No Life After Death
On the first point: if there is nothing that happens after death, the naturalist should be busy doing what brings them the most pleasure before they take the eternal, unconscious nap. Spending time telling people that there is no life after death is not going to make a slight bit of difference in the long run if there really isn't. They are not having any lasting effects on people. I would think that this reasoning would make the vocal naturalist think twice about giving up time that could be spent on carnal pleasures to tell someone that there is no God. I mean, this really should be depressing...if no lasting impression can be made, why not pleasure one's self as much as possible with the little bit of time they have of conscious life?
I would really like to leave it there, but I won't. The problem is that if naturalism is true, then there are no objective "should"'s or "should not"'s. Which means that the naturalist is free to determine what they "should" or "should not" do. If they get more pleasure out of insisting that no God exists than out of some other action they could be doing, who is anyone else to tell them they are wrong or "should" be doing anything else? By vehemently denying the existence of God, naturalist A is being just as consistent in his worldview as married naturalist B who sleeps with a new woman every night for kicks, both are just as consistent with naturalist C who devises ways to exterminate an entire race of human beings. One has no right to judge the other; one has no right to tell the other that they "should not" be acting out their chosen desire...then again, they can still judge one another if it brings them pleasure. It is their choice.
No Free Will
On the second point: by providing reasons to not believe in God, naturalists are assuming that the people they are attempting to convince have a choice in the matter. On the contrary, naturalism has no room for free choice. Free choice requires the existence of a mind, not just a brain. The brain is a mechanism that reacts to input (from the senses). The input provided by the naturalist is not guaranteed to produce more naturalists. There is no assurance that the new input will override the previous input. In fact, the brain (or person) does not make authentic choices, it only reacts to the input in ways predetermined by the DNA nature gave to it.
Because of that, every person has already been randomly, fatalistically determined to either believe in God or not. The input offered by the naturalist is ultimately disregarded. Our DNA has already committed us to a position. However, that is not all that DNA has determined. Remember the end sentence of the first point? If DNA has determined all, it has determined what brings pleasure and if (what) actions will be taken to bring pleasure. Ironically, even if I were to argue soundly to a naturalist that their actions of evangelizing naturalism is pointless, their brain is (according to naturalism) programmed to ignore my input (
No Meaning, No Purpose
Thirdly, the naturalist believes that what they are saying/writing/doing has meaning...including the idea that life is meaningless. The naturalist believes that all life is purposeless. This would include their own lives, which are spent telling others that there is no God. Both of these are self-defeating. But, an a-rational brain cares nothing of logic. It is only randomly programmed to complete a random set of tasks. If all behavior has no meaning, then neither do specific behaviors. If all people have no purpose, then neither do individuals. If all behavior is determined, so are single actions.
Why not cheat on one's husband on a nightly basis? Why not pacify the anxious "boy-toy" by informing him that he will not be held responsible for his sin because there is no God? Why stop there? Tell them the whole truth of the complete package of the naturalistic worldview- that he is a tool for the naturalist's own pleasure, and he has no choice in the matter because his brain is programmed to be the means of ecstasy for the adulterous woman?
I truly don't get it. Evangelizing the naturalistic worldview has no ultimate impact, so it is meaningless and purposeless. People can't "change their minds" based on the arguments even if they are sound- making evangelizing even more meaningless and purposeless and now, a waste of time. AND its self-defeating to any strategy one might have for gaining pleasure (not to mention for others attempting the same thing)...what is the naturalist thinking when they do such a thing as actually tell people that there is no God?!...<stupid, preprogrammed, nonrational, human brain> Evolution sucks...or does it? The other person has a brain just as preprogrammed and nonrational as the naturalist, so is telling people there is no God really self-defeating in practice? Nope, but only if naturalism is true.
My conclusion is consistent, yet it is all self-defeating. So, why can I not "get" it? According to naturalism, the reason is because I am trying to use a tool in a way it was not "designed". I am trying to reason, and my human brain simply was not "designed" to perform that function. According to reason, it self-defeats because it is false. Interesting dilemma: reason or atheism...its your choice...if you actually have one.
Multiverse and Rationality
Is Consistency Important?