and then their are fallacies that we accept in order to give our lives meaning. Human beings require meaning in their lives, this is an inesacpable fact. We require meaning and hope that one day, things will be better than they are.

I agree with Peter Singer. I think my purpose in life is to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty from the world.

This is something along the lines of finding purpose in the improbable. Which makes me wonder, If you and Peter look for meaning to your life in the improbable, then finding meaning to your life in God should be alot easier to accept.

You seek meanining in your life as we all do. Your meaning seems to be to tied into the well being of others. Why is that? We all ask ourselves at some point or another why we feel the way we do about certain things or why we have comapssion for the suffering of others. When we look to the natural world for any wisdom, we come to the irrevocable conclussion of the survival of the fittest where thse strong survive and the weak perish or serve.

We live ina very secular society where anything of God is under attack. What is ironic is the fact that many of the values and beliefs concerning social justice and morality of secularists have only been arrived at after coming through a religious understanding.Our society has a religious foundation that permeants through everything. The increase of secularism in this society has been found on the other side of a religious foundation. Many secularists and religious hold the same beliefs but the secualrists deny religion to arrive at their conclusions. They go from A to C and try to use pseudo arguments for B.

I think my life now has no purpose, but I will reiterate, my life will be endowed purpose in the future as I would have reached a preferred state of affairs. I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

I am glad that you believe you will be able to find meanining in your life soon. What you miss is the fact that your life doe shave eaning now. Our lives having meaning to all the people we come in contact with and all the people who love and care for us and who we love and care for. One does not need live for the day when they witness the elimination of poverty. There is no need for us to be witnesses at all but rather participants. Our happiness is not in the observation but in the action of helping and caring for others. We do not need to cure cancer to find meaning in our lives. Mother Theresa once said “There are no great things, only small things done with great love.”

The very reason that you feel you have no meaning in your life should tell you there is something about the reality in which you see that is somehow distorted or incorrect. Dies religion give meaning to people’s lives? The answer is yes, but more importantly religion is more of means to help us understand the meaning in our lives that was already there to begin with.

You seek meaning in your life but it will not be found from reading books like the one written by Peter Singer. Thats like an alcoholic writting a guide on how to beat alcoholism. Religion and God are not creations. Religion is not something that gives meaning but soemthing that helps guide you in your understanding of what meaning already was within your very existence.

I understand why many people are apprehensive to believe in God or religion. Most people have had bad experiences and I have heard some horror stories in my day. The answer of the “because the Bible says so” only gets you so far. The more we learn about science, the more we come to understand religion and God. If you have real questions, come to those who will give you real answers.

pax tecum

 

[Cristiano]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

I have read *Practical Ethics *about a week ago, and I remember reading this quote:

I do support abortion because parents might decide it might not be possible for their child to reach the preferred state of affairs and embryos and fetuses do not have the capacity to have a preferred state of affairs.

I agree with Peter Singer. I think my purpose in life is to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty from the world. I also remember reading The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil where he describes a future where everyone can have a meaningful life.

I think my life now has no purpose, but I will reiterate, my life will be endowed purpose in the future as I would have reached a preferred state of affairs. I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

So what makes your life meaningful?

You are talking about a meaningful life even if there is no purpose for that life in itself.

I am curious to see your definition of meaningful life. I am not criticizing you but for now it seem a set of empty words to me. I can see when you talk about meaningful acts; however, life composed of meaningful acts is not automatically meaningful by itself.

 

[Sure]

To say that your life has no purpose, but will have a purpose is a contradiction. Your life does have a purpose - it’s purpose is to have a purpose in the future as you indicated!

 

[East_and_West]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

I have read *Practical Ethics *about a week ago, and I remember reading this quote:

I do support abortion because parents might decide it might not be possible for their child to reach the preferred state of affairs and embryos and fetuses do not have the capacity to have a preferred state of affairs.

I agree with Peter Singer. I think my purpose in life is to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty from the world. I also remember reading The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil where he describes a future where everyone can have a meaningful life.

I think my life now has no purpose, but I will reiterate, my life will be endowed purpose in the future as I would have reached a preferred state of affairs. I really do not want to see suffering in this world, and the eradication of poverty and other maladies would make me extremely happy.

So what makes your life meaningful?

If this is a materialistic universe, then nothing really has meaning. Even our ability to reason is the result of random chance and, thus we have no reason to accept the validity of reason. If the universe is not really reasonable, or we cannot truely see the reason, how can we ascribe meaning to it? How can we ascribe meaning to life? You say would like to achieve happiness. But if this is a materialist word, happiness is nothing more than an illusion created by chemicals in your brain. It has no real meaning. You say you would like to see the eradication of poverty, I ask you why? In a materialistic world view you cannot really work to end poverty because you have no free will. In fact, nothing we do has any meaning behind it because it has already been determined by the sequence of events that proceed it, by random cause and effect. So can you work to end poverty? Does the concept of poverty have any meaning? Is it just a word that we have created to describe of affairs that is neither good nor bad? If this is a materialistic world, then the suffering of poverty is nothing more than an illusion created by chemicals in the brain. So why care?
Obviously, I am not an atheist. I am not a materialist so I don’t subscribe to the materialist world view.

 

[ateista]

If this is a materialistic universe, then nothing really has meaning.

Let’s be precise. The word “meaning” is not the same as “purpose”. The word “meaning” describes the mental state of the recipient in a communication channel.

But if this is a materialist word, happiness is nothing more than an illusion created by chemicals in your brain.

So? If you put your hand into a fire, it is still painful, isn’t it? Is that an “illusion”? If you fill your stomach with a pleasing dish, is that an “illusion”? When push comes to shove, all our feelings and thoughts are just a dance of electrons and chemicals in our brain. But that does not make them “illusions”.

Obviously, I am not an atheist. I am not a materialist so I don’t subscribe to the materialist world view.

Obviously. And your view of atheism is not correct. As a matter of fact, the atheists cannot envision or expect a “reward” in some afterlife, so their altruistic behavior is truly selfless. (Disclaimer: This cannot be translated into a reverse statement: it does not mean that believers are only motivated by the expectation to receive a reward.)

 

[Alterum]

As a matter of fact, the atheists cannot envision or expect a “reward” in some afterlife, so their altruistic behavior is truly selfless.

It certainly does not follow – in fact it is virtually incoherent – to say that, because an atheist does not expect a reward in the afterlife, his altruistic behavior is truly selfless.

Just to criticize one of the many and meretricious party lines of the new atheists. The OP, content apparently with equating his own happiness to a meaningful life, has himself conflated meaning with purpose, while at once declaring that his life has purpose – “to live long enough to see the permanent eradication of poverty” (a clear impossibility) – and equally, “no purpose.”

How are we to interpret this contradiction? Finally we see that he thinks his life will be “endowed” with purpose if he reaches “a preferred state of affairs.” Others have asked, but I will continue: How, then, do you define meaning; and how does your life, at one point utterly meaningless, achieve at the next point some sublime meaning because of a change in physical environment?

 

[ateista]

It certainly does not follow – in fact it is virtually incoherent – to say that, because an atheist does not expect a reward in the afterlife, his altruistic behavior is truly selfless.

You are absolutely right. It was a very sloppy sentence. I should have added the words: “in this respect” to the end of the sentence. Sorry about that.

 

[Nullasalus]

What makes my life meaningful is the recognition that life and the universe seems to be structured for infinite advancement of any and every individual. Morally, intellectually, emotionally - we grow in a variety of ways, and in a variety of directions, and the progress is never-ending. So, I find meaning all around me, and I am forced to thank for the source of the meaning, the opportunity, and the person (me) who is experienced it. God, naturally.

And I think Singer, like most philosophers who try to persuade, presumes too much. There are buddhist atheists who don’t believe in God, but nevertheless see life as special. You have near-deists like Paul Davies who believe life may be extraordinarily special, to the point where intelligent life is a fundamental aspect of a universe. And I’d argue that guys like Kurzweil have beliefs that are almost impossible to justify without at least strongly entertaining deism. But ignore everything he assumes - his philosophy is empty for other reasons that go unspoken. For one thing, when he decides that humans are not special, he’s not just giving up ideas of soul, objective values, and God. He’s also quietly sacrificing every and any right an individual has, if he can argue a benefit to themselves and others trumps those rights. He’d also be a materialist about the mind, and that means altering desire and happiness by force is on the table, and his brand of utilitarianism provides no reason to not engage in it.

I can never get the appeal of utilitarianism. I think it may be because people think that rejecting God, the idea of human life as special, and a slew of sex-moral imperatives are the most shocking and crippling concepts that follow from his philosophical school. All that and he puts off an image of being extremely concerned with poverty - but philosophical imperatives are never that clear-cut. Technology and culture impact moral systems, and where they can go just by taking Singer’s views in a straightforward way is a helluva place indeed.

 

[crowonsnow]

I think an atheist can have a meaningful life without God even though life itself does not have any purpose.

So what makes your life meaningful?

I agree with your statement, though I don’t know which god you mean when you say “God.” Do you mean Yahweh? Or do you mean God in a larger sense, something that contains a Yahweh perhaps? There is not one god or religion on this planet that everyone agrees on. Therefore, it’s been my observation for some years now that everybody is somebody’s atheist.

When I used to practice a religion I thought my life had meaning and purpose. When I stopped being religious I still thought my life had meaning and purpose. Most often I find that meaning in my kids and family, and the furtherance of their well being. So love and acceptance and connectedness is how I personally derive my sense of meaning.

 

[Sol_Invictus]

Ha end poverty? Why?
The old rules don’t apply.The world is chaos I have a chance to make my own order out of it by acquiring wealth an power and that will bring meaning in my life,

 

[Newbie2]

What I find interesting is the relationship of true athiesm and the concepts of “goodness”, “justice” and so on.

All too many agnostics claim to be athiests; hence the “true” qualifier.

It makes me wonder why a true athiest wouldn’t be out for number one. Why be good, why not be a self-centered selfish person?
Why bother being charitable to others if there’s nothing better in an afterlife, or if there’s nothing to fear in the afterlife?

Not that an athiest would do things to get themselves in trouble with the law; incarceration certainly isn’t in their self-interest. But why live by the rules of morality if there is no deity to “enforce” those rules.

I realize this may sound like a simplistic view of athiesm, but why bother being “good” when being “bad” is so much easier and more “fun”?

 

[ateista]

What I find interesting is the relationship of true athiesm and the concepts of “goodness”, “justice” and so on.

All too many agnostics claim to be athiests; hence the “true” qualifier.

It makes me wonder why a true athiest wouldn’t be out for number one. Why be good, why not be a self-centered selfish person?
Why bother being charitable to others if there’s nothing better in an afterlife, or if there’s nothing to fear in the afterlife?

You said it, my friend, not I. If I were to contend that the believers only act charitably, because they fear the possible repercussion in the afterlife, I would be properly scorned for being inaccurate to the extreme.

Not that an athiest would do things to get themselves in trouble with the law; incarceration certainly isn’t in their self-interest. But why live by the rules of morality if there is no deity to “enforce” those rules.

Because the concept that morality comes from a deity in an incorrect view for the atheists.

I realize this may sound like a simplistic view of athiesm, but why bother being “good” when being “bad” is so much easier and more “fun”?

Well, it sure is simplistic. Atheists are not “dumb”, they also realize that maximizing their own “fun” is not necessarily a selfish endeavor (though it could be for some in some cases). We live in a soceity, and one must engage in a mutual give-and-take. Why do you assume that one must believe in a deity in order to find it intolerable to see someone begging for a piece of bread? To be compassionate toward someone in pain?

You see, if someone is a decent person, then he will go and help those who are in need or in pain. Which is more than one can say about the God of Christianity…

And, finally, where did you get the notion, that acting “bad” is fun?

 

[crowonsnow]

What I find interesting is the relationship of true athiesm and the concepts of “goodness”, “justice” and so on.

All too many agnostics claim to be athiests; hence the “true” qualifier.

It makes me wonder why a true athiest wouldn’t be out for number one. Why be good, why not be a self-centered selfish person?
Why bother being charitable to others if there’s nothing better in an afterlife, or if there’s nothing to fear in the afterlife?

Not that an athiest would do things to get themselves in trouble with the law; incarceration certainly isn’t in their self-interest. But why live by the rules of morality if there is no deity to “enforce” those rules.

I realize this may sound like a simplistic view of athiesm, but why bother being “good” when being “bad” is so much easier and more “fun”?

That’s a hard one for religious folks to get past. Actually, to use your words, “true atheists” very often see religiousness as precisely that, a kind of self indulgent selfishness.

For example, I personally do not know a single religious person who is not first and foremost concerned with his or her own afterlife. Yes we can observe them being charitable and loving and compassionate. And we see them caring for the sick and elderly. But it isn’t done to improve the lot of future human beings. It’s done to get to heaven. Nothing comes before getting to heaven. That’s what’s most important. Nothing comes before that personal salvation, not even a sick child’s well-being, and not the well being of millions of needy children.

But an atheist is free to love his child or help an old lady across the street and not worry about what something called a god might think about it, or how it might relate to a personal afterlife. Maybe he just feels more empowered. He’s likely to be more concerned about the future of that child or the future of children generally. He’s more inclined to be concerned about the collective human future than about his own perhaps because he sees himself in his ancestors and his descendents.

He may feel an obligation to act honorably and charitably and with foresight because he knows that many lives have preceded his, and that it is from these lives and these deaths that his own has derived. His afterlife is really a future life, something real, not something invisible that is going to happen in the sky or in some imagined invisible realm.

That may sound simplistic as well, but anyway…

 

[Nullasalus]

For example, I personally do not know a single religious person who is not first and foremost concerned with his or her own afterlife.

You must not know many people, or you’re not paying attention to them. Even the Pope himself talked recently about how only thinking about our personal salvation is a bad way to go about our religious faith.

Yes we can observe them being charitable and loving and compassionate. And we see them caring for the sick and elderly. But it isn’t done to improve the lot of future human beings. It’s done to get to heaven. Nothing comes before getting to heaven. That’s what’s most important. Nothing comes before that personal salvation, not even a sick child’s well-being, and not the well being of millions of needy children.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. If you think that religious people are only religious because they’re hoping God is going to give them a heavenly Ferrari, you are sadly mistaken. Was Martin Luther King Jr just thinking about his salvation? How about Deitrich Bonhoeffer? The list goes on and on - and includes scientists as well.

But an atheist is free to love his child or help an old lady across the street and not worry about what something called a god might think about it, or how it might relate to a personal afterlife. Maybe he just feels more empowered. He’s likely to be more concerned about the future of that child or the future of children generally. He’s more inclined to be concerned about the collective human future than about his own perhaps because he sees himself in his ancestors and his descendents.

He may feel an obligation to act honorably and charitably and with foresight because he knows that many lives have preceded his, and that it is from these lives and these deaths that his own has derived. His afterlife is really a future life, something real, not something invisible that is going to happen in the sky or in some imagined invisible realm.

That may sound simplistic as well, but anyway…

It is simplistic. And incorrect. Considering the resurrection of the body is a central, ancient tenet of many Christian sects, and considering that you’re putting up an extreme caricature of religious motivation (It’s all about heaven, it has nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place) versus a bizarre rendition of atheism (atheists help people because they’re purely good people, and good feelings, praise, or ulterior motives never come into play), you may want to read up on the faith you’ve left, and the faith (yes, faith) you’ve since taken up.

Theists are not nearly so simple as you’ve just made them out to be, nor are atheists.

 

[Newbie2]

You said it, my friend, not I. If I were to contend that the believers only act charitably, because they fear the possible repercussion in the afterlife, I would be properly scorned for being inaccurate to the extreme.

No doubt. I didn’t mean to suggest that all actions were necessarily motivated by afterlife concerns for either athiests or thiests.

Because the concept that morality comes from a deity in an incorrect view for the atheists.

Where does it stem from, then? Where defines a person as “decent” or “good”? For the Athiest, what’s the measuring stick? I’ve always been a thiest and it’s a difficult concept for me to understand.

Well, it sure is simplistic. Atheists are not “dumb”, they also realize that maximizing their own “fun” is not necessarily a selfish endeavor (though it could be for some in some cases). We live in a soceity, and one must engage in a mutual give-and-take. Why do you assume that one must believe in a deity in order to find it intolerable to see someone begging for a piece of bread? To be compassionate toward someone in pain?

You see, if someone is a decent person, then he will go and help those who are in need or in pain. Which is more than one can say about the God of Christianity…

And, finally, where did you get the notion, that acting “bad” is fun?

From my college days. You don’t think it’s more fun to be “bad” than to be “good”? Maybe it’s better phrased that it’s much more difficult to do “good” than “bad” or do “the right thing”.

Again, what is the standard by which an athiest would define a “decent” person? Is there a standard of good and evil? If so, what is it, and is it objective? And how is it derived?

If it’s based on cultural norms, then there’s no true objective moral standard i.e. murder of an innocent person could be OK in some existing or developing culture.

I’m not arguing against athiesm (in this thread, anyway )but am having trouble understanding the motivation for being good for an athiest…and I don’t mean not doing things to fit in with a civilized society.

Back to the feeding the hungry person; why bother? It’s no skin off my neck if they’re hungry or not, or if they die from hunger…one less person to feed, one less person that I’m taxed for “Are there no poor houses?”

If you would, please, explain to Ebenezer Scrooge from an athiests perspective why one should be “decent” to other humans in need.

BTW, I take issue with the notion that the God of Christianity doesn’t/won’t help people in need or in pain. Since you don’t believe he exists, how can you comment on his MO?

 

[crowonsnow]

You must not know many people, or you’re not paying attention to them. Even the Pope himself talked recently about how only thinking about our personal salvation is a bad way to go about our religious faith.

Hey Nullasalus,

Thanks for the response. And maybe you’re right. But I’m being honest, sincere, accurate, truthful, - whatever words you wish to use - when I make my statements about an afterlife. And ditto on those same qualifiers when it comes to all the persons I’ve ever met who believed in one, admittedly, all Christian. Their afterlife is numero uno. I’ve even asked people this directly and they’ve told me this. I am neither exaggerating nor being dishonest. They’ve told me it’s more important to them than the welfare of the next thousands of human generations. And I have not embellished that statement.

I don’t know your views on an afterlife or even what religion - if any - you practice. If you were Catholic and told me that your afterlife is not important to you, or at least far less important than the welfare of your children, you would be the first. Okay?

Or maybe you could start a thread to that effect and ask Catholics and other Christians and other believers in afterlives, asking them if their afterlife is more important than making the planet more peaceful and productive, or caring for needy kids, or the elderly, or other honorable such aspirations, or having a positive vision of the human future. Let me know. Or maybe I could do it myself.

I am not aware of what a Pope said on the subject, and I didn’t say it’s the only thing on their minds. I said it’s the most important thing about their religion, this afterlife belief, and that noting is more important to them, certainly nothing “earthly,” because Earth is just a temporary arrangement according to their beliefs, but an afterlife is forever. So it’s easy to see how it works for them religiously. And religiously it makes sense, but it’s selfish.

So I’d like to meet my first Christian who’s afterlife isn’t the most important thing to him or her, and also have a conversation with that person. It will be a journey of discovery for myself. I’ve been waiting for better than half a lifetime to have just such a conversation.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Psalm89]

I am not aware of what a Pope said on the subject, and I didn’t say it’s the only thing on their minds. I said it’s the most important thing about their religion, this afterlife belief, and that noting is more important to them, certainly nothing “earthly,” because Earth is just a temporary arrangement according to their beliefs, but an afterlife is forever. So it’s easy to see how it works for them religiously. And religiously it makes sense, but it’s selfish.

Wrong on many accounts.

First. Heaven/salvation is a free gift, not a reward for hard work. If it was wages for a job, then yes you would have a valid point.

Second. You must ask the question: Who needs our good works? Certainly not God as He needs nothing. The believer does not as one is not saved by works. So the final, correct answer is, “Our neighbor.”

Third. Why would a believer do good if heaven is free? Love. Freed from the shackles of earning ones way to heaven (or living in an atheist existential meaning of life when there is none), the believer is then free to shower love towards his or her neighbor.

Fourth. The both atheists and theists both agree that this universe is winding down. No matter how hard an atheist tries to do what he or she thinks is right, it does not matter as eventually the universe burns out into a sea of gas. Nobody will remember or appreciate anything you have done in any way shape or form. The Christian has an answer for this dilemma because we know that this present reality is not all there is. What we do matters far, far more than any atheist action as it echoes throughout eternity.

Fifth. The atheist looks at this life as all there is, and so could make the mistake of seeing things from the perspective of if 100% effort isn’t put into this existence then it is selfish. The Christian has more information than the non-believer. The information that our lives have impact beyond our current existence. We realize that what we do here is actually more important because it has far greater impact. Your premise is wrong, you think atheists care more about things now. In fact the Christian cares more about things now as they know it impacts so much more.

 

[Psalm89]

Wrong on many accounts.

First. Heaven/salvation is a free gift, not a reward for hard work. If it was wages for a job, then yes you would have a valid point.

Second. You must ask the question: Who needs our good works? Certainly not God as He needs nothing. The believer does not as one is not saved by works. So the final, correct answer is, “Our neighbor.”

Third. Why would a believer do good if heaven is free? Love. Freed from the shackles of earning ones way to heaven (or living in an atheist world of existential meaning when there is none), the believer is then free to shower love towards his or her neighbor.

Fourth. The both atheists and theists both agree that this universe is winding down. No matter how hard an atheist tries to do what he or she thinks is right, it does not matter as eventually the universe burns out into a sea of gas. Nobody will remember or appreciate anything you have done in any way shape or form. The Christian has an answer for this dilemma because we know that this present reality is not all there is. What we do matters far, far more than any atheist action as it echoes throughout eternity.

Fifth. The atheist looks at this life as all there is, and so could make the mistake of seeing things from the perspective of if 100% effort isn’t put into this existence then it is selfish. The Christian has more information than the non-believer. The information that our lives have impact beyond our current existence. We realize that what we do here is actually more important because it has far greater impact. Your premise is wrong, you think atheists care more about things now. In fact the Christian cares more about things now as they know it impacts so much more.